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.
Leif Svalgaard (13:44:29) :
Nasif Nahle (13:20:08) :
…….
I’ll not comment any further on your misconceptions of exotic physics, that is quite hopeless.
——-
perhaps this is better.
I could guess why Leif doesn’t like the inflationary theory; perhaps because he’s an advocate (be read “worshiper”) of the no- viable tale of the Big Bang. With the inflationary theory we have no need of unfeasible Big Bangs, but that’s another story.
@Anthony Watts and moderators and all of you interested on solar-weather connections:
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=115485&WT.mc_id=USNSF_51
Leif Svalgaard (13:44:29) :
Leif Svalgaard (13:00:04) :
I’ll not comment any further on your misconceptions of exotic physics, that is quite hopeless.
“No, it is a natural consequence of the law of gravity.”
I disagree absolutely on your viewpoint. Law of gravity would take the heaviest materials just to the center, not to a median region.
A feather and a lead bullet fall with the same speed in a gravitational field, so a feather and a lead bullet at the outskirts of the cloud would both fall together, side by side, towards the center. Few people today [but, apparently, some] believe that heavier materials fall faster [as Aristotle thought]. Perhaps your disagreement here shows how much credibility on the attach to any of your statements.
Ok, I respect your decision on not talking more on physics. I see you have problems with mass, also.
Reply: Both of you, please stop. This is just silly. You guys are talking past each other and not to each other and there is no point to any of it. ~ charles the moderator
Nasif Nahle (14:13:53) :
interested on solar-weather connections
I think they have discovered that already…
From the release:
“The new study could help scientists use solar-cycle predictions to estimate how that circulation, and the regional climate patterns related to it, might vary over the next decade or two.”
And just how good is NASA at predicting solar cycles? Perhaps pseudo-science can come to the rescue and we can use the planets to predict the climate.
This Leif’s assertion deserves a more precise explanation:
Few people today [but, apparently, some] believe that heavier materials fall faster [as Aristotle thought]. Perhaps your disagreement here shows how much credibility on the attach to any of your statements.
Heavier objects have more inertia, so gravity has to use more force to get it to move at the same acceleration as a lighter object. So, in a rotary system, heavier elements concentrate at the center and less massive elements are placed in the periphery. Otherwise, how Leif would explain Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus are in the periphery?
Nariai, K. Mass Loss from Coronae and Its Effect upon Stellar Rotation. Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp.156-157.
An excerpt from the article:
“In the gravitational field, heavier elements tend to concentrate toward the center, while lighter elements rise towards the surface, according to Boltzmann’s law…”
We are not talking about free fall, but on gravity fields, right? Now, tell me, Leif, who is dealing with pseudoscience? Evidently, it is not me.
Sorry, Charles… I had not read your reply… Sorry; I’ll stop, but don’t let Leif either continues with his ad hominem attacks, please.
Geoff Sharp (18:49:41) :
maksimovich (17:40:10) :
If we look at “singularities” in the historical record eg around 1880″s we can see the inverse relationship of volcanic attenuation of SW radiation and a positive response in MSA. Also if we observe the decrease in MSA (or divergence of the correlation) in the recent ( post war) record this is conjucent to ozone depletion or UVB amplification no great “mysteries” here.
“Interesting…so if this theory has validity it means man may have had a hand in global warming by reducing plankton numbers through changes to ozone and perhaps also due to polluting the marine environment. Seems more plausible than what the IPCC and others tell us.”
The importance of DMS in albedo is robust.The major source of CCN over the oceans is dimethylsulphide (DMS)e.g., Andreae and Crutzen,1997.
UV attenuation of DMS in experiments is observed in the finer resolutions.
eg Kniveton et al.
Dimethylsulphide (DMS) is a climatically important component of global biogeochemical cycles, through its role in the sulphur cycle. Changes in ultraviolet radiation (UV) exhibit both positive and negative forcings on the dynamics of production and turnover of DMS and its precursor dimethylsulphoniopropionate (DMSP). In this study we investigate the net forcing of UV on atmospheric DMS. The work is based on a 10-year record of observed DMS at Amsterdam Island in the southern Indian Ocean, and satellite-based retrievals of surface UV and photosynthetically active radiation (PAR). The results show an inverse relationship between UV radiation and atmospheric DMS associated with extreme changes (defined as the greatest 5%) in daily UV, independent of changes in wind speed, sea surface temperature, and PAR.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GB002033.shtml
As we can see further there is a definite trend in cloud (and hence albedo) over a reasonable time eg
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/ceres.jpg
So one would presume that Albedo is not constant,and here Ramanathan poses some open questions.
“It is remarkable that general circulation climate models (GCMs) are able to explain
the observed temperature variations during the last century solely through variations in greenhouse gases, volcanoes and solar constant. This implies that the cloud contribution to the planetary albedo due to feedbacks with natural and forced climate changes has not changed during the last 100 years by more than ±0.3%; i.e, the cloud forcing has remained constant within ±1 Wm–2. If indeed, the global cloud properties and their influence on the albedo are this stable (as asserted by GCMs), scientists need to validate this prediction and develop a theory to account for the stability”….
“Why is the global albedo about 29%? Two following examples illustrate why this is
an important question. A global albedo of 32% would plunge the Earth into a climate
similar to that of the last ice-age; while an albedo of 27% would be comparable to a
seven-fold increase in the CO2 concentration, close to the values required to bring the planet to the warm cretaceous.”
Benestad and Schmidt fix albedo at 30% this would imply a change in GHG forcing of around 5 watts^m2
maksimovich (20:48:21) :
A great example of how the IPCC are so away from reality.
The GCM’s could never account for all the variances involved, it seems as though the hardest quest is to measure cloud cover at different levels and quantify the climate affects. We are just babes in the woods.
But those who think the science is settled in this area are surely on a mission that is non scientific…your albedo constraints look feasible, but what influences cloud formation is on the fringe, lets hope science moves more swiftly in this direction.
Leif Svalgaaard said:
“So why would the few photons that are due to solar activity also not get lost again, but stored up for decades?”
1. The ocean … “Distinct time intervals of alternating positive and negative values are found: 1960– mid 1970s (−0.15), mid-1970s–2000 (+0.15), 2001–present (−0.2 W/m2)” (Douglass, D.H. and R. Knox, 2009). This passage is often quoted.
For me, here, the most convincing is this picture of Bob Tisdale: http://i31.tinypic.com/24zd5l0.jpg; and his comment: “If this lag is correct, the small area of the Pacific Ocean is reacting today to changes in TSI that occurred in 1975.”
Or energy can not be put in – after 33-35 years? Average for the world but it is probably about 40-45 years.
“And if one is going to attest a 40 year time lag based on a correlation coefficient of 0.3, one may as well attest a time lag of -20 years which is also represented by a correlation coefficient of 0.3.” “those are very low correlation coefficients”. (the citation from the commentary with “Chris” in “Skeptical Science”).
Indeed the correlation for the shift of about 40 years is only about 0.3, but for specific areas where work with different periodicity – different “complementary” circulation …?
“How unusual is the recent series of warm years?”, “Under two statistical null-hypotheses, autoregressive and long-memory, this probability turns to be very low: for the global records lower than p = 0.001, and even lower for some REGIONAL records.” (Zorita, 2008).
2. Looking at these figures: http://www.abcaustralia.com/unleashed/images/graph2_glikson.jpg; http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/tsi_vs_temp.gif; whether we can say – with J. Cook: “In other words, the study most quoted by skeptics actually concluded the sun can’t be causing global warming. Ironically, the evidence that establishes the sun’s close correlation with the Earth’s temperature in the past also establishes it’s blamelessness for global warming today”; “… and is “negligible for warming since 1980 (Benestad, 2009)”?
Looking at both graphs the same could be said about the year 1931 on the year 1916-17 …
Should ask – why despite the fall in the TSI, the temperature rise? Similarly, in the years 1940-195x?
If guided straight lines: one from the point – the year of circa 1895 (TSI – red), to the point – the year, c. 1940 (for temperature – blue), and similarly for the period c. 1945 to 1990, or from 1955 to 2000 …
Of course a straight line for the years 1955-2000 will be more steep, but perhaps because these two maps are similar: page 7 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/pdf/poznan/pres_kundzewicz.pdf and http://www.wiking.edu.pl/upload/geografia/images/Europa_rozmieszczenie_ludno.jpg (population density of Europe). Sub-continental UHI it is not fiction (“Current Climate Impact of Heating from Energy Usage.” ATJ de Laat, 2008).
Other reasons why this example can be found here: JL Lean and DH Rind (2008) “How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006” (“We find a response to solar forcing quite different from that reported in several papers published recently in this journal, and ZONALLY averaged responses to both natural and anthropogenic forcings …”); or (NBL) here: Christy, J. R. (2009) “Surface Temperature Variations in East Africa and Possible Causes “. (“Note that this warming is due to a redistribution of heat, not to heat added by the DOWNWARD radiation. […]”).
3. THC – if the Gulf Stream waters drowning, because they are cooler – they have less energy ? No. They are simply HEAVIER.
Thermoclines …
Ocean can store a great deal of energy – be a buffer. How much ? At least as much as it is a big difference between the changes of temperature in the Antarctic, the United States (but not in Europe, UHI + sea) and the oceans.
4. Is the current variability of the TSI is able to induce such changes in temperature as today? “Solar effects continues to oscillates affecting about +/-0.1 degrees C (abcaustralia.com)” “Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1%” for the 20th century…” (Benestad, 2009).
But let’s look at these figures, for example: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/Europe08_fig1.JPG (“warming of nearly 3ºC occurred from 1810 to 1825 while of warming of over 2ºC occurred from 1840 to 1865.”); already cited (Zorita, 2008) of von Storch – http://www.korthweb.de/PhZT/Temperatur_Intcal2.gif (black line); or http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10536/F4.large.jpg (L.G. Thompson, 2006 – he says: “… that the current warming at high elevations in the mid-to low latitudes is unprecedented for at least the last 2 millennia.” However, the abruptness and extent of changes in temperature were similar past OR GREATER than today’s …)
Changes in the TSI proposed by L. Svalgaard (http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-recon3.png) are responsible for it?
Much more likely is probably this (see: the circa AD 1200 – 2000) SOLAR “hockey stick” – http://www.aanda.org/images/stories/highlight/vol471-1/7704Usos.gif.
5. CO2. If he actually had a large share of the warming since 1980, it would have to cool the lower stratosphere.
Does the lower stratosphere cools evenly – parallel, with the increase in global temperature and atm. CO2 concentrations ?
Nothing could be further from the truth – where temperature changes look like this: http://omsriram.com/GlobalWarming_files/Global19.jpg. We can not agree with most of the conclusions from the study where is the latter figure, but these sentences: “… the cooling [stratosphere] over this time span appears to be mostly due to loss of ozone.”, and: “The temperature changes before 1966 are most likely the result of change in the rate of solar energy that hits earth and maybe some volcanic activity. […]”
Rich in aerosols – sulfur, volcanic eruptions (Agung 63 to Hekla 1970, El Chichon and 1982 Mt. Pinatubo 1991 – http://i30.tinypic.com/2uzxe0k.jpg) but raised the temperature and “destroy” ozone.
However, then both the 1971 and circa 1985, 1995; we see a sharp decline and then became a small increase in temperatures in the lower stratosphere, which shows just how slowly ozone layer is recovering …
Indeed in the upper stratosphere – there is no jumping and the “linear” temperature drop (http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/media/archive/4197.jpg), but it is probably just the same SMOOTHING EFFECT as the impact on oceans global temperature …
Besides, after a sharp drop in temperatures in the 90s – after Mount Pinatubo, there is no downward trend in the upper stratosphere (http://www.acd.ucar.edu/Research/Highlight/strat-cooling.jpg).
So is the greenhouse effect of CO2 would be really so small as Lindzen his found (http://www.americanthinker.com/Attachment%202.PNG) ?
6. And if the TSI affects growth of CO2 in the atmosphere?
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/Jan%20Pompe_co2%20and%20temp2.gif – We see here that, among other things, after each major volcanic explosion (1963, 1982, 1991) followed by a sharp drop in the number accumulated in the atmosphere of CO2 (green curve).
Moreover, as the temperature drops and (always – parallel) the accumulation of CO2. Volcanoes show, however, that change must be subject to CO2 emissions rather, than the sinks.
– Biosphere – photosynthesis, they react negatively to cool and no sun. Cooling of the ocean? In the years 1982-4 to SST NH (sensitive to change than SH), in contrast to the land, not decreased (http://mclean.ch/climate/figures/Hemi_NH_L_S_80-05.gif). Here you can see that slowing reacted (indeed) only land (http://global-warming.accuweather.com/julyall-thumb.gif).
In addition, there is no evidence that the ocean absorbs more CO2 when slightly cooled. Warm water – water sapphire – Oolite – DIC in deep water …
Jeffrey Severinghaus discovered the cause of the sharp (8 x) increase in CO2 in Biosphere 2 experiment. It turned out that everything is “guilty” of soil bacteria.
“Soil respiration in terrestrial ecosystems worldwide is estimated to be 50-75 Pg C/year” (Raich and Schlesinger 1992).” “The mean annual global soil-CO 2 flux over this 15-y period [1980-94] was estimated to be 80.4 (range 79.3-81.8) Pg C. At the global scale, however, annual soil-CO 2 fluxes correlated with mean annual temperature, with a slope of 3.3 PgCY -1 per degree Celsius. Although the distribution of precipitation influences seasonal and SPATIAL PATTERNS of soil-CO 2 emissions, global warming is likely to stimulate CO 2 emissions from soils. (Raich, 2003, by CDIAC).” “Lloyd and Taylor (1994) found that the relative sensitivity to temperature change is much greater for soils at LOW temperatures than for warmer soils. For example, in the absence of moisture limitations, an increase from 0 to 1 deg C would result in a 22% increase in respiration, while an increase from 25 to 26 deg C leads to a 5% increase.” “Thus, modest global change scenarios resulting in a 1 to 2 deg C increase in mean temperature would have the most significant effect on the 60 g C/m2 year respired by tundra. [… and in the tundra -1 / 5 land area – where the temperature has risen the most – from 2 to 3 deg C; and soil detritus is a great weight – most of the accumulated 21,6 kg C x m -2 (average) …] (http://www.biology.duke.edu/bio265/ajm21/intro.html) Nevertheless, the contribution of soil to total atmospheric CO2 is not expected to be as important as fossil fuel combustion or deforestation.”
Really?
From the analysis cited above figure of blog J. M., shows that it must be less than 0.5 – 1ppm “our” of CO2 per year added to the atmosphere. The rest (2 / 3 – 3 / 4) to soil bacterial respiration (after all have great potential for breeding; developing rapidly over the past 50 years, extensive farming simple in: Africa, South America, Asia …) and (possibly) oceanic heterotrophic bacteria – highly occurring in the violent El Nino …
Leif Svalgaard (01:17:23) :
tom (19:44:17) : 5. You maintain that protons, neutrons and neutrinos do not emit energy. Which is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, because those particles have motion.
“You are as far gone as Narif. And rely on the same vague concepts. “emit energy” for example. Consider your thermodynamic system that consists of a little sphere around a neutrino. Outer boundary is the sphere. Inner boundary is .. [never mind the inner]. For the system to “emit energy”, energy must be leaving the system [the sphere], thus the neutrino must be losing energy thus move slower and slower if it has energy by virtue of it having motion. But already Galileo knew that this is not the case.”
But the point is, when a neutrino changes from a high energy density state to a lower energy density state, it loses energy; that is, the neutrino radiates photons, or electromagnetic energy, as you have said. However, when the neutrino recovers its initial energy density state it does so by absorbing photons; again, electromagnetic energy, as you have not said.
One has to keep in mind that the system-neutrino can be either charged or uncharged when it emits or absorbs radiative energy, because radiative energy does not carry a charge and because the electromagnetic interactions of the particles can still be induced by quantum loops if they are not electrically charged. Photons don’t carry a charge and so the charge does not matter. Neutrons don’t carry a charge either, but they do emit and absorb electromagnetic energy. Your concept of electromagnetic energy is restricted only to electrons and protons, which is pseudoscience. 😉
“Pseudo-Science relies on the subtle misdirection. The original question was if a neutrino ‘emits electromagnetic radiation’, now that has been broadened to ‘emits energy’. So you must specify what form of energy is being emitted. The rest of your list is equally ambiguous. But the same goes for you as for Narif: ‘too far gone’.”
The ambiguity is all yours… and resides precisely in attributing a charge to radiative energy and then restricting its absorption and emission to electrically charged particles only. In other words, subtle misdirection. Your fatal flaw is your ignorance of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. Worst of all, you present reality as pseudoscience and attack those who question your logic with gratuitous ad hominems.