Researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming.
From NASA GSFC: Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate
In the galactic scheme of things, the Sun is a remarkably constant star. While some stars exhibit dramatic pulsations, wildly yo-yoing in size and brightness, and sometimes even exploding, the luminosity of our own sun varies a measly 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle.
There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.
Understanding the sun-climate connection requires a breadth of expertise in fields such as plasma physics, solar activity, atmospheric chemistry and fluid dynamics, energetic particle physics, and even terrestrial history. No single researcher has the full range of knowledge required to solve the problem. To make progress, the NRC had to assemble dozens of experts from many fields at a single workshop. The report summarizes their combined efforts to frame the problem in a truly multi-disciplinary context.
One of the participants, Greg Kopp of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, pointed out that while the variations in luminosity over the 11-year solar cycle amount to only a tenth of a percent of the sun’s total output, such a small fraction is still important. “Even typical short term variations of 0.1% in incident irradiance exceed all other energy sources (such as natural radioactivity in Earth’s core) combined,” he says.
Of particular importance is the sun’s extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.
Several researchers discussed how changes in the upper atmosphere can trickle down to Earth’s surface. There are many “top-down” pathways for the sun’s influence. For instance, Charles Jackman of the Goddard Space Flight Center described how nitrogen oxides (NOx) created by solar energetic particles and cosmic rays in the stratosphere could reduce ozone levels by a few percent. Because ozone absorbs UV radiation, less ozone means that more UV rays from the sun would reach Earth’s surface.
Isaac Held of NOAA took this one step further. He described how loss of ozone in the stratosphere could alter the dynamics of the atmosphere below it. “The cooling of the polar stratosphere associated with loss of ozone increases the horizontal temperature gradient near the tropopause,” he explains. “This alters the flux of angular momentum by mid-latitude eddies. [Angular momentum is important because] the angular momentum budget of the troposphere controls the surface westerlies.” In other words, solar activity felt in the upper atmosphere can, through a complicated series of influences, push surface storm tracks off course.
Many of the mechanisms proposed at the workshop had a Rube Goldberg-like quality. They relied on multi-step interactions between multiples layers of atmosphere and ocean, some relying on chemistry to get their work done, others leaning on thermodynamics or fluid physics. But just because something is complicated doesn’t mean it’s not real.
Indeed, Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) presented persuasive evidence that solar variability is leaving an imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific. According to the report, when researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific shows a pronounced La Nina-like pattern, with a cooling of almost 1o C in the equatorial eastern Pacific. In addition, “there are signs of enhanced precipitation in the Pacific ITCZ (Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone ) and SPCZ (South Pacific Convergence Zone) as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific,” correlated with peaks in the sunspot cycle.
The solar cycle signals are so strong in the Pacific, that Meehl and colleagues have begun to wonder if something in the Pacific climate system is acting to amplify them. “One of the mysteries regarding Earth’s climate system … is how the relatively small fluctuations of the 11-year solar cycle can produce the magnitude of the observed climate signals in the tropical Pacific.” Using supercomputer models of climate, they show that not only “top-down” but also “bottom-up” mechanisms involving atmosphere-ocean interactions are required to amplify solar forcing at the surface of the Pacific.
In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet. The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global. The Pacific region is only one example.
Caspar Amman of NCAR noted in the report that “When Earth’s radiative balance is altered, as in the case of a chance in solar cycle forcing, not all locations are affected equally. The equatorial central Pacific is generally cooler, the runoff from rivers in Peru is reduced, and drier conditions affect the western USA.”
Raymond Bradley of UMass, who has studied historical records of solar activity imprinted by radioisotopes in tree rings and ice cores, says that regional rainfall seems to be more affected than temperature. “If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal.” This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years.
Much has been made of the probable connection between the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year deficit of sunspots in the late 17th-early 18th century, and the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America were subjected to bitterly cold winters. The mechanism for that regional cooling could have been a drop in the sun’s EUV output; this is, however, speculative.
Dan Lubin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography pointed out the value of looking at sun-like stars elsewhere in the Milky Way to determine the frequency of similar grand minima. “Early estimates of grand minimum frequency in solar-type stars ranged from 10% to 30%, implying the sun’s influence could be overpowering. More recent studies using data from Hipparcos (a European Space Agency astrometry satellite) and properly accounting for the metallicity of the stars, place the estimate in the range of less than 3%.” This is not a large number, but it is significant.
Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion. (Note: Penn and Livingston were not participants at the NRC workshop.)
“If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link,” notes Lika Guhathakurta of NASA’s Living with a Star Program, which helped fund the NRC study. “The report offers some good ideas for how to get started.”
In a concluding panel discussion, the researchers identified a number of possible next steps. Foremost among them was the deployment of a radiometric imager. Devices currently used to measure total solar irradiance (TSI) reduce the entire sun to a single number: the total luminosity summed over all latitudes, longitudes, and wavelengths. This integrated value becomes a solitary point in a time series tracking the sun’s output.
In fact, as Peter Foukal of Heliophysics, Inc., pointed out, the situation is more complex. The sun is not a featureless ball of uniform luminosity. Instead, the solar disk is dotted by the dark cores of sunspots and splashed with bright magnetic froth known as faculae. Radiometric imaging would, essentially, map the surface of the sun and reveal the contributions of each to the sun’s luminosity. Of particular interest are the faculae. While dark sunspots tend to vanish during solar minima, the bright faculae do not. This may be why paleoclimate records of sun-sensitive isotopes C-14 and Be-10 show a faint 11-year cycle at work even during the Maunder Minimum. A radiometric imager, deployed on some future space observatory, would allow researchers to develop the understanding they need to project the sun-climate link into a future of prolonged spotlessness.
Some attendees stressed the need to put sun-climate data in standard formats and make them widely available for multidisciplinary study. Because the mechanisms for the sun’s influence on climate are complicated, researchers from many fields will have to work together to successfully model them and compare competing results. Continued and improved collaboration between NASA, NOAA and the NSF are keys to this process.
Hal Maring, a climate scientist at NASA headquarters who has studied the report, notes that “lots of interesting possibilities were suggested by the panelists. However, few, if any, have been quantified to the point that we can definitively assess their impact on climate.” Hardening the possibilities into concrete, physically-complete models is a key challenge for the researchers.
Finally, many participants noted the difficulty in deciphering the sun-climate link from paleoclimate records such as tree rings and ice cores. Variations in Earth’s magnetic field and atmospheric circulation can affect the deposition of radioisotopes far more than actual solar activity. A better long-term record of the sun’s irradiance might be encoded in the rocks and sediments of the Moon or Mars. Studying other worlds might hold the key to our own.
The full report, “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” is available from the National Academies Press at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13519.
Author: Dr. Tony Phillips | http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
See also the December Solar slump here
Leif and Mosher: Because you claim to not be aware of evidence and studies that conflict with your expertise, does not make you right. It makes you both deniers of science and closed to discussion. Not skeptics, but deniers. There is a difference. Your arguments pretend that there are no plausible alternatives to your singular strawmen arguments.
You could be open to some logic and read some of Tisdale’s work for instance.
When it cools in 10 years, you will be saying it has nothing – nothing to do with the sun, because TSI is everything and it does not vary. Right? You’ll say, correlation is not causation, right? One does not have to prove that the world will probably continue to spin and tomorrow will be another day, but I know I can count on that there will be another day coming within each 24 hour period.
RACookPE1978 says:
January 9, 2013 at 5:10 pm
Can I chime in too? Oh yeah, of course I can. 🙂
That cosine thing is a pretty crude approximation. However, it is likely plenty good enough. It’s not too hard to figure out the Sun – Earth (or barycenter) distance, but IIRC, you can’t go from date to location. Stupid integral that can’t be solved. You can converge it readily or go from location to date or something like that. I wrote code for that on a TRS-80. 100 ms per transcendental call. Don’t get Leif & me started. My current code seems to run a lot faster….
Some ancient links to books I used are at http://wermenh.com/eqoftm.html . Mills has the better explanations, Meeus (who posts here occasionally) has equations with second and third order effects but no explanation.
Don’t worry about the barycenter – the Earth’s wobble is very small compared to the Earth-Moon distance and much smaller compared to difference between perihelion and aphelion.
The barycenter completely messes up trying to figure out a reference point for the date of perihelion. When I concluded that’s why perihelion was not 0.2422 days 1/24000 of a year later each year, I dug up old Old Farmers Almanacs looking for perihelions near full moons and came up with a decent date. Those USNO folks do take those minor effects into account!
Here’s recent USNO data:
I’m happy with mine. I like my layout better too:
John West says:
January 9, 2013 at 8:10 pm
Similarly, the NASA statement doesn’t rule out solar variation or anthropogenic effects but does rule out TSI.
splitting hairs is not a useful exercise. TSI is where the energy is. Anything else is just special pleading. When Jack Eddy introduced the idea that the Maunder Minimum was the cause of colder climate, it was believed that TSI varied enough to account for that. So a scientific experiment was carried out: we send up satellites to actually measure TSI to verify the theory. And guess what: the theory was roundly falsified, TSI did not vary enough. The Scientific Method should then compel us to drop the theory that the Maunder Minimum was the cause of the colder climate. At the SORCE science dinner in Sonoma 2003 Eddy gave the dinner talk and told us just that. But, no, somehow people don’t want to accept that.
Matthew R Marler says:
January 9, 2013 at 8:46 pm
“The theory was not found to be in error on theoretical grounds.”
Nevertheless, it was wrong, as was subsequently shown by evidence.
As I said: new data and observations are what drive science and make scientists believe new theories.
Allan MacRae says:
Dr Norman Page says: September 26, 2012 at 7:32 am
The Maunder minimum is almost certainly the result of reduced solar activity – specifically reduced solar magnetic field strength which leads to an increase in incoming GCRs and the resulting increase in cloudiness and albedo.
Regardless of who said what, the GCR hypothesis has not held up over time.
Mario Lento says:
January 9, 2013 at 9:31 pm
Leif and Mosher: Because you claim to not be aware of evidence and studies that conflict with your expertise, does not make you right.
Neither do those conflicting studies make the people who peddle them right. Nor does the almost religious fervor displayed in most comments here make the believers right. For me, the question is simple: is there compelling evidence that would get me off the fence? No such evidence has been forthcoming to my satisfaction, so I stay on the fence. The believers never even got onto the fence in the first place, for them no evidence is needed.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2013 at 3:54 pm
FrankK says:
January 9, 2013 at 3:38 pm
The theory of Lord Kelvin earth’s core cooling period comes to mind which was subsequently found to be substantially in error.!
………. Nothing wrong with the model or the math. Kelvin’s theory faltered on new data and observations, e.g. the finding of a heating source unknown to Kelvin: radioactivity, and on the empirical discovery of radioactive decay ……………….
—————————————————————————————————————–
Goodness me LS!
If Kelvin didn’t account for all factors then his model was wrong. To say his model was right is just nonsense and astonishing. If all factors that count are not included in a model (as per the AGW type) then the model is wrong. The discovery of the other factors, doesn’t mean the original model integrity stays intact.
@Lief: 12:01pm Progress comes when new data and observations make the old theories untenable [and when old scientists die off].
New data and observations are insufficient conditions for progress. Progress comes only when new theories [or previously discarded ones] make better sense of existing data and/or new data. New Theories do not germinate in closed minds — whether or not the old scientists are breathing.
Where can we get a graph of UV versus time? Anthony Watts mentions it varies by factors of ten.. but Leif mentioned in another post that UV was similar to TSI in that varied very little..
One avenue of enquiry which might be interesting for the modellers to pursue is this;
How did the release of CFCs and the subsequent depletion of the ozone layer affect the responsiveness of the earth’s stratosphere/troposphere/atmosphere to incoming solar/galactic particles??
This is a system with a fairly clear and bounded start and finish point (the start was the mass manufacture of fridges containing CFCs and its endpoint was a few years after CFCs were banned.
It would provide a fine discrete model for evaluating responsiveness of the earth’s atmosphere to incoming particles, assuming that real-time data for ozone levels exist over a sufficiently long period to make modelling useful.
Has this already been done and if not, is it possible?
FrankK says:
January 9, 2013 at 11:00 pm
If Kelvin didn’t account for all factors then his model was wrong.
It was only wrong if the factors were known at the time. We will never know all the factors involved in anything, so all models and theories are always wrong. This is not a useful way of thinking about the problem. Models and theories can be correct within their paradigm, even though with a later paradigm can see that the models was incomplete.
Stephen Rasey says:
January 9, 2013 at 11:04 pm
Progress comes only when new theories [or previously discarded ones] make better sense of existing data and/or new data.
New theories are forced upon us by new data and observations.
How many new theories have you formed? What is your experience with that process, that you can opine on it with some authority?
Andrejs Vanags says:
January 9, 2013 at 11:11 pm
Where can we get a graph of UV versus time? Anthony Watts mentions it varies by factors of ten.. but Leif mentioned in another post that UV was similar to TSI in that varied very little..
UV creates the ionosphere. Winds in the ionosphere carry the ions across the Earth’s magnetic field lines creating a dynamo which makes an electric current whose magnetic effect we can measure on the ground. This measurement is thus also a measure of UV. http://www.leif.org/research/CAWSES%20-%20Sunspots.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf
@Lief Svalgard: “………. Nothing wrong with the model or the math. Kelvin’s theory faltered on new data and observations, e.g. the finding of a heating source unknown to Kelvin: radioactivity, and on the empirical discovery of radioactive decay ……………….”
A none problem with people who stick with and life by models. It is the ultimate downfall of MANY engineers who arrogantly believe their models model the whole process… even when there is good evidence showing the model is plain wrong. Using models REQUIRES an open mind which Lief says IS NOT part of science.
When observation shows a model to be wrong… there IS something wrong with it. The math might be right as a model outcome, but that outcome is just as wrong as the model itself. Having some proof is not required when the model cannot lead to the answer we all look for.
The model is wrong Lief. SAY IT… have an open mind and say it. Show some willingness to admit what you know is true.
Good work, Anthony. What this conference shows me is that we have only really begun to scratch the surface of understanding about how the sun influences climate, and how anything else ultimately influences climate. It is far more complicated and prone to multiple causes that are yet to be fully established. Finally, NASA as an organization is beginning to see this and do the job they were hired to do.
If I were a policy maker right now, I would be saying: keep studying, keep measuring, keep examining, keep debating, and don’t cause panic. There is absolutely no fair way to know what policy measures can be taken to deal with the phenomena we experience today. It will take a LOT more time to figure these things out. And I continue to suspect that the draconian solutions are NOT the answer under any circumstances.
If it all boils down to, as I’ve been preaching since 2009 when the Sun entered it’s current solar grand minimum and following the dead body count from freezing world conditions, “It’s the Sun Stupid”, I’ll be a monkeys uncle. No pun intended.
@Lief: 12:01pm Progress comes when new data and observations make the old theories untenable [and when old scientists die off].
Notice that it ‘and’ not ‘or’ when old scientists die off…:)
@Larry in Texas says:
January 10, 2013 at 12:19 am
Good work, Anthony… Finally, NASA as an organization is beginning to see this and do the job they were hired to do…
++++++
You’re being too positive about NASA Larry. James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institue is not beginning to see anything except they know that more people will know they are wrong headed. They see that it is inevitable that they will be found on the wrong side of the “politically motivated science propaganda” debate. We should NOT be paying them to fool us any longer.
As a kid, I was so proud of NASA for what they were doing. Now, I feel embarrassment for the US to go with the rest of the world monetizing fear…
@Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2013 at 12:01 pm – And I submit that you are wrong on this. Progress comes when new data and observations make the old theories untenable [and when old scientists die off].
+++++++
tick tock… will you evolve or perish before you see and appreciate the new data and observations…
Haven’t had time to read the original yet, but I wonder, from the press release: any credit to Svensmark, Solanki, Shaviv, Veizer, Baliunas and many others? To all those ‘sceptics’ who worked for years / decades on exactly this kind of question?
Further queries from Steve Mosher so replies as follows:
1.What variable changes in solar output ?
Changes in the mix of particles and wavelengths so as to alter atmospheric chemistry especially as regards ozone thereby altering the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere and interfering with the gradient of tropopause height between poles and equator
1. What particles – Solar protons and any others that affect the chemical composition of the upper atmosphere so as to change the vertical temperature profile.
2. What wavelengths- Those that most affect chemical composition. Most likely UV and EUV
3. What changes in chemistry- Most likely the balance of ozone creation and destruction
4. How will the verticle temperature profile change- Cooling stratosphere and mesosphere
when the sun is active. Warming when inactive. Apparently the lower stratosphere above Antarctica has been warmer than usual recenty and ozone amounts have been recovering
5. What changes to the gradient- When the Earth is warming the tropopause at the poles must become higher (positive AO and AAO) relative to that at the equator and vice versa (negative AO and AAO) when cooling.
‘altering” changing.. are not testable unless you SPECIFY in advance the kinds of changes you expect. Without quantifying this you have no theory to test- noted but I gave Leif just such a list some time ago.
2. What circulation change does it create ?
The climate zones and jet stream tracks are then enabled to slide to and fro latitudinally beneath the tropopause.
1. What climate zones’- All of them from ITCZ poleward.
2. How are they defined- As per standard climatology. The Earth has a collection of permanent climate zones.
3. How do you measure a jet stream ‘track”- Averaged over time both as to latitudinal position and degrees of zonality and meridionality.
4. What do you mean numerically by “to” and “fro”- Sometimes the net position drifts poleward. Sometimes equatorward.The trend is sufficient for basic diagnostic purposes.
5. how quickly will this change happen in reference to changes in solar output?- Unclear in the short term due to chaotic variability within the system but changes on decadal timescales and longer seem clear enough. There was a documented poleward drift during the warming spell which I observed to stop and reverse from 2000 onwards. There are substantial differences between MWP and LIA and LIA and today.
3. How is cloudiness altered ?
More meridional or equatorward jets increase the length of the lines of air mass mixing to produce more clouds.More zonality or poleward positioning reduces cloudiness.
1. Which types of clouds- All of them subject to internal system variability affecting type.
2. How quickly does this effect take to become detectable- As long as it takes for the climate zones and jets to shift.
3. How quickly does the effect dissipate?- It doesn’t unless the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere changes again but in reality that profile it is always changing from solar and oceanic influences.
4. What is the change in input to the oceans?- Less clouds when the sun is active and the jets more poleward or zonal allows more energy into the oceans especially beneath the expanded subtropical high pressure cells.The net effect should be revealed by OHC data. I understand that OHC stopped rising when the jets became more meridional after 2000.
1. Which types of clouds- All of them subject to internal system variability affecting type..
2. What level of “solar activity” induces this effect- Any that affects atmospheric composition but it is too small to distinguish from internal system variability on short timescales.The differences involved in Maunder Minimum and Dalton and the mid 20th century cooling period and now with stalled warming all seem to be enough.
3. How much more poleward- As much as necessaryu to keep top of atmosphere energy balance stable.
4. How much more energy can we expect to see into the oceans- Potentially unlimited over enough time but the convective processes and water cycle plus more radiation from warmer water under less cloudy skies keep the system stable by ramping up and matching energy in at TOA with energy out.
5. Would the change be detectable in argo data- Should be over enough time.
6. You mention expanded high pressure cells. Define what constitutes high pressure – any region with pressure above 1000mb. Generally though it is enough to refer to the high pressure cells described in standard climatology.
7. how much expansion- Whatever is necessary to maintain top of atmosphere radiative balance.
Is there anything more you would like to know ?
Some of the wording in this article looks made to let it get past the filters. For instance, similarly, I’ve seen more and more studies on the MWP in recent years have language to emphasize such not being totally global (when actually the Medieval Warm Period was as much global as the Modern Warm Period of “global warming,” neither being totally global and both having more warming at high northern latitudes than elsewhere, in no coincidence due to both having the same cause).
Though there are a number of demonstrations of solar/GCR and climate correlation, the most utterly blatant correlation I’ve seen (more so than that in this article, although the article is interesting) of demonstrating the large effect is what can be shown with global atmospheric humidity as in one of the plots in http://s7.postimage.org/69qd0llcr/intermediate.gif .
Heh, NASA’s finally coming to the sort of realization I came to years ago when first gazing into the pacific Leif’s curiosity. What keeps the amplifying mechanism from going out of control? Well, seems to be albedo, probably clouds in myriad interactions, and sun/galaxy interaction. There is enough steadiness of all of these ‘forces’, and enough potential for negative feedback mechanism to account both for climatic excursions, and climate steadiness.
But, to salute Leif’s incursion to blogdom in search of the mechanism(s?), we are all still marching to the beat of curiosity, destination unknown.
==============
@Peter Hannan:
Didn’t see any. “Scientists” play an interesting game. It is most suited to people who like to play Bridge. (That, BTW, is a mild insult in my world view… as Bridge has much artifice in it…) They make complicated movements based on artifice and guile inside a system designed to consume much time in artificial complexity. The purpose of all this is the entertainment value to themselves as much as actually “winning”. So you get endless bickering over the minutia of thesis vs theory vs hypothesis vs law vs conjecture. Much less discussion of actual understanding and rapid discovery of truth. Similarly all the layers of nuance (that, too, is an insult in my world view…) attached to what is a ‘paper’ vs a ‘comment’ vs a presentation at a conference that wasn’t quite a paper or a comment…
It all makes grand sense to them as they bid “2 Spades no trump” knowing all the time the sub-rosa sniffle will tell their partner to spike that bet in “review”… the ‘game within a game’…
So one of the “rules” is that if you didn’t play Bridge in THEIR tournament, you didn’t play at all. Unless you were officially recognized as part of the bid round, you simply don’t exist. Sniff.
Things never “officially published” are not “papers” so do not have “standing” and thus are not in existence. One does not recognize that which does not exist. Sniff sniff…
It’s all so terribly silly and so terribly boring. (Not to mention wasting a lot of time and impressing no one but the Bridge Devotees…)
While I would hope that in the age of “never forgetting” internet archives some future historian will recognize who actually discovered what “way first”; don’t hold your breath waiting.
There’s a long history in “science” of folks finding other folks writings to plagiarize and call it “research”. And as long as your “paper” is accepted on the bid first, you are the one who is in the Bridge game and only you can ever be recognized by all the other players. That’s one of the rules after all…
Frankly, that behaviour is one of the largest “issues” I have with science as it is practiced today. The sheer layers of artifice and games layered on top of what ought to be simply gentlemanly search for truth, sharing of it, and recognition of who had the idea first. It’s become too much like a court of law where if you don’t have the right chain of custody and chops from the right strokers your evidence of existing is disappeared… So don’t expect those not ‘in the club’ to be recognized by the judges of the show…
(No, not all players, and not all the time. Every one in a million an upstart makes it to the table… but only after paying the right dues and making the right bids and often stroking the right egos… )
Leif Svalgaard says:
When Jack Eddy introduced the idea that the Maunder Minimum was the cause of colder climate, it was believed that TSI varied enough to account for that. So a scientific experiment was carried out: we send up satellites to actually measure TSI to verify the theory. And guess what: the theory was roundly falsified, TSI did not vary enough. The Scientific Method should then compel us to drop the theory that the Maunder Minimum was the cause of the colder climate.
The hypothesis that the Maunder Minimum “caused” the colder climate was not falsified; only TSI being the varying attribute of the Maunder Minimum that caused the colder climate was nearly falsified; the TSI variance can’t be eliminated entirely until observed during cycles like during the Maunder Minimum. I suggest the observations certainly haven’t eliminated other solar variations being the cause of the colder climate associated with the Maunder Minimum and haven’t even completely ruled out TSI, unless y’all managed to get a satellite back to the Maunder Minimum.
What I don’t understand is why you’re being so resistant to components of solar variation being tested as individual variables instead of lumped together in TSI.
John West says:
January 10, 2013 at 5:08 am
What I don’t understand is why you’re being so resistant to components of solar variation being tested as individual variables instead of lumped together in TSI.
Because TSI [as Eddy emphasized] is where almost all the energy is. [the elephant in the room]. And because all the other variables vary the same way as TSI: is nearly cyclic with the well-known sunspot period.
TSI is simply a weak proxy for more influential solar variables.
As George Box famously said: “All models are wrong, some are useful”
Nature is not compelled to follow the models that we devise. Rather, our models can only attempt to explain , and on occasion successfully predict , what Nature is doing, or will do.
So, models (even Ptolemy’s Epicycle model) can be said to be “correct”, to the extent that they are “well-formed” in some practice and “useful”.
So, yes, astrological horoscopes are “useful” (and thus correct) in the sense that they make money for their publishers and entertain their readers. (But also nonsense in terms of modern science).
The sunspot peaks appear not to influence the temperature TREND of the globe, As a matter of fact, there is a slight cooling at the peaks. But the TREND of solar energy out put is closely followed buy the TREND in the temperature.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2013 at 11:59 pm
FrankK says:
January 9, 2013 at 11:00 pm
If Kelvin didn’t account for all factors then his model was wrong.
It was only wrong if the factors were known at the time. We will never know all the factors involved in anything, so all models and theories are always wrong. This is not a useful way of thinking about the problem. Models and theories can be correct within their paradigm, even though with a later paradigm can see that the models was incomplete.
Therefore incomplete models will either be way off the mark (eg phlogiston) or nearly right some of time (Kepler’s planetary motion?) what we have to decide is how “good” the current paradigm is? For me, as a rule of thumb the more variables you can think of the more likely the current paradigm is going to change. Ergo CAGW is likely to be wrong and the current paradigm will change frequently.