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.
Paul Vaughan (08:38:39) :
Clarification:
This does not advance the discussion (whether emphasized, shouted, screamed, … or whispered).
IIRC, none of your comments have ever advanced any discussion, so perhaps be a bit less holy. Anna v is quite correct.
Stephen Wilde (09:57:59) :
“Now, whether we can even measure that small change is another matter.”
I suggest that it can be measured
Leif Svalgaard
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
We can see that if you are right about the quantity of energy variation then the observed real world and apparently proportionate climate response is that which we see from the Maunder Minimum to today.
That is 0.1K over 400 years = one Maunder Minimum if you insist on an equation.
If you cannot be that precise then some other quantity = one Maunder Minimum.
Either way the cause and effect should not be denied on the basis of a subjective assumption that for some unspecified reason the variation in energy is ‘too small’.
Unless you can come up with a new reason for the Maunder Minimum then that apparently tiny solar variation is the only card on the table and you should not deny it.
Nasif Nahle (08:33:10) :
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.
I do not think anybody is disputing that the source of energy is the sun.
The source of energy for making my coffee is 220volts delivered to my house at a maximum current of 35amp: 7700 watts available . I use 1200 watts for a few minutes. It is necessary to have a source, but the magnitude of the source is not sufficient to determine what part of the energy available I am using.
The same with the sun. It is necessary to have and know the energy from the sun, but that knowledge is not sufficient to tell us how much of that energy we, as earth, are using.
Stephen Wilde (11:00:14) :
Does that help ?
No, as I don’t think the concept “resistance to energy” has any meaning.
Stephen Wilde (11:09:43) :
That is 0.1K over 400 years = one Maunder Minimum if you insist on an equation.
so 0.1K/400 = 0.00025K per year
Unless you can come up with a new reason for the Maunder Minimum then that apparently tiny solar variation is the only card on the table and you should not deny it.
It is not the only card. There are other cards. Here is another one: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2005JA011459.pdf:
“[44] 44Ti activity in meteorites shows a decreasing trend during the past 235 years over which the data are available. This implies that GCR flux in the interplanetary space (1 to 3 AU) has decreased over the past 235 years by about 43%”
Some people would consider that another card, others would say that the geomagnetic field has declined during that time and that that is yet another card, perhaps biospheric cards, or AGW [CO2 or land-use, burning of hardwood forests in the US, asheries], spectral changes [one of yours I think], volcanoes, planets manipulating LOD or shining their magnetic fields on us, and so on. Lots of cards, some [admittedly] weirder than others.
Leif Svalgaard (11:14:30) :
Stephen Wilde (11:00:14) :
Perhaps you should look at this:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GeoMagField.gif
vukcevic (10:59:23) :
“Stephen Wilde (11:00:14) :
Does that help ?
Leif Svalgaard
No, as I don’t think the concept “resistance to energy” has any meaning”
There you go misquoting again.
I said “resistance to the solar energy flow” and compared it to the flow of current through an electrical resistor.
Can you deny that solar shortwave coming in is converted to radiated longwave going out. What is that exactly if not a consequence of resistance in the air and water to the flow of solar energy ?
“Leif Svalgaard (11:31:42) :
Stephen Wilde (11:09:43) :
That is 0.1K over 400 years = one Maunder Minimum if you insist on an equation.
so 0.1K/400 = 0.00025K per year”
Reply:
That is the observed climate response whether you like it or not.
Anyway it is not appropriate to divide it equally over the number of years. A good number of the years concerned were closer to 0.1K lower as compared to now. The progression of the solar variation over the past 400 years has been pretty uneven. There was a Dalton Minimum as well plus other variations en route.
Perhaps 0.5K over 200 years = one Dalton Minimum.
Stephen Wilde
“Unless you can come up with a new reason for the Maunder Minimum then that apparently tiny solar variation is the only card on the table and you should not deny it.”
Leif Svalgaard
It is not the only card. There are other cards. Here is another one: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2005JA011459.pdf:
“[44] 44Ti activity in meteorites shows a decreasing trend during the past 235 years over which the data are available. This implies that GCR flux in the interplanetary space (1 to 3 AU) has decreased over the past 235 years by about 43%”
Some people would consider that another card, others would say that the geomagnetic field has declined during that time and that that is yet another card, perhaps biospheric cards, or AGW [CO2 or land-use, burning of hardwood forests in the US, asheries], spectral changes [one of yours I think], volcanoes, planets manipulating LOD or shining their magnetic fields on us, and so on. Lots of cards, some [admittedly] weirder than others”
Reply:
On a balance of probability I would go for solar variability of one sort or another. I’ve no more idea than you how it is done but real world observations prevail.
As regards spectral changes it was not and is not ‘one of mine’. I merely started asking you for advice on that but your replies were so slippery that I was no better informed at the end of our exchange.
anna v (11:11:39) :
The same with the sun. It is necessary to have and know the energy from the sun, but that knowledge is not sufficient to tell us how much of that energy we, as earth, are using.
Perhaps our knowledge is not sufficient, but the Sun positively is sufficient and more.
Consider the Sun’s core temperature is 1.5 x 10^7 K and its surface temperature is 6800 K; then, compare it with the Earth, which core’s temperature is 7.3 x 10^3 K and its surface temperature is ~300 K.
The solar photon stream, obviously, is stronger than the Earth’s photon stream; it’s enough on seeing Mercury’s conditions. Consequently, the available energy absorbed by the Earth-system would depend on the microstates available at the Earth-system. So, if the change of the solar output is small, the Earth would be excessively receptive if its available microstates are high in “number”.
Evidently, it’s not hard to fill the Earth with solar energy. The problem is how much of the energy accepted by the Earth-system would be dispersed toward other surrounding systems’ microstates and if those microstates are available or not.
Please, tell me if I have not been enough clear in my explanation.
vukcevic (10:59:23) : Where is it that zero geomagnetic field “window”?
vukcevic (11:44:35)
Thanks. I noticed that earlier and the remarkable similarity to the 20th Century temperature change profile.
I’m open minded on the issue since my climate description does not need to rely on any particular cause for solar and oceanic variation. I have concentrated on trying to explain the consequences of those variations within the Earth system of ocean and air.
The problem for Leif is that his expertise ceases at the point where solar energy reaches the Earth and most of the story starts at that point.
Nasif.
For completeness then microstates are relevant but for a general overview they are (in my humble opinion) too small to consider.
The oceans literally swamp everything else.
Leif Svalgaard (09:03:11) :
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.
According to the best science available, ocean heat(energy) content has been mostly increasing since the fifties, maybe since the thirties. If that increased energy content isn’t due to the sun and/or it’s modulation of the CR flux, what is it due to? Can’t be co2, because the longwave radiation from the air can’t penetrate and heat the ocean.
I don’t see anything in Dr Scafetta’s paper which excludes the possibility of a long term trend under the decadal cycle he observes, in fact it could well be that it is pretty much a given considering his observation of a small 0.5% shift in the ‘h’ value leading to a long term rising of temperature.
My cumulative sunspot model produces very similar results to his, and I take that as an encouraging sign.
Nogw (12:10:55) :
vukcevic (10:59:23) : Where is it that zero geomagnetic field “window”?
I specifically shifted Y-scale by a factor, so location of the component sampled, cannot be easily detected.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GeoMagField.gif
Any scientist among you, if interested in cooperation my email can be found here: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/em.txt
vukcevic (12:22:47) : Could it be at 79.593889 N, 52.000556 W?
tallbloke (12:19:34)
I certainly support a gradual increase on ocean heat content whilst solar input is rising and possibly a short lag before ocean heat content comes down from a peak and starts falling in response to a falling solar input.
However I tend to agree with Leif and Nicola about the lack of long term energy storage because of the cooling effects of positive ENSO and PDO phenomena which warm the air but try to reduce ocean energy content quite quickly during periods of high solar input.
Nevertheless the oceans are a long term heat store but only as a historical product of past solar/oceanic interactions so there is a bit of a contradiction there.
Certainly the solar input exceeded oceanic energy release right through cycles 18 to 23 which suits you and Nicola but Leif seems to have problems with that on the grounds that to him solar variation is so small.
Personally I think Leif a bit blinkered on that. If there is a conflict between reality and assumptions then reality wins every time and I think Leif’s views on scale are adrift of what reality is telling us.
I don’t think anyone’s ideas need to rely on a carry over of stored energy in the oceans from a run of strong solar cycles to a period of weak cycles anyway and I’m puzzled as to how Leif got that bee in his bonnet. Someone may have said it at one point but without realising that it is unnecessary.
To square the circle I would suggest that over time the ocean energy content does follow the sun and rises and falls with it’s level of activity but the process is very irregular because of the overlapping ENSO and PDO phenomena which can both accelerate and decelerate accumulation or loss of oceanic energy on very differing timescales and both in opposition to and in support of solar trends at any given time. Additionally different oceans have different cycles on different time scales so that makes it messier still.
In the end the best diagnostic indicator of net global warming of the oceans or net global cooling of the oceans is the average latitudinal position of the air circulation systems.
Of course, when the oceans are cooling the air is warming and vice versa.
Stephen Wilde (11:55:14) :
Can you deny that solar shortwave coming in is converted to radiated longwave going out. What is that exactly if not a consequence of resistance in the air and water to the flow of solar energy ?
Putting ‘solar’ in the sentence doesn’t change anything. The ‘resistance’ idea still doesn’t make sense..
Stephen Wilde (12:07:59) :
Perhaps 0.5K over 200 years = one Dalton Minimum.
Perhaps you mean 0.05K…
On a balance of probability I would go for solar variability of one sort or another. I’ve no more idea than you how it is done but real world observations prevail.
And what would they be? What observations show us that the temperature now is no more than 0.1K [and that was an upper limit] higher than during the Maunder Minimum? I thought people were throwing numbers around at least ten or twenty times higher….
tallbloke (12:19:34) :
I don’t see anything in Dr Scafetta’s paper which excludes the possibility of a long term trend under the decadal cycle he observes
long-term trend in what? Temperatures? TSI?
He does not observe any long-term trend in TSI. He ‘assumes’ one. If anything, TSI since 1986 has gone down according to him. That there is a long-term trend in Temps is just good ole GW.
Stephen Wilde (13:04:55) :
To square the circle I would suggest that over time the ocean energy content does follow the sun and rises and falls with it’s level of activity
I have indicated that we agree on this, and that that ‘swell’ is of the order of at most 0.1K, so is hardly observable, therefore the observed much larger variation is not due to the tiny changes in heat input that solar radiation gives us.
Leif Svalgaard (13:11:08) :
Stephen Wilde (11:55:14) :
Can you deny that solar shortwave coming in is converted to radiated longwave going out. What is that exactly if not a consequence of resistance in the air and water to the flow of solar energy ?
Leif Svalgaard
Putting ’solar’ in the sentence doesn’t change anything. The ‘resistance’ idea still doesn’t make sense..
Reply:
I’ll leave others to judge the merits of your comment. Of course I could have said ‘former solar energy’ but any sensible reader would get the point.
Stephen Wilde (12:07:59) :
Perhaps 0.5K over 200 years = one Dalton Minimum.
Leif Svalgaard
Perhaps you mean 0.05K…
Reply
Yes. Quite right. Thank you.
Stephen Wilde
On a balance of probability I would go for solar variability of one sort or another. I’ve no more idea than you how it is done but real world observations prevail.
Leif Svalgaard
And what would they be? What observations show us that the temperature now is no more than 0.1K [and that was an upper limit] higher than during the Maunder Minimum? I thought people were throwing numbers around at least ten or twenty times higher…
Reply:
A change of 0.1K in solar energy received does not necessarily result in a climate response of 0.1K at every location on the planet. Or indeed anywhere on the planet and that begs the question as to whether your numbers are correct which not all solar scientists accept.
The energy in the climate system is not evenly distributed. An expansion of the polar air masses at the expense of the equatorial air masses (as a result of a small average temperature change) can result in huge temperature changes for areas that move from one side of the mid latitude jets to another or which have the experience of winds switching from maritime sources to continental sources.
There are many other variables involved in translating a change in solar energy input to real world climate consequences.
That is the point at which your solar expertise breaks down 🙂
Stephen Wilde (12:17:08) :
Nasif.
For completeness then microstates are relevant but for a general overview they are (in my humble opinion) too small to consider.
The oceans literally swamp everything else.
I agree. Microstates would better fit on topics related to hyperexcited photons.
I was only explaining the subjacent quantum process which explains any delay in the response of Earth-system before small changes of energy radiated by the Sun.
Your illustration of thermal systems using electrical systems processes is quite correct. You have introduced resistance; someone else suggested capacitance. The similitude arises immediately under pollster’s eye, so it would be very interesting, and completely on topic, to explain the issue with those systems.
“Stephen Wilde (13:04:55) :
To square the circle I would suggest that over time the ocean energy content does follow the sun and rises and falls with it’s level of activity
Leif Svalgaard
I have indicated that we agree on this, and that that ’swell’ is of the order of at most 0.1K, so is hardly observable, therefore the observed much larger variation is not due to the tiny changes in heat input that solar radiation gives us
Reply:
Firstly I really don’t accept the validity of all the adjustments you have been making to TSI and sunspot numbers since the Maunder Minimum but I don’t want to make an issue of that here. Suffice it to say that not all solar scientists are in full agreement with your approach.
Anyway, whatever the ‘swell’ may have been the global climate has changed since 1600. As it had previously from the Roman Warm Period to the Dark Ages to the Mediaeval Maximun to the Little Ice Age to today with our recent Modern Maximum.
The only source of energy to the system is the sun. It cannot come from nowhere. All those changes pre date the effects of significant human CO2 emissions.
So, either the changes are caused by the sun or they are caused by some internal Earthly process or by a combination of both.
I have selected a combination of sun and oceans. You are determined to exclude the sun at all costs. God knows why but take it from me that that is damaging your credibility and trying my patience.
I am open to any suggestions that seem plausible but your solar stability ideas just don’t ring true.
Now I’m happy to take you at your word and watch real world events to see what transpires. However we now have a less active sun, negative oceans and a cooling world.
May I respectfully suggest that unless real world events reverse in the very near future your ideas will go the way of the dodo.
Please forgive my directness. I am getting too old to waste time.
Nogw (12:51:57) :
vukcevic (12:22:47) : Could it be at 79.593889 N, 52.000556 W?
What a precision of coordinates. Maybe, or on the other hand maybe not.
There are number of geomagnetic stations on Greenland, not aware of one on that location.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GeoMagField.gif
Stephen Wilde (13:51:36) :
However we now have a less active sun, negative oceans and a cooling world.
In my post above bill (09:51:01) : I showed a synthesised a temperature emulation using 36 fundamental frequencies – Did not really expect it to be possible but have a look at the result.
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/6135/synthesisedtemperature.jpg
This shows that the temperature record can be simulated for short term perturbations, BUT there is no frequency that simulates the last few decades of temperature rise. The last decade of static temperature with a fall for the last couple of years is well simulated and shows temperature rise continuing after 2010. the world is not cooling!
By summing only the periods associated with TSI (9 to 14 years) the simulation shows an effect on temperature of 0.14C Peak which is inline with Leif’s 0.1C (average?)
Perhaps we need to look at all the changes that happen during changes in solar activity, not just the increase and decrease in TSI. Other changes could also have an impact on earth climate, such as changes in proportion of the different wavelengths, changes in amount of energy recieved from solar ion stream, etc. An holistic approach is needed, rather than expecting an ‘X’ factor to pop out.
Our climate is a very complex dynamic chotic system and even a what seems to be a small change can have a massive long-term impact should it cause a bifurcation from warm to cool, or vice-versa.
We could also make better progress, I think, by changing the way we look at climate.
Average global temperature is a meaningless concept when trying to understand earths energy budget, and until we fully understand how the energy budget changes over time we won’t know what is going on. It is also wrong to think of climate as a global entity, when in fact it is just the sum total of many interrelated local events which change over long periods of time.