The Sun Does It: Now Go Figure Out How!

the_sun_stupid(Perturbation Calculations of Ocean Surface Temperatures.)

Guest essay by Stan Robertson, Ph.D., P.E.

1. Introduction

It is generally conceded that the earth has warmed a bit over the last century, but it is not clear what has caused it, nor whether it will continue and become a problem for humanity. There is a possibility that some of the warming has been caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, but it is also likely that the sun has been partially responsible. The arguments that are advanced to say that humans caused it and that it will become a serious problem rely on models that have not been validated and positive feedback effects that have not been shown to exist, at least at the hypothesized levels of effectiveness. The apparent weakness in the argument that the sun has been a major contributor is that satellite measurements of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) have not shown changes large enough to have directly produced the warming of the earth over the last half century. But what about indirect effects? Is it possible that the sun exerts control in some indirect way? In these notes I recapitulate the evidence that this is the case by showing that the variations of TSI cannot provide the energy that is necessary to account for the warming of the oceans during solar cycles.

TSI, as measured above the earth’s atmosphere varies by about 1.2 watt/m2 over a nominal eleven year solar cycle (h/t Leif Svaalgard) primarily at wavelengths shorter than 2 micron. The dominant harmonic variation of TSI would thus have an amplitude half this large, or about 0.6 watt/m2. About 70% of this enters the earth atmosphere. Averaged over latitudes and day/night cycles, about one fourth of this 70%, or ~0.11 watt/m2, on average, enters the upper atmosphere. Since only about 160 watt/m2 of 1365 watt/m2 of incoming solar radiation at wavelengths less than 2 micron reaches the earth surface, the amplitude of short wavelength TSI reaching the earth surface would be only (160/1365)x0.6 = 0.07 watt/m2. However, about half of the difference between 0.11 and 0.07 watt/m2 eventually reaches the earth surface as scattered thermal infrared radiation at wavelengths greater than 2 micron. Thus the average amplitude of TSI reaching the earth surface in all wavelengths would be about 0.09 watt/m2. So the question is, just how much sea surface temperature variation can this produce?

Several researchers, including Nir Shaviv (2008), Roy Spencer (see http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/low-climate-sensitivity-estimated-from-the-11-year-cycle-in-total-solar-irradiance/) and Zhou & Tung (2010) have found that ocean surface temperatures oscillate with an amplitude of about 0.04 – 0.05 oC during a solar cycle. (In fact, all of the ideas that I am presenting here were covered in Shaviv’s work, but it has not gotten the attention that it deserves.) Using 150 years of sea surface temperature data, Zhou & Tung found 0.085 oC warming for each watt/m2 of increase of TSI over a solar cycle. Although not strictly sinusoidal, the temperature variations can be approximately described in terms of a dominant sinusoidal component of variation with an 11 year period. Thus the question to be answered at this point is, can 0.09 watt/m2 amplitude of variation of TSI entering the oceans produce temperature oscillations with an amplitude of 0.04 – 0.05 oC?

The answer to this question depends on the average thermal diffusivity of the upper oceans. That is an unknown, but not unknowable, quantity. Thermal diffusivity is the ratio of thermal conductivity to heat capacity. The upper 25 to 100 meters of oceans are well mixed by waves and shears. These are mixing zones with high thermal diffusivity and correspondingly small temperature gradients. Diffusivities are lower at greater depths. Bryan (1987) has found that thermal diffusivities ranging from 0.3 to 5 cm2/s are needed to account for the temperature profiles below the mixing zone. In my first trial calculations of the energy flux necessary to account for the temperature variations, I tried values of thermal diffusivity in the range 0.1 – 10 cm2/s and found that the TSI variations were generally inadequate to produce the sea temperature variations over a solar cycle. But there was wide variation of calculated energy flux. Larger values of thermal diffusivity required more heat because more was able to penetrate to the depths, but even for 0.1 cm2/s, the required input was double the TSI variations that reach the earth surface. Fortunately, there is a way to constrain both the value of the thermal diffusivity and the heat input. It consists of first matching the measured trends of surface temperatures and ocean heat content over time. Measurements of these were reported by Levitus et al. (2012) and are available from http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ .

In the calculations described below, I have used the data from 1965 to 2012 for ocean depths to 700 meters. Sea surface temperatures and ocean heat content began to increase after 1965. Only about a third of the increase of heat content occurred at depths below 700 meter. Since little heat migrates below this depth over 11 year solar cycles, it is preferable to use the 0 – 700 m data for the purpose of calibrating the thermal diffusivity

2. Heat Transfer Perturbation Calculations

For the calculation of sea surface temperature and sea level changes, we can treat the variations of radiations entering and leaving atmosphere, lands and oceans as minor perturbations on an earth essentially in thermal equilibrium. Ocean mixing zones, thermoclines and other features of the temperature profiles remain largely as they were while small radiant disturbances produce minor variations of temperature starting from zero, and imposed at each depth. Thus the effects of these disturbances can be modeled as one-dimensional energy flows into a medium at uniform temperature. Such “perturbation calculations” are among the most powerful analysis techniques used by physicists and engineers and are widely used. The energy equation to be solved in this case is:

http://i1244.photobucket.com/albums/gg580/stanrobertson/equation_zpscea297ad.jpg

clip_image001

Where T is the temperature departure from equilibrium at depth , z, and time, t. q is a perturbing radiant flux entering the surface, u the absorption coefficient, c is absorber heat capacity and k its thermal conductivity. The rate of heat transfer by conduction processes is controlled by the thermal diffusivity, which is the ratio k/c.

As a one dimensional heat flow problem, it is straightforward undergraduate level physics or engineering to numerically solve the equation above for the expected changes of surface temperature as surface radiant flux varies. In my calculations, temperature changes were calculated for 1.0 meter increments of depth in the oceans. Two cases were considered. In one

case the surface radiation perturbation was assumed to increase linearly with time. This corresponds to the ocean conditions for the period 1965-2012. In the second case, it was assumed to vary as a cosine function of time with the 11 year period of the solar cycle. The cosine function provides both some positive and some negative variation in the first half cycle, which helps to minimize the transients of the first few years.

I treated q and thermal diffusivity, (k/c), as input parameters that were chosen to provide agreement with the observed sea surface temperature variations and ocean heat content measurements (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ersst/ ). The absorption coefficient, u, was entered in piecewise fashion. Only the deep UV radiations penetrate to depths below 10 meter, but conduction takes energy to much greater depths. For the values of u chosen, only 44.5% of the surface energy flux goes deeper than 1 meter, 22.5% below 10 meter and 0.53% to 100 meter (h/t Leif Svalgaard). Thermal diffusivity of oceans was assumed to be 0.3 cm2/s below 300 m. This accords with Bryan’s estimates below the mixing zone, but little change of results occurred for values as low as 0.1 cm2/s. The required heat inputs are relativity insensitive to the thermal diffusivity below 300 meter. For the shallower depths, thermal diffusivity was varied until trends in accord with observed temperatures and heat content were produced.

It is necessary to maintain an energy balance at the sea surface in approximate equilibrium with the incoming solar radiation. As estimated by Trenberth, Fasullo and Kiehl (2009), about 160 watt/m2 enters the surface, on average. At a mean temperature of 288 oK, the sea surface will emit about 390 watt/m2 of surface thermal infrared radiation at wavelengths longer than about 2 micron, however, about 84% of that is returned as back scattered radiation. The rest of the energy balance is provided by evaporation and thermal convection, which remove about 59% of the heat from the surface. From the standpoint of merely wanting to know how much heat is required to change the ocean surface temperature, it is possible to maintain a proper energy balance without delving into the messy details of evaporation, convection and infrared absorption in the first few millimeters of water. The temperature variations at one meter depth will not be measurably different from those at the surface for the thermal diffusivities of interest here. If we merely want to know what net energy flux entering the surface is required to make the water temperature at one meter depth oscillate with an amplitude of 0.04 – 0.05 oC , then all we need to do is account for the outgoing surface infrared emission and let 41% (160 watt/m2 / 390 watt/m2 = 0.41) escape. At the present 288 oK, the earth radiates an additional 5.42 watt/m2 for each 1 oC increase of surface temperature. In the case of surface temperature being perturbed by 0.04 oC, an outgoing additional 0.22 watt/m2 would be generated and 0.09 watt/m2 was allowed to escape. This nicely balances the amplitude of TSI variations that reach the earth’s surface.

3. Linear heating:

In these calculations, the aim was to find the heat input and thermal diffusivities necessary to account for the observed surface temperature increase (http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ )Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature) and the increased ocean heat content (OHC 700) that have been reported by NOAA. Since surface temperatures had not been increasing in the early 1960s, but began to increase in the last half of that decade, I chose to start calculations with linearly increasing heating in 1965. I found that the ocean heat content to a depth of 700 meters was quite sensitive to the thermal diffusivity used. The best results that I have been able to obtain were for a thermal diffusivity of 1 cm2/s to 300 meter depth and surface heat input increasing at a rate of 0.31 watt/m2 per decade. These are shown on the graph below with calculated trends shown by the green and black lines. On a time scale of 50 years, most of the heat accumulates at relatively shallow depths. To better reflect a realistic thermal diffusivity for greater depths, I used a lower value of 0.3 cm2/s below 300 meter. That has little practical effect on a 50 year times scale, but would be necessary if one wanted to extend the calculations for several centuries while surface heating perturbations had time to penetrate to much greater depths.

http://i1244.photobucket.com/albums/gg580/stanrobertson/OHC700_zpsb9e34e91.jpg

clip_image003

Figure 1. Ocean heat content 0 – 700 meter and surface temperature trends according to NOAA. Blue and green lines show trends calculated for the parameters shown.

These calculations establish some parameters that do a good job of representing the thermal behavior of the upper oceans, however, if one looks closely at the data trends in the graph, it is apparent that both surface temperature and ocean heat content have considerably slowed their rates of increase in the last decade. This makes it unlikely that greenhouse gases are the cause of the rate of heating needed to explain the previous trends because their effects should have become enhanced rather than diminished. It might also be noted that a similar warming trend occurred in the first half of the previous century before anthropogenic greenhouse gases could have contributed significantly. Thus it is more likely that both warming periods had natural origins.

Obtaining simultaneous fits to the ocean heat content and sea surface temperature trends with only two free parameters, thermal diffusivity and surface heating rate, is quite confining. Acceptable, but noticeably worse, fits than shown above, were obtained with thermal diffusivities ranging from 0.8 to 1.2 cm2/s and heat inputs ranging from 0.29 to 0.33 watt/m2. Based on previous calculations for sea level data, I was initially inclined to think that larger thermal diffusivities would be necessary, but larger values let more heat penetrate to greater depths than the amounts of heat reported by Levitus et al. In addition, I was chagrined to learn that most of the variation of sea level that accompanies solar cycles is caused by evaporation rather than thermal expansion.

Solar Cycles:

The process of choosing thermal diffusivity and surface heating rates to accord with observations provides a sound basis for calculating what to expect for the temperature variations during solar cycles. In this case we can use the thermal diffusivity of 1 cm2/s that is required of the ocean heat content results as an input parameter and choose the heat input that is required to produce temperature variations of 0.04 – 0.05 oC amplitude. Producing sea surface temperature variations with an amplitude of 0.04 oC requires a surface heat input of 0.33 watt/m2, as shown below:

http://i1244.photobucket.com/albums/gg580/stanrobertson/solarcycle10_zpsa3b8b0ee.jpg

clip_image005

Figure 2. Radiant flux, ocean temperature oscillations, and sea level variations for three solar cycles of eleven years each. The entering flux shown here is the value of q = 0.33 watt/m2 needed to drive the variations of surface temperature of 0.04 oC with ocean thermal diffusivity of 1.0 cm2/s to depth of 300 m. The amplitude of thermosteric rate of change of sea level was 0.47 mm/yr. Temperature lags the driving energy flux by 15 months. The thermal expansion coefficient of sea water used here was 2.4×10-4/ oC.

I believe that this settles the issue of what is required to produce sea surface temperature oscillations with an amplitude of 0.04 oC. The solar TSI variations that reach the earth’s surface are smaller than the 0.33 watt/m2 needed to account for sea surface temperature variations by a factor of 3.6 for this smallest estimate of sea surface temperature variability.

Although the estimated 0.33 watt/m2 that is required to explain the surface temperature variations is large compared to the amplitude of TSI variations that reach the surface, it is still only about two parts per thousand of the 160 watt/m2 of solar UV/VIS/NIR that reaches the earth surface. There are many possible ways in which the sun might modulate the surface energy flux to this extent. These include modulation of cloud cover and small spectral shifts in the energetic UV that might modulate ozone absorption or produce shifts of the effective sea surface albedo. It would seem to be a fairly direct radiative effect, rather than feedback, since it must vary in phase with the solar cycle.

In summary, my calculations based on energy conservation considerations imply that the sun modulates the ocean temperatures to a much greater extent than can be provided solely by its TSI variations. The great question that desperately needs an answer is how does it do it? It should be easily understood that solar effects would not necessarily be confined to cycles. More likely, the sun has been the driver of the large changes of temperatures of the Roman and Medieval warm period, the Little Ice Age, and the recent recovery from it without requiring large changes of its own irradiance. When we understand how the sun does this, we will have begun to understand the earthly climate.

###

Biographical note:

Stan Robertson, Ph.D, P.E, retired in 2004 after teaching physics at Southwestern Oklahoma State University for 14 years. In addition to teaching at three other universities over the years, he has maintained a consulting engineering practice for 30 years.

References:

Bryan, F., 1987: Parameter Sensitivity of Primitive Equation Ocean General Circulation Models. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 17, 970-985. (PDF available here http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0485%281987%29017%3C0970%3APSOPEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Levitus, S. et al., 2012 World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0–2000 m), 1955–2010, Geophysical Research Letters, 39, L10603, doi:10.1029/2012GL051106, 2012 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051106/abstract

Shaviv, Nir 2008, Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing, Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, A11101 http://www.sciencebits.com/files/articles/CalorimeterFinal.pdf

Trenberth, K., Fasullo, J., Kiehl, J. 2009: Earth’s Global Energy Budget. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 90, 311–323. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1 www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/TFK_bams09.pdf , Fig. 1

Zhou, J. and Tung, K. ,2010 Solar Cycles in 150 Years of Global Sea Surface Temperature Data, Journal of Climate 23, 3234-3248 http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3232.1

0 0 votes
Article Rating
480 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 10, 2013 3:03 pm

The solar TSI variations that reach the earth’s surface are smaller than the 0.33 watt/m2 needed to account for sea surface temperature variations by a factor of 3.6 for this smallest estimate of sea surface temperature variability.
So, in normal science, that falsifies the assumption that solar variations are the cause.

October 10, 2013 3:16 pm

For a start, here’s 50 papers describing potential solar amplification mechanisms
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=solar+amplification&max-results=50&by-date=true

Pat Frank
October 10, 2013 3:20 pm

TSI variations, Leif.

Bruce Cobb
October 10, 2013 3:21 pm

So, in normal science, that falsifies the assumption that solar variations are the cause.
Maybe in Post-Normal Science it does.

October 10, 2013 3:22 pm

Leif is thinking in top-down one-dimensional terms, believing that the TSI must be equivalent to a direct dial control on sea surface temperature in order for the sun to drive ocean oscillations. But clearly that is not the case, given the cyclic nature of solar and planetary orbital dynamics and the complex behavior that the sun demonstrates over time.
As many wiser people than myself have said, solar scientists do not know what the hell they are doing.

October 10, 2013 3:23 pm

Hockey Schtick says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:16 pm
For a start, here’s 50 papers describing potential solar amplification mechanisms
None of those explain how 3.6 times more heat reach the surface than the variation of what the Sun puts out…Otherwise the climate system would be a nifty energy producer: you put 10 units in and you get 36 out. I want one of those 🙂

Magicjava
October 10, 2013 3:23 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:03 pm
The solar TSI variations that reach the earth’s surface are smaller than the 0.33 watt/m2 needed to account for sea surface temperature variations by a factor of 3.6 for this smallest estimate of sea surface temperature variability.
So, in normal science, that falsifies the assumption that solar variations are the cause.
————————————–
It would if the climate where as simple as only being composed of sun and ocean. But it’s not. There are additional factors at play, such as cloud cover, stoot, CFCs, etc.

October 10, 2013 3:25 pm

Pat Frank says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:20 pm
TSI variations, Leif.
We are talking Wattage here. There are almost no energy in the non-TSI variations.

Magicjava
October 10, 2013 3:32 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:25 pm
Pat Frank says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:20 pm
TSI variations, Leif.
We are talking Wattage here. There are almost no energy in the non-TSI variations.
—————————————————
Dr. Svalgaard, even AGW folks say the heat being trapped by CO2 comes from the sun.
If the heat is not originating from the sun, where is it coming from? The Earth’s core?

October 10, 2013 3:37 pm

Magicjava says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:32 pm
If the heat is not originating from the sun, where is it coming from? The Earth’s core?
More likely the calculation is wrong. Where do think the heat is coming from [if you accept the calculation: 10 units in 36 units out – I want such a heat engine]

milodonharlani
October 10, 2013 3:38 pm

“These include modulation of cloud cover and small spectral shifts in the energetic UV that might modulate ozone absorption or produce shifts of the effective sea surface albedo.”
Why not both (or all) of the above, among other effects?
Modulation of cloud cover could be by both solar radiance & magnetic flux. The UV energy shifts could affect both ozone absorption & sea surface albedo. There doesn’t need to be One Big Solar Effect on the climate system.
“Climate science” needs more observation & experiment & less CACA-based, GIGO modeling.

October 10, 2013 3:41 pm

milodonharlani says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:38 pm
Why not both (or all) of the above, among other effects?
Explain how any or all of these can supply 3.6 times MORE energy than the variation of the TOTAL energy received from the sun.

@njsnowfan
October 10, 2013 3:43 pm

“If the heat is not originating from the sun, where is it coming from? The Earth’s core?”
90 million+ barrels per day, Billions of CF Nat gas, Nuclear reactors and wood being burned.
In 2008 when the economy came to a halt global temps reflected that with a big dip in temps.
Everyone says that the heat source other then the sun can not effect temperatures some but I feel otherwise.
TSI Reconstructed chart from 1610-2012
http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html

October 10, 2013 3:51 pm

Here’s one of many papers on “global brightening” demonstrating large changes in surface solar radiation due to changes in cloud cover
New paper finds increase in US sunshine has had 4.4 times more effect than greenhouse gases since 1996
A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres finds that due to a decrease in cloud cover, solar radiation has significantly increased over the US from 1996 to 2011. The authors note the change in longwave (infrared) surface radiation “dwarfs the [alleged contribution] from the increase of CO2 during the analysis period.” According to the paper, the natural variability due to changes in sunshine has had 4.4 times greater effect on surface radiation than increased greenhouse gases since 1996 [6.6/1.5 = 4.4]. According to the authors,
“The network average total surface net radiation increases by +8.2 Wm−2 per decade from 1996 to 2011. A significant upward trend in downwelling shortwave [solar radiation](SW-down) of +6.6 Wm−2 per decade dominates the total surface net radiation signal. This [brightening of solar radiation] is attributed to a decrease in cloud coverage, and aerosols have only a minor effect. Increasing downwelling longwave [radiation from greenhouse gases](LW-down) of +1.5 Wm−2 per decade and decreasing upwelling LW [infrared radiation from the Earth surface] (LW-up) of −0.9 Wm−2 per decade produce a +2.3 Wm−2 per decade increase in surface net-LW, which dwarfs the expected contribution to LW-down from the 30 ppm increase of CO2 during the analysis period. The dramatic surface net radiation excess should have stimulated surface energy fluxes, but, oddly, the temperature trend is flat.”
The paper adds to many other peer reviewed papers documenting a global decrease in cloud cover or ‘global brightening’ over various periods and locations beginning the the 1980’s. This decrease in cloud cover alone could account for all global warming observed since the ice age scare of the 1970’s.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/01/new-paper-finds-increase-in-us-sunshine.html

milodonharlani
October 10, 2013 3:52 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:41 pm
IMO, small variations at critical junctures in the climate system can produce out-sized results. This possibility hasn’t been thoroughly studied because of the false dominant paradigm of the One Big Gas.
For example, small changes in orbital parameters cause or contribute critically to shifts from glacial to interglacial conditions.
Also, magnetic effects are only indirectly linked to TSI, although perhaps more strongly to the variation in high energy UV. You could enlighten me on this point.
Thanks for your past comments on the possible effects of UV directly on the oceans, but IMO there are still lots of possibilities worth investigating. Science has historically been full of surprises & strongly-held certainties frequently overthrown by better analysis & discovery of more information.

Magicjava
October 10, 2013 3:54 pm

Thank you Dr. Svalgaard and njsnowfan for both giving me something to think about.

October 10, 2013 4:01 pm

milodonharlani says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:52 pm
Science has historically been full of surprises & strongly-held certainties frequently overthrown by better analysis & discovery of more information.
I’m not discussing this in general [and this is all the other people trotting out their usual stuff], but let us stick to the article if this thread: it claims that 0.33 W/m2 input is required and notes that TSI only provides 3.6 times as little, or 0.09 W/m2. How can that work? what discovery awaits us that can provide 3.6 times more energy than supplied by the variation of TSI? The Sun cannot, the deep ocean might, or the calculation is wrong.

milodonharlani
October 10, 2013 4:02 pm

@njsnowfan says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:43 pm
Have you computed the total of energy produced by human activities & compared that with TSI? Or with volcanoes? Or the internal heat generated by our planet?
The financial crisis began in Aug or Dec 2007 & lasted until June 2009. Have you computed the amount of energy not produced as a result of the recession of 2007-09? Are you aware that a La Niña also developed in mid-2007 and lasted almost until 2009? IMO hard to separate out the natural from any possible economic effects.

October 10, 2013 4:04 pm

Leif is a broken record. Let him carry on with his crusade, while the solar/climatic connection evidence keeps mounting with each passing day.
It is ashame his potential talents in this area are being wasted.

Bob Shapiro
October 10, 2013 4:08 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:41 pm
milodonharlani says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:38 pm
Why not both (or all) of the above, among other effects?
Explain how any or all of these can supply 3.6 times MORE energy than the variation of the TOTAL energy received from the sun.
Dr. Svalgaard, it seems you’re arguing just for the sake of arguing. More cloud cover vs less cloud cover easily can mean 3.6 times MORE/LESS energy than the VARIATION in solar radiation. More radiation isn’t being produced – more/less is getting through.

milodonharlani
October 10, 2013 4:09 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 10, 2013 at 4:01 pm
I don’t know. Any speculation would be pure guesswork on my part, without the ability to support it. Maybe Dr. Roberston can provide an answer to your good question.
Lord Kelvin was sure the earth had to be less than 100 million years old, based upon thermodynamics. Then nuclear radiation was discovered.
As the Melancholy Dane said:
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

David Archibald
October 10, 2013 4:10 pm

What if the heat is already there? Then it doesn’t have to diffuse. Cloud cover varies over the solar cycle. The oceans have an albedo of 5% so most visible light gets through and can get as far as 200 metres down.

Jim G
October 10, 2013 4:13 pm

@njsnowfan says:
Excellent point. How can the trace gas (0.039% of atmosphere) CO2 be the recognized cause of global warming while all of the energy released by human activities be ignored as a source of heat. The human race is one big UHI in some respects. More wars and a major plague would fix the problem. Just think how plants and wildlife would flourish without us pesky humans. Oh, wait. Who would plant the trees after forest fires, no fish and game department to help keep a wildlife balance, no more protection of endangered species from predation like sage grouse and raptors….never mind.
Also:
“It is generally conceded that the earth has warmed a bit over the last century, but it is not clear what has caused it, nor whether it will continue and become a problem for humanity.”
Since when has warmer been bad for life on this planet? Way better than colder for humans, historically.

October 10, 2013 4:16 pm

Bob Shapiro says:
October 10, 2013 at 4:08 pm
More radiation isn’t being produced – more/less is getting through.
what gets through does not vary by a factor of 3.6 compared to what goes in. Explain to me how 0.09 W/m2 going in heats as much as 0.33 W/m2.

Louis
October 10, 2013 4:20 pm

How good are we at measuring total TSI? Is it any better than how we measure the planet’s average temperature? Do the measurements account for all wavelengths? I guess I’m asking if the margin of error is known and if it is large or small.

thingadonta
October 10, 2013 4:22 pm

My guess is that it is something to do with evaporation and clouds, with differential effects over different lattitudes under increased solar radiation.
The higher latitudes heat faster with increased solar radiation due to increased water vapour in the air and lessening cloud cover where humidity levels are low, whilst the tropics dont heat much under the same conditions because more evaporation and clouds occur under higher humidity which act together as a buffer, with evaporation being endothermic and a negative feedback. Endothermic reactions are unusual and rare in nature, but might explain why the tropics dont warm much with either increased solar radiation or increased greenhouse gases. But where there is low humidity, solar effects are magnified because not much evaporation occurs, cloud cover is reduced with slight warming, and the extra water vapour acts as a greenhouse gas under those conditions, rather than as a negative feedback under high humidity conditions. This is similar to Eschenbach’s idea of tropical thunderstorms being a kind of thermostat.

Joe
October 10, 2013 4:27 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:41 pm
Explain how any or all of these can supply 3.6 times MORE energy than the variation of the TOTAL energy received from the sun.
————————————————————————————————————–
Because the measurements are at different places. TSI is measured at the top of the atmosphere, the energy “entering” the climate system is (essentially) at the bottom of it.
Many processes in the atmosphere itself affect how much of the TSI at the top gets to pass through to the bottom in order to be captured by the climate system. Much of the total available is rejected before it can warm anything. It’s entirely possible that the small variations in TSI affect that transmission in some way, possibly yet to be discovered, allowing more of the available energy to enter the system. That’s entirely different from saying that the variation itself is providing all the extra energy.
Although, there was absolutely no point in typing this because, by your logic, I’m afraid that you’ll never get to read it – all those transistors that will be switching large currents in response to small ones in order to transmit it from my keyboard to your screen simply can’t possibly work.

Climatologist
October 10, 2013 4:29 pm

Hilarious

October 10, 2013 4:30 pm

Louis says:
October 10, 2013 at 4:20 pm
How good are we at measuring total TSI?
VERY good: We can measure variations in TSI with a precision of 0.007 W/m2 out of 1361 W/m2 or as 10 feet on the distance between San Francisco and Los Angeles.
Do the measurements account for all wavelengths?
Yes, that is what the T in TSI stands for ‘Total Solar Irradiance’.

geran
October 10, 2013 4:34 pm

And, once again, we cannot forget (exclude) all of the “products” supplied by our Sun. TSI is only one in the basket.

October 10, 2013 4:34 pm

As we all know that study solar/climate connections TSI is among the least important.

October 10, 2013 4:35 pm

Joe says:
October 10, 2013 at 4:27 pm
Because the measurements are at different places. TSI is measured at the top of the atmosphere, the energy “entering” the climate system is (essentially) at the bottom of it.
The article says explicitly: “Thus the average amplitude of TSI reaching the earth surface in all wavelengths would be about 0.09 watt/m2″ so is at the ‘bottom’

kent Blaker
October 10, 2013 4:36 pm

Does TSI include the energy of the solar wind? What about coronal mass ejections?

October 10, 2013 4:37 pm

geran says:
October 10, 2013 at 4:34 pm
And, once again, we cannot forget (exclude) all of the “products” supplied by our Sun. TSI is only one in the basket.
But is the one that has almost all the energy. So we still need to explain how 0.9 W/m2 can supply 0.33 W/m2.

GlynnMhor
October 10, 2013 4:38 pm

As Svalgard suggests, some sort of amplification mechanism or some sort of coupled causation (ie- another factor that varies as TSI does, for example cosmic ray flux) is needed to obtain an additional twice as much energy imbalance.
But this is not much different from the CAGW proposition, whereby an hypothesized H2O feedback produces twice as much of an effect as the 1.2 degrees of warming that CO2 can be calculated to create per doubling of concentration. ie- not the 3, 4, or even 5 degrees that the IPCC deemed necessary to account for the late 20th century warming.

October 10, 2013 4:47 pm

Leif does not give consideration to the potential secondary effects associated with changes in various solar parameters other then TSI.
For example the ap index versus surface temperatures give a strong correlation. The ACI/LOD index gives another strong correlation with temperature.
The ACI index in turn closely follows the activity of the sun, being more meridional during quiet periods ,and more zonal during active solar periods which has a big impact on the climate.

geran
October 10, 2013 4:47 pm

kent Blaker says:
October 10, 2013 at 4:36 pm
Does TSI include the energy of the solar wind? What about coronal mass ejections?
>>>>
TSI is total energy (E/M energy that can be easily converted to heat). Solar wind and CMEs are mass (particles) with high energy, but does not translate easily to heat (only collisions and nuclear transmutations).

richardscourtney
October 10, 2013 4:48 pm

Friends:
I think several people are missing the real issue here.
Leif Svaalgard is making the obvious point that TSI is an order of magnitude too small for it to have been the direct cause of the observed rise in global temperature. Hence, TSI is NOT the direct cause of that rise.
Others are saying that there may be mechanisms which amplify the direct effect of TSI and, of course, there may be. Hence, TSI may be the indirect cause of the observed rise in global temperature.
Both are right, but Leif Svaalgard has stated the clear and irrefutable evidence which demonstrates his point. The others have stated possibilities but they have not provided any evidence that demonstrates their point.
The onus is on those claiming a solar effect to demonstrate their claim. Attacking Leif Svaalgard’s point does not do that.
Please note that there are other possibilities for the cause(s) of the rise in global temperature. These possibilities include internal variation of the climate system such as variations in ocean heat transport causing redistribution of surface temperatures, and external variations such as the Svensmaark Effect which may alter cloud cover (n.b. this possible effect is galactic and not solar).
Hence, it is not sufficient to assert that the Sun is the cause. It is necessary to admit that nobody knows the true cause and to move on from there to assess each possibility on its merits.
Richard

milodonharlani
October 10, 2013 4:50 pm

The sun, the moon & the stars:
http://www.space.com/19786-cosmic-rays-origins-star-explosion.html
I didn’t know that the origin of GCRs was such a mystery, but a colleague of Dr. S’s at Stanford has solved it.
And let us not forget the planets & lesser bodies in orbit around the sun.
The terrestrial & extraterrestrial phenomena possibly or definitely affecting weather & climate to some extent haven’t all even been recognized yet, nor the relative importance of those which have been.
Nevertheless IPeCaC imagines its minions can realistically model the earth’s systems & make predictions (or projections) reliable enough for policy makers to base trillion-dollar decisions & risk the life, health & wealth of billions upon them. It would be to laugh were it not such a man-made catastrophe.
I’m reminded of the bootless War on Cancer waged in the 1970s before science knew very much at all about the disease(s). Arguably the greatest discovery in climatology in the shameless CO2-dominated sham paradigm period was the PDO, found accidentally in 1997 by a PNW fisheries researcher. Trillions of dollars wasted on worse than worthless “research” & the economy-destroying, deadly results of this anti-scientific fraud.
Whatever the faults of papers like Dr. Robertson’s may be, if any, at least it indicates that climate science might be waking up from its tax-funded binge since the 1980s. Alternative means of publishing scientific results or speculation such as this blog help revive real science, IMO, however out there some of the material posted here may be (often done so in order to subject it to ridicule, a point AW’s CACA critics often miss).

Joe
October 10, 2013 4:52 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 10, 2013 at 4:35 pm
Joe says:
October 10, 2013 at 4:27 pm
Because the measurements are at different places. TSI is measured at the top of the atmosphere, the energy “entering” the climate system is (essentially) at the bottom of it.
The article says explicitly: “Thus the average amplitude of TSI reaching the earth surface in all wavelengths would be about 0.09 watt/m2″ so is at the ‘bottom’
—————————————————————————————————————————–
That’s something I’d take issue with in the article. That figure is derived from TOA measurement using an implicit and unsupported (at least, within the article) assumption that the transmission efficiency remains constant as TSI varies.
That’s a massive assumption to be making in such a complex system, especially one where it’s so widely claimed that variations of a few hundreths of a percent in composition can have such profound effects on energy transmission.
Sauce for the goose & all that jazz 😉

wayne
October 10, 2013 4:52 pm

Louis says:
October 10, 2013 at 4:20 pm
“How good are we at measuring total TSI? ”
Early satellites read absolute near 1367-8 and now it is accepted to be near 1361-2. Specs on these radiometers are (or were) available in user manuals on NASAs site with spec plates of 1% absolute accuracy with a much better repeatability. I have often wondered the same Louis. Let’s just say all of those readings that we have were adjusted to level the TSI (right or wrong). See TIM site at NASA I belive to show each satellite and what they were reporting.

October 10, 2013 4:53 pm

Well how come CO2 is supposed to warm our planet, when it does not add even as much as 0.09wm/m2 to the budget

geran
October 10, 2013 4:53 pm

richardscourtney says:
October 10, 2013 at 4:48 pm
Rich, who made you the referee?
(Just funning, love your intelligent comments, just don’t get to “high and mighty” for us low-lifes.)

george e. smith
October 10, 2013 4:57 pm

“””””…..@magicjava
If the heat is not originating from the sun, where is it coming from? The Earth’s core?……..”””””
We get NO HEAT from the sun’ there being no substantial physical medium connecting us together.
And even a type IIa diamond conduit between us would conduct a totally negligible amount of “heat”.
We make ALL of our heat, right here on earth by simply wasting the majority of the perfectly good Solar electromagnetic radiant energy that old Sol provides for our use.
We also get no LIGHT from the sun; ALL of that is made inside the human eye and brain, from a single octave sliver of the solar EM radiant energy spectrum.
Light is measured in “lumens” and “candelas” and such, which is quite different from the “Watts” and Joules etc that the sun sends us as EM radiation.

October 10, 2013 4:57 pm

kent Blaker says:
October 10, 2013 at 4:36 pm
Does TSI include the energy of the solar wind? What about coronal mass ejections?
The energy in the solar wind is a million times smaller than TSI.
GlynnMhor says:
October 10, 2013 at 4:38 pm
cosmic ray flux) is needed to obtain an additional twice as much energy imbalance.
The energy of the cosmic rays is comparable to that of star light [from all the visible stars].
geran says:
October 10, 2013 at 4:47 pm
Solar wind and CMEs are mass (particles) with high energy, but does not translate easily to heat
They do. energy is energy. A piece of Radium is hot to hold in your hand [not to say dangerous].

October 10, 2013 4:59 pm

george e. smith says:
October 10, 2013 at 4:57 pm
We get NO HEAT from the sun’ there
That explains why it takes so long to BBQ my steak. It gets no heat from the glowing coals…

geran
October 10, 2013 5:00 pm

geran says:
October 10, 2013 at 4:47 pm
Solar wind and CMEs are mass (particles) with high energy, but does not translate easily to heat
They do. energy is energy. A piece of Radium is hot to hold in your hand [not to say dangerous].
>>>>>
I think I dated her a few times back in college. Randy, Raney, Radium…something like that….

mkelly
October 10, 2013 5:01 pm

Since only about 160 watt/m of 1365 watt/m of incoming solar radiation at wavelengths less than 2
micron reaches the earth surface, the amplitude of short wavelength TSI reaching the earth surface would be only (160/1365)x0.6 = 0.07 watt/m .
A proper number would be 1000 w/m2 not 160. So 1000/1365 x .6 = .44 so more than enough.

Chris @NJSnowFan
October 10, 2013 5:05 pm

My comment on all fuels burned daily worldwide and daily heat released. Mans heat release is a 24/7 operation into the air and waterways and does not stop and only slows when the economy does. Also mans world wide change of the landscape from water vapur emiting cooling forest to pavement and roof tops in and around growing cities worldwide.
I have never run the numbers on total Heat BTU’s released by man ever day from fuels and heat absorbing landscapes and what it would equal to in comparison to a volcano’s heat. There has to be someone with that info since I have made several attempts at searching for it.
I do know that most land surface temperature gauge sites are located near where most of mans heat energy is released.
So is mans daily heat release into the atmospher and waterways from all fuels really a factor on the atmosphere or just localized heat island effects.

Eliza
October 10, 2013 5:06 pm

Seems to me that Svenmarks cosmic ray theory fits in re cloud cover due solar activity sun. We all know that temperatures decrease with increased cloud cover in the tropics during the day. In any case lest we forget, there is no global warming All the datasets except CET and Satellite RSS data have been adjusted to show AGW. The whole conversation is pointless.

October 10, 2013 5:07 pm

geran says:
October 10, 2013 at 4:53 pm
Rich, who made you the referee?
No referee is needed. Anybody with a shred of intelligence and critical sense can appreciate his points.

October 10, 2013 5:12 pm

strange that anyone could possibly claim the sun really doesnt have much impact on our climate……

geran
October 10, 2013 5:19 pm

Chris @NJSnowFan says:
October 10, 2013 at 5:05 pm

So is mans daily heat release into the atmospher and waterways from all fuels really a factor on the atmosphere or just localized heat island effects.
>>>>>>
Chris, our waste heat is only a small fraction of the total energy produced from world-wide electricity.
All or mankind’s electrical power production is a thousand times less than the energy we receive from the Sun.
Oh, wait, it is TEN thousand times less than the Sun provides.
Okay, it is SIXTY thousand times less than the Sun provides.
(Wiki, a proven AGW site, actually still reports these figures.)

gnomish
October 10, 2013 5:22 pm

There could never be anything wrong with infrared thermometry being completely unable to register heat of enthalpy or anything. Therefore it must be human breath and cowfarts.

geran
October 10, 2013 5:27 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 10, 2013 at 5:07 pm
Anybody with a shred of intelligence and critical sense can appreciate his points.
That’s why I had to include the disclaimer, for those WITHOUT a shred of intelligence or critical sense—(Just funning, love your intelligent comments, just don’t get to “high and mighty” for us low-lifes.)

Jimbo
October 10, 2013 5:31 pm

What many sceptics here must realise is this simple truth:
We don’t have to give an explanation for the global surface warming since 1975, 1950 or 1850.
We only need to point out problems, errors and ask questions about AGW / CAGW. That’s it. That’s all sceptics have to do because that’s how science works.
Example: I submit a paper blaming the sun for global warming since 1975. A peer reviewer points out several flaws in my submitted paper and it’s subsequently rejected. I am upset and turn around on my way out and ask them can they think of a better reason? They don’t have to give me one damned reason, they have done their job. Let’s remember that.

October 10, 2013 5:32 pm

Stan, I absolutely agree. What do you find out there to explain the major climate transitions – the entrys to and from interglacials?

geran
October 10, 2013 5:34 pm

Jimbo says:
October 10, 2013 at 5:31 pm
Jimbo, I cannot improve on what you said, so I leave you in charge as I turn into a pumpkin for the night.
You can DO it.

October 10, 2013 5:37 pm

is the winter climate different from the summer climate in the northern hemisphere…..seems to me the ONLY difference between the 2 is the angle of the sun…maybe the sun DOES impact climate.

Monckton of Brenchley
October 10, 2013 5:37 pm

Radiative flux is expressed in Watts per square meter. A Watt per square meter is a joule per second per square meter. One needs a time term in any equation purporting to determine temperature change from change in radiative flux. I am not sure that the fundamental equation of climate sensitivity used by the models contains a time variable. Without one, the equation seems to my inexpert eye to be meaningless.
Four separate groups – two amateur, two professional – have been in touch in recent months to say that the time-integral of the solar forcing is capable of explaining all or nearly all temperature change on all timescales at or above the 11-year solar cycle. So I’m not sure we can dismiss “Busie olde foole, unrulie Sonne” as the primum mobile of globakl temperature change.

TomRude
October 10, 2013 5:39 pm

So funny that suddenly the IPCC invoked the low solar cycle as one of the reasons for the global temperature “hiatus”… I still await Leif Svalgaard ripping them since according to Leif, in normal science, the assumption of solar variations being the cause of climate change has been falsified.

MarkW
October 10, 2013 5:41 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:03 pm
Did you even bother to read the article?
You are assuming that TSI is the only possible mechanism again.

Chris @NJSnowFan
October 10, 2013 5:43 pm

One other quick comment, this one on man’s body heat release pee and shower water. There is about 7 billion people in the world. Humans pee about 140 gallons of 98.6° liquids per year. So that comes out to be about 1 trillion gallons of 98.6°pee water into water ways a year. Now if you add up all the hot water that is flushed into the ground and water ways from about 3.5 billion(half world has heated water source) people taking 10 minute shower daily. Water per person at 110° is 30 gallons per person a day. 3.5 billion people x30 gallons of water per day = Is about 100 billion gallons of heated water flushed daily. Do the math for the year and that is a lot of 100+° water flushed s year. My caculater does not go that high.

MarkW
October 10, 2013 5:44 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:41 pm
Reflecting energy (IE, more clouds) doesn’t generate energy, but it will impact sea surface temperatures.
The difference is total solar energy reaching the sea surface. Some of the decrease comes from direct TSI, some of it comes from other mechanisms.

milodonharlani
October 10, 2013 5:47 pm

Chris @NJSnowFan says:
October 10, 2013 at 5:05 pm
UHIs definitely affect the measured T of the planet, especially since GISS’ formerly secret algorithms “correct” for urban heat islands by making the readings hotter! You just can’t make this stuff up.
But in terms of human activities actually having a measurable effect on the T of the atmosphere, not so much.

MarkW
October 10, 2013 5:48 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 10, 2013 at 4:16 pm
Now you are the one making unwarranted assumptions.
Where is your proof that there changes in the amount “getting through” are insufficient to create the changes in sea surface temperature. As you yourself have acknowledged at other times, our knowledge of clouds and how they change is insufficient to make such a definitive claim.

MarkW
October 10, 2013 5:50 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 10, 2013 at 4:35 pm
The key word here is AVERAGE.

John Phillips
October 10, 2013 5:56 pm
Chris @NJSnowFan
October 10, 2013 5:57 pm

Gernan, yes mans heat out put is very small compared to the sun but it is a NEWER source of heat to the earth and is a 24/7 365 days of a year one.
I do feel mans heat release is a very small puzzle piece of global temps. There are some many puzzle pieces.

Dr. Deanster
October 10, 2013 6:01 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:23 pm
Hockey Schtick says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:16 pm
For a start, here’s 50 papers describing potential solar amplification mechanisms
None of those explain how 3.6 times more heat reach the surface than the variation of what the Sun puts out…Otherwise the climate system would be a nifty energy producer: you put 10 units in and you get 36 out. I want one of those 🙂

What if the answer is not found in how much energy reaches the surface, but how much actually exits the system. According to one paper I was just reading, OLW from the ocean can decrease by up to 80% based simply on clouds.
In my uninformed opinion … [but I”m catching up], the assumption that the ocean is in constant equilibrium with regards to heat is bogus. The ocean sucks up heat, .. some it immediately releases, but a good portion of it gets moved around, stored for awhile, then releases it.
Lindzen and others have shown that the Earths OLW is heavily correlated with the SST and the OLW radiation exiting the ocean. Thus, if the ocean is sucking up heat, .. and it’s SST increases, that is by default going to increase cloud cover over time, decreasing OLW from the ocean surface, but at the same time decreasing the SW charge to the ocean. It’s only a matter of time before the charge on the ocean begins to run low … and the result will be a decrease in SST … clouds will decrease .. and we will go into a long recharge period. What complicates matters, is that we have two “capacitors” .. the pacific and the atlantic, and they aren’t always in sinc. … AND … I don’t know what effect TSI is having, but I’ve read somewhere that TSI has actually increased by about .3-.4% since the LIA. Don’t know if there has been any decrease in TSI over this past cycle … or what it will do over the next 15 years or so. But depending on cloud cover … a 0.3% decrease or increase in the estimated 342 W/M2 that I read hits the surface would be about 1 W/M2, which is more than the 0.33 W/M2 that the OP evaluated. Even assuming that only 50% of that reaches the surface, you’d still be left with 0.5 W/M2 .. which is still higher than 0.33 W/M2.

October 10, 2013 6:02 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:03 pm
The solar TSI variations that reach the earth’s surface are smaller than the 0.33 watt/m2 needed to account for sea surface temperature variations by a factor of 3.6 for this smallest estimate of sea surface temperature variability.
So, in normal science, that falsifies the assumption that solar variations are the cause.

OK, so Dr Svalgaard has demonstrated that he doesn’t understand the effect of the thermal inertia of the oceans.
Next!

mem
October 10, 2013 6:02 pm

You might find an answer here, “Temporal changes in the power of the longwave radiation of the system Earth-atmosphere emitted to space always lag behind changes in the power of absorbed solar radiation due to slow change of its enthalpy. That is why the debit and credit parts of the average annual energy budget of the terrestrial globe with its air and water envelope are practically always in an unbalanced state. Average annual balance of the thermal budget of the system Earth-atmosphere during long time period will reliably determine the course and value of both an energy excess accumulated by the Earth or the energy deficit in the thermal budget which, with account for data of the TSI forecast, can define and predict well in advance the direction and amplitude of the forthcoming climate changes. From early 90s we observe bicentennial decrease in both the TSI and the portion of its energy absorbed by the Earth. The Earth as a planet will henceforward have negative balance in the energy budget which will result in the temperature drop in approximately 2014. Due to increase of albedo and decrease of the greenhouse gases atmospheric concentration the absorbed portion of solar energy and the influence of the greenhouse effect will additionally decline. The influence of the consecutive chain of feedback effects which can lead to additional drop of temperature will surpass the influence of the TSI decrease. The onset of the deep bicentennial minimum of TSI is expected in 2042±11, that of the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7500 years – in 2055±11. reference link http://www.thegwpf.org/russian-astrophysicist-predicts-global-cooling/

gbaikie
October 10, 2013 6:07 pm

“Radiative flux is expressed in Watts per square meter. A Watt per square meter is a joule per second per square meter. One needs a time term in any equation purporting to determine temperature change from change in radiative flux.”
Time I think is 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
I don’t think averaged watts works. Nor do I think the average amount sunlight in a year works. it wouldn’t seem to work in regards Milankovitch cycles.

TimTheToolMan
October 10, 2013 6:08 pm

Leif writes “So, in normal science, that falsifies the assumption that solar variations are the cause.”
In climate science, however, there is a muttering of “natural variation” and continue on regardless.
Leif writes “None of those explain how 3.6 times more heat reach the surface than the variation of what the Sun puts out…”
CO2 doesn’t bring energy to the party either. The sun is “putting in” hundreds of Watts. You dont need an extra 1W of TSI to get 1W of warming at the surface, there are myriad atmospheric processes that can potentially warm, CO2 being just one of them.

Tim Walker
October 10, 2013 6:18 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:03 pm
The solar TSI variations that reach the earth’s surface are smaller than the 0.33 watt/m2 needed to account for sea surface temperature variations by a factor of 3.6 for this smallest estimate of sea surface temperature variability.
So, in normal science, that falsifies the assumption that solar variations are the cause.
Too bad Dr. Robertson didn’t ask you before hand. Then he could of avoided wasting his time just like other doctors looking into how solar variations might affect climate. It is so wonderful having you present refutations to all of his considerations and others considerations and you do it with so few words.
It was interesting to see how Dr. Robertson talked about TSI seems to remind me of a pompous ass saying how everyone talks about TSI a certain way that just happens not to be this way. Hmmm. I’ll ignore any response by Isvalgaard, as I have learned how he works. Pronouncements from on high. We have it from the great L. S.. It can’t be the sun.

Pat Frank
October 10, 2013 6:29 pm

It’s a chaotic system, Leif. Do you claim to know all the inputs and perturbations, and their eventual manifestations? Small perturbations can be magnified by impacting the development of larger scale systems. Jerry Browning showed that in the upward cascade of enstrophy in atmospheric gyres.

October 10, 2013 6:33 pm

The UV radiation of the sun varies wildly, add in the Forbush events, cosmic rays, cloud formation and there is plenty there to tie solar variations to climate cycles.

milodonharlani
October 10, 2013 6:35 pm

mem says:
October 10, 2013 at 6:02 pm
If I may quibble with the good Dr. Abdusamatov, IMO the term “Little Ice Age” should be reserved for the longer cold period from c. 1250-1400 to c. 1850, ie roughly half a Bond Cycle. Within both centennial-length warm & cold “periods” of course occur shorter counter-trend cool or warm phases. By analogy with financial market history, there are secular trends (hundreds of years in the case of climate), with cyclical counter trends (decadal) within them.
The sun may influence both the secular & cyclical trends, but oceanic circulation is clearly associated with the decadal fluctuations.
The bicentennial TSI effect Abdusamatov claims to have found fits in well with this quasi-periodic pattern. At the risk of being labeled a cyclomaniac, I’ll say that IMO it appears real, not spurious: decades ruled by oceanic oscillations, with longer, bicentennial cycles under TSI influence, which add up to semi-millenial waves (half Bond Cycles), all superimposed to produce the quasi-ness of it all until a new glaciation begins & the weak Bond Cycles become powerful Dansgaard-Oeschger Cycles (Dansgaard being another recently late, great Dane).
Tibet & Okinawa pick up the solar signal:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD017290/abstract
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL052749.shtml

October 10, 2013 6:38 pm

It’s unicorns Leif.

milodonharlani
October 10, 2013 6:42 pm

Steve mosher says:
October 10, 2013 at 6:38 pm
The unicorns are inflated by CO2.
The may sun rule, even if humans don’t know how yet. Climate is complex, possibly even chaotic. But what it isn’t is CO2 & nothing else, as per the IPeCaC fantasy. Mother Nature has already slapped down that delusion, as she already had long before the gaseous madness was ever even promulgated by the raving loon Hansen.

October 10, 2013 6:54 pm

Pat Frank says:
October 10, 2013 at 6:29 pm
It’s a chaotic system
Even chaos cannot make 36 W/m2 out of 10 W/m2.

October 10, 2013 6:56 pm

The Sun was more than averagely active all the way from 1934 to 2003, and although the peak amplitudes fell gently after 1958 (not forgetting the 20% Waldmeier overcount Leif won’t mention in this sort of thread), the minima were brief and the cycles short and steep.
So given that there will be an average sunspot number at which the oceans neither gain nor lose energy (give r take some cloud variation (also solar linked), and given the thermal inertia of the millions of cubic kilometres of water in the upper oceans, would we expect:
The OHC to rise from 1934 to 1960 and then fall
The OHC to rise for as long as the Sun remained more than averagely active
The OHC to leap about at a moments notice in response to the ups and downs of 11 year solar cycles as Leif demands?

JohnD
October 10, 2013 6:56 pm

Ocean temps, surface temps, ENSO, etc., they are all reactions not causes.
Perhaps TSI variation is enough to effect thermal convection to space.

October 10, 2013 7:06 pm

tallbloke says:
October 10, 2013 at 6:56 pm
So given that there will be an average sunspot number at which the oceans neither gain nor lose energy
That is not a given. The oceans gain energy every day no matter what the sunspot number is and lose what they have gained again at night. Over the long run, the average ocean temperature will just depend on the average incoming solar radiation. If the solar incoming were to go up [because of more sunspots] the ocean temperature will go up. If the incoming stayed at its higher level the ocean temperature the ocean would stay at its higher temperature [i.e. neither gain nor lose energy] even though the sunspot number is higher, so now it will at a different average sunspot number that the oceans will neither gain nor lose energy, so here is no fixed ‘magic sunspot number’ involved.

Pat Frank
October 10, 2013 7:17 pm

Hand-waving, Leif. How do you know that small perturbations don’t affect larger scale energy transfer between coupled oscillating climate systems?

Keith Minto
October 10, 2013 7:20 pm

Does the proportion of IR, visible light and UV vary enough in the measured TSI to cause a change in heat received at the surface ? So if the total TSI variation is insignificant, are the wave length contributions to TSI constant.?

bones
October 10, 2013 7:22 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
(quote Robertson) The solar TSI variations that reach the earth’s surface are smaller than the 0.33 watt/m2 needed to account for sea surface temperature variations by a factor of 3.6 for this smallest estimate of sea surface temperature variability.
So, in normal science, that falsifies the assumption that solar variations are the cause.
———————————————————-
I agree with Leif that intrinsic solar variations are not the cause. Something within the atmosphere causes the variations at the sea surface and it might even be merely a coincidence that higher temperatures and TSI just happen to vary in phase with some other driving mechanism. But the fact that the sun is the ultimate cause is shown by the same periodicity for the TSI and earth surface temperature cycles
Leif knows very well that TSI refers to the variation of intrinsic solar radiance that is received at the location of the top of earth’s atmosphere. Like the ordinary 160 watt/m^2 that reaches the ground of about 1365 watt/m^2 incident on the sunny side of the top of the atmosphere, about 160/1365 of that 0.6 watt/m^2 amplitude of TSI will reach the ground as ordinary sunlight. That is 0.07 watt/m^2 at wavelengths below about 2 micron. Another 0.02 watt/m^2 arrives as scattered thermal infrared, making about 0.09 watt/m^2 the part of TSI that enters the surface.
The rest is a very simple physics proposition. We are talking about heating water here. How much heat does it take to heat the oceans to the extent shown? A lot more than 0.09 watt/m^2. Where does it come from? Obviously from the sun, since it varies with the solar cycle period.
But it doesn’t have to be extra heat that entered the top of the atmosphere. The surface oscillations could be caused by extra clouds blocking sunshine from entering for part of the solar cycle. All that we see at the surface are the energy variations, but we do at least know that when TSI is high, the temperature is high, with only a little over a year thermal lag.
Stan Robertson

Jquip
October 10, 2013 7:23 pm

@OP — ” … imply that the sun modulates the ocean temperatures to a much greater extent than can be provided solely by its TSI variations.”
Since the specific wavelengths matter, looking at TSI doesn’t. Which is the entire discussion behind AGW and GHG’s in the first place.

October 10, 2013 7:25 pm

Pat Frank says:
October 10, 2013 at 7:17 pm
Hand-waving, Leif. How do you know that small perturbations don’t affect larger scale energy transfer between coupled oscillating climate systems?
The article says that 1 W/m2 in gives you 3.6 W/m2 out [actually 0.09 and 0.33, but you should be able to figure that out on your own]. In nature you don’t permanently get something for nothing.

October 10, 2013 7:27 pm

“Although the estimated 0.33 watt/m2 that is required to explain the surface temperature variations is large compared to the amplitude of TSI variations that reach the surface, it is still only about two parts per thousand of the 160 watt/m2 of solar UV/VIS/NIR that reaches the earth surface.”
That depends on which surface. If the energy is absorbed near the surface or in the skin layer it is less efficient that if it is absorbed sub-surface in the oceans. The lags are different. For example if you compare the ENSO region with the areas north and south of the ENSO regions you will find a 27 month lag. ENSO lags solar by 27 months at least since 1981 while 30 degrees north and south of the ENSO region are in phase with solar.comment image
I haven’t figure out if that is just a recent thing or not, but it the tropical ocean mixing layer is near equilibrium, you could get some interesting resonance effects. The actual El Nino peaks appear to be a third harmonic. Plus note that for the ocean sub-surface the average insolation should be based on I*cos(theta)/pi() and consider the lag residual as a dc component it appears. Kind of like a liquid greenhouse effect.

john piccirilli
October 10, 2013 7:31 pm

Gravitational pull.? Must have some energy input.? Anyone?

Paul Westhaver
October 10, 2013 7:36 pm

Hi. During the day my yard heats up to 19C.
At night it cools to 7 C
Do ya think that the sun has some influence on that?

October 10, 2013 7:41 pm

bones says:
October 10, 2013 at 7:22 pm
The rest is a very simple physics proposition. We are talking about heating water here. How much heat does it take to heat the oceans to the extent shown?
You said: “[people] have found that ocean surface temperatures oscillate with an amplitude of about 0.04 – 0.05 oC during a solar cycle. (In fact, all of the ideas that I am presenting here were covered in Shaviv’s work, but it has not gotten the attention that it deserves.) Using 150 years of sea surface temperature data, Zhou & Tung found 0.085 oC warming for each watt/m2 of increase of TSI over a solar cycle.”
I don’t like your ‘amplitude’ concept as it assumes a given waveform. I prefer the actual valley-to-peak variation, so the numbers become 0.08 to 0.10 C during a solar cycle [for 1.2 W/m2]. Z&T found 0.085 C for 1 W/m2, so average 0.09 C for 1.1 W/m2. Simple physics says S = a T^4, or dS/S = 4 dT/T or dT/T = 1/4 dS/S; with dS = 1.1 and S =1361 and T =289K we find dT = 0.06 K, which is in the ball park of 0.09, so I don’t see the problem.

Steven Hill
October 10, 2013 7:50 pm

Looks like the ENSO meter is going negative, this should be interesting considering IPPC says the heat is trapped in the oceans along with an increase in global ice. Here is what is really happening
Perilous Times and Perilous Men
2 Timothy 3
3 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!
Such is……….

bones
October 10, 2013 7:51 pm

tallbloke says:
October 10, 2013 at 6:02 pm
OK, so Dr Svalgaard has demonstrated that he doesn’t understand the effect of the thermal inertia of the oceans.
Next!
———————————————————
Touche, tallbloke. It actually takes enough heat to change water temperatures for a few hundred meters below in order to get the surface temperature to change enough. He seems to be content with merely balancing at the surface, but that is physically wrong.
But give him a break. How many solar scientists do you know who would be happy to be told that they don’t understand some a fundamental connection between the sun and earthly climate?

wayne
October 10, 2013 7:54 pm

Tallbloke, I follow you perfectly. Amazing how a scientist can just seem to completely ignore the huge mass involved.Your thought of a general null point in the ssn (at best, only an empically aided swag Leif) is precisely how I got involved with wuwt four years ago, yes, that very topic with the charts I sent to Anthony, before I even knew skeptics existed, before I knew there was a raging debate over climate, and curiously Anthony had a post that drew me to his site and he was using that very same happy face sun as the picture on his post “It’s the sun, stupid!”.
Now that is some strange coincidence !! 😉

October 10, 2013 7:55 pm

“c. But what it isn’t is CO2 & nothing else, as per the IPeCaC fantasy.”
Actually C02 forcing is only half the story according to the IPCC.
In short, the science, the IPCC science, attributes the change to MANY forcings. C02 happens to be the largest. Its not the only forcing. However, by the time the science gets politicized its all people talk about.

bones
October 10, 2013 7:56 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 10, 2013 at 7:41 pm
I don’t like your ‘amplitude’ concept as it assumes a given waveform. I prefer the actual valley-to-peak variation, so the numbers become 0.08 to 0.10 C during a solar cycle [for 1.2 W/m2]. Z&T found 0.085 C for 1 W/m2, so average 0.09 C for 1.1 W/m2. Simple physics says S = a T^4, or dS/S = 4 dT/T or dT/T = 1/4 dS/S; with dS = 1.1 and S =1361 and T =289K we find dT = 0.06 K, which is in the ball park of 0.09, so I don’t see the problem.
————————————————————-
The problem is that your calculation would apply only to a surface with no heat capacity. You are failing to consider the heat required to raise the water temperature for a considerable depth below the surface.

October 10, 2013 7:57 pm

“How do you know that small perturbations don’t affect larger scale energy transfer between coupled oscillating climate systems?”
Prove its not unicorns Pat.

October 10, 2013 7:59 pm

“Gravitational pull.? Must have some energy input.? Anyone?”
yes, it varies with the square root of unicorns.

RoHa
October 10, 2013 8:02 pm

I’m sticking with Zeus, Umvelinqangi, Taranis, Parjanya, Stribog, and the rest of the gang. Don’t need any difficult maths.

milodonharlani
October 10, 2013 8:06 pm

Steven Mosher says:
October 10, 2013 at 7:55 pm
Even half is preposterous, based upon feedback assumptions not only not in evidence but contrary to all actual objective data & observations. There was an accidental correlation in the 1990s between increasing CO2 & rising T, but far more often in climate history there has been negative or no correlation. The effect from CO2 is demonstrably & prima facie negligible to non-existent, except possibly as a minor positive feedback, since naturally warming oceans give up the gas.
To quote the late, great Reid Bryson, “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide”.
But please say where IPCC states that it’s only half & to what they attribute the rest. Thanks.

Jquip
October 10, 2013 8:12 pm

Steven Mosher: “Prove its not unicorns Pat.”
Small perturbation in a climatological system are not Unicorns. Which are defined as horses with a pointy thing on the front. And, we should note, are just as mythical as your ability to reason.

John F. Hultquist
October 10, 2013 8:13 pm

Bill Taylor says:
October 10, 2013 at 5:12 pm
strange that anyone could possibly claim the sun really doesnt have much impact on our climate……

Try this analogy – gasoline powered autos. If one reads the ads for vehicles there are all sorts of differences and wonders to behold. There is a continuous variable transmission (old idea, new technology) touted as providing better gas mileage. Just one of many. All auto companies use such things to claim they can provide you with a better product. None of the car companies claim its the gasoline that does it.
The Sun is there. We understand that. What we don’t have are the processes (cosmic, oceanic, magnetic, solar, or whatever) that cause the shorter climatic fluctuations. Several folks on this (and other) posts are just saying “show me.”

David Riser
October 10, 2013 8:16 pm

While this is an interesting article, there are serious problems with the underlying data. TSI measurements are based on several different satellites since 1979 (3 different ones). So there is about 34 years of data that is taken from the bottom of the outermost layer of the atmosphere. So TSI is probably not being properly measured, I am sure its reasonably precise for each of the three satellites for where they were at in the atmosphere, however since its measuring inside the atmosphere we don’t actually know what or how much is making it to parts of the atmosphere away from where the satellites orbits were/are. Additionally TSI has a very short approximately 3 cycles of data which is probably not enough to know what its potential long term flux is.
In addition to TSI the upper level of ocean temperatures is measured very well and its reaction to TSI over the entire body of water as well as the mixing effects of AMO and PDO make it very unlikely that we can calculate how much energy is actually accounted for by TSI flux. Most likely I would think that the energy entering the system is coming from the sun If there is a flux that matches TSI flux then most likely the sun is the direct or indirect cause.
Stan is probably right, if we can figure this out, we will get a much better understanding of the climate system. But what we really need is better data. For the most part were just scratching a small part of a very large surface in our attempts to measure the Earth.
v/r,
David Riser

David Riser
October 10, 2013 8:21 pm

Woops,
In addition to TSI the upper level of ocean temperatures is measured very well and its reaction to TSI over the entire body of water as well as the mixing effects of AMO and PDO make it very unlikely that we can calculate how much energy is actually accounted for by TSI flux
should be
In addition to TSI the upper level of ocean temperatures is not measured very well and its reaction to TSI over the entire body of water as well as the mixing effects of AMO and PDO make it very unlikely that we can calculate how much energy is actually accounted for by TSI flux
v/r,
David Riser

otsar
October 10, 2013 8:28 pm

Steven Mosher,
You must know a lot about unicorns. Thank you for sharing the knowledge that unicorns have squate roots and that they are variable. The variable part is of course a given.

Mike M
October 10, 2013 8:49 pm

Plankton convert radiant energy into to chemical energy via photosynthesis. Could it be a variability concerning them? e.g. http://www.icess.ucsb.edu/bbop/

October 10, 2013 8:50 pm

Paul, you must be joking. The Sun has nothing to do with the heating of your yard in the daytime and its cooling at night. A moment’s thought will clear your head. But given the state of scientific knowledge held by adults the world over, there is very likely another guy on the opposite side of the planet who is as convinced as you with a twist. While you are pointing to the Sun as the driver of your daytime yard heating, the guy on the opposite side of the globe is pointing at the lack of the Sun as the driver if his nighttime cooling.
You do realize, I hope, that the cause is the Earth’s rotation on its axis? I know it seems I am stating the obvious but many people here have used the same illogical statement to support their belief that the Sun is the driver of trends.

Mike Wryley
October 10, 2013 8:53 pm

And the answer is,,,,
Those randy little photo plankton and diatoms are exponentially stimulated by the increase in TSI; the resulting sexual activity warms the ocean.
Far fetched you say ? Just look at the energy released in this thread by just a few small inputs, due in large measure to an effect known as Onan’s Razor.

October 10, 2013 8:53 pm

bones says:
October 10, 2013 at 7:56 pm
The problem is that your calculation would apply only to a surface with no heat capacity. You are failing to consider the heat required to raise the water temperature for a considerable depth below the surface.
Your question was “the question to be answered at this point is, can 0.09 watt/m2 amplitude of variation of TSI entering the oceans produce temperature oscillations with an amplitude of 0.04 – 0.05 oC?” and I showed that it could produce such variations at the surface of the ocean.
David Riser says:
October 10, 2013 at 8:16 pm
So there is about 34 years of data that is taken from the bottom of the outermost layer of the atmosphere. So TSI is probably not being properly
Not so. One of the satellites is a million miles away, the others at 645 km and 700 km altitude, not ‘the bottom of the outermost layer’, but effectively outside the atmosphere; and TSI is measured very precisely [and accurate to one part in 2700].

jens
October 10, 2013 9:07 pm

Reading through this discussion has been a real eye opener for me. Leif Svalgaard is treated with respect on this blog as an expert on solar physics, and he certainly regards himself as one. And then he makes the most astounding simple errors in the arguments presented here – and insists despite very clear explanations of his errors. First he confuses the production of energy with a regulation of energy transport, and then he calculates the variation of sea surface temperature from instantaneous balance between incoming energy flux and emitted blackbody radiation.
We can all have a bad day but this is really strange.

wayne
October 10, 2013 9:09 pm

Dr. Robertson, very good analysis. Have read it once through but I want to slow down the next pass to absorb it all. Have checked your figures through paragraph two and did noticed you are being extra conservative at each step. Nice, better to not have something for someone to pick at. Going to enjoy this one! Well, tomorrow. This is one good question.

bones
October 10, 2013 9:26 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 10, 2013 at 8:53 pm
bones says:
October 10, 2013 at 7:56 pm
The problem is that your calculation would apply only to a surface with no heat capacity. You are failing to consider the heat required to raise the water temperature for a considerable depth below the surface.
Your question was “the question to be answered at this point is, can 0.09 watt/m2 amplitude of variation of TSI entering the oceans produce temperature oscillations with an amplitude of 0.04 – 0.05 oC?” and I showed that it could produce such variations at the surface of the ocean.
—————————————————————–
So when did the ocean lose it its heat capacity? And you are bragging about an incorrect solution to a physics problem? That’s incredible to me, especially after I had extended the courtesy of a heads up on this one.

October 10, 2013 9:29 pm

No one really has a satisfactory explanation for the global surface warming throughout recent years. But solar power could be used for more good than it currently is.
http://www.climal.com/solar-power.php

October 10, 2013 9:31 pm

bones says:
October 10, 2013 at 9:26 pm
So when did the ocean lose it its heat capacity? And you are bragging about an incorrect solution to a physics problem?
Nobody is bragging here [at least not I] Perhaps you should consider the possibility of having presented a correct solution to the wrong problem. Circulation and convection rather than conduction are probably more important.

bones
October 10, 2013 9:41 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 10, 2013 at 9:31 pm
Perhaps you should consider the possibility of having presented a correct solution to the wrong problem. Circulation and convection rather than conduction are probably more important.
——————————————–
Not on an 11 year time scale. Not to mention that vertical water convection is rolled into the thermal diffusivity. The thermal conductivity of water in a lab flask would be nearly 1000 times smaller. Seems to me that you don’t understand the basic physics of the situation, so I am going to abandon arguing about it and leave you to think about it or maybe talk to one of your colleagues. It’s bed time here in the boonies.

October 10, 2013 9:48 pm

Dr. Isvalgaard,
Do you think there is correlation between the cosmic rays and temperature historically?
I understand correlation is not causation but from what I’ve seen of Dr. Shaviv’s work he makes a compelling connection.
I understand the TSI variations as measured at the top of the atmosphere are not strong enough to explain temperature fluctuations as seen in the correlation. Are the energy measurements at the surface theoretical from what is measured at the top or are they measured at the surface?
The explanation from Shaviv seemed to be that all the energy doesn’t reach the surface because of cloud variations. Therefore the fluctuations at the bottom will be larger because sometimes the average reaching the bottom is very little (many clouds) sometimes it is very large (few clouds).
Do you think his theory is incorrect that solar winds can cause more clouds?
If he was correct do you think this could explain temperature variations?
Thank you for your time explaining this.

October 10, 2013 9:54 pm

bones says:
October 10, 2013 at 9:41 pm
” Circulation and convection rather than conduction are probably more important.”
Not on an 11 year time scale. … Seems to me that you don’t understand the basic physics of the situation, so I am going to abandon arguing about it

I am not arguing with you, i am trying to understand what you are saying and so far I have failed. In my book a failure of the student reflects upon the teacher. In this animated graph http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/sub-surf_anim.gif the rapid temperature changes over several hundred meters in a few days shows me the effect of circulation overwhelming that of conduction. Please explain why that doesn’t matter and why the bottom of the ocean after billions of years of conduction has not reached the average yearly surface temperature. Again: I’m trying to learn, not to argue.

SAMURAI
October 10, 2013 9:59 pm

Dr. Svensmark’s new paper suggests that GCRs are capable of creating cloud seeds in excess of 50 nanometers, which are of sufficient size to create clouds.
When other scientists replicate Svensmark’s SKY2 experiment and get the same results, then at least part of the puzzle of SSN flux/GCR flux/cloud cover flux/albedo flux/global temp flux can help explain part of the Sun’s affect on climate.
The SSN flux/global temp flux correlation had been well established, but the specific interactive mechanisms that create that correlation have yet to be firmly established. I do think Svensmark’s research into the Svensmark Effect had at least explained part of the puzzle, although there is heated debate on the subject.
It’s becoming increasing obvious that CAGW hypothetical assumptions that: 1) solar influences are relatively constant and thus can’t explain the 20th century warming, and 2) the lowly CO2 molecule is the ultimate climate control knob, are absurd.
The bottom line is that the longer the IPCC/governments/academia holds climate science hostage under the disconfirmed CAGW hypothesis, the longer it will take true scientists to solve the mysteries of Earth’s complex and changing climate system.

October 10, 2013 10:13 pm

shenanigans24 says:
October 10, 2013 at 9:48 pm
Do you think there is correlation between the cosmic rays and temperature historically?
Many people have looked at this and cosmic ray hypothesis doesn’t look too good now, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-Cosmic-Rays-Climate.pdf [“it is clear that there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds”] or http://www.leif.org/EOS/1303-73140Cosmic-Rays-Climate-billion-yrs.pdf [“It has already been shown by Overholt et al (2009) that the peaks and troughs in the Shaviv distribution do not correspond to crossings of the SA in the Galaxy. Here we show that the estimated intensity variations from the Shaviv distribution are also unrealistic”].
Now, you can also find papers that claim to support the hypothesis. I guess everybody has to make up his own mind what to believe. Personally, I don’t think there is a link at all.

October 10, 2013 10:14 pm

milodonharlani
Here are all the forcings: C02, CH4,halocarbons, N2O, C0. NMVOC, No3,NH3,S02,Black Carbon, Organic Carbon, Mineral Dust, Aerosol, Aircraft (contrails), Land Use, Solar.
For 1750 to today C02 forcing is around 1.6Watts, Ch4 is around 1 watt, black carbon about .7Watts. halocarbon and N02 around .5Wwatts
so.. the non c02 stuff is around 1+ .7 +.5 or around 2.2 Watts
C02 is the largest SINGLE contributor, but if you look at all contributors its around 1.6 watts out of 3.8 or so.. thats for the forcings that are postive.
Its in Ar5. read the science before you criticize it. That’s what I learned from Steve Mcintyre and Anthony. You might consider it

bones
October 10, 2013 10:27 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 10, 2013 at 9:54 pm
. . . In my book a failure of the student reflects upon the teacher. In this animated graph http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/sub-surf_anim.gif the rapid temperature changes over several hundred meters in a few days shows me the effect of circulation overwhelming that of conduction. Please explain why that doesn’t matter and why the bottom of the ocean after billions of years of conduction has not reached the average yearly surface temperature. Again: I’m trying to learn, not to argue.
——————————————–
Nice graphic. Thermal diffusivity (turbulent) is precisely what is used to describe time averages over these vertical transports of heat for periods of months or more rather than weeks. I don’t think that God himself understands turbulence. The best we can do is a phenomenological mixing length theory to describe conduction, viscosity and diffusion in the presence of turbulence, but average thermal diffusivity provides a good parameterization of the vertical transport of heat in the oceans. Temperature profiles from surface to great depths, averaged over a few months, can be well described in terms of an average thermal diffusivity.
On longer time scales of decades to multiple decades, horizontal thermohaline circulation is what transports cold water from polar regions into the depths at lower latitudes. That is what makes the thermocline a stable feature of the tropical to mid-latitude oceans (aside from seasonal variations near the surface). The ocean depths are still cold, in part, because of the cold water runoff from the melting ice during the most recent deglaciation. There were times in the geologic past when the earth was warmer, polar ice was lacking and the ocean basins were filled with much warmer water. Many people make the mistake of thinking that our climate is some optimal and stable feature of the earth, but it is not. The earth has spent at least 90% of the last million years locked in ice ages and we are about due for another one.

October 10, 2013 10:32 pm

bones says:
October 10, 2013 at 10:27 pm
Temperature profiles from surface to great depths, averaged over a few months, can be well described in terms of an average thermal diffusivity.
Fair enough, but then I’m puzzled by “thermal diffusivity in the range 0.1 – 10 cm2/s and found that the TSI variations were generally inadequate to produce the sea temperature variations over a solar cycle.
temperatures measured where?

bones
October 10, 2013 10:47 pm

at the surface.

October 10, 2013 10:55 pm

bones says:
October 10, 2013 at 10:47 pm
at the surface.
which would seem to depend on the direct incoming flux and not care what the temperature is a great depth [which would have a very attenuated solar cycle variation].

Paul Vaughan
October 10, 2013 11:06 pm

gradients & flows
down with the obfuscation

bones
October 10, 2013 11:06 pm

I agree, but if I recall correctly, it took about 0.18 watt/m^2 to get 0.04 C surface temperature variations for 0.1 cm^2/s thermal diffusivity. That diffusivity is an order of magnitude smaller than needed to account for the ocean heat content measurements and yet it takes double the 0.09 watt/m^2 of TSI reaching the surface to get the requisite surface temperature change.

October 10, 2013 11:29 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:41 pm
Explain how any or all of these can supply 3.6 times MORE energy than the variation of the TOTAL energy received from the sun.
===========
The solar wind can react physically with the atmosphere in a fashion that TSI cannot. As such, the effects of the solar wind are not restricted to W/m^2. Even a small change in the albedo due to the solar wind could quickly swamp the variability in TSI.
What the authors numbers show is that TSI cannot be the cause of the 11 year variability in ocean temperatures. there must be another, as yet unknown cause. similar to the discovery of the outer planets in the solar system – by the effect they had on known planets. we can see something is causing the variability, but as yet we haven’t discovered what it is.
What the author has done is to eliminate TSI as the cause. Whatever is left, known or unknown, no matter how improbably, must contain the cause.

October 10, 2013 11:32 pm

ferd berple says:
October 10, 2013 at 11:29 pm
The solar wind can react physically with the atmosphere in a fashion that TSI cannot. As such, the effects of the solar wind are not restricted to W/m^2. Even a small change in the albedo due to the solar wind could quickly swamp the variability in TSI.
The albedo is basically determined by clouds. It takes a lot of energy to make clouds. The solar wind does not have a lot of energy.

Jquip
October 10, 2013 11:45 pm

fred berple: “What the authors numbers show is that TSI cannot be the cause of the 11 year variability in ocean temperatures.”
Question: Who would even think so? Not picking on you here at all. But we’re all basically on board with the idea that CO2 emitted photons will be absorbed by land masses. But it seems to be an utter mindbender that water below will absorb photons from the water above. With or without any Willis Wobble theory of clouds.
TSI as a sum of the power across all photons of all frequencies is almost entirely pointless to look at. We’d need to know the W/m^2 of the proper wavelengths in and how they vary. Then the rest models up as an ideal GHG system.
Only problem is we’d need a solar scientist to be able to answer that issue.

October 11, 2013 12:01 am

“It is generally conceded that the earth has warmed a bit over the last century, but it is not clear what has caused it”
Yes, this is science the way the climate guys do it:
They made the first claim, so whoever disagrees is the skeptic.
Een though they never did “due diligence” science by falsifying other competing possibilities, such as sunspot cycles, Milankovitch cycles, natural planetary climate variation, ENSO, etc.
Without testing ANY of those others, they made their unsustainable claim, drawing a line in the sand.
And when someone asked, “Are you sure?” the questioner became a denier.
If we the skeptics had thought about it and beat them to the punch, by first claiming, “The warming is totally natural variation,” then the warmists would be the deniers.
D*mmit! We missed our chance!

wayne
October 11, 2013 12:14 am

Dr. Robertson, (are you ‘bones’?)
For one, it certainly seems that albedo could account for it all. The way I calculate that it would only require a 0.2% flex in the albedo to reach the 0.04°C cycle T range. If you are looking for the 0.31 W/m2 per decade it too would require a decadal decrease in the albedo of, once again, right under 0.2% per decade to fit those 1955 to present curves. I’ve seen albedo figures all over the board, from 0.31 to 0.29x so yes, I can see that, but I am not sure albedo is even that precisely measured.
If so, that’s one good place for such a factor to stay hidden to all for so long by it’s historic immeasurability.
Now, does the 11 year radiation flex affect the overall albedo? I don’t know.

wayne
October 11, 2013 12:39 am

Seems I left out a second question, could the albedo have decreased over the 1955 to present period? Say leaving some wiggle room and take 0.3% times six decades or about -0.005 in the albedo? Don’t know that either, have never looked into it.

October 11, 2013 1:11 am

I think I have figured out how the sun does it.
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/
I await date capable of confirming or rebutting.

October 11, 2013 1:14 am

Down to Earth
Most scientists are obsessed with the atmosphere and fail to include, like the IPCC, the input of the sun on the earth under their feet. I suggest an investigation of how the sun heats up bare earth and concreted bare surfaces would demonstrate one major “amplifier” of the sun’s rays.
We all know that Urban heat Islands are hotter than surrounding rural areas where trees and grass is growing, where vegetation is aplenty, covering the soils.. We all know that deserts are distinctly hot places during daylight. We all know that arid lands are ditto, hot places. We might not know that cultivated land, left bare, also heats up and loses any little moisture they might have by evaporation, In these circumstances, the soil is powdery and picked up winds, eroded by wind.
It is claimed that 50% of the land surface on this globe is desert and arid lands. These dry hot areas, are apparently caused primarily and originally by over grazing, constant cultivation, clearing of vegetation, removal of trees etc. This has occurred from Roman times, and perhaps earlier. Now, we also have large scale open cast mining projects which contribute to the amplification too.
However solar oradiation would determine the amount of heat so generated. A cooler sun, would reduce the heat output from the bare exposed, fast heating surfaces. This we see in the Northern Hemisphere every winter ).
In summer of course the solar input is at a maximum and the bare exposed areas would heat up magnificently. Lakes and rivers shrink. Water shortages occur. Worse evaporation must come to a horrid halt.. Now add in some dust storms, carried by blasting hot winds and life for many becomes unbearable (even impossible) and the terrain becomes hotter and more inhospitable to all life forms..
There is more to be considered, and that is in this situation, the microbies, fungi, bacteria, flora and fauna in the soils die out,or fail to function,, or become inactive – to the detriment of the vegetation that they support. Also soil moisture levels diminish. What scientist considers or has troubled to investigate this “all man made” aspect?

Edim
October 11, 2013 1:47 am

“Here are all the forcings: C02, CH4,halocarbons, N2O, C0. NMVOC, No3,NH3,S02,Black Carbon, Organic Carbon, Mineral Dust, Aerosol, Aircraft (contrails), Land Use, Solar.”
It’s not a knob, it’s an equalizer! Or AGW-izer?

GabrielHBay
October 11, 2013 1:51 am

Oh my gosh.. The climate alarmists say that because they cannot otherwise explain the warming it must be CO2 that dunnit. Lief says that because we cannot explain how the sun does it it cannot be the sun. Birds of a feather. Same nonsense just in another form. I do not care how many qualification anyone may have or how much respected work they have done, if they in spite of all that cannot understand the gist of the main post here, which is that it clearly is not TSI but something else related to the sun, AND LET’S FIND IT… what can one say? Closed mind and zero credibility from the very first comment on this thread. Really sorry I have to say this….

October 11, 2013 2:00 am

lsvalgaard:
“Explain how any or all of these can supply 3.6 times MORE energy than the variation of the TOTAL energy received from the sun.”
It can help to explain here (it the Sun “may be” – as the sun can be – its variability – amplified), only those quotes (by reason of which my comments on Skeptical Science were – mostly – removed):
Solar-forced shifts of the Southern Hemisphere Westerlies during the late Holocene, Varma et al., 2011.:
“Since the reduction in TSI is only 0.15%, the global cooling effect is small and ADDITIONAL FEEDBACKS are required to induce a significant change in the westerlies.”
“… we propose that the role of the sun in modifying Southern Hemisphere tropospheric circulation patterns has probably been UNDERESTIMATED in model simulations of past climate change.”
Natural forcing of climate during the last millennium: fingerprint of solar variability, Swingedouw (2010): “We argue that this lag is due, in the model, to a no rthward shift of the tropical atmospheric convection in the Pacific Ocean, which is maximum more than four decades after the solar forcing increase.”
“Changes in wind stress, notably due to the NAO, modify the barotropic streamfunction in the Atlantic 50 years after solar variations.”
Sub-Milankovitch solar forcing of past climates: Mid and late Holocene perspectives, Helama (2010):
“The observed variations may have occurred in association with internal climate amplification […] (likely, thermohaline circulation and El Niño–Southern Oscillation activity). THE NEAR-CENTENNIAL DELAY in climate in responding to sun spots indicates that the Sun’s influence on climate arising from the current episode of high sunspot numbers may not yet have manifested itself fully in climate trends.”
Response of Norwegian Sea temperature to solar forcing since 1000 A.D., Sejrup (2010): “The observed ocean temperature response is LARGER than expected based on simple thermodynamic considerations, indicating that there is dynamical response of the high‐latitude ocean to the Sun. […]”
Dudok de Wit & Watermann, 2009.:
“… the main mechanisms by which the Sun affects the Earth are not the most immediate ONES IN TERMS OF ENERGETIC CRITERIA.”
“- feedback mechanisms are not sufficiently well understood and POSITIVE FEEDBACK MAY BE MUCH STRONGER than expected …”
Cyclic variation and solar forcing of Holocene climate in the Alaskan subarctic, Hu et al., 2003. :
“Our results imply that SMALL variations in solar irradiance induced pronounced cyclic changes in northern high-latitude environments.”
Testing solar forcing of pervasive Holocene climate cycles, Turney et al., 2005.:
“The cycles, however, ARE NOT COHERENT WITH CHANGES IN SOLAR ACTIVITY (both being on the same absolute timescale), indicating that Holocene North Atlantic climate variability at the millennial and centennial scale IS NOT DRIVEN BY A LINEAR RESPONSE to changes in solar activity.”
Climate change and solar variability: What’s new under the sun?, Bard and Frank, 2006.:
“Overall, the role of solar activity in climate changes —such as the Quaternary glaciations or the present global warming— remains unproven …”
Solar Variability Over the Past Several Millennia, Beer et al. 2006.:
“This led many people to conclude that, even if the solar constant is not constant, the changes are too small to be climatically relevant without invoking additional strong amplification mechanisms. THIS CONCLUSION SEEMS TO BE PREMATURE, firstly because there is no doubt that there are positive feedback mechanisms in the climate system.”
NASA: “The spectral solar irradiance (SSI) at UV (ultraviolet) wavelength has been observed to vary during an 11-year solar cycle with much larger amplitude compared with the variability of TSI.”
“Even though TSI and SSI at UV wavelengths have been observed to vary during solar cycles, how the Sun varies (both TSI and whole spectrum SSI) and how solar variations influence the Earth’s climate over long time scales REMAIN UNRESOLVED.”
“Based on SIM observations Cahalan et al. [2010] demonstrate REMARKABLE different climate responses (stratosphere, troposphere, ocean mixed layer) to SORCE-based and proxy-based SSI variations. The OUT-OF-PHASE SSI variations also have implications to re-examine the connection of the Sun and stratosphere, troposphere, biosphere, ocean, and Earth’s climate. […]”
Gray (2010):
“They found that even low solar forcing could affect climate on multi-decadal to centennial timescales but the results using medium-to-low values (corresponding to the range of Lean et al., 2002) fitted best within the range of temperature reconstructions. Note, however, that if the recent SORCE/SIM measurements of spectrally resolved solar irradiance …” “… are correct then solar radiative forcing at the tropopause would vary out of phase with TSI. In this case, assessments of solar influence on climate, at least over the 11-yr cycle and possibly on the longer term, would need to be ENTIRELY revisited …”
NOAA : “… our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system IS MINIMAL […]”
Sun, its variability – as well “suited” the key – it activates the mechanism … –
mechanisms triggering other mechanisms: energy accumulation and releasing huge amounts of energy – energy stored in the energy system of the Earth.
The fact that we do not know: how? (sufficient detail), does not mean it does not exist …
(sorry that I do not give links but some blocking my comments, others are not currently active)

RockyRoad
October 11, 2013 3:14 am

lsvalgaard says:
October 10, 2013 at 6:54 pm

Pat Frank says:
October 10, 2013 at 6:29 pm
It’s a chaotic system
Even chaos cannot make 36 W/m2 out of 10 W/m2.

The entire universe is supposedly a chaotic system, yet in our small part of it we find ~400 billion stars in one spiral galaxy, and in a much smaller part of that we find more than 6 billion humans that defy the essence of “chaos”. Or is there something else afoot?
Using chaos to refute the obvious is a rather incomplete defense.

Ulric Lyons
October 11, 2013 3:19 am

lsvalgaard says:
“The solar wind does not have a lot of energy.”
Looking how well the SABER data follows the geomagnetic signal, the solar wind appears to be responsible for a large proportion of the heating of the upper atmosphere.

October 11, 2013 3:46 am

lsvalgaard, “Fair enough, but then I’m puzzled by “thermal diffusivity in the range 0.1 – 10 cm2/s and found that the TSI variations were generally inadequate to produce the sea temperature variations over a solar cycle. ”
You don’t need to vary the TSI just the timing. There is a +/- 43 Wm-2 seasonal swing in TSI. Your are removing the seasonal signal of two different systems to determine “forcing” and response. You don’t need to change the energy of the response to get a big impact if you shift the seasonal cycle a latitude or two or week or two, When it comes to chaotic impacts you are comparing apples and oranges.

David Riser
October 11, 2013 3:49 am

Isvalgaard,
I would like to point out that the farthest away satellite was launched in 2010 and does not provide data to the TSI dataset. So your still measuring from within the atmosphere for this data and your making assumptions about energy based on a average that may or may not be representative of reality.
v/r,
David Riser

October 11, 2013 4:18 am

How one spark can make a fire?
How one inoffensive move can lead to a checkmate?
There is a huge amount of stored energy in Earth’s biosphere, that can be released due to small changes of solar irradiance by thousands of different interactions and resonances.
One possible mechanism immediately comes to mind: a small increase in solar irradiance can trigger a substantial increase in activity and reproduction among microscopic sea organisms.

Greg
October 11, 2013 4:27 am

lsvalgaard says:
“The solar TSI variations that reach the earth’s surface are smaller than the 0.33 watt/m2 needed to account for sea surface temperature variations by a factor of 3.6 for this smallest estimate of sea surface temperature variability.
So, in normal science, that falsifies the assumption that solar variations are the cause.”
===
No. In normal science that falsifies the assumption that ” TSI variations that reach the earth’s surface” are the cause.
Only your selective reasoning leads to : “that falsifies the assumption that solar variations are the cause.”
That is post-normal science.

richardscourtney
October 11, 2013 4:33 am

Greg:
re your post at October 11, 2013 at 4:27 am.
Please read my above post at October 10, 2013 at 4:48 pm. This link jumps to it
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/10/the-sun-does-it-now-go-figure-out-how/#comment-1443729
Please note that Dr Svalgaard said he agrees the points I made in that post.
Richard

Greg
October 11, 2013 4:35 am

Equally, the radiative effect of CO2 is not enough to cause serious warming.
Notwithstanding that, we have been told for the last 30 years that it will destroy climate and life on earth as we know it.

Greg
October 11, 2013 4:38 am

Thanks Richard, when I hit a thread with >150 comments, I admit that I don’t have time the read them all.

John Day
October 11, 2013 4:42 am

@Mosh
Here are all the forcings: C02, CH4,halocarbons, N2O, C0. NMVOC, No3,NH3,S02,Black Carbon, Organic Carbon, Mineral Dust, Aerosol, Aircraft (contrails), Land Use, Solar.
So water vapor, the GHG primarily responsible for forcing the Earth’s temperature to rise above its expected black body temperature (255K -> 288K), has less “IPCC-forcing” than the (mostly man-made) ingredients listed above?
Except for contrails, of course. Because they’re made by those flatulent humans. But natural WV has no ‘forcing’. Do I understand correctly?
😐

Bruce Cobb
October 11, 2013 4:50 am

The solar d**niers have convinced me.
Clearly, unicorns must have caused the MWP and previous warm periods. The sun couldn’t possibly have.

John Whitman
October 11, 2013 5:03 am

The Sun Does It: Now Go Figure Out How!
Guest essayist Stan Robertson wrote,
“In summary, my calculations based on energy conservation considerations imply that the sun modulates the ocean temperatures to a much greater extent than can be provided solely by its TSI variations. The great question that desperately needs an answer is how does it do it? It should be easily understood that solar effects would not necessarily be confined to cycles. More likely, the sun has been the driver of the large changes of temperatures of the Roman and Medieval warm period, the Little Ice Age, and the recent recovery from it without requiring large changes of its own irradiance. When we understand how the sun does this, we will have begun to understand the earthly climate.”

– – – – – – –
Stan Robertson,
Thank you for a tightly reasoned discourse that will be useful to encourage more research on how the sun modulates the ocean temps; given that a significant set of observations reasonably show that there is a basis for saying that it has.
Personal Note: the solar discussions over the years at WUWT constitute, I think, the best prototype science dialog in the climate blogosphere. A certain Northern California based Dane has been central to the discourse; replying to virtually every single comment addressed to him (thanks Leif).
John

October 11, 2013 5:32 am

Not only “The solar d**niers”
Let us recall the famous work – paper by H. von Storch (http://www.academia.edu/4210419/Can_climate_models_explain_the_recent_stagnation_in_global_warming): “Of the possible causes of the in consistency, the underestimation of internal natural climate variability on decadal time scales is a plausible candidate, but the influence of UNACCOUNTED EXTERNAL forcing factors or an overestimation of the model sensitivity to elevated greenhouse gas concentrations cannot be ruled out. The first cause would have little impact of the expectations of longer term anthropogenic climate change, but THE SECOND and particularly the third would. […]”
“…variations in solar insolation or activity still require rather speculative [but not impossible] amplification mechanisms that could contribute to the observed recent decrease in global warming.”
… speculative … – it’s not the fault of the skeptics that insufficient research relates to the great very important topic.
My “favorite” quotation with Bard and Frank: “Overall, the role of solar activity in climate changes — such as the Quaternary glaciations or the PRESENT GLOBAL WARMING — remains unproven and most probably represents a SECOND-ORDER EFFECT.”
And this is what must be examined …

October 11, 2013 5:51 am

the sun does it now go figure out how
It ain’t simple, but the data shows that as the sun twinkles the Earth shakes
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-NAP.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/APS.htm

Bill Illis
October 11, 2013 6:04 am

Since 1955, the Earth has accumulated about 19 x 10^22 joules of Energy.
The Sun, however, has put down on Earth about 22,400 x 10^22 joules of Energy over that same timeframe.
http://s9.postimg.org/7iqicpfsv/Earth_Energy_Accumulation_vs_Solar_Energy_Q2_201.png
That is where you answer is. We are thinking about the very small changes in Solar Irradiance, but the Sun is still hitting the surface with 386.4 x 10^22 joules of Energy/photons each and every year.
Solar energy can accumulate in the Earth’s rocks, water, vegetation, ice and atmosphere over any time period. It accumulates and drawsdown on a per second basis, each hour, every day, certainly throughout the seasonal cycle and even annual or decadal timeframes.
For example, if your live in the Northern Hemisphere, your location is at its coldest about January 19th each year. For the next 182 days, your backyard then starts to accumulate about 0.1 W/m2 of energy each day (on average) until your backyard becomes the warmest it will get on July 19th. Then the cycle reverses and your backyard loses about 0.1 W/m2 until January 19th again.
Since this clearly happens, there is no reason why it doesn’t also change from year to year so that January 19th has 0.3 W/m2 more of energy than it had the previous January 19th. Maybe it is 0.5 W/m2 more than January 19th of 25 years earlier.
Start accumulating the numbers over time and the answer could emerge from that because it is more realistic of what really happens. The rocks and soil and water and ice accumulate/drawdown energy over time.

John Whitman
October 11, 2013 6:05 am

Bruce Cobb on October 11, 2013 at 4:50 am
The solar d**niers have convinced me.
Clearly, unicorns must have caused the MWP and previous warm periods. The sun couldn’t possibly have.

And

Steve mosher on October 10, 2013 at 6:38 pm
It’s unicorns Leif.

– – – – – – – –
Bruce Cobb,
I assume you are referring back to Mosh’s interjection of unicorns into the wonderful thread initiated by Stan Robertson’s well done sun/ocean essay.
I think Mosh has performed, with his unicorn interjection, an intellectual acrobatic known as ‘the inverted Black Swan Maneuver’. It works within the so-called lukewarmer meme, otherwise it does not.
John

October 11, 2013 6:15 am

For the topic of this post (also last comment) is important this textbook: Impacts of multi-scale solar activity on climate. Part I: Atmospheric circulation patterns and climate extremes, Weng, 2012. (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00376-012-1238-1), this proposal (of it) I recommend to all, but especially authors of IPCC reports:”The atmospheric amplifying mechanism indicates that the solar impacts on climate should NOT BE SIMPLY ESTIMATED by the magnitude of the change in the solar radiation over solar cycles when it is compared with other external radiative forcings that do not influence the climate in the same way as the sun does.”

October 11, 2013 6:23 am

Not just the sun’s energy variation, but also the frequency domain variations, and particle output variations (and thus the electrical charge inherent in our atmosphere). We need to holistically think of these parameters to be able to come to grips with the sun’s effect on our climate.
To focus solely on solar energy output variations restricts us to a very myopian view of our immediate universe.

beng
October 11, 2013 6:25 am

To think that straightforward energy inputs are “amplified” (some kind of positive feedback) requires alot of evidence. Nature does not easily produce positive feedback (ice/snow and resulting albedo-change effects are an exception). Negative feedback rules. Remember CO2 & purported warming amplifications? Same general situation here.

October 11, 2013 6:25 am

lsvalgaard says:
October 10, 2013 at 11:32 pm
The albedo is basically determined by clouds. It takes a lot of energy to make clouds. The solar wind does not have a lot of energy.
================
chemistry provides the answer. the solar wind acts as a catalyst to cloud formation. As a catalyst, the solar wind alters the rate of cloud formation without any requirement to supply energy.
Many mechanism have been proposed by which this can happen. Currently, the cause is unknown. What the author has shown is simply that such a mechanism much exist, outside of TSI.
Again, like the discovery of the outer planets. We knew they must exist because of the effect they had, long before they were discovered.

October 11, 2013 6:29 am

I have had lot of confrontations with the Stanford Solar Supremo, but he is correct, TSI doesn’t vary sufficiently, but it supplies enough energy to the point where all of the Arctic’s ice could disappear, as it did in the past. .
The Arctic ice was not melted by variability in the TSI, it was melted by the warm Atlantic currents. Heat is absorbed in the equatorial regions, and what varies far more then the incoming TSI is ratio of energy radiated back to the space and the energy moved pole-ward by currents. Only natural non-climatic force that can shift this ratio is the Earth’s tectonics.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/APS.htm

Mike M
October 11, 2013 6:32 am

No, the unicorns all died when they sacrificed themselves for us to take all the excess heat to the bottom of the ocean. My proof is that there is now not even one unicorn to be found.

John Day
October 11, 2013 6:34 am

@tom0mason>”Not just the sun’s energy variation, but also the frequency domain variations, and particle output variations
But TSI encompasses _all_ (as in ‘total’) the energy in the Sun’s elecromagnetic radiation (EMR) spectrum. What other ‘frequency domain’ did you have in mind?
Solar energy emitted by particles is miniscule, in comparison to EMR.

October 11, 2013 6:50 am

John Day says:
October 11, 2013 at 6:34 am
Solar energy emitted by particles is miniscule, in comparison to EMR.
============
A virus is miniscule. The energy it supplies is miniscule at best. For all intents and purposes zero. Yet it can radically alter the chemistry of objects that in comparison are almost infinitely more massive.

Madman2001
October 11, 2013 6:56 am

Leif, I believe that you have stated in past comments (not on this thread, but on this blog) that you believe that the dearth of sunspots and the present expected solar minimums will not lead to declining temperatures. And you believe that the correlation between, say, the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age is largely or even exclusively coincidence. Can you expand upon that?
It seems to me that TSI may not be the only solar mechanism that affects our climate or global temperature. As some commenters have proposed, there could be other mechanisms at play, ripple effects as it were. For example, deep solar minimums may somehow unleash more volcanic eruptions which cool the earth, albeit in apparently short timeframes.
Any thoughts? I don’t find this addressed on your blog, but may have missed it. Any insight would be appreciated.

beng
October 11, 2013 6:58 am

***
lsvalgaard says:
October 10, 2013 at 9:54 pm
Please explain why that doesn’t matter and why the bottom of the ocean after billions of years of conduction has not reached the average yearly surface temperature. Again: I’m trying to learn, not to argue.
***
As you say, deep ocean water @ 4C has 15C avg water-temp above, and 100C rock-temp just a mile or so below the sea-bottom, thus one has to conclude that it’s highly insulated, and that heat-transfer rates in/out of those ocean depths are very small.
They’re working w/300m depth — that seems roughly correct for a mixing zone, but IMO means changes below that have little effect on climate and no “pipeline-heat” there.

October 11, 2013 7:00 am

beng says:
October 11, 2013 at 6:25 am
To think that straightforward energy inputs are “amplified” (some kind of positive feedback) requires alot of evidence.
=========
a catalyst does not involve positive feedback. look in the mirror and you will see nature using extremely complex catalysts to produce a result that would be impossible otherwise. these catalysts do not add energy to the reaction. they lower the energy at which the reaction can take place, and thus increase the reaction rate, without adding any energy to the reaction.

Dr. Deanster
October 11, 2013 7:08 am

I’m still curious about the claim of 0.33 W/M2.
Joanna Haigh published in the royal society that TSI has increased by 3-4 W/M2 since the end of the LIA. If you take that only 45% of that reaches the surface, [we’ll make it easy and say 50%], that equates to 1.5-2 W/M2 increase since the LIA. That is considerably greater than 0.33 W/M2, and given that the Ocean stores heat, moves it around, releases it, etc … it would seem that the OP presentation is support that the TSI itself is in fact a significant contributor.

October 11, 2013 7:13 am

beng says:
October 11, 2013 at 6:58 am
As you say, deep ocean water @ 4C has 15C avg water-temp above, and 100C rock-temp just a mile or so below the sea-bottom, thus one has to conclude that it’s highly insulated, and that heat-transfer rates in/out of those ocean depths are very small.
==============
unlikely. insulation cannot explain the uniformity. If the result was due to insulation there should be a gradient according to latitude. The lack of any such gradient argues that the effect is dynamic, that the cold water is in continual re-supply (from the poles?), and that the resupply is massive. The 4C temperature is explained as a result of the expansion of water above and below 4C.

John Day
October 11, 2013 7:14 am

@berple>”A virus is miniscule. …”
Yes, but tom0mason was addressing “particle output variations“, so changes in the solar wind, when it’s not firmly established/accepted that the solar wind per se has any lasting impact on climate. So would you expect changes in that regime to have more impact? (Not cosmic rays, BTW, they don’t come from the Sun)
Personally, (since we now know the unicorns died) I think it has to be changes in the flapping rates of those butterflies on the other side of the world. We know they can change the course of mighty hurricanes.
:-]

Cooler
October 11, 2013 7:15 am

At a mean temperature of 288 oK, the sea surface will emit about 390 watt/m2 of surface thermal infrared radiation.
This is simply misunderstood, it will radiate that much if air above sea is 0ºK.
This is pure fictious. If the surface temperature is 288 K, air above it might be 286K. Temperature difference is only approx 2K, when you calculate using these with Stefan Bolzman law or look from this engineering toolbox table, you can see that heat radiated is only few watts/m2. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html . Heat radiation is a minor part of heat radiation from surface to air, approx 98% is heat transfer via conduction. CO2 can trap very specific waveleghts and that happens in few meters above surface, that heat is transfered very soon to other atmosphere molecules via convection. CO2 has nothing to do with warming atmosphere, in contary it is a good cooler, cause as a 3- atomic molecule it can emit energy to space in top of atmosphere. Without increased CO2 we would have much warmer atmosphere, because less energy is radiated to atmosphere. CO2 is much more cooler than warmer.

Bob Kutz
October 11, 2013 7:19 am

Lief, et. al.;
‘TSI does not vary sufficiently . . .’
Vary sufficiently from what? Our observational time frame is completely unacceptable as a touchstone. The Earth has been warming, rather suddenly and quickly for some 20 thousand years, before that it was gradually cooling for some 125 thousand years, before that it warmed, suddenly and quickly for about 20 thousand years.
Do we know what the earth’s mean equilibrium temperature should be at a given TSI?
Do we know what the TSI was 150 thousand years ago? 50? 10?
The oven is on. Its warming up. How long does it take to reach equilibrium? If you cannot look at the Sun’s TSI and predict, very accurately, what the Earth’s equilibrium heat content (notice that; heat content, not surface T) should be and how long it will take to reach that equilibrium, then just about everything else the ‘climate witchdoctors’ are talking about is next to useless.
We do not know the variability of the sun. The reconstructions and so forth that I have seen go back no farther than 10 thousand years. The earth, according to antarctic ice core reconstructions as a proxy for global temperature, started warming, as I said, some 20 thousand years ago, quite suddenly and quite rapidly following a long cooling period.
Lief, you claim that the TSI change is insufficient to cause the change in surface T. How do you know what governs surface T if you cannot even model the overall heat content of the planet (there’s that heat content thing again)? The oceans certainly have a lot more control over the temperature of the atmosphere than CO2. The Cloud experiments at CERN could overturn the entire CAGW industry. And, as a final ‘coup de grace’ to this rebuttal of your argument; if delta TSI is insufficient to cause the observed warming because it doesn’t provide for enough additional energy at the surface, consider that CAGW provides for the observed warming sans any additional energy whatsoever. Zero. Maybe a 9% TSI equates to just enough added shortwave reachi ing the Earth to increase global photosynthesis just enough to result in higher CO2 . . . maybe CO2 induced global warming is itself a positive feedback of a very slight increase in TSI?
In short; I disagree that you can shoot down TSI out of hand, based on some authoritative knowledge of the downwelling radiation, based on the fact that we do not have a model to get us to equilibrium and thermal inertia for the Earth. Without that little else can be said.
Even our scientists (at least the honest ones) admit that there is a great deal more they don’t know than what they do know.

October 11, 2013 7:20 am

Ulric Lyons says:
October 11, 2013 at 3:19 am
Looking how well the SABER data follows the geomagnetic signal, the solar wind appears to be responsible for a large proportion of the heating of the upper atmosphere.
Up there the density is a billionth of sea-level density so there is almost no heat and hot air does not descend.
David Riser says:
October 11, 2013 at 3:49 am
I would like to point out that the farthest away satellite was launched in 2010 and does not provide data to the TSI dataset.
The SOHO satellite which forms the basis for the PMOD TSI dataset was launched in 1995.
So your still measuring from within the atmosphere for this data
Not at all. Once you are above 20 km [the usual definition of TOA Top of Atmosphere] the atmosphere is so thin that it does not influence TSI to the extent we can measure it.
Madman2001 says:
October 11, 2013 at 6:56 am
the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age is largely or even exclusively coincidence. Can you expand upon that?
http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf

John Day
October 11, 2013 7:21 am

@me>(Not cosmic rays, BTW, they don’t come from the Sun)
Yes, GCR’s are modulated by the Sun. But still those effects on climate not firmly established, in spite of recent research by Svensmark et all.
The Earth’s magnetic field acts a shield to protect us from the ravages of solar wind. Else our atmosphere (and climate) would have been stripped away eons ago.

October 11, 2013 7:21 am

The obsession with radiation is a hold over from the cold war, when nuclear weapons and radiation fears dominated the world, both politically and scientifically. This obsession drives the IPCC in its obsession with CO2 and LW radiation.
We forget that Nature does not rely on brute force alone. Nature is also extremely subtle. Time and time again nature shows us that what we believe is impossible is due to the limitations of our minds, not the limitations of the universe around us.

Steven Hill
October 11, 2013 7:27 am

The weather, the weather, everyone talks about, never does a thing about……..stay tuned for the next artificial crisis and chaos. A opportunity for change! 😉

October 11, 2013 7:31 am

John Day says:
October 11, 2013 at 7:21 am
The Earth’s magnetic field acts a shield to protect us from the ravages of solar wind. Else our atmosphere (and climate) would have been stripped away eons ago.
===========
yet we are told that the solar wind has very little energy. are we to thus conclude that something that can strip the atmosphere from a planet cannot alter the climate?
the earth’s magnetic field only partially shields us from the solar wind. the solar wind enters the earth’s atmosphere at the poles. like an ionizing air cleaner, the charged particles in the solar wind affect the composition of the atmosphere, changing the chemistry of the atmosphere, changing the weather and thus the changing the climate.

October 11, 2013 7:39 am

Dr. Isvalgaard,
I read the two papers you gave me. The Laken paper is very strange to me, it appears that it is written to specifically refute Svensmark 2012. The language appears to be more an essay than a scientific paper calling Svensmarks theory controversial and concluding:
“By virtue of a lack of strong evidence detected from the numerous satellite- and ground-based studies, it is clear that if a solar- cloud link exists the effects are likely to be low amplitude and could not have contributed appreciably to recent anthropo- genic climate changes.”
Laken et al partly base their conclusions based off temperature and small cosmic ray fluctuations having little correlation but seem to be far less critical of their own priori of an anthropogenic connection which has even less correlation over the same sattelite period. I am also unimpressed by evidence submitted that models do not show the cosmic ray effect.
The conclusion that I drew from that paper was that large fluctuations showed correlation but the correlation of smaller fluctuations is difficult to detect because of small sample sizes leading to statistical insignificance and satellite data could have problems at the poles and with line of sight detection. It seemed to me that more data would be needed to reject or confirm Svensmark’s hypothesis and I think dismissing it based on difficulties gathering cloud data is a strange conclusion.
Maybe I’m being to skeptical here but based on the actions of many in the climate community to accept papers like MBH98 uncritically and attack people who showed it was incorrect I am very cautious to take any paper at face value especially when it appears to be specifically written to support the “anthropogenic connection” which was not even discussed in the paper outside of the conclusions.
I don’t disagree with the second paper but I’m interested in seeing Svensmark’s theory on ionization effecting cloud feedbacks further investigated before I think you could calculate where, when and how much the effects may be.

John Day
October 11, 2013 8:00 am

@berple>something that can strip the atmosphere from a planet cannot alter the climate?
Without its magnetic field, Earth’s climate would be somewhat like Mars. But Earth has a magnetic field, so that’s a moot point. The solar wind seems to have no big impact on climate.
What about little impacts? Well, there was a paper presented on WUWT a day or so ago, that claimed that changes in the By component of the IMF (which is carried by the solar wind) produced some measurable climatic artifact. Let’s assume it’s true, how will that impact life on Earth?
I’m not denying that could be significant impact from phenomena like this, but what are they?
So you shouldn’t worry about until it has been observed, or someone has reliably predicted its consequences.

Patrick
October 11, 2013 8:09 am

“John Day says:
October 11, 2013 at 8:00 am”
The Sun will, eventually, consume this rock, magnetic field or not!

Tim Walker
October 11, 2013 8:14 am

shenanigans24 says:
October 11, 2013 at 7:39 am
Wonderful well thought out reply.

October 11, 2013 8:17 am

New paper published yesterday by Leif’s friend Judith Lean finds the difference in TSI measured during the 1990s by solar radiometers vs. with SORCE could alone account for 0.4C temperature change, without any amplification or consideration of 2nd order effects. But, no problem, all we have to do is change the cloud cover in our models to make it all balance out on a global basis… Hold on, that changes regional climate simulations…
The Impact of Different Absolute Solar Irradiance Values on Current Climate Model Simulations
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00136.1?af=R
Simulations of the pre-industrial and doubled CO2 climates are made with the GISS GCMAM using two different estimates of the absolute solar irradiance value, a higher value measured by solar radiometers in the 1990s and the lower value measured recently by SORCE. Each of the model simulations is adjusted to achieve global energy balance; without this adjustment the difference in irradiance produces a global temperature change of 0.4°C, comparable to the cooling estimated for the Maunder Minimum. The results indicate that by altering cloud cover the model properly compensates for the different absolute solar irradiance values on a global level when simulating both the pre-industrial and doubled CO2 climates. On a regional level, the pre-industrial climate simulations and the patterns of change with doubled CO2 concentrations are again remarkably similar, but there are some differences. Using a higher absolute solar irradiance value and the requisite cloud cover affects the model’s depictions of high latitude surface air temperature, sea level pressure, and stratospheric ozone, as well as tropical precipitation. In the climate change experiments it leads to an underestimation of North Atlantic warming, reduced precipitation in the tropical Western Pacific, and smaller total ozone growth at high northern latitudes. Although significant, these differences are typically modest compared with the magnitude of the regional changes expected for doubled greenhouse gas concentrations. Nevertheless, the model simulations demonstrate that achieving the highest possible fidelity when simulating regional climate change requires that climate models use as input the most accurate (lower) solar irradiance value.

highflight56433
October 11, 2013 8:40 am

Earth’s wobbles known as Milankovitch cycles, occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.
Neptune and Uranus affect solar activity in Solar Grand Minima as well as Solar Cycle Modulation.
Tectonic activity and variation in earth radius affects rotational velocity.
GCR volume affects cloud cover.
Variations in Circumpolar Vortex.
…and the sun.

milodonharlani
October 11, 2013 8:48 am

John Day says:
October 11, 2013 at 7:21 am
I’m not sure if our atmosphere would have been totally stripped away without a magnetosphere generated from within the planet, or be as tenuous as Mars’.
Venus has an atmosphere an order of magnitude denser than ours, despite lack of an internal magnetosphere. The solar wind does induce one in the planet’s ionosphere, as it strips away the top of the atmosphere there:
http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/venus_mag/
Mars of course serves as a counter-example in support of your hypothesis. Its wispy atmosphere (an order of magnitude thinner than ours) would probably be thicker if the Red Planet had an internal magnetosphere.
I agree that Earth’s magnetosphere has been very important to conditions here, including the development of life, but wonder why Venus’ atmosphere remains so dense after four billion years. Earth has apparently lost about half its original N2 over the eons, but probably more from its incorporation into the crust rather than leakage or stripping away into space.

SteveP
October 11, 2013 8:53 am

lsvalgaard says:
October 10, 2013 at 4:30 pm
Louis says:
October 10, 2013 at 4:20 pm
How good are we at measuring total TSI?
VERY good: We can measure variations in TSI with a precision of 0.007 W/m2 out of 1361 W/m2 or as 10 feet on the distance between San Francisco and Los Angeles.
————————-
Precision is not the same thing as accuracy. Precision means ‘Repeatability’ while Accuracy is a measure of closeness to the true value. So all results could be within 10 feet of each other but your error might be many miles. If you are claiming an accuracy of 0.007W in a measurement of 1361W then you are saying that the accuracy is 0.0005%. Now, maybe this is so but it means that your calibrating system has an accuracy of at least 3 times this (some people prefer 10 times), i.e. 0.00016%? Maybe this is possible, I don’t know the specs of the particular system but I can say that achieving and maintaining 0.005% accuracy (yes 0.005% not 0.0005%) in electronic equipment is quite challenging. How often is the equipment re-calibrated? Long term drift is a notorious issue in electronic equipment.

bit chilly
October 11, 2013 9:00 am

lsvalgaard says :
The article says that 1 W/m2 in gives you 3.6 W/m2 out [actually 0.09 and 0.33, but you should be able to figure that out on your own]. In nature you don’t permanently get something for nothing.
i do not think stan robertson,nor many others think that. but as temperature fluctuates over short and long periods of time,it is quite obvious that energy in/out imbalances exist.

Ulric Lyons
October 11, 2013 9:01 am

lsvalgaard says:
“Up there the density is a billionth of sea-level density so there is almost no heat and hot air does not descend.”
It has a very large volume, it gets to very high temperatures, and it radiates.

Henry Clark
October 11, 2013 9:07 am

How does someone write an article so little presenting what its very own sources point out? I know on the order of 99% of people don’t click on links and read, but, even so, this is disappointing.
Shaviv, Nir 2008, Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing, Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, A11101 http://www.sciencebits.com/files/articles/CalorimeterFinal.pdf
Adding in a bit of quotation from such:
TSI variation over a typical 11 year solar cycle just corresponds to a “globally averaged irradiance variations of 0.17 W/m^2
However, “solar cycle induced variations in low altitude cloud cover [Marsh and Svensmark, 2000b], presumably from CRF [cosmic ray flux] modulation over the oceans (where CCNs are most likely to be a bottleneck), give rise to a radiative imbalance which can be estimated [Marsh and Svensmark, 2000a; Shaviv, 2005] to be of order 1.1 ± 0.3 W/m^2 over the past two cycles.
Notice the former, for TSI variation, is 0.17 W/m^2, but the latter is so much more.
As the author of the referenced paper, Dr. Shaviv, discusses further elsewhere, variation in near-constant TSI is less substantial than the several times larger effect of variation in cloud seeding by cosmic ray flux.
If someone spreads aluminum foil reflector over a window, its subsequent effect on heat (sunlight reflected over time afterwards) is not limited to the energy which was involved in unrolling it. Likewise, when ionizing radiation helps seed condensation nuclei, whether in a cloud chamber (invented in 1912 A.D., like http://www.lns.cornell.edu/~adf4/cloud.html ) or in the larger atmosphere, the energy of extra sunlight which can be reflected (by white clouds in the latter case) has almost nothing to do with the relatively tiny energy of the original radiation, able to differ by many orders of magnitude.
As Dr. Shaviv notes:
One can actually quantify empirically the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20th century warming. This contribution comes out to be 0.5 +/- 0.2 C out of the observed 0.6 +/- 0.2 C global warming (Shaviv, 2005)
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar
Back to this WUWT article:
Several researchers, including Nir Shaviv (2008), Roy Spencer (see http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/low-climate-sensitivity-estimated-from-the-11-year-cycle-in-total-solar-irradiance/) and Zhou & Tung (2010) have found that ocean surface temperatures oscillate with an amplitude of about 0.04 – 0.05 oC during a solar cycle.
Of those three sources mentioned, at least two out of three have observed how the effect of TSI+GCR variation is several times more than TSI variation alone. The first, Dr. Shaviv, was just mentioned. The second, Dr. Spencer, did an analysis and observed, for a 2000-2010 example period:
The cosmic ray (indirect) forcing is about 2.8 times that of the solar irradiance (direct) forcing.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/05/indirect-solar-forcing-of-climate-by-galactic-cosmic-rays-an-observational-estimate/
There’s a lot of propagandist spam and rewriting of historical data, as ironically the CAGW movement team is better at recognizing their Achilles’ Heel than most casual skeptics, due to having far more time and money given and spent. However, as illustrated in http://img176.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=81829_expanded_overview_122_424lo.jpg , there is not unexplainable mystery but rather superb explanation of the LIA, global cooling scare period, global warming period, and even the recent decline in global temperatures once properly studying real historical data (with some understanding of cosmoclimatology) rather than fudged hockey-stick type junk.

Henry Clark
October 11, 2013 9:10 am

richardscourtney says:
October 10, 2013 at 4:48 pm
external variations such as the Svensmaark Effect which may alter cloud cover (n.b. this possible effect is galactic and not solar).
Variation in galactic cosmic ray flux received at Earth’s orbit is primarily solar modulated on timescales of years, decades, and centuries. Relative deflection (partial shielding by the inner solar system) varies in step with variation in the strength of the sun’s interplanetary magnetic field and solar wind. On longer timescales (such as millions of years), motion of the solar system around the galaxy becomes important. But, for instance, neutron count from galactic cosmic rays varies by several percent over even a few years (and up to tens of percent since the Little Ice Age), due to solar modulation.
To be blunt, that is one of the most basic aspects of understanding cosmic rays in the context of climate (and also well known for the effect on radiation hazards for space missions), so it is apparent that you are commenting without having ever read such as http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate . Reading WUWT articles is no substitute for that (and not for looking at http://img176.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=81829_expanded_overview_122_424lo.jpg as well), as too much is left out, either never mentioned or mentioned haphazardly years apart in partial pieces which few would put together.
Back at the end of comments on http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/04/black-carbon-soot-shrank-the-19th-century-glaciers/ , you were polite, but something which really stood out to me is that you spent time writing an entire reply apparently without even for a moment clicking on the one and only link in my post there. Nobody is obligated to read or look at anything if not having the time, but, if having the time to write comments…

highflight56433
October 11, 2013 9:14 am

“Recent variability of the solar spectral irradiance and its impact on
climate modelling”
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/3945/2013/acp-13-3945-2013.pdf
“The results of the CCM (Chemistry Climate Model) simulations, forced with the SSI (Solar spectral irradiance) solar cycle variations estimated from the NRLSSI model and from SORCE (Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment) measurements, show that the direct solar response in the stratosphere is larger for the SORCE than for the NRLSSI data. Correspondingly, larger UV forcing also leads to a larger surface response.”
“A new study very well worth reading by Ermolli et al. (2013) looks at the influence of the spectral variation of solar radiation (SSI), especially the ultraviolet spectrum: It is fluctuating much more strongly, by up to 10% between a quiet and an active sun. And at low solar activity, it generates precisely the pattern in the wintertime that we’ve been seeing since 2006: The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), which impacts the temperature in the Eurasian region especially in the wintertime, is controlled and effected by the UV radiation of the sun. When there is less solar activity, it gets colder in the region”
See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/07/current-sunspot-cycle-weakest-in-190-years-recent-model-temperature-deviation-due-to-solar-activity-experts-say/#sthash.gW1kXASO.dpuf

milodonharlani
October 11, 2013 9:18 am

highflight56433 says:
October 11, 2013 at 9:14 am
Thanks for those studies.
Much as some here suspected, small changes in one spectral component of TSI can make a detectable difference in weather & maybe climate, if the papers be credible.

beng
October 11, 2013 9:20 am

***
ferd berple says:
October 11, 2013 at 7:00 am
a catalyst does not involve positive feedback. look in the mirror and you will see nature using extremely complex catalysts to produce a result that would be impossible otherwise. these catalysts do not add energy to the reaction. they lower the energy at which the reaction can take place, and thus increase the reaction rate, without adding any energy to the reaction.
***
Climate is not governed significantly by chemical reactions — it’s a sun-powered, atmospheric-driven heat-engine.

highflight56433
October 11, 2013 9:24 am

“Climate is not governed significantly by chemical reactions — it’s a sun-powered, atmospheric-driven heat-engine.”
Really? So ions do not attract other molecules such as water to form clouds? Without clouds the climate would be the same as what?

bones
October 11, 2013 9:31 am

wayne says:
October 11, 2013 at 12:14 am
Dr. Robertson, (are you ‘bones’?)
————————————–
Yes
wayne says:
October 11, 2013 at 12:39 am
Seems I left out a second question, could the albedo have decreased over the 1955 to present period? Say leaving some wiggle room and take 0.3% times six decades or about -0.005 in the albedo? Don’t know that either, have never looked into it.
—————————————-
Yes, but it has not been measured in any reliable way. The global average solar radiation that reaches the earth has not been measured reliably enough to say how much it has changed. There have been surface measurements for Antarctica (if I recall correctly) over a solar cycle that show ~ 1% variation; easily more than enough to cause the surface temperature variations.
It would probably cost no more than that of the ARGO buoy system to collect a representative sample of surface radiation measurements for the earth surface, but it would be difficult to keep the instrument surfaces suitably clean. In the meantime, the ARGO system provides for a more detailed calorimetry analysis and surface energy distribution than I have done here.

October 11, 2013 9:40 am

SteveP says:
October 11, 2013 at 8:53 am
Precision is not the same thing as accuracy. Precision means ‘Repeatability’ while Accuracy is a measure of closeness to the true value.
I guess you missed the point. SORCE measured TSI with an accuracy of 0.5 W/m2 but with a precision and stability of 0.007 W/m2. For variations of TSI it is the precision that is important. For stability it is important to measure the degradation of the instruments carefully.
Ulric Lyons says:
October 11, 2013 at 9:01 am
“Up there the density is a billionth of sea-level density so there is almost no heat and hot air does not descend.”
It has a very large volume, it gets to very high temperatures, and it radiates.

As there is almost no matter it matters not what the volume, temperature, and radiation are. If the volume were 1000 times larger and the temperature 10 times higher [both values much too high], the energy content would still be 100,000 times smaller than the lower atmosphere.

October 11, 2013 9:54 am

Hockey Schtick says:
October 10, 2013 at 3:16 pm
For a start, here’s 50 papers describing potential solar amplification mechanisms
lsvalgaard says: October 10, 2013 at 3:23 pm
None of those explain how 3.6 times more heat reach the surface than the variation of what the Sun puts out…Otherwise the climate system would be a nifty energy producer: you put 10 units in and you get 36 out. I want one of those 🙂
Allan Says:
Hello Leif, I hope you are well. Happy Canadian Thanksgiving!
This point has probably already been covered above.
As you correctly state the system is not producing energy ( “from thin air” :-] ).
The term “amplifier” is used loosely and is somewhat imprecise.
IF indeed the Sun is the primary controlling mechanism in the observed short-term (e.g. ~11 year Solar Cycles, ~80-90 year Gleissberg Cycles) warming and cooling periods that seem to correlate with minor solar variation according to many papers, then either:
1. There is some solar parameter that has a greater much variation than TSI.
AND/OR
2. There is a form of “amplifier” that enhances the solar variation.
AND/OR
3. Something else.
Let’s explore Option 2. [I know this is all obvious to you, but I just wanted to write this down so people can shoot at it.]
The climate system is not producing energy – let’s not start out by breaking the Laws of Thermodynamics.
But this is not necessary to explain the observed variation in ocean temperatures, etc.
The amplifier can work as a “double-negative”, for example per the Svensmark hypo, by increasing cloud cover and thus reducing TOTAL solar input to Earth. The energy is already in the system, and is being negatively modulated by increased clouds. [Greater solar activity > Less cosmic radiation > Less clouds > Warmer Earth]
So if you prefer a better term than “amplifier” (I don’t), then call it something else – such as “double-negative amplifier”.
OK – all elementary and you know it, but it refutes your above suggestion that the system has to create energy in order for such an “amplifier” to work.
I know we disagree on the following point – I think the Sun rules Earth’s climate (somehow – not sure about the dichotomy between the ~~90-year Gleissberg Cycle and the 60-year PDO) and you say climate just ‘goes up and down’.
I really hope you are right, because if I am right we are about due for some global cooling that may be severe, and increasingly, I hate the cold.
I bid you a wonderful day, and leave you with Chaucer’s take on solar influence (but did the word “obliquity” even exist then, or was the Earth still flat?):
WHAN that Aprille with his shoures soote
The droghte of Marche hath perced to the roote
Best personal regards, Allan 🙂
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/10/polar-sea-ice-changes-are-having-a-net-cooling-effect-on-the-climate/#comment-74024
Allan M R MacRae (19:49:11) “Climate change is natural and cyclical.”
Leif Svalgaard (19:57:40) “I would not disagree with that, except for downplaying the ‘cyclic’ bit. I don’t think there is strict cyclicity, just that it ‘goes up and down’.”

otsar
October 11, 2013 9:58 am

It has always impressed me that the role of biology is relegated to some insignificant background in climatology.
The Earth’s atmosphere is what it is today because of biological action driven by biologically available energy from the crust and the Sun. Biological action on the atmosphere did not stop some time in the past just as evolution did not. Evolution of the atmosphere and biology are just as active as they have been in the past. The total radiation energy available from the sun may be fairly constant, but where in the spectrum the energy is delivered to the surface of the Earth, I am quite sure, has very measurable effects on our crust and atmosphere and should not be neglected. The biological signature can be clearly seen in the Mauna Loa CO2 spectra. The fossil hydrocarbons we are using were put there by biological activity.
There are probably thousands of feed foreward and feed back loops, some big some small, that affect our climate on many levels, by ignoring biological action we are probably ignoring some very significant ones.

October 11, 2013 10:03 am

Allan MacRae says:
October 11, 2013 at 9:54 am
IF indeed the Sun is the primary controlling mechanism in the observed short-term (e.g. ~11 year Solar Cycles, ~80-90 year Gleissberg Cycles) warming and cooling periods that seem to correlate with minor solar variation according to many papers
This is precisely the sticking point. There are many claims. I probably know most of them put forward the last 350 years starting with Riccioli. I have yet to see one that is convincing. You could pick the one that is most convincing to you and we can discuss that one in detail.

milodonharlani
October 11, 2013 10:07 am

Allan MacRae says:
October 11, 2013 at 9:54 am
Chaucer knew the earth is a sphere, as did every other learned person in the 14th century & for a millennium previously in the Western world. Also many unlearned people, such as sailors, or even those who looked at the pictures in the stained glass windows of their churches.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatise_on_the_Astrolabe

milodonharlani
October 11, 2013 10:11 am

otsar says:
October 11, 2013 at 9:58 am
Cloud condensation nuclei can be of biological origin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLAW_hypothesis

October 11, 2013 10:22 am

If the sun thru primary effects and secondary effects does not exert a major influence on the climate how does one reconcile the correlation between solar active periodsand warmer temperatures versus solar minimum periods and lower temperatures? A very simple question but true.
I have never seen a low solar quiet period correlate to a rise in tmeperatures, or a high active solar period correspond to a drop in temperatures. Never.

schrodinger's Cat
October 11, 2013 10:23 am

The TSI may be very constant but variations in the energy output at particular frequencies may be important. For example changes in UV output are thought to affect ozone and cause differences in the complex photo chemistry. This in turn might modulate cloud seeding or aerosol behaviour. I don’t think that much is known about the chemistry of the atmosphere. I would imagine that a brew containing lots of subatomic particles, sulphuric acid, aerosols and lightening discharges, oxygen and ionised matter is capable of all sorts of interesting reactions.
I would imagine that aerosol particle size would have a major influence on light scattering and hence albedo. How much is known about the factors that influence the dispersion and flocculation of these particles?
I have a suspicion that solar influences are indirect but could be quite powerful.

Caleb
October 11, 2013 10:41 am

Lief says, “….Otherwise the climate system would be a nifty energy producer: you put 10 units in and you get 36 out. I want one of those :-)”
I do that with potatoes in my garden. In fact I do better than that. I plant ten and on a good year can get 200.
Plankton may be small potatoes in the eyes of many, but I’ll bet it notices small changes in TSI. I won’t dare, (this early in the day,) risk any guesses about how much more energetic it becomes, or how the heck you could measure such energy.

October 11, 2013 10:41 am

Allan MacRae says: October 11, 2013 at 9:54 am
IF indeed the Sun is the primary controlling mechanism in the observed short-term (e.g. ~11 year Solar Cycles, ~80-90 year Gleissberg Cycles) warming and cooling periods that seem to correlate with minor solar variation according to many papers…
lsvalgaard says: October 11, 2013 at 10:03 am
This is precisely the sticking point. There are many claims. I probably know most of them put forward the last 350 years starting with Riccioli. I have yet to see one that is convincing. You could pick the one that is most convincing to you and we can discuss that one in detail.
Allan says:
Aye, there’s the rub.
I like Nir Shaviv’s work and that of Jan Veizer.
For the short term:
Shaviv, Nir 2008, Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing, Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, A11101 http://www.sciencebits.com/files/articles/CalorimeterFinal.pdf
For the longer term
Nir J. Shaviv and Ján Veizer, Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate? GSA Today July 2003 *
http://cfa.atmos.washington.edu/2003Q4/211/articles_optional/CelestialDriver.pdf
Best, Allan
* Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world…
– Yeats (1919)

Ulric Lyons
October 11, 2013 11:10 am

lsvalgaard says:
“As there is almost no matter it matters not what the volume, temperature, and radiation are. If the volume were 1000 times larger and the temperature 10 times higher [both values much too high], the energy content would still be 100,000 times smaller than the lower atmosphere.”
The thermosphere is around 1/50,000 of the total atmospheric mass, and in parts the temperature reaches 2000°C at times. But then there is less troposphere in the polar regions.

October 11, 2013 11:15 am

Allan MacRae says:
October 11, 2013 at 10:41 am
For the longer term
Nir J. Shaviv and Ján Veizer, Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate? GSA Today July 2003 *

Has already been debunked, see: Overholt et al. 2009 e.g. cited in http://www.leif.org/EOS/1303-7314-Cosmic-Rays-Climate-billion-yrs.pdf
For the short term:
Their Figure 4 is the actual data. The correlations are underwhelming, but if we apply a bit of good will as in Figure 5, we can see a SST swing of 0.1C which is what we would expect from TSI alone [this is undisputed], so if this is your strongest evidence I will agree with you that the observed variation of TSI gives rise to the observed variation of SST [all of 0.1C]. But I would not call that a major driver of climate.

David Riser
October 11, 2013 11:17 am

Allan and Henry,
Could the earths response to TSI be more in terms of a delayed reaction by feedbacks than a direct heating by the average change to TSI? What I mean by a delayed reaction is that it takes a set amount of time for a feedback to react to a spike in TSI, so a large spike would give a lot more than average heating. Once the heating started, after a time, feedbacks (call it Eschenbach effect) mitigate the heating. An idea like this would not be impacted by “average TSI” because TSI is extremely spikey and the sun provides more than enough total energy to bake the earth if there were no negative feedback effects. What are your thoughts?
v/r,
David Riser

October 11, 2013 11:20 am

Ulric Lyons says:
October 11, 2013 at 11:10 am
The thermosphere is around 1/50,000 of the total atmospheric mass, and in parts the temperature reaches 2000°C at times.
assuming the most favorable case where the temperature is 2000C everywhere [which it is not] that temperature is 7 times that at sea level so the energy content is a 7/50,000 = 0.00014 part of the troposphere. Not much.
But then there is less troposphere in the polar regions.
And it is brrr cold there [I have lived there]

October 11, 2013 11:24 am

Thank you milon,
You are absolutely correct that educated people knew that Earth was round in Chaucer’s time.
A spherical Earth was reportedly proposed by Pythagoras in the 6th century BC.
Chaucer lived from ~1343 to 1400. And Chaucer was interested in astronomy, so he almost certainly knew Earth was round.
Copernicus published “De revolutionibus orbium coelestium” (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres) in 1543, which re-arranged the planets and put the Sun in just the right spot.
But Newton did not publish his theory of gravitation until 1687, so until then everyone was really worried about falling off a round Earth into space. 🙂
This of course was no worse than sailing off the edge of a flat Earth, the chief concern of ancient mariners.
I mean, if you really watched your step on a round Earth (and parted your hair right down the middle), then you were probably OK.
But of course they were ALL wrong:
The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise, on the back of another even bigger giant tortoise, etc. It’s tortoises all the way down.
This is the origin of the mathematical concept of infinity.
Best, Allan :-]
Meanwhile, back at the Turtles, all the way down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
The most widely known version, which obviously is not the source (see below), appears in Stephen Hawking’s 1988 book A Brief History of Time, which starts:
A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on?” “You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s tortoises all the way down!”
—Hawking, 1988[1]
In 1905, Oliver Corwin Sabin, Bishop of the Evangelical Christian Science Church, wrote:
The old original idea which was enunciated first in India, that the world was flat and stood on the back of an elephant, and the elephant did not have anything to stand on was the world’s thought for centuries. That story is not as good as the Richmond negro preachers who said the world was flat and stood on a turtle. They asked him what the turtle stood on and he said another turtle, and they asked what that turtle stood on and he said another turtle, and finally they got him in a hole and he said. “I tell you there are turtles all the way down.”
—Sabin, 1905[2]
Many 20th-century attributions point to William James as the source.[3][4] James referred to the fable of the elephant and tortoise several times, but told the infinite regress story with “rocks all the way down” in his 1882 essay, “Rationality, Activity and Faith”.[5] In the form of “rocks all the way down”, the story predates James to at least 1838.[6]
In 1854 the story in the current form appears, attributed by bible skeptic Joseph Barker to preacher Joseph Frederick Berg:
My opponent’s reasoning reminds me of the heathen, who, being asked on what the world stood, replied, “On a tortoise.” But on what does the tortoise stand? “On another tortoise.” With Mr. Barker, too, there are tortoises all the way down.
—Barker, 1854[7]
There is an allusion to the story in David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (published in 1779):
How can we satisfy ourselves without going on in infinitum? And, after all, what satisfaction is there in that infinite progression? Let us remember the story of the Indian philosopher and his elephant. It was never more applicable than to the present subject. If the material world rests upon a similar ideal world, this ideal world must rest upon some other; and so on, without end. It were better, therefore, never to look beyond the present material world.
—Hume, 1779[8]

R. de Haan
October 11, 2013 11:35 am
milodonharlani
October 11, 2013 11:42 am

Allan MacRae says:
October 11, 2013 at 11:24 am
Those mariners would have to be very ancient indeed, since the ancient Greeks knew that the world is a globe. They could see the shadow of the Earth upon the Moon during eclipses. More importantly when sailing, the mast of another ship appeared before its hull & the highest buildings in a port before the lower parts of the looming city.
Greek sailors also noted the variation in the observable altitude & change in the area of circumpolar stars apparent between their settlements around the Mediterranean & Black Seas, roughly Latitude 30 degrees to 47 degrees N. The difference grew more pronounced once Greeks went up the Nile under the Ptolemies. Eratosthenes managed to measure the Earth fairly accurately in Egypt, c. 240 BC.

October 11, 2013 11:46 am

lsvalgaard says: October 11, 2013 at 11:15 am
For the longer term
Nir J. Shaviv and Ján Veizer, Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate? GSA Today July 2003 *
Has already been debunked, see: Overholt et al. 2009 e.g. cited in http://www.leif.org/EOS/1303-7314-Cosmic-Rays-Climate-billion-yrs.pdf
Allan says:
Debunked is a very big word that implies a very strong degree of scientific certainly.
Shaviv and Veizer GSA2003 was previously “debunked” in EOS circa 2003, but that “debunking”, as I recall, was purest guano.
I had a quick glance at Overholt et al and am not overly shaken, or stirred.
But thank you for the reference. I have had no time since 2008 to pursue this subject in the detail that it requires.
I am sincerely grateful for those like you who do.
Best personal regards, Allan

Amatør1
October 11, 2013 11:50 am

Pamela Gray says:
October 10, 2013 at 8:50 pm
I know it seems I am stating the obvious but many people here have used the same illogical statement to support their belief that the Sun is the driver of trends.

Illogical? Which other energy sources do you have in mind?

milodonharlani
October 11, 2013 11:50 am

Allan MacRae says:
October 11, 2013 at 11:46 am
Bond, Cycle Bond…

October 11, 2013 12:00 pm

Allan MacRae says:
October 11, 2013 at 11:46 am
Debunked is a very big word that implies a very strong degree of scientific certainly.
Actually not if the hypothesis being debunked is itself on shaky ground, i.e. has little certainty to begin with.

October 11, 2013 12:01 pm

milodonharlani says:
October 11, 2013 at 11:50 am
Bond, Cycle Bond…
There are no Bond cycles. There may be some variability of 1000-2000 yr time scale but they are not cyclic.

Janice Moore
October 11, 2013 12:11 pm

Thank you, Dr. Svalgaard (and Pamela and others above), after reading the above I believe I understand what the facts are. Here is what a non-scientist concluded from your fine teaching. I hope this encourages you, Dr. Svalgaard, for, hopefully, it shows that your teaching is good enough to help even a non-scientist learn. (Note: if I’m actually all mixed up, just ignore me — it isn’t your fault and I’m far too ignorant of the basics for you to waste any time correcting.)
The current state of our knowledge includes the following (list NOT exhaustive of what I learned above, just limited for sake of time):
1. While TSI can vary the surface temperature of the ocean, overall, it maintains sea surface (and, later, land surface) temperature; further, it cannot (by a magnitude of 3) heat the sub-surface depths to a measurable degree.
2. All Sun forces other than TSI are negligible v. a v. heating Earth.
3. “Cyclic” is an inaccurate term, here, for the peaks and valleys are not uniform.
4. The Earth’s tilting causes seasonal temperature variation; Sun’s input remains essentially constant.
5. While the Sun, like a human heart (not a perfect parallel, I realize), provides the basic energy for warmth, it does not cause any significant variation in the energy in Earth’s climate system.
The Sun is the homeostatic energy supplied by the heart that enables a violinist to simply live. It is the muscles in the arm and fingers that cause the variations in pitch, tempo, and dynamics that create beautiful (or ugly) music. Should the violinist faint and fall to the ground, the music would stop. That this would happen does not mean that the heart itself creates the variations that make the music a delight (or an annoyance). If the violinist tips the bottle a few too many times, altering his or her equilibrium, just before performing, the music will be affected, but the heart does not change.
In sum: The truism that, but for the heart’s beating, there would be no music
does NOT lead to the conclusion that music is caused by the heart.

milodonharlani
October 11, 2013 12:16 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 11, 2013 at 12:01 pm
Some of your colleagues once dared to disagree. Maybe not solar-driven cycles at that frequency, but perhaps oceanic, although admittedly this wavelet analysis study (citing many of the usual “climate science” suspects) is from way back in 2007:
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00330766/
The origin of the 1500-year climate cycles in Holocene North-Atlantic records
M. Debret 1, V. Bout-Roumazeilles 2, F. Grousset 3, Marc Desmet 4, J. F. Mcmanus 5, N. Massei 6, D. Sebag 6, J.-R. Petit 1, Y. Copard 6, A. Trentesaux 2
(01/10/2007)
Since the first suggestion of 1500-year cycles in the advance and retreat of glaciers (Denton and Karlen, 1973), many studies have uncovered evidence of repeated climate oscillations of 2500, 1500, and 1000 years. During last glacial period, natural climate cycles of 1500 years appear to be persistent (Bond and Lotti, 1995) and remarkably regular (Mayewski et al., 1997; Rahmstorf, 2003), yet the origin of this pacing during the Holocene remains a mystery (Rahmstorf, 2003), making it one of the outstanding puzzles of climate variability. Solar variability is often considered likely to be responsible for such cyclicities, but the evidence for solar forcing is difficult to evaluate within available data series due to the shortcomings of conventional time-series analyses. However, the wavelets analysis method is appropriate when considering non-stationary variability. Here we show by the use of wavelets analysis that it is possible to distinguish solar forcing of 1000- and 2500- year oscillations from oceanic forcing of 1500-year cycles. Using this method, the relative contribution of solar-related and ocean-related climate influences can be distinguished throughout the 10 000 yr Holocene intervals since the last ice age. These results reveal that the 1500-year climate cycles are linked with the oceanic circulation and not with variations in solar output as previously argued (Bond et al., 2001). In this light, previously studied marine sediment (Bianchi and McCave, 1999; Chapman and Shackleton, 2000; Giraudeau et al., 2000), ice core (O’Brien et al., 1995; Vonmoos et al., 2006) and dust records (Jackson et al., 2005) can be seen to contain the evidence of combined forcing mechanisms, whose relative influences varied during the course of the Holocene. Circum-Atlantic climate records cannot be explained exclusively by solar forcing, but require changes in ocean circulation, as suggested previously (Broecker et al., 2001; McManus et al., 1999).

October 11, 2013 12:21 pm

milodonharlani says:
October 11, 2013 at 12:16 pm
Some of your colleagues once dared to disagree. Maybe not solar-driven cycles at that frequency, but perhaps oceanic, although admittedly this wavelet analysis study (citing many of the usual “climate science” suspects) is from way back in 2007
It is a good idea to keep up with the literature:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Obrochta2012.pdf
Hint: I would not make my statement without having something to back it up with.

Pat Frank
October 11, 2013 12:31 pm

Prove your comment isn’t fatuous, Steve.

October 11, 2013 12:36 pm

For the short term:
Shaviv, Nir 2008, Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing, Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, A11101 http://www.sciencebits.com/files/articles/CalorimeterFinal.pdf
lsvalgaard says: October 11, 2013 at 11:15 am
Their Figure 4 is the actual data. The correlations are underwhelming,
Allan says:
The correlations are less than perfect, but are not too bad, imo.
If I recall correctly, you made the same comment about the less than perfect correlations (dCO2/dt vs temperature T and atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature) in my 2008 icecap.us paper.
My 2008 hypo has stood up quite well, although it made warmists very uncomfortable, and was dismissed as a “feedback effect” until Salby revived the concept in circa 2011.
You were in good company re 2008 – Willis et al objected strongly to “Spurious Correlation and Data Smoothing” on ClimateAudit.org but it appears all of you were wrong. But none of this is bad – it is all a necessary part of the process.
The only part that amused me was when Pieter Tans published the same conclusion, all opposition suddenly vanished, and Tans did not even supply his data – just some graphs. So much for a level playing field.
But everyone can be wrong Leif, and nobody likes it when they are. I know. I was wrong once as a child, and vowed to never do it again. :-}
Leif again:
… but if we apply a bit of good will as in Figure 5, we can see a SST swing of 0.1C which is what we would expect from TSI alone [this is undisputed], so if this is your strongest evidence I will agree with you that the observed variation of TSI gives rise to the observed variation of SST [all of 0.1C]. But I would not call that a major driver of climate.
Allan says:
Is your above statement inconsistent with this quote from the Abstract?
We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, though without pointing to which one.
Best, Allan

milodonharlani
October 11, 2013 12:38 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 11, 2013 at 12:21 pm
I didn’t suppose that you lacked support for your position. Sorry if you took my comments in that way. I do try to keep up on the literature, but admit to not having read the 2012 paper.
The paper that I cited & your 2012 study aren’t necessarily contradictory, IMO. Both find or accept the 1000-2000 year solar signal which you granted might exist. Your citation doesn’t conclusively falsify the existence of the oceanic cycle observed in the 2007 paper. It shows that the 1500-year signal at one DSDP site might be spurious. IMO it’s premature to draw from this finding, perhaps debatable, the conclusion that Bond Cycles don’t exist at all. If they do, they’re likely to result from the combination of solar & oceanic effects, as appears to be the case with their stronger big brothers during glacial times, the well-established D-O cycles.

October 11, 2013 12:50 pm

Allan MacRae says:
October 11, 2013 at 12:36 pm
The correlations are less than perfect, but are not too bad, imo.
If we accept them then they show that the SST variation is simply accounted for by TSI variations [of the expected 0.1C]
If I recall correctly, you made the same comment about the less than perfect correlations
A crummy correlation is still crummy, it could be real, but that one crummy correlation turned out to hold does not mean that other crummy correlations also hold.
Is your above statement inconsistent with this quote from the Abstract?
I would say that the abstract is at variance with my statement. The 0.1C is what I always expected and it seems that Shaviv has also found it.
milodonharlani says:
October 11, 2013 at 12:38 pm
If they do, they’re likely to result from the combination of solar & oceanic effects, as appears to be the case with their stronger big brothers during glacial times, the well-established D-O cycles.
The D-O cycles have a natural explanation as terrestrial effects. No need to invoke the Sun: http://www.leif.org/EOS/palo20005-D-O-Explanation.pdf

October 11, 2013 12:55 pm

milodonharlani says: October 11, 2013 at 11:42 am
Those mariners would have to be very ancient indeed, since the ancient Greeks knew that the world is a globe. They could see the shadow of the Earth upon the Moon during eclipses.
Allan says:
Do you really think they were so advanced then during a lunar eclipse?
I understand that around the world they beat drums, threw sticks and shouted loudly to scare off the great animal that had eaten the moon.
Some also sacrificed a virgin, if they could find one.

lemiere jacques
October 11, 2013 12:56 pm

in climatology …you don’t take the temperature of a system but a location…( and some even use the second principle of thermodynamics with that..)
to change the temperature of a location you don’t have to heat but move..
the temp signal has both circulation and heat signification.
So it may not be an amplification but a change in circulation pattern according with the sun.

wayne
October 11, 2013 1:26 pm

And Hockey Schtick has an excellent point above on the measurable global brightness which must simultaneously be wrapped into any causes. Bound to me multi-pronged.

Janice Moore
October 11, 2013 1:30 pm

Dear Any Scientist Who Would Be Willing,
I realize that Dr. Svalgaard likely ignored my 12:11pm (today) post because it was, indeed, “mixed up.” There may be other non-scientists like I out there, nevertheless, who are left unsure whether or not my simple-minded post is actually correct.
If you would be so kind, PLEASE post a brief message for the sake of other non-scientists saying explicitly that my conclusions above were incorrect. Perhaps, people like myself should not even read threads like this, but we do. For the sake of preventing my nonsense from misleading a silent reader, please post a “Janice’s post at 12:11pm is largely incorrect”-type warning.
Thank you!
(and I’ll try to remember not to attempt that type of post in the future)
Janice

Per
October 11, 2013 1:34 pm

Every time I read a post about the sun-climate link I’m amazed of the time, effort and patience you have Leif with your answers. I really appreciate it, it brings a little balance in all the cheerleading comments. A big thank you!

October 11, 2013 1:38 pm

Janice Moore says:
October 11, 2013 at 1:30 pm
I realize that Dr. Svalgaard likely ignored my 12:11pm (today) post because it was, indeed, “mixed up.”
didn’t look mixed up to me, so no need to rebut anything. If you were fishing for praise, here it is.

richardscourtney
October 11, 2013 1:42 pm

Janice Moore:
You or anyone else will never get higher praise on WUWT than that. Well done and congratulations.
Richard

milodonharlani
October 11, 2013 1:47 pm

Allan MacRae says:
October 11, 2013 at 12:55 pm
Depended upon where & when. Shamans in some illiterate cultures could predict eclipses. Aristotle used the shadow of the Earth to “prove” that it was at least round & presumably spherical.

Janice Moore
October 11, 2013 1:52 pm

Thank you for responding, Dr. Svalgaard, much appreciated.
Thank you, Richard. I was so ashamed to have appeared to have been fishing for praise that your kind affirmation was healing balm. Thanks for taking the time. J.

milodonharlani
October 11, 2013 2:06 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 11, 2013 at 12:50 pm
Thanks. That’s a good hypothesis. I’ve corresponded with Dr. Clark regarding Heinrich Events.
However it remains to be shown what might cause variability of the AMOC, which could be comparable to the oceanic drivers of Bond Cycles referred to above.

October 11, 2013 2:27 pm

Stan has found that the heat energy flowing into and out of the oceans over the solar cycle is 3.6 times what can be explained by the direct TSI. Than is, the solar effect is caused by the TSI forcing of 0.09 W/m2 PLUS an amplified effect of 0.24 W/m2, giving a total flux of 0.33 W/m2. There are two possibilities:
1. The heat flux is amplified by a temperature feedback
2. The heat flux is amplified by another solar-induced forcing
A feedback is a change caused by the initial temperature change that was initiated by TSI. A forcing is a change in something that was not caused by a change in temperature, but rather by some other solar effect, most likely a change in cloud cover. In either case, feedback or forcing, it was caused by the solar cycle.
Stan’s title implies he believes the amplification is due to solar forcing greater than the TSI, but his article does not explicitly eliminate the possibility that the amplification is due to a high positive feedback. However, forcing is distinguishable from feedback by the time lag. A forcing causes an immediate heat flux. A feedback causes a lagged heat flux because the temperature response is delayed due to the heat capacity of the oceans. Figure 2 in the article shows the heat flux into the oceans is in phase with the TSI, implying that all the heat flux is due to forcing. The temperatures response is delayed by 15 months. If a significant portion of the heat flux was due to positive feedback, the heat flux, responding to the temperature change, would also be delayed. Since the heat flux in not lagged, there is no positive feedback, and the amplified effect is due to solar-induced forcing.
A link to Dr. Roy Spencer’s post shows a graph :
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/TSI-est-of-climate-sensitivity2.gif
Here, Spencer assumes there is no solar forcing other than TSI, so he assumes the amplification is due entirely to feedback.
Spencer makes a best fit match of his model to the HadCRUT3 solar cycle temperatures and calculates a positive feedback, which corresponds to a climate sensitivity of 1.7 C/double CO2. But notice the lag does not match. The model peaks the toughs are 1 year after the peak and trough of the HadCRUT3 temperatures, which proved that the amplification is NOT due to a feedback; it is due to another solar-induced forcing.
If Spencer had instead increased the solar forcing in his model, replace “TSI” with “TSI X A”, where “A” is a positive solar forcing amplification factor, his model fit would improve. His model should be:
Cp[dT/dt] = TSI X A – lambda*T
This article suggests A = 3.6 for a no-feedback case, where the feedback parameter lambda equals the Planck feedback of 3.3 W/m2/C. This would give a climate sensitivity of 1.1 C.

October 11, 2013 2:31 pm

“The truism that, but for the heart’s beating, there would be no music
does NOT lead to the conclusion that music is caused by the heart.”
Hmmm
So the Earth is blessed with sentience and able to make sweet music from the power supplied by the sun ?
In a non-sentient scenario there is no artistry. Just the cold logic of physics.
If those aspects of changes in solar output which vary far more than TSI have an effect on atmospheric chemistry then the global air circulation can change.
They do and it does.

bones
October 11, 2013 2:33 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 11, 2013 at 12:50 pm
Allan MacRae says:
October 11, 2013 at 12:36 pm
The correlations are less than perfect, but are not too bad, imo.
If we accept them then they show that the SST variation is simply accounted for by TSI variations [of the expected 0.1C]
Per says:
October 11, 2013 at 1:34 pm
Every time I read a post about the sun-climate link I’m amazed of the time, effort and patience you have Leif with your answers. I really appreciate it, it brings a little balance in all the cheerleading comments. A big thank you!
————————————————————–
It is amazing to see Leif’s comment here in the comments on an article that demonstrates the contrary – and without a shred of evidence to back him except an incorrect calculation somewhere above.
Per, I think that you are mistaking mere bullheadedness for patience.

October 11, 2013 2:33 pm

Ken Gregory says:
October 11, 2013 at 2:27 pm
Since the heat flux in not lagged, there is no positive feedback, and the amplified effect is due to solar-induced forcing.
Which still leaves the question where that extra energy is coming from.

October 11, 2013 2:36 pm

bones says:
October 11, 2013 at 2:33 pm
It is amazing to see Leif’s comment here in the comments on an article that demonstrates the contrary – and without a shred of evidence to back him except an incorrect calculation somewhere above.
It just means that you have failed to explain to us mortals where that extra energy is coming from.

October 11, 2013 2:53 pm

bones says:
October 11, 2013 at 2:33 pm
It is amazing to see Leif’s comment here in the comments on an article that demonstrates the contrary –
If the ocean were only 20 meter deep would its surface temperature be different? How different?

bones
October 11, 2013 3:15 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 11, 2013 at 2:36 pm
bones says:
October 11, 2013 at 2:33 pm
It is amazing to see Leif’s comment here in the comments on an article that demonstrates the contrary – and without a shred of evidence to back him except an incorrect calculation somewhere above.
It just means that you have failed to explain to us mortals where that extra energy is coming from.
lsvalgaard says:
October 11, 2013 at 2:53 pm
If the ocean were only 20 meter deep would its surface temperature be different? How different?
——————————————–
The energy comes from the sun, it is only the process that modulates it that is at issue. And if the ocean were only 20 meter deep, it’s surface temperature would be very, very, very different without even considering TSI variations.

John Whitman
October 11, 2013 3:21 pm

Allan MacRae on October 11, 2013 at 11:24 am
There is an allusion to the story in David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (published in 1779):
How can we satisfy ourselves without going on in infinitum? And, after all, what satisfaction is there in that infinite progression? Let us remember the story of the Indian philosopher and his elephant. It was never more applicable than to the present subject. If the material world rests upon a similar ideal world, this ideal world must rest upon some other; and so on, without end. It were better, therefore, never to look beyond the present material world.
—Hume, 1779[8]

– – – – – – – – –
Allan MacRae,
Hume is saying do not have integrated ideas and concepts outside of senses, just present day perceptions of an a priori material world . . . yet is using ideas and concepts to try to sell his point.
That is a kind of intellectual trickery,it is an argument reducible to solipsism.
Also, you quote William James who said science is just what works in utilitarian social experiments, to forget ideals and concepts. In doing so he convinces us with ideals and concepts.
Are you supporting such post-Kantian gibberish?
John

Ulric Lyons
October 11, 2013 3:24 pm

lsvalgaard says:
“..so the energy content is a 7/50,000 = 0.00014 part of the troposphere. Not much.”
More with the lower surface temp’ and thinner troposphere at the poles, and stronger solar wind heating at the poles, but yes still not much if you look at it that way. But then it does not have to heat the whole mass of the troposphere.

October 11, 2013 3:33 pm

bones says:
October 11, 2013 at 3:15 pm
The energy comes from the sun, it is only the process that modulates it that is at issue.
The energy is modulated by the sun’s magnetic activity [and that only at the 0.1% level]. What other modulation do you have in mind? And how large?
And if the ocean were only 20 meter deep, it’s surface temperature would be very, very, very different without even considering TSI variations.
How different?

milodonharlani
October 11, 2013 3:36 pm

Dr. S:
More from the annals of Cyclomania:
Forgive me if this 2009 study from your site has already been discussed on WUWT, but I’d be interested in your critique of it, which I assume would be generally negative. In the short version, it finds that 10Be records confirm 14C as a proxy for a solar influence on climate. I used to cite the isotopic record on RealClimate, but before this study came out:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Holocene-TSI.pdf
Thanks.

bones
October 11, 2013 3:56 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 11, 2013 at 3:33 pm
bones says:
October 11, 2013 at 3:15 pm
The energy comes from the sun, it is only the process that modulates it that is at issue.
The energy is modulated by the sun’s magnetic activity [and that only at the 0.1% level]. What other modulation do you have in mind? And how large?
And if the ocean were only 20 meter deep, it’s surface temperature would be very, very, very different without even considering TSI variations.
How different
———————————————-
Don’t ask me to say how different. I doubt that there is a human alive who can correctly answer that question, nor another to believe it. But only a fool would think that it wouldn’t matter if the oceans were shallow. If they were shallow, their circulation would be very different.
If I recall correctly, physicists discovered the neutrino by refusing to give up on the conservation of energy. I suggest that you do the same here.

October 11, 2013 4:14 pm

milodonharlani says:
October 11, 2013 at 3:36 pm
Forgive me if this 2009 study from your site has already been discussed on WUWT, but I’d be interested in your critique of it
There are a couple of problems with it, the most glaring is that the cosmic ray modulation parameter is calculated using the Group sunspot Number which we now know is faulty. If you look carefully at Slide 20 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf you might see that many of the excursions of the cosmic ray proxies do not match the temperature record, e.g. the deep dip around 650 AD. The standard excuse is that the temperature record must be wrong. Another problem is that the reconstruction is already obsolete and a new version is in the works [at a workshop I’m running to resolve this].
bones says:
October 11, 2013 at 3:56 pm
But only a fool would think that it wouldn’t matter if the oceans were shallow.
Let me be that fool. The surface temperature is not much dependent on the deep ocean, I thought we agreed on that.
If I recall correctly, physicists discovered the neutrino by refusing to give up on the conservation of energy. I suggest that you do the same here.
Snide comments like this are uncalled for and are usually a sign of a weak argument.

FrankK
October 11, 2013 4:20 pm

Monckton of Brenchley says:
October 10, 2013 at 5:37 pm
…………………………….
Four separate groups – two amateur, two professional – have been in touch in recent months to say that the time-integral of the solar forcing is capable of explaining all or nearly all temperature change on all timescales at or above the 11-year solar cycle. So I’m not sure we can dismiss “Busie olde foole, unrulie Sonne” as the primum mobile of globakl temperature change.
____________________________________________________________________
Indeed me Laad:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/mean:50/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/mean:50/offset:-40/integral/normalise

milodonharlani
October 11, 2013 4:24 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 11, 2013 at 4:14 pm
Unfortunately the slide comes up sideways.
The advantages & disadvantages of different methods of counting sunspots have been discussed here. I’m sure your proposed changes are a good faith effort to improve understanding of solar behavior, but against the backdrop of corrupted climate science, I’m just as sure that you can understand why some skeptics might be suspicious of the effort.
It’s too bad that corrupt “climate science” has had such a corrosive effect on real scientists trying to do good work.
Thanks for the slide, which I’ll try to right with Powerpoint or by some other means.

October 11, 2013 4:25 pm

Ulric Lyons says:
October 11, 2013 at 3:24 pm
But then it does not have to heat the whole mass of the troposphere.
It has energy to heat 5 feet of troposphere.

October 11, 2013 4:26 pm

milodonharlani says:
October 11, 2013 at 4:24 pm
Unfortunately the slide comes up sideways.
Most browsers have a function to rotate pages…

October 11, 2013 4:29 pm

milodonharlani says:
October 11, 2013 at 4:24 pm
I’m just as sure that you can understand why some skeptics might be suspicious of the effort.
These people are just lazy [and I dismiss such]. The process is simple, well-described, and can be understood and easily replicated by anybody with public data.

milodonharlani
October 11, 2013 4:29 pm

FrankK says:
October 11, 2013 at 4:20 pm
Monckton of Brenchley says:
October 10, 2013 at 5:37 pm
Yet with Donne, we may ask, “Busie old foole, unruly Sunne, Why dost thou thus?”. Or maybe, whether thou dost thus.

milodonharlani
October 11, 2013 4:31 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 11, 2013 at 4:29 pm
True, but might they not well ask, what was wrong with previous methods of counting? Even if you also make the reasons for the change clear.

milodonharlani
October 11, 2013 4:32 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 11, 2013 at 4:26 pm
I have problems with pdf files. Or maybe just problems, period.

October 11, 2013 4:41 pm

milodonharlani says:
October 11, 2013 at 4:31 pm
True, but might they not well ask, what was wrong with previous methods of counting? Even if you also make the reasons for the change clear.
We start by explaining what was wrong. But lazy people will whine no matter what.
milodonharlani says:
October 11, 2013 at 4:32 pm
I have problems with pdf files. Or maybe just problems, period.
tilt your head 90 degrees…

milodonharlani
October 11, 2013 4:43 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 11, 2013 at 4:41 pm
I tried tilting. No worries. Problem solved. Pretty persuasive graphics.
Thanks!

October 11, 2013 4:59 pm

beng says:
October 11, 2013 at 9:20 am
Climate is not governed significantly by chemical reactions — it’s a sun-powered, atmospheric-driven heat-engine.
==============
the algae that control the climate of planet earth, and have done so for a couple of billion years, say otherwise. they maintain the temperature of the earth to suit themselves, and the rest of us go along for the ride.

October 11, 2013 5:38 pm

A question for Dr. Svalgaard and anyone else that would like to provide an estimate. This is not intended as a joke question. It is a question I’ve struggled with for some time. I believe the answer will help provide perspective to our discussion.
For P = K + U
where
P = Perfect knowledge of the Sun (god view, present, past and future)
K = what is known about the Sun
and U = what is unknown about the Sun
given that the lifetime of the Sun if finite, and bounded according to GR by the speed of light and the age of the universe, it can be argued that:
0 < P 0
U > 0
therefore
0 < K/P < 1 and
0 < U/P < 1 and
U/P + K/P = 1
Question, what are the approximate values of
K/P = ?
U/P = ?

October 11, 2013 5:40 pm

John Whitman says: October 11, 2013 at 3:21 pm
Are you supporting such post-Kantian gibberish?
Allan says:
Yes John, without a doubt.
And I really do believe that the Earth sits on the back of an infinitude of tortoises, all the way down.
At least it’s no worse than the CAGW hypo. 🙂
{Do I really have to day sarc off?}

October 11, 2013 5:42 pm

arghh. HTML
it can be argued that:
0 < P < infinity
0 < K < P
0 < U < P
therefore
0 < K/P < 1 and
0 < U/P < 1 and
U/P + K/P = 1
Question, what are the approximate values of
K/P = ?
U/P = ?

October 11, 2013 5:51 pm

lsvalgaard says:
October 11, 2013 at 2:33 pm
Which still leaves the question where that extra energy is coming from.
=============
Extra energy? In daytime, if you stand in the shade under a tree you are cooler than when you stand in the open, yet there is no extra energy from the sun. TSI remains constant.
If you change the chemistry of the atmosphere and as a result reduce the rate of cloud formation, during daytime you will warm the surface that would have otherwise been shaded by the clouds.

October 11, 2013 6:06 pm

Ken Gregory says:
October 11, 2013 at 2:27 pm
There are two possibilities:
1. The heat flux is amplified by a temperature feedback
2. The heat flux is amplified by another solar-induced forcing
===========
3. The activation energy is reduced/increased by the increase/decrease of a catalyst transported from the sun to the earth’s atmosphere.
For example, a change in the volume of ionized particles transported by the solar wind, which changes the clumping rate of aerosols, which changes the nucleation rate of clouds, which changes the weather, which changes the climate.

October 11, 2013 6:17 pm

ferd berple says:
October 11, 2013 at 6:06 pm
For example, a change in the volume of ionized particles transported by the solar wind, which changes the clumping rate of aerosols, which changes the nucleation rate of clouds, which changes the weather, which changes the climate.
The volume is constant [namely the heliosphere], The density may change, however the solar wind particles do not penetrate to the altitude where aerosols are formed.