Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc. – Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory, Head of the Russian/Ukrainian joint project Astrometria – has a few things to say about solar activity and climate. Thanks to Russ Steele of NCWatch
Key Excerpts:
Observations of the Sun show that as for the increase in temperature, carbon dioxide is “not guilty” and as for what lies ahead in the upcoming decades, it is not catastrophic warming, but a global, and very prolonged, temperature drop.
[…] Over the past decade, global temperature on the Earth has not increased; global warming has ceased, and already there are signs of the future deep temperature drop.
[…] It follows that warming had a natural origin, the contribution of CO2 to it was insignificant, anthropogenic increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide does not serve as an explanation for it, and in the foreseeable future CO2 will not be able to cause catastrophic warming. The so-called greenhouse effect will not avert the onset of the next deep temperature drop, the 19th in the last 7500 years, which without fail follows after natural warming.
[…] We should fear a deep temperature drop — not catastrophic global warming. Humanity must survive the serious economic, social, demographic and political consequences of a global temperature drop, which will directly affect the national interests of almost all countries and more than 80% of the population of the Earth. A deep temperature drop is a considerably greater threat to humanity than warming. However, a reliable forecast of the time of the onset and of the depth of the global temperature drop will make it possible to adjust in advance the economic activity of humanity, to considerably weaken the crisis.
Full Study is here. (PDF patience, takes a bit to load)
Leif:
In a highly insulated space a rise in heating energy of 1% could cause the temperature in that space to rise significantly. To say that the same does not happen in the climate system implies a high degree of knowledge of the sensitivity of the system.
How certain are we about the sensitivity of the climate system to changes in TSI?
Could Svendsmarks proof of concepts for his own theories provide this sensitivity?
rbateman (20:43:57) :
All of this reminds me of the cosmological arguments over the State of the Universe. You don’t see anyone trying to hijack that. Good reason not to: there’s nothing to be gained in doing so.
Climate, on the other hand, is fertile grounds for hijack & abuse by agenda.
Climate needs to be defended by Science, not fought over.
If you have not already done so, go back over what this topic heading has to say, and try to find something good in it.
I have already stated 2 things I found to be good.
What do you find?
I found that, this kind of debate stifles learning what is really is going on.
Another example::
In the late 90’s I was an avid follower of the financial climate, (all those mega merger just freaked me) Alan Greenspan was already warning of ‘over exuberance and unsustainablilty.’ The lag time, ten years, before the crash.
rbateman (23:29:14) :
Leif Svalgaard (21:18:26) :
The stakes for cosmology are arguably low.
The price of getting climate wrong in the face of what is planned is playing with matches in a powder magazine.
You know as well as anybody that they aren’t even trying to get it right.
Those agendists haven’t a clue as to what they are fooling around with.
Right on bro, keep on thinking free.
But, I can’t do this climate debate thing, anymore.
Perhaps we need a name change to this blog.
How about “Whats up with Leif”
Not sure we are getting a balanced approach here.
Richard (23:03:02) :
Also that small changes in TSI can eventually have significant impacts on the weather if the cumulative effect is large enough.
TSI has a relatively fixed minimum. All TSI minima drop to this level. The maxima vary from 1366 to 1367 Ignoring 1650 to 1700 period. Assuming that the cycles are sinusoids the variation in average TSI will therefore be about 0.5w/sq metre.
Here is an un-offset TSI plot:
http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/5881/tsi.jpg
There is no visible evidence of 11 year tsi cycles in a FFT of temp the effect is in the noise.
The global air (fast response) sea (slow response) are not significantly responding to 11 year TSI variations.
The 100 year modulation of TSI does not appear in the temp record (The TSI is a driving force on temp. So when TSI average just begins to reduce then so must temperature. There can be no delay / “pre-delay” between TSI and temp)
Changes in TSI or GHGs can only be compensated by increased radiation to space (albedo, LWIR) LWIR is a black body radiation effect and so the earth temp must increase if TSI increases or if the GHG blanket increases. Albedo simply stops some SW light heating the earth.
To me it seems that TSI and TSI timing related solar effects do not affect global temps significantly. All that is left are solar unknowns – gravity, magnetism, gamma rays (not sun originated – galactic), solar wind, yobba rays, pink matter,orange flugal dust etc.
None of these other events – if they are valid – seem to be linked to solar cycles since they do not appear in the temp record in the correct phase/frequency
Geoff Sharp (05:13:05) :
Perhaps we need a name change to this blog.
How about “Whats up with Leif”
Not sure we are getting a balanced approach here.
Perhaps the problem is new threads / new posts are generated saying the same ludicrous/wrong things that Leif has de-loused, corrected, and debunked countless times before. I am amazed that he has the patience to continue correcting!
maksimovich (00:51:37) :
This aspect needs to be resolved,as if the assumed trend was real and persistent due to peculiarities of nonlinear mathematics(saddle-node bifurcation)
I think it is much simpler than that: combination of three things:
1) drifting calibration and degradation of sensors
2) the simple effect of residual solar activity at various minima. If you model TSI like this: TSI = base TSI + a*(sunspot number) [and this is a fairly good model: TSI = 1365.6 + 0.01 * SSN], you’ll see that since SSN in 2008-2009 is low ~ 2.5 and SSN in 1996 was 8.6 and in 1986, 13.4, that TSI just because of that would be [2008-2009] 1365.63, [1996] 1365.69, [1986] 1365.73.
3) the desire of finding SOME variation
Joachim (04:05:02) :
How certain are we about the sensitivity of the climate system to changes in TSI?
There should be at least a temperature increase of 0.07K from solar min to solar max from Stefan-Boltzmann’s law alone . There are people who think they see some 0.15K solar cycle variation in observed temperatures, so there is maybe a clue there. In any event it cannot be large as we do not observe a large solar cycle signal. There are various ways of plastering over this depressing result, e.g. by claiming an integrating effect due to oceans that would suppress variations on the time scale of decades or faster, but they look to me like special pleadings.
Could Svendsmarks proof of concepts for his own theories provide this sensitivity?
The observed sensitivity [cf above] is low, so Svensmark doesn’t really matter here.
Geoff Sharp (05:13:05) :
Not sure we are getting a balanced approach here.
You are not and should not. A balanced approach to keeping a lawn in good shape is to let the weeds grow too.
Leif Svalgaard (19:38:19) :…There are no missing links..”
However you will remember that you asked , in another thread, for someone to show you the link in the relation Sun-Climate.
Perhaps everything is wrongly understood, from the start, if TSI or whatever from the Sun does not correspond to experience and common sense.
Re Corbyn forecasts – apparently the conference was held, but not much about the details revealed. See here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/29/corbyn/
Geoff, I think a lot of us have hunches there is something in the SSB model, but we also respect that the path there has to be patient, laborious science. While I may not agree with Leif’s conclusions, I cannot fault his method or factual observations, and I think he is passionate about objectivity, in his realm. I respect that, even though Leif’s replies to all and sundry can be a bit overwhelming. And we can only conduct a debate here when participants stay very close to evidence and are willing to hear the other side.
The foregoing discussion is quite fascinating but unfortunately completely over my head as a professional engineer. The problem I have is that no one has explained, in layman’s terms and to my satisfaction, what caused the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, and the present warming of the planets in our solar system, if it wasn’t the sun. Nor has it been explained why these cyclic effects, the period of which seems reasonably well established, should not continue and so affect our climate.
The present global warming “debate” reminds me of the old religious arguments, and has almost reached the stage where we have the equivilent of debating how many angels will fit on the head of a pin. If some had their way we would be approaching the Inquision, so bitter has the argument become.
To my mind, the mere fact that the proponents of CO2 being the cause of global warming have used their “hockey stick” graphs to purport to show that the most recent hot and cold spells this millenium did not occur has largely invalidated their argument that CO2 is the cause, apart from any other justification. Had they been able to show honestly how CO2 concentrations had caused them they would be so much more believable.
As an unbiased observer, and whilst not arguing that CO2 has no influence on our climate, I am persuaded that it is the sun that primarily governs the global climate, and shall do so until someone comes up with a better argument than those advanced at present that it is something else.
I agree with Bill (05:53:09) . I don’t know how Leif puts up with some of the snide remarks. I hope he dosn’t give up. As for balance (Geoff Sharp (05:13:05)) I think that Leif is very fair and open minded (unlike the RC-ers). However he calls a spade a spade as he should. That IS balance. Science should be based on facts, not opinion.
climatologist Piers Corbyn holds that solar-charged particles are mostly responsible.
http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/peacearchnews/lifestyles/67061732.html
bill (05:48:03) :
Here is an un-offset TSI plot:
http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/5881/tsi.jpg
Your plot shows nicely how small the solar cycle effects are. On the other hand, the TSI that reaches the Earth varies quite a lot [because the distance to the Sun varies]. Here is an un-offset (real) TSI-plot:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20at%20Earth.png
As everyone can see there is a strong annual variation. The solar cycle effects are also shown on the same plot. Can’t see them? That’s because they are VERY small. When people wring their hands about sensitivity to TSI and amplifications and feedbacks they should remember that those effects would also amplify the annual variation so we should observe enormous annual variations in global temperature. There is actually an annual variation of a few degrees, perhaps 3K [somebody: please research this]. With a TSI variation of 90 W/m2 that would put the sensitivity at 3K/90 per W/m2, so that the 1 W/m2 solar cycle variation would result in a temperature variation of 0.03K.
Climate scientists invariable show the anomalies rather than the actual temperatures. This trick removes most of the annual variation, and people then forget that it exists.
Adolfo Giurfa (06:29:46) :
TSI or whatever from the Sun does not correspond to experience and common sense.
Common sense does not seem to be very common, then, with a statement like that.
Thank you Lief and Bob. You both bring valuable knowledge to this thread.
EW (07:27:16) :
Re Corbyn forecasts – apparently the conference was held, but not much about the details revealed.
and what was revealed sounded pretty much like nonsense, except, of course, the implied plea for funding at the end:
“For weather events, Corbyn identifies bursts of solar electromagnetic activity he calls SWIPS. These can be predicted deterministically, he claims, although he won’t disclose his method. The key is not the 11 year cycle, or even fluctuations in total solar irradiance (TSI), but the 22 year Hale Cycle in sunspot activity, which indicates changes in activity in solar wind. The team had also noticed a lunar modulation – probably two factors. When the Moon was in the Earth’s slipstream, its elevation influenced the climate. There were also other magnetic factors. All these influenced the jet stream, and in turn, weather.
Mathematically in phase space, states are nearly always repeated. Similar states are (nearly) repeated at predictable times. It works because external forcing factors are more important than internal weather noise (transients) on reasonable time scales, of only about 4 days. The changes in energy flow are big – that’s why it actually works.”
He said that he’d unconsciously adopted a quantum approach. “We generate rules that enable us to look back. Harry Fairbrother, a technician at Imperial College, came to one of my events – and he said, ‘I think you do it by quantum mechanics’. I said ‘I do, but I don’t think of it as quantum mechanics.'”
In addition to an 85 per cent success rate, Corbyn’s WeatherAction says it can do more, but is hampered by resources.”
Lucy Skywalker (02:54:38) :”What still stands with Paul Vaughan’s work is the remarkable evidence of a double correlation, not one but two correlations, that have held steady for over two hundred years, with slight fluctuations to both sides that then return to exact correlation. The whole picture is of wheels within wheels.”
Agreed and well said…
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Dear Leif–
I read these entries with much curiousity and no knowledge (my science training ended with core required college Physics I). You seem like an honest scientist, arrogant (that’s OK you’ve earned it) but honest. Using Occam’s razor (and no expertise) I think you have the better of this solar output debate and that these Russians have an ‘agenda’. That said, as best I can piece together, the best explanation for ‘natural’ variabilty and no runaway AGW positive feedbacks is ‘in the clouds’ . Is there any possible causation between solar activity and cloud formation? — I know there is a ‘grand theory’ of cosmic rays and climate that you disagree with, but my question is narrower, is there any possible causation?
The blemish on the life giving sun is moving away from mother earth. Solar flux has dropped to 78.9. It appears that our forces have prevailed over the crushing onslaught of evil.
Yes there are widows and orphans. Many valiant defenders of some weird ideas lay broken on the bloodied field of battle. We must none the less be ready for further sacrifice.
You can be sure that the next blemish will see the forces of Leif The Terrible return.
Protect your kin and be sure he doesn’t capture anymore livestock.
Is the Lean 2000 TSI reconstruction the Yamal of Solar science?
If so too bad we don’t have a paleoclimatologist, that would state a la Leif:
“All in all, this paper cannot be taken seriously.”
Having scanned the commentary it would appear we’re dumber than when we started.
bill (05:53:09) 10/29:
“‘Geoff Sharp (05:13:05) :
Perhaps we need a name change to this blog.
How about “Whats up with Leif”
Not sure we are getting a balanced approach here.’
Perhaps the problem is new threads / new posts are generated saying the same ludicrous/wrong things that Leif has de-loused, corrected, and debunked countless times before. I am amazed that he has the patience to continue correcting!”
I experience Leif as a passionate scientist and teacher/professor of solar science. I look forward to every one of Anthony’s solar blogs because I can depend on Leif’s interest in the best of solar science from his perspective and his willingness to communicate his knowledge to WUWT’s very large international audience. He is generous to new-comers, willing to teach Solar Science 101 over and over again. I learn something new every time and re-remember what I forgot.
He also is an excellent disciplinarian re repetitive-error comments — something like, come on, stop pissing in the wind. If you disagree, disagree with the science in front of you, not hot air.
When I read any research article on solar influence or TSI, I always look to see whose research the authors’ base their conclusions (numbers) on. Makes for enlightened reading. And I have many mini-seminars to while away unused time — if only there were many more such minutes. Thanks, Leif, for this knowledge and much more.
pyromancer76 (09:42:30) : [and several others]
Thanks, Leif, for this knowledge and much more.
Thanks for the kind words, and thanks to Anthony for this blog. As you can see from the often hostile, snide, stupid, nasty, etc comments directed at my person, it is at times thankless to soldier on. I do this because I feel that I can make a contribution towards better understanding of the issues at stake here, even though my view differs a bit from Anthony’s in how important the Sun is for climate – Solar physics doesn’t really belong in a climate blog. Having said that, physics of the Sun and of our wider environment is a fascinating subject in itself and I hope to have communicated my own wonderment and fascination with old Sol to you all [or to those who are willing to listen].
Steve Hempell (09:38:50) :
Is the Lean 2000 TSI reconstruction the Yamal of Solar science?
No. Judith Lean is a very good scientist and has done [and is doing] a terrific job. Everyone of her [many] reconstructions was [is] grounded in solid science at the time. She has known and acknowledged that assumptions behind the reconstructions are subject to improvements. And there have been several such over the 15 years she has been at it. At issue is the source of TSI. Roughly, we can say that TSI is composed of three pieces:
TSI = base + background + solar activity
The ‘base’ is that coming from the nuclear furnace. It is thought to be constant on a time scale of hundred of thousands of year, because it takes that long for the energy to diffuse out from the solar core and that process would dampen shorter variations, but we don’t know this for sure. Eventually, when we have accumulated enough solar neutrino data we might tell.
The ‘solar activity’ part is obvious. We can see TSI increase when there are many bright faculae around sunspots, and we can see TSI decrease from the darkness of the spots themselves. The increase is about twice the decrease, so the net effect is an increase with solar activity as we all know.
The ‘background’ is the hard part. There are small magnetic regions all over the Sun and there is a ‘network’ of magnetic fields organized into ‘supergranules’ by convective motions in the solar photosphere. These small-scale magnetic fields often ‘reconnect’ and cause minor brightenings in the process, and thus contribute to TSI.
The whole debate really comes down to how important the ‘background’ is and if it varies. The network does not seem to vary and recent work suggests that the contribution of the background is rather constant. Page 21 of http://www.leif.org/research/Froehlich-Sofia-2008.pdf shows what we today think the various contributions are and how they vary.
The basic change in the reconstruction of TSI simply reflects our improved knowledge and Lean has made important contributions to the progress and her reconstructions have kept pace with that progress.
A major problem is that people who have an agenda will often go back and find an old reconstruction [that does no longer reflect what we think is happening] that seems to fit their agenda and then pretend that their agenda has support. This is the problem with the Russian paper under discussion here.
gary gulrud (09:39:01) :
Having scanned the commentary it would appear we’re dumber than when we started.
Speaking for yourself?
“Horse(07:38:18) :
The foregoing discussion is quite fascinating but unfortunately completely over my head as a professional engineer.”
I am also an engineer and in basically the same (probably crowded) boat as Horse. The message I am taking away from this sometimes good, sometimes bad, but usually informative conversation is a) known external energy input to the earth is basically constant and can’t account for temperature variations, and therefore, b) global temperature changes are driven by global system dynamics which, with an occasional exception, are not understood. I also discount CO2 as anything other than a bit player. Until someone demonstrates Leif to be wrong I have to accept his argument, which also leaves me confused about apparent correlation between past solar and global temperature events such as the LIA.