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.
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.
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.
FAO graph, here: http://www.giurfa.com/fao_temps.jpg
Micky C (16:38:33) :
Search “radiative convective” at J. Climate or use Google Scholar. Lots of papers!
Nogw (16:47:08) :
I think the dark surface is supposed to represent the ground/ocean surface in the experiment he describes.
Leif Svalgaard (14:42:20) :
Oh, I dunno, maybe the warm water occasionally moves or something?
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/
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
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?
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…
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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???
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.
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?
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
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.