(Via the Hockey Schtick) A new peer reviewed paper published in The Holocene finds a significant link between solar activity and climate over the past 1000 years. According to the authors:
“Our results suggest that the climate responds to both the 11 yr solar cycle and to long-term changes in solar activity and in particular solar minima.”
The authors also find “a link between the 11 yr solar cycle and summer precipitation variability since around 1960” and that:
“Solar minima are in this period associated with minima in summer precipitation, whereas the amount of summer precipitation increases during periods with higher solar activity.”
 |
IRBSi is the proxy for precipitation/climate change and shows good agreement with solar activity. Figure 12. The comparison between the graphs of the IR-BSi and that of the solar cycles shows good agreement between the percentage of mineral materials of allochthonous and solar cycles reconstructed on the basis of changes in concentrations of 14 C in macrofossils. A good agreement is also evident between the concentrations of 18 O of foraminifera in the Norwegian Sea and the index IR-BSi. |
Solar forcing of climate during the last millennium recorded in lake sediments from northern Sweden
U Kokfelt University of Copenhagen, Denmark
R Muscheler Lund University, Sweden
Abstract
We report on a sediment record from a small lake within the subarctic wetland complex Stordalen in northernmost Sweden covering the last 1000 years. Variations in the content of minerogenic material are found to follow reconstructed variations in the activity of the Sun between the 13th and 18th centuries. Periods of low solar activity are associated with minima in minerogenic material and vice versa. A comparison between the sunspot cycle and a long instrumental series of summer precipitation further reveals a link between the 11 yr solar cycle and summer precipitation variability since around 1960. Solar minima are in this period associated with minima in summer precipitation, whereas the amount of summer precipitation increases during periods with higher solar activity. Our results suggest that the climate responds to both the 11 yr solar cycle and to long-term changes in solar activity and in particular solar minima, causing dry conditions with resulting decreased runoff.
============================================================
Recall that a paper published last year in Astronomy & Astrophysics shows solar activity at end of 20th century was near highest levels of past 11,500 years.
A paper published by a researcher at Max-Planck-Institute in Astronomy & Astrophysics reconstructs solar activity over the Holocene and finds solar activity at the end of the 20th century was near the highest levels of the entire 11,500 year record. The reconstruction spans the past 2,500 years, and the paper shows a ‘hockey stick’ of solar activity, following the end of the Little Ice Age in the 1800’s.
Fig. 11. TSI weighted reconstruction since approximately 9500 BC. In order to provide a better visualization, the evolution since 1000 BC is displayed in panel (b). The filled gray band represents region limited by the KN08-VADM and KC05-VDM reconstructions.
For reference, the red lines represent the 10-year averaged reconstruction by Krivova et al. (2010a).
Evolution of the solar irradiance during the Holocene
L. E. A. Vieira1,2, S. K. Solanki1,3, N. A. Krivova1 and I. Usoskin4
Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Max-Planck-Str. 2, 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany
Laboratoire de Physique et Chimie de l’Environnement et de l’Espace (LPC2E/CNRS), 3A, Avenue de la Recherche, 45071 Orléans Cedex 2, France
School of Space Research, Kyung Hee University, Yongin, Gyeonggi, 446-701, Korea
Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory (Oulu Unit), POB 3000, Universiy of Oulu, Finland
Abstract
Context. Long-term records of solar radiative output are vital for understanding solar variability and past climate change. Measurements of solar irradiance are available for only the last three decades, which calls for reconstructions of this quantity over longer time scales using suitable models.
Aims.
We present a physically consistent reconstruction of the total solar irradiance for the Holocene.
Methods.
We extend the SATIRE (Spectral And Total Irradiance REconstruction) models to estimate the evolution of the total (and partly spectral) solar irradiance over the Holocene. The basic assumption is that the variations of the solar irradiance are due to the evolution of the dark and bright magnetic features on the solar surface. The evolution of the decadally averaged magnetic flux is computed from decadal values of cosmogenic isotope concentrations recorded in natural archives employing a series of physics-based models connecting the processes from the modulation of the cosmic ray flux in the heliosphere to their record in natural archives. We then compute the total solar irradiance (TSI) as a linear combination of the jth and jth + 1 decadal values of the open magnetic flux. In order to evaluate the uncertainties due to the evolution of the Earth’s magnetic dipole moment, we employ four reconstructions of the open flux which are based on conceptually different paleomagnetic models.
Results.
Reconstructions of the TSI over the Holocene, each valid for a different paleomagnetic time series, are presented. Our analysis suggests that major sources of uncertainty in the TSI in this model are the heritage of the uncertainty of the TSI since 1610 reconstructed from sunspot data and the uncertainty of the evolution of the Earth’s magnetic dipole moment. The analysis of the distribution functions of the reconstructed irradiance for the last 3000 years, which is the period that the reconstructions overlap, indicates that the estimates based on the virtual axial dipole moment are significantly lower at earlier times than the reconstructions based on the virtual dipole moment. We also present a combined reconstruction, which represents our best estimate of total solar irradiance for any given time during the Holocene.
Conclusions.
We present the first physics-based reconstruction of the total solar irradiance over the Holocene, which will be of interest for studies of climate change over the last 11 500 years. The reconstruction indicates that the decadally averaged total solar irradiance ranges over approximately 1.5 W/m2 from grand maxima to grand minima.
===============================================================
What I find interesting is that the 1.5 W/m2 isn’t far from the value for CO2 forcing reported by CDIAC here:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
Those who claim that this solar work has nothing to do with CAGW are wrong. The theory can gain support in two ways, (1) by building evidence of a direct link between CO2 and warming (Doug Proctor correctly points out that this can only be done with highly specific predictions such as polar amplification, mid-troposphere hotspots, etc.), or (2) refuting plausible links between warming and other variables such as the sun. This study satisfies (2) by adding to the uncertainly of a solar driver, and therefore weakens CAGW, as others have correctly surmised.
An additional note for Steven Mosher:
If you cannot engage with “it could be something we do not understand” without feeling the need to ridicule others, you have forsaken objectivity.
John West says:
January 2, 2013 at 11:38 pm
Also, you didn’t answer the question. Yes or no, in your opinion do we have enough information to act knowing that we cause suffering by acting and possibly suffering by not acting?
Is not a scientific question, so has no good answer. People usually do not need information to cause suffering.
vukcevic says:
January 3, 2013 at 12:22 am
There is plenty of data since 1880 when my graph starts
No, Show me a link to measured magnetic fields and temperatures above latitude 70 degrees in both hemispheres covering 1880-2012.
Your graph refers to the ‘last 400 years’.
You are running out of arguments
I’m not arguing with you. I’m trying to educate you.
Now you are talking, indeed Z is due to the Earth’s internal (oceans to the core) fluctuations. These natural fluctuations (whatever mechanism/s) are reflected in the changes of the geomagnetic field and therefore easy to measure.
Except we don’t have any such measurements in the polar regions going back far enough in time to establish any ‘cycles’.
Henry Clark says:
January 3, 2013 at 3:11 am
compared to slower weaker cycles averaging 11.5 years each over the prior century from 1798 to 1901
Conveniently omitting the longest cycle of them all: the very strong cycle [Rmax=141] from Sept. 1784 to May 1798 [13.7 years]
Hows many meteorologists are partaking in this debate?
John West
“Are you really so confident in the conclusion that because TSI is constant(ish), CO2 explains Climate Change and humanity is to blame in light of all the predictive shortcomings of that model that no additional data should be evaluated or other explanations explored before taking action that in all probability will increase current suffering in a likely futile attempt to avoid future suffering?
#######################
1. I do not believe that C02 ‘explains’ climate change. The best science we have, a science which is incomplete and imprecise, suggests that more than half, but not all of the rise in temps we have seen can be attributed to GHGs, GHGs include C02 ( about 50% of the effect ) as well as other gases. In short, it is not only c02, AGW science has never said is is only c02. C02 plays a role, as does methane, and black carbon, and of course the sun.
2. You seem not to know that Lucia and I were some of the first folks to actually talk about the short comings of the models, in fact, part of my rational for believing that climate sensitivity is LESS THAN 3C derives from studying how the models tend to run a bit hot. Some models of course tend to run a bit cool, but those that run hot outnumber those that run cool. That fact had me arguing back in 2009 that models should be score and weighted based on their skill and not simply averaged. You should do you homework, read more and comment less
3. I have never suggested that no additional data should be collected. In fact perhaps you missed the role I played in the berkeley earth project. You will have to go back to a post on Lucia’s where Dr. Curry asked me what kind of project would “make us happy” with regard to temperature data. Perhaps you missed comments I’ve made about the importance of collecting and archiving more paleo data.
4. Policy. I have never considered the policy implications when looking at the science. I find the analysis of solar impacts ( sun spots get connected to everything except my left pinky toe, just as warming gets connected to jelly fish and mutant frogs) to be not reproducible. The sun spot connected to my legbone work is More like mann’s work than Leif’s work. I would say that even if we knew for certain that C02 had no effect. That said, we have some very simple questions to ask ourselves.
If the effect of adding C02 to the atmosphere is uncertain, do we want to blindly encourage it and subsidize it?
Do we want to encourage and subsidize the wealthy of the world to develop and live in places that could be swamped by sea level rise, in which case, we would then have to bail them out?
Do we know enough to set C02 targets? hardly. Do we know enough to pick and choose renewable winners? hardly. What is the real problem? the real problem is a world of 9 billion people in 2050 who will need at least twice the energy we consume today. They need that power to be cheap and it better be carbon free. So, I dont see the problem as being how to we tax c02 or how do we change peoples lifestyles, or how do we do with less. I see the problem as being how to we bring cheep carbon free energy to 9 billion people in 2050.
entirely different problem than stopping global warming.
Steven Mosher says:
January 3, 2013 at 8:33 am
“They need that power to be cheap and it better be carbon free.”
Why?
lsvalgaard says:
[Whether we have enough info to act] ”Is not a scientific question, so has no good answer.”
That’s the point; the scientific question in this case is not divorced from the policy question. If we were talking about what killed the dinosaurs (except birds) or some detail of human evolution then academics could extrapolate and conjecture until the cows come home without much notice from outside academia, but this question has policy significance therefore there’s a heightened responsibility to Truth, the whole truth. Scientists sometimes get their favorite theories and blind themselves to contrary evidence like in the case of the water ape hypothesis. There’s a responsibility to say we think this or that but this other thing and whatnot isn’t well understood and we could be wrong with a realistic estimation of uncertainties, unknowns, and error ranges. This is what I find missing from “The Team”, the IPCC reports (esp. exec sums), and most (but not all) advocates of action on climate change.
From my POV it is too soon to make policy decisions based on what we know and what we don’t know. The best course of action IMHO is to continue gathering and analyzing data and evaluating potential future courses of action. If the balance of knowledge should turn in favor of action I would be the first to advocate against “analysis paralysis” and not over analyze before deciding on and implementing a course of action, but we are not there yet and mitigation still has issues even if CO2 turns out to be a problem.
Dr. L.S.
Show me a link to measured magnetic fields and temperatures above latitude 70 degrees in both hemispheres covering 1880-2012.
In the Northern Hemisphere the Earth’s magnetic field is strongest below 70 degrees, in Canada at 62N and in Siberia at 64N, in the South at 60S, but you know that anyway.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/data/mag_maps/pdf/F_map_mf_2010.pdf
For magnetic data I refer you to:
Helmholtz Centre Potsdam GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences
and
Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich
you know that too, when I did ask for the data, you recommended both of the above.For both you said: the best data there is.
Arctic temperature anomaly uses data only from the last 3-4 decades.
Except we don’t have any such measurements in the polar regions going back far enough in time to establish any ‘cycles’.
Yes we do, since we are talking about 21 year or shorter cycle periods. Cycles are not from polar regions, it is the total flux at the Earth’s core-mantle boundary.
So we finally agree
CO2 ~ 10%, TSI ~ 10% and 80% for internal variability [random –Svalgaard; geomagnetic identifiable cross-modulation – Vukcevic].
Good grief, end to the 4 years of blogging warfare.
Note to everyone: even the top scientists are not always correct
vukcevic says:
January 3, 2013 at 9:17 am
For magnetic data I refer you to:
Helmholtz Centre Potsdam GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences
That may be so, but that does not mean there is actual data from the polar regions.
Arctic temperature anomaly uses data only from the last 3-4 decades.
Ah, back-pedaling on that…
Cycles are not from polar regions, it is the total flux at the Earth’s core-mantle boundary.
I thought you were talking about the secular variation [dZ], but maybe you have changed your mind about that. The ‘total flux at the CMB’ is sort of nonsense. You must specify a location, or state that the flux is integrated over the whole surface. That flux at the surface is the same as that flux at the CMB boundary as the surface flux comes from the CMB.
So we finally agree
CO2 ~ 10%, TSI ~ 10% and 80% for internal variability [random –Svalgaard; geomagnetic identifiable cross-modulation – Vukcevic].
You take unwarranted liberties here.
Steven Mosher says:
1) ”In short, it is not only c02, AGW science has never said [it] is only c02.”
No, just mostly CO2 to a high confidence level. Splitting hairs a bit and 50% is hardly what the IPCC puts out there. Look at the RF chart again, do you agree with it?
2) ”short comings of the models”
I was more referring to model in the broader sense of “way of thinking” but that is of course incorporated into the computer models that in turn fail.
3) ”never suggested that no additional data should be collected”
That’s not the question. The question is do we have enough data to make a decision that has consequences both ways.
4) ”I have never considered the policy implications when looking at the science.”
I don’t have a problem with that what I have a problem with is communicating science without considering the policy considerations.
”If the effect of adding C02 to the atmosphere is uncertain, do we want to blindly encourage it and subsidize it?
If the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere improves human health and the environment, do we want to discourage and regulate it?
lsvalgaard says:
Tom in Florida says:
January 2, 2013 at 1:01 pm
Looking at the scale, are we really talking about a difference of just over 1 w/m2?
Yes, but remember that the faithful invoke an unknown mechanism to amplify the impact of that tiny difference by ten times in their attempts to make it fit the observed temperature fluctuations.
Before there was man produced electrical energy, some faithful invoked an unknown mechanism to create virtually unlimited energy [verses horse, wood, manpower]. Scientific research produced electrical generators.
Something is happening to the Earth’s temperature, why not, as a scientist, try to “find” the cause verses attack all others not of your faith!! How about UV having an affect on the Ozone layer?? Last I read this interaction was “not well understood”.
“Our results suggest that the climate responds to both the 11 yr solar cycle ”
Tested with a running correlation, significance levels not apparently corrected for multiple comparisons. Type I error anyone?
REPLY: It helps to read before condemning, though your history shows condemning things you don’t like is what you do best.
@Mosher, to put in context 9 billion people on Earth by 2050, if they were all living on the continental US, the density of population would be equivalent to that of the Paris suburb region now, that is 966h/km2 [Ref: Dumont, Professor Sorbonne]
Leif writes: “Only if the weather events mostly go in the same direction. If they are cyclic [like the seasons] they don’t affect climate.”
The trend in intensity of these seasons and their character will be a reflection of climate.
Leif writes: “Here is one comment: weather is not climate. Here is another one: the ‘polar front’ is very ‘wavy’ so you see those [Rossby] waves roll by if you stay at a fixed position.”
The polar front???? Sorry, but this is a no go as far as observations are concerned. Take the time to observe on satellite images animations the ejection of cold air anticyclones and tell me where the “polar front” stops. If you observe the reality long enough you’ll see your polar air mass going down to the tropical and equatorial circulation. This is of importance since the “Sun Weather Climate” 1978 book in its chapter 3.1.6 page 113, references to the Azores High and Icelandic low. This denotes its weather concepts are antiquated and that since then, Leroux has shown how these statistical centers have no synoptic reality.
An example easy to grasp refers to trade winds regularity. Compare them to a note struck on a pipe organ; there is a major difference in process between keeping your finger on the key all the time and pressing that key, regularly every 10 seconds. Using statistical entities such as the Azores High is like keeping your finger all the time on the key while synoptic reality shows your finger pressure cannot be continuous.
I can therefore see why no relation could emerge when using the improper physical assumptions. Hopefully, and since we do observe short term variations of intensity during each seasons on a hemispheric and synchronous scale, it is of utmost importance to understand what mechanism controls them, their intensity and frequency, since they will determine what we’ll label climate.
Doug Proctor says:
January 2, 2013 at 11:35 am
“An article of great interest, but not useful in the CAGW debate, unfortunately.
Variations in TSI as noted are sufficient but not necessary for the late 20th century warming: this is the problem of combating CAGW. It’s the “many roads to Mecca” problem. CO2 by IPCC narrative is sufficient to account for modern warming. Other possible means of warming, even if of historical importance, once discounted for the present, are not considerations in the argument.”
When you say “not useful” you are arguing that the world has now accepted Steve Schneider’s Null hypothesis switch and that it is the job of skeptics to refute CO2AGW. I’d call that going into Schneider’s trap. Of course, journalists willingly do so as they hope that warnings of the end of the world will boost their sales; but I don’t see scientific evidence that makes CO2AGW an acceptable Null hypothesis (CO2 rise and temperatures don’t correlate well and the models failed.)
Your “usefulness” criterion reminds me of Schneider’s call to the CO2AGW scientists to be either honest or efficient. It has nothing to do with truth or science.
If you want to win “the debate”, you can only do so with the means of politics and propaganda, because that’s where “the debate” (and “the cause”) is.
Schneider’s Null hypothesis switch was a political trick, not a scientific one.
TomRude says:
January 3, 2013 at 10:02 am
The polar front????
Educate yourself: http://paoc.mit.edu/labguide/fronts_polar.html and http://www.kids-fun-science.com/polar-front.html
Dr. Lurtz says:
January 3, 2013 at 9:34 am
How about UV having an affect on the Ozone layer?? Last I read this interaction was “not well understood”.
so, you advocate relying on something that is “not well understood”…
vukcevic says:
January 3, 2013 at 9:17 am
So we finally agree
CO2 ~ 10%, TSI ~ 10% and 80% for internal variability
good that you have abandoned the notion that there is any external variability from the Sun. So, indeed there is some progress.
lsvalgaard says: January 2, 2013 at 9:34 pm Hockey Schtick says: January 2, 2013 at 3:32 pm
a. An increase of [1.2 Wm-2]/4 = 0.3 Wm-2 at the surface causes an increase of surface temperature of << 0.1 degree as you claim, or
b. An increase of 0.3 W/m2 at the surface causes an increase of surface temperature of ~ 0.9 C
‘a’ of course. You calculation is wrong. CO2 has nothing to do with it. It is much simpler. A percentage change of TSI of S%, leads to a change of temperature of S/4%. Since 1.2W/m2 is 0.1% of S, the change in temperature will be 0.1/4% = 0.025%. 0.025% of 288K is 0.07K, Tim.
1. Of course, the calculation done in a. above has nothing to do with CO2. I am simply showing that 1 Wm-2 forcing at the surface from doubled CO2 is alleged by the IPCC to cause about 11 times more warming than 1 Wm-2 forcing at the surface from the Sun. I demonstrate in b. that, according to the IPCC, an increase of 0.3 Wm-2 at the surface leads to ~ 0.9 C temperature increase, not 0.08 C [.003*288]. Therefore, shall we assume the IPCC has overstated climate sensitivity by a factor of 11?
2. FYI My name is not Tim & I have no idea who is the Tim for which you have mistaken me
3. So Leif, what is the “unknown mechanism”?
You tell me, Tim, as the known mechanisms are not effective enough. Believers claim ‘amplification’, ‘feedback’, etc, but can’t explain how that works and calculate what the amplification should be, Tim.
False in several respects:
a. for just one example, many papers have observed a significant decrease in cloud cover in the 1980’s-1990’s from locations around the globe. These decreases are significantly more than the 1-2% that can cause global warming [as repeatedly pointed out by Roy Spencer].
b. for another, a very simple model based only upon the PDO+AMO+”sunspot integral” correlates with temperature much much more than CO2. Both the PDO and AMO have been shown to have a lagged correlation with solar activity.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/climate-modeling-ocean-oscillations.html
c. you obviously still don’t have an answer for what caused the climate change in the 1st paper above.
4. a. Only shortwave solar radiation can heat the oceans, not changes in IR from GHGs
GHCs have nothing to do with this. All radiation that is absorbed heats the oceans no matter the wavelength, Tim.
Totally wrong – read the post from Realclimate to understand why IR from GHGs only penetrates a few microns, with all heat generated lost to the evaporative phase change of water.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/09/realclimate-admits-doubling-co2-could.html
lsvalgaard says:
January 3, 2013 at 11:03 am
TomRude says:
January 3, 2013 at 10:02 am
The polar front????
Educate yourself: http://paoc.mit.edu/labguide/fronts_polar.html and http://www.kids-fun-science.com/polar-front.html
==
I am surprised you did not quote Connolley’s Wikipedia Dr. Svalgaard… LOL Kids fun?
Now, update your references:
http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/2/32/25/79/Leroux-Global-and-Planetary-Change-1993.pdf
No need to reply.
lsvalgaard says January 3, 2013 at 11:03am
TomRude says:
January 3, 2013 at 10:02 am
The polar front????
Educate yourself: http://paoc.mit.edu/labguide/fronts_polar.html and http://www.kids-fun-science.com/polar-front.html
===
In the same vein, I thought you’d quote Wikipedia Dr. Svalgaard… LOL
Now, instead of kiddy’s stuff or 1969 schematics, update your references:
http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/2/32/25/79/Leroux-Global-and-Planetary-Change-1993.pdf
No reply needed. EOM
Hockey Schtick says:
January 3, 2013 at 11:22 am
I am simply showing that 1 Wm-2 forcing at the surface from doubled CO2 is alleged by the IPCC to cause about 11 times more warming than 1 Wm-2 forcing at the surface from the Sun.
Who cares what the IPCC thinks about CO2. I showed the minuscule effect of 1.2 W/m2 increase due to the Sun.
My name is not Tim
sorry for that. my bad.
a. for just one example, many papers have observed a significant decrease in cloud cover in the 1980′s-1990′s from locations around the globe.
Perhaps you are confusing cause and effect. Why omit the 2000s?
c. you obviously still don’t have an answer for what caused the climate change in the 1st paper above.
Why do I need to?
Totally wrong – read the post from Realclimate to understand why IR from GHGs only penetrates a few microns, with all heat generated lost to the evaporative phase change of water.
IR from the Sun is more than half of the total solar output. I don’t know why you are hung up on CO2 and GHGs.
Leif, here’s yet another paper published today in GRL demonstrating the mechanism by which the Sun controls the NAO and AO
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/01/new-paper-finds-another-mechanism-by.html
Who cares what the IPCC thinks about CO2. I showed the minuscule effect of 1.2 W/m2 increase due to the Sun.
Who cares? LOL
Thanks for conceding that the IPCC exaggerates global warming from CO2 by a factor of 11
Perhaps you are confusing cause and effect. Why omit the 2000s?
The whole thesis of Roy Spencer’s book is that climate science has indeed confused cause and effect, especially with respect to clouds.
c. you obviously still don’t have an answer for what caused the climate change in the 1st paper above.
Why do I need to?
Because you constantly berate skeptics for pointing out mechanisms both known and unknown by which small changes in solar activity can cause climate change. Here’s yet another paper published today debunking your claim that small variations in solar activity cannot be amplified to have large effects on climate:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/01/new-paper-finds-another-mechanism-by.html
Totally wrong – read the post from Realclimate to understand why IR from GHGs only penetrates a few microns, with all heat generated lost to the evaporative phase change of water.
IR from the Sun is more than half of the total solar output. I don’t know why you are hung up on CO2 and GHGs.
Uhhh, I’m “hung up” on CO2 and GHGs because, as previously explained 3 times now, they only emit LWIR which cannot heat the oceans. The Sun on the other hand is the only source of UV and visible, which can penetrate and heat the oceans by up to 100 meters. Therefore, only the Sun controls ocean temps [other than geothermal sources].
TomRude says:
January 3, 2013 at 11:39 am
Now, instead of kiddy’s stuff or 1969 schematics, update your references:
http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/2/32/25/79/Leroux-Global-and-Planetary-Change-1993.pdf
With a 20-yr old wacky ‘theory’? You have been had.
As you say: No reply needed. EOM
Hockey Schtick says:
January 3, 2013 at 11:57 am
Leif, here’s yet another paper published today in GRL demonstrating the mechanism by which the Sun controls the NAO and AO
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/01/new-paper-finds-another-mechanism-by.html
Sure, paper number 2134 that demonstrates that. Shall I respond with a new CO2 paper?
The UV changes are not established. They could be instrumental.
At the same SORCE 2012 meeting Judith Lean had this to say:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2012ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/S1-04%20LEAN_NRLSSI_Sep12.pdf
“Uncertainty in UV Spectrum solar cycle variations is at least 2X larger than Merkel et al report”
“SOLSTICE reprocessing now indicates smaller solar cycle variation than SIM”
“An error in the version 10 degradation correction in the A/B transfer is now believed to have produced the unusually large variation at some wavelengths in the MUV data. …SNS Jan 2012”
lsvalgaard says:
January 3, 2013 at 11:22 am
vukcevic says:
January 3, 2013 at 9:17 am
So we finally agree
CO2 ~ 10%, TSI ~ 10% and 80% for internal variability
good that you have abandoned the notion that there is any external variability from the Sun. So, indeed there is some progress.
…………………..
good that you have accepted the notion that there is an Earth internal variability as indicated by the geomagnetic data. So, indeed there is a lot of progress.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AGT.htm
Hockey Schtick says:
January 3, 2013 at 11:57 am
Leif, here’s yet another paper published today in GRL…
You forgot [?] to quote the conclusion:
“Any reduction in global mean temperature due to decline is likely to be a very small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming”