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.
Joachim Seifert says:
March 5, 2012 at 11:07 am
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….
Forgive me my confusion. The Earth’s orbit though the Galaxy is indeed a spiral, but around the sun it is NOT, hence my misinterpretation since you talk about SPIRALS all the time. To good approximation the orbit is an ellipse with a major axis that turns about the Sun on a time scale of many thousands of years, and thus has nothing to due with modern climate.
Leif:
You still did not understand: It is the following, and has nothing to to with
the Galaxis:
The planet Earth itself does not fly a straight path but describes a SPIRAL
shape flight line — flying like a screwdriver around its mean flying line…..
therefore, due to this flying-ligating spirally wound trajectory shape results
a substantial high centennial/decadal distance change which
amplifies/decreases solar irradiation….
……I presented the calculations for the Dansgaard-Oeschger events….
(D-O-events) in my booklet
and you can see the strong solar amplification effect of the orbit [“orbital forcing”]
…..NOT by (1) eccentricity changes or (2) Milankovitch calculations with JPL
osculating elements which keep the Earth’s flight in a line, as you do.
As long as the IPCC keeps
the spiral flight hidden, [this is what the IPCC does] AND THE SPIRAL FORCING
as well, they are able to credit the amplifyer effect of the Earth’s orbit to CO2….
…….Please spend 15 bucks on my book, you will recognize the solar amplification in an
instant…. and if you are really working on uncovering the astronomical truth
as you claim, then accustom yourself to the job of investigating
the spiral flight in detail….otherwise you keep repeating Warmist nonsense….
JS
@ur momisugly Leif “I think people can make up their own minds, don’t you?”
Yes, Leif.
The problem is that some people may need to be warned about the misleading tactics of some university scholar (LS, for example) as well. So, by clarifing your misleading statements, my invitation to them is that they check the issues for themselves by reading the proper papers and make up their own mind.
I just wonder if you will have the courage to repeat again and again your misleading statements in a conference at the presence of me and of other scientists who can easily understand the issues.
Leif wrote: “Only if there is a strong correlation. which there is not.”
Glad to see Leif admit that his dismissal of solar effects other than TSI is conditional on there not being a correlation between solar activity and climate, something that the paper in question did not address.
Of course Leif is also wrong about there not being a strong correlation between solar activity and climate. Bond didn’t find a strong correlation?
Neff’s observed correlations of .55 and .60 are not strong?
There are dozens of such findings, but Leif is acting exactly like the IPCC. He just pretends that these findings do not exist. Bad behavior in my opinion.
There’s definitely evidence for correlation between solar activity and global climate change on decadal and up to multi-centennial time-scales. There are many options for the physical mechanism/explanation (direct or indirect) and probably a black swan or two.
Atmospheric CO2 is completely irrelevant and is mostly a slave to climatic factors. Even if it wasn’t it’s very unlikely that it has any warming effect, since the Earth’s surface is cooled predominantly by non-radiative processes (evaporation + convection = 7% + 23% = 30% of the incoming solar energy) and only secondarily by surface radiation (21% of the incoming solar energy). So:
Non-radiative cooling = 59% of the absorbed energy by surface.
Radiative cooling = 41% of the absorbed energy by surface
From the outgoing surface radiation, only ~29% of the energy (absorbed by the Earth’s surface) is absorbed by the atmosphere, the rest of the surface radiation (~12%) is radiated directly to space. The rest is non-radiative (59%). If the increased CO2 reduces the radiative cooling of the surface, the non-radiative cooling will compensate to some extent.
The atmosphere, on the other hand is cooled exclusively by radiation and increased CO2 should enlarge this flux (64% of the incoming solar).
Furthermore, the atmosphere absorbes more from the sun than from the surface (16% compared to 15% of the incoming solar)!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/57911main_Earth_Energy_Budget.jpg
CO2, warming or cooling? Probably nothing – vater vapor rules the radiation.
“water vapor”!
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 5, 2012 at 11:45 am
my invitation to them is that they check the issues for themselves by reading the proper papers and make up their own mind.
This is what we all want them to do.
I just wonder if you will have the courage to repeat again and again your misleading statements in a conference at the presence of me and of other scientists who can easily understand the issues.
I do this all the time, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/GC31B-0351-F2007.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20From%20McCracken%20HMF.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/Eddy-Symp-Poster-2.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202011%20SH34B-08.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
You have attended some of those, without comment, and not been invited to others.
Alec Rawls says:
March 5, 2012 at 11:47 am
Bond didn’t find a strong correlation?
No, he assumed they must be a correlation. I have discussed this with him several times, e.g. page 4 of http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/sns/2003/sns_dec_2003.pdf
The Bond period 1470 yrs is not in the power spectrum of TSI
Neff’s observed correlations of .55 and .60 are not strong?
The square of the correlation coefficient is about 1/3 [meaning 2/3s are not ‘explained’ or related] which is normally not considered worth writing home about.
Don Easterbrook says:
…………
Professor Easterbrook
You may or may not know that the link with your name doesn’t work, but are you aware that all your reference papers on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Easterbrook
links are inoperative or have been disabled.
Is your old wwu.edu writing you out of history ?
(well known syndrome of dogma known as Stalinism)
Leif Svalgaard says:
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.
Status quo would be the null hypothesis for any model that predicted a change. Predictive power has nothing to do with it. Your comment is abusive.
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/
You mean like you pushing your own personal vendetta against Nicola?
“Lockwood and Stott has predicted a steady warming of about 2.3 C/century from ”
No, they have not.
Yes, they have. They have predicted it by the odd method of using a model that models a model to model a model that models climate. Then they skip over the multiple intervening layers of models and make conclusory statements that are syntactically about the climate, not the model of the climate or the model of the model of the climate..
They have shown [or suggested, if one thinks that ‘show’ is too strong] the tiny influence of solar activity on whatever other projections give.
Neither “suggested” nor “shown” is appropriate – the former being [as you point out] nothing more than a degree of the latter. Rather, they have asserted the tiny influence of solar activity on the output of coupled GC models, based on their model that models those models. That is an assertion. If you want to show what the coupled GC models do, you run the coupled GC models, and observe the results.
Aside: Proof of the fact that “climate science” makes no distinction between models and reality is found in the fact that they no longer feel the need to observe their models. They just model the models. I’m rapt with anticipation of the next feedback on this loop, when they publish something called a “study” that is a model of a model that models a model.
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.
Absolute nonsense. Stated correctly ==> If these other projection are wrong to a small degree[as they well might be], the influence of the Sun that is inferred is
stillgoing to be very small.That is what this paper says. They start with models that assume very, very tiny sensitivity to TSI, and then they only look at small adjustments to that senistivity (~3X). Very, very tiny times three is still tiny? No kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars of public money were spent running a model of a model to reassert that assumption?
What they didn’t do – and what would likely not have been published if they had – was run their model of a model sensitivity analysis with some real changes – one order of magnitude at minimum. Some of the proposed amplifiers, including those specifically called out in this paper “for completeness”, operate in that range individually. Let alone what the aggregate of the still being discovered amplifiers might be.
If they are getting 31 years of “global warming delay” for a 3X TSI sensitivity, what would a 10X TSI sensitivity look like? 100 years “delay”? 300 years? 1,000 years?
They are just toeing the company line, looking only for those conclusions that support the politics (love the way they emphasize the “delay” benefit of the “low emissions” scenarios) and preserve their seats on the gravy train.
Hi doc Svalgaard
Just looked at your paper
http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202011%20SH34B-08.pdf
Number of ‘bewildering’ spectra graphs but you ‘accidentally’ omitted the most important one:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-Vfspec.gif
Since it appears that you are not familiar with it, you may find more details here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm
(half down the web-page). As a pedantic historian of these matters I am sure you are aware of the importance of including all good and bad, just to teach younger generations not to fall into similar trap and waste time reinventing square wheel.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 5, 2012 at 10:45 am
@’ 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.’
There is nothing wrong with looking at a set of train tracks, seeing a light in the distance, and surmising that a train is on its way. So, you are right in part: there is no justification for ignoring persistent cyclic behavior in data simply because one is not sure what caused it.
However, I do not agree that you must have cyclical forcing to produce a quasi-cyclical effect. Actually, it is not a matter of agreement. It is a simple fact: you do not have to have cyclical forcing to produce a quasi-cyclical effect.
If you carry a bowl of jello across the kitchen, it will predominantly wobble at a characteristic frequency regardless of your step size. A bowl of water will also slosh at a characteristic frequency, as long as it does not slosh over the rim (motion exceeding its boundary)
The tidal forces of the outer planets are very, very, very small at the Earth. Attributing the cyclic climate behavior to them is, IMHO, grasping at straws.
On the other hand, almost every bounded PDE problem has characteristic natural frequencies associated with it. The Earth and its oceans and atmosphere are bounded against one another. There will be characteristic frequencies in its physical responses. Examples are known, and some can be shown to have characteristic frequencies in the range of 60 years.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 5, 2012 at 10:37 am
Alec Rawls says:
March 5, 2012 at 10:04 am
“Only if there is a strong correlation. which there is not.”
Alec’s sources contradict you.
JJ says:
March 5, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Yes, they have. They have predicted it by the odd method of using a model
I’ll leave the rest of your emotions aside as just ask you to read their title:
“What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near-surface temperature changes?”
Or even better their paper. Their paper explains their stand and that is that.
MAVukcevic says:
March 5, 2012 at 1:08 pm
Number of ‘bewildering’ spectra graphs but you ‘accidentally’ omitted the most important one
There are just so many all claiming that theirs is the most important one, so one has to a weed a bit.
MAVukcevic says:
March 5, 2012 at 1:08 pm
but you ‘accidentally’ omitted the most important one
which just shows that you match neither of the two time periods.
Bart says:
March 5, 2012 at 1:34 pm
“Only if there is a strong correlation. which there is not.”
Alec’s sources contradict you.
He cites two sources that contradict each other about the 1470 yr cycle. One says it is there, the other one not.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 5, 2012 at 12:42 pm
“The Bond period 1470 yrs is not in the power spectrum of TSI “
The Bond period 1470 yrs is not in Leif’s simulacrum of a power spectrum of TSI. Leif doesn’t do actual PSDs. He simply does an FFT of data, plots the magnitude squared, and calls it a PSD. Any analyst with even a minor familiarity with the theory knows that is a very poor method.
I’m always amused that all frequencies of EM are considered to have equal effect.
In a strict radiative heat transfer problem it is true.
However, once you get in to UV and X-ray bands the energy becomes ionizing and will affect atmospheric chemistry.
To suggest that our knowledge of the subject is both necessary and sufficient is hyperbole at best.
Joachim Seifert says:
March 5, 2012 at 1:39 pm
The planet Earth itself does not fly a straight path but describes a SPIRAL
shape flight line — flying like a screwdriver around its mean flying line…..
therefore, due to this flying-ligating spirally wound trajectory shape results
a substantial high centennial/decadal distance change which
amplifies/decreases solar irradiation….
There is no such change in solar distance. The easiest way to see this is simply to look at the observed TSI which is actually a very sensitive measurement of the distance [actually of the distance 8 minutes earlier when the photons left the Sun – our measurements are so precise that those 8 minutes must be taken into account]. http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-through-a-year.png shows the variation of TSI through the year for a decade with all the years superposed starting with January 1st. Each year tracks very closely all the other ones showing that the variation of distance is every year the same. The solar modulation are the small wiggles you can occasionally see.
Another way is to measure the Sun’s diameter as a function of time through the year. Astronomers have done this for centuries and always found that the annual variation does not have ‘substantial centennial/decadal change’. See e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/1112-5878-Solar-Diameter-Measurements.pdf
Totality of solar eclipses depends strongly on the distance. Our calculations of eclipses are always correct to the second and would not be if we had the distance wrong, and so on and on.
TSI is not valid to use as an actcurate measure of all the different solar outputs, magnetic, Ap, Kp, proton, electron, X ray, !0,7 etc.. They all vary diffetrently as can be seen by a few plotted om Leifs pages historically. To me it is like using total air to measure CO2, and using total air to find the effects of CO2. It has never j”jelled” with me, all effects solar have different effects on the various earth fields, so why use TSI at all. Only because that is the only solar reconstruction available I supposes, back then. But lets research the different solar outputs and see what they individually do in the modern period. Then we will make much more sense of it all re solar-weather-climate connections.,
This paper avoids the real issues regarding the sun and on purpose ignores the solar influence by changing cloud albedo. It is mostly the sun indirectly and partly the oceans that was responsible for most of the previous warming. When global cloud levels decline roughly one percent this warms 3.4m/w2 by increased radiation reaching the surface of the ocean/land. This occurs even if TSI stays the same over the period and the sun warming the surface indirectly this way is still a solar influence.
Global cloud levels had declined about 4/5 percent over a 17-year period. The reason for this not equalling 4/5 times this value above is dependant on two parameters. Longitude positioning and how depth/height dependant the cloud was compared to becoming clear. When this is taken into account the claim that solar influence is less significant than AGW becomes false. Satellite data confirms this by changes in global cloud levels with trend with global temperatures. The only real debate regarding this is what caused the global cloud levels to decline? The only claim that AGW is more influenced that solar is if it was supported to cause the decline in global cloud levels. This is not supported by any scientific evidence and almost certainly caused by something else.
Below, graph of the sunspot number, CO2 and global temperature trends.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1998/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1980/to:1998/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1980/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1934/to:1980/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1934/to:1980/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1955/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1934/normalise
Key Points
§ 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
Therefore regarding the key points, solar activity is no use in estimating future changes in global cloud albedo. (at least with this papers claim of what solar activity is) If don’t know what future global cloud levels could be, therefore can’t claim an impact on future global temperatures. The sun’s influence smaller than AGW is an assumption ignoring the solar influence from indirect warming of the ocean/land surface. It also ignores the recent decline in solar activity that despite with successive El Nino’s still failed to warm because the paper only went to the year 2000.
Please excuse spelling errors, it seems there is no way to edit a post to correct them, nor even to go back to an earlier part of the post to correct before sending without going wiping the whole text after the mistake…on my computer anyway. Could be looked at to fix moderators please!
Unless I am doing something wrong when I post?
Leif Svalgaard says:
“Yes, they have. They have predicted it by the odd method of using a model ”
I’ll leave the rest of your emotions aside as just ask you to read their title:
If you will refrain from willfully ignoring the balance of my post, you will see that I have read the title, and the paper, and that there is substance to my comments. In fact, if you merely finish the sentence that you half-quoted, you will find what I was talking about.
The manner in which you comport yourself here is often not commensurate with your standing.
Bart says:
March 5, 2012 at 1:46 pm
The Bond period 1470 yrs is not in Leif’s simulacrum of a power spectrum of TSI.
nor in anybody else’s, e.g. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008PhDT……..39O and
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007CliPD…3..679D
” These results reveal that the mysteriously regular 1,500-year climate cycles are linked with the oceanic circulation and not with variations in solar output as previously argued (Bond et al., 2001).”
This study is, of course, covering a far shorter time period than the previous one. The effect of the Sun takes a few years, maybe decades, to show up in climate. This is because of the stabilizing effect of the massive energy stores under the surface, down through the inner crust, mantle and core. We know the total thermal energy changes very slowly by the fact that the terrestrial flow is so low.
I predict, however, that in due course scientists will be able to detect upswings and downswings in long-term climate by monitoring that low heat flow and analysing variations in the rate. There is some indication that this rate has increased in recent years, meaning the surface would be cooling slightly because the underground gradient from the core is getting steeper. So this is in keeping with the reduction in the rate of increase in the trend for the ~1000 year climate cycle, this rate having decreased from about 0.06 deg.C / decade early last century, to about 0.05 deg.C / decade now.
There will be more on this in my paper now due to be published about March 8th.
common sense says:
March 5, 2012 at 2:13 pm
TSI is not valid to use as an actcurate measure of all the different solar outputs, magnetic, Ap, Kp, proton, electron, X ray, !0,7 etc.. They all vary differently as can be seen by a few plotted on Leifs pages historically.
On a short time scale [days or weeks] they do behave differently, but since the source of variations of TSI is solar magnetism which is also the source of all the other things you mention, they do vary closely the same on long time scales.
common sense says:
March 5, 2012 at 2:13 pm
But lets research the different solar outputs and see what they individually do in the modern period.
What is the ‘modern period’? Here is how Ap have varied since 1844: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png and here is F10.7 slides 30-32 in http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf