Another “escalator“

Guest post by Jan Zeman

Escalator_2012_500[1]

Some CAGW proponents argument against the recent stall in the global warming trends with this graph called “escalator”. Source: www.skepticalscience.com

But one of my favorite “escalators” is this one:

clip_image004Source: http://www.woodfortrees.org

The beginnings and the ends of the global sea surface temperature (SST) trends – the colored lines – are the time centered solar minima and maxima – quite clearly follow the solar signal – except the last: a quite apparently downward(!) slope from the minimum to the current maximum period of the solar cycle SC24 – e.g. until the most recent Hadsst2gl data available.

…and some say the trends shorter than 30 years don’t tell anything about the climate and its drivers… 

It quite consistently looks like the sea surface temperature anomaly trends in the last ~half of the century more or less follow the rises and drops of the solar activity during the solar cycles, except the last trend since the beginning of the SC24, where the temperature trend goes down, although the solar cycle was on the rise – but it appears to agree with the really considerable descent of the solar activity since the peak of the SC22 and especially after the peak of the SC23, only with a minor lag.

I would like to note that the heat capacity of just the upper ~3.2 meters of the ocean water out of the several kilometers deep ocean is the equivalent of the whole atmosphere’s heat capacity, so the global sea surface temperature anomaly looks like it is even better indicator of the solar activity’s influence on the Earth surface heat budget and temperatures than the global air surface temperature anomaly.

Let’s have look at the trends for the same periods using HADCRUT4GL data for comparison:

clip_image006

Source: www.woodfortrees.org

Again the global surface air temperature trends’ direction more or less follow the solar cycles up or down, up until the peak of the SC23. After which there is an anomaly – first the trend goes up while the solar activity descends and then it goes down while the solar activity rises. Which I propose could be attributed to a transient lag in the periods when the solar activity trends abruptly change as in our case after the SC22 peak and especially after the SC23 peak. (The SSN averages are in SC21 81.16, in SC22 80.63, in SC23 53.92, and in the SC24 at its peak period is so far 34.36 and it will yet fall significantly.)

All real thermodynamic systems, especially those involving significant latent heat exchanges – as in our case with the ice melting and evaporation (both from the sea surface and land) – have some thermal inertia. The question is only how big its effect is on the surface temperature anomalies.

Let’s yet check the same periods with the GISTEMP data:

clip_image008

Source: http://www.woodfortrees.org

We can see quite a similar pattern as with the HADCRUT4GL data.

…some say the sun does not have major influence on the surface temperatures (– sometimes they say at least since ~mid 20th century – which seems to me a bit like a contradiction: Sometimes influences, sometimes not? Such a hot giant as our sun, delivering most if not practically all the heat to the Earth’s surface?)

I don’t think so. The solar activity measured in sunspot number obviously correlates well with the TSI and it correlated quite well with the surface temperature anomalies throughout most of the record up until the end of the 1970’s too. We can see it prima facie:

clip_image010

Source: http://www.woodfortrees.org

The only question in my opinion is how fast the solar activity influences the global surface temperature anomalies when the solar activity trends relatively abruptly change (– as in the last two solar cycles) and transient phenomena take place.

The visual comparison of the trend graphs (- the above SSN v. SST, HADCRUT4GL and GISTEMP) also seems to provide a clue that the changes of solar activity could influence the sea surface temperature anomaly a bit faster than it influences the surface air temperature anomaly. Which is what one might expect (anti-intuitively): In my opinion it is caused by the fact that the epipelagic zone (the “sunlight zone” below the ocean surface up to ~200m depth) of the sea has more than 50 times higher heat capacity than whole the atmosphere. Therefore it always traps much more solar radiance converting it to heat than the atmosphere*.

This massive reservoir of sea surface heat** moreover mostly stays on the top, because most of the ocean surface water has lower density than the water below. The waters are mixed by wind and waves only to quite shallow depths. The heat gets into the depths of the ocean mainly by the thermohaline circulation, and it takes quite a long period of time for them to get the heat into the ocean depths. Some estimate this is taking hundreds to thousands of years (see slide 29 here). Otherwise the heat from the ocean’s surface propagates into deeper ocean layers by thermal conduction. Liquid water however does not have very high thermal conductivity, so it also takes considerable time to change the temperature equilibrium state this way, when the long-term solar irradiance/heat input trends and also the possible inducted cloudiness/albedo trends change (as proposed by H. Svensmark and others). So there quite likely can be lags of the surface temperature anomalies trends behind the solar activity trend changes. The question in my opinion is just how long the lags are.

The Occam’s razor principle says “that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected” or in other words: “simpler hypotheses about nature are more likely to be true”.

The average total solar irradiance per time descended quite sharply during the SC22 and SC23 with the pace of ~0.4W/m2 (SC22) and ~0.7W/m2 (SC23) per solar cycle*** and quite apparently continues to further significantly descend in the SC24. Similar it is with the sunspot number, which looks to touch the Dalton minimum levels****. Do you really think this will not have a significant impact on the surface temperatures in the future?

You decide.

* this underlines the fact that the sea surface water has also higher average temperature (the global average sea surface temperature is about 290 Kelvin) than the global average surface air temperature (~287 Kelvin) and is much higher than the average temperature of the atmosphere (254.3 Kelvin is the blackbody temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere which well agrees with the average temperature obtained by the standard atmosphere model). But is also good to note, that the constructs of the global average temperatures and their anomalies respectively have big uncertainties (estimated as high as ±0.46 degrees Celsius), that it poses serious question how significant the warming trend last hundred years of like ~0.72 (HADCRUT4GL) or ~0.77 (GISTEMP) degrees Celsius per century really is. But this is not the topic of this my article.

** continuously and distinctively heating the surface air wherever its temperature is lower and cooling it wherever its temperature is higher, while the water also evaporates from the surface, mainly due to direct heating effect of the solar irradiance on the water surface’s skin able to “knock out” the water molecules into the air.

*** just for illustration see the trends herenote: the PMOD values must be corrected according to this TIM/PMOD correlation, so in reality the SC23 trend (green) is up to ~0.05W/m2 per solar cycle less steep then the graph shows.

**** especially if we use the sunspot number correction proposed by L. Svalgaard – see the slide 8 here)

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

104 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jim D
April 20, 2013 1:10 pm

To convert TSI into forcing you have to use 0.25 for the earth surface average and 0.7 for the albedo leaving 0.25*0.7*(-1) which is about -0.2 W/m2 forcing change. Doubling CO2 is a forcing change of +3.7 W/m2, so you can objectively compare them. The LIA might have been -0.5 W/m2 but some dispute it was that much.

April 20, 2013 1:33 pm


phlogiston says:
April 19, 2013 at 3:33 pm
Steven Mosher says:
April 19, 2013 at 12:28 pm
Its pretty straightforward to show that C02 can explain over 50% of the rise. not 100% of course.. its also clear that nothing else, to date, can explain the rise..
Straightforward that is if you are inside the church preaching to the choir. But step outside the church and its a different matter..
###########################################
I once had dinner with a skeptic. I pulled out a chart where I had labelled C02 as a combination of several solar variable. That is, I showed him a C02 curve but I told him it was
a convolution and integration of key solar parameters including adjustments for jupiters orbit.
I then showed him the regression.. where temperature was explained by this “solar” variable.
He was convinced it was the sun.
When I told him the joke and that I had merely labelled the c02 curve as something else.
he got this sick kinda look on his face.

April 20, 2013 1:58 pm

Steven Mosher says:
I pulled out a chart where I had labelled C02 as a combination of several solar variable.
Hi Steven
I got similar chart, I even sent you data, but regrettably as Dr. S. often says ‘you appear to be impervious to my teaching’. 🙂
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SNT.htm
However, on this side of the Atlantic we would more than welcome some of that CO2 magic, but sadly it ain’t working.

April 20, 2013 2:09 pm

Just spent a few weeks in Hld. Awful. God bless Vukcevic. Sorry man. I do so wish that more CO2 could make things warmer*.
No can do. It was all a hoax based on stupendous science. Have a nice cooling off time you all. Until 2040. Give or take few yrs.
England not too badly affected I think.

April 20, 2013 3:26 pm

Steven Mosher says:
April 20, 2013 at 1:33 pm
Telling lies to tell a lie is not an story worth sharing! honestly mate.

Reply to  Sparks
April 20, 2013 5:38 pm

Steven Mosher says:
April 19, 2013 at 12:28 pm
“Its pretty straightforward to show that C02 can explain over 50% of the rise. not 100% of course.. its also clear that nothing else, to date, can explain the rise..”
What about this
I note that it came out from my recent discussion with Dr. S. who suggested to me to do such a comparison and provided me with the links to the data, and also that nothing there is a mislabelled CO2 curve nor the plot does include any adjustments for jupiters orbit. 😉

April 20, 2013 3:29 pm

Telling lies to tell a lie is not a story worth sharing! honestly mate.

k scott denison
April 20, 2013 3:54 pm

Yup Mr. Mosher, there are gullible people on both sides. Ever seen the videos of people signing petitions to ban dihydrogen monoxide?

AndyG55
April 20, 2013 4:05 pm

How about someone just uses the REAL temperature record back to say 1900 (or before, where they exist) rather than the UNREAL Hansen/Jones pre-1979 mal-adjustments.
The whole story would change radically
We desperately need someone to go back to the REAL RAW data and produce a much more realistic ‘global temperature series’ (if that is what people really want to use) than Hadley or Giss provide.

AndyG55
April 20, 2013 4:07 pm

ps: doing ANY pre-1979 analysis using Giss or Hadley data is a fools erand.

April 20, 2013 4:37 pm

“richard verney says:
April 19, 2013 at 12:57 pm
Steven Mosher (April 19, 2013 at 12:28 pm) says
“…… Its pretty straightforward to show that C02 can explain over 50% of the rise. not 100% of course.. its also clear that nothing else, to date, can explain the rise…”
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Steven
Natural variation can explain everything.
#####################
Natural variation is not an explaination. It is re naming the observation as the cause.
U

barry
April 20, 2013 4:57 pm

sparks,

barry,
Are you confusing TSI with solar activity?

That is Jan Zenman’s premise in the article here. I agree with it.

barry
April 20, 2013 5:11 pm

tumetuestumefaisdubien1,

-0.49, -1.79, -3.16, -5.54. Tell me, can you see a tendency in this row of numbers?

Yep, but as you don’t explain how they are derived, I don’t find them at all convincing. The cryptic reply is off-putting, too. As is the next thing you say.

Do you just listen to Leif as your prophet or you also think for yourself?

I started out here charting trends myself. You know this because you replied to those posts. I’m not sure what you hope to gain by insulting me, but I can assure you that it will not persuade me to your view. It also makes for a bit of a strain for me to continue thinking of you and treating you respectfully. Perhaps you can assist by being civil.

The OLS trends with unsymetric noisy periodic series can be quite deceptive, it is better to use averages or polynomials then OLS, but all you here need to know from trends are the trend turning poins.

A polynomial based on three or four cycles with such large amplitude will not be reliable, and it is useless at any rate without a clear physical basis. It’s just curve-fitting and explaining after the fact. Change the period of interest, and hey presto, you will find the curve peaks at different places.
It’s mathturbation, nothing more. So too, is the curve-fitting in Zeman’s article. Change or extend the period, and the correlation breaks down.
It aint the sun. The effect is too weak at any rate to account for the warming of the last 40 years or so. Too many people torture the data to get the result they want.

Reply to  barry
April 20, 2013 9:59 pm

barry says:
April 20, 2013 at 5:11 pm
Sorry, just teasing you. The numbers are the trends of the solar activity in SSN for the following cycles since 1964 (in the order). Don’t be too defensive please. I appologize to be too agressive maybe, but I couldn’t help myself, when you were writing so ridiculous stuff. The trends show inadvertently, there IS a trend since 1960s and quite almost unprecedented one.

u.k.(us)
April 20, 2013 5:42 pm

Steven Mosher says:
April 20, 2013 at 4:37 pm
“Natural variation is not an explaination. It is re naming the observation as the cause.”
=========
Niceties aside, let’s explore this statement.
It starts with “Natural variation is not an explaination”, which is saying nothing more than effects observed without an attributable cause.
Then we get to, “It is re naming the observation as the cause.”
I missed the leap in logic.
Care to explain ?

barry
April 20, 2013 8:21 pm

u.k.(us),

let’s explore this statement.
It starts with “Natural variation is not an explaination”, which is saying nothing more than effects observed without an attributable cause.
Then we get to, “It is re naming the observation as the cause.”
I missed the leap in logic.

Then you didn’t read the post Mosher was replying to, where the leap occurred.
richard verney quoted mosher,

Steven Mosher (April 19, 2013 at 12:28 pm) says
“…… Its pretty straightforward to show that C02 can explain over 50% of the rise. not 100% of course.. its also clear that nothing else, to date, can explain the rise…”

richard verney replied,

Steven
Natural variation can explain everything.

Mosh was pointing out the (il)logical leap in that post.

April 21, 2013 12:13 am

I don’t want to give the CAGW crowd more food for turning the whole CO2 scare into CAGC but I will to explain it again to S.Mosher from another angle, seeing as that he refuses to understand. Check this graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
The red is what you get on your head. Do you get that? The yellow marked amount of radiation of that solar spectrum is what is being back radiated, to space, mostly by the O3, O2, HxOx and NxOx, and lastly also by CO2. This is why we are even able to measure it (the absorption spectra of these gases) as it bounced back to earth from the moon. All these gases are GHG’s, agreed?
Now, do you not understand that if there is more of these gases coming into the atmosphere, either naturally or man made, that more of it is being back radiated? If more is being back radiated it means that less radiation is coming in, the red part is becoming smaller, hence we are cooling. So, more GHG naturally means more cooling.
Hence the reason why I say that if you want to prove that the net effect of an increase in one particular GHG is that of warming rather than that of cooling you have to show me a balance sheet that would prove how much cooling and how much warming is caused by a certain% increase of that gas.
The problem is that science has stood still in this regard and has relied heavily on the closed box experiments – by Tyndall and Arrhenius-, and these only show one side of the coin. Further more, the absorption of CO2 causing the back radiation to earth 14-16 um, is at around 200K, while the incoming radiation at 1-2 and 4-5 um being back radiated to space is around 5000K. Therefore, I am naturally inclined to think that the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is that of cooling rather than warming.
Do you now see what the problem is? If you want to prove to me that more CO2 causes warming you have to give me the balance sheet that would convert those 2 differences in energy caused by a certain % increase of the GHG, so that I can compare… If you say such proof exists, of all GHGs, then where is it?

richard verney
April 21, 2013 3:00 am

Steven Mosher says:
April 20, 2013 at 4:37 pm
“…Natural variation is not an explaination. It is re naming the observation as the cause…”
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Steven,
I take it from your response, that you do not seek to suggest that CO2 can explain, the matters that I said (in my post of April 19th 12:57pm) it could not explain. Instead, you limit your response to semantics.
You are confusing full knowledge and understanding, with explanation. One can frequently explain matters without having a proper knowledge and understanding of all relevant issues: the most obvious one being gravity. We do not know what gravity is or how it works, merely that it exists and its effect.
Take for example a hot air balloon. An observer notes that the balloon rises. A clever bod asks the observer why does that balloon rise? The observer replies, ‘because it is full of hot air’. That is an explanation, a correct explanation, even though the observer may have no understanding or appreciation as to why hot air rises.
We know as fact, that the climate system has natural variability. It therefore follows that when we observe a change in that climate system, that change can theoretically be explained by natural variation.
Of course, it would be nice to know precisely what natural variation encompasses and how it works. That is why I said on another post. “The holy grail of climate science is to know and understand absolutely everything there is to know and understand about natural variability.” The reason for this is as I said in my Aprril 19th 12:57 pm post “…until such time as we know absolutely everything there is to know about natural variation and fully understand it, including being able to identify each and every individual natural component and its direction of forcing and its upper and lower bounds, we are unable to assess whether CO2 does anything at all in the real world environ of this planet in the Holocene era.”
Reverting to your original post (Steven Mosher says: April 19, 2013 at 12:28 pm) you stae;
“Its pretty straightforward to show that C02 can explain over 50% of the rise. not 100% of course.. its also clear that nothing else, to date, can explain the rise.”
The truth of the matter is that we do not know what CO2 does in the real world environs in Earth’s atmosphere and climate. That experiment is currently underway and it may be that in 20 or 50 years time, we will have the result. Until then, If you desired to be correct in your use of language you should have stated that CO2 MIGHT explain or MAY POSSIBLY explain rather than CAN explain. Presently, in the real world we simply do not know what CO2 CAN explain.

April 21, 2013 5:18 am

barry says
too many people torture the data to get the result they want.
henry@barry
try looking at the raw data,
e.g. frm
http://www.tutiempo.net
go to the place you live and chose clima
to get the old data.
which way it is going in the place you live,
warming or cooling?
let me know
do the job and get wise

Reply to  HenryP
April 21, 2013 11:14 am

HenryP says:
April 21, 2013 at 5:18 am
“which way it is going in the place you live, warming or cooling? let me know”
I did my homework quite a time agohere and here is my recent comparison of the unique 240+ years long Prague Klementinum temperature original (uncorrected for the UHI) record (quite different than the “amputated and with other record mended” GISS version) with the solar activity.record. (mind the fact that the solar trend is still a bit steeper than the temperature record)
I also live on Earth, so here is my comparison of the BerkeleyEarth Global Temperature Anomaly record with the solar activity – which was suggested to me by L. Svalgaard as well as the SSN data correction for the Waldmeier discontinuity. (mind the fact that the solar trend is still a bit steeper than the temperature anomaly record and also the fact, that the solar trend from the uncorrected SSN data – the tiny pink line – is much steeper than the temperature anomaly trend, while the trend from the corrected SSN data quite well matches the temperature anomaly trend which can well suggest L. Svalgaard has it right with his SSN correction)
I also used to live in England, so here is my comparison of the the unique Central England Temperature record with the solar activity. (mind the fact that on this comparison it is the temperature trend which is a bit steeper then the solar – which coud again suggest L. Svalgaard has it right with his SSN correction and different temperature records just have a bit different trends, so they fluctuate close around the solar trend)
I think the match of the longterm trends over more than two centuries is quite a stunning one and it quite well suggests it is indeed the sun what is the chief driver, despite the variations atributable to other factors, and that the recent warming well can be just a short-term variation, result of a temperature lag behind the strong SC21-22 solar activity, or – as is quite clear from the Prague Klementinum (in the very center of Prague) record – can be partially attributed to UHI effect on the urban stations (there are several independent UHI estimations for the Prague Klementinum record with UHI proved significantly rising after ~1920s and mainly after 1960s).
(data I used for the comparisons are here – please note that the spreadsheet and the graphs is a working version for my next article, so please don’t publish it anywhere – but a private sharing is of course welcome)

u.k.(us)
April 21, 2013 6:23 pm

barry says:
April 20, 2013 at 8:21 pm
“Mosh was pointing out the (il)logical leap in that post.”
====
Maybe, I don’t know his mind.
( I wouldn’t mind having its capacities though), just need a bit more information released to catch its drift.

richard verney
April 22, 2013 12:45 am

barry says:
April 20, 2013 at 8:21 pm
////////////////////////////////////
Barry
There was no leap in logic in my post. I am not in any way conflating cause with observation.
It is Steven Mosher’s reply which is illogical.
The observation is the change in temperature anomaly/ change in temperature. The explanation behind that change (according to the null hypothesis) is that it was due to natural variation.
The fact that we cannot yet provide more detail as to what is encompassed in natural variation, does not stop natural variation from being the cause of the observed change in temperature anomaly.
This is just like the situation where you let go of an apple and it falls to the ground. The observation is the fall, the explanation is gravity. The fact that we do not understand why objects attract one another, how that process works does not mean that the force of gravity is not the correct explanation as to why the apple fell to the ground.
No doubt one day we will be able to explain the workings of gravity. Just like one day, no doubt we shall be able to identify each and every component in natural variation and explain gow each and every component works and the upper and lower bounds of their individual forcings. But even though we presently lack the required knowledge and understanding to do this, does not in any way reduce or lessen the likelihood of the correctness of the null hypothesis explanation for the observed change in temperature is due to natural variation.

Slartibartfast
April 22, 2013 5:07 am

its also clear that nothing else, to date, can explain the rise

I attribute it to the Gods of Cargo, myself.

April 22, 2013 5:39 am

http://www.tutiempo.net/clima/Praga_Ruzyne/115180.htm
Average temperatures (means) in Prague have been going up on average by
0.0071 degrees C /annum since 2000
that is about 0.08 K up in total since 2000.
That is not much.
Over the whole of the period from 1980, it was 0.0569 degrees C/annum, on average
That shows you that warming is decelerating, fast…
In line with this, minimum temperatures there have already started dropping, and is now already negative, at
-0.0236 degrees C/ annum since 2000.
So, minimum temps. are down by about – 0.3 K in total since 2000.
(I get a shiver, I hate cold)
Over the whole of the period from 1980, minima rose 0.0487 degrees C/annum, on average
That shows you that warming has already turned to cooling….and how far we have fallen already….
Of course that shows you all also that the warming is and was never caused by an increase in GHG because the GHG theory proposes that the cooling of earth is delayed by more GHG in the atmosphere. That would imply minimum temps. should start to rise, pushing up mean temperature.
I have again showed that the opposite is happening.
It is sun, going (a bit) down on all of us.
We should act. To counteract the occurrence of poor crops due to the (coming) freezing weather, which is only going to get worse, climate science must make a statement, encouraging agriculture at lower latitudes.

E.M.Smith
Editor
April 22, 2013 7:29 pm

As I understand it, the whole “blue end” weakened and the “red end” strengthened. Since redish and IR are surface absorbed and cause evaporation, less ocean heating. As blue-UV go deep, they slowly warm the ocean. So during High UV times, a thick layer of ocean slowly warms. During low UV times, that heat slowly leaves the ocean and the Red-IR causes a short spike in surface temps (that 1998-9 spike?) then mostly just drives more rain (as we’ve seen since).
It is the confounding of heat and temperature, mixed with ignoring enthalpy, and not paying any attention to where the different parts of the spectrum go; that’s the error in “climate science”.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/04/09/where-the-uv-goes/

April 23, 2013 3:49 pm

barry,
Leif tends to say that the trend in solar activity is pretty much zero for 50 or 60 years (since about the 60s), and can’t be responsible for multi-decadal warming
Leif would have been discussing TSI and how it had no comparison to solar activity. …Meaning. TSI is not a measurement of solar activity .