Guest post by David Archibald
When I started out in climate science in 2005, the climate people ignored the solar physics community. A casual perusal of the literature though indicated that the difference in climate outcome from Dikpati’s (NASA) estimate for Solar Cycle 24 amplitude of 190 and Clilverd’s (British Antarctic Survey) estimate of 42 amounted to 2.0°C for the mid-latitudes.
Since then, the prognostications of astute scientists with respect to Solar Cycle 24 amplitude have come to pass. Some commentators though are over-reaching and predicting a recurrence of the Maunder Minimum. We now have the tools to predict climate out to the mid-21st Century with a fair degree of confidence, and a repeat of the Maunder Minimum is unlikely. A de Vries Cycle repeat of the Dalton Minimum is what is in prospect up to the early 2030s and then a return to normal conditions of solar activity, and normal climate.
The three tools we have to predict climate on a multi-decadal basis are the solar cycle length – temperature relationship, the logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide and Ed Fix’s solar cycle prediction. Let’s start with the solar cycle length – temperature relationship, first proposed by Friis-Christensen and Lassen in 1991. This is the relationship for Hanover, New Hampshire:
The relationship established for Hanover is a 0.7°C change in temperature for each year of solar cycle length. Solar Cycle 23 was three years longer than Solar Cycle 22, and thus the average annual temperature for Hanover, New Hampshire will be 2.1°C lower over Solar Cycle 24 than it had been over Solar Cycle 23. Why did I pick Hanover? Governor Lynch recently vetoed New Hampshire leaving the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
Professor Jan-Erik Solheim of Oslo University replicated this methodology for ten Norwegian temperature records, and thus this methodology is confirmed as valid:
These ten Norwegian temperature records all confirm a solar cycle length – temperature relationship, and predict that temperatures of these stations will be about 1.5°C colder over the next ten years than they have been over the last ten years.
The second tool to use is the logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide. The pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was approximately 290 ppm. It is currently 390 ppm. The first 20 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere provides half the heating effect to date. By the time we get to the current concentration, each additional 100 ppm provides a further 0.1°C of heating. We are currently adding 2 ppm to the atmosphere each year so carbon dioxide will provide further heating of 0.1°C every 50 years. That said, the temperature fall over the next 22 years should result in a higher rate of carbon dioxide uptake by the oceans. The logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide is shown by this graph, using data derived from the Modtran site at the University of Chicago:
Lastly, to put a multi-decadal climate forecast together, we need a prediction of solar cycle length that comes with a very good hindcast match. This is provided by Ed Fix’s long ephemeris simulation. This simulation is described in Ed Fix’s paper which is included in an Elsevier volume edited by Don Easterbrook, “Evidence-Based Climate Science”, due out in September. You can put advance orders in for it now:
This is a window of Ed Fix’s simulation:
The green line is the solar cycle record from 1914 to 2010, with alternate cycles reversed. Solar Cycles 19 to 23 are annotated. The red lines is the model output, from which the lengths of individual solar cycles in the mid-21st Century can be calculated.
Combining all the above tools, this is the climate forecast for Hanover, New Hampshire, which is a good proxy for what is going to happen along the US-Canadian border:
Solar Cycles 24 to 27 are annotated. For the next thirty years odd, temperatures will be at mid-19th Century levels. With the two year decrease in the length of Solar Cycle 26 from 25, temperatures will rise by 1.4°C by mid-century to late 20th Century levels.
By then, anthropogenic carbon dioxide will be providing a very welcome 0.2°C to the temperature.
The graph shows that quantified solar effects dwarf the quantified anthropogenic carbon dioxide effect.
David Archibald
12th July 2011
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
William/Bruce You are missing the point, Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) was deeply flawed, and the correllation that it highlighted broke down in 1990. To present work as having the support of a peer-reviewed paper, without mentioning that the paper was flawed and puported correllation did not pan out when further data was collected, is deeply unscientific (or at least demonstrates very poor scholarship if the author was unaware of it). Defending the theory doesn’t change that. I have an open mind about the GCR theory, but the data doesn’t give it strong support at the current time. The latest I have heard is that the CLOUD project at CERN has had difficulty reproducing the basic mechanism in clean laboratory conditions, never mind actual environmental conditions, where there are plenty of CCN anyway. Fitting models without proper diagnostic tests or out-of-sample performance estimates and poor scholarship is pretty unconvincing. Correllation is not causation; corellation with a physical theory that can explain the strength of the effect is the *starting* point – CGR has a lot of ground to catch up.
As much as I’d love to see a dramatic cool off like the last graph shows (to see worldwide media and climate scientists go dumbstruck) I doubt this will pan out. Subtle warming as usual with the occasional dip will likely continue. My forecast: persistence. Boring? Yes. Right. Probably.
Paul Vaughan says:
……….
Paul, thanks for the note, I tend to follow line taken by one of these:
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, National Oceanography Centre and Alfred Wegener Institute. However if you have a link to sky’s paper I certainly would be interested to take a look.
regards
M.A.Vukcevic says:
July 13, 2011 at 1:37 am
It would be useful to see Ed Fix’es exact formula, so his prediction curve can be reproduced (and possibly back extrapolated) before 1914.
My formula has somewhat different forecast but it backtracks 400 years to the start of Maunder min.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
Ed’s curve isn’t generated by a fixed formula. There are ‘tweaks’ with supporting reasons for making them.
A quote from Richard S Courtney in response to a comment by George E. Smith:
“”Again, thankyou for your response to my post. I hope this answer is sufficient to demonstrate that I genuinely appreciate your dispute of the explanation I gave Richard111, and I hope your arguments and my responses to them have both helped him in his ‘quest for knowledge’.””
Yes, indeed. Thank you both and many others on this blog for your comments. I can almost write my own layman’s tutorial. 🙂
In trying to understand the 50/50 isotropic radiation effect I divided the atmosphere into 1km layers and assigned each layer an average temperature as per the adiabatic lapse rate and calculated the mass of CO2 for each layer and came to the conclusion that the “favoured” radiation path is upwards, away from the surface. Thus the surface only recieves radiation from CO2 in the first few hundreds of metres of the atmosphere. Increasing levels of CO2 simply helps cool the atmosphere.
“Correllation is not causation; corellation with a physical theory that can explain the strength of the effect is the *starting* point ”
Current data such as it is suggests that an active sun destroys more ozone above 45Km for a net cooling effect for both mesosphere and stratosphere which then alters surface pressure distribution.
The opposite when the sun is less active.
I await further data to resolve the issue one way or the other.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1318425/Global-warming-theory-chaos-Increased-solar-activity-COOL-Earth.html
‘If solar activity is out of phase with solar radiative forcing, it could change our understanding of how processes in the troposphere and stratosphere act to modulate Earth’s climate.’
‘If solar activity is out of phase with solar radiative forcing, it could change our understanding of how processes in the troposphere and stratosphere act to modulate Earth’s climate.’
Richard111 says:
July 14, 2011 at 1:04 am
In trying to understand the 50/50 isotropic radiation effect I divided the atmosphere into 1km layers and assigned each layer an average temperature as per the adiabatic lapse rate and calculated the mass of CO2 for each layer and came to the conclusion that the “favoured” radiation path is upwards, away from the surface. Thus the surface only recieves radiation from CO2 in the first few hundreds of metres of the atmosphere. Increasing levels of CO2 simply helps cool the atmosphere.
Of course, it does. I can’t think what all the fuss is about and why there has been so much discussion on the subject over the past 100 years or so. Now if you can just submit a little diagram showing the 1km layers of the atmosphere (different colours for different layers would be nice) along with David Archibald’s first year undergraduate linear regression plots of SCL and temperature to the appropriate bodies we can all pack up and go home.
Just a warning, though. Many, many scientists, both sceptic and warmer, have produced simple models which illustrate the radiative transfer between adjacent layers of the atmosphere. I haven’t yet come across one which shows a reduction in surface temperatures due to additional layers and/or the addition of IR absorbing gases. Yours may well be a first in that respect. It’s also possible that you may not fully understand the potential changes to the incoming/outgoing energy balance at the TOA (top of the atmosphere) due to the dominant influence of CO2 at the higher, colder and drier (i.e. less water vapour) layers of the atmosphere.
david…thanks for the link to RealClimate…but i was hoping you had more than that! Their discussion goes back to Idso’s work…a long way back, and though that was empirical, it is not clear how it relates to the issue as it dealt with surface flux and temperature response.
The modtrans data is tricky to interpret. The roughly 4 watts/square metre additional ‘forcing’ from the doubling of CO2 (from 280-560) already uses the log relation….the first 50 ppmv has already accounted for about 250 watts/square metre and so this nearly 300 extra ppmv only imparts 4 watts of additional energy. HOWEVER, as I understand it, this figure is computed for a point at some considerable altitude. It is not a simple matter to translate the forcing (RF) to a surface temperature. The IPCC favour a factor of 0.8 (the lambda factor used for calculating the sensitivity as in T = L. RF….so for an RF of 4, IPCC get 4 x 0.8, or 3.2 degrees C. They do however discuss the work of Keith Shine, a lead author of the working groups, who argued it could go as low as 0.4….leading to 1.6 C for the doubling (and hence their lowest estimate).
RealClimate say that fundamental physics of black-body radiation says you can’t go below 0.3 for lambda (stephan boltzmann law)….but I am a poorly numerate biologist, so I can’t comment on that (yet) and this would take it to….1.2 C.
All the above are calculated for an equilibrium….so am not sure how IPCC work that with the transfer of heat to the oceans.
I tried to follow up this log relation some time back….it was hardly obvious in any IPCC reports, but was mentioned in the first (1990) – all the models relied then on Modtrans but it was only rferenced as an ‘online computer code’. It was actually developed by a lab at an USAF base! It has since been superceded by HIGHTRANS, a multi-national effort. That work confirms the roughly 4 watts/square metre forcing expected for the rise to 560 ppmv. But again, that is computed as a forcing at whatever altitude the earth system re-radiates the compensatory energy associated with the balance…which for reasons I don’t understand, is – 19 C, somewhere at altitude.
It strikes me that this extra radiation – IR – has a long way to go to get to the surface, through cloud and aerosol before it creates global warming….and i am trying to find out what factor is appropriate to apply.
I actually think that Idso is likely to be right….having looked closely at the ice-core record of Temperature and CO2….in those periods where they don’t correlate, with the help of my more numerate colleague, Jackson Davis….too many instances where rising CO2 coincides with falling T and vice versa. But I had wondered if you had taken it further and derived your 0.1 factor (which RealClimate state you must be using). They say that to get that low below the 0.3 fundamental, you have to have strong negative feedbacks.
Anybody else out there know whether there is a natural limit for Lambda at 0.3?
I don’t understand Archibald’s temperature predictions in the final figure (“Hanover NH Climate Forecast to 2050”). I do understand that his model would predict a big temperature drop during the current solar cycle 24, because the preceding cycle (23) was very long.
But the chart he shows of forecasted solar cycles (from Ed Fix) shows the next four cycles each being only 8-9 years long — shorter than any of the ones in the history of the Hanover temperature station. Thus, shouldn’t Archibald’s predictions show a sharp drop in temperatures for Hanover from 2008-2017, and then much, much *higher* temperatures — right off the top of the chart, in fact — from 2017-2053?
Maybe there’s something obvious that I’m not understanding. (It wouldn’t be the first time!) Can someone please explain it?
Sorry to post two comments in quick succession.
“Bruce of Newcastle” wrote: “Dikran – there is a very easy proof of the pSCL-temperature negative correlation. Take the full HadCRUTv3 dataset, graph against pSCL. Then take the CET full dataset and also graph against pSCL. The regression lines are quite consistent with F-C&L and the other similar papers in that field. Its simple to do, takes a morning with a spreadsheet.”
I’m curious about whether you’ve actually tried this. I just followed your directions — I downloaded the HADCRUTv3 dataset, and computed the mean temperature for each solar cycle since #10 (the first one in the HADCRUT record).
I then did a regression of mean temperature in Cycle [X] vs. length of cycle [X-1]. For cycles 10-20, the data actually do fit a linear model pretty well.
But that model completely breaks down in recent decades. Temperatures during Cycles 21-23 were all 0.3 to 0.5 C too high. And of course Cycle 24, which followed a 12.5-year-long cycle, ought to be really cold … but so far it’s running 0.9 C above your model’s prediction.
Bruce, I did exactly what you suggested, using the data sets you recommended (well, I haven’t bothered with CET yet) and the results don’t seem to be at all what you claimed.
It looks to me like there might be some kind of correlation from 1850-1975, but from 1975 onward temperatures have not been following the solar cycle at all. I do not know much about this at all, but my suspicion is that the correlation during cycles 10-20 is mostly spurious.
>>Vuc
>>The effect of this Atlantic heat conveyor is most noticeable in winter.
Errr, that would make the North Sea warmer, not colder.
I was commenting on the fact that the North Sea (upper layers) has a 10oc variation between summer and winter. If the North Sea can loose 10oc of heat in one season, how can the oceans keep the earth warm for decades? Is there enough heat stored in the oceans for that?
.
Gates, each time I read your posts I become more convinced you are a career politician, maybe a member of Congress. You always add disclaimers, if ands or buts, and other various escape routes to allow you to debate without commitment to anything.
To your responses I say this:
#1: You say you assume nothing but then say “so far nothing seems as plausible” which makes your position an assumption.
#2: Your faith in models ignores the GIGO factor. You are well aware that any climate model cannot possibly include the true reality of all climate drivers. Therefore any model result is always based on the “if/ then” scenarios that are programmed in.
#3: We may be close on this one; however, I disagree with your assumption that CO2 is the devil that you say it is. Earlier I brought up the conditions of the Eemian interglacial period as an example
#4: We are close on this one also, however, I again disagree that the SMALL amount of CO2 increase is going to do any harm. Being able to control the world wide human input of CO2 is pie in the sky dreaming unless you advocate a world dictatorship with the force to control everyone. That is the dream of most career politicians, with themselves (perhaps you?) as the “benevolent dictator” of course.
#5: Clever dodge here, “but one way or the other we’re probably coming to the end of that time”. You are not saying Earth will warm too much do to AGW or that Earth is going to return to another 100,000 year period of glaciation due to orbital changes. A politician’s remark if ever there was one.
#6 and #7: Now you contradict yourself (more evidence you are a career politician). If the precautionary principle is a good practice as you state in #7, then you must also apply it to #6. You say warmer is not necessarily better but we know as fact that colder is worse. Therefore we should be actively trying to warm the planet to counteract the upcoming and inevitable long period of glaciation that lies ahead.
#7: A true politician’s ramble. You suggest there could be a problem, offer no solution, straddle the fence on which way it will go and use the escape clause of “one way or the other” one side will be proven wrong.
The only question I have now is are you a local, state or national politician?
Dave Springer says:
July 13, 2011 at 11:37 pm
R. Gates says:
July 13, 2011 at 7:27 pm
“Let’s put it this way, if someone told me we could keep CO2 in the range it’s been during the time our civilizations came into being because the climate was conducive to grain plants which allowed us to even have civilization, or we could allow CO2 to go to levels when human ancestors were tree-shrews and the world was covered with steaming jungles and there were no grains at all…I’ll take the range in which our civilization has come into being. Letting CO2 continually rise, is conducting a huge experiment (rather like rolling the dice) on the future of the planet. Last time I checked, we haven’t got a spare in case we bet wrong”
Those would be the same CO2 levels that allowed the formation of glaciers a mile thick over everything north of Virginia for 100,000 years with 10,000 year interglacial periods. The current interglacial began over 10,000 years ago.
The level of ignorance in your blitherings, Gates, never ceases to amaze me.
_____
My level of ignorance? Apparently you don’t know how to read, or perhaps your comprehension leaves something to be desired. Civilization began pretty much with the Holocene period. This interglacial has proven to be a nice range of CO2 for humanity.
First I would like to thank George Smith and Richard S Courtney for getting to the meat of the issue.
Richard states: And you conclude that statement saying;
“as well as additional water vapor, which directly blocks additional solar spectrum energy from reaching the surface.”
Perhaps, but if it does “block” that solar energy then the “blocked” energy is added to the atmosphere and contributes to back radiation because molecules can be collisionally excited as well as collisionaly de-excited. So, this does not affect my explanation (which I admitted is simplistic).
Yes, it does contribute to back radiation and that radiation eventually is radiated back to the atmosphere . IWO, back radiation is a non-issue. It doesn’t change the amount of energy in the system. The key point is it also contributes to radiation to space. And, when additional GHGs are added to the atmosphere it INCREASES that heat loss from the coupled surface-atmospheric system. This is the often ignored cooling effect of GHGs.
Stephen Wilde says:
July 14, 2011 at 1:41 am
(Quoting Mike Lockwood)
‘If solar activity is out of phase with solar radiative forcing, it could change our understanding of how processes in the troposphere and stratosphere act to modulate Earth’s climate.’
I hope Mike Lockwood understands that coupled RC systems with long periods have long lag times. Translation: the response is necessarily out-of-phase with the forcing.
steveta_uk asked (July 13, 2011 at 8:35 am) “Was that a spoof?”
Certainly not:
P'(s,t) =
( { |A(t)-B(s,t)| * [ A(t)*B'(s,t) + B(s,t)*A'(t) ] }
– { [ A(t)*B(s,t) ] * [ ( A(t)-B(s,t) ) * ( A'(t)-B'(s,t) ) / |A(t)-B(s,t)| ] } )
/ ( A(t)-B(s,t) )^2
A(t) ≠ B(s,t)
I imagine this will make more sense to some readers in pictorial form – e.g. a color contour plot. (Another day.)
Others (some of whom regard themselves as top world experts in their fields) who nonsensically demand stationary linear uni-grain uni-extent (i.e. patently spatiotemporally-blind) “illogic” won’t lift a finger to develop the conceptual foundation to understand; I literally do not have time to deal with their unproductively draining tangents and sub-Stat101-level “reasoning”.
EOP (Earth Orientation Parameters) are the arbiters of climate disputes. They remind us that hydrology is a function of absolutes, not anomalies. Plain & simple: We cannot ignore annual & semi-annual cycles (…the way so many here do by brazenly & foolhardily limiting their attention to the study of temperature anomalies). Nor can we ignore gradients.
Smokey says:
July 13, 2011 at 7:40 pm
John Whitman,
“”””I’m not certain what you’re looking for, but here are a few CO2/T links:””””
——
Smokey,
Appreciate the 12 links.
I am getting a feel for the geological timescale perspective of the earth’s CO2 versus Temps compared to the last 150 years.
The alarmist claims seem quite insubstantial and ephemeral (with gossamer wings) when viewed through a far viewing geological lens.
I am serene rather than alarmed about CO2 and Temp. Only am alarmed by the questionable possible ideological premises of AGW alarmist leadership.
John
William says:
July 13, 2011 at 7:00 am
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/barrett_ee05.pdf
Thank you for the link to the Jack Barratt essay which I have now read in detail. A lot of interesting and useful information therein. But I do have a problem with the following statement from Page 1043:
“The emitted radiation has an intensity given by the product of the Stefan-Boltzmann
constant (5.67 ´ 10–8 W m–2 K–4) and the fourth power of the temperature of the
blackbody. Taking the Earth’s emission as approximately blackbody radiation, the output
of 235 Wm–2 is equivalent to a temperature of 253.7 K. The Earth’s surface temperature
is generally agreed to be 288 K, thus the resultant global warming due to the effects of
the GHGs, convection, evaporation of water from the oceans, clouds, aerosols, etc., is
288 – 253.7 = 34.3 K.“
My bold. My reading tells me that if you remove the GHGs from the atmosphere you will still have almost the same temperature gradient entirely due to gravity. It is referred to as the dry adiabatic lapse rate.. The fact that the sun rises each day maintains that temperature gradient otherwise global temperature would drop below freezing in about 96 hours.
Re-inserting the GHGs and water vapour and aerosols etc. will give us our weather. The Earth does not radiate to space from the surface. This is pointed out quite clearly in the essay. What is not mentioned in the essay is that the mean balancing radiative temperature of 288 K occurs at some 5,000 metres and upwards in the atmosphere. This is what the satellite measurements record.
Ralph says: July 14, 2011 at 5:47 am
………..
In my view (mind you not everyone agrees) the key to the understanding of how and why the North Atlantic area’s climate changes is the Greenland-Scotland ridge, so I suggest a quick look at these illustrations:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6840/fig_tab/411927a0_ft.html
and a short article from Institute of Oceanography, University of Hamburg.
http://www.ifm.zmaw.de/mitarbeiter/detlef-quadfasel/projects/overflow-over-the-greenland-scotland-ridge/
there is also (with lot details):
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Ocean_processes_of_climatic_importance_in_the_Arctic
You can find many papers (use Google Scholar) on the subject.
Your right to disagree is respected.
Richard111:
I am writing to add something to your comment at July 14, 2011 at 9:55 am that derives from your consideration of an item by Jack Barrett.
Before I do that I need to declare that Jack Barrett and I are protagonists who have often strongly disagreed (including on this very day) over the years. Hence, it could be thought that I am prejudiced concerning his views.
Jack is firmly convinced that the warming effect of atmospheric CO2 as asserted by the IPCC is correct. He makes very good arguments to support his views and I strongly recommend that you study his writings if you are interested in radiative effects within the atmosphere system. Unfortunately, he has difficulty considering other opinions than his own, and this inhibits discussion with him: you need to know this if you choose to communicate with him.
You quote Jack and then – on the basis of that quotation – you say;
“My reading tells me that if you remove the GHGs from the atmosphere you will still have almost the same temperature gradient entirely due to gravity.”
Your statement leads directly to consideration of the Jelbring Hypothesis which several people – notably Jack Barrett and Hans Erren – strongly dispute. (Incidentally, please do not mention the Jelbring Hypothesis to Jack because his response will be to go ballistic).
I do not know if the Jelbring Hypothesis is right or wrong, but I do know the arguments against it from Barrett and Erren are spurious.
Simply, the Jelbring Hypothesis says the atmosphere of any planet that is heated by a sun (and has a significant atmosphere) will organise to provide a fixed adiabatic lapse rate which determines the planet’s surface temperature.
According to this hypothesis, all the radiative, evaporative and convective effects within the atmosphere adjust to provide this lapse rate whatever the gaseous composition of the atmosphere.
And, except for Mars, each planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere does have a lapse rate and surace temperature which concurs with the prediction of the Jelbring Hypothesis.
Mars could be expected to be an exception to the Jelbring Hypothesis. It has little atmosphere of almost pure CO2 which freezes on the winter pole and sublimes in the Martian spring, so Mars never has a fixed atmosphere which could organise according to the Jelbring Hypothesis.
Hans Jelbring published his hypothesis in a peer reviewed paper in E&E. In that paper he formally stated his hypothesis as follows.
“In an ideal gas atmosphere, the adiabatic temperature lapse rate has to be –g/cp where cp is the heat capacity of the gas (ref 2 p. 49). Theoretical calculations are well confirmed by observational evidence in the atmosphere of Earth. The adiabatic temperature lapse rate on Earth is thus –9.81/1004 = –0.0098 K/m. As James R. Holton concluded after deriving this result: “Hence, the dry adiabatic lapse rate is approximately constant throughout the lower atmosphere.” The temperature lapse rate in our model atmosphere also has to be –g/cp, since its atmosphere is organized adiabatically.”
Please note that I do not know if the Jelbring Hypothesis is right or wrong, but your comment indicates that you need to be aware of it.
Richard
William says: July 13, 2011 at 6:39 am
The answer why this happens e.g. in three links here (the last link may be the most explicit…) :
http://www.sciencebits.com/NothingNewUnderTheSun
I guess statistics on sun hours (if that’s available) would reveal the cosmoclimatology (cloud) link.
For woodNfish on July 13, 2011 at 8;43 am above:
Please remember, this posting was written by David Arcibald not
Anthony Watts.
When Mr Archibald says, “We now have the tools to predict the climate
out to the mid-21st century with a fair degree of confidence…” he assumes
and includes the paradigm that “that part of the science is settled” as
part of the operant procedures and the final conclusions.
Mr. Archibald’s track record on solar modeling and analysis has been
very mixed to date. He predicted the attributes of one solar cycle almost
perfectly, was sort of right on another, but his original model-based
predictions and repreated corrections for Solar Cycle 24 look rather
foolish now.
To indicate a Solar Minimum of any length, strength, depth or global effect
at this point goes way beyond the data available… and seems a special stretch
by Dave to stay relevant to the discussion of solar activity and temperature
change.
Most of the climate models now in vogue rely on an ever-rising sand castle built
on very questionable, now often questioned foundation of proxy studies.
Hind casts can’t really be accurate back beyond the early 1700s due to the
lack of quality sunspot data. Good, documented, northern hemisphereic
termperature data doesn’t exist in any kind of accurate form going back
more than 300 years in but a few select locations.
Here come those good old studies by Mann, Jones, Briffa, et al., through
the backdoor, unannounced and uncited, to help Mr. Archibald out in a
professionally embarrassing moment.
As much as I believe there’s a Minimum (the “Eddy” Minimum?) coming,
Dave Archibald’s prognostications don’t add anything to my conviction.
J at July 14, 2011 at 5:05 am
J – I did not say there was no CO2 based warming in the last half century – indeed I did the exercise with the CET of using the Butler & Johnston 1996 (Armagh) slope to compare against the CET trend line slope – if you goal seek a 2XCO2 using the Mauna Loa data it comes out at about 0.7 C, not bad when you compare with Lindzen & Choi’s recent paper. Armagh is fairly close to the CET triangle in latitude and general climate.
Before you get excited yes I know there are things like volcanoes, aerosols, UHI, soot, ocean currents, mixing, dogs cats & zebras to consider when producing a value for 2XCO2. I did that exercise only to smell test whether the low sensitivity or high sensitivity hypotheses make the most sense – and the number came out at 0.7 and not 3.5, which didn’t inspire me with confidence in the IPCC.
My point is the correlation is there for all to see, and the magnitude of the slope is much higher than you might expect if you relate TSI to temperature – which is exactly the point the consensus people say (before they carefully ignore the inconvenient pSCL correlation). Butler and Johnston say this:
In conclusion we may remark that, even though the physical mechanism(s) for solar-activity induced changes in climate are still unresolved, there is mounting evidence that a speeding up of the solar cycle appears to be accompanied by an increase in the efficiency of the solar dynamo that ultimately leads to an increase in the temperature of the Earth’s lower atmosphere.
As I point out, this is in 1996, now we are seeing the ‘unresolved’ being (or attempting to be) progressively resolved by groups such as the Uni of Aarhus people. No such attempts are being made by groups such as GISS, who appear to see this science as a personal economic and political threat.
Now all I myself say is the correlation is there – commentators such as Dikram can try to poke holes in individual papers but the data is quite clear, unless you want to try and redefine what least squares linear regression is (to paraphrase a certain professor). I do not explain the cause of the correlation, but I am not a climate scientist. Climate scientists must explain it, for if they do not then the extraordinarily expensive political action many advocate is not then scientifically justifiable, as Mr Archibald points out with his data.
John Finn says:
July 14, 2011 at 1:43 am
My bad. I think I should have said “increasing levels of CO2 helps the atmosphere to cool”. Without CO2 the atmosphere above the tropopause would have a much reduced ability to radiate to space.
Tom in Florida:
A politician…me? Not in this lifetime!
But to your point about the uncertainty in my statements– at the most basic level, that’s the nature of the beast. I think it is most likely we’ll see warming ahead in the next few centuries, brought about not by some natural cycles, but by human caused greenhouse emissions. But as the sudden onset of the Younger Dryas period showed us, the climate can reverse direction very rapidly as there are always those “Black Swan” events that can tip a complex system in a direction opposite the long term trend. But the jest of what I was trying to say is it is increasingly unlikely the moderate climate of the Holocene will continue many more centuries, unless humans take the next step and actually begin wholesale geoengineering of earth’s climate.