Dr. Nicola Scafetta has written an extensive summary of the state of climate science today. He’s done some very extensive analysis of the solar contribution that bears examination. Pay particular attention to this graph from page 49:
WUWT readers may remember him from some previous papers and comments he’s written that have been covered here:
Scafetta: New paper on TSI, surface temperature, and modeling
Scafetta: Benestad and Schmidt’s calculations are “robustly” flawed.
He writes to me with this introduction:
On February 26, 2009 I was invited by the Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Science Advisor (OSA) and National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) to present a talk about my research on climate change. I thought that the best way to address this issue was to present an overview of all topics involved about the issue and their interconnections.
So, I prepared a kind of holistic presentation with the title “Climate Change and Its Causes, A Discussion about Some Key Issues”. Then, a colleague from Italy who watched my EPA presentation suggested me to write a paper in Italian and submit it to an Italian science journal which was recently published.
========================
Download the report here (PDF -warning over 10 MB – long download time on slow connections)
This work covers most topics presented by Scafetta at a seminar at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, DC USA, February 26, 2009. A video of the seminar is here:
The Italian version of the original paper can be downloaded (with possible journal restrictions) from here
========================
Here is the table of contents, there’s something in this report for everyone:
Climate Change and Its Causes: A Discussion About Some Key Issues
Introduction … 4
The IPCC’s pro-anthropogenic warming bias … 6
The climate sensitivity uncertainty to CO2 increase … 8
The climatic meaning of Mann’s Hockey Stick temperature graph … 10
The climatic meaning of recent paleoclimatic temperature reconstructions … 12
The phenomenological solar signature since 1600 … 14
The ACRIM vs. PMOD satellite total solar irradiance controversy … 16
Problems with the global surface temperature record … 18
A large 60 year cycle in the temperature record … 19
Astronomical origin of the climate oscillations … 22
Conclusion … 26
Bibliography … 27
Appendix…29-54
A: The IPCC’s anthropogenic global warming theory … 29
B: Chemical vs. Ice-Core CO2 atmospheric concentration estimates … 30
C: Milky Way’s spiral arms, Cosmic Rays and the Phanerozoic temperature cycles … 31
D: The Holocene cooling trend and the millennial-scale temperature cycles … 32
E: The last 1000 years of global temperature, solar and ice cover data … 33
F: The solar dynamics fits 5000 years of human history … 34
G: The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age – A global phenomenon … 35
H: Compatibility between the AGWT climate models and the Hockey Stick … 36
I: The 11-year solar cycle in the global surface temperature record … 37
J: The climate models underestimate the 11-year solar cycle signature … 38
K: The ACRIM-PMOD total solar irradiance satellite composite controversy … 39
L: Willson and Hoyt’s statements about the ACRIM and Nimbus7 TSI published data .. 40
M: Cosmic ray flux, solar activity and low cloud cover positive feedback … 41
N: Possible mechanisms linking cosmic ray flux and cloud cover formation … 42
O: A warming bias in the surface temperature records? … 43
P: A underestimated Urban Heat Island effect? … 44
Q: A 60 year cycle in multisecular climate records … 45
R: A 60 year cycle in solar, geological, climate and fishery records … 46
S: The 11-year solar cycle and the V-E-J planet alignment … 47
T: The 60 and 20 year cycles in the wobbling of the Sun around the CMSS … 48
U: The 60 and 20 year cycles in global surface temperature and in the CMSS … 49
V: A 60 year cycle in multisecular solar records … 50
W: The bi-secular solar cycle: Is a 2010-2050 little ice age imminent? … 51
X: Temperature records do not correlate to CO2 records … 52
Y: The CO2 fingerprint: Climate model predictions and observations disagree … 53
Z: The 2007 IPCC climate model projections. Can we trust them? … 54
Enneagram (11:18:16) :
“Experience shows that non-scientists don’t do much scientific work, because it is hard to do correctly”
But the history of science shows that it is often an intruder’s fresh ideas that eventually trigger the biggest advances.
There was a time when science was simple enough that there were no scientists. And your surgeon was the barber down the street.
The low-hanging fruit has already been plucked. It is hard to do science today because you need to know so much [because science knows so much] and by the time you have learned what it takes to practice science [or medicine, …] you have become a scientist.
A C Osborn (11:07:09) :
and then Leif goes on to quote his favourite “Milankovich cycles” as being OK
The Milankovich cycles were not found by correlation, but M advanced a physical reason for why there should be such cycles. Much later observational evidence was found that supported his physics-based theory. That is why it has been generally accepted.
that a correlation is established unequivocally. If it is not found the postulated theory falls on its face.
And that is just what is happening to the sunspot-climate theory.
Does that then invalidate the original theory?
Pretty much as per your own statement [“falls on its face”]
Shouldn’t all the possibilities have been considered.
Only if they make physically sense.
It does at least show the complexity of the things that could be contributing, however small the contribution, to our climate.
There are undoubtedly subtle effects that contribute, but the issue is whether they make the Sun a major driver of climate as is claimed, and there is little evidence for that when you have to scrounge around for ‘however small contributions’. Scafetta claims that up to 65% of climate variability is solar activity related, but has not presented convincing evidence that holds up to scrutiny.
Leif Svalgaard (07:28:27) :
Hey Leif. Not ignoring. Will be back to you later once I can make sure its clear and as correct as possible. Don’t want to get tangled in terms! 🙂
Did he represent it as “a meaningful representation” in a statistical sense? If not, he’s innocent on that score. If all he was trying to do was rebut the canard that only Neandertals are disbelievers, it is valid and useful. If there are tens of thousands of technically trained dissenters, it counts for something.
Well, I’d agree with that too. First, because “manmade influence” includes landscape changes, which as Cristy or Spencer argues are more significant than CO2; and second because “significant” equates to one degree per century, which isn’t cause enough to justify alarm.
Heck, I’d even agree if the poll had asked if “action is justified now.” I’d agree with a “no regrets” policy of encouraging nuclear power and natural gas, encouraging better building insulation, using plasma furnaces to burn our garbage and capture power thereby, and perhaps “boron cars,” as described in the book, Prescription for the Planet.
oops–Make that Pielke Sr., not Spencer or Cristy.
DirkH (23:01:08) :
“Anu (22:12:26) :
[…]
Meanwhile, back in the real world, let’s look at that same data from NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies, since they estimate polar temperatures left out by HadCrut and the satellite datasets (UAH, RSS):
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
”
You have the “estimate” right there.
Unfortunately we can’t say “measure” because they have nothing up there that measures anything. So much for your pompous “Meanwhile, back in the real world,”; i suggest a “Meanwhile, back in the brain of James Hansen”.
———
Temperature anomalies and trends are highly correlated over substantial geographical distances. This is why all the planetary datasets on warming speak of “anomalies” wrt some baseline average, rather than average temperatures. This fact underlies the GISS estimates of polar temperatures:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1987/Hansen_Lebedeff.html
We analyze surface air temperature data from available meteorological stations with principal focus on the period 1880-1985. The temperature changes at mid- and high latitude stations separated by less than 1000 km are shown to be highly correlated; at low latitudes the correlation falls off more rapidly with distance for nearby stations.
The Journal of Geophysical Research paper describing why this methodology is good enough, in the absence of very expensive additional observation stations and 90 deg inclination polar orbit satellites, is here.
Note Fig 1 showing the dense meteorological station coverage of the Arctic.
If you can cite any research showing high resolution measurements at the poles proving this to be in error, do so. Perhaps you are one of the few people in the world that knows more about this subject than NASA.
Dave F (23:57:06) :
Is English your first language ?
Yes, 0.33 deg C warming of the Earth is warming of the Earth.
If you don’t have a paper dictionary, try this:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/warm
Well, in reality, since warming is on a decimal level, you have to correct both sides of your equation to relate to reality. See, we are talking about the Earth, of which there is one.
Did you take “Physics for Poets” ?
So our dividend is more like 1 share = $.00033.
Most stocks don’t pay dividends anymore – people look for stock prices to go up, then sell. If a stock goes up by $3.30, that is profit.
In fact, given the fraction of a degree we can measure Earth’s temperature to on a surface basis, I find it odd that we can not simply study patterns of temperature flow to arrive at a meaningful weather prediction system. What do you think about this?
Weather prediction is different than climate prediction, just as physics is different than chemistry. Different concepts, different scales, different “laws”.
And please answer the important question this time instead of running off into distractions.
“this time” ?
Did you ask me this important question before, under a different name ?
tallbloke (03:30:40) :
Leif’s own research shows that solar activity increased from 1900 to 1960, with another peak in the 1980’s. This activity level has now dropped back to ~1900 levels again.
Along with the ~60 year cycles identified by Scafeta and many others, this provides a potentially viable explaination for terrestrial temperature change in the C20th, given an amplifying effect from cloud albedo.
——————–
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
Even in the satellite era, there is some controversy over the exact level of TSI, how this might be changing, and the changes to sub-spectrums of this irradiance.
How this might affect Earth’s climate is another subject.
Are you sure the “solar activity” (do you mean just sunspots, or other measured phenomena also) translates reliably into higher TSI ? If there is controversy over the ACRIM gap of the early 1990’s, I imagine the controversy over 1900 to 1960 indirect measurements would be even greater.
I’d like to see some research on other G-type V-class stars like the Sun, at about 4.6 billion years of age. Does the total brightness vary much over decades and centuries ? What about the spectrum ? Looking at thousands of near-Suns could give lots of insight about what to expect from our Sun.
Any citations out there ?
Anu (12:56:00) :
I’d like to see some research on other G-type V-class stars like the Sun, at about 4.6 billion years of age. Does the total brightness vary much over decades and centuries ? What about the spectrum ? Looking at thousands of near-Suns could give lots of insight about what to expect from our Sun.
There are such studies [although finding good solar ‘analogs’ has turned out to be harder than thought]. Here is the program from a recent ‘Solar Analog’ meeting: http://www.lowell.edu/workshops/SolarAnalogsII/program.php
‘Solar’ type cycles indeed exist [and with periods around 10 years – these stars must have Jupiters too], but the trouble is we have not observed them for centuries, so don’t know their real long-term variations, if any.
Did he represent it as “a meaningful representation” in a statistical sense? If not, he’s innocent on that score.
Yes, according to Robinson 32,000 out of a population that numbers in the multi-millions is enough to form a concensus.
The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it.
The polite word for this is nonsense.
Note also that he misrepresents his own petition. This speaks of human influences resulting in ‘catastrophic’ warming and disruption.
Catastophic is a value judgement, and the word occurs nowhere in the IPCC reports.
http://www.petitionproject.org/frequently_asked_questions.php
See also http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/07/petitioning-on-climate-part-1.html
Bob Tisdale (06:30:16)
Would be curious to get your thoughts, or anyone else’s for that matter, in regards to what is responsible for the warming between 1911-1945.
If it’s not the PDO, and it’s not TSI… then what could it be?
Anu (12:56:00) :
I’d like to see some research on other G-type V-class stars like the Sun, at about 4.6 billion years of age.
Here are some current thoughts on the ‘Sun in Time’:
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2007-3/
Phil Clarke (13:17:08),
Everything you said about the OISM Petition applies equally to the alarmist petitions.
Further, your implication that people didn’t understand what they were signing is ridiculous. We’re not talking about Al Gore here, we’re talking about people educated in the hard sciences.
I understand that it bothers you to lose the consensus argument, but you folks were the ones who made it an issue.
Anu (12:56:00) :
I’d like to see some research on other G-type V-class stars like the Sun, at about 4.6 billion years of age.
More this: http://spaceweb.oulu.fi/spaceclimate/presentations/symposium/Thursday_19.3/Session3/Hall-Saariselka-2009.ppt
Leif Svalgaard (10:45:57) :
Richard M (10:06:53) :
I’m surprised that no one has pointed out that a decimal “Leif score” is nonsense. If you agree with only the first point the value will be over 16,000. If you don’t agree with the first point the value will be less by definition. A “Leif sum” would make more sense in demonstrating the number of items in agreement.
Read it carefully [a rare thing on this blog 🙂 ]. The ’score’ is indeed a ’sum’. The 16000 etc is the ‘number’ and does not by its magnitude mean anything, but its distribution of 1s and 0s shows details of agreements/disagreements. A better way of expressing that [as I suggested] would be using the hexadecimal notion, e.g. 1FC40, not inducing people to make numerical comparisons [except when you are a computer geek – like me].
I did read it carefully which is why I specifically said the “decimal” was nonsense (unless you’re into obfuscation). And, yes, given my 45 years of programming I’m probably a bigger computer geek than you are, so I was simply pointing out the problems of using decimal to those who might not be geeks.
Question:
“What is Dr. Nicola Scafetta doing to get his “60 year cycle”?”
Answer:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/V_Sun_SSB_60a.htm
Leif Svalgaard (11:23:37):
“Look at their Figure 2. Now extend the graph to today. dT is the highest since 1957 [covered by their graph] and solar activity the lowest, so their suggested correlation did not hold up. ”
I couldn’t extend their analysis without some preparation (if you’ve done so, please consider sharing if possible). The correlations mentioned in the paper are not suggested, as far as I can see, but rather found in existing data – if you mean to say that there is no detectable solar-attributed 11-year signal in the last 7 years or so, contrary to the preceding decades of data considered in the paper, then you may need to modify item 4 in your 14-point list. (I apologise if I’ve misunderstood your point.)
The ~0.2C variation over the solar cycle is deduced from analysis of observation data – their concluding speculation about the mechanism is ad-hoc (given that the ‘climate gain factor’ is an ad-hoc explanation, as far as I can see).
Leif Svalgaard: “There are people that put together bits and pieces from papers they don’t understand and hardly read to jump to conclusions that ’support’ their beliefs.”
I’m aware that others have drawn unwarranted conclusions from T&C.
anna v (04:54:10) “The Tsonis et al paper used the PDO ENSO, NAO, NPO cycles in a neural net program and came up with the fall of temperatures for the next twenty years, too, without invoking other mechanisms except chaotic beats in these currents.”
Lovely, but it doesn’t explain anything. A defeatist “can’t do” approach plays STRAIGHT into the hands of alarmists, who seize widespread over-reliance on “chaos” as an opportunity to tangle the population’s imagination in mythical computer fantasies.
Everything you said about the OISM Petition applies equally to the alarmist petitions.
Name just one other petition that was accompanied by a bogus academic paper?
Further, your implication that people didn’t understand what they were signing is ridiculous. We’re not talking about Al Gore here, we’re talking about people educated in the hard sciences.
Another Straw Man, I made no such implication.
I understand that it bothers you to lose the consensus argument, but you folks were the ones who made it an issue.
<1% of all Engineers, Doctors, Scientists and Vetinarians does not comprise a concensus. 97% of climatologists is more like it.
Bye for now.
Paul Vaughan (14:01:28) :
“What is Dr. Nicola Scafetta doing to get his “60 year cycle”?”
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/V_Sun_SSB_60a.htm
You ‘cheat’ a bit. Re-plot all graphs to the same vertical scale [e.g. km/s or m/s or AU/year or some such].
Leif Svalgaard (14:29:23) “You ‘cheat’ a bit.”
I will add a clarifying note at the bottom of the page. Then you can retract your false accusation.
Leif Svalgaard (08:17:07) :
tallbloke (21:22:27) :
JPL Horizons presupposes that the solar system’s angular momentum sums to zero between the sun and planets, so you wouldn’t expect to find the energy of a spin-orbit coupling there.
It is this kind of statement that brands you as a crank.
It’s that kind of statement that brands you as an ignorant person.
Anu (12:56:00) :
tallbloke (03:30:40) :
Leif’s own research shows that solar activity increased from 1900 to 1960, with another peak in the 1980’s. This activity level has now dropped back to ~1900 levels again.
Are you sure the “solar activity” (do you mean just sunspots, or other measured phenomena also) translates reliably into higher TSI ? If there is controversy over the ACRIM gap of the early 1990’s, I imagine the controversy over 1900 to 1960 indirect measurements would be even greater.
Well there is a difference between Leif’s reconstruction and that of some other researchers, but the difference is more of magnitude than shape they all agre about the rise from 1900 to 1960 with the secondary peak in the ’80s. It’s a reconstruction derived from geomagnetic records which have a solar component which can be isolated. Pretty reliable.
Leif Svalgaard (10:35:16):
“Apart from the difficulties of determining the paleo-data [especially the cosmic ray intensity], there is little evidence from modern data to suggest the notion, so little reason to suspect it in the deep past.”
The first part of this statement is in contrast to Kirkby’s, concerning the quality and diversity of the paleo-observations. You yourself kindly pointed me to a reconstruction on your site from proxy records . Not to dismiss the difficulties with proxy reconstructions, but not to dismiss the proxies altogether either.
There is more than a little evidence in the modern instrumental data to support the GCR-climate link eg. see the discussion in section 3.2 of the Kirkby paper referenced earlier ( http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf ).
Dr. Svalgaard: “Since we don’t know how the Earth magnetic field varied hundreds of millions of years ago we can hardly say anything about the cosmic ray flux back then.”
Nir Shaviv used iron meteorites as proxies for GCR flux (Shaviv 2002), and compared them with striking results to a temperature reconstruction covering the same period (Shaviv & Veizer 2003) . The 2003 paper initiated some back-and-forth in the literature, best characterised by the poor scholarship of the challenges to the paper it seems (please see links at foot of post).
Shaviv 2002, “Cosmic ray diffusion from the galactic spiral arms, iron meteorites, and a possible climatic connection”
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/PRLice.pdf
Shaviv & Veizer 2003, “Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?”
http://www.juniata.edu/projects/oceans/GL111/celestialdriverofclimate.pdf
Responses & counter-repsonses to the ‘Celestial Driver’ paper covered below (Shaviv’s website):
http://www.sciencebits.com/ClimateDebate
http://www.sciencebits.com/JahnkeResponse
http://www.sciencebits.com/nature_comment
http://www.sciencebits.com/RealClimateSlurs
tallbloke (14:50:29) :
“JPL Horizons presupposes that the solar system’s angular momentum sums to zero between the sun and planets, so you wouldn’t expect to find the energy of a spin-orbit coupling there.”
I believe Dr. Scafetta uses the speed (scalar) of the sun wrt the barycenter and not the angular velocity. There is a difference.