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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Apologies for the delay – I was without easy access to the net over the week-end.
Leif Svalgaard: “I’m always amazed by people ability to quote just the things that fit and omit what doesn’t.”
Very funny. My quotation was of the following sentence to your quotation – you omitted the important second part, and so neglected to let the reader know (without checking) that the climate signal is thought to be comparatively small compared to the production signal (between grand maxima and minima).
First part (your quotation) : “[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.”
The next sentence in the paper (my quotation) : “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.”
Leif Svalgaard : “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.
LS: “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.”
1815 coincides with the Dalton Minimum, so one would expect a dip. The cosmic ray flux causing 10Be production can vary for reasons other than geomagnetic variation, so you are not justified calling the 1890 dip ‘invalid’ on the basis of the geomagnetic measurements.
Leif Svalgaard : Over short periods of time the production rate dominates. Over longer period the geomagnetic field and the climate are dominant.
According to the Usoskin et al. 2009*, the climate is thought to be dominant only over short time-scales (which makes sense, given that we haven’t found a 10Be sink). They find that
a) the local climate ‘signal’ dominates on short (<100 years) timescales.
b) the solar signal dominates for longer timescales of 100-1000 years, possibly longer multimillenial ones.
c) at longer scales, the geomagnetic field becomes increasingly important.
"On the common solar signal in different cosmogenic isotope data sets"
Usoskin et al. 2009
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/2008JA013888.pdf
"By applying different methods of analysis, such as bivariate correlation, conventional FFT coherence, and wavelet coherence, we found the following: (1) The modeled series, on the basis of 14C data, are in good agreement with the measured 10Be data sets, on different timescales and at different locations, confirming the existence of a common solar signal in both isotope data. (2) The 10Be data are driven by the solar signal on timescales from about 100 years up to 1000 years or even to multimillennial scales (at the longer scales, paleomagnetism plays an increasingly important role). (3) The local climate dominates the 10Be data mostly on short (100 years) the solar and geomagnetic field are considered to be important. Since these affect the CR flux and so the production rate, not the deposition rate, this means that the data from the last 10k years can be used as a CR flux proxy.
(The 10Be and 14C signals diverge somewhat for periods >10k years – Beer et al. 1998’s analysis attributed this to a difference in the production rate, not deposition rate – note 10Be production is associated predominantly with galactic CR’s).
By the way, perhaps you could cut out the ‘true believers’ insults – your reasons for ignoring the CR paleodata appear to me to be untenable, and they’re not bolstered by your denigration of others, however wrong you may consider them to be. It looks like an attempt to shut down discussion of the topic.
Another relevant paper by Usoskin (et al.) :
“Millennium-Scale Sunspot Number Reconstruction: Evidence for an Unusually Active Sun since the 1940s”
Usoskin et al. 2003
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/Sola2-PRL_published.pdf
“The current high level of solar activity may also have an impact on the terrestrial climate. We note a general similarity between our long-term SN reconstruction and different reconstructions of temperature [28,29]: (1) both SN and temperature show a slow decreasing trend just prior to 1900, followed by a steep rise that is unprecedented during the last millenium; (2) great minima in the SN data are accompanied by cool periods while the generally higher levels of solar activity between about 1100 and 1300 correspond to a relatively higher temperature (the medieval warm period) [30]. To clarify whether this similarity reflects a real physical connection requires a more detailed study of the various proposed mechanisms for a solar influence on climate [31].”
oneuniverse (15:03:47) :
“While the climate-induced system effects on the transport and the deposition of 10Be are comparatively small, they are not negligible.
And have been relatively small lately when climate has not varied much, but go back in time and much larger variations were present.
1815 coincides with the Dalton Minimum, so one would expect a dip.
And with significant volcanic activity causing part of the dip as in 1880s
The cosmic ray flux causing 10Be production can vary for reasons other than geomagnetic variation, so you are not justified calling the 1890 dip ‘invalid’ on the basis of the geomagnetic measurements.
I don’t think that you have grasped the issue. The geomagnetic variations [there wasn’t any of the dipole – which changes very slowly and steadily] were not the cause of the dip. Rather, the HMF B has a strong geomagnetic signature that allows us to infer B with confidence back to 1835. So, we are talking about the Sun here, not the Earth. And there is no dip in B, and hence not in GCR modulation.
According to Usoskin et al. 2009, the climate is thought to be dominant only over short time-scales (which makes sense, given that we haven’t found a 10Be sink).
Imagine we have a ‘snowball’ Earth, or a glaciation. That greatly interferes with atmospheric circulation that is instrumental in transporting 10Be to the poles. And on short time-scales you quote him saying that climate is dominant, e.g. for the sharp dips…
By the way, perhaps you could cut out the ‘true believers’ insults – your reasons for ignoring the CR paleodata appear to me to be untenable
I take that statement as showing true believer status, as your citations are one-sided. Not one of them have expressed any doubt, although there is plenty. And many people pride themselves of being ‘believers’ of various causes, so no ‘denigration’ implied, just classification.
It looks like an attempt to shut down discussion of the topic.
Absolutely not. I’m known for continuing to the bitter end.
Another relevant paper by Usoskin (et al.) :
“Millennium-Scale Sunspot Number Reconstruction: Evidence for an Unusually Active Sun since the 1940s”
There is considerable doubt about that claim. It is becoming less and less supported. Even the in Steinhilber paper we were discussing, I pointed out that the solar activity has been pretty constant since 1735. In the 18th century there were even a cycle higher than any seen since, e.g. their Figure 7.
Even Usokin’s claim: “We note a general similarity between our long-term SN reconstruction and different reconstructions of temperature” doesn’t hold water. Solar activity, cosmic rays, and everything solar that might affect climate are now what they were 110 years ago, while temperatures now are the ‘highest ever recorded’ [the recent claims of fudging notwithstanding, but they would apply equally well to Usoskin’s claim]
As I said, you have a tendency to seek out papers that bolster your view. I am waiting for you to find one that does not and then inviting me to critique that one. E.g. this one: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/raimund/publications/Muscheler_et_al_Nature2005.pdf “the recent solar activity is not exceptionally high (Fig. 2).”
Sorry, somehow I managed to truncate my quotation from Usoskin et al. & merge it with my follow-on comment. What I meant to write :
“On the common solar signal in different cosmogenic isotope data sets”
Usoskin et al. 2009
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/2008JA013888.pdf
“By applying different methods of analysis, such as bivariate correlation, conventional FFT coherence, and wavelet coherence, we found the following: (1) The modeled series, on the basis of 14C data, are in good agreement with the measured 10Be data sets, on different timescales and at different locations, confirming the existence of a common solar signal in both isotope data. (2) The 10Be data are driven by the solar signal on timescales from about 100 years up to 1000 years or even to multimillennial scales (at the longer scales, paleomagnetism plays an increasingly important role). (3) The local climate dominates the 10Be data mostly on short (100 years) the solar and geomagnetic field are considered to be important. Since these affect the CR flux and so the production rate, not the deposition rate, this means that the data from the last 10k years can be used as a CR flux proxy.
It’s happened again.. WordPress I think. I’ve edited the quotation to replace the ‘less than’ symbol with word, as that’s were the trunaction is happening. Hopefully this’ll work:
“On the common solar signal in different cosmogenic isotope data sets”
Usoskin et al. 2009
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/2008JA013888.pdf
“By applying different methods of analysis, such as bivariate correlation, conventional FFT coherence, and wavelet coherence, we found the following: (1) The modeled series, on the basis of 14C data, are in good agreement with the measured 10Be data sets, on different timescales and at different locations, confirming the existence of a common solar signal in both isotope data. (2) The 10Be data are driven by the solar signal on timescales from about 100 years up to 1000 years or even to multimillennial scales (at the longer scales, paleomagnetism plays an increasingly important role). (3) The local climate dominates the 10Be data mostly on short (less than 100 years) timescales, but the solar signal becomes important even at short scales during periods of Grand minima of solar activity. (4) There is an indication of a possible systematic uncertainty in the early Holocene, likely due to a not-perfectly-stable thermohaline circulation, which requires additional studies. We have shown that both 14C- and 10Be-based records are consistent with each other over a wide range of timescales and time intervals. They form a robust basis for quantitative reconstructions of solar activity variations in the past.”
You’ll notice that over the longer timescales (>100 years) the solar and geomagnetic field are considered to be important. Since these affect the CR flux and so the production rate, not the deposition rate, this means that the data from the last 10k years can be used as a CR flux proxy.
oneuniverse (15:56:25) :
The 10Be data are driven by the solar signal on timescales from about 100 years up to 1000 years
and yet, it is claimed that one can see the 11-yr cycle and sharp dips in 1815 and 1885…
oneuniverse (15:56:25) :
They form a robust basis for quantitative reconstructions of solar activity variations in the past.
Beware of people that say that their claim is ‘robust’ 🙂
Usoskin et al are also claiming that their robust reconstructions show that the recent solar activity was the highest in 8000 yrs or 12000 yrs [they vary a bit on this]. There is mounting and good evidence that this is not the case as I have pointed out, so clearly there are problems with their reconstruction. One of the problems with this kind of exchange is that cite is piled upon cite with no or little extraction or consolidation of what has been shown. In litigation there is the concept of RFA [Request for Admissions] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_admissions
This is actually quite effective and could profitably be used here too.
@ur momisugly Leif Svalgaard (15:45:15) :
I’m known for continuing to the bitter end.
I can testify to that.
Dave F (18:30:33) :
@ur momisugly Leif Svalgaard (15:45:15) :
“I’m known for continuing to the bitter end.”
I can testify to that.
Now is that good or bad?
Leif Svalgaard (15:45:15): “I don’t think that you have grasped the issue. [..] So, we are talking about the Sun here, not the Earth. And there is no dip in B, and hence not in GCR modulation.”
The CR flux is not solely determined by the magnetic modulation of CRs in the solar system – there are variations in the CR rate reaching the solar system, independent of changes in B. We’ve already discussed this. We don’t have instrumental CR measurements from the 19th century, so the 1890 dip cannot be judged to be ‘invalid’ based on the geomagnetic measurements alone.
“Imagine we have a ’snowball’ Earth, or a glaciation. That greatly interferes with atmospheric circulation that is instrumental in transporting 10Be to the poles.”
There haven’t been any snowball Earth or glaciation episodes during the last 10,000 years, the period in which the 10Be and 14C CR-proxy data is considered to be most reliable.
I’ll reply to the rest later today.
Leif Svalgaard (13:02:04) :
“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.”
??
It would seem that a test body located between two massive bodies would be at a Lagrange point. The massive bodies would orbit the test point!
pochas (07:44:15) :
It would seem that a test body located between two massive bodies would be at a Lagrange point. The massive bodies would orbit the test point!
The planets orbiting each of the ‘massive bodies’ in an ellipse would have the massive body they orbit at one of the foci of that ellipse, not the ‘Lagrange point’ [or the SSB], and that was the issue.
oneuniverse (06:56:29) :
The CR flux is not solely determined by the magnetic modulation of CRs in the solar system – there are variations in the CR rate reaching the solar system, independent of changes in B. We’ve already discussed this. We don’t have instrumental CR measurements from the 19th century, so the 1890 dip cannot be judged to be ‘invalid’ based on the geomagnetic measurements alone.
Again typical of the circular/selective/ad-hoc arguments made. You say that the 1890 dip is not due to B but the 1815 dip and all the other ones in Steinhilber [that were taken as signs of the floor being broken] are due to B. So the one for which we have good data is discarded for the ones where we have no data.
There haven’t been any snowball Earth or glaciation episodes during the last 10,000 years, the period in which the 10Be and 14C CR-proxy data is considered to be most reliable.
Again, being selective. Your assumption is that the ‘evidence’ of paleo-stuff hundreds of million years ago is representative of today or can be used to draw conclusions about today. This assumes that the climate has not changed.
Leif Svalgaard (10:09:51) :
Again, being selective. Your assumption is that the ‘evidence’ of paleo-stuff hundreds of million years ago is representative of today or can be used to draw conclusions about today. This assumes that the climate has not changed.
Anything more than about 9M years ago and you are talking different ocean currents and further back incomparable continent position and sizes.
The climate will be grossly affected by these. CO2/solar etc will be a minor player
tfp (10:34:47) :
Anything more than about 9M years ago and you are talking different ocean currents and further back incomparable continent position and sizes.
The climate will be grossly affected by these. CO2/solar etc will be a minor player
I think that is what I’m trying to convey to oneuniverse [so far without luck].
Leif Svalgaard: As I said, you have a tendency to seek out papers that bolster your view. I am waiting for you to find one that does not and then inviting me to critique that one. E.g. this one: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/raimund/publications/Muscheler_et_al_Nature2005.pdf “the recent solar activity is not exceptionally high (Fig. 2).”
You’ve been citing papers to support your viewpoint (that GCRs have negligable effect on climate), and none that challenge it – isn’t your criticism somewhat hypocritical? And aren’t you rather missing the point of an adversarial debate?
With respect to the Muscheler et al. paper, the same issue of Nature published the reply by the authors of the critiqued paper:
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/sola_nature05.pdf
They point out that Muscheler et al.’s analysis was inappropriately based on normalized and detrended data, which, if corrected, results in an analysis much in agreement with Solanki et al.’s original paper.
They also note: “[T]heir large values of [the cosmic ray modulation strength] contradict the integrated cosmic-ray flux measured by the abundance of 44Ti (half-life of about 60 years) in meteorites9,10 that have fallen since AD 1766. The 44Ti activity in meteorites is completely independent of transport effects and redistribution in the Earth’s atmosphere, so it provides direct measurements of past cosmic ray flux.”
Leif: Again typical of the circular/selective/ad-hoc arguments made. You say that the 1890 dip is not due to B but the 1815 dip and all the other ones in Steinhilber [that were taken as signs of the floor being broken] are due to B. So the one for which we have good data is discarded for the ones where we have no data.
Not at all – please read what I said again:
“The CR flux is not solely determined by the magnetic modulation of CRs in the solar system – there are variations in the CR rate reaching the solar system, independent of changes in B. We’ve already discussed this. We don’t have instrumental CR measurements from the 19th century, so the 1890 dip cannot be judged to be ‘invalid’ based on the geomagnetic measurements alone.”
re: the 1815 dip, I pointed out its coincidence with the Dalton Minimum should not make a dip unexpected. (Usoskin et al. 2009: “The local climate dominates the 10Be data mostly on short (<100 years) timescales, but the solar signal becomes important even at short scales during periods of Grand minima of solar activity.")
Your assumption is that the ‘evidence’ of paleo-stuff hundreds of million years ago is representative of today or can be used to draw conclusions about today. This assumes that the climate has not changed.
The hundreds of millions of year old data comes from meteorites, unaffected by the climate. The <10k yr statement comes from an analysis of data from the last 10k years.
Why not look at the CR-proxy data from the last 2000 years? We know climate hasn't changed that much over the period.
What're your thoughts on the Harrison and Stephenson 2006 paper which I cited earlier , which provides evidence for a GCR-cloud link (in the UK), based on an analysis of insolation records longer than and independent of the ISCCP satellite cloud data ?
Leif Svalgaard (14:12:34) :
wayne (14:03:33) :
Those teeny affects I am totally ignoring in my statements above.
I ignore them too.
Leif, if you are still monitoring this thread (it’s been almost 2 weeks), you were correct on how tiny the TSI variance is year to year. It plots a shade under 0.2 W/m2 max to min across a span of 18-26 years with 5-6 year smaller variances and any one year much smaller. Thanks for your patience (guess I’m a hard core skeptic and sometimes when in my area of knowledge I want to actually see it since TSI has recently come onto my radar, I just didn’t know the magnitude).
But this did force me to bite the bullet and move that old solar system software to a new language and new machine. I now have some new areas to explore, thanks to you!
wayne (02:24:00) :
I now have some new areas to explore, thanks to you!
I’m glad that you are on the right path now.
oneuniverse says:
March 22, 2010 at 4:22 pm
re: the 1815 dip, I pointed out its coincidence with the Dalton Minimum should not make a dip unexpected. (Usoskin et al. 2009: “The local climate dominates the 10Be data mostly on short (<100 years) timescales, but the solar signal becomes important even at short scales during periods of Grand minima of solar activity.")
From a very new paper by Webber and Higbie:
“[17] Indeed the role of climatic effects has been increasingly recognized following earlier suggestions by Raisbeck et al. [1981] and Lal [1987]. Pedro et al. [2006], Field et al. [2006], and more recently Heikkila et al. [2008] and Field et al. [2009], have evaluated these climatic effects in increasing detail with Field et al. [2009], particularly noting that the modulation estimates of McCracken et al. [2004], near the Maunder minimum would be significantly modified by climatic effects, in line with our own conclusions above.”
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009JA014532.pdf
gatekeeping at wikipedia has erased much of this. scafetta is standing on the shoulders of giants.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/fairbridge_rhodes.pdf