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.
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?
If you throw in the other planets, Venus, Earth, and Mercury [after all their tidal effects are on par with those of the outer planets], then you have many more alignments to choose from and you can get an almost perfect fit by selecting just the right ones that [as some say] ‘make the grade’ and improve the fit.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 5, 2012 at 7:05 pm
rather a change of insolation at high solar latitudes
rather a change of insolation at high terrestrial polar latitudes, of course.
Particles are not TSI, Leif. The solar wind, composed partly of proton and neutron streams is not electromagnetic. These and associated hIgher particles, like alpha particles, have varying energy depending on velocity. In the last weak solar cycle, very low proton fluxes have been the norm. Millions of tons of protons and neutrons in various momentum states strike the atmosphere every year. Most of that energy is captured.
I will give you a choice of a minute of 10 micron UV or a minute of alpha particle beam on your hand. Which would you choose?
bubbagyro says:
March 5, 2012 at 8:23 pm
Particles are not TSI, Leif. The solar wind, composed partly of proton and neutron streams is not electromagnetic
It doesn’t matter, bubba. TSI does not measure electromagnetic energy alone, it measures ALL the energy in all its various forms, by simply measuring how much the instrument heats up by whatever is hitting it.
Most of that energy is captured.
Energy that is captured [absorbed] heats the absorbing medium, no matter what form it is in. Rub your hands together vigorously and feel the heat.
I will give you a choice of a minute of 10 micron UV or a minute of alpha particle beam on your hand. Which would you choose?
If the beam is as weak as the solar wind, that would be anybody’s choice. The total mass of the solar wind hitting the entire magnetosphere of the Earth per second is about that of a turkey. UV is not in the micron range. Look it up.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 5, 2012 at 7:05 pm
Don’t worry Leif I knew what you meant. I was doing the back of the napkin 2 minute calculation. With all due respect, I know that you are the Viking of solar science.
I mean that as a compliment, since I know from reading your papers, that you leave no stone unturned. You have everything calculated and you have detailed proof for your calculations. You are a force of nature in your convictions and your devotion to science. I am happy we have you here to make us think about everything we say. That’s great, reminds me of my finest professors, who would never let any of us speculate without data, or a great theory to back it up.
Having said that I also enjoy Nicola Scafetta’s theories and ideas. Somewhere out there we will have an answer to the great climate conundrum which was nicely summarized in Hoyt and Schatten’s book which bowed to Eddy’s idea that the climate system is deviously complex.
Cheers and keep up the good work…
To the Mohr:
Fact is that Leif is trying to overwhelm and dominate the blog, which is unfair discussion….
Further, he knows solar details but is lacking completly an astronomical understanding
of the particularities of the real Earth’s orbit trajectory, shown in his misunderstood TIM
SORCE satellite and JPL Horizon data, please refrain from laudations to the wrong
person….
JS
E. J. Mohr says:
March 5, 2012 at 9:16 pm
Having said that I also enjoy Nicola Scafetta’s theories and ideas.
Yes, they make for great entertainment, don’t they? as do his comments 🙂
Leif: There is a saying “The critic of the jester (entertainment) amount to a laudatio
of a professor….”… and this is fact….
JS
MAVukcevic: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/05/another-solar-study-this-one-suggests-no-significant-solar-influence/#comment-913622
Leif Svalgaard: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/05/another-solar-study-this-one-suggests-no-significant-solar-influence/#comment-913653
OBSCURANTISM !
■The impact on future global temperatures is estimated with a climate model
There’s the magic words again – climate model. The minute you hear them you know you’re getting scammed. I’ve been building analytical software for decades (off and on). I do not know of one software model of a chaotic system that can accurately predict the future. Otherwise some math majors would have taken all the money from the stock and futures markets off the table years ago. And… the planet’s climate is about as chaotic as it gets.
Here you have three other reports claiming the opposite
New maine 6800 year peat bo core shows climate correlate with solar activity, expect more frequent New England flooding ahead
http://notrickszone.com/2012/03/06/new-maine-6800-year-peat-bo-core-shows-climate-correlated-with-solar-activity-expect-more-frequent-new-england-flooding-ahead/
Yet two more studies show significant part of warming since 180 is caused by the sun
http://notrickszone.com/2012/03/05/sorry-yet-more-2-studies-show-significant-part-of-warming-since-1850-is-caused-by-the-sun/
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 5, 2012 at 6:31 pm
“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.”
There is a very strong trend from 1900 to 1960, you should stretch the Y-axis so it can be appreciated. Clearly, all the colder episodes are at lower Ap. Comparing 1860 to 1980 is pretty meaningless as the oceans were bound to be cooler previous to 1860 than before 1980.
Correct me if I wrong but in this paper Leif has smoothed the TSI, back plotted and then shown that the “smoothed” TSI is not varied enough to account for short term variations in Climate? Is this not akin to taking the mean depth of a vinyl LP track, determining there is no music – so the climate must be dancing to a different tune? . Concluding the deterministic variability of TSI as being too small therefore it won’t offset the anthropogenic variability in the future is to ignore (perhaps deliberately) any stochastic resonance to actual TSI changes (not mean TSI) .
To me there is no simple explanation for the sun /solar/ atmosphere realtionship. I like to think of the sun as a dc generator [ not really DC but a source of relatively constant or energy over long periods via a 11 year cycle ] feeding an immense ocean which over a lagged period of about 9-12 months converts this to a 60 year climate [ AC type of a signal ] cyle which in turn feeds the energy to the atmosphere which takes 4-6 months to spread the signal around the globe . Volcanic activity , UHI , and land usage can alter this . Co2 generated by man can change things as well but its influence is minor in my opinion compared to the other factors . When the out put of the generator gradually changes, depending on the magnitude of the change and the duration , it ultimately works its way through the system and the change will be felt at the atmosphere level but the change may not exactly match the original change as the oceans have some reserve[cooling or warming] capacities until this is used up . Over the last decade we have had cooling weather because the oceans are in the early stages of their 30 cool phase driven by the past sun variations . We will have to wait and see what the sun will do over the next 1-2cycles .
****
E. J. Mohr says:
March 5, 2012 at 6:41 pm
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.
****
Unless there’s something very unexpected about the sun, TSI changes can’t be the reason Greenland drops 10C. It’s got to be ocean current changes (and resultant atmospheric changes), like failure or redirection of the Gulf Stream/N Atlantic drift.
Leif, if you read this, I’m curious about the proposed ~1500 yr climate cycle. IF it is present, do you think there could be some intrinsic solar 1500 yr cycle? Intuitively, I would think definitely not. Internal cycles of the earth would be my guess, IF it’s real.
To beng:
Please check Wikipedia “Dansgaard-Oeschger event” and you see the 1470 year cycle
which is astronomic and not CO2-related (check the CO2-data for this time)…..
This astronomic cycle CANNOT be found by Mr. Leif, because he is behind in science
(see my previous comments) ….to bad, he is wasting his capacities by stubbornly
clinging to his nonsense instead of climbing the learning curve….and this at his age….
These natural cycles do not stay constant, they get wider and narrower over time:
in the Holocene (Bond events, they are very short, 554 years and increasing by
about 25 years for each new period until the present….) they are longer within
glacial times….
Do not ask Leif, he is behind, knows nothing about paleocycles, their periods
and the development of the ACTUAL cycle (790 years) in which we are now….
He is just guessing around, likes Warmist – CO2- nonsense, does not see
any cycles, pity the poor blind…
JS
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 5, 2012 at 6:54 pm
“TSI is the TOTAL energy flux at all wavelengths for all the stuff and is measured outside the Earth’s atmosphere.”
I do not know why you insist on continually broadcasting your lack of expertise in frequency domain methods, Leif. If I give you a figure for ambient radio frequency energy, can you tell me what movie is playing on channel 4?
Joachim Seifert says:
March 6, 2012 at 8:21 am
“… it has all been identified…”
Chance correlations will not carry much weight if you cannot specify a mechanism. And, the doubt engendered by your specific mechanism will dilute the message about what is known, i.e., that climate cycles exist.
Joachim Seifert says:
March 6, 2012 at 8:52 am
“…because he does not even know that the Earth’s flight around the Sun is a SPIRAL…”
I assume you are talking about precession of the ecliptic plane? Or, a link to what you are talking about might help.
As BBC is broadcasting program on solar flares and CME’s, the X-class flare of two days ago is arriving.
http://flux.phys.uit.no/cgi-bin/plotgeodata.cgi?Last24&site=tro2a&
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 5, 2012 at 5:56 am
hunter says:
March 5, 2012 at 5:50 am
Are we measuring accurately what we think we are, and are we measuring the full output [and influence?] of the sun?
Yes we are.
===========
No you’re not! You’re excluding the real heat direct from the Sun! Your AGW claim is that shortwave heats land and oceans, impossible anyway, and you say the real beam heat from the Sun which is the invisible thermal infrared, doesn’t reach the surface! You claim it plays no part in heating land and oceans.
None working to the cartoon energy budget has the faintest idea what is being measured.
You’re not measuring anything from the Sun.
I know I’m going to regret this, but…
“You’re excluding the real heat direct from the Sun! Your AGW claim is that shortwave heats land and oceans, impossible anyway, and you say the real beam heat from the Sun which is the invisible thermal infrared, doesn’t reach the surface!”
Which planet in which universe are you talking about today, Myrrh?
NASA seem to have changed their tune on solar forcing :
R.F. Hirsch :March 5, 2012 at 6:24 pm (in Tips and Notes)
quoted NASA http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/
“…. because the combined effect of all forcings is less than that of greenhouse gases alone, and much of the greenhouse gas forcing has been “used up” in causing the warming of the past century. It is apparent that the solar forcing is not negligible in comparison with the net climate forcing.….”
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 5, 2012 at 7:05 pm
rather a change of insolation at high solar latitudes
rather a change of insolation at high terrestrial polar latitudes, of course.
Speaking of insolation. Hoyt and Schatten mention that the Ca II Index is related to TSI and that the Ca II line strength for the sun varies from 0.17A (Angstrom) to slightly over 0.20A – this is what has been measured in modern times. Sun like stars show Ca II indices from 0.13A to 0.21A. If the sun’s Ca II index would drop to 0.13A how would that translate to TSI and insolation?? Has the sun’s Ca II index ever dropped into this range, and are the solar like variable stars Hoyt and Schatten mentioned still considered to be solar like enough to be worthy of study? Inquiring minds want to know.
OK … so if ACRIM is correct and the difference between high and low TSI is around 3 watts, then, if Ca II index is linearly correlated with TSI the lower level of 0.13A would be around a 6 watt drop in TSI according my back of the napkin calculation.
Bart says:
March 6, 2012 at 4:19 pm
I know I’m going to regret this, but…
“You’re excluding the real heat direct from the Sun! Your AGW claim is that shortwave heats land and oceans, impossible anyway, and you say the real beam heat from the Sun which is the invisible thermal infrared, doesn’t reach the surface!”
Which planet in which universe are you talking about today, Myrrh?
——————————-
I was responding to this question by hunter and reply by Leif –
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 5, 2012 at 5:56 am
hunter says:
March 5, 2012 at 5:50 am
Are we measuring accurately what we think we are, and are we measuring the full output [and influence?] of the sun?
Yes we are.
———————-
So which planet and which universe am I referring to?
To the fictional one Leif is replying from – the impossible one the Warmists inhabit through the looking glass with Alice, where the atmosphere is empty space and the molecules are ideal gas without weight (gravity) or volume or attraction and zip at vast speeds in ideal gas diffusion thoroughly mixing… Where all kinds of impossible things happen, like carbon dioxide defying gravity and accumulating in the atmosphere for hundreds and thousands of year, where gases aren’t buoyant in air and clouds magically appear in the sky but there is no water cycle, where shortwave Light heats the land and ocean and the Sun’s actual heat, thermal infrared, can’t make it through the glass ceiling of their greenhouse surrounding their empty space atmosphere. You know the one… the pretend one y’all say is the real world we see around us, the one y’all accept as real, the one you’re in.
The fantasy world you’re in where visible light does impossible things and heats water and land, the shortwave in longwave out one – look around you, you keep arguing from it.. the one y’all keep telling me is real, where visible light heats the oceans (in my world water is a transparent medium for visible light and it is transmitted through, transparent means it is not absorbed) –
..here:
“All climate models take account of incoming energy from the sun as short wave electromagnetic radiation, chiefly visible and short-wave (near) infrared, as well as outgoing energy as long wave (far) infrared electromagnetic radiation from the earth. Any imbalance results in a change in temperature.” wiki
My bold.
The impossible fisics of the warmists world has Light heating matter! Ridiculous. What’s even sillier, you’all accept it as real and have such oh such serious arguments about the energy balance of this impossible fisics where the only thermal infrared you have is from that upwelling from the Earth and getting trapped and backradiating from colder to hotter…
“Absorbed by land, oceans, and vegetation at the surface, the visible light is transformed into heat and re-radiates in the form of invisible infrared radiation.” http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm
That you teach in all your schools and universities – http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1.htm
Don’t you know where you are?
You’re in the imaginary world created to support AGW.
Try answering my questions about it:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/#comment-914539
Myrrh says:
March 7, 2012 at 2:43 am
I knew I would regret it, but in for a penny, in for a pound.
“This thermal energy of the real Sun on the move to us is thermal infrared…”
In my world and universe, “infrared” is how we refer to electromagnetic radiation which is less energetic than that which we call “red light”, which is the lowest energy band which our eyes will register.
In this universe, any electromagnetic radiation can heat an object if it is absorbed by the object’s constituent components. So, it makes little technical sense to designate a particular band of electromagnetic energy as “thermal” and others as not. They all produce heat if they are absorbed.
“The fantasy world you’re in where visible light does impossible things and heats water and land, the shortwave in longwave out one…”
In my world and universe, we can easily tell if an object absorbs visible light because that light does not get reflected back to our eyes.
In my world, the oceans are generally blue, and the land masses vary mostly in shades of green and brown. The former absorb yellowish hues, and the latter reddish and bluish hues, respectively. This can be inferred by mere visual inspection.
I really wish you would not pollute the threads with your alternative reality. I doubt there is much interest in your universe here. Speaking for myself, none at all. I think we are generally more concerned with practical matters relating to our universe.
Bart says:
March 7, 2012 at 10:19 am
Myrrh says:
March 7, 2012 at 2:43 am
I knew I would regret it, but in for a penny, in for a pound.
“This thermal energy of the real Sun on the move to us is thermal infrared…”
In my world and universe, “infrared” is how we refer to electromagnetic radiation which is less energetic than that which we call “red light”, which is the lowest energy band which our eyes will register.
In this universe, any electromagnetic radiation can heat an object if it is absorbed by the object’s constituent components. So, it makes little technical sense to designate a particular band of electromagnetic energy as “thermal” and others as not. They all produce heat if they are absorbed.
In real world physics, Light wavelengths are not thermal. The Sun’s thermal energy, heat, on the move to us, is the invisible thermal infrared. That’s why it’s called thermal..
We feel it as heat, because it is heat. It warms us up. It moves our molecules of water into vibrational resonance and that is how something is heated up, just as it heats the oceans and land.
Of course, your fantasy fisics energy budget says the Sun’s heat, thermal infrared, doesn’t reach the surface.. But we can feel it, so we know it does. We can’t feel visible light.
“The fantasy world you’re in where visible light does impossible things and heats water and land, the shortwave in longwave out one…”
In my world and universe, we can easily tell if an object absorbs visible light because that light does not get reflected back to our eyes.
In my world, the oceans are generally blue, and the land masses vary mostly in shades of green and brown. The former absorb yellowish hues, and the latter reddish and bluish hues, respectively. This can be inferred by mere visual inspection.
You’ve completely avoided my point, typical from warmists regurgitating this junk fiction passing itself off a real world physics.
You claim that visible light heats the land and oceans. In the real world visible light can’t do this. For a start, water is transparent to visible light, it gets transmitted through without being absorbed, refraction.
I really wish you would not pollute the threads with your alternative reality. I doubt there is much interest in your universe here. Speaking for myself, none at all. I think we are generally more concerned with practical matters relating to our universe.
You’re the ones living in an alternative reality. Your atmosphere empty space of ideal gases zipping through at vast speeds, gases not buoyant air and much more comic through the looking glass with Alice impossible physics in the real world – you have no sound and your clouds appear magically because your gas molecules have no volume or weight (gravity) or attraction and no buoyancy…
Hunter asked a very good question. I’ve given a very good answer. You have zilch idea of what the Sun in the real world is doing, because you’re stuck in fantasy fisics deliberately created to push the AGW agenda.
You not only have not, I’m assuming, checked real word physics before making such claims as you make in the AGWSF energy budget, but you haven’t taken any notice of the industries in the world around you. Now, that’s a big assumption here, I’m assuming that you’re in the real world, you could actually be in this fantasy world without gravity and where visible light heats oceans.. But, for the moment, assuming you’re actually still in the real world and are merely brainwashed by this fiction, how have you managed not to notice the industries around you which don’t work to your fisics?
Myrrh,
I’m not going to get dragged into this particular debate. But I should point out that Bart is not pushing the AGW agenda as you stated, and is certainly not a “warmist”. That wasn’t fair.
March 7, 2012 at 1:28 pm
Myrrh,
I’m not going to get dragged into this particular debate. But I should point out that Bart is not pushing the AGW agenda as you stated, and is certainly not a “warmist
======================================
I thought he argued for carbon dioxide being a greenhouse gas warming thing – just degree of in question?
If I’m wrong there, sorry.
But, y’all generic using the same junk fisics anyway, produced by the warmists. That’s why your arguments just make no sense at all.
You’ve taken out the direct heat from the Sun, the invisible infrared which actually does do what it says it does, heats land and oceans – instead – you have shortwave light from the Sun heating these which is impossible..