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.
read all….
15 March: UK Times: John Houghton: We climate scientists are not ecofanatics
If the IPCC has a fault, it is that its reports have been too cautious, not alarmist
A third myth is that the IPCC has refused to recognise that there has been no significant increase in global average temperature in the past decade or so. Sceptics cite this as evidence against human-induced global warming. But the level of natural year-to-year variability in the temperature record shows that a decade is too short a time to establish a change in the long-term trend…
Perhaps there is a criticism that can be made of IPCC scientists: they have been too slow publicly to defend their integrity. They have not been willing or able to hit the airwaves or make their case in newspapers. But scientists are now faced by powerful lobbies who are working to distort and discredit the science behind climate change. We scientists have facts on our sides — we must not be afraid to deploy them.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7061646.ece
Richard Telford,
There is no doubt that incremental increases in CO2 cannot influence the earth’s average temperature, because to do so requires violation of the fundamentals of process control. Nobody, and no system, can violate that.
The IPCC and any governmental body that claims increases in CO2 or other greenhouse gases will cause global warming are quite wrong.
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/chemical-engineer-takes-on-global.html
Dr. Scafetta’s conclusion is consistent with the fundamentals of process control, and therefore deserves serious consideration.
Guido Guidi (12:05:23) “Dr. Scafetta […] on line interview with questions directly from the readers. The discussion (in italian) is ongoing here http://www.climatemonitor.it/?p=8378. “
For those who may not know, just:
1) drop that webpage-address into the box on this http://translate.google.com/ webpage,
2) set the form to Italian-to-English, and
3) hit the “Translate” button – (scroll over to the far right to find it on narrower screens).
The translation isn’t perfect, but errors are rarely problematic. Scafetta tells all in the interview.
I find this to be a good exposition of how unsettled is the science called climate science. When one tries to make sense of the Sun in response to planatary forcings . . .
(from page 48) These curves are just proxies of the modulation of the gravitational and magnetic planetary forcings on the Sun.
. . . things get a bit murky. See Friday’s “Solar Conveyor Belt” post and comments: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/12/hathaway-on-the-solar-conveyor-belt-and-deep-solar-minimum/
As the internal workings of the Sun are poorly known it may be awhile before an explanation exists for for the effect of the combined synodic periods of Jupiter and Saturn and of Uranus and Neptune.
Richard Telford (13:55:02) :
Quite amazing. Scafetta manages to pack in almost every “sceptical” talking point, paying no attention to their credibility or consistency.
Yes, Scafetta throws in everything plus the Kitchen sink. Most of this stuff is not credible and in the end it seems we are talking about an effect of one or two tenths of a degree [and filtered data to boot]. solar activity could well account for one tenth, leaving the rest [GW if any] unexplained. It is sad to see Scafetta sinking to the level of Vuk et al.
To Robert of Ot. above,
“Detrended” refers to a mathematical function of dendro-chronology that allows for wiggle matching between trees of different ages (compensates for thinner rings of older wood of greater biomass). This is discussed in a major paper by Jan Esper in Science, 2002. This function in many tree-ring sequences reduces the sensitivity of dendro-chronological records to long-term climate change (low-frequency signals). It is a factor not fully understood by Mann and Briffa as revealed in CRU email comments, FYI (de-trending makes the shaft nice and straight).
Bruce M. Albert, Ph.D., PDRA, Durham University, UK
Doc Svalgaard your verdict is eagerly expected. Here is a barycentric ‘grande formaggio’ to get your teeth in.
Marvellous resource, thank you! Especially the appendices. Read it immediately. Now I know that not only do sunspots influence temperature but the Earth, Jupiter and et al influence sunspots.
Slightly OT, but Bjorn Lomborg has another opinion piece in The Australian today, with some eminently sensible (but heretical!) comments about the economics of AGW.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/fixing-climate-change-shouldnt-cost-the-earth/story-e6frg6zo-1225840644967
aqz (13:30:36) : Chinese astrological calenda
Today is pi day and a good day to search on this phrase:
numerological 60
“Richard Telford (13:55:02) :
[…]
Scafetta argues that the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 has a considerable natural component due to solar induced warming. Were that the case, it would suggest that feedbacks are huge.
”
Only when you mix the arguments of the “CO2 is the major climate driver” theory with the “natural variabilty determines the climate” theory. Which you shouldn’t do; nonsensical statements like yours would be the result.
“Henry (14:09:14) :
[…]
The really sad part is 50 years from now, what will your children and grand childrens opinion be of you?”
The Hansen line, “Storms of my Grandchildren”. Do you have a factual argument to make, Henry? Bring us your best evidence.
Leif Svalgaard (14:22:12) :
“It is sad to see Scafetta sinking to the level of Vuk et al.”
You not quite correct. Vuk was never barycentric, you might say he’s more geomagnetic.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC8.htm
Re: Hank Hancock (Mar 14 14:08),
Dr. Scafetta (and his co-authror West) were earlier contributors to the IPCC reports in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s.
Really? He only submitted his PhD in 2001, the year AR3 came out. His collaboration with West started 2003, but then they were writing about human gait. It wasn’t till 2005 that they turned their attention to climate matters.
Henry (14:09:14) :
(…)
The really sad part is 50 years from now, what will your children and grand childrens opinion be of you?
“Thank God he was too cheap to buy the good latex.”
John F. Hultquist (14:27:53) :
“Today is pi day ……”
Just under a year ago on 30/03/2009 at 2 x 3.14 (2 x pi) hours (or if you whish 6.28am) the Sun produced its version of pi number (look in the 10 o-clock direction)
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov//data/REPROCESSING/Completed/2009/mdimag/20090330/20090330_0628_mdimag_1024.jpg
More solar mysteries : http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/GandF.htm
Richard Telford (13:55:02) :
(Snip)
“”Tides on earth have a minor contribution to the climate system, increasing mixing in the ocean. The tides on the sun are going to be orders of magnitude smaller, and have a period orders of magnitude longer. It is difficult to concieve of them having an important effect.””
my reply;
There are atmospheric tides as well as ocean tides, with several periods of oscillation in the atmosphere, due to the Lunar declinational tides that produce and control the propagation of the Rossby waves and jet stream movement, that are important to weather and climate modeling.
Every one sees these secondary actions, with out realizing they are being driven by the moon. The beat frequency of the declinational tides and the phase tides results in the modulation of the shape of the QBO activity, which is another secondary reaction nobody doubts, but few can explain fully.
The interactions of the solar wind with the lunar declinational tides in the atmosphere, drives the weather to the point that models that do not account for them only work for 7 to 10 days, however a forecast model that uses them is accurate for 15 to 18 years. How many more important effects do you to need to conceive of before it makes sense to you.
That the whole solar system is suspended in space with only gravity, tidal, and electromagnetic forces, holding them together while moving with inertia that must be interconnected some way Is not hard to grasp for a person that thinks a lot.
Vuk etc. (14:26:19) :
Doc Svalgaard your verdict is eagerly expected.
Asked and answered.
As that Great Serbian pseudo-scientist put so clearly:
“on face of it, if one was to be too pedantic, one would be obliged to ascertain that energy levels required to satisfactorily passed the test, as required by the most rigorous of scientific standards, are to a degree numerically challenged”
“Anu (13:28:07) :
The implications of this error are vast – I think we better clear this up before we talk about the contents of the article at all.”
Not to worry, Anu.
It has been peer reviewed and corrected.
🙂
The fit looks fairly good, but what is the mechanism?
Leif Svalgaard (14:22:12) :
What is your theory on the force behind the sun-spot cycles?
kim (11:28:18) : You wrote, “Note the cycle of the PDO is about the same as that 60 year cycle.”
The assumption is, the 60-year cycle of the PDO continues back in time. It does not. I’ve just finished the graphs on a post of PDO paleoclimatological reconstructions. Here’s the short-term comparison graph:
http://i39.tinypic.com/rvzrt5.png
Not one of them shows a 60-year cycle, and none seem to correlate with 30-year smoothing. I’ll try to write up the post tomorrow morning.
kwik (14:55:26) :
Leif Svalgaard (14:22:12) :
What is your theory on the force behind the sun-spot cycles?
Ken Schatten has a theory that I lean towards: http://www.leif.org/research/Percolation%20and%20the%20Solar%20Dynamo.pdf
This is not the only one that is viable. The trouble is that we have too many good theories, and we need to have the Sun choose the right one for us from observations. SDO will be important for this.
pat says:
March 14, 2010 at 2:10 pm
……”recognise that there has been no significant increase in global average temperature in the past decade or so. Sceptics cite this as evidence against human-induced global warming. But the level of natural year-to-year variability in the temperature record shows that a decade is too short a time to establish a change
in the long-term trend…”
wait a minute! The point of Mann’s hockey stick graph of 1998 is that the temperature was going up up up, significantly in a decade . Well , it’s 2010 and no increase, so now we are cautioned by the AGW crowd that the climate doesn’t work that way, that there are decadal fluctuations. Then why did Mann et al. claim in 1998 that a decadal rise was significant and unprecedented. Give me a break! Do these guys even listen to themselves?
JohnWho (14:50:11) :
“Not to worry, Anu.”
“It has been peer reviewed and corrected.”
But obviously not by the HockeyTeam.
How could this happen?
Its a travesty!
A silly Q , but could nuclear power generation affect mass of earth?