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.
And I thought barycenters were off 🙂
I will have a go at the paper anyway, to see if there is a mechanism explained somewhere.
Bob Tisdale @ur momisugly 14:58:21
Thanks for that graph. That answers several questions I’ve had that I am too lazy or too ignorant to discover the answer for myself. I’d wondered if there were six solar cycles in each cycle of the PDO, also.
===============
Re Fig 10 – that 1960 mini-peak may well be a residuum of the bucket sampling issue, what created flat SST trend from 1940-1960 instead of decreasing trend. This has contaminated the global record, since SST make 70% of it. The abrupt drop of 0.3 deg C after 1945 is not seen in any surface record and has been artificially introduced with intention to mask the inconvenient cooling, despite rising CO2.
PMOD vs ACRIM TSI reconstruction issue is very interesting.
Overall must-read.
O/T from the main thrust of this thread, but is there a calculation of how high Earth’s temperature could get, theoretically, with the atmosphere we have?
Thanks to WUWT for posting this. I’m looking forward to having a good read tomorrow. Clearly, the science is not settled!
Robert of Ottawa (11:19:58) : You asked, “What is meant by ‘de-trended’?”
The easiest way to explain it is to show you. The following is a graph of the Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomalies of the North Atlantic. Also included on the graph is the linear trend line:
http://i44.tinypic.com/10funtv.jpg
To detrend the North Atlantic SST anomaly data, subtract the values of the linear trend from the values of the North Atlantic SST anomalies:
http://i39.tinypic.com/2crm2s5.jpg
And by detrending the North Atlantic SST anomalies, one creates the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation dataset. I discussed it in this post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/04/atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation.html
Regards
Can someone, perhaps Leif Svalgaard himself, point me to a single argument, debate, website, presentation, speech, paper, etc. where Leif explains why exactly he considers himself a skeptic, or lukewarmer, or a…whatever?
I’m sure I haven’t seen a tenth of his comments, but I have yet to see a single comment that doesn’t emit disdain of a skeptical argument, other than one brief statement where he simply states that climate science is “voodoo science”. Perhaps he was being sarcastic, in that comment?
I’m not attacking, I don’t even necessarily disagree with his comment about this paper, I’m just curious.
I suppose this would be yet one more argument that we should be using a 60-year period for calculating “normal” temperatures and not a 30-year.
“annie (15:16:27) :
A silly Q , but could nuclear power generation affect mass of earth?”
No. The energy is derived from a very slight loss of mass of atomic nuclei, following the equation
e = mc^2
c is the speed of light, 300,000,000 m/s , c^2 is even bigger: 9*10^16.
So you get a lot of energy from destroying very little mass.
Rondack (11:33:07) : No need to copy and paste the paper or the abstract. Please provide a link.
Juraj V. (15:18:17) :
PMOD vs ACRIM TSI reconstruction issue is very interesting.
The decrease in PMOD over the last cycle is very likely due to degradation of the instrument [being subjected to the harsh space environment for decades. See Figure 10 of http://www.leif.org/research/Historical%20Solar%20Cycle%20Context.pdf that shows [the yellow curve] the ration between PMOD and SORCE-TIM. note the progressive decrease.
————
There is increasing evidence that perhaps the Maunder minimum was not such a quiet period, and that solar activity lately has not been unusually high. E.g.: A 600-year annual 10Be record from the NGRIP ice core, Greenland; A.-M. Berggren et al.,
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L11801, doi:10.1029/2009GL038004, 2009
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004.pdf :
“Periodicity in 10Be during the Maunder minimum reconfirms that the solar dynamo retains cyclic behavior even during grand solar minima. We observe that although recent 10Be flux in NGRIP is low, there is no indication of unusually high recent solar activity in relation to other parts of the investigated period. [last 600 years]
Scafetta’s data is often dubious. An example is in Appendix M, page 41. Figure upper left. Solar magnetic flux is shown there to have a steady increase [red curve, inversed], the last 100 years. This is not the case as several recent papers document [as we have discussed many times on this blog].
Another example is the use of the obsolete Hoyt and Schatten TSI reconstruction. This obsolete [read: wrong] data is often used by enthusiasts that invoke solar activity.
The general problem with Scafetta’s paper is the attempt to explain all. This usually ends up explaining nothing.
annie (15:16:27) :
A silly Q , but could nuclear power generation affect mass of earth?>>
Of course. E=MC^2 is the formula for how much energy is produced when matter is converted to energy by nuclear power generation. Leaving equipment on the moon also reduces the mass of the earth. As does sending space probes out to Mars and Jupiter.
But the actual amount is insignificant in comparison to the mass of the earth. Its not even significant compared to the amount of dust earth’s gravity captures from space every year.
Quite a document. Refers to the all the recent greats in the field: the chemical CO2 measurements of Beck, the musings of Viscount Monckton, the ‘NIPCC’ report, D’Aleo and Watts …..
All the more puzzling then, that Scafetta still is ‘stonewalling’ (Copyright S. McIntyre) requests for his code…
Good science is based on the principles of transparency, openess, replication, falsification, blah blah……..
Henry (14:09:14) : You wrote, “Why is it that when I read the posts on this web site I get angry?”
There’s a very simple cure for your anger. Stop reading the posts on this website! ;^)
Phil Clarke (15:47:51),
What a perfect opportunity to avoid charges of hypocrisy, by demanding that Mann and the rest must make their data, code and methods transparent.
The reason they don’t can be seen in the Harry_Read_Me file, in which 13 years of temperature station data is invented, rather than admitting it doesn’t exist.
“Anu (13:28:07) “It has recently been proven that if a report or article has any errors at all, the entire content is rendered meaningless, or perhaps even a hoax.”
Equating a spelling mistake with deliberate manipulation and deception is a bit of a stretch, don’t you think? And surely the point regarding AR4 is not that there are “mistakes”, but that there aren’t any at all – only lies!
Juraj V. (15:18:17) : You wrote, “The abrupt drop of 0.3 deg C after 1945 is not seen in any surface record and has been artificially introduced with intention to mask the inconvenient cooling, despite rising CO2.”
The abrupt drop appears in marine air temperature and cloud cover data:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/large-1945-sst-discontinuity-also.html
And it also appears inverted in wind speed anomalies:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/part-2-of-large-sst-discontinuity-also.html
“Phil Clarke (15:47:51),
What a perfect opportunity to avoid charges of hypocrisy, by demanding that Mann and the rest must make their data, code and methods transparent.”
Mann had a funny way of padding his data. If you don’t know what that means: When you do a filtering operation on a time series like a running average you have the problem that the length of the filter makes it impossible to run it to the end of the data; the right half of the filter will dangle in the air. Rahmstorf and Hansen have also been caught doing funny things in this situation:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/03/the-secret-of-the-rahmstorf-non-linear-trend/
As this affects the output, the nice graphs they’re publishing, especially at the interesting end – where they meet the present – it is of rather big importance to find out how the researcher handled this situation, and it is not nasty or hypocriticical to ask this question at all. It is a matter of honesty and the duty of the researcher to answer such a legitimate question.
“Smokey (15:56:38) :
The reason they don’t can be seen in the Harry_Read_Me file, in which 13 years of temperature station data is invented, rather than admitting it doesn’t exist.”
Link:
http://di2.nu/foia/HARRY_READ_ME-0.html
John L (15:38:59) :
Can someone, perhaps Leif Svalgaard himself, point me to a single argument, debate, website, presentation, speech, paper, etc. where Leif explains why exactly he considers himself a skeptic, or lukewarmer, or a…whatever?
For the record:
1) Temperatures are higher now than 100 years ago. Exactly how much can be discussed [fakings, UHI, etc].
2) Solar activity has been ‘flat’ since 1700 with a ~100-yr ‘cycle’ on top. It is not clear if this ‘cycle’ is a real cycle or just a random fluctuation.
3) Solar activity and cosmic ray modulation do not go away during Grand Minima [although sunspots are less visible]
4) There is a 0.1% change of TSI between solar min and solar max, resulting ~0.1C temperature variation
5) No long-term variation of TSI has been demonstrated
6) No convincing evidence for a sizable solar modulation of climate has been demonstrated
7) No convincing evidence for CO2 being the cause of the warming [see point 1]
8) In the deep past [billions of years] CO2 was a significant greenhouse gas, because of its much higher partial pressure than today
9) Solar models are not good enough for detailed prediction, but our understanding of the solar interior and explanation of energy production are on firm footing
10) Solar polar fields seem to be a useful predictor [and it is semi-understood why]
11) Climate models have not been very successful, but should work in principle
12) Both the Sun and the Earth can exhibit ‘internal’ cycles. E.g. some stars pulsate and change luminosity on a large scale [50-100%]
13) Various ‘external’ influences [planets, galactic ‘positions’, interstellar clouds, electric currents from the galaxy, etc] are either not operating or their effects are negligible
14) The cosmic rays vary too little to have any effect and the mechanism proposed does not seem to work [you can always extend your belief a bit by claiming that more data is needed]
Considering the above, I don’t know what you would call me. And I don’t care.
I have been avoiding opening this video for fear it would be completely biased however, conservative talk radio host Amy Holmes added good balance to the discussion. She even mentioned sunspots and the Himalayan glaciers in the debate. Maher showed the Al Gore naked magazine cover and the front page of the USA Today article on waning support for MMGW. That in itself made it worth watching.
Bill Maher: The Environment Is The Ultimate Health Care Issue (VIDEO)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/13/bill-maher-the-environmen_n_497781.html
Smokey – I am puzzled
Perhaps you could confirm that Ian ( ‘Harry’) Harris’s comments refer to his work on the CRU TS 2.1 to 3.0 upgrade, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the flagship HADCRUT global temperature time series, as referenced by the IPCC?
I am unable, also, to locate the point at which he’ invents’ the station data…. academic interest only, but could you enlighten us?
Anu (13:28:07) “It has recently been proven that if a report or article has any errors at all, the entire content is rendered meaningless, or perhaps even a hoax.”>>
Methinks you have it backwards. should read:
If the entire content is a hoax, then any errors discovered are evidence.
Leif Svalgaard (16:12:55) :
For the record […]
Here is an interesting exercise: consider the 14 points and give yourself a score of +1 if you agree with a point, of -1 if you disagree and of 0 if you are neutral. Your ‘Leif Score’ would then be the sum of those 14 scores. Mine is obviously +14. Alternatively give a 1 if you agree or a 0 otherwise, your ‘Leif Number’ would be the decimal number that is formed by the sequence of 1s and 0s. Mine is obviously 11111111111111 = decimal 16383.
A handy binary-decimal converter is here: http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~gurwitz/core5/nav2tool.html
Attach your Leif score and number to your posts at all times, and we know where everybody stands 🙂
I was working from memory of his academic and professional history and in retrospect, would have been more accurate to have left the “late 90’s out of my comment. His academic works did date to the late 90’s while his firs professional climate related publications arrived in the early 2000’s.
Scafetta received his Laurea Dottore in Physics in 1997 (Universita di Pisa) and his Ph.D in physics in 2001. His work in the climate climate sciences began as early as 2002, not 2005 as you state. True, Scafetta worked also on a few studies on human gait as well as some interests in economic models in that time frame. It is clear his interests refocused on climate sciences in 2002. His earliest published work in climatology was in 2002, not 2005:
“Temperature reconstruction analysis” N Scafetta, T Imholt, P Grigolini, J Roberts – 2002 arXiv:physics/0202012
“Solar flare intermittency and the Earth’s temperature anomalies” – 248701 N Scafetta, BJ West – Physical review letters, 2003
“A stochastic analysis of the solar and non-solar forcings on global climate during the solar cycles 21-23 (1978-2003).” N. Scafetta with B.J. West
To name a few of his earlier publications.
My point remains that his earlier work overestimated the anthropogenic contribution. When he downgraded the anthropogenic contributions in his later works, it placed him in bad light with the alarmist community, relegating him to be somewhat of an outsider. That was my central point.
f Svalgaard (16:35:08) :
Mine is obviously 11 1111 1111 1111 = decimal 16383.
You can also give your Leif Number in Hex: mine is 2FFF.