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.
Please replace Longitude with “Latitude” in previous post.
REPLY: that’s twice today, sorry to say that we aren’t your editor, please live with your mistakes – Anthony
Leif Svalgaard says:
which just shows that you match neither of the two time periods.
Excuses of a junior ‘dog ate my homework’.
Here are spectra in question:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-Vfspec.gif
There are 24 cycles, no two have exactly same period. In the 19th century average period was 11.05 years, in the 20th century average period was 10.43 years.
Q. Young Svalgaard what is average for both centuries?
A. It is (11.05 +10.43)/2 =10.74 years, sir.
Q. Tell us master Svalgaard, what is period of the Vukcevic formula?
A. It is 10.73 years, sir.
Q. What is deviation between two in the % terms ?
A. It is 10.74-10.73=0.01years or 100* 0.01/10.73 =1/10.73 or approximately 0.1%
Q. Do you actually mean that Vukcevic period is accurate to 1/1000 of the average solar period during the last 200 years?
A. It seems so, sir.
Q. How is that possible?
A. Planetary orbits are calculated to the highest accuracy.
Q. Well done. Can we then conclude that planetary formula devised by Vukcevic, which is accurate to 1/1000 of the average solar cycle period, is an excellent work?
A. Yes, sir. Definitely an excellent work!
My last comment to Leif: [snip]
I wonder what blog readers make out of it:
Leif quote: There is no millenial/centennial/decadal changes in the SUN-Earth-
distance” , therefore No AMPLIFYING EFFECT of the ORBIT…..
…. and he quotes “as proof” the TSI radiation measurements, provided on the
LISIRD-LASP page and taken with the TIM V7-0702 satellite within the past
decade…..
…..So Leif reckons that based on one decade of measurements (those from
the 1990′ ACRIM and VIRGO values are considered unreliable), he can make
valid comments for the shape of the spiral flight of the Earth on a
decadal/centennial/milleniums scale and that there are
no medium and long term distance changes between Sun and Earth….
Short time observations of 10 years as proof for long term glacial changes….
AT the time of Galileo, the astronomer J. Kepler already discovered that
planetary orbits are never the same and an planet never passes twice the
same spot…. but Leif knows everything much better, even the spiral flight
which he never heard of before…..
Folks, skip the replies the next time…
JS
….
Bart says: March 5, 2012 at 1:34 pm
“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. ”
Bart, what you say is correct in theory. In general you may have a system that responds to random inputs by generating cycles thanks to its internal resonances.
However, in the case of the climate system it is highly unlikely that there are no astronomical forcings involved in the process because we find that the climate system presents several frequencies which are found in astronomical cycles. Even the phases coincided sufficiently well. Moreover, long correlated records between solar and climate records are found.
Just be patient with the physical mechanisms.
“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.”
“IDV is strongly correlated with HMF B, but is blind to solar wind speed V” :
http://st4a.stelab.nagoya-u.ac.jp/nagoya_workshop_2/pdf/2-1_Svalgaard.pdf (slide 39)
JJ says:
March 5, 2012 at 2:25 pm
If you will refrain from willfully ignoring the balance of my post,
I respond to what I find worth responding to.
Joachim Seifert says:
March 5, 2012 at 2:44 pm
…..So Leif reckons that based on one decade of measurements (those from
the 1990′ ACRIM and VIRGO values are considered unreliable),
These are no changes detected to one part in a quarter million over the SORCE data. The other observations I mentioned also precludes large changes. Quite from your book how large a change you calculate since 2003.
MAVukcevic says:
March 5, 2012 at 2:44 pm
self-congratulatory nonsense omitted
which just shows that you match neither of the two time periods.
Nicola Scafetta says:
March 5, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Nicola – I have tried very hard to suspend disbelief, and think of some sort of cosmic synchronicity which could link these things. I just cannot see it. It does not disprove it, but I am certainly not the only one who finds the connection dubious.
Fundamentally, I do not think the question must be answered at this time. You have strong correlations in the data which indicate cyclical behavior, from whatever source. You may think that you have to be specific about the source, because your opponents are continually demanding that you provide one. I think that, rather than satisfying their curiosity, you are playing into their hands by focusing on one remote possibility which they can easily dismiss in many, if not most, minds.
That is their purpose in demanding a causative explanation. Not to prove your hypothesis – they are far less circumspect in promoting their latest dubious excuse for the last decade’s lack of warming, e.g., “How does the heat get to the deep oceans? It just does.” No, their purpose is to goad you into proffering something they can easily dismiss.
I think you are hurting your cause by being overly specific. Just provide the facts, which are unimpeachable: there is a readily apparent ~60 year cyclical component to the global average temperature metric. It has completed two whole cycles within the modern measurement era, which is enough to establish that it is highly likely to be a persistent characteristic. It shows up in reconstructions reaching back millennia. In particular, the run up in temperature from 1910 to 1940 is almost identical in magnitude and duration to the run up from 1970 to 2000, in accordance with the cyclical nature of the phenomenon. Furthermore, the peak has arrived right on time to produce the current hiatus in warming. If, as expected the next several years show a decline, that will not only tend to verify the model, but it will further discredit the CO2 warming conjecture. The likelihood of that happening is high. If I were a betting man, I would bet my entire pot on it.
To Bart:
to the explanation of the astronomic cycles (61 years) and the multicentennial cycle (554-790 years, Bond cycles with increasing periods): Please wait a couple of months, it has all been
identified, just the English write-up takes some time….
JS
TSI does not begin to show a fraction of the picture of the sun’s effect on earth. Correlation is not causation. No one can predict the lag times for each variable. In a complex system, lag times for each energy added to the system vary. For example, if I apply a laser to a corner of a tank of water, because of the heat capacity of water, the heat applied takes a long while to equilibrate. If I apply the same exact energy amount, but as a heat lamp to the whole container, the heating and equilibration are much faster.
Each manner of solar energy input has different lag times, and also these inputs may be focused or diffuse, particulate, ionic, or electromagnetic wave, or combinations. That produces lag times that express themselves in cycles that are not necessarily regular. So how do you fit a model to that? Tell me so I know. Some particles, or waves, or ions do chemistry first, and the energy stored for later release.
Most are stored in water reservoirs at different rates, subject to Fickian diffusion mechanisms.
@leif. Surely you mean astronomical forcings? Or is there a preponderance of earth and water signs in the star charts of climate scientists?
bubbagyro says:
March 5, 2012 at 3:56 pm
TSI does not begin to show a fraction of the picture of the sun’s effect on earth. Correlation is not causation.
In case of TSI, it is not correlation, but causation that is a work. In fact it has been VERY hard to establish any correlation, but there is a straightforward causation of about 0.1C.
Jeef says:
March 5, 2012 at 4:00 pm
@leif. Surely you mean astronomical forcings? Or is there a preponderance of earth and water signs in the star charts of climate scientists?
It becomes astrology when people begin to believe that the cycles themselves must have some effect.
To Leif:
This post enjoys continuing interest…. but the problem is (see number of comments)
that YOU are trying to dominate and overwhelm comments …..
But ….. astronomical (natural) forcings are huge (everybody please look under
“Dansgaard -Oeschger events”, where you clearly can see huge astronomical/natural
forcings in 1,470 year cycles and no Warmist-CO2 involved)….
….what you do is trying to midgetize astronomical forcings…..and this is CLEARLY BS
– I have to say so, sorry folks- because….because he does not even know that the Earth’s
flight around the Sun is a SPIRAL, ligating around the elliptical flight line…..which is
elementary astronomical basic knowledge which he obviously lacks…as well as his
diagrams and suggested wegsite calculations…….and therefore he
should be eliminated from astronomical comments and discussions…. trying dominate and overwhelm comments with BS should not be encouraged……a most unfair blog behaviour…
Anthony, please help honest bloggers against overwhelmer blogging trolls of this kind…..
JS
common sense says:
March 5, 2012 at 2:17 pm
“. . . it seems there is no way to edit a post . . . ”
I have an idea! Why not compose in a text document/editor such as MS-Word, then do a spell check, and so on. You do say “on my computer anyway.” I’ve reduced my errors by doing so but still sometimes don’t close the italics. That is easily fixed by first putting both the open and the close on a line and then adding text in between. Thus, one does not forget to end the string because of being overly excited about the stimulating discussion you are about to trounce.
Thanks for the data links Leif, which are useful, even more useful in a table file link.
But what I was really suggesting is that each of the solar variables be studied individually as to their effects on the earth’s ionosphere, ozone, magnetic field variations, alteration of jetstream position around the globe, temperature alterations, chemical processes at work…and in turn what effects these have on weather in the shorter term….weather eventually becomes climate in time…
and TSI itself will not show these short term processes on weather…so it will not do so on climate…apart from in a very general sense as you suggest as it does indeed of course show all variable type changes in the longer term. However I believe that the shorter days and weeks where single variables alter say ozone amounts significantly will not be picked up in the broader TSI, and hence may well not reflect weather changes resulting from that in the week to say 5 or 10 year period ahead where the broad TSI may well not freflect the real situation.
This is so impressive: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png it really deserves having the Y-axis stretched so one can appreciate the huge difference between the decades more. Just look at how low 1900-1910 is compared to say 1940/50 and 1980/90, there must be around a 66% increase ! The answer is blowing in the solar wind for sure, but what`s it doing ? dumping more heat in the system or modulating cloud cover ?
common sense says:
March 5, 2012 at 4:29 pm
and in turn what effects these have on weather in the shorter term….weather eventually becomes climate in time…
Many researchers have done/are doing this, with very little progress in spite of 150 years of trying. Even I have wasted time on this, e.g. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/180/4082/185.short
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974JAtS…31..581W
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v255/n5509/abs/255539a0.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/204/4388/60.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0021916979900631
etc
Bart says: March 5, 2012 at 3:48 pm
Bart, be patient! In my papers I am providing the facts.
But science progesses by steps: some are small others are large. Just, be patient!
Do not let you to be conditioned by the criticism of people full of one’s self like Leif.
Good post!
Good advice!
John F. Hultquist says:
March 5, 2012 at 4:07 pm
I have an idea! Why not compose in a text document/editor such as MS-Word,
Or if you use modzilla use the Rick Werne link near the top of this page and look for the climate audit assistant at the end of the page. This will give you italics without tags along with spell checker (modzilla) and preview before post.
Joachim Seifert says:
March 5, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Short time observations of 10 years as proof for long term glacial changes….
AT the time of Galileo, the astronomer J. Kepler already discovered that
planetary orbits are never the same and an planet never passes twice the
same spot…
Your statements on short term climate effects re Earth orbit variances are incorrect and follows the same debunked type of claim proposed by Fred Bailey (solarchord theory). There is no short term climate effect because the Sun/Earth distance varies very little when comparing like seasons.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/200
The UV variances already stated in previous posts are somewhat understated. NASA states EUV varies over the cycle in the 100% range with FUV at 30%. Both spectrums have an impact on ozone production.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/science/Solar%20Irradiance.html
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/236
Leif:
If you want to be taken seriously, please don’t cite small components and imagine that they are representative of all. Of course there is a causation of 0.1° from the TSI that is measured. This is a monolithic parameter. That is one of the commonest fallacies in logic, the argument from the specific to the general. “All criminals commit crimes—All criminals are men—therefore, all men commit crimes.”
It would be a simple experiment, straightforward and definitive, to measure all energies emitted by the sun at a point intermediate between sun and earth. By all, I mean plasmas, particles, and waves.
Then, a simple mathematical extrapolation will enable the total earth energy bombardment to be assessed.
From the much high energy of short-wave UV alone compared to the visible light component of solar irradiance, I would be underestimating the total UV contribution at 10 times TSI from short wave UV energies alone.
Now lets go to solar wind protonic energy. I hypothesize that this component is also an order of magnitude or more greater than long-wave light energy.
Radio, X-Ray? C’mon people!
There is a tendency always to simplify models by artificially, like proxies, or out-of-hand elimination of those nasty, dirty variables. More variables than equations to put them in is a sticky wicket, indeed. So let’s just throw a handful or two of them out of the mix until the equations are manageable. Then, voilá, problem solved!
Ulric Lyons says:
March 5, 2012 at 4:38 pm
This is so impressive: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png it really deserves having the Y-axis stretched so one can appreciate the huge difference between the decades more. Just look at how low 1900-1910 is compared to say 1940/50 and 1980/90, there must be around a 66% increase
Compare with 1860-1870, it is no different from 1980-1990, or the minima 1880, 1900, 2009, no difference either. That is the message: no trend at all.
bubbagyro says:
March 5, 2012 at 6:01 pm
It would be a simple experiment, straightforward and definitive, to measure all energies emitted by the sun at a point intermediate between sun and earth. By all, I mean plasmas, particles, and waves.
that is what TSI means TOTAL Solar Irradiance. The plasma, particle, and wave part are only a millionth of the total. The energy in the radio flux is incredibly small: the energy in all the radio waves collected by all radio telescopes since radio astronomy began many decades ago added together is less than the kinetic energy of a single snowflake falling to the ground.
Leif Svalgaard says March 5, 2012 at 4:05 pm
Some of us are trying to prove that they don’t. Please explain what causes the strange inflections and hemispherical dominance inversions we see in the solar polar field strength data. Random variation? Slipping clutch? Water infested brake fluid?
http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/8569/filtered2.png
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/7227/compositet.png
I think Leif has answered the above question many times …
Meanwhile, I was looking at the AMSU channel 5 temp and thinking that the approximately 2C degree difference, between January and July, is due to the elliptical path of the earths orbit. So at 14,000 feet elevation the ~80 watt difference in in TSI at the top of the atmosphere, between January and July, is equal to around 2 degrees in temperature, or around 0.025 C per watt of TSI hitting the earths atmosphere. Meanwhile, where I reside, in western Canada this difference is amplified by latitude and the July to January difference is about 29C, or around 0.3625C per watt of TSI hitting the top of the atmosphere.
This makes me wonder about the sudden onset of cold during the Ice Ages where we have no instrumental record. If memory serves, the Greenland icecap record shows a 10C drop in a matter of a few decades. So, extrapolating, that would mean a TSI drop of only around 27 to 30 watts TSI at the top of the atmosphere. No too much, but more than we have ever measured in the instrumental record. Is this correct? I’m just wondering of Leif or Nicola have any comments.
Best regards to all.
bubbagyro says:
March 5, 2012 at 6:01 pm
“By all, I mean plasmas, particles, and waves.”
And, all frequencies. The Earth’s climate assuredly acts as a low pass filter. Therefore, a lower gain for highly variable inputs compared to longer term inputs is expected.
Bart says:
March 5, 2012 at 6:41 pm
“By all, I mean plasmas, particles, and waves.”
And, all frequencies. The Earth’s climate assuredly acts as a low pass filter
TSI is the TOTAL energy flux at all wavelengths for all the stuff and is measured outside the Earth’s atmosphere.
AJB says:
March 5, 2012 at 6:39 pm
Please explain what causes the strange inflections and hemispherical dominance inversions we see in the solar polar field strength data. Random variation?
Look at this plot of the magnetic flux moving across the solar surface: http://obs.astro.ucla.edu/torsional.html
The polar magnetic field is determined by about 5 episodes of flux [red and blue] moving to the poles by a circulation in the Sun’s atmosphere [the Earth’s atmosphere also has such circulations]. Less than 1/100 of the sunspot flux makes it to the poles as a kind of random process. The flux moving up to the poles first neutralizes the old flux, then builds up the new flux of opposite polarity [color].
E. J. Mohr says:
March 5, 2012 at 6:41 pm
the Greenland icecap record shows a 10C drop in a matter of a few decades. So, extrapolating, that would mean a TSI drop of only around 27 to 30 watts TSI at the top of the atmosphere.
A global drop of 10C corresponds to a change in TSI of 19 Watt/m2 which is, indeed, excessive. But the glaciations are not the result of a global drop, rather a change of insolation at high solar latitudes, which allows ice sheets to form.