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.
Some scientists think we are in for a period of severe cooling. There’s a bet on that the average global temperature will be lower between 2012 and 2017 than it was between 1998 and 2003.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/aug/19/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment
Someone will win the bet but I’m not sure anyone will admit that the argument is over.
@ur momisugly Leif Svalgaard says”:With a magnifying glass it is easy to see that the black curve is trending upwards [especially the decadal cycle].”
Leif, as I have already explained to you the black curves represent a decadal smooth.
The model I proposed is not supposed to reproduce the fast ElNino-LaNina oscillations that have a scale of a few years. You are confusing the decadal and multi-decadal component with the faster fluctuations. Wait a few months and the monthly temperature curve will start again to warm as ElNino comes back and then it will cool again as LaNina comes back and so on.
So, please, stop to mislead people with your inappropriate comments. Look at the figures here with an open mind, (it is not enougth to have a magnified glass, you also need an open mind)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/scafettas-solar-lunar-cycle-forecast-vs-global-temperature/
In any case, try to use your magnified glass to note that the energy balance model (EBM) used by Jones, Lockwood and Stott has predicted a steady warming of about 2.3 C/century from 2000 to 2012 which is similar to the IPCC projections (green area in my figure) which is already strongly contraddicted by the temperature data. So, Jones, Lockwood and Stott is already proved to be useless because based on a wrong climate model.
This whole thing is based on two assumptions which are clearly false. 1. The models used accurately represent reality in some reasonable fashion. 2. The suns activity, i.e. the energy delivered is either static or of not consequence. This is not science it is black box (not black body) sophistry.
Time will tell! I suspect they’ll be wrong, but again no one will remember.
It doesn’t appear to be just the TSI anyway but some combination of the spectral distribution and magnetic strength. How about a solar p^+ wind contribution?
This is a classic!! : Dec. 21, 2006:Solar cycle 24, due to peak in 2010 or 2011 “looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago, “says solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. – from: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm
Reminds me of charlatans Paul/Anne Ehrlich, darlings of the non-linear thinkers (I was one) in the ’60/’70’s… (and she’s on the PI Board – perfect fit!)
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 5, 2012 at 8:19 am
Look at the figures here with an open mind, (it is not enougth to have a magnified glass, you also need an open mind)
But not so open that your brain has fallen out. In essence you are just ‘predicting’ status quo, which would be the null-hypothesis for a model with no predictive power. A WUWT thread is meant to be a discussion of the specific paper or topic of the thread, not a latitude to just push your own ideas. You could also benefit from reading http://www.michaelshermer.com/weird-things/
Lockwood and Stott has predicted a steady warming of about 2.3 C/century from
No, they have not. They have shown [or suggested, if one thinks that ‘show’ is too strong] the tiny influence of solar activity on whatever other projections give. If these other projection as wrong [as they well might be], the influence of the Sun that is inferred is still going to be very small. THAT is what the paper is about.
With equal respect and admiration for both Leif and Nicola, I wonder how many years into the future before one of you will call out “Uncle”?
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 5, 2012 at 6:26 am
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?
Olavi says:
March 5, 2012 at 4:09 am
Leif Svalgaard:
“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.”
EUV and UV variation is larger than variation in visible light.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2010JA015431.pdf
N. A. Krivova,1 L. E. A. Vieira,1,2 and S. K. Solanki1,3
If this is the case, it can be major factor in climate. And what about cosmic rays? Solar wind can be the other major driver to earth’s cilmate.
CO2 effect is 0,000014C 🙂
———————————————————————————————————-
Tell me Leif, if warming has taken century, how fast it has to cool down that you take serious taught that there is possibility that sun affects climate much more than you believe.
To Nick and Leif:
It is indeed that the pure TSI -value does not produce large enough temperature swings…
neither today nor in the paleo-past…..
….This is, what we know already, nothing new. We therefore have to focus on the AMPLIFIERS
of solar effects, because only with amplification (increasing/decreasing) you will get large
temp swings such as the Dansgaard-Oeschger event temp swings of up to 5 C GMT……
…The real amplifier is the Earth’s orbit, transparently calculated for time spans longer
than 20,000 years…see my booklet ISBN 978-3-86805-604-4 on the German Amazon.de.
No IPCC, no GCM, no Metoffice, no wizard simulations were able to do these calculations
because their heads are all dimmed with CO2…..
Leif thinks, he got the answers, but he fails, because his JPL DE 405 data OMITS that
the AMPLIFYING effect of the Sun is found in the SPIRAL shaped Earth’s orbit, which
did NOT enter JPL tables and graphs, still missing! And this is the smelling dog: JPL
straightened the spiral shape of the Earth’s flight into a line flight…. which is just fine
and sufficient for ephemeris uses but NOT for climate analysis and studies of amplifier effects…..
JS
Leif is talking total nonsense again. He is pretending that Lockwood failed to find a correlation between TSI and temperature:
Pamela Gray states this even more explicitly:
But Lockwood’s paper doesn’t include any correlation findings, at least not according to the abstract, which offers a perfectly clear description of what was done:
Lockwood is simply putting constraints on how much total insolation is likely to vary. This says absolutely nothing about the strength of GCR-cloud effects or the strength of any other mechanism besides TSI by which solar activity may affect climate. We’re used to this kind of thing from Leif in the comment threads, but it’s an awfully blatant misrepresentation to be putting right in the main post!
Of course many other studies HAVE found strong correlations between solar activity and various proxies for temperature. I listed two dozen in the second section of my review of AR5. One of the great climate-science scandals is the omission of this evidence from the IPCC reports. They studiously avoid consideration of any solar variables other than TSI. Instead of addressing the evidence and telling us why they are unmoved by it, they just OMIT THE EVIDENCE.
What Leif is doing here is very similar. In a blatant non sequitur, he pretends that constraints on TSI imply constraints on other solar variables. Why? Because they are correlated? When the correlation between solar activity and climate remains uncontested? That is evidence FOR solar effects other than TSI. If TSI effects are too small to account for the observed solar-climate correlations, then any solar influence must be working through OTHER solar variables, right Leif?
To Alec:
You are right: There are other solar variables or solar amplifyers which have
to be studied…..The solar TSI-value itself does not show the power for the huge
temp swings in the past….Only problem: Leif is unwilling to learn, simply obstinate
instead of being happy to receive new hints and directions to look at…..such as to
the Earth’s orbit, which amplifies or decreases incoming solar radiation…..
… JS
Olavi says:
March 5, 2012 at 9:28 am
Tell me Leif, if warming has taken century, how fast it has to cool down that you take serious taught that there is possibility that sun affects climate much more than you believe.
If warming takes centuries, cooling will too
Joachim Seifert says:
March 5, 2012 at 9:43 am
JPL straightened the spiral shape of the Earth’s flight into a line flight…. which is just fine
and sufficient for ephemeris uses but NOT for climate analysis and studies of amplifier effects…..
Whatever path the sun follows in the Galaxy and its path in turn in the Local Group, and its path etc do not have any influence on the climate or anything else on time scales of centuries or shorter. Already Galileo knew this:
“Shut yourself up with some friend in the main cabin below decks on some large ship, and have with you there some flies, butterflies, and other small flying animals. Have a large bowl of water with some fish in it; hang up a bottle that empties drop by drop into a wide vessel beneath it. With the ship standing still, observe carefully how the little animals fly with equal speed to all sides of the cabin. The fish swim indifferently in all directions; the drops fall into the vessel beneath; and, in throwing something to your friend, you need throw it no more strongly in one direction than another, the distances being equal; jumping with your feet together, you pass equal spaces in every direction. When you have observed all these things carefully (though there is no doubt that when the ship is standing still everything must happen in this way), have the ship proceed with any speed you like, so long as the motion is uniform and not fluctuating this way and that. You will discover not the least change in all the effects named, nor could you tell from any of them whether the ship was moving or standing still. In jumping, you will pass on the floor the same spaces as before, nor will you make larger jumps toward the stern than toward the prow even though the ship is moving quite rapidly, despite the fact that during the time that you are in the air the floor under you will be going in a direction opposite to your jump. In throwing something to your companion, you will need no more force to get it to him whether he is in the direction of the bow or the stern, with yourself situated opposite. The droplets will fall as before into the vessel beneath without dropping toward the stern, although while the drops are in the air the ship runs many spans. The fish in their water will swim toward the front of their bowl with no more effort than toward the back, and will go with equal ease to bait placed anywhere around the edges of the bowl. Finally the butterflies and flies will continue their flights indifferently toward every side, nor will it ever happen that they are concentrated toward the stern, as if tired out from keeping up with the course of the ship, from which they will have been separated during long intervals by keeping themselves in the air. And if smoke is made by burning some incense, it will be seen going up in the form of a little cloud, remaining still and moving no more toward one side than the other. The cause of all these correspondences of effects is the fact that the ship’s motion is common to all the things contained in it and to the air also. That is why I said you should be below decks; for if this took place above in the open air, which would not follow the course of the ship, more or less noticeable differences would be seen in some of the effects noted.”
On a rolling sea counting the bubbles in your wine glass as a measure of the swell.
@ur momisugly Leif “A WUWT thread is meant to be a discussion of the specific paper or topic of the thread, not a latitude to just push your own ideas.”
Leif, in science competing ideas need to be compared. If not science never progresses. This is the purpose of the scientific method, that apparently you do not understand.
As I have extensively proven in my papers, the IPCC models do not reproduce clear temperature cycles. The EBM adopted by the authors of this new paper has exactly the same problems. Thus, like the IPCC models, also this EBM is missing important physical mechanisms which likely refer to missing astronomical forcings.
So, nothing referring to the real climate can be deduced from their model.
Is this simple concept too difficult for you to understand?
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 5, 2012 at 10:24 am
Leif, in science competing ideas need to be compared.
Only if they are viable. And ” missing astronomical forcings” are not.
So, nothing referring to the real climate can be deduced from their model.
Since your model does not predict any changes within your error bar, its goes for yours as well.
Alec Rawls says:
March 5, 2012 at 10:04 am
If TSI effects are too small to account for the observed solar-climate correlations, then any solar influence must be working through OTHER solar variables, right Leif?
Only if there is a strong correlation. which there is not. Perhaps you are advocating the ‘missing astrological forcings’ that scafetta appeals to? It would be interesting to see if you buy those musings.
Alec Rawls says:
March 5, 2012 at 10:04 am
If TSI effects are too small to account for the observed solar-climate correlations, then any solar influence must be working through OTHER solar variables, right Leif?
Only if there is a strong correlation. which there is not. Perhaps you are advocating the ‘missing astrological forcings’ that Scafetta appeals to? It would be interesting to see if you buy those musings. You can answer right here.
To Leif:
With your present level of astronomical knowledge you can’t really contribute to
the truth in solar forcing amplification….
Please get my booklet…where the climate amplifying effects are all calculated in
detail…and you will recognize, you are completely outed and behind in our times…..
JS
@Leif,
“Since your model does not predict any changes within your error bar, its goes for yours as well.”
When will you stop to mislead people?
How many times I need to correct you by telling you that my model is not supposed to reproduuce the fast and larte ElNino/LaNina fluctuations? I wrote this many times here and in my paper as well.
Why don’t you try to be honest for one time at least?
My model needs to be compared with the 4-year smooth which in the figure is in grey, see here
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/scafetta_figure-original1.png
And read my paper
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta_models_comparison_ATP.pdf
look at figure 6 for the proper statistical test.
Dr.S versus Dr.S, two docs fighting
I was advised by Steven Mosher not to mix humour with science.
@ur momisugly Leif “Only if they are viable. And ” missing astronomical forcings” are not.”
No Leif, we have the cycles in the data, that is what we need to do the calculations in the same way people in the past have developed calendards without knowing thermodynamics, or tidal predictions without known Newtonian gravity.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 5, 2012 at 10:42 am
When will you stop to mislead people?
I think people can make up their own minds, don’t you?
To Leif:
I explained to you (1) the EARTH’s orbit around the SUN, (2) and not your SUN’s
orbit around Earth in the Galaxy… and the “fishes in the bowl” have nothing to do
with the Earth’s orbit….
(3) your NASA JPL data shows the long stretched out spiral flight as a line flight…..
…..taking out the spiral character of the real trajectory…
(4) any real astronomer would know
the spiral advance of planets/ as well as the Moon —->see wikipedia “Libration”:
which is the spiral advance movement of the Moon…..
……You are fighting against reality and against the study of solar amplifiers…..
… a paid Warmist position….too bad…
JS
Joachim Seifert says:
March 5, 2012 at 10:49 am
the Earth’s orbit, which amplifies or decreases incoming solar radiation…..
And changes in the orbit does indeed change the insolation dramatically, but those happen on time scales of many thousands of years, not centuries or decades, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Insolation-65-N.png that shows the solar insolation in early summer at 65 degrees North, which is thought to be important for controlling glaciations. Because the Earth’s orbit in the coming millennia will become almost circular, there is no impending glaciation. BTW, it is Jupiter that moslty control the shape of the orbit, so planets are indeed the ultimate climate regulators.
And these changes are fully taken into account in JPL’s calculations.
Looks like Lockwood is ensuring funding keeps coming…
Got to love it how the warmists, incuding warmist papers like this one always stop the temperature data in 2000, which is now 12 years old.
The reason being is that the observed temperatures are already cooler than their projected forecasts, as we have flatlined over the past decade or so.
There is no excuse for leaving out data from 2000-2012, since this is a 2012 paper, and the only reason why they left it out is to fit their predetermined conclusions for their predetermined agendas.
It’s pretty sad, really.
Joachim Seifert says:
March 5, 2012 at 11:23 am
Please get my booklet…where the climate amplifying effects are all calculated in
detail…and you will recognize, you are completely outed and behind in our times…..
Perhaps our self-proclaimed resident expert in astronomical cycles should get your booklet too and let us all know what he thinks.
To Leif:
Here you are right once: Yes, everybody should get it and try to find “mistakes”….
This would be the greatest honor for the author…..
Go ahead and we could also Email, I gave you my address….I wait for
your qualified reply….
One point: 95% of the booklet is originaery work, no repeats/plagiarism from
other sources…
This constitutes the great difference of the booklet compared to all Warmist
CO2- alarmist repetitions.
JS
The paper by Jones,Lockwood,and Stott totally misses the most important point by assuming that TSI is the causal forcing, rather than a symptom of the underlying solar cause (perhaps the Svensmark effect). All of the arguments above, however valid or invalid, serve to obscure this essential point. The correlations between TSI and global climate, TSI and 10Be and 14C production rates, are so good over the past millenium that they are beyond probable coincidence. Correlation doesn’t prove causal mechanism, it merely suggests that it could be causal or related to a secondary causal mechanism. TSI appears to be SYMPTOM, rather than a CAUSAL MECHANISM. Thus, to argue whether or not TSI variation is adequate to explain past climate changes is missing the point.
Each of the past 5 low TSI periods corresponds almost exactly to periods of global cooling. That doen’t necessarily mean that TSI is the cause, it simply means that TSI is an index to something that is happening with the sun. That something could likely be changes in the sun’s magnetic field, which produces the Svensmark effect in the Earth’s atmosphere and induces global cooling. The problem is not whether or not TSI causes climatic forcing, it is understanding the cause of the sun’s variation and how this is translated into climate change.
Don Easterbrook:
The solar amplifier effect arises from the Earth’s orbit, but not from “Eccentricity” and
not from “Milankovitch calculations” which are based on “JPL Horizons ephemerides”….
.. Both calculations of this type keep the fact hidden that the Earth moves in a ligating
SPIRAL movement [like a screw] around its flight trajectory line….which all capable
astronomers are aware of …..
…… The distance changes of Earth to the Sun, caused by this 3-D-spiral movement,
is the great climate change cause ….. my booklet demonstrates this in exact detail,
over time spans of more than 30,000 paleo-years…..explaining/calculating global
temperature swings of more than 5 C…..
The Warmist -CO2 paradigm came up, as NASA JPL J. Hansen found out [I strongly
assume this] at his NASA post back in the ’80, that he was able to hide the orbital forcing
from the public and redirect this orbital forcing and funds onto the account of the
CO2 and Warmism……
JS