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
On how ones like the CO2, Earth First, Climate Change deal with facts.
Take for example how many of these ones inside the U.S.A. delt with the
facts from John F. Kerry’s communication logs, his now proved up acts in a combat zone, and things like “Christmas in Cambodia”, “CIA” hats and
“2000 meters up and down river under hostile fire”, then the one comm.
out..”We need a tow boat.”
They still deny, they still claim “swiftboated”, and this know liar and fraud sits in the U.S. Senate defending “Climate Change”.
They live, and die by lies, and are willing to do so.
Only ice and snow will change them, and still they will blame humans, it is what they are.
Im my opinion, facts do not matter to them one bit.
My dear Henry, please take my advice. Your hysteria is showing and it seems to be about to overtake your soul. Have a piece of chocolate, or a nap. Have you a cat to pet? Or a dog to walk? I worry about you. Be good to yourself.
=============
Henry (17:48:05) :
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.
==========
God forbid, if all the skeletons of all the posters on this site wiil be out.
I commented very quickly about this post BEFORE I had read and digested it. I pat myself on the back that I recognized its importance. I slightly modify my previous comment: THIS POST IS WHY WATT’S UP WITH THAT IS ON THE CUTTING EDGE OF TRUTH…..AND BEAUTY.
R Shearer (11:13:40) :
Wait a minute, how could we possibly influence the center of mass of the solar system?
We do but the influence is very tiny. Follow this:
First, do you know exactly what the barycenter is? If there were only the Sun and Jupiter, they would both revolve around the common center of mass, the barycenter. If Jupiter’s orbit is slightly elliptical, they both would follow the same shaped ellipse around the barycenter, but the Sun’s orbit would be much smaller due to the mass ratio.
Once you add a significant third mass, as Saturn, the path of the Sun around the barycenter is no longer a conic shape but a bit like a Spiro-graph trace. Add the other planets and the Sun’s tiny orbit (the orbit is small enough to fit entirely within the Sun itself) is now very irregular over decades but still somewhat resembles a deformed, varying Spiro-graph tracing.
Now the Earth and the other planets do not affect this much but we, on Earth, are also revolving around the barycenter. That means we are sometimes closer or farther from the sun by the radius of the Sun’s orbit around the barycenter. That is determined by where the big planets are in their orbits.
It is the Sun’s deformed Spiro-graph path that makes this easy to be described by cycles of the large planets orbits.
That’s it in a nutshell and is what all of talk of barycenter and how it varies the total solar irradiance slightly, therefore climate slightly.
Hope that helped.
—-
Dr. Scaetta, I will enjoy your paper. It’s great to get an overview in one single place.
I have always found that Leif backs up his assertions with facts and invites proof that he is wrong. I have not seen the occasion where this proof has been given wrt TSI. So why is everyone piling on him? Seems that he has a very good grasp of the facts.
Henry (17:00:37) :
Yet here I find that science is not what is being done.
There is a lot of pseudo-science, but most people here are not scientists so one would not expect much science to be done here.
Henry (17:56:41) :
I find it odd that all your arguments only fall into the area of your specialty. Mayhaps you are too focused on your own work to see the broader picture?
I comment on what I know something about. Other posters supply a broad picture that covers all aspects of human folly.
Mike Ewing (17:58:05) :
And this kinda attitude has no place in climate science, either side o the divide!;-) Good on yer.
I don’t do climate science, just regular science 🙂
François GM (18:21:11) :
1. Our current metrics may not be sufficiently sensitive to detect a solar effect on our climate.
As I have said many a time, there is no doubt that the Sun has some effect, but if our current metrics can’t detect it, it cannot be the [or even ‘a’] major driver.
————–
BTW, I note that nobody has manned up to give their ‘Leif score/number’ 🙂
wayne (19:25:48) :
talk of barycenter and how it varies the total solar irradiance slightly, therefore climate slightly.
No, the distance between the Sun and the Earth is not affected by this [because the Earth orbits the ‘barycenter’ determined by the Sun and the Earth [+the Moon], no matter what the Sun does. Just like the Moon orbits the ‘barycenter’ determined by the Earth and the Moon, no matter what the Sun does. If the Sun had a companion star [Nemesis] very far away, the barycenter of the total system would be way outside our planetary solar system. But [as we have discussed so often], the barycenter of the solar system is irrelevant because the Sun and all the stuff in the solar system are just in free fall in their combined gravitational field and feel no forces from that.
wayne (19:25:48) :
There are many errors in your statement. May I suggest you research the amount of solar movement from the SSB and how this movement has NO effect on the solar/planet distance.
Leif,
I think your ‘Leif score’ is 3FFF not 2FFF.
Leif, I would like to know what you think of Miscolzi’s work.
===================
“Leif Svalgaard (19:30:49) :
[…]
BTW, I note that nobody has manned up to give their ‘Leif score/number’ :-)”
I didn’t see anything i disagree with in your list.
Sorry Leif, you said ‘Temperatures 100 years ago were higher…’ You didn’t say what temperatures. So this can be both true and false, since not every place on Earth is warming. Do I credit for either answer? 🙂
In contrast to older reconstructions,[36] most recent reconstructions of total solar irradiance point to an only small increase of only about 0.05 % to 0.1 % between Maunder Minimum and the present.[37][38][39]
Having found this tidbit on wikipedia, I would venture to say that ANYONE should be able to see that small TSI changes are only PART of the evidence of the large changes that the sun causes here on earth. I hear all the time on the blogosphere, ” the sun only changes a little bit over the years, how can it be the cause of global warming?”.
Yet, when climate scientists start talking about amplification of CO2 they all nod their heads. I used to be a warmer, then I researched the science. I strongly believe that ANYONE who took the time to research AGW would become a skeptic over time. All warmers I have ever met, including myself, believe(d) because they felt it was true.
stan stendera (11:16:47) :
This post is why WUWT is the cutting edge of truth.
Leif got the topic of this post banned at Climate Audit and has done his best to get it suppressed here too. He has been scathingly insulting to myself and others who have tried to discuss the barycentric issues raised in Scafetta’s work here before. This led to Geoff Sharp getting banned when he lost his temper with Anthony due to the suppression of the subject and the uneven treatment whereby Leif was allowed to openly insult and degrade contributors who discussed this topic while they were snipped when responding in kind.
Nicola Scafetta emailed me two days ago with a link to his new work. He asked me if I had tried to get any of my own discoveries published yet. I told him we are conducting an open source investigation of this interesting field of enquiry at the blog I started at http://tallbloke.wordpress.com
I started that blog out of respect for Anthony’s wishes after we were told discussion of solar motion relative to the solar system barycentre was not welcome here. There are some threads there which may be of interest to open minded WUWT readers.
Hats off to Anthony for reversing his moratorium on discussion of barycentric related discussion on this site and “facing it head on”.
Leif Svalgaard (16:45:32) :
f Svalgaard (16:35:08) :
You can also give your Leif Number in Hex: mine is 2FFF.
Mine is 3F0FF
I can’t be bothered rebutting the tripe in your 14 points yet again. If you want to mislead people about the sun here instead of presenting a balanced account and admitting uncertainty levels, and Anthony is prepared to let you, then so be it.
“DirkH (19:59:30) :
[…]
I didn’t see anything i disagree with in your list.”
well, okay, 2FFF. Gotta get used to that.
I’m sorry but am I the only one having a great time reading Henry’s posts?
Tell us more about our evil carbon ways Henry! Tell me the one about how big oil is sitting in my closet watching me sleep. Make it good… wave the hands, handle the snakes!
REPENT NOW OH DOUBTING ONES!
…LEST YOUR GRANDCHILDREN BURN IN THE SLIGHTLY HIGHER TEMPERATURES PROJECTED BY THE MODELS
IT IS THE LORD OF CONFUSION, EXXON, THAT HAS LED YOU CHILDREN ASTRAY
/sarcoff
My official Leif Score is a 9.
[But I’m not sure mine carries much weight LOL].
😉
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Geoff Shorten (19:52:54) :
Leif, I think your ‘Leif score’ is 3FFF not 2FFF.
Yeah, I should move the keyboard over 1/3 inch to the left.
What is yours?
Leif Svalgaard (14:22:12) :
Agreed.
Leif Svalgaard (19:30:49) :
BTW, I note that nobody has manned up to give their ‘Leif score/number’ :-)>>
Ah, well… for starters there’s no mechanism for calculating Leif Score on points that I only partly agree with and further, you said you didn’t care what anyone thought…. 🙂
Your points rest on showing that climate isn’t forced by TSI or CO2. While I may agree with the bulk of the points, I think the logic would suggest that TSI and CO2 and other “forcings” (I detest that word) are minimized by interlocking feedback mechanism in the climate system as a whole, such mechanisms being triggered by the “forcing” itself.
Leif,
You have seemingly put your own views out as the standard by which all posters should measure themselves (e.g. ‘Leif score/number’). It does not surprise me that this has been pretty much ignored, given that this is not a particularly Leif-centric site.
Clive E Burkland (19:49:45) :
wayne (19:25:48) :
There are many errors in your statement. May I suggest you research the amount of solar movement from the SSB and how this movement has NO effect on the solar/planet distance.
No, I think no errors. The Earth’s distance from the surface of the sun does vary by the amount of the radius of the Sun’s orbit about the SSB. Go to NASA Horizons system, detail your objections, and post them back so I can clearly see why you think that your statement is correct. You give blatant objections to my attempt to help another commenter but you give no backup to your claims. A least I clearly stated mine.
I can only guess you are saying the Earth orbits the Sun proper and not the SSB. Back it up, and if your are correct, I will gracefully back down with an apology for offending you. Will you do the same?
I dunno, when someone resorts to quoting the infamous faked Oregon survey on the first page of the introduction, and the release of stolen emails on the second page, to support their thesis, it kind of makes a person a bit suspicious of the robustness of the paper.
And they’ve upped the ‘natural warming’ from 50% to 60% from the look of things. Are they going to release the code this time, I wonder? Or are they still afraid someone might find a few flaws in the calculations?
This little article reads more like a political manifesto than a scientific paper. But whatever turns you on.
It is perfectly reasonable to say to all this, we don’t have enough information yet as to why the temperatures on Earth fluctuate relatively chaotically but with tantalizing glimpses of inter-glacial oscillations and short term forcings such as with volcanic eruptions and ice jams in major water ways. Regarding CO2 and solar influences, I am not overly concerned about either one of these factors causing much warming or cooling that I would notice or that would cause our climate zones to receive higher or lower category labels.