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.
From the same paper:
George Vangengeim, the founder of ACI, is a well-known Russian climatologist. The Vangengeim-Girs classification is the basis of the modern Russian climatological school of thought. According to this system, all observable variation in atmospheric circulation is classified into three basic types by direction of the air mass transfer: Meridional (C); Western (W), and Eastern (E). Each of the abovementioned forms is calculated from the daily atmospheric pressure charts over northern Atlantic-Eurasian region. General direction of the transfer of cyclonic and anticylonic air masses is known to
depend on the distribution of atmospheric pressure over the Atlantic-Eurasian region (the atmosphere topography).
The recurrence of each circulation form (W, E, or C) during the year is expressed in days. Total annual duration of the three circulation forms sums therefore to 365 (or 366 in a leap year). The index is defined by the number of days with the dominant form of atmospheric circulation. It is more
conveniently expressed as an anomaly (actual data minus the long-term average). The sum of anomalies can be displayed in a chart of the so-called integral curve of the atmospheric circulation. The annual sum of the occurrence of all circulation anomalies is equal to zero: (C) +(W) + (E) = 0.
The periods dominated by any single form of atmospheric circulation have alternated with a roughly 30-year period for the last 100 years. These periods were named “Circulation epochs”. These may be pooled into two principal groups: meridional (C) and combined “latitudinal” epochs (W+E): (W + E) =
– (C) Meridional (C) circulation dominated in 1890-1920 and 1950-1980. The combined, “zonal” (W+E) circulation epochs dominated in 1920-1950 and 1980-1990. Current “latitudinal”(WE) epoch of 1970-1990s is not completed yet, but it is coming into its final stage, and so the “meridional” epoch (C circulation) is now in its initial stage. (It will be useful for the reader to note here the relation that shows that the “transition” from C to W-E is ontinuous, and the equation balances to 100%, in the form of a simple graphic without any other variables included). It was found that “zonal” epochs correspond to the periods of global warming and the meridional ones
correspond to the periods of global cooling. (Lamb 1972; Lambeck 1980). The generalised time series on the atmospheric circulation forms for 1891-1999 were kindly placed at our disposal by the Federal Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute (AARI) in St. Petersburg (Russia). This is also consistent with the theories and observations described by Leroux (1998).
The third important index is Length of Day (LOD) – a geophysical index that characterizes variation in the earth rotational velocity. Full time series of LOD cover more than 350 years, with the mostreliable data obtained in the last 150 years (Stephenson and Morrison 1995). The long-term LOD 5
dynamics is in close correlation with the dynamics of the main commercial fish stocks (Klyashtorin and Sidorenkov 1996).
More to be found in:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y2787e/Y2787E00.HTM
and at Google:
http://books.google.com.pe/books?id=q3mGCiLjkBIC&dq=Climate+change+and+long-term+fluctuations+of+commercial+catches:+the+possibility+of+forecasting&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=eeMbhAuqBz&sig=_1lsR1rSR_VCIgSqgHop2hvARQk&hl=es&ei=AhmMSsnhFsiQtge1mejCDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Leif Svalgaard (06:32:38) :
“Some comparative planetary climatology [e.g. ice cores from Mars] will help.”
Leif
I wonder if you could answer a couple of questions? [again :-)]
– what is your take on Titanium 44 isotope findings from extraterrestrial objects (meteors and the like) when it comes to solar activity?
– how do they compare with your own and Scafetta’s analysis?
Apologies if I have not phrased the question quite correctly but I recall reading something somewhere that Usokin suggested this showed solar activity had been high in the last century. Is this a robust line of enquiry?
Thanks as ever.
tallbloke (06:27:36) :
I note however, that Scafetta also mentions the Loehle reconstruction, and this would offer another guide to long timescale calibration of the model. As you said the other day, you don’t rely on one series or type of quantity in coming to conclusions about the calibration and quantification of TSI.
Some of the proxies used for the reconstruction of temperature for the last two millennia have been used also for the reconstructions of total solar irradiance in the same period. Loehle’s database on temperature for the period comprehending the last 400 years and Lean’s TSI reconstruction using proxies and sunspots for the same period are highly correlated. However, when we compare the Lean’s reconstruction of TSI based only on 11 years cycles with Loehle’s reconstruction of temperature, we find the correlation fails in the middle of the database, so we have to disregard the totals and use magnitudes related to amplitude and longitude of the cycles. After that, the events match perfectly.
Anna… The Sun is the source of energy for the Earth, thus, in this case, the Sun is the cause of warming; even when some people try to turn the Sun down, it is warming the Earth… yet.
vukcevic (03:02:39) :
it is time you declared your own ideas on the subject.
Is it TSI, CO2, is it something else ? What do you think is cause of the climate change?
Leif Svalgaard (06:32:38) :
As Stephen points out, I don’t know. The large changes [glaciations] are very likely due to orbital changes. The rest probably don’t have a single cause, but many interacting ones. So it becomes a question of degree: so many % of this and so many of that etc. As time goes on, we’ll get a handle on those percentages. Some comparative planetary climatology [e.g. ice cores from Mars] will help. In the meantime I just pull weeds.
Fair enough doc !
As a scientist, you may not be inclined to speculate. For the rest of us, not considered to be scientists, open public speculation, on the blogs like WUWT, gives opportunity to get our illusions cut to size, and an incentive to start anew.
Re: anna v (06:55:49)
anna v (21:28:10) “correlation is not causation”
Clarification:
This does not advance the discussion (whether emphasized, shouted, screamed, … or whispered).
“Leif Svalgaard (06:32:38) :
vukcevic (03:02:39) :
it is time you declared your own ideas on the subject.
Is it TSI, CO2, is it something else ? What do you think is cause of the climate change?
As Stephen points out, I don’t know. The large changes [glaciations] are very likely due to orbital changes. The rest probably don’t have a single cause, but many interacting ones. So it becomes a question of degree: so many % of this and so many of that etc. As time goes on, we’ll get a handle on those percentages. Some comparative planetary climatology [e.g. ice cores from Mars] will help. In the meantime I just pull weeds”
Fair enough, Leif but a weed is just a plant in the wrong place. Why not try to move it to the right place, figuratively speaking.
Let me press you on one point.
If the sun is more active, however little, then more energy is going into the oceans.
The oceans don’t store energy in the sense that they carry over energy from a run of strong cycles to compensate for a subsequent run of weak cycles. I accept that. The adjustments made by the ocean during short term ENSO type episodes and also during longer term PDO type phase shifts see to that.
Nevertheless if the sun is slowly increasing output for several centuries at a time and then slowly decreasing output for several centuries at a time then the ocean energy content is going to follow however small the variation.
Thus there is high sensitivity to solar changes in the sense that however large or small those changes may be then the oceans will quickly make a proportionate adjustment.
Now we really do see that as soon as the ocean energy content changes the rate of flow of energy to the air also acquires a potential for changing. However, the oceans themselves then impose their own ENSO type and PDO type cycles on top of that to produce quite discernible climate changes in regions closest to the air circulation systems that are forced to change position.
So for decades at a time the oceanic changes can either suppress or supplement those long slow solar changes.
What is your problem with that scenario ?
It happens, we see it.
The solar changes are indeed small and incremental and it may seem from our puny perspective that the observed climate changes are disproportionate to the solar changes but the fact is that observation demonstrates that they are not disproportionate.
What is it that convinces so many that such small shifts in solar activity over centuries are not sufficient to provide the background forcing for the events we see ?
It’s simply not good enough to assert that just because the solar changes are a miniscule proportion of total solar output then they cannot be driving the observed climate changes.
It’s like the difference between a thermometer with a fluid that responds a lot to a small temperature change and a thermometer that changes very little in response to the same small temperature change.
That is what I mean by sensitivity. The Earth is a very sensitive water based thermometer.
The fact is that tiny changes in the rate of energy flow through the system cause a significant shift in the distribution of the air circulation systems that produce climate changes we can readily see and feel. Not because those changes are large in the scheme of things but because our daily well being is affected by them.
We are highly sensitive in our sensations and lifestyles to tiny changes in our climatic environment.
Who is to say that the climate changes are disproportionate to the solar changes at all ?
PaulHClark (08:29:51) :
– what is your take on Titanium 44 isotope findings from extraterrestrial objects (meteors and the like) when it comes to solar activity?
44Ti is created by cosmic rays in meteorites [while still out in space] and thus gives a [crude] indication of the level of cosmic rays. One of the problems with 44Ti is [was?] that its half-life was rather uncertain [about 60 years IIRC], and also that the statistics is poor because there are only a few [19 or so] meteorites that have been seen falling. The time of fall to Earth must be known for the 44Ti to be useful.
showed solar activity had been high in the last century. Is this a robust line of enquiry?
It is [to a point – we need more data]. The data so far [see: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2005JA011459.pdf ] has been used to infer the cosmic ray flux back to 1700. Of note is that solar activity in the late 20th century seems to be similar to that in the late 18th century and mid-19th [see their Figure 6].
But the uncertainties are large.
Stephen Wilde (08:43:09) :
The oceans don’t store energy in the sense that they carry over energy from a run of strong cycles to compensate for a subsequent run of weak cycles. I accept that.
I would have sworn on a stack of Bibles that all your postings gave the strong impression that you were advocating the strong-cycle compensation idea [like also promoted by tallbloke], and almost all my criticism of your ideas has been focused on that.
Nevertheless if the sun is slowly increasing output for several centuries at a time and then slowly decreasing output for several centuries at a time then the ocean energy content is going to follow however small the variation.
Of course, who in his right mind would argue otherwise?
The change since the Maunder Minimum has been of the order of at most 0.1K, no doubt about it. The 0.1% solar cycle variation is also of that order.
Leif Svalgaard (09:03:11) :
in reply to Stephen Wilde (08:43:09) :
The total change since the Maunder Minimum has been of the order of at most 0.1K, no doubt about it.
Now, whether we can even measure that small change is another matter.
Stephen Wilde (08:43:09):
Nevertheless if the sun is slowly increasing output for several centuries at a time and then slowly decreasing output for several centuries at a time then the ocean energy content is going to follow however small the variation.
Thus there is high sensitivity to solar changes in the sense that however large or small those changes may be then the oceans will quickly make a proportionate adjustment.
This is exactly what happens. As long as the available microstates -toward which the energy stored by the oceans would be transferred, diffused, dispersed- stay at low numbers, as long as the oceans will keep in that absorbed energy. When available microstates in the surroundings of the system (oceans) increase, the energy is transferred towards those coexisting microstates. It would happen in days, months or years after the energy incoming from the Sun was stored by oceans, ground and subsurface materials of the ground. It is not speculation, as Stephen Wilde says, “we see it”.
On the other hand, we must to consider (yes, I wrote MUST) the solar photon stream, which is the most powerful stream interacting with the Earth.
The radiative intensity of the atmosphere of Earth can be calculated by the following formula:
Iav = h 1/4π [(Aul/Bul) / (gl *Blu / gu*Bul) e^hν/kT^- 1
The same algorithm is valid for the Sun; when you apply it on the Sun and the Earth, you’ll find there is no way of comparison. 🙂
Hofstadter noted that the bulk of mathematics, whether ‘discovered’ or ‘invented’, fails to find practical application within its period of study and is lost, awaiting resurrection.
The notion of progress in Science, herein assumed by most, is one of those unexamined assumptions we tend to take for granted. That the data are reliable if repeatable is another, appropriately challenged by the authors.
“Stephen Wilde (08:43:09) :
The oceans don’t store energy in the sense that they carry over energy from a run of strong cycles to compensate for a subsequent run of weak cycles. I accept that.
I would have sworn on a stack of Bibles that all your postings gave the strong impression that you were advocating the strong-cycle compensation idea [like also promoted by tallbloke], and almost all my criticism of your ideas has been focused on that.”
No I’ve never actually said that . I’m glad we have resolved the point because I was unaware that that was the problem.
As my articles at climaterealists.com explain at rather tedious length it is not the quantity of energy involved that sets temperature but the speed of transmission through the system.
Faster transmission = lower temperature overall and vice versa but the situation is complicated by the fact that the speed through air and water are both independently variable.
Here’s a thing I’ve been toying with for a few days. You take the temperature record – hadcrut3v global. Use narrow band bandpass filters on it to find peak frequencies/phase/amplitude. Add the output of the filters ansd see what you get.
By taking mid band frequency amplitude and phase one should then be able to reconstruct the temperature record from a series of sine (cosine) waves – this is shown in the second plot.
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/6135/synthesisedtemperature.jpg
1/Frequency bands from .5 years to 1000 years were searched but the longest period that produced output was 150years.
The green line in these plots is the output of the 36 bands/cosines and as can be seen there is no trend. There is something else pushing the trend upwards.
One bodge has been to increase the amplitude of all bands by 2.3 to give the same sort of variability in the temp record.
A second bodge is to add a trend line that forces the synthesised temperature to conform to the hadcrut3v. As can be seen both the cosine and filter outputs follow the curve “rather well”. Of particular note is the lack of temperature increase followed by fall over the last few years and 2 peaks at 1877 and 1998 being modelled with a “good” correlation.
There is a rapid warming between 1930 and 1945 which is not followed by the synthesised data.
This plot shows the relative amplitudes and periods of the synthesised waves
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/5240/synthesisedtemperaturea.jpg
The synthesis of course means that individual periods can be removed to see the effect of tsi etc.
This is a work in progress but unless someone shows it to be a pile of poo I think it is interesting!
“Leif Svalgaard (09:17:22) :
Leif Svalgaard (09:03:11) :
in reply to Stephen Wilde (08:43:09) :
The total change since the Maunder Minimum has been of the order of at most 0.1K, no doubt about it.
Now, whether we can even measure that small change is another matter.”
I suggest that it can be measured, or rather observed, from the consequences of that tiny change. Assuming that is that the size of the change was indeed of that order, not everyone agrees with you.
The consequences being a shift in the balance between the solar and equatorial air masses with a consequent latitudinal shift in the air circulation systems.
It happened, it cannot be denied and it was not a result of anything that humans did.
The fact is that throughout the history of the world, for so long as we have had liquid water and air above it the response of the hydrological cycle really has been that fast and responsive and the sooner that is realised by the climate establishment the sooner everyone can get back to proper climatology.
I could arrange to be a Consultant to a high powered climate think tank for a suitable fee.
Whoops, that should read ‘polar and equatorial air masses’.
Stephen Wilde (09:32:22) :
not the quantity of energy involved that sets temperature but the speed of transmission through the system.
You lost me on that one. The system consisting of the Sun and the Earth involves a transmission of energy from Sun to Earth at the speed of light… Same thing for the steak broiling on a BBQ…
This 1977 paper in the Nature journal effectively speculates that the Maunder Minimum could make a repeat performance exactly 357.4 years (2 X 178.7 years) later. Using 1649 to 1710 as a conservative estimate of the actual spotless interval of the Maunder Minimum rather than 1645-1715 yields a tentative prediction of a spotless solar minimum from 2007.4 to ~2067. Chance or more than chance? Only time will tell. There is still time to place your bets.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v266/n5601/abs/266434a0.html
Nature 266, 434 – 435 (31 March 1977); doi:10.1038/266434a0
Planetary tides during the Maunder Sunspot Minimum
CHARLES M. SMYTHE & JOHN A. EDDY
High Altitude Observatory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado 80303
“CONTROL of the 11-yr and longer cycles of solar activity tides raised on the Sun resulting from the gravitational pulls of the planets has often been suggested. Rudolf Wolf and R. C. Carrington were among the early astronomers who pointed out this possibility in the middle nineteenth century1. The close coincidence of the sidereal period of gravitationally important Jupiter (11.87 yr) with the mean period of the observed annual sunspot means (11.3 yr) raises the possibility of such a relationship; the range of possible configurations of the other planets allows a wide realm of other tidal periods and effects. In daily sunspot numbers, a small but consistent periodicity at the sidereal period of the planet Mercury has been found2, and a possible 178.7-yr period in sunspots (about twice the Gleissberg cycle) has been linked with multi-planet tidal influences3. Wood and Wood4 have applied a dynamical theory which includes all planets but Mars to reinforce their belief in a more than chance relationship. We reconstruct here Sun-centred planetary conjunctions and tidal potentials for the AD 1645−1715 period of sunspot absence (the Maunder Minimum). These are found to be effectively indistinguishable from patterns of conjunctions and power spectra of tidal potential in the modern era of a well-established 11-yr sunspot cycle. This places a new and difficult constraint on any tidal theory of sunspot formation.”
Stephen Wilde (09:57:59) :
“Now, whether we can even measure that small change is another matter.”
I suggest that it can be measured
Of course we can measure 0.1K, but do we have measurements at the time of Maunder Minimum with that accuracy? I think not, so it has not been observed.
Stephen Wilde (09:57:59) :
The consequences being a shift in the balance between the solar and equatorial air masses
Lost me on that one too. ‘solar’ air mass?
Consider the following series of events:
1989-1992.Sevensmark opens his clouds’ window over the pacific ocean. (low peak in GCR-The Chilling Stars p.77)
1989 As predicted by Shirley, based on SIM:James Shirley:An unusual “solar event” will take place in the years 1990-1992″
1989 March and September Big solar CME, Quebec black out.
1997-1998 Big El Nino, pacific ocean begins cooling (heat emission).
If we have five boxes and three cats are caged into the boxes, one cat per cage, we would have two available boxes for being occupied by one cat each. If we have other three cats into a bigger cage which can contain all of them, that is, the six cats, and we have the remainder three cats into the bigger cage and wish to distribute the remainder these three cats into the smaller boxes, we would be able of accomodating only two cats in the remainder two boxes because the other three boxes had bee occupied, each one with one cat, so we would have one cat that cannot be distributed into the boxes. That remainder cat will be retained into the huge box until one of the five smaller boxes is available for accomodating the last cat.
Damn! Your friend came with other six cats!!! Well, the big box can contain them all, no problem. We have to wait Charles to come with more empty cages, or wait, perhaps hours, days, months, years or centuries, until the small cages will be available (empty) again, so we could distribute five of the six new cats into the empty small boxes, one cat per cage.
It’s quite simple. 🙂
Leif,
It’s been too long since I watched you in action on the blogs. You still continue to amaze me. I won’t bore you with praise this time however. This time I want to focus on a particular aspect of the calibration. Scattered throughout the comments you will find people mentioning UHI and your response has been that Dr. S calibrated to the record. I think there might be something worth looking at here. I only say that because early on in Anthony’s project I went hunting for Microsite bias and UHI. I had very limited data to work with ( it was early in the project) so rather than just throw data at the meat grinder I thought about the problem. I was looking for the Microsite bias ( bad siting) a subspecies of UHI. What I had to work with:
1. CRN ratings 1-5 ( but these only “measure” present conditions”)
2. Population R,S,U ( three categories of population not current)
3. Instrument type ( MMTS or min/max. Recall that MMTS are close to buildings because of the cabling issue)
My working hypothesis was that if I wanted to find a microsite bias my best bet was to do a time slice through the data. I picked the date 1980.
The plan was to look at sites after 1980. Why?
1. I was pretty sure that we could get population data on every site for 1980 to the present.
2. 1979 was the year that stevenson screens started to get painted with latex.
3. MMTS started to replace min max in the mid 80s.
The thought was that microsite bias, if it existed, would be most noticable in the post 1980 time period. hey, that’s a hypothesis. The results were promising, but the station count was still too small. Anyways, what I’m saying is that the contribution of UHI and microsite bias is not constant over time. My back of the envelop estimate for microsite bias ( don’t ask me to repeat the guesswork) was about .15C. That’s not a step function that starts in 1980, but ( speculating) a bias that increases over time. Relative to Dr. S paper he is calibrating to a temperature record from 1980 to the present. That record doesnt have a constant bias from UHI and microsite bias but an increasing one. The bias is not zero in 1980 and the bias in 2009 is greater than that in 1980. FWIW
Paul Vaughan (08:38:39) :
Re: anna v (06:55:49)
anna v (21:28:10) “correlation is not causation”
Clarification:
This does not advance the discussion (whether emphasized, shouted, screamed, … or whispered).
Can you expand on this statement?
In my opinion “correlation is not causation” is one of the two basic scientific fundaments that climate science is mixed up about, including the contingent of planet cycle fans. The other is the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions for a proof of a scientific statement. This cannot be repeated often enough either in whispers or in shouts.
This is chart recording one of the components of the geomagnetic field (values are changed by a fixed factor) at a specific location:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GeoMagField.gif
as quoted by:
The National Geophysical Data Center
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/
Hence, I am tempted to state:
Dr Svalgaard is wrong
Nicola Scafetta is wrong
Henrik Svensmark is wrong
CO2 theorists are wrong
Any scientist among you, if interested in cooperation my email can be found here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/em.txt
Stephen Wilde (09:32:22) :
not the quantity of energy involved that sets temperature but the speed of transmission through the system.
Leif Svalgaard:
You lost me on that one. The system consisting of the Sun and the Earth involves a transmission of energy from Sun to Earth at the speed of light… Same thing for the steak broiling on a BBQ…
No, the system being sun to oceans, oceans to air and air to space.
Shortwave entering air and water gets slowed down and re radiated as longer wave radiation and the energy lost in the conversion from shortwave to longwave manifests itself as an increased temperature of both water and air.
It’s like the flow of current through a resistor. Whilst passing through the resistor the electical current slows down temporarily and generates heat and then leaves the resistor at a lower voltage but at the same speed as it entered the resistor.
Now in the case of the Earth which is a sphere floating in space ALL the departing energy is in the form of radiated longwave because the heat energy gets converted back to radiative energy before it can depart.
That is why the energy value of the shortwave coming in and the longwave going out are pretty much the same except during periods of minor radiative imbalance.
The thing is that the oceans and the air deal with that incoming shortwave very differently.
Each has internal circulations and deals with the energy passing through on different timescales. The oceanic effect far outweighs the effect of the air and so drives the whole process with the effect of the air as a mere passenger. The air is always forced to emulate the oceans and the mechanism for that is the speed of the hydrological cycle mediated by the latitudinal positions of all the air circulation systems.
As you will know any quantity of power can pass through something with nil resistance and no heat energy will be generated. On the other hand a small amount of energy passing through something with high resistance will generate much energy as heat.
So it is with the Earth. The temperature of the Earth is set by the resistance to the solar energy flow provided by both air and water and by far the greater effect is from the water. The Hot Water Bottle Effect as I have named it.
The greenhouse effect in the air is relatively insignificant and any human contribution truly miniscule and unmeasurable.
Does that help ?
As regards the other query that was a typo and should read ‘polar and equatorial air masses’.