On Saturday I posted about this study from Pierre Gosselin at No Tricks Zone:
New Study Shows A Clear Millennial Solar Impact Throughout Holocene
Now we have another that suggests little effect. and shows a business as usual projected warming trend.
From the:
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 117, D05103, 13 PP., 2012
doi:10.1029/2011JD017013
What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near-surface temperature changes?
- Past solar activity is used to estimate future changes in total solar irradiance
- The impact on future global temperatures is estimated with a climate model
- The Sun’s influence is much smaller than future anthropogenic warming
Gareth S. Jones
Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
Mike Lockwood
Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, UK
Peter A. Stott
Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
During the 20th century, solar activity increased in magnitude to a so-called grand maximum. It is probable that this high level of solar activity is at or near its end. It is of great interest whether any future reduction in solar activity could have a significant impact on climate that could partially offset the projected anthropogenic warming. Observations and reconstructions of solar activity over the last 9000 years are used as a constraint on possible future variations to produce probability distributions of total solar irradiance over the next 100 years. Using this information, with a simple climate model, we present results of the potential implications for future projections of climate on decadal to multidecadal timescales. Using one of the most recent reconstructions of historic total solar irradiance, the likely reduction in the warming by 2100 is found to be between 0.06 and 0.1 K, a very small fraction of the projected anthropogenic warming. However, if past total solar irradiance variations are larger and climate models substantially underestimate the response to solar variations, then there is a potential for a reduction in solar activity to mitigate a small proportion of the future warming, a scenario we cannot totally rule out. While the Sun is not expected to provide substantial delays in the time to reach critical temperature thresholds, any small delays it might provide are likely to be greater for lower anthropogenic emissions scenarios than for higher-emissions scenarios.
Dr. Leif Svalgaard comments to me via email:
Whatever one’s take, it is an item in the debate. There are some
problems with the TSI series they use, e.g. the PMOD series which we now know has a problem with non-compensated degradation. This has been admitted by the experimenters, see Slide 29 of
http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
There is also a problem with the long-term slope, but none of these are serious, the fact remains that TSI has not varied enough. The argument that there are other solar variables that are responsible falls flat, because they all in the end correlate strongly with the variation of TSI. That the effect is man-made is also on shaky ground because there are longer term climate variations long before CO2 increases.
I don’t disagree with Dr. Svalgaard that variance of direct forcing on Earth’s climate via TSI has been small, but that’s why many are looking in other places, such as UV effects and GCR modulation of cloud cover for example. TSI really isn’t the “total” solar irradiance in the truest sense, there are other effects from the sun that are just now being researched and are beginning to be understood. My view is that there is an amplification effect going on related to one or more solar effects. GCR cloud modulation theory might just be one of those amplifications.
The full paper is here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011JD017013.pdf
Let’s have at it then.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here’s the salient point I see: “solar activity could have a significant impact on climate … if past total solar irradiance variations are larger and climate models substantially underestimate the response to solar variations” 😉
Ohhh Noooo not Total Solar Irradience again! Nooo!
While TSI varies only perhaps 1%, cycles of the solar magnetosphere can cause a variance in strength of 50% or more. When are these solar denialists going to … err, ahh … see the light?
If one wants to postulate that UV, cosmic rays, etc, have any appreciable effect on climate (taking into account Dr Svalgaard’s simple quantitative numbers above), then they hold a two-edge sword. Fairly simple calculations show a non-feedback CO2-doubling effect of around 1C. The IPCC multiplies that 2-4 times to get their “numbers”. Most here agree (including myself) that this is unreasonable. Yet taking direct/indirect solar effects, you’d have to multiply many, many times more than the IPCC does w/their CO2 calcs to get any significant effect!
Please don’t fall into intellectual hypocrisy.
Jason Joice M.D. says:
March 5, 2012 at 5:07 am
@Olavi,
Lief says “it’s not the sun” and he knows EVERYTHING about the sun, so don’t question him. Mmmkay??
Seriously though, how can someone just say that oh, all those other factors fall flat without showing studies and some sort of “proof” that they “fall flat”.
Seriously though, how can someone write the things y’all do without having read all the papers on the subject. Why not start at the link below, then check out the many WUWT comments on such topics, and then follow up on all the embedded links. Some of it is pretty tough slogging but multiple side trips out to other web resources helps. Six to 8 weeks of steady study can do a lot for your understanding of the issues:
http://www.leif.org/research/
Well if the suns influence is so miniscule as these idiots seem to suggest, maybe they can tell me why it gets so bloody cold, dropping several degrees more than their predicted “catastrophic rise” after nightfall?
Craig Goodrich says:
March 5, 2012 at 6:11 am
While TSI varies only perhaps 1%, cycles of the solar magnetosphere can cause a variance in strength of 50% or more. When are these solar denialists going to … err, ahh … see the light?
And how much does the temperature vary during a cycle? How many percent?
No different reaction than to the previous paper. In terms of long term effects, we can’t yet say we have anything close to a definitive answer regarding how powerful the sun’s influence may be. Anywhere between this paper and the previous one.
If Svensmark is correct — not yet demonstrated — then longer term solar variation could be much more important than most people think.
Again, let’s let the scientists battle this out without interference from spinners, in particular from the climate model community who think that they know enough to say that the sun doesn’t have much of a long term effect. On what grounds? In the end, they could be right, but it won’t be because they know the science — nobody does just yet. If the solar skeptics (I want to use the word deniers, because that is what some of them are, but we have to all get away from that word) end up being right, it is simply because their guess turned out to be correct. We certainly aren’t there yet, and may find that the solar skeptics are quite wrong.
As the AGW lot is running out of options with CO2 and have no slightest idea how sun does it, here is graphic preview
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP-SSN.htm
It is the sun (but not through TSI), there is the power, mechanism and the raw data. With the global trends on turn, time is rapidly approaching for the classic physics, forget about namby-pamby, not to say pathetic effect of CO2, UVs, TSIs, SS cycle lengths, Ap index and other minor distractions.
The energy balance model (EBM) used by Jones, Lockwood and Stott has the same problem of all GCM models used by the IPCC which have all been rebutted in my latest publications, for example
Nicola Scafetta, “Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation climate models.” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, (2012). DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2011.12.005
Discussed here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/09/scaffeta-on-his-latest-paper-harmonic-climate-model-versus-the-ipcc-general-circulation-climate-models/
Note that their EBM also present quite large volcano spikes not really see in the temperature and does not reproduce any of the detectable climate cycles with periods at about 9.1, 10-11, 20 and 60 years. And there is no reason that theis EBM is capable to reproduce the longer cycles such as the millennial cycle that also explains the medieval warm period.
In particular note that from the figure above showing the EBM performance not only reconstruct a steady warming from 1940 to 1960, when there wa a cooling, but it reconstructs a steady warming from 2000 to now at a rate of about 2.3 C/century, like the IPCC models. However during this 2000-2012 period no warming has been observed. See the widget temperature on WUWT here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/scafettas-solar-lunar-cycle-forecast-vs-global-temperature/
So Jones, Lockwood and Stott model has already failed the hindcast test, and for no reasons it is possible to believe in there model for the future.
A new updated widget temperature has been sent to Anthony showing an even additional cooling in Jan/2012. Hopefully Anthony will put it on line soon.
(Still hoping that Svalgaard starts to address these issues with fairness)
Using this information, with a simple climate model, we present results of the potential implications for future projections of climate on decadal to multidecadal timescales.
Exactly!
That statement is precisely correct, and the truth of it is why this “study” is:
a) not what it appears to be and
b) useless.
As they state, what they are presenting are “… implications for future projections of climate…” They are not presenting any implications of projected solar activity for the future climate only on their future projections of climate. All they are doing is showing you the properties they have programmed into their models. Their models are not programmed to recognize anything other than tiny effects from changes in solar activity, and they aren’t going to be changing that. Their thought processes don’t even consider the possibility that they could have a reason to change that – look:
However, if past total solar irradiance variations are larger and climate models substantially underestimate the response to solar variations, then there is a potential for a reduction in solar activity to mitigate a small proportion of the future warming, a scenario we cannot totally rule out.
If their models substantially underestimate the response to solar variations, then a drop in solar activity might result in a small drop in future warming? Hello!
Hey numbnuts, if your models substantially underestimate the response to solar variations, that might result in a substantial drop in future warming, vs your current projections! But you are not even considering that possibility, let alone permitting the obvious to be spoken in your papers.
This is not a study. It is an exposition of the assumptions of their models, masquerading as a study.
One, TSI is a good proxy for the other solar variations being considered. So if you can’t find correlation with TSI (and you can’t), you won’t find it with the other measures. Two, furthermore the total affective energy in these other solar measures is so small that we must find an Earth bound amplification device to talk beyond snake oil affects. And three, all this solar discussion appears to hinge on a very small affect, one that sits besides the intrinsic and far more powerful drivers and oscillations right here on tera firma.
I just don’t buy the goods from either camp.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 5, 2012 at 6:32 am
(Still hoping that Svalgaard starts to address these issues with fairness)
Fairness is the the issue. One should not give equal time and consideration to any and all points of view. One must weed out the ones that are not viable.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 5, 2012 at 6:32 am
A new updated widget temperature has been sent to Anthony showing an even additional cooling in Jan/2012.
contradicting your model that predicts increasing temperatures…
bubbagyro says:March 5, 2012 at 2:50 am
……………..
There’s one on the way, give it a day or two.
http://www.spaceweather.com/images2012/05mar12/cme_c2.gif?PHPSESSID=d0o4p8prbfrgopi2923bf0jcu3
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 5, 2012 at 6:32 am
(Still hoping that Svalgaard starts to address these issues with fairness)
Fairness is NOT the issue. One should not give equal time and consideration to any and all points of view. One must weed out the ones that are not viable.
@ur momisugly Leif “contradicting your model that predicts increasing temperatures…”
Leif needs to visit an oculist and/or he needs new glasses.
My model (black curve, cyan area) predicts an approximate steady temperature trend until 2030, which is modulated by the decadal cycles. The model may also predict a small cooling if the anthropogenic component has been overestimated (yellow curve). As it is evident from my figure
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/scafetta_model_updated-fig-02_02_2012.png
Leif, a question for you. How many people reading your unfair responses do you belive are thinking that you are an honest guy?
I’m sorry, I just can’t stop laughing at the juxtaposition of the last few comments. “Hey, numbnuts! Fairness is not the issue!”
Just ask a question:
Is sunspot 1429 has been changed its polarity?
An X1.1 flare was erupted and a CME occurred simultaneously. Is this connected with SF Bay area ‘s Mw 4.0 earthquake?
I for one am glad that WUWT is big enough for both Svalgaard and Scarfetta.
Just an idle thought here. Apologies for the lack of appropriate scientific terminology.
Given:
UV changes about 10 to 15% over the course of a solar cycle. As compared to TSI changing about 1%.
UV both heats the stratosphere and creates ozone.
The stratosphere has less CO2 and H2O compared to the lower levels of the atmosphere.
Ozone is also a greenhouse gas in that it can absorb energy in the IR band.
Implications:
The at the height of a solar cycle, the stratosphere is both warmer (due to direct affects of UV) and has a higher loading of greenhouse gasses, compared to the low points of the solar cycle.
Because of both of these affects, the upper layers of the troposphere are going to be warmer at the height of a solar cycle compared to the low points.
Because of this, convection will be depressed at the height of the solar cycle.
Convection is one of the two main mechanisms that trasport heat from the lower troposphere to the upper.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 5, 2012 at 7:03 am
My model (black curve, cyan area) predicts an approximate steady temperature trend until 2030, which is modulated by the decadal cycles.
With a magnifying glass it is easy to see that the black curve is trending upwards [especially the decadal cycle].
“It is of great interest whether any future reduction in solar activity could have a significant impact on climate that could partially offset the projected anthropogenic warming.”
This is the tail wagging the dog, since the “projected anthropogenic warming” is merely an assumption based on very little evidence. Their entire argument is flawed from the get-go. No surprise there, though.
Well, that’s interesting. Note that the graph shows a huge jump in global climate in 2020 or so erasing the current cooling trend and returning to IPCC agreeable warming in the process.
Also note that they don’t EBM model projections until the year 2022 or so. That’s a novel way to avoid having to hide the decline.
I must confess that I think I’ve been wrong all along.
Obviously the climate scientists could take all the data for the lottery, create a backcast and then forecast future results to make themselves millions.
The fact that they are not doing this shows they are doing this work for the good of mankind.
Nicola Scafetta
Your predictions are more realistic than IPCC
Your predictions[black and yellow lines] show global warming to 2015/2016. What factors would cause this rise . The anthropogenic component has been overestimated now for 10 years , so why would you not use the yellow line only . I think we are in for more cooling than warming between now and 2030 because the ocean cycles are trending cooling from the lagged effects of the last solar cycle .