(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
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
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
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
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
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!
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.
Janice Moore:
You or anyone else will never get higher praise on WUWT than that. Well done and congratulations.
Richard
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
– – – – – – – – –
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
milodonharlani says:
October 11, 2013 at 4:24 pm
Unfortunately the slide comes up sideways.
Most browsers have a function to rotate pages…
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.