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.
Leif Svalgaard (08:55:56) :
RE: Ti44 in meteors
Thank you for the Taricco et al paper.
I managed to find the Usokin paper but haven’t had chance to digest it yet in depth – you may have seen it in the past but if not here’s the link:
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/44Ti_A&A_2006.pdf
Also came across this (while searching) that looks like it came from a Heartland Conference on the role of solar activity and climate – again I guess you know most of it and are not short of reading material [:-)} but should you care to glance through it and add any comments idc on another thread I’ll pick them up.
http://www.heartland.org/publications/NIPCC%20report/PDFs/Chapter%205.pdf
My quick read on the Usokin paper drew me to this quote:
“The extended 44Ti data set and the model computations
also allow a verification of the model reconstruction of the
solar open magnetic flux, which exhibits a significant secular
variation, including nearly a doubling over the last century
(Lockwood et al. 1999; Solanki et al. 2002).”
Am I correct in reading this as a significant rise in solar activity over the last century?
If not would you be so kind as explain in rather plain terms what the statement says I would as ever be grateful.
Please note that thanks to your guidance I now believe our climate is an incredibly complex and chaotic system and that the Sun is just a part of it….
Thanks for your contribution as always.
bill (15:05:46) : SIMULATION:Latin: simulatus; 1.To give a false indication or appearance of; pretend;feign (to simulate an interest), 2.to have or to take on the external appearance of; look or act like…etc.
Tenuc (15:57:44) :
Our climate is a very complex dynamic chotic system…
“God does not play dice” (A.Einstein)
After one knows something it happens to be so simple.
It is very easy to conveniently label all what we don´t know as “chaotic”; that is like a MD saying:”that was caused by a virus”(btw, the next time somebody tells you that, ask him to show you a photo of it)
Stephen Wilde (13:31:15) :
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.
Nobody would be so silly to suggest a uniform response. I’m talking about average over the globe, as everybody else is when discussing this.
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.
There is growing acceptance that the variation is much smaller than previously thought. I have gone over this many times. Your acceptance is not needed in this process.
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 Sun has not varied the same way. See, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Holocene-TSI.pdf [Figure 3]. The typical deviations have been of the magnitude of 0.1% of TSI, commensurate with the change we had kicked around in our discussion.
All those changes pre-date the effects of significant human CO2 emissions.
And what has that to do with any reasonable discussion of solar influence? They also pre-date the spelling reform of Dutch orthography, equally irrelevant.
I have selected a combination of sun and oceans.
A priori selection is not science.
You are determined to exclude the sun at all costs.
No waiting for someone to show evidence of significant solar influence, rather than pre-selection of that as the cause.
trying my patience.
Not my convern.
I am open to any suggestions that seem plausible but your solar stability ideas just don’t ring true.
One has to go where the data leads, liking the ringing or not.
I am getting too old to waste time.
have you considered that your ideas might be just that?
PaulHClark (17:02:48) :
nearly a doubling over the last century
(Lockwood et al. 1999; Solanki et al. 2002).”
Not even Lockwood believes that any more. The ‘doubling’ was first suggested by me back in 1978 and elaborated on by Lockwood et al. in 1999 and modeled by Solanki in 2002. I and Lockwood have since realized that we were both wrong: http://www.leif.org/research/GC31B-0351-F2007.pdf
and that there has been no such doubling. The flux is now what it was 108 years ago.
Stephen Wilde (13:31:15) :
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
Nobody would be so silly to suggest a uniform response. It may be positive in one area and negative in an other. I’m talking about average over the globe, as everybody else is when discussing this, e.g. Scafetta himself.
Leif Svalgaard (17:46:20) :
Thanks for the explanation.
My take is therefore that the sun remains a part of the complex and chaotic system that is earth’s climate but seems not to have been a key player over the last century (as we may currently understand it).
Still an enormously complex and chaotic system though eh?
Any guess, after the last 10 years of debate that you have witnessed, how much manmade CO2 contributions really make to changing our climate?
It’s only for a bit of fun you know!
PaulHClark (18:41:28) :
Any guess, after the last 10 years of debate that you have witnessed, how much manmade CO2 contributions really make to changing our climate?
As Stephen points out I have no clue.
anna v (10:52:48) “This cannot be repeated often enough either in whispers or in shouts.”
We disagree – and I don’t see that as a problem. I respect your perspective & your choice of emphasis.
PaulHClark (18:41:28) :
Any guess, after the last 10 years of debate that you have witnessed, how much manmade CO2 contributions really make to changing our climate?
Leif Svalgaard (18:56:59) :
“…I have no clue.”
Now try getting that response (the only correct one, IMHO) from a ‘climate scientist’!
I think too much time is spent on the supposed .01 TSI variable. Solar output is not just TSI. UV is known to vary by 16% over the solar cycle and we all know about the Svensmark theory, and no doubt there will be other unknown variables.
I wonder if its possible to record the TSI just above sea level across the oceans and monitor what energy is entering the oceans over time.
This method would certainly answer a lot of questions.
Jimmy Haigh (19:19:23) :
PaulHClark (18:41:28) :
Any guess, after the last 10 years of debate that you have witnessed, how much manmade CO2 contributions really make to changing our climate?
Leif Svalgaard (18:56:59) :
“…I have no clue.”
Now try getting that response (the only correct one, IMHO) from a ‘climate scientist’!
Honest climate scientist would say “It’s negligible” because, from the total of 107 ppmV of atmospheric carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere in the last 24 years, human activities are responsible of a tiny 5%, which barely represents 5.35 ppmV. 5.35 ppmV would drive a change of temperature of 0.03 K.
On the other hand, the natural contribution for the current concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 101.65 ppmV, which would drive a change of temperature of 0.45 K.
However, if you ask a honest physicist, he would tell you that the contribution to the atmospheric carbon dioxide from human activities would drive the tropospheric temperature by some 0.02 K, while the natural contribution to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide would drive the tropospheric temperature up to 0.3 K.
If you ask again a physicist about the change of temperature of the surface due to the human contribution to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, he would tell you… null. Why? Because the physicist knows that the carbon dioxide does not store more energy than the surface (land and oceans) and the subsurface materials because of its low Pp in the atmosphere and its poor thermal properties, and the energy always flows (or is transferred, dispersed or diffused) spontaneously from the systems in a high energy density state (like the Sun, for example) towards the systems in a low energy density state (like the carbon dioxide system, for example). 😉
I hope my dissertation has answered your question.
Geoff Sharp (19:50:14) :
UV is known to vary by 16% over the solar cycle and we all know about the Svensmark theory, and no doubt there will be other unknown variables.
Of the total TSI of 1361 W/m2, 105 W/m2 is in wavelengths below 400 nm, thus in the UV [and beyond]. If UV varied 16%, that would mean a variation of 105*0.16 = 17 W/m2. The total variation of TSI [and TSI includes the UV] is more than ten times less, so even assuming that ALL the variation of TSI was due to a variation of UV, UV could vary at most by 1.6% and in reality varies less than that, so UV is not ‘known to vary by 16% over the solar cycle’
Nasif Nahle (12:10:40) :
You are clear in your explanation, but you are demonstrating what I said about not knowing the difference between necessary and sufficient in scientific proofs.
It is not sufficient to have the sun and its huge energy to be able to know the climate as we measure it. You yourself say:
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.
talking of “how much of the energy accepted” “how it is dispersed” means that it is not sufficient to have the large impinging sun energy to solve the problem. It is necessary to know many other conditions too.
That the sun outputs a lot of energy is a necessary but not sufficient condition to define climate.
Nasif Nahle (19:57:38) :
Nasif. Thanks for the reply. I think it shows that there is more than one answer to any question. Paul’s original question of Dr. Svalgaard was:
“PaulHClark (18:41:28) :
Any guess, after the last 10 years of debate that you have witnessed, how much manmade CO2 contributions really make to changing our climate?”
My reply as a geologist, would also be that I have no idea. My opinionis that it isn’t very much at all – in fact, insignificant. As we say in Scotland: ‘we are awfy wee’ in the grand scheme of things.
Nasif Nahle (19:57:38) :
If you ask again a physicist about the change of temperature of the surface due to the human contribution to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, he would tell you… null.
And he would be wrong.
Leif Svalgaard (20:50:29) :
Ok…thanks for the explanation, I must revisit my source suggesting the 16% variation (it did seem very credible at the time). But I still think the argument of collecting TSI at sea level would end a lot of this debate.
Geoff Sharp (21:58:06) :
Ok…thanks for the explanation, I must revisit my source suggesting the 16% variation (it did seem very credible at the time).
Leif’s Law!
But I still think the argument of collecting TSI at sea level would end a lot of this debate.
TSI has been measured like that for more than a century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Greeley_Abbot
anna v (21:42:46) :
Nasif Nahle (12:10:40) :
You are clear in your explanation, but you are demonstrating what I said about not knowing the difference between necessary and sufficient in scientific proofs.
It is not sufficient to have the sun and its huge energy to be able to know the climate as we measure it. You yourself say:
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.
talking of “how much of the energy accepted” “how it is dispersed” means that it is not sufficient to have the large impinging sun energy to solve the problem. It is necessary to know many other conditions too.
That the sun outputs a lot of energy is a necessary but not sufficient condition to define climate.
I think I have understood your argument; is it related to the mechanisms? Or to the trajectories?
Leif Svalgaard (21:57:56) :
Nasif Nahle (19:57:38) :
If you ask again a physicist about the change of temperature of the surface due to the human contribution to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, he would tell you… null.
And he would be wrong.
Where and why?
uv variance T. Dudok de Wit 2008
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/uvvariance.jpg
Nasif Nahle (22:26:41) :
“And he would be wrong.”
Where and why?
It is not a ‘where’ or ‘why’, but a ‘how’
maksimovich (22:26:42) :
uv variance T. Dudok de Wit 2008
You have to multiply a) and b) to get the amount of variation in what matters [W/m2]. It doesn’t matter that the variation is 200% of a 1/1,000,000 of a W/m2.
Leif Svalgaard (22:47:45) :
Nasif Nahle (22:26:41) :
“And he would be wrong.”
Where and why?
It is not a ‘where’ or ‘why’, but a ‘how’
Go on… Say “how”.
Nasif Nahle (22:58:53) :
Go on… Say “how”.
It was your how that was wrong.
Removal of solar variability from the climate equation leaves us with nothing to rely on to explain climate variability other than little green men.
Something is wrong with the solar observations, solar equations or our understanding of how solar changes affect the Earth. Possibly all three.
That is what the climate is telling us.
Stephen Wilde (13:31:15) :
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
Leif Svalgaard
Nobody would be so silly to suggest a uniform response. It may be positive in one area and negative in an other. I’m talking about average over the globe, as everybody else is when discussing this, e.g. Scafetta himself
Reply:
My point was that a small average change in global temperatrure can produce large variability in individual locations because of the shift of that location in relation to the positions of the nearby air circulation systems.
Whether the temperature change which you calculate is sufficient to, say, move large areas of the continental parts of the northern hemisphere to the north of the mid latitude jets makes a huge difference especially given that most observations of climate in those times were in such regions.
If your figures are right about the extremely limited (even negligible) solar variability then the climate is telling us that that is nevertheless sufficient to make a huge difference to the climate conditions over the northern land masses and that would have a sizeable ‘knock on’ effect on the rest of the globe.
So. one could add the globally unbalanced conductive behaviour of the northern land masses to a variable energy supply to the air from the oceans in trying to explain the sheer size of observed climate variability in the face of a negligible solar forcing. That still seems unlikely so that something is probably still not properly understood about solar influences on climate.
Alternatively there are little green men moving the Earth’s air circulation systems around 🙂
When it is clear that something is not correctly understood then judgement has to come into play to decide on a way forward. Sticking to existing assumptions is merely a blind mantra in such a situation. Not that I am really suggesting those little green men but the solar stability idea is moving in that direction.
Once one has excluded all other possibilities then the obvious one must be the truth however unlikely, so in the end the sun it is as the final arbiter as regards Earth’s climate.
It’s just an issue of how.