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
Leif Svalgaard (21:44:19): “Yes, but it will not be what you think it is. If that 130% change is cut to 5% or increased to 2000% because of [unknown] changes in the Earth’s field, we will have no idea what the flux would be at cloud levels.”
Not so – if the ‘space’ flux is cut to 5% of what it was, we know that the upper bound of the received Earth-modulated flux is reduced to 5% of its previous value too (the upper bound corresponding to no deflection of GCRs, ignoring any hypothetical lensing effect from the magnetic field) – the modulation by the Earth’s magnetic field cannot create GCRs where none exist.
—
LS: “That I need to underscores my experience that believers only look at papers that confirm their beliefs, but here are some recent citations.”There’s a simpler explanation (that has the benefit of being the correct one), but I see you’d rather assume an answer, which as you noted reinforces your own belief. Thanks for the links, though.
You can find a set of references for evidence for the Forbush-climate link in the Kirkby paper, other than the two cited earlier.
Your citations with negative findings don’t rule out the GCR link eg .from one of your cited papers:
“Whether such a signal exists at all can not be ruled out on the basis of the present study, due to the small number of cases and because the strongest Forbush decrease events indicate slightly higher correlations than the average events. Even though those strong events are rare, with only 6 events over 5 years, the amplitude is similar to that occurring during the solar cycle, so from a climate perspective these strong events may deserve particular attention. Further investigations of a larger number of such events are needed before final conclusions can be drawn on the possible role of galactic cosmic rays for clouds and climate.”
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/7373/2008/acp-8-7373-2008.pdf
Are you saying that since some studies haven’t found evidence for GCR-climate effects, and some have, one must conclude that the effect is nonexistent or negligable? The history of science shows that this would be unwise (even if it you considers it a ‘good bet’, for resource-preserving purposes or otherwise).
—
LS: “It seems to me that Shaviv is assuming that things were comparable to what they are now, as he also does not posses that knowledge.”
Shaviv’s derivation of Phanerozoic GCR levels did not rely on any knowledge of the Earth’s climate system – it was only when estimating the effect on terrrestrial temperature that he referred to it. You, however, referred to the Earth’s climate system as part of your argument to rule out the possibility of large galactic GCR flux changes.
—
LS: “No, because item 4 does not derive from their analysis. And 0.1C is below the noise in their data and analysis. My own calculations indicate a change of 0.07C, which I round to 0.1C.”
You yourself demonstrated that the solar-cycle correlation wasn’t present for the last seven years or so in an extension of T&C’s analysis. Therefore some modification of item 4 would seem sensible, unless you reject the T&C analysis altogether, and not just their conclusion.
Pamela Gray (06:52:30) :
From this experiment, it was easy to see just how insignificant our planets are compared to the Sun. The gravitational effects, combined, don’t have a chance in hell of pulling out spots on the Sun.
The folksy down home classroom science is appealing, but misleading.
The gravitational effect of Jupiter alone pulls the sun a couple of sun radii out of the centre of the solar system. The effect is leveraged by the fact the radius of the sun’s orbit is changed so radically by the four gas giants. It’s not the gravitational effect of a single planet which is at issue, but the way the multibody motions cause the sun to change course sufficiently for a significant differential effect to occur across it’s diameter. And these motions repeat and build amplifying and diminishing resonance effects that reverberate across large time spans.
A small human being can bring a large flagpole crashing down by applying a small repetitive force at the right time so as to get an oscillation going. It’s all about timing, and leverage.
But you keep teaching them how insignificant everything is, if that’s what floats your boat.
Fascinating comments anna,
The fact that the climate models are inadequate is clearly shown when their results are compared side-by-side. The results are always different. 10 climate models, 10 different results given the same problem. If they are back tested to ensure validity in relation to “what has already occurred”, how odd that the projections deviate so consistently.
Thanks for the link to NASA’s plankton study. Its amazing to discover logical climate factors; Plankton make clouds to avoid sunburn. Who knew : )
“The gravitational effect of Jupiter alone pulls the sun a couple of sun radii out of the centre of the solar system.”
Properly speaking, the Sun and the planets revolve in elliptical orbits about their centres of mass; for the Sun/Jupiter system, that centre of mass lies about 1.8 radii from the Sun’s centre.
Paul Vaughan (01:02:25) :
Now maybe you can direct some of your hostility at the convention of using ‘anomalies’ in climate science?
What are the units on your plot? km/s?. It is a good idea to use units such that the numbers are closer to unity, so that 0.000001 shows as 1.
The anomalies serve a purpose: to eliminate seasonal variations. And it would, in fact, be useful to now and then plot the absolute temperatures, to remind people of how small climate change actually is.
maksimovich (01:59:34) :
We show why the measurement of the full spectrum is difficult, and why it is illusory to retrieve it from its atmospheric effects.
Nobody does that. It is measured in space by observing the Sun.
A direct effect of solar-UV changes can almost certainly
be rouled out as a mechanism for the observed large decadal
scale changes of polar ozone.
Tell that to people that claim that UV is becoming more and more important.
Many variables in the Earth’s magnetosphere vary with the solar cycle, so the electrons may just vary along with the rest, so why single those out? And electrons are charged. They can’t easily get to the ozone layer. Precipitating particles don’t get that deep into the atmosphere.
tallbloke (01:09:25) :
Why would I want to share our developing knowledge with you?
So you don’t want to share substantiation of your ‘finding’ that JPL presupposes the constancy of AM. Ah well, maybe ‘Nothing there. Move on’.
JPL Horizons uses various ad hoc ‘epicycles’ in it’s calculations which could be hiding it.
Is not correct [as with most of your post]. JPL integrates the basic equations of planetary movements. There is nothing ad-hoc and no cycles imposed.
Re: Brian G Valentine (Mar 16 07:06),
They might be aware of error propagation, but they do not give error bars on their spaghetti projections. They just go ahead and vary according to taste the parameters and give another spaghetti for the graphs. This is documented in AR4 in chapter 8. Look for “likelihood”. Giving error bars, statistical plus systematic is what error propagation means for outputs of models. I know, I have been running models for 30 years for a different discipline ( particle physics).
That is why such techniques as “flux correlation: are employed. It is not possible to prevent small disturbances either from roundoff error or nonlinear magnification from causing “solutions” (the time evolution of the system of conservation laws) from blowing up over extended iterations – so the “models” are stopped and restarted from time to time from new initial and boundary conditions if previous iterations are not reliable as new initial conditions. These are typicall generated from other models, and conditions are matched to preserve continuity of solutions. (flux correlation.)
!!!!!
According to the taste of the modeler, as chapter 8 says.
I am sure if proper error propagation were used the error bars would be of the order of +/-2C.
The largest discrepancy is the rainfall patterns predicted by GCM modeling, which are nearly completely off. That shows that the heat transfer in the atmosphere could not be accounted for correctly
But is not heat what all the overheating hype is about? A 3% change in albedo gives 2C errors in simple black body models. If rain clouds are completely off, what is the error in albedo?
The whole climate modeling is a video game played by the modelers, that unfortunately is used to panic the western world into economic immolation that will lead the third world into starvation.
I agree with you completely, Anna, all I am saying, is that the rainfall patterns are way off (especially in the Tropics, where any “greenhouse” disturbance must be evident if it is present at all).
The rain fixes how much heat is transferred from one portion of the atmosphere to another, and if that isn’t right, then the whole of the heat transfer mechanism as described must be wrong – and I don’t care what happens afterward; cloud or no cloud
anna v (06:31:04) :
Are you saying there are no “frequencies” (cycles) in nature, just, and only, delta x’s? So are tides just delta x’s? Diurnal temperature variation? Seasonal climate variation? I mean, I thought the difference between winter and summer had something to do with the earth’s transit around the sun, and that there was a predictable frequency about it. You are telling me that it is just chaos? Or what about Milankovitch cycles?
Of course, even cycles have “delta x’s,” so I’m not sure where you are going with this. It seems, from your comment ‘”One should never stop saying that ‘correlation is not causation'” that you are almost implying that correlation is never causation. And that would repudiate the scientific endeavor entirely. Science is nothing if not a quest to say “A causes B.” Now, because of the possibility of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, such statements must be falsifiable, and we should never cease in looking for evidence that would falsify the correlation we observe between A and B.
I do not understand why nature cannot be a bit of both — cycles and dynamical chaos. When Paul said that Tsonis et al hadn’t explained anything, I took him to be calling attention that even if you can predict temperature changes from observed patterns like the PDO, El Nino, AMO, etc., that until you can explain where those patterns come from, you haven’t really explained anything. Let’s assume that they got it right in explaining how these things can interact to create patterns of temperature change. Is the science of climate done? Are there no more questions to ask? Do we not care what is causing the delta x’s (here PDO, El Nino, etc.)?
Then we have the issue of Occam’s razor to deal with. Your initial reference to Tsonis was in response to my suggestion that a simple combination of two cycles, one approximately a decade in length, and the other approximately two decades in length, can create a beat wave with amplitude envelopes that vary over multiple decades, similar to how global temperatures have in fact varied during the instrumental period. So now we have two explanations, both leading to a similar prediction. Which is the simpler explanation? I’m still on the fence. But I’m not ruling out a lunisolar influence, just because of Tsonis.
Re: tallbloke (Mar 16 07:16),
Have you thought what happens to the sun in the geocentric system? Running around the earth once a day? Think of the angular momentum. And the planets dancing around the ecliptic? Must get dizzy.
All coordinate systems that can be transformed by linear transformations to each other are equivalent as far as geometry goes. It is the physical forces that can affect the motion, external and internal ( tides) of sun and planets. Everything else is no sense.
oneuniverse (07:13:34) :
if the ’space’ flux is cut to 5% of what it was
The space flux is not cut or augmented. What we observe on the Earth is cut or augmented [relative to what we observe today] by variation of the Earth’s magnetic field. Without knowing the Earth’s magnetic field it is impossible to say what the GCR flux at cloud levels were.
the modulation by the Earth’s magnetic field cannot create GCRs
By decreasing the Earth’s magnetic field, the GCR flux at cloud level increases, even if it does not change in space.
Are you saying that since some studies haven’t found evidence for GCR-climate effects, and some have, one must conclude that the effect is nonexistent or negligible?
What I’m saying is that science relies on replication. If someone makes a claim, others seek to replicate the analysis to verify the claim, and it is that verification that is increasingly failing. Persistent failure eventually dooms the claim.
You, however, referred to the Earth’s climate system as part of your argument to rule out the possibility of large galactic GCR flux changes.
If the changes in GCR flux now have a strong effect on temperature, e.g. is responsible for GW, then the temperature in the past puts limits on the flux in the past.
Therefore some modification of item 4 would seem sensible, unless you reject the T&C analysis altogether, and not just their conclusion.
I show that the change at the level they suggested [0.2C] is not backed up by newer data. It is still possible that there is a variation at a lower level [e.g. the 0.07C that I calculate there must be simply because of the change of input from the Sun] which is too small to be visible above the noise.
anna v @ur momisugly 8:11:39
Your last paragraph is critical: “used to panic the western world into economic immolation that will lead the third world into starvation”. This insight is why I was able to predict two years ago that Copenhagen would go down in flames over China’s attempt to extort the West over their ‘carbon guilt’.
Leif, is there a contradiction in ‘measuring the full spectrum in space by observing the sun’ and ‘analyzing on earth the history of cosmic rays which have been acted upon by the earth’s magnetic field’?
================
Basil (08:21:01) :
Do we not care what is causing the delta x’s (here PDO, El Nino, etc.)?
Of course we do, and that is the physics part. But we do not believe that there are cycles out there that cause the deltas. The cycles we observe are the [side-]result of physical forces, not something mythical the physics has to conform to.
kim (08:39:21) :
Leif, is there a contradiction in ‘measuring the full spectrum in space by observing the sun’ and ‘analyzing on earth the history of cosmic rays which have been acted upon by the earth’s magnetic field’?
No, but possibly some confusion on your part. E.g. the meaning of ‘spectrum’. And confusion between rays and particles [cosmic rays are not rays].
Anybody who thinks the Chinese want to play the “reduce carbon let’s go green” game is out of their mind.
The Chinese view CO2 as a GIFT to the world to grow the food they eat (so do I in fact).
Why they don’t come out and tell the West to go (fill in the blank) is a mystery to me – I guess they’re too polite to send people like Boxer and Pelosi back home packing when they want to come to China and mouth off about “climate negotiating”
“We’re prb’ly very fortunate to have such a constant sun.”
Along with being nearly the perfect distance from the sun, an orbit that only varies by 7%, a good magnetic field for protection from the sun, etc.
Leif @ur momisugly 8:48:53
Perhaps, I’m confused. Perhaps you observe the phenomena of the sun directly from space sometimes, and sometimes from earth modified data, like our record of the effect of cosmic rays.
==================
kim (09:11:50) :
Perhaps, I’m confused.
We get light and heat from the Sun [sunshine], that is the ‘spectrum’. Then we get the solar wind [particles] but with a total energy of a millionth of the sunshine. Then we get cosmic rays [particles] from the Galaxy [and VERY rarely from the Sun], but with total energy a thousandth of that of the solar wind. Curiously we also get ‘cosmic rays’ from the ground [because it is slightly radioactive]. At low altitudes the ‘ground’ rays are more intense than the ‘galactic’ rays.
I was unaware of that, as I have only vague familiarity with this petition project. It’s an amateurish blunder. A skilled propagandist, such as one hired by King Coal, would have avoided such a transparent over-reach, which hands the opposition a chance to counterpunch effectively.
Well, the Bible didn’t refer to the seven plagues as catastrophic, because it didn’t have to. The value judgment was implicit in the collective impact of the plagues it enumerated: i.e., in drought + famine + etc. Similarly, catastrophe is implicit in rising sea levels + drought + more storms, etc. listed in AR4. The only reason the IPCC avoided the word “catastrophe” is that it, unlike Robinson, was a skillful propagandist, knowing the effectiveness of understatement and the perils of overstatement. BTW, here’s a wonderful quote on that topic, from pages 19-20 of Brian Martin’s Strip the Experts:
kim (09:11:50) :
Leif @ur momisugly 8:48:53
No wonder you are confused, Leif observes from Leif’s point of view.
Leif: The space flux is not cut or augmented.
I should have said “If the space flux falls to 5% of it’s previous value..”. A semantic quibble – the space flux varies, for whatever reasons (galactic environs, nova activity etc.).
“Without knowing the Earth’s magnetic field it is impossible to say what the GCR flux at cloud levels were. ”
As already mentioned, knwoing the space flux allows us to place an upper bound on the TOA or clould level flux.
What I’m saying is that science relies on replication. If someone makes a claim, others seek to replicate the analysis to verify the claim, and it is that verification that is increasingly failing. Persistent failure eventually dooms the claim.
There are, as far as I’m aware, more studies finding evidence for the GCR-climate link than there are against it.
For example, you cited 3 papers looking for and not finding strong evidence for a Forbush-climate effect, while I cited 2 that did, and pointed you to the Kirkby paper which would lead to at least 3 more ‘positive’ Forbush studies. You did say “etc. etc.”, so maybe we need to review, but prima facie, I see no persistent failure. Replication is trickier in the confounded Earth ‘lab’, too.
If the changes in GCR flux now have a strong effect on temperature, e.g. is responsible for GW, then the temperature in the past puts limits on the flux in the past.
We don’t know the limiting terrestrial factors governing the putative GCR-effected warming or cooling, so I don’t see how you can proceed with that calculation with any confidence.
Apologies for the spelling mistakes : knwoing->knowing, cloudl ->cloud
So the climate models include downward long wave?
Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008
Received 25 January 2009; accepted 2 July 2009; published 1 October 2009.
Citation: Wang, K., and S. Liang (2009), Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D19101, doi:10.1029/2009JD011800.
source: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml
“In this article, we first evaluate two widely accepted methods to estimate global atmospheric downward longwave radiation (L d ) under both clear and cloudy conditions, using meteorological observations from 1996 to 2007 at 36 globally distributed sites, operated by the Surface Radiation Budget Network (SURFRAD), AmeriFlux, and AsiaFlux Projects. The breakdown of locations is North America (20 sites), Asia (12 sites), Australia (2 sites), Africa (1 site), and Europe (1 site). Latitudes for these sites range from 0° at the equator to ±50°; elevation ranges from 98 to 4700 m, and six different land cover types are represented (deserts, semideserts, croplands, grasslands, forests, and wetlands). The evaluation shows that the instantaneous L d under all-sky conditions is estimated with an average bias of 2 W m−2 (0.6%), an average standard deviation (SD) of 20 W m−2 (6%), and an average correlation coefficient (R) of 0.86. Daily L d under all-sky conditions is estimated with a SD of 12 W m−2 (3.7%) and an average R of 0.93. These results suggest that these two methods could be applied to most of the Earth’s land surfaces. Accordingly, we applied them to globally available meteorological observations to estimate decadal variation in L d . The decadal variations in global L d under both clear and cloudy conditions at about 3200 stations from 1973 to 2008 are presented. We found that daily L d increased at an average rate of 2.2 W m−2 per decade from 1973 to 2008. The rising trend results from increases in air temperature, atmospheric water vapor, and CO2 concentration.”
oneuniverse (10:41:06) :
“Without knowing the Earth’s magnetic field it is impossible to say what the GCR flux at cloud levels were. ”
As already mentioned, knowing the space flux allows us to place an upper bound on the TOA or clould level flux.
That upper bound, UB, says nothing about where the flux at cloud level is between 0 and UB, so you cannot correlate meaningfully.
There are, as far as I’m aware, more studies finding evidence for the GCR-climate link than there are against it.
The number of studies is a function of time. I showed links to very recent studies, but counting links pro/con is silly. Only independent studies [using different e.g. newer data] should be of interest. The main reason for rejecting the GCR hypothesis is the same now as when it was first proposed, namely that apart from the solar cycle variation there has been no trend in cosmic rays [at minimum when there are the most and their effect should be the greatest] since at least the 1950s and probably longer [from the observed near constancy of the heliospheric magnetic field at minimum since at least 1835], while there has been significant changes in temperature [at least such is claimed – and if there has been no change then there is nothing to explain].
My point is that the very existence of recent failures to confirm the correlation by independent studies shows that the cosmic ray hypothesis cannot be said to be established.
John from CA (10:54:29) :
So the climate models include downward long wave?
Of course they do. They include every effect we know of and can be quantified [or at least parameterized].
“Cosmic rays” are (extra) galactic radiation; of wavelengths below what is ordinarily classified as “gamma” rays (as a result of cascading of particles as cosmic rays traverse the atmosphere, the apparent origin in the sky of cosmic rays is extremely difficult to pinpoint)
“Solar wind” is composed (mostly) of protons, and when their speeds exceed soundspeed in the ionosphere they are deflected from the Earth’s magnetosphere creating a (visible) bow shock, which (evidently) can influence upper atmospheric cloud formation