THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Hi TonyB,
Below is some interesting background info regarding the observed solar influence on climate.
On April 28, 2008, British Meteorologist Stephen Wilde wrote:
http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=812
“The alleged link between cosmic ray flux and cloudiness remains to be proved or disproved.
The link between solar cycle length and decadal global temperature changes is obvious throughout all the weather records. It’s not strictly a sunspot issue, it just happens that the longer the solar cycle is the less intense is the sunspot activity and presumably the overall heat output (not necessarily the same as what we artificially term Total Solar Irradiance) during the cycle.
Short fast cycles with many sunspots result in warming. Long slow cycles with fewer sunspots result in cooling.
The mechanism which explains the clear and obvious link has not been ascertained adequately but it [surely has nothing] to do with CO2. It is likely that the El Nino/ La Nina cycle is implicated with a dominance of El Nino resulting in global warming and a dominance of La Nina resulting in global cooling.
The scale of the solar induced natural variability that has been observed over more than 500 years totally swamps any warming effect from human CO2. It is even possible that human cooling influences such as particle emssions and albedo changes from crop growing could offset any human induced warming already. There are no calculations quantifying both warming and cooling human influences so we have no idea what our net influence might be.
It is clear that the late 20th Century warming spell matched the duration of the two shortest, fastest solar cycles in the historical record (21 and 22) At the same time there was a matching sequence of strong El Nino events. These points should not be lightly dismissed. The cooling fears of the 60’s and early 70’s coincided with weak cycle 20 and the cessation of warming occurred during cycle 23, which has been weaker than the two cycles before it.
On balance the evidence shows that solar is more likely the cause than CO2 but the issue can soon be resolved by observing the global temperature changes that occur as a result of the extended cycle 23 and the probable weak cycle 24.”
Well, let’s see how close Wilde came.
The two “shortest, fastest solar cycles in the historical record (21 and 22)” did indeed coincide with the period of most rapid warming; this rate has slowed down over cycle 23 and has reversed sharply with the onset of extremely inactive cycle 24.
Wilde goes on to write:
“If we now get a period of natural cooling it might well last several decades. There has been a gradual background and wholly natural warming trend since the end of the Little Ice Age. Of course it is all a matter of trends over time periods. You can ‘prove’ any trend you require by choosing the right time scale. What matters is the scale of human influences either towards cooling or towards warming as against the underlying trend behind natural variability. It really is an unknown quantity. Even the scale and trend behind natural variability is subject to an unknown number of overlapping cycles from multiple causes many of which are unknown, unquantified or both.
Making policy decisions on the basis of current knowledge (and in the light of recent observations) would be wholly irresponsible. Using food for biofuel production should be a crime and yet that is the single most influential result of global warming alarmism so far. Just the start of the potentially murderous cycle of bad policy decisions that are likely to be based on a false premise.”
Regards,
Max
Max,
To answer you last question first, I would say that there is little real disagreement between solar and other climatic scientists. Its your interpretation that I might have a problem with!
For instance in this paper by Usokin et al , (often referenced by sceptics)
http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf
The authors conclude by saying “during these last 30 years, the total solar irradiance, solar UV irradiance, and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so at least this recent warming must have another source.”
It doesn’t make any sense to say, as you have done, that if there is a climate forcing of 1W/m^2 that there is a rise in temperature of 0.28K for a CO2 forcing but that it could be as high as 0.89K for a solar forcing.
That is not to say there is universal agreement on the exact value of this parameter. It depends on the feedbacks of course. But, there is universal agreement that it doesn’t vary between types of forcing.
Are there any solar scientists saying otherwise? I don’t think so.
So, unless you think you have a ‘higher level of scientific understanding’ it doesn’t make any sense to chop and change from one value to another. Unless, that is, you are motivated more by a desire to fool yourself and as many others as possible, rather than a genuine desire to understand the science.
Hi Peter,
Somehow it appears that this message did not get through, so I will resend. Then I will respond to your latest post, which may have become redundant as a result of our crossing posts.
You asked me, “So I’ll just ask you to answer a simple question. What is your suggested value for climate sensistivity? Is it 0.18K/W/m^2 or nearer 0.86K/W/m^2 ?”
Let’s see if we can address your somewhat hypothetical question from the standpoint of physically observed facts, rather than just plain theory.
Solar scientists have shown that there has been an increase in global temperature since the Maunder minimum that tracks fairly well with the sunspot cycle and other measures of solar activity. This warming represents around 0.51C since the Maunder minimum. At the same time the measurable portion of solar irradiance has shown a long-term increase of 0.24%. The greatest part of this increase occurred long before there was any appreciable impact from human CO2 emissions.
Another study tells us that solar forcing has caused the following warming over the 20th century:
1901-1950: 0.22K (before there was any appreciable human CO2)
1951-2000: 0.13K
1901-2000: 0.35K
The total warming observed over the 20th century (Hadley) was:
1901-2000: 0.65K
Yet another study has shown us that there is an apparent link between solar activity and oceanic oscillations, such as NAO, PDO and ENSO cycles. The mechanism for this link is not yet clear, however.
Warming El Niños were more prevalent in the latter part of the 20th Century than in the earlier part:
1901-1972: 5 El Niños in 72 years
1973-2000: 5 El Niños in 28 years (including the strong 1997/98 event that resulted in 20th century record 1998 temperature)
Information from NOAA on the impact of El Niño events on global sea temperatures from 1973 to 2000 tell us that this impact resulted in an increase of around 0.2C in the linear warming trend over this period.
At the same time we have good records on atmospheric CO2 starting in 1958 (Mauna Loa), a more shaky estimate by IPCC based on ice core data prior to 1958, the Hadley record of “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature” (with all its UHI distortions, variance adjustments, ex post facto “corrections”, etc. – but “it’s the best we have”).
So we have several pieces of the puzzle. What have these physical observations told us?
First, that a long-term increase in measured solar irradiance of 0.24% (or 3.27 W/m^2) resulted in 0.51C warming.
Second, that it is apparent from the actual physical observations that something else is going on that we have not been able to capture by measuring changes in solar irradiance alone. The physically observed facts tell us that temperature has changed along with solar activity over several centuries (long before significant human CO2 emissions), but we cannot explain this by only the measurable portion of solar irradiance.
The data have enabled solar scientists to develop an empirical relationship between physically observed solar activity and physically observed global temperature change over long-term time periods. These range from an impact of 0.3 to 1.4 K/W/m^2, with an average value of 0.85 K/W/m^2.
I hope this answers your question.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You just wrote: “To answer your last question first, I would say that there is little real disagreement between solar and other climatic scientists. Its your interpretation that I might have a problem with!”
I’m afraid you’ve already started off with a bit of a waffle.
My question to you was, “Do you believe that you, Peter Martin, have a ‘higher level of scientific understanding’ of the impact of solar changes on our planet’s climate than all these many solar scientists, who all have agreed that the sun is responsible for around 0.35C of the totally observed 20th century global warming of 0.65C?”
You waffled around this question a bit, but I am assuming you meant to agree that you do not “have a ‘higher level of scientific understanding’ of the impact of solar changes on our planet’s climate than all these many solar scientists, who all have agreed that the sun is responsible for around 0.35C of the totally observed 20th century global warming of 0.65C”.
Let’s analyze your statement more closely.
You say you agree with studies by solar scientists on solar warming.
Solar scientists conclude that solar warming over 20th century was (on average) 0.35C. (Please refer to the many studies I have cited).
Based on actual long-term physical observations, these scientists show that solar irradiance alone is not the only solar forcing factor. While mechanisms have been proposed for the remaining observed solar warming, they are yet to be proven. But the fact remains that the solar warming has been physically observed.
The University of Leeds (which you have said you like to use as a reference) comes in on the low end of the range at 0.26C.
If you say “that there is little real disagreement between solar and other climatic scientists”, then you are saying that these “other climatic scientists” also agree with the estimates by these solar scientists.
Great!
We have AGREEMENT (finally!).
To make sure we both are on the same wave length, let’s repeat what we have agreed.
Several studies by solar experts conclude that the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity (the highest in 11,000 years) has resulted in global warming of around 0.35C over the 20th century.
The Hadley record of “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature” shows that total warming from 1850 to 2008 was 0.65C. This was also the total warming measured by Hadley over the 20th century, i.e. from 1901 to 2000.
This leaves 0.3C warming from CO2 and all other causes over this period. Let’s ignore “all other causes”.
Using the atmospheric CO2 record from IPCC (estimates based on Vostok ice core to 1958, and Mauna Loa after 1958), we can confirm the IPCC estimate of 1.6 W/m^2 for the change in human GHGs (including CO2) from “pre-industrial” 1750 to 2005. Adjusting this slightly for the slightly different starting and end points, this gives us a good check compared to the actually observed 0.3C warming from CO2 over this period.
Voila! Ain’t AGREEMENT wonderful?
“Unless, that is, you are motivated more by a desire to fool yourself and as many others as possible, rather than a genuine desire to understand the science.”
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Here is a simple explanation from British Meteorologist, Stephen Wilde, that may help you better understand the concept of solar climate forcing and the oversimplified approach taken by IPCC resulting from its admitted “low level of scientific understanding” of this complex subject.
http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=928
Wilde points out (as the many studies by solar experts which I cited confirm) that solar forcing has played a major role in our planet’s climate, which goes beyond simply considering the impact of measurable solar irradiance.
FAILURE OF IPCC TO PROPERLY CONSIDER SOLAR INFLUENCE
As I understand it the solar effect on climate has been discounted by the climate modellers because the variation in total solar irradiance between the peak and the trough of a single eleven year (approximately) solar cycle seems far too small to make any difference to global temperature.
There are a number of problems with their assumption as follows:-
The concept of total solar irradiance is purely a convenient construct. We do not know all the different mechanisms by which the sun can have an influence on global temperature either directly or indirectly. The use of the word “total” is therefore misleading. Even the concept of irradiance is vague and maybe incomplete.
The fact is that in the real observed world over centuries cooler weather has been seen to occur at a similar time to longer less active solar cycles and warmer weather similarly occurs with shorter more active solar cycles. If total solar irradiance does not seem to account for it that is no reason to ignore the phenomenon yet the modellers and the IPCC do so. I assume that the reason they ignore it is because, being unaware of the cause of the observed phenomenon, they have no numbers representing it to feed into the models. Their model output should therefore be qualified by an admission that at least one substantial observable real world phenomenon has been wholly omitted. Unfortunately for them that would render the models useless for policy making purposes.
The IPCC and the modellers do recently seem to have come to accept the influence of the EL NINO/ LA NINA cycle as a warming/cooling process. However they currently regard it as a purely redistributive mechanism rather than one which could actually be part of a driving mechanism. They would be in error if variations in solar energy input to the Earth operated a switch between the predominance over time of either EL NINO or LA NINA.
The variation between peaks and troughs in the solar cycle may be very small but if continued over long periods the effects could soon accumulate. If, say, the difference is only 1% then if a reduction or increase in incoming solar energy continues for many years, perhaps over several solar cycles, then it is the cumulative effect that should be considered and that could well be substantial over a number of decades.
There could also be other unknown mechanisms driven by solar changes that exaggerate the effect of small variations in total solar irradiance. A current possibility being investigated is a suggested link between cosmic ray flux and cloudiness. The flux varies depending on the energy from the sun and may drive cloudiness changes.
It is possible that over the millennia the earth has become a very accurate “thermometer” in terms of its reaction to solar heat or other forms of solar energy input. The entirety of the global heat budget may be very sensitive to solar changes. Over millions of years the earth has arrived at a temperature balanced between incoming solar energy and outgoing radiation of energy to space. The balance could well be much finer than we have so far realised. There are certainly no available figures that describe the sensitivity of the global temperature to variations in solar input and without knowing that level of sensitivity as a first step I fail to see how we can know anything useful about the sensitivity of the Earth to other influences.
(end of article)
Hope this gives you a bit of enhanced insight into the importance of our sun in determining our planet’s climate.
Regards,
Max
Max,
Can’t you find a paper with some scientific acceptance?. Wilde is just saying that the solar influence “goes beyond simply considering the impact of measurable solar irradiance” simply because what can be measured is nowhere near enough to explain the warming! It’s just like saying the force of telekinesis goes beyond what can be measured. Otherwise the spoons wouldn’t bend.
No one is underestimating the power of the sun. Its massive. If it didn’t exist, neither would we. In fact the increased heat that we experience from GHG accumulation did originate in the sun too. We all know that.
The question is: Is recent global warming possible due to the variation or increase in TSI? The opinion of many solar scientists is that there is reasonable correlation up to about 1970 with solar irradiance but not afterwards.
You yourself have referenced Wilson with a figure of 1.65W/m^2 for the 20th century increase in TSI. Lean has proposed a figure of 3.2W/m^2 for the increase since 1800.
These have to be scaled by a factor of 0.25 (ratio of cross sectional area to area of shere) x 0.7 (earth’s albedo) = 0.175 to obtain the climate forcing on the earth. This is simple straightforward stuff. In no way controversial! Check with Lindzen or Spencer or anyone else if you don’t believe me!
This would give a climate forcing figure, for solar variation, of 0.28W/m^2 for the 19th century and another 0.29W/m^2 for the 20th century.
You yourself have used a figure of 1.66W/m^2 for the climate forcing of CO2 since pre-industrial levels.
So even on your own chosen references I can’t see why you are having the problem that you are.
Hi Peter,
Your latest ramble has again missed the point entirely. The Wilde report was simply some background information to help you better understand the conclusions of the many serious scientific studies, which concluded on average that the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity (the highest in 11,000 years!) resulted in about 0.35C global warming over this long-term period.
These are the reports that you should be attacking (not the Wilde report).
But it has become very apparent that you are unable to refute these many reports, so you try to fog up the issue with all sorts of irrelevant side tracks, asking for new “calculations”, questioning “solar impact estimates”. etc.
You ask, “The question is: Is recent global warming possible due to the variation or increase in TSI? The opinion of many solar scientists is that there is reasonable correlation up to about 1970 with solar irradiance but not afterwards.”
TSI is only a part of the equation here, as the solar experts have all concluded. These scientists also concluded that the portion of the total warming attributable to solar effects was lower in the period 1970-1995 than during previous periods, as you write, but we are talking about the long-term impact, not a short “blip” in the record.
Peter, give up.
You have been unable to refute the evidence I brought forth. You have not even tried.
I’m really tired of continuing this discussion with you.
If you want to bring evidence to directly refute the many studies I cited, then we can continue our discussion.
If you want to dance around the issue with silly and irrelevant waffles, go ahead.
But count me out.
Regards,
Max
Max,
If you have some ‘serious scientific studies’ to discuss, and which would make a welcome change, why not reference them directly instead of via some drivel on “co2sceptics.com” ?
You’ll find that if you apply the same methods to CO2 concentrations, as the solar scientists do to changes in TSI, that you’ll end up with degrees of warming which are very much in line with IPCC projections. You’ll get more accustomed to the idea of positive feedbacks too!
Hi Peter,
You are either being extremely stupid or a bit naughty when you write: “If you have some ’serious scientific studies’ to discuss, and which would make a welcome change, why not reference them directly instead of via some drivel on “co2sceptics.com”
I have given you the link to 10 or more ’serious scientific studies’ on this site a long time ago.
Do you want me to repeat this?
You have obviously seen these studies, because you made a quote from one of them (Usoskin) about post-1970 warming.
So I must conclude that you are either waffling, lying and dodging or you suffer from short term memory loss. Which is it, Peter?
Are you a liar, a fool or are you suffering from dementia?
Help me understand your bizarre behavior.
Regards,
Max
You’ll remember (post 4211) that James Hansen has been issuing apocalyptic warnings to the UK:
Well, this (Windmills flap helplessly as coal remains king) from The Times makes interesting reading in that context. An extract:
I’ll repeat my comment (4284) to Hansen:
And the article provides yet further evidence (see the Spiegel Online story at 4144) that carbon credits are proving to be counter productive. I wonder if anyone is telling Obama?
Max,
Maybe I’m being a bit cruel to you because I’m asking you questions which you obviously haven’t a clue about, which is why you have to resort to putting up so much flak.
I’ll try once again. Can you tell me why its OK for Lean and Landscheidt to use climate sensitivity figures of around 0.85K/W/m^2 ?
Didn’t you realise that these figures are unjustifiable without the use of positive feedback?
I’m not saying that the solar guys are incorrect. But I’m just a bit puzzled that you haven’t objected to their incorporation of positive feedback in their models in the same way you’ve objected to its use elsewhere.
I can only assume that you didn’t understand that’s what they were doing. I’m sure you wouldn’t have tolerated double standards for a single moment :-)
A footnote to my 4310.
Brute and JZ: I understand that Hansen is a US public employee – is that correct? I’m not sure what he’s employed to do but I doubt if it’s to travel the world issuing apocalyptic warnings. Who authorises this use of US taxpayers’ money?
re:4311
Peter, reading back it looks like that figure comes from post 4303.
“The data have enabled solar scientists to develop an empirical relationship between physically observed solar activity and physically observed global temperature change over long-term time periods. These range from an impact of 0.3 to 1.4 K/W/m^2, with an average value of 0.85 K/W/m^2.”
Making it a convienient “for the sake of arguement” average for solar forcing, not climate sensitivity. Apologies for my denseness if i’m wrong.
As an observer of the discussion rather than an active participant, i’m inclined to think that you’ve started trolling rather than adding anything meaningful to the discussion.
Hi Peter,
In your last repartee (4311) you wrote: “Maybe I’m being a bit cruel to you because I’m asking you questions which you obviously haven’t a clue about, which is why you have to resort to putting up so much flak.
I’ll try once again. Can you tell me why its OK for Lean and Landscheidt to use climate sensitivity figures of around 0.85K/W/m^2 ?”
Now, Peter, I will ignore your silly comments about “being cruel”, “obviously haven’t a clue” and “putting up flak”, and stick with the facts, being as patient with you as I possibly can.
While much of this has already been pointed out, you have apparently been unable (or unwilling?) to grasp its significance, so I will try to explain as succinctly as possible “why it’s OK for Lean and Landscheidt” to arrive at solar warming that is several times that, which would be calculated using the theoretical forcing from solar irradiance alone.
Our discussion here on the impact of the sun on our planet’s warming trend has basically been the debate between
· someone who firmly believes in the power of actual physical observations, rather than just theoretical calculations (me) and
· someone who places his faith entirely on theoretical calculations, computer model outputs, etc., even when these are directly contradicted by the actual physical observations (you).
Based on actual long-term physical observations of increasing solar activity (0.24% since the Maunder minimum in 1790-1840) and observed global warming (0.51C over this period), solar scientists have developed an empirical relationship between solar activity and global temperature.
Several solar scientists have calculated that the physically observed unusually high level of 20th century solar activity (the highest in 11,000 years!) has resulted in around 0.35C of the observed warming over the 20th century (on average).
The University of Leeds (which you like to use as a reference) puts this at the lower end of the range at 0.26C.
One measure of a portion of the solar activity is “direct solar irradiance”. It represents around one-fifth of the actually observed warming from increased solar activity.
While conceding that their “level of scientific understanding” of solar forcing is “low”, IPCC uses the theoretical approach of basing its estimate on the solar influence on temperature on this one factor alone, ignoring the overall observed warming prior to significant human CO2 emissions, thereby concluding that the solar forcing (and temperature impact) since pre-industrial times (1750) was negligible. You fall into the same trap with your theoretical climate sensitivity calculation. This is the basis for your misguided question above.
Peter, this is just one of several examples where you (and IPCC) ignore actual physical observations and replace these with theoretical calculations or GIGO computer model simulations.
I will name two more here:
Cloud feedbacks are assumed by all IPCC models to be strongly positive, although several studies have pointed out prior to IPCC AR4 that there is significant doubt as to whether they are, in fact, positive or negative. Most recent studies (published after IPCC AR4) by Spencer et al. show, based on actual physical observations that they are strongly negative. You prefer to stick with the old, “pre-Spencer” theoretical model assumptions rather than accept the actual physical observations on cloud feedbacks.
IPCC assumes that water vapor content will increase with warming temperature to maintain constant relative humidity, following the theory of the Clausius-Clapeyron equation. Actual physical observations have shown that the relative humidity does not remain constant with increased temperature, but decreases. This results in a much lower physically observed feedback from water vapor than the one assumed by IPCC, based on the theoretical calculation.
Together, these examples turn a modest greenhouse warming of a fraction of one degree C to be expected from increased CO2 over the 21st century, based on actual physical observations, to a theoretical, computer-model generated projection of exaggerated, alarming warming of several degrees C.
Peter, this is s basic problem of all the IPCC model forecasts. They are based on theoretical assumptions that are far removed from the reality of physical observations. And, unfortunately for the credibility of the IPCC, they all go in the direction of making an AGW “mountain out of a molehill”.
The solar example is just one of many.
I hope this has finally cleared this all up in your mind.
Regards,
Max
Peter
Barelysane (4313) has got it right the first time around!
The observed warming and the observed increase in solar activity over the same long-term period have enabled solar scientists to arrive at an empirical relationship between observed changes in solar activity and observed changes in global temperature.
Let’s see if you are as astute as he is.
Regards,
Max
Max,
It still strikes me that you are still running with double standards.
Lets take this very simply, step by step, so we can all follow it. Hopefully you won’t find it too silly a calculation!
You are saying that a 0.24% increase in solar irradiance has caused an increase in temperature of 0.51 degC over a period of a couple of centuries.
Total Solar irradiance is approx 1365 W/m^2.
Therefore 0.24% = 3.28W/m^2
Sacle this by the factor of 0.175 as explained previously. We get 0.57W/m^2 of climate forcing
The climate forcing that you have referenced for a doubling of CO2 is 3.7W/m^2
So, if a forcing of 0.57W/m^2 causes a temperature rise of 0.51 deg C
Therefore, we expect 3.7W/m^2 of climate forcing, from a doubling of CO2, to produce a temperature rise of 3.3 degC.
You’ve always complained that the IPCC has relied too much on computer models. It seems that solar science has made an important contribution in providing measured evidence that the fundamentals of the scientific case are indeed correct.
Maybe you could ask Prof Lindzen to check out the above argument and give his considered opinion.
Gee. It seems that the satellite that measures sea ice extent has been busted for 45 days before any of those “diligent” government employees happened to notice.
NSIDC: satellite sea ice sensor has “catastrophic failure” – data faulty for the last 45 or more days
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/18/nsidc-satellite-sea-ice-sensor-has-catastrophic-failure-data-faulty-for-the-last-45-days/#comment-86972
Hi Peter,
You write: “Lets take this very simply, step by step, so we can all follow it. Hopefully you won’t find it too silly a calculation!”
And then you make a “silly calculation”, using solar irradiance alone as the only solar forcing factor, ignoring the fact that actual long-term physical observations show a much higher solar impact on temperature than just that portion attributable to solar irradiance.
Let’s examine your logic here.
The physically observed long-term correlation between solar activity and global temperature has held up well for several hundred years, but it is being questioned because it appears not to show a good correlation since around 1985 (at least until around 2005).
Lean et al. showed how this correlation has held up starting in 1610.
http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/lean1995.pdf
Figure 4 of the Lean et al. study shows this correlation graphically.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3377/3294065720_36b7346e5a_o.jpg
The authors state:
“From 1610 to 1800 the correlation of surface temperature with solar irradiance is 0.86, suggesting a predominant solar influence during this pre-industrial period”.
“Extending the relationship between surface temperature anomalies and solar irradiance to the present yields a solar induced warming of 0.51°C since the Maunder Minimum, in surprisingly good agreement with the NH equilibrium surface temperature change of 0.49°C simulated by the Goddard Institute Space Studies general circulation climate model.”
“Since 1860 about half of the observed 0.55°C surface warming is attributable to direct solar forcing, according to our simple pre-industrial parameterization. But 0.36°C of this warming has occurred since 1970, and solar forcing can account for only 0.11°C (less than a third) of this.”
So, in summary, we have a robust correlation between changes in solar activity and changes in temperature over the long-term pre-industrial period, a good correlation for forcing from both solar and GHGs over the ensuing period, with factors other than solar accounting for a large part of the observed post-1970 warming.
The correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature has an even greater problem, as I showed you in previous posts, if one looks at multi-decadal cycles within the overall record. It only shows a robust correlation between around 1976 and 2000, but no apparent correlation over earlier warming and cooling periods, or over the most recent 8-10 years.
But as you pointed out to me many times when I raised this point on the CO2/temperature correlation, one has to look at the overall long-term record. You have convinced me that this makes sense.
As the studies show, the long-term trend shows a very strong observed link between solar activity and global temperature, enabling solar scientists to come up with a robust empirical correlation between changes in solar activity and resulting changes in global temperature.
This is quite similar to the “climate sensitivity” approach used by IPCC, in order to come up with a theoretical link between changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration and changes in global temperature, applying the concept of “radiative forcing” based on the application of the greenhouse theory.
Using both relationships, one arrives at roughly half of the observed 0.65C warming from 1850 to 2008 attributable to change in solar activity (0.35C) and roughly half attributable to anthropogenic warming (0.3C).
This fits both of the above approaches.
I would not argue that one approach is more valid than the other.
Would you?
If so, what would be your basis?
Regards,
Max
Hi Brute,
Very interesting.
“Find the missing 500,000 square km of sea ice”
Just checked the NSIDC site. They have not yet corrected the December 2008 and January 2009 figures.
Let’s see what they come up with.
Peter will be happy about all this new ice!
Regards,
Max
Common mistake Max……overlooking half a million suare miles of ice happens all the time.
I do know this; if I “overlooked” or made a mistake in accounting for half a million of anything, I’d be looking for employment elsewhere.
Not with these guys….
Hi Peter,
I’ve posted you a response to your latest post with some attachments for your edification and continued education. May take a while to pass the filter.
Mrs. Max and I are headed for a one-week vacation at the beach, so will tune in again end-February.
Regards,
Max
Hi Max,
Well it shouldn’t be too hard to get it through the Spam filter. You might not want to admit it, but you know I’m right, and all you have to do is say so!
You’be be better to latching on to Cosmic rays or some other pseudoscience because there just isn’t anything in the solar papers which contradicts what the mainstream climate scientists are saying.
On the contrary and as I’ve shown, they are confirming it. It all fits together quite neatly.
Enjoy your holiday!
Peter Martin,
You may have noticed that several of us here have mused what motivates some of your bizarre posts here. Max and me have likened it to fundamentalist or religious dogma, or among other possibilities; maybe senile dementia, but really it is a big puzzle to us.
I’m always interested in body language. Any chance you could post a few photo’s of yourself, including at least one of you smiling in the mood you possess when you blog-post?
Barelysane wrote in part in his 4313:
Having observed in the past that you can be a bit slow in the uptake of things, here is the blogosphere definition of ‘troll’ (verb i, per MS dictionary)
“7. vi online: fool Internet user into responding: to lure other Internet users into sending responses to carefully designed incorrect statements”
Bob_FJ,
You can probably find a pic of me on Facebook if you really need to take a look. But I must say that your request is a bit rich considering that you hide behind a false name.
Max has come really unstuck with his line of argument on solar irradiance. He jumped to the conclusion that the change in solar irradiance was the same as the climate forcing. Big mistake!
I must say Max is the one that puzzles me. He’s prepared to delve into the science rather than railing against just Al Gore as if AGW was all his fault. I do believe he’s capabale of seeing that the scientific case is OK. Deep down he must know that it is, but can’t bring himself to accept it.
Max does use his real name, though, which is much to his credit.
I’m glad to see the sun on these pages since it hasn’t been outside my window for a while. The debate you’re having on solar is interesting and, to start with, let’s be quite clear this issue is another one where the film “GGW Swindle” did lie or mislead. There is clearly still major uncertainty as the IPPC admits.
I was doing some research of my own because I had read that Sir William Herschel had tried to link wheat prices to solar cycles, and then much later Jevons (the economist) tried to link the whole business cycle to the sun. Both were laughed out by their respected institutions and even today, the term “sunspots” is used by some economists to describe an arbitrary, observable exogenous variable which has no impact on the system.
Whilst doing this research I came across a PhD thesis, “Solar Activity and Recent Climate Change: Evaluating the impact of geomagnetic activity on atmospheric circulation” from 2003 in the front of which the author enigmatically quoted Reid (1999)
“Realization of a potential impact of solar variability on our local environment has progressed a long way in the last few decades, from denial to partial acceptance, but a complete assessment of its reality and magnitude remains a distant goal.”
And in the actual PhD text he said:
“Part of the uncertainty associated with solar-climate relationships relates to the incorrect assumption, on the part of both researchers and critics, that solar variability can be parameterized solely by the sunspot cycle. Many solar phenomena are, however, better characterized by other solar indices such as geomagnetic activity.”
I got in touch with him and he came back with a few other snippets but had taken a teaching post linked to other areas of physics.
Anyhow then the TGW Swindle did its bit and there was the famous riposte to all the solar nuts from Lockwood and Frohlich which means that Peter has an ally since Lockwood is in the warmer camp. (I’m aware there was a reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich from Svensmark and Friis-Christensen).
The L&F paper Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature which concluded:
There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.
This was a real shock to me since I had studied climate change in the late 80s on a chemistry degree when it was supposedly already well on the way.
Lockwood and Fröhlich also stated that
“The thermal capacity of the Earth’s oceans is large and this will tend to smooth out decadalscale (and hence solar cycle) variations in global temperatures, but this is not true of centennial variations”
And yet there is still massive debate over what drives El Nino and the various other ocean oscillations (including trade winds, but what drives these?) (The PhD linked to the QBO quite a lot)
Finally, I hope that you’ve all read the very lengthy threads on climateaudit where Leif Svalgaard has shown enormous stamina. Whilst skeptical of some claims of the warmers, I think he takes there view that there must be a missing piece in the solar-climate puzzle if it is to be linked to the magnitude that is being measured by the “highly accurate” :-) temperature records. He also has his own revised version of the Lean etc curves which don’t bottom out as much.
You can also find more at at Leif’s Research Page at
http://www.leif.org/research/
Hope this hasn’t all been covered previously.
Have a good weekend.