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 (15:42:04) said:
A shocking thought. I shudder at its implications.
Just wondering, how does this graphic, showing the high temps we saw in January 2010 fit in with Dr. Scafetta’s model:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/2010vs2005+1998.pdf
According to his hypothesis, shouldn’t the earth be cooling off, rather than seeing such warm temps?
Leif
How can you continue posting here?
Having read all of your papers, I find you a good solid scientist.
Yet here I find that science is not what is being done.
It is politics.
So do are you thus Politically in the camp of these here.
Or are you really a scientist interested in finding the truth.
I think at some point you will have to decide if you can keep stomaching the posts here.
I think it is time for some retrospective……
And in Australia we still get the usual drivel in the MSM;
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-snapshot-reveals-things-are-heating-up-20100314-q67h.html
Bob Tisdale,
Thanks for drawing attention to these upthread:
http://s5.tinypic.com/i3um47.jpg
http://s5.tinypic.com/15dnb4i.jpg
http://s5.tinypic.com/2w5um3a.jpg
Looking forward to your forthcoming 60 year &/or/vs. PDO write-up. I agree that imagining a 60 year cycle running indefinitely both forward & backward in time is silly. Analyses like yours help with speculation about more realistic envelopes (as opposed to overly-simple cycles).
Cheers.
“Dr. Nicola Scafetta summarizes “why the anthropogenic theory proposed by the IPCC should be questioned”” Oh, I don’t know. Because it is all a lie? Or, upon further thought, perhaps, because it is all a lie? Maybe because it is all a lie? Or it could have something to do with it all being a lie? Its a stumper, thats fer sure!
Wow. How embarrassing! Beck’s nonsense and Douglass et al. (who apparently don’t understand the fundamental difference between standard error and standard deviation) all rolled into one!
And, this from a physicist, no less. I thought Scafetta was better than this. I was wrong. Why publish work in physics journals when you can get it published by Science and Public Policy Institute, the organization of which Lord Monckton is the Chief Policy Advisor.? It is kind of sad to see serious scientists sink to this level.
QUOTE: DIRK
The Hansen line, “Storms of my Grandchildren”. Do you have a factual argument to make, Henry? Bring us your best evidence.
ENDQUOTE
Why should i provide any evidence when you do not?
All you do is criticize without providing any evidence.
Sounds to me like FUD.
P.S.
Paid by Exxon.
No worries folks, it will be out eventually, and all the skeletons in the closets of the posters here wiil eventually be out.
you may attack me all you want,
but I know how to dig out dirt.
I will find it.
love
Mia Nony (11:02:22) :
First, they called it “global warming”. Then they noticed there had been no warming for 15 years,
———-
What I like about WUWT is that people here go off and get the actual data and test statements by scientists, journalists, bloggers and other commenters.
Shall we ?
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
The most recent data is from Dec 2009.
15 years before that was Dec 1994
So, was there any warming in the last 15 years ?
Dec 1994 global temp. anomaly 0.217
Dec 2009 global temp. anomaly 0.407
Yup, the planet warmed 0.19 deg C.
These anomalies are with respect to the average for 1961-1990.
Leif
In response to your solar response.
I find it odd that all your arguments only fall into the area of your speciallity.
Have you at all considered that something else may cause a problem?
Mayhaps you are too focused on your own work to see the broader picture?
Sorry but my respect for your opinions have plummeted 🙁
take care
Leif Svalgaard (16:12:55) :
“Considering the above, I don’t know what you would call me. And I don’t care.”
Objective? Impartial?Pragmatic? And this kinda attitude has no place in climate science, either side o the divide!;-) Good on yer.
“Henry (17:00:37) :
Leif
How can you continue posting here?
Having read all of your papers, I find you a good solid scientist.
Yet here I find that science is not what is being done.
It is politics.”
S/N = 0 in your case.
Re: Hank Hancock (Mar 14 16:43),
My point was really directed to this:
Dr. Scafetta (and his co-authror West) were earlier contributors to the IPCC reports in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s.
He can hardly have contributed to AR1, AR2 or AR3. Are you saying that they were contributors to AR4?
“Henry (17:46:30) :
[…]
Why should i provide any evidence when you do not?
All you do is criticize without providing any evidence.”
You are a pretty disturbed person. You don’t even know my position (or maybe you have already “dug out some dirt”, what a deeply disturbed way of arguing). But it’s not a secret. Ferenc Miskolczi’s theory appeals to me.
This is what i wrote in an earlier thread:
I think i understood it now.
While Gerlich and Tscheuschner as well as William C. Gilbert dismiss the natural (and anthropogenically enhanced) greenhouse effect altogether, arguing with the laws of Thermodynamics, there should still be a measurable effect due to the fact that water vapour and CO2 actually absorb LWIR radiation, causing increased radiation towards the surface. How can these two seemingly contradictory statements be united?
The solution lies in the word “equilibrium”. An equilibrium in a vast system like the earth’s atmosphere needs time to be achieved. Here, the statistical analysis by Beenstock and Reingewertz fits in perfectly; saying that the temperature anomaly may not be caused by the absolute level of CO2 but by the first derivative.
So an increase in CO2 leads to a temporary upswing in temperature that levels off again as the system readjusts (cools through increased convection). A decrease in CO2 leads accordingly to a temporary downswing in temperature.
This can also be interpreted as the negative feedback posited by Miskolczi’s theory.
As our CO2 emissions rise pretty much linearly ATM (not exponentially as assumed by the IPCC) this leads to a roughly constant positive anomaly for the time being.
Leif,
You have to consider that:
1. Our current metrics may not be sufficiently sensitive to detect a solar effect on our climate.
2. We may be looking at the wrong metrics.
You sound way too over-confident about our current abilities to detect fluctuations in solar forcings. You sound like Louis XIV’s physician who said in the early 18th century that “medicine is now so advanced that we will not learn anything new for centuries”.
Anu (17:51:46):
“What I like about WUWT is that people here go off and get the actual data and test statements by scientists…”
You have the gall to quote CRU temperature data??
You do understand that rather than “actual data,” what we’re been given by CRU has been made up as they went along – in one case, for a 13 year stretch.
“Trust, but verify.” Since Climategate, we find that we can do neither.
Leif Svalgaard (16:12:55)
“Temperatures are higher now than 100 years ago.”
Ah, but are they any higher than 70 or 80 years ago?
I have a lot of confidence in science. I really do. But to put it terms relevant to the discussion, my confidence in science being “robust” is, shall we say, on the century level.
Re:
JP Miller (13:34:27) :
It’s interesting that one of Scafetta’s main arguments seems to be similar to, dare I say it, a “Landscheidt” approach to explaining climate cycles. If this is right, it would be ironic that the one “scientific” topic banned on this skeptic’s site, which has done so much to challenge AGW, is a discussion of exactly that climate mechanism. Or, am I off base here?
REPLY: Yes I noted that, but I decided that the best approach is to face it head on, if it is junk, it will shake out. – Anthony
Thanks, Anthony. So long as there at least some sensible effort to connect data to a physical explanation (even if tortured) for how shifting solar system gravity could drive climate, then the theory ought to be examined. And there’s no better place than here. Reminds me of the tectonic plate argument circa 1915.
Leif S. has the correct attitude for a scientist. Trust in no one, (and that goes double for oneself).
If trust played a part in science there would be no reason to reproduce experiments.
2 years ago I found multivariate patterns in local climate data suggesting the following harmonic spectrum (in years): 3.2, 6.4, 12.8, 25.6, 51.2, along with 6.4 year beats with the terrestrial year: 1.185 years = 433 days (Chandler wobble), 2.37 years = 28.4 months (QBO = Quasi-Biennial Oscillation).
Studying solar system dynamics alerted me to the existence of such spectra in: Jupiter-Neptune relations, Earth-Venus relations, & higher derivatives of solar system barycentric motion.
Cautionary Note for solar system barycentre enthusiasts:
The same spectrum arises in Earth-Sun-Moon relations.
Based on draconic month harmonics & the nearest Gregorian (used for purposes of illustration) year harmonics:
(13.60611)*(13.5275) / (13.60611 – 13.5275) = 2341.389811 days = 6.410507569 years
(28.09557692)*(27.21222) / (28.09557692 – 27.21222) = 865.4972869 days = 2.369651086 years = 28.43581303 months
2.369651086 / 2 = 1.184825543 years = 432.7486434 days
4) There is a 0.1% change of TSI between solar min and solar max, resulting ~0.1C temperature variation
This is a very simple explanation and does not allow for other climate influencing factors that vary greatly during the solar cycle. Extreme UV being one of those factors. The 0.1C temperature value does not take this into consideration.
3) Solar activity and cosmic ray modulation do not go away during Grand Minima [although sunspots are less visible]
They might not go away but are severely reduced, once again EUV being just one factor.
If every researcher were required to know the mechanism of every pharmaceutical drug’s effect on the human body, how many would see the light of day?
http://tinyurl.com/ylja32r
In the same light, if the various solar effects mechanism is not known on their influence of earth’s weather/climate system, does that still render them “pseudoscience”? Just because they are not understood?