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.
Geoff Sharp (21:26:11) :
I didnt say total UV
But you evidently meant it. It is meaningless to say that an unspecified part of something vary 16%.
proxy figures are just that.
But are, apparently, happily used when supporting one’s viewpoint.
Nasif Nahle (20:54:58) :
Evidently, you don’t know what “quantum tunneling means”.
I was being slightly nasty and making fun of you, as “quantum tunneling” has nothing to do with coronal heating.
Leif Svalgaard (22:52:01) :
I was being slightly nasty and making fun of you, as “quantum tunneling” has nothing to do with coronal heating.
Hah! How do you explain it, then? The another explanation has to do with a not so gaseous Sun’s core. As you will never accept the latter, then you have to adhere to the quantum tunneling explanation. There is not another soup, nasty kid.
Nasif Nahle (23:09:00) :
Hah! How do you explain it, then?
By the explosions of millions of ‘nanoflares’ caused by twisted magnetic fields relaxing to a lower energy state heating the plasma in the process to millions of degrees. There is no ‘heat flow’ involved.
Leif Svalgaard (23:16:23) :
Now there is a quite unique way of describing immaculate concepcion….
Leif Svalgaard (22:52:01) :
Geoff Sharp (21:26:11) :
I didnt say total UV
But you evidently meant it. It is meaningless to say that an unspecified part of something vary 16%.
proxy figures are just that.
But are, apparently, happily used when supporting one’s viewpoint.
Your problem is you are using a proxy record to determine a value that needs precision. A 1% change can mean the difference between a climate driver or not. My use of proxy records is over centuries and the same level of precision is not required. The record could be out 10 years because of calibration issues etc and the result would still be the same. I also have the added advantage that my data cross checks from 3 other separate sources that verify the proxy record is good. The current grand minimum will prove it again.
Its very clear that the 0.1% TSI flag (if correct?) alone is not solid evidence for rejecting a Sun/Climate link…. I continue to wonder why you are so obsessed in trying to disprove it, with so much unknown wouldn’t it be safer to wait until all the evidence has been collected?
Leif Svalgaard (23:16:23) :
By the explosions of millions of ‘nanoflares’ caused by twisted magnetic fields relaxing to a lower energy state heating the plasma in the process to millions of degrees. There is no ‘heat flow’ involved.
That’s the same that I said many posts above; the cause of the high temperature of the corona is due to hyperexcited plasma particles trapped by Helmet Streamers. That has not merit, including your singular providential nanoflares. The problem is that you have not (cannot do it yourself) explained the mechanism that permitts the thermal energy (kinetic energy) crosses the barrier towards the interplanetary space and, eventually, to the Earth’s system. You have not explained either the mechanism by which those plasma particles remain trapped there. There are only two solutions to this conundrum and it is quantum tunneling and solid Sun’s core.
Geoff Sharp (03:35:29) :
Your problem is you are using a proxy record to determine a value that needs precision. A 1% change can mean the difference between a climate driver or not.
Indeed a 1% change would be major: 1 degree.
with so much unknown wouldn’t it be safer to wait until all the evidence has been collected?
But we have. Here is the TSI over the entire Holocene: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Holocene-TSI.pdf Figure 3. It shows that the variation is of the order of +/- 1 W/m2, thus less that 0.1%.
Nasif Nahle (07:35:53) :
the mechanism that permits the thermal energy (kinetic energy) crosses the barrier towards the interplanetary space
It is called evaporation. There is no barrier, once a gas is hot enough it can cross anything.- Tunneling or solid Sun are both nonsense.
Leif Svalgaard (11:09:35) :
It is called evaporation. There is no barrier, once a gas is hot enough it can cross anything.- Tunneling or solid Sun are both nonsense.
You’re implying nucleons and electrons, that is, charged and uncharged particles, while I’m talking about thermal energy. Helmet Streamers are electrodynamic barriers for nucleons; besides, thermal energy doen’t evaporate. 🙂
Nasif Nahle (12:33:16) :
while I’m talking about thermal energy.
(sigh). The plasma particles are heated in place by the nanoflares and the hot material evaporates into space taking their thermal energy with them.
Helmet streamers have nothing to do with this (e.g. at solar minimum from the polar regions of the Sun there is a fast solar wind, but no streamers). There are no ‘electrodynamic barriers’: Magnetic fields are caught up in the flow and dragged out from the Sun. In the inner corona, the field can in places be strong enough to guide the flow, but eventually the evaporation wins and the plasma and the field escape together as a supersonic magnetized solar wind.
Oh Aye!
And what is the speed of sound in space?
Just curious.
Kindest Regards.
Leif Svalgaard (16:48:24) :
(sigh). The plasma particles are heated in place by the nanoflares and the hot material evaporates into space taking their thermal energy with them.
Think in the solar corona like a thermodynamic system and in the radiation of energy. Your assertion seems to describe a thermal energy strongly confined to particles without a chance of being radiated towards other systems. Remember that the space is the most efficient sink of energy.
Helmet streamers have nothing to do with this (e.g. at solar minimum from the polar regions of the Sun there is a fast solar wind, but no streamers).
I think Helmet Streamers (HS) are the clue for the confinement of charged and uncharged particles in the solar corona. You are describing (perhaps trickly) coronal magnetic holes through which plasma can scape at supersonic velocities. Coronal holes are the source of solar wind. Nevertheless, your original question was not about the generation of solar winds, but on the, apparently, paradoxical increase of temperature in the solar corona.
Well, I’ve proposed two possible explanations and presented them as simple arguments taken from the kingdom of speculation. You don’t like any of my hypotheses even when you know one of them is a possible answer to your question.
I stand myself on my second hypothesis and sustain that the hyperexcited particles remain trapped in the solar corona due to HS. It’s a verifiable hypothesis. Those particles can go out from the solar corona through coronal magnetic holes, I agree with this argument; however, it is not the answer to your original question:
Why the temperature in the solar corona is about 3 x 10^6 K, while the temperature at the photosphere is around 5800 K.
The most feasible explanation is the charged and uncharged particles that remain trapped in the corona by the HS. Those hyperexcited particles, whose high density energy state you have accepted, store kinetic energy which is impeded from being transferred to the interplanetary space by quantum barriers. This is a reality that allows you to read these lines on the screen of your computer without bein toasted (a pity) by the excited photons coming out from your monitor, and that’s the reason by which the Earth has not been toasted by the energy which otherwise could be released from the solar corona at 3 million degrees of temperature, which “tentacles” stretch far into the interplanetary space.
There are no ‘electrodynamic barriers’: Magnetic fields are caught up in the flow and dragged out from the Sun. In the inner corona, the field can in places be strong enough to guide the flow, but eventually the evaporation wins and the plasma and the field escape together as a supersonic magnetized solar wind.
Helmet Streams are magnetic loops which are the product of solar electrodynamics. The real problem is that, if you accept this physical issue, you would be thinking twice on rejecting the speculations on a solid Sun’s core. I have no problems with this because I’m a humble scientists that some times talks assertive “nonsense”.
a jones (17:25:38) :
And what is the speed of sound in space?
Sound is a pressure wave. The particle density in space is too low to sustain pressure waves. The magnetized plasma can and does sustain magnetohydrodynamic waves which propagate at something called the Alfven speed, which is typically 40 km/sec. This is about a tenth of the solar wind speed [440 km/sec], so in that sense [in analogy with sound waves], the solar wind is ‘supersonic’ with an Alfvenic Mach Number of about 11.
Nasif Nahle (18:00:46) :
Think in the solar corona like a thermodynamic system and in the radiation of energy. Your assertion seems to describe a thermal energy strongly confined to particles without a chance of being radiated towards other systems.
You cannot think of the corona in that way. Energy flow in the corona is not by radiation.
I think Helmet Streamers (HS) are the clue for the confinement of charged and uncharged particles in the solar corona.
You may think so, but that is not the way it works. For once, there are no uncharged particles [apart from the occasional vaporizing meteoroid]
Nevertheless, your original question was not about the generation of solar winds, but on the, apparently, paradoxical increase of temperature in the solar corona.
The same thing, as the solar wind arises simply from the corona being so hot. It just boils off into space. There is no paradox
Well, I’ve proposed two possible explanations and presented them as simple arguments
They are both so way off base that they are ‘not even wrong’.
I’m a humble scientists that some times talks assertive “nonsense”.
To the detriment of sound and reasonable discussion.
a jones (17:25:38) :
Oh Aye!
And what is the speed of sound in space?
Just curious.
Kindest Regards.
Good question… There is sound in the interplanetary space. The problem is that it is inaudible for humans and its speed is modified by solar wind and other rarities of space like the ICR. 🙂
Leif Svalgaard (18:31:22):
Nasif Nahle (18:00:46) :
Think in the solar corona like a thermodynamic system and in the radiation of energy. Your assertion seems to describe a thermal energy strongly confined to particles without a chance of being radiated towards other systems.
(1.) You cannot think of the corona in that way.
(2.) Energy flow in the corona is not by radiation.
1. But it is a TD system according to the description.
2. I’m not talking about flow of energy in, but precisely from the solar corona to the space, which definitely is by radiation.
I think Helmet Streamers (HS) are the clue for the confinement of charged and uncharged particles in the solar corona.
You may think so, but that is not the way it works. For once, there are no uncharged particles [apart from the occasional vaporizing meteoroid]
Snip the word “apart” from your argument and you’ll be in favor on there are uncharged particles in the solar corona. Perhaps I have to clarify that “uncharged” doesn’t mean void of charge, but with nullified charges.
Nevertheless, your original question was not about the generation of solar winds, but on the, apparently, paradoxical increase of temperature in the solar corona.
The same thing, as the solar wind arises simply from the corona being so hot. It just boils off into space. There is no paradox
Your argument above doesn’t explain why the solar corona is at 3 million Kelvin, while the photosphere is at 5800 K. My hypothesis positively does.
You established the “paradox”, in the first place. It was you, not me. There is no paradox for me from the standpoint of my preliminar hypothesis.
Well, I’ve proposed two possible explanations and presented them as simple arguments
They are both so way off base that they are ‘not even wrong’.
Classical counterargument without offering scientific basis. You’re just saying “it’s wrong and point”. Tell me the reasons, so I could consider heavy reasons to discharge my hypothesis.
I’m a humble scientists that some times talks assertive “nonsense”.
To the detriment of sound and reasonable discussion.
You know the meaning of “assertive”? Hah!
No marks that boy.
When I was about 8 or 9 I wrote in an essay that Alfred the Great founded the British Navy by building ships like the Danes.
And got my essay back with a neat little sketch of a floating Dane.
Kindest Regards
Describing terms for Leif Svalgaard:
Thermodynamic System is any amount of matter isolated from the surroundings by real or imaginary limits.
Paradox is any apparent contradiction in physical descriptions of the Universe (Notice that I capitalized the initial letter of the word “Universe”), generally due to deep flaws in theories. The latter means that paradoxes don’t exist in the real world.
Nasif Nahle (19:25:40) :
2. I’m not talking about flow of energy in, but precisely from the solar corona to the space, which definitely is by radiation.
No.
Snip the word “apart” from your argument and you’ll be in favor on there are uncharged particles in the solar corona. Perhaps I have to clarify that “uncharged” doesn’t mean void of charge, but with nullified charges.
You may mean ‘electrically neutral’, but there are no such particles there [apart from inconsequential vaporizing cometary debris which can be ignored]
Your argument above doesn’t explain why the solar corona is at 3 million Kelvin, while the photosphere is at 5800 K.
In a (nano)flare, movements of the magnetized plasma twists the magnetic field, pressing fields of opposite polarities together. A strong electric current develops separating the two polarities. The current heats the plasma and the electric field accelerates the particles which when crashing into other particles causes more heating.
Classical counterargument without offering scientific basis. You’re just saying “it’s wrong and point”. Tell me the reasons, so I could consider heavy reasons to discharge my hypothesis.
Suppose my argument was: “the hyper bucolic jabber ding gyres extricately while sustaining vertical vorticity conservation”.
How would one counter that? One cannot, because it is devoid of meaning. Same thing with your ‘hypotheses’.
You know the meaning of “assertive”?
It was more the ‘nonsense’ bit that was applicable to you.
Nasif Nahle (19:45:18) :
Thermodynamic System is any amount of matter isolated from the surroundings by real or imaginary limits.
No part of the solar corona is isolated from the surroundings. If you wish to invoke ‘imaginary limits’, then what would be an ‘imaginary TD system’ but no real one.
Paradox is any apparent contradiction in physical descriptions of the Universe. The latter means that paradoxes don’t exist in the real world.
Paradox is a result of lack of understanding, and your demonstrated lack thereof is most certainly real.
Leif Svalgaard (19:56:48) :
Nasif Nahle (19:25:40) :
2. I’m not talking about flow of energy in, but precisely from the solar corona to the space, which definitely is by radiation.
No.
Are you saying that the energy in the corona is not radiated out to the space? Wow! Perhaps it is transferred by convection of ether waves?
Snip the word “apart” from your argument and you’ll be in favor on there are uncharged particles in the solar corona. Perhaps I have to clarify that “uncharged” doesn’t mean void of charge, but with nullified charges.
You may mean ‘electrically neutral’, but there are no such particles there [apart from inconsequential vaporizing cometary debris which can be ignored]
No neutrons and neutrinos in the coronal TD system? Leif… Do you know the work of Hashemi and Fowler?
Your argument above doesn’t explain why the solar corona is at 3 million Kelvin, while the photosphere is at 5800 K.
In a (nano)flare, movements of the magnetized plasma twists the magnetic field, pressing fields of opposite polarities together. A strong electric current develops separating the two polarities. The current heats the plasma and the electric field accelerates the particles which when crashing into other particles causes more heating.
Nope, that’s not an explanation because you’re not describing the origin of those imaginary nanoflares. The decay of Neutrons in the solar corona is just a hypothesis, like mine.
Classical counterargument without offering scientific basis. You’re just saying “it’s wrong and point”. Tell me the reasons, so I could consider heavy reasons to discharge my hypothesis.
Suppose my argument was: “the hyper bucolic jabber ding gyres extricately while sustaining vertical vorticity conservation”.
How would one counter that? One cannot, because it is devoid of meaning. Same thing with your ‘hypotheses’.
Again, you’re avoiding the point.
You know the meaning of “assertive”?
It was more the ‘nonsense’ bit that was applicable to you.
And “assertive” is just the opposite with respect to what exactly applies to you.
Leif Svalgaard (20:03:13) :
No part of the solar corona is isolated from the surroundings. If you wish to invoke ‘imaginary limits’, then what would be an ‘imaginary TD system’ but no real one.
From the sense you give to the concept “boundary”, you have not real boundaries, so you are an imaginary entity. The investigator who studies the TD system define the boundaries, Leif. Besides, the solar corona has limits.
Paradox is any apparent contradiction in physical descriptions of the Universe. The latter means that paradoxes don’t exist in the real world.
Paradox is a result of lack of understanding, and your demonstrated lack thereof is most certainly real.
As we say in Spanish: “Iguanas ranas”, literally, “As iguanas, so frogs” (i.e. you’re in the same situation).
Nasif Nahle (20:15:51) :
Are you saying that the energy in the corona is not radiated out to the space? Wow! Perhaps it is transferred by convection of ether waves?
The corona is 95% fully ionized Hydrogen. A proton cannot radiate. A hydrogen atom can radiate by an electron ‘jumping’ from one bound orbital to another produced a photon with the energy of the difference between the two orbitals. But since there are no Hydrogen atoms in the corona, there is no radiation [I ignore the minute contributions from the other elements]. The energy is transferred as kinetic energy of the solar wind [with a smattering of thermal and magnetic energy]
No neutrons and neutrinos in the coronal TD system? Leif… Do you know the work of Hashemi and Fowler?
The 2.22 MeV gamma ray line that would result from their hypothesis is not observed, so out the window goes that one.
Neutrinos do not interact and play no role in the heating budget.
Nope, that’s not an explanation because you’re not describing the origin of those imaginary nanoflares.
I just described how the nanoflares originate:
“In a (nano)flare, movements of the magnetized plasma twists the magnetic field, pressing fields of opposite polarities together…”
Again, you’re avoiding the point.
No, as your statement has to contain meaning in order to be discussed and it is devoid of such. This is the meaning of ‘not even wrong’.
Besides, the solar corona has limits.
There is no outer limit. Limits imposed by the investigator are imaginary,
“Iguanas ranas”
I eat these.
Perhaps stop digging your hole any deeper might be advisable.
Leif Svalgaard (07:59:28) :
But we have. Here is the TSI over the entire Holocene: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Holocene-TSI.pdf Figure 3. It shows that the variation is of the order of +/- 1 W/m2, thus less that 0.1%.
Your still missing the point, even if your presented graph is accurate (the methods used are not convincing) you are still hedging all your bets on the TSI component only. What you need to wait for is more evidence of how the other solar factors like UV, Svensmark etc play out…but thanks for 10Be graph, I am sure I can use it to bolster my own work.
I am currently working on a 6000 yr temp trend line produced by Hong using Chinese peat bog data that looks to fit very nicely over the 14C & 10Be record. If the temp trend matches the isotope records its pretty clear cut where the climate change factor is coming from, you cant run away from it, it is solar induced. Instead of living in denial, it would be better to find the missing links that pull it all together….TSI might only play a part role.
Also interesting to see the regular (172 yr) fluctuation in the 10Be graph as in the 14C record….not something you would expect from a Sun running on a random number generator?
Geoff Sharp (22:11:08) :
hedging all your bets on the TSI component only. What you need to wait for is more evidence of how the other solar factors like UV, Svensmark etc play out…
The TSI graph is just another way of expressing the 10Be modulation or solar activity as such. And UV follows ‘TSI’ and cosmic rays too, they shouldn’t be any different, so there is nothing to wait for.
Also interesting to see the regular (172 yr) fluctuation in the 10Be graph as in the 14C record
I do not see the 172 yr fluctuation in the 10Be graph. And you have not demonstrated it in the 14C either. Try to superpose the two.
Leif Svalgaard (21:43:33) :
The corona is 95% fully ionized Hydrogen. A proton cannot radiate. A hydrogen atom can radiate by an electron ‘jumping’ from one bound orbital to another produced a photon with the energy of the difference between the two orbitals. But since there are no Hydrogen atoms in the corona, there is no radiation [I ignore the minute contributions from the other elements]. The energy is transferred as kinetic energy of the solar wind [with a smattering of thermal and magnetic energy]
Then, the Sun doesn’t radiate energy either… Hehehe!
On energy radiated by protons:
http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/AccelConf/pac97/papers/pdf/4V036.PDF
http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jps/jpsj/2001sb/pdf/b-73.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5735/746
What’s that luminosity of solar corona during total eclipses?
1. The 2.22 MeV gamma ray line that would result from their hypothesis is not observed, so out the window goes that one.
2. Neutrinos do not interact and play no role in the heating budget.
1. That’s why I said the work of Hashemi and Fowler was a hypothesis, like mine. My hypothesis is better because it is based on observation of real phenomena.
2. So, Neutrinos don’t radiate energy?
I just described how the nanoflares originate:
“In a (nano)flare, movements of the magnetized plasma twists the magnetic field, pressing fields of opposite polarities together…”
Oh! Sorry… Nevertheless, those nanoflares are an impossibility in the real world and have not been observed or confirmed, but only on models of the solar magnetohydrodynamic made by Welsh and company. So your nanoflares are in the same situation that my quantum barriers.
By the way, Welsh also considered a system similar to my quantum barriers as a possible explanation to the solar corona temperature “paradox”.
No, as your statement has to contain meaning in order to be discussed and it is devoid of such. This is the meaning of ‘not even wrong’.
There is no outer limit. Limits imposed by the investigator are imaginary
Leif, that’s precisely the definition of thermodynamic systems, real or imaginary, if a system has magnitudes or quantities flowing through that system, it is a thermodynamic system.
“Iguanas ranas”
I eat these.
I don’t, no one is kosher.
Perhaps stop digging your hole any deeper might be advisable.
Perhaps you must stop first, aha?