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
Missing link to Beer et al 1998
http://www.whoi.edu/science/GG/paleoseminar/pdf/beeretal88.pdf
Leif, have a good night. I have no particular investment in the outcome of the cloud question – it’s interesting, and the GCR possibility is interesting. I don’t believe it can be ruled out on the current research, and there is some supporting evidence.
Thank you for sharing the Christl et al. paper. I went ahead and bought it too – IP and all that.
oneuniverse (21:09:20) :
I don’t believe it can be ruled out on the current research, and there is some supporting evidence.
My point is not to rule anything out, but to point out that the hypothesis is not so established at all, as many claim it is. To the point where it has become almost a ‘religion’ like AGW, Electric Universe, etc.
From a 2010 paper co-authored by Beer [he has learned something since 1988]: “[20] The radionuclide concentration data contains two components: (1) a production signal induced by solar magnetic activity and long-term changes in the geomagnetic field intensity and (2) a (atmospheric) system signal related to the geochemical properties of cosmogenic radionuclides and climate effects.”
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009JA014193.pdf
From: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004.pdf comparing different ice cores:
“The good long-term agreement between 10Be variations in both cores reflects a regional response to production and climate changes, but the disagreements in the earlier parts of the two records suggest that 10Be should be measured in ice cores from locations with non-complex ice flow regimes.”
So, there is a growing realization that climate has an influence as well. What bugs me a little bit is that people in such discussions dredge up old papers without checking if something has been learned in the meantime.
“The observed changes in radionuclide concentrations between grand solar minima and grand solar maxima are mainly due to production rate changes as shown by McCracken [2004] and Heikkila¨ et al. [2008]. While the climate-induced system effects on the transport and the deposition of 10Be are comparatively small, they are not negligible.”
So the main signal is from the production rate, and the climate effects are not negligable, but comparatively small, findings in support of the results from their 1988 paper.
What Beer has reconsidered is the role of the geomagnetic field in modulating the production rate. Whatever the role, it’s just one more factor affecting the GCR flux, the relevant quantity under study.
From: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004.pdf comparing different ice cores:
“The good long-term agreement between 10Be variations in both cores reflects a regional response to production and climate changes, but the disagreements in the earlier parts of the two records suggest that 10Be should be measured in ice cores from locations with non-complex ice flow regimes.”
From the same paper: “It is also clear that it is preferable to have 10Be records from sites with non-complex ice flow regimes, and no or infrequent summer melt, such as NGRIP and South Pole.”
So let’s use South Pole ice-core 10Be data – it’s clear from Kirkby’s Fig. 2b that for the last 1000 years it closely matches different 14C records and Greenland 10Be data. Furthermore, Beer et al. 1998 find the same relationship is present for over 5,000 years (a slight divergence between 10Be and 14C is noted for >10k years).
The ‘orthodox’ scientific understanding is that a good GCR flux signal can be extracted, carefully, from the 10Be records, particularly for the past millenia.
You may want to challenge the 10Be data as it provides evidence against your 2007 co-proposed magnetic floor hypothesis (as noted by Steinhilber et al. 2009). I hope you’ve taken extra care that that is not clouding your objectivity.
Steinhilber et al. : “Since the year 1700, the open solar magnetic flux has increased by about 350% (from about 1.0 x 10^14 Wb in 1700 to 4.5 x 10^14 Wb for the present). This change is much larger than the change since 1900, and is in contradiction to Svalgaard and Cliver [2007] [..]”
“From Figure 9a it is obvious that our results do not support such a floor independent of whether we use a constant solar wind or not. Our curves show that periods with significantly lower values of BIMF than the proposed value have been rather frequent in the past. This result is corroborated by Figure 10, which shows the frequency distributions of the two IMF reconstructions from Figure 9.”
Temperatures have globally risen since 1700 – the well-known increase since the LIA. Coincidence? Let’s investigate, not stall, misdirect and obfuscate.
.. previous post is missing it’s beginning, which is :
Leif Svalgaard: From a 2010 paper co-authored by Beer [he has learned something since 1988]: “[20] The radionuclide concentration data contains two components: (1) a production signal induced by solar magnetic activity and long-term changes in the geomagnetic field intensity and (2) a (atmospheric) system signal related to the geochemical properties of cosmogenic radionuclides and climate effects.”
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009JA014193.pdf
If you’d bothered including the very next sentence, readers would immediately realise that the findings support Beer et al.’s 1988 results :
“The observed changes in radionuclide concentrations between grand solar minima and grand solar maxima are mainly due to production rate changes as shown by McCracken [2004] and Heikkila¨ et al. [2008]. While the climate-induced system effects on the transport and the deposition of 10Be are comparatively small, they are not negligible.”
So the main signal is from the production rate, and the climate effects are not negligable, but comparatively small, findings in support of the results from their 1988 paper.
[ etc. ]
Leif Svalgaard (13:51:10) :
1. No I didn’t. I showed global and the SH band. The SH to illustrate how clear the step is, but the step is visible in other bands also.
Which one of the errors in their listing?
The first one mentions sept. 2001 so one candidate. Maybe they fixed a problem that wasn’t there. Or maybe it isn’t a known error.
Or looking at this, 1998, 2001 http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zFD/an9090_TOTnet_srf.gif maybe they corrected too much.
2. Don’t see what you mean. I’m adjusting so that the 2002 avg gets at the 2001 avg. and that’s the only way to do it when you don’t know the correct level. The adjusted will of course also be wrong but probably less wrong than the unadjusted.
3. It stops where the availble data stopped when I made them 1-2 years ago. Not sure which one you mean but their radiation graphs still stop in 2005.
4. “Now, if you concede that GCRs are just yet another tiny second order effect”
No I don’t. On an annual scale the seasonal changes are of course the dominant, then ENSO type of cycles probably play a role, but on a decadal scale the GCR (or related) seem to give at least 1% variation in cloud cover. Not sure how much that is in albedo, 0.5% ? 0.5W/m2 ?
5. Here’s another doctored graph since you like them so much http://www.virakkraft.com/Sloan%20GCR.png
If I had the numbers I would have made a smoothed version of cloud cover too.
Leif Svalgaard (13:56:30) :
lgl (13:07:17) :
Not in this case. It is more wrong not to adjust.
Haven’t we heard that one before :=)
Yes, I just heard of similar, someone wanting to adjust the 10Be record because of climate change.
oneuniverse (06:58:34) :
So the main signal is from the production rate, and the climate effects are not negligable, but comparatively small, findings in support of the results from their 1988 paper.
I’m always amazed by people ability to quote just the things that fit and omit what doesn’t. Over short periods of time the production rate dominates. Over longer period the gromagnetic field and the climate are dominant.
lgl (07:00:30) :
5. Here’s another doctored graph
As long as you don’t bother to update the graph there is not much to discuss.
lgl (07:06:11) :
I just heard of similar, someone wanting to adjust the 10Be record because of climate change.
Don’t be too hard on them, they have a good physical reason for that, not just making ad-hoc adjustments to get a better fit.
oneuniverse (06:58:34) :
“Our curves show that periods with significantly lower values of B IMF than the proposed value have been rather frequent in the past.”
They make an error in their calibration between HMF B and modulation parameter phi [and we are actively working with them to reconcile this]. You can see the problem in their Figure 2, where the red dots are observations. They fit power-laws to the dots which will by definition go through the origin, i.e. B = 0 for phi = 0. That does not reflect the physics of the cosmic ray modulation. Extend a line through the red dots to the left and see that is crosses the Y-xis at B = 4. The result of this error is readily seen in their Figures 6 and 7. We have good geomagnetic data back to about 1835, so can only compare with the ‘dip’ in about 1890, if we want to be on a firm footing. In Figure 6 they have a dip ~1890. We and our ‘competitors’ [Lockwood, Rouillard, et al.] agree that there is no such dip. This shows that B is greatly underestimated for low values of phi, which is indeed the reason for the sharp dips below the floor. If you look at their Figure 9 [top] you can see directly how their underestimate leads to meaningless negative values of B. Figure 10 shows the strange asymmetric distribution that result. One would expect a tail on either side of the mean.
Temperatures have globally risen since 1700 – the well-known increase since the LIA. Coincidence? Let’s investigate, not stall, misdirect and obfuscate.
Then look at their Figure 7 that shows that the cosmic ray modulation has stayed high since 1725 [even higher than today]. As for the two dips ~1815 and ~1890, the latter is already shown to be not valid. Both dips correspond to significant volcanic activity [Tambora, Krakatoa] that may have influence the deposition of 10Be. We do know that, regardless of that speculation, the 1890 dip does not correspond to a dip in B. On the contrary there is a peak there. You can find details here: http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric%20Magnetic%20Field%1835-2009.pdf
which is in the final stages of peer-review [for JGR].
See Figure 12 and its discussion.
So, no, my view is not bias by the invalid calibration by Steinhilber et al.
anna v
I love the cornstarch fingers. They give ‘the finger’ to most attempted science on climate.
Without deep reflection on what these fingers mean, ones chances of unravelling the complexity of climate are exactly zero.
I wanted to learn more about the research of Dr. Scafetta. I turned to Wikipedia and learned they did not have an article on him, so I decided to write one. His contributions to science are quite remarkable. He has published in a wide variety of science journals and on subjects as diverse economics, sociology, climate and physics. An Italian news outlet has mentioned him as a possible future winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in about the year 2035 (when the Himalaya’s will still have glaciers).
Unfortunately, some Wikipedia editors do not like the article. They have questioned Dr. Scafetta’s notability. Please take a look at the article. If you edit Wikipedia, please try to improve the article. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Scafetta
Ron Cram (18:45:10) :
An Italian news outlet has mentioned him as a possible future winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics
Right up there with Al Gore…
Ron Cram (18:45:10) :
An Italian news outlet has mentioned him as a possible future winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics
Right up there with Al Gore…
thank for your information
rgd
Robert
Leif,
No, Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize which has a very poor record. They gave the Peace Prize to Yassar Arafat, Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama and others just as undeserving.
The Nobel Prize in Physics actually has a very strong record. Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Fermi, Feynmann etc. It is hard to find an undeserving winner of this prize.
If the prediction Scafetta made based on his phenomenological theory of climate change comes true, I think a Nobel Prize in Physics would be deserved. So it is very unlike Al Gore’s Peace Prize.
Update – using harmonic superposition, a better alignment index has been developed:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/100320.png
Vaughan, P.L. (2010). Volcanic Activity, the Sun, the Moon, & the Stratosphere.
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/VolcanoStratosphereSLAM.htm
Leif Svalgaard (07:28:27) :
Re: wayne (12:03:47) :
No need to go to fancy calculations. Back-of-envelope calculations work just fine. Let us assume that the mean distance is 150 [million km], and see what difference a SSB correction of 1 [million km] would give:
1361 * 150^2 / (150+1)^2 = 1343 W/m2
1361 * 150^2 / (150-1)^2 = 1379 W/m2
for a difference of 36 W/m2 compared to the 1.5 W/m2 due to the solar cycle. No such difference is detected.
I said I would come back to rephrase later, I’m back. Here is an attempt to clear up some misunderstandings you and other commenters objected to. First, you calculation above is correct and mine earlier is incorrect. Your calculation gives a maximum effect of 1379/1343-1 of about ~2.7% when all planets but Earth are somewhat aligned on the same side of the sun (but that is very rare, just Jupiter and Saturn happens every ~20 years). My calculation of 0.00xx% was clearly way too low. Thanks for catching that.
Assuming only the sun and major planets, no decrease in mass of the sun, no solar wind, and no influence from outside of the solar system here is what I see as the solar system which causes inter-season variations in the TSI whether current satellite instruments are sensitive enough to detect or not:
(1) All planets orbits are close, but are not exact, ellipses therefore each has two focal points. The prime focus is close, but not exactly at, the solar system’s center of mass, that is, not the sun’s exact center. More exactly the prime focus is at each planet’s center of attraction computed from the gravitational field of all other bodies excluding itself.
(2) Because of (1) the sun can be somewhat closer or further away from the Earth at a given point in the orbit. This factor has little or no effect on the total irradiation received by the Earth over one complete orbit of the Earth but can cause seasonal variances between winter & summer or spring & fall depending on which hemisphere we are talking about. These minor effects depend on where the other major planets are in their orbits. This can make the TSI amount in a given day and in a given hemisphere and in given season somewhat more or less TSI that day. For instance, if Jupiter and Saturn are close together and inline with Earth’s major axis and, let’s say, in approximate opposition, the NH winter (near apogee) will receive slightly more TSI and the NH’s summer in six months will receive slightly less than average. At the same time the SH effects mirrors the opposite of what happens in the NH. If the approximate alignment is along Earth’s minor axis the spring & fall will feel this small effect (~<2% differential). Approximately twenty years later other seasons will be affected depending on where the alignment is in relation to the Earth’s tilt of the axis.
In other words, above I was describing some other people’s incorrect view, not my own view when speaking on whether the solar systems center of mass affects TSI, that is all, there is no secular affect across years, just across seasons and the effect is only large when at least two of the gas planets are involved. I didn’t mean to start a deep discussion on the subject but felt I must at least show you more exactly what I thought. And I understand the TSI might not show that. Seems it would be hard to isolate this small effect in the daily TSI noise.
My experience with solar mechanics has left me with that viewpoint. Do you more or less agree with that one Leif?
wayne (11:42:29) :
My experience with solar mechanics has left me with that viewpoint. Do you more or less agree with that one Leif?
No, not at all. Solar ‘mechanics’ has almost nothing to do with TSI. We observe TSI very precisely. And we have to correct for the actual distance to the Sun. Our measurements are so precise that we have to calculate the distance not when we receive the photons, but at the time 8 minutes earlier when they were emitted from the Sun [the distance changes in those 8 minutes].
There is a 7% change of TSI though the year. We get the max when we are closest to the real, actual, light-emitting Solar surface in January and the least in July. This has nothing to do with summer/winter or Northern/Southern hemisphere, but only with the real distance to the Sun. The SSB location has nothing to do with this, as the Earth orbits the Sun-Earth barycenter which is about a thousand of a solar radius from the Sun’s center – on the Sun-Earth line, as the gravitational force between the Sun and the Earth is directed on the line connecting the two.
BTW, the yearly variation in TSI is almost a hundred times larger than the tiny solar cycle variation [that so many people wrongly think exerts a strong influence on our climate]. To remind you, here is the observed variation of TSI for many years plotted as a function of day of year [thus many years overlay each other]. It traces out very precisely the same curve year after year, with tiny wiggles caused by major solar activity: http://www.leif.org/research/Erl76.png
There is no sign that we can measure of any influence from gas giants. Over thousands of years, the eccentricity of Jupiter’s orbit will have some influence, not on distance but on when perihelion is, so the max/min of TSI will fall at other times within the year [causing a phase shift in the curve I just showed, but not in its amplitude]. This is the main cause of the longest of the Milankovic cycles.
wayne (11:42:29) :
More exactly the prime focus is at each planet’s center of attraction computed from the gravitational field of all other bodies excluding itself.
One of the somewhat irritating things with blogging is that people often simply ignore arguments, so I’ll try again:
Imagine the Sun had a companion star [of one solar mass] far enough away that the orbits of the inner planets are not seriously disturbed, say 1000 AU [200 times further out than Jupiter, so 200*200 = 40,000 less gravitational effect per unit of mass]. Now the SSB would be halfway to that star, and I think you can see [otherwise I give up] that that point is not the prime focus of the orbit of any planet.
Leif Svalgaard (12:29:44) :
Thanks for all of your time Leif but I feel you once again misunderstood me. I knew when you mentioned “eccentricity of Jupiter’s orbit” we were crossed again. My description has nothing to do with Jupiter’s orbit’s shape, just Jupiter’s mass. But lets don’t any further here. I do see your point on not being able to detect this effect. And this effect has nothing to do with Earth’s eccentricy, that is a separate effect.
I tell you what, all of that rigmarole prompted me to retrieve those year or two old programs from my old machine, move them from Cpp to Csharp so I can easily do some analysis on my newer machine. If I get a readout that might clarify to you my point, I will let you know. The only thing I can say that might help you see what I am saying is to concentrate on the planet’s (Earth in this case) center of attraction, not the center of mass (SSB). The center of attraction leaves out one of the bodies (itself), depending on which you are addressing (calculating).
Sorry, I have a harder time with perfection in words than yourself, your words are precise and flow smooth, mine do not and never will. It is due to a small vessel in my left brain decades ago that got my “thoughts to communications (words)” center so please give me little leeway if you can.
Till then, later. 🙂
Leif Svalgaard (13:02:04) :
No, I don’t see it that way. Generally, the SSB would remain the SSB. There would be a new center of mass with the star and our SSB (our solar system) revolving around it. However, it seems you would also have to add that star field into your calculations so each planet’s orbit, still around the sun, would be slightly affected than if the star was no there at all. (Much as the earth-moon system around the sun).
Does the sun’s mass affect the moon’s orbit around the earth? I don’t think I can answer that off of the top of my head, but a good question.
wayne (13:26:42) :
concentrate on the planet’s (Earth in this case) center of attraction, not the center of mass (SSB). The center of attraction leaves out one of the bodies (itself), depending on which you are addressing (calculating).
Leaving out the Earth, hardly changes the SSB, so would make no difference. The point you have to grasp is that the prime focus is not the SSB [or some close approximation to it]. You can also see that for a satellite in an elliptical orbit bout the Earth. The mass of the satellite is so small that leaving it out makes no difference at all, and the SSB is certainly not the prime focus of the satellite’s orbit.
The Earth orbits the Sun [VERY closely] and not the SSB so there is no influence on TSI.
Till then, later. 🙂
It is most effective that you discover this for yourself, so I’ll await next installment.
Leif Svalgaard (13:02:04) :
Leif, one more thing. Of course, all of this is, in reality and by physics, affected by relativity effects, the galaxy’s effect, local stars, and many other effects that take a toll when you get into many digits of accuracy. Those teeny affects I am totally ignoring in my statements above. Physics is never as simple as we would like it to be.
wayne (13:45:26) :
No, I don’t see it that way. Generally, the SSB would remain the SSB. There would be a new center of mass with the star and our SSB (our solar system) revolving around it. However, it seems you would also have to add that star field into your calculations so each planet’s orbit, still around the sun, would be slightly affected than if the star was no there at all. (Much as the earth-moon system around the sun).
I put the star far enough away that the effect would be tiny. The SSB would not remain the same, but would shift halfway to the star, as the star would now be part of the solar system. You see, the SSB is an artificial concept in our mind, depending on what we consider to be part of the solar system. Now that Pluto is no longer a planet, should we exclude it in the calculation of the SSB?
Does the sun’s mass affect the moon’s orbit around the earth? I don’t think I can answer that off of the top of my head, but a good question.
It does [every body in the system does], but very, very, very little. The important parameter is the angular momentum, not the mass. But, let’s not complicate matters any more.
wayne (14:03:33) :
Those teeny affects I am totally ignoring in my statements above.
I ignore them too.
Physics is never as simple as we would like it to be.
I would state that differently: The trick is to throw away all the fluff and focus on the essentials. This was my rationale for my simple back-of-envelope calculation. In debates, some people like to throw in all kinds of irrelevant complications as straw men to distract from the crucial point(s).
Leif Svalgaard (14:07:38) :
It does [every body in the system does], but very, very, very little. The important parameter is the angular momentum, not the mass. But, let’s not complicate matters any more.
Now see, with that I perfectly agree (to many digits 🙂 ). Enough said. Later.