All things Solar

[BethesdaWX]

The planet will radiate to space at a peak wavelength of light (IR) indicitive of it's average temperature. This is demonstrated by the Planck Law which relates wavelength to temperature. We can accurately determine the temperature of stars and planets by this relationship.

Agree, of course. But what needs to be focused on in terms of our GHE is TOTAL ENERGY in the climate system, not total THERMAL energy, since the Earth indeed has an atmosphere.

Since the Earth recieves a measurable amount of radiative energy from the Sun and we know the planet's albedo we can determine by means of the Stephan-Boltzmann Equation it's gray body temperature to be 255 Kelvins. As viewed from the perspective of outer space this is the temperature of the Earth. The 255K temperature is coming from a average height in the atmosphere of about 16,000', rather than from the surface. The surface is at 288K, or 33K warmer as a result of the greenhouse effect.

Agree somewhat, but aside from relative effectivity within the atmospheric window, equations in the Earth derived as a greybody or blackbody, with or without GHE, etc, are two different things regarding total energy present, electric, kinetic, and thermal, and the thresholds at which feedbacks and modes of transfer activate and/or de-activate. The total W/m^2 that CO2 has forced would have a much higher thermal impact if there were no kinetic or electric energy present, much of the forcing is going into kinetic form, if not most, as a result of convection and the formation of clouds. You can't make a prediction in temperature variation with the GHE as a mechanism without taking into account TOTAL energy in the climate system, it is silly to just apply thermal energy because what matters is how FAST the additional LW radiation is compensated for, as in, how long equilibrium-restorarion time takes and it ties in directly to the entire energy budget.....it is 6 years. To account for temperature change as a result of an increased GHE, we must determine the addition of energy in kinetic, electric, and thermal form. More kinetic energy = more cloud cover = less thermal energy. Less kinetic energy = less cloud cover = more thermal energy.

CO2 and the rest of the GHE increase kinetic energy over time, there is a mode of balance, more kinetic energy will = less thermal energy, and the property of change is achieved through cloud cover change. CO2 per doubling would indeed force 3.7W/m^2 of RA, no question, but based on the systematic processing that comes into play the stronger the GHE becomes, assuming that it is all the thermal portion of the budget is stupid, the GHE transfers some of the energy from the sun from thermal into kinetic form, that has to be taken into account because without the GHE there would be very little kinetic energy, it would instead be thermal energy that would escape to space much quicker since there would be nothing to slow it's release, but the atmosphere in net form would be warmer. The addition of CO2, forcings and feebacks combined, produce a logorithmic result. Due to transfer, CO2 increase would lead to warmer nighttime temperatures, but would have little to no effect during the day

My textbook physics is a lot more simple than yours, and represents an accurate description of what must take place in the real world of tried and true physics.

In terms of physics and initial total energy, yes. In terms of energy form and mode of transfer + reaction, no they don't.

[GaWx]

There is a chance that today will be declared the first spotless day in over 230 days:

[GaWx]

As blank as the sun appeared yesterday, it wasn't officially called spotless due apparently to some very hard to see specklike activity. Today's has specks I can see. So, I 'd be shocked if today's would be considered spotless. Regardless, the sun's overall activity is pretty weak currently based on both sunspots and flux 10.7. However, I still expect the current cycle's peak to not be until around 2013-4 based on past cycle patterns (i.e., we're just in a big lull) but that obviously remains to be seen. Actually, past weak cycle patterns suggest a somewhat longer period from cycle min. to cycle max. of ~6 years instead of 4-5 years.

[WeatherRusty]

Agree, of course. But what needs to be focused on in terms of our GHE is TOTAL ENERGY in the climate system, not total THERMAL energy, since the Earth indeed has an atmosphere.

Agree somewhat, but aside from relative effectivity within the atmospheric window, equations in the Earth derived as a greybody or blackbody, with or without GHE, etc, are two different things regarding total energy present, electric, kinetic, and thermal, and the thresholds at which feedbacks and modes of transfer activate and/or de-activate. The total W/m^2 that CO2 has forced would have a much higher thermal impact if there were no kinetic or electric energy present, much of the forcing is going into kinetic form, if not most, as a result of convection and the formation of clouds. You can't make a prediction in temperature variation with the GHE as a mechanism without taking into account TOTAL energy in the climate system, it is silly to just apply thermal energy because what matters is how FAST the additional LW radiation is compensated for, as in, how long equilibrium-restorarion time takes and it ties in directly to the entire energy budget.....it is 6 years. To account for temperature change as a result of an increased GHE, we must determine the addition of energy in kinetic, electric, and thermal form. More kinetic energy = more cloud cover = less thermal energy. Less kinetic energy = less cloud cover = more thermal energy.

CO2 and the rest of the GHE increase kinetic energy over time, there is a mode of balance, more kinetic energy will = less thermal energy, and the property of change is achieved through cloud cover change. CO2 per doubling would indeed force 3.7W/m^2 of RA, no question, but based on the systematic processing that comes into play the stronger the GHE becomes, assuming that it is all the thermal portion of the budget is stupid, the GHE transfers some of the energy from the sun from thermal into kinetic form, that has to be taken into account because without the GHE there would be very little kinetic energy, it would instead be thermal energy that would escape to space much quicker since there would be nothing to slow it's release, but the atmosphere in net form would be warmer. The addition of CO2, forcings and feebacks combined, produce a logorithmic result. Due to transfer, CO2 increase would lead to warmer nighttime temperatures, but would have little to no effect during the day

In terms of physics and initial total energy, yes. In terms of energy form and mode of transfer + reaction, no they don't.

Where I come from thermal energy at the molecular level is kinetic energy. You seem to be talking in circles.

BTW, isn't this story presented by Bethesda strangely similar to what Snowlover123 is pushing?

[Snow_Miser]

BTW, isn't this story presented by Bethesda strangely similar to what Snowlover123 is pushing?

That there is a lag between magnetic activity changes and climate, and that magnetic activity impacts climate?

These are basic accepted facts.

[WeatherRusty]

That there is a lag between magnetic activity changes and climate, and that magnetic activity impacts climate?

These are basic accepted facts.

I don't get the causal mechanisms involved, how exactly is this geomag climate change supposed to work? What sort of magnitude of change is likely given this mechanism?

I certainly can not deny some relationship is at work and would be happy to entertain the chain of events which can be scientifically demonstrated to produce a given change in global temperature. I know of evidence whereby changes in the ultraviolet output of the Sun are disproportionate to the overall change in TSI and can affect stratospheric ozone, thus the stratospheric temperature gradient. Telecommunications with the troposphere affecting the greenhouse effect are possible as are structural changes in upper tropospheric winds. This of course could translate to the surface.

I don't dismiss this at all, but how is something like this quantifiable given current scientific knowledge and what range of climate change is thus induced? CO2 forcing is highly quantifiable and it's effect on global temperature can be specified with great certainty, excluding feedbacks.

[ben4vols]

CO2 forcing is highly quantifiable and it's effect on global temperature can be specified with great certainty, excluding feedbacks.

Really? You need to let the IPCC know of this. They could really use your talents in generating some reliable hindcast and projection modeling.

[WeatherRusty]

Really? You need to let the IPCC know of this. They could really use your talents in generating some reliable hindcast and projection modeling.

The IPCC is fully aware of the Planck relationship to a given RADIATIVE forcing. You are implying feedbacks, I am not. You appear not to understand what I am talking about so we will leave it at that.

[turtlehurricane]

The IPCC is fully aware of the Planck relationship to a given RADIATIVE forcing. You are implying feedbacks, I am not. You appear not to understand what I am talking about so we will leave it at that.

You can't exclude feedbacks if you want a realistic result.

[WeatherRusty]

You can't exclude feedbacks if you want a realistic result.

That's true of course, but if we are referring to what starts the ball rolling, which is all CO2 does and what TSI would do, then we are speaking to initial forcing before feedback.

[cmc0605]

It's very trivial to reproduce WeatherRusty's result with perhaps only one piece of knowledge outside basic calculation. There's a lot of good physics that people are transforming into voodoo language concerning magnetic fields, kinetic energy, electrical energy, density, etc; this stuff is important in physics but people are inventing their own language and their own applications which frankly aren't making much sense in this context. Blanket statements such as "More kinetic energy = more cloud cover = less thermal energy. Less kinetic energy = less cloud cover = more thermal energy" really make little sense and are oversimplified to the point of being useless in a climate context. I suspect these differences in how people have been initiated into the subject are hindering progress here.

Simple consideration of Earth's planetary budget is good enough for the "global average" picture of interest as a starting point, since the planet as a whole does not gain or lose heat by non-radiative terms. Those other terms are exchanged between the surface and the atmosphere, and communicated throughout the atmosphere, but all energy used to heat the Earth ultimately derives from the sun and the global temperature is determined by the top of atmosphere fluxes.

Let's write the most simple energy balance equation:

S(1-a)=4εσT^4

where S is the solar constant, a is the albedo, ε is the bulk emissivity of the entire planet, and T is the surface temperature. If we only perturb CO2, then we reduce ε but not the incoming sunlight, so we can take the derivative

0 = 4ε(4σT^3)dT + 4σT^4 dε

Rearranging you can yield,

dT = -T[dε σT^4] / 4εσT^4

where εσT^4 = 240 W/m2

dε σT^4 = -3.7 W/m2 for 2xCO2 (this requires a more complicated calculation, but is a well accepted forcing, e.g., Myhre et al 1998)

T = 288 K

This results in dT ~ 1.1 C for a doubling of CO2.

The only "feedback" assumed here is the increase in radiative flux that brings the system back to equilibrium after a uniform warming of the troposphere.

In reality, other feedbacks modify the efficiency of this Planck restoring effect. For one, in reality the tropics are expected to host a warming upper troposphere that is amplified relative to the surface (i.e., a roughly moist adiabatic adjustment). This increases emission aloft at the expense of the surface warming, and is thus a negative feedback. This is well more than offset by the increase in water vapor in the upper atmosphere. Water vapor decreases the efficiency of the Planck response making it more linear than T^4. Surface albedo responses are relatively local but important, and the chief uncertainty is clouds, in both magnitude and size. There have thus been several decades of research attempting to constrain the range of the "true" dT, which most have as somewhere between ~2-5 C per doubling, the uncertainty depending primarily on the low cloud feedback.

[physicsguy21]

No one is inventing physics, trying to make physical speculation look like science through closed-system physical mathematics just makes bad physics look worse.

No physical equation for doubling carbon ppm will come close to representing reality when the most important and/or contradictive variables are either incorrectly applied or ignored.

That is exactly what you're doing and I don't need to fluff up my post to make my point. You're taking thermal measurements and explaining them with the wrong physical parameters.

A simple way to prove this, by your assertion if we remove greenhouse gases hence all backradiation the oceans will freeze over solid. But the real science says that a net 480Wm2 of input at 1/2 a given absorbency period is by far enough to warm the oceans to present day levels. 480Wm2 is incident to 30C yet the lit 1/2 of the planet in MSAT does not come close.

You're trying to explain a gravity/pressure/capacity induced thermal profile through radiative means. Tuned physics may fit the observations as Ptolemy's solar system model fit observations, but through the wrong means. This is why no hotspot exists without overlapping error bounds in error prone radiosonde measurements. This is why we need to find excuses for 'missing heat', in areas we can't measure, this is why we use OHC data to determine a theoretical imbalance.

[physicsguy21]

I don't get the causal mechanisms involved, how exactly is this geomag climate change supposed to work? What sort of magnitude of change is likely given this mechanism?

I certainly can not deny some relationship is at work and would be happy to entertain the chain of events which can be scientifically demonstrated to produce a given change in global temperature. I know of evidence whereby changes in the ultraviolet output of the Sun are disproportionate to the overall change in TSI and can affect stratospheric ozone, thus the stratospheric temperature gradient. Telecommunications with the troposphere affecting the greenhouse effect are possible as are structural changes in upper tropospheric winds. This of course could translate to the surface.

I don't dismiss this at all, but how is something like this quantifiable given current scientific knowledge and what range of climate change is thus induced? CO2 forcing is highly quantifiable and it's effect on global temperature can be specified with great certainty, excluding feedbacks.

I don't think anyone knows, there are strong correlations without explanations. I don't know much about magnetism but I do know that it isn't related to radiation, so it cannot warm or cool the climate directly.

If it affects climate it is probably done chemically or mechanically. Careful though as some of the largest positive feedbacks known lie in chemical influence

I am currently reading this paper published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. It is interesting.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682610004050

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011JASTP..73.1607M

[turtlehurricane]

This study says fluctuations in stratospheric ozone from the solar cycle are key. Ozone plays a major role in the atmosphere (wouldn't have the stratosphere or tropopause without it!), so this is one of the more plausible ideas I've seen. Apparently the change in ozone warming from the solar cycle significantly changes stratospheric winds and the overall global circulation pattern. The tropics expand during solar max and contract during solar min according to this theory.

http://www.sciencema.../5264/981.short

[WeatherRusty]

It's very trivial to reproduce WeatherRusty's result with perhaps only one piece of knowledge outside basic calculation. There's a lot of good physics that people are transforming into voodoo language concerning magnetic fields, kinetic energy, electrical energy, density, etc; this stuff is important in physics but people are inventing their own language and their own applications which frankly aren't making much sense in this context. Blanket statements such as "More kinetic energy = more cloud cover = less thermal energy. Less kinetic energy = less cloud cover = more thermal energy" really make little sense and are oversimplified to the point of being useless in a climate context. I suspect these differences in how people have been initiated into the subject are hindering progress here.

Simple consideration of Earth's planetary budget is good enough for the "global average" picture of interest as a starting point, since the planet as a whole does not gain or lose heat by non-radiative terms. Those other terms are exchanged between the surface and the atmosphere, and communicated throughout the atmosphere, but all energy used to heat the Earth ultimately derives from the sun and the global temperature is determined by the top of atmosphere fluxes.

Let's write the most simple energy balance equation:

S(1-a)=4εσT^4

where S is the solar constant, a is the albedo, ε is the bulk emissivity of the entire planet, and T is the surface temperature. If we only perturb CO2, then we reduce ε but not the incoming sunlight, so we can take the derivative

0 = 4ε(4σT^3)dT + 4σT^4 dε

Rearranging you can yield,

dT = -T[dε σT^4] / 4εσT^4

where εσT^4 = 240 W/m2

dε σT^4 = -3.7 W/m2 for 2xCO2 (this requires a more complicated calculation, but is a well accepted forcing, e.g., Myhre et al 1998)

T = 288 K

This results in dT ~ 1.1 C for a doubling of CO2.

The only "feedback" assumed here is the increase in radiative flux that brings the system back to equilibrium after a uniform warming of the troposphere.

In reality, other feedbacks modify the efficiency of this Planck restoring effect. For one, in reality the tropics are expected to host a warming upper troposphere that is amplified relative to the surface (i.e., a roughly moist adiabatic adjustment). This increases emission aloft at the expense of the surface warming, and is thus a negative feedback. This is well more than offset by the increase in water vapor in the upper atmosphere. Water vapor decreases the efficiency of the Planck response making it more linear than T^4. Surface albedo responses are relatively local but important, and the chief uncertainty is clouds, in both magnitude and size. There have thus been several decades of research attempting to constrain the range of the "true" dT, which most have as somewhere between ~2-5 C per doubling, the uncertainty depending primarily on the low cloud feedback.

I can't thank you enough for the more thorough and detailed, clearly elucidated explanations you are providing users of this forum with regard to what is the physical basis for AGW. Folks here should be very appreciative of your efforts. That your more detailed discussions just so happen (well not so coincidentally!) to well corroborate the breakdown to layman's language which I attempt to provide should be taken very seriously by those who wish to understand why the 'standard model' of physics says what it does regarding the impact of rising CO2 concentration.

The 'voodoo' physics, the physics on the 'edge' and wild speculation otherwise thrown around in here may have a role to play in fine tuning the results, but the over riding, tried and tested sciences of classical thermodynamics, radiative transfer theory, atom physics and the like are more than sufficient to explain why and to what extent the massive addition of anthropogenic CO2 and other planet scale changes will initiate a significant global warming.

The overall, feedback induced journey toward planetary equilibrium becomes more muddled with uncertainty, but resorting to ancillary 'physics' as a replacement for, or even as a large complimentary factor seem to be nothing more than a diversionary tactic designed to confuse those lacking familiarity with basic, standard physics and how powerfully applicable it all is as the scientific basis for AGW.

Again, thank you for your valuable contributions and I sincerely hope you stick around...although I couldn't blame you if you don't.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I can't thank you enough for the more thorough and detailed, clearly elucidated explanations you are providing users of this forum with regard to what is the physical basis for AGW. Folks here should be very appreciative of your efforts. That your more detailed discussions just so happen (well not so coincidentally!) to well corroborate the breakdown to layman's language which I attempt to provide should be taken very seriously by those who wish to understand why the 'standard model' of physics says what it does regarding the impact of rising CO2 concentration.

The 'voodoo' physics, the physics on the 'edge' and wild speculation otherwise thrown around in here may have a role to play in fine tuning the results, but the over riding, tried and tested sciences of classical thermodynamics, radiative transfer theory, atom physics and the like are more than sufficient to explain why and to what extent the massive addition of anthropogenic CO2 and other planet scale changes will initiate a significant global warming.

The overall, feedback induced journey toward planetary equilibrium becomes more muddled with uncertainty, but resorting to ancillary 'physics' as a replacement for, or even as a large complimentary factor seem to be nothing more than a diversionary tactic designed to confuse those lacking familiarity with basic, standard physics and how powerfully applicable it all is as the scientific basis for AGW.

Again, thank you for your valuable contributions and I sincerely hope you stick around...although I couldn't blame you if you don't.

+1 million. It is very very very refreshing.

[GaWx]

I copied the following from the 2012 Global Temp. thread because I feel the solar influence on global temp.'s deserves more discussion:

And this:

Note the pretty steady cooling from 1880 to 1910. During the period 1875-1915, the sun was fairly quiet sunspotwise vs. the post-Dalton 1835-1875 years. Could the period of global cooling from 1880 through 1910 have largely been an infuence of the then quieter sun? Also, note that there was solid warming 1978-2000. Well, during that time there were three strong sun cylces that had followed a fairly weak sun period from the early 60's to the late 70's. Note the lack of sustained warming during the 1960's and most of the 1970's. This is all just food for thought. I feel that the sun's cyclical influence deserves a seat at the table when discussing the degree of warming from AGW, especially since we may very well be in the quietest sun period in at least 100 years or so. I maintain that there is still a lot unknown with regard to the degree of the sun's influence on global temp.'s. Even the very well respected "WeatherRusty" has admitted in this forum that it is tough to quantify the influence of the cosmic ray cycle on global temp.'s as a result of the supposed increase in the amount of supposedly cooling induced low clouds associated with increased cosmic rays, which result from a quieter sun. (I know that a recent reading seemed to indicate a sig. drop in low cloud cover, which would be counterintuitive being that we're now in a high quantity cosmic ray cycle. I don't know what to make of that.)

IF the sun remains in a relatively quiet phase between now and 2025-3030 like a good number of scientists expect and IF there is a rather distinct trend of global cooling between now and 2030, I'd think that the degree of the sun's influence would raise more and more eyebrows. We'll see. I don't think there's really a question about whether there is AGW. However, I do think that there is a big Q about the % of warming during 1915-2000 that really can be attributed to AGW vs. the more active sun then. The higher the % influence from the sun, the more the cooling potential in the next 20 or so years assuming a continued relatively quiet sun.

(Aside: I currently expect the current sunspot cycle to peak in 2013-4 based on past cycle patterns. Then I'll be looking for the potential of a very low min. during ~2017-21 quite possibly followed by another weak cycle, which would take us to ~2030.)

[WeatherRusty]

I copied the following from the 2012 Global Temp. thread because I feel the solar influence on global temp.'s deserves more discussion:

Note the pretty steady cooling from 1880 to 1910. During the period 1875-1915, the sun was fairly quiet sunspotwise vs. the post-Dalton 1835-1875 years. Could the period of global cooling from 1880 through 1910 have largely been an infuence of the then quieter sun? Also, note that there was solid warming 1978-2000. Well, during that time there were three strong sun cylces that had followed a fairly weak sun period from the early 60's to the late 70's. Note the lack of sustained warming during the 1960's and most of the 1970's. This is all just food for thought. I feel that the sun's cyclical influence deserves a seat at the table when discussing the degree of warming from AGW, especially since we may very well be in the quietest sun period in at least 100 years or so. I maintain that there is still a lot unknown with regard to the degree of the sun's influence on global temp.'s. Even the very well respected "WeatherRusty" has admitted in this forum that it is tough to quantify the influence of the cosmic ray cycle on global temp.'s as a result of the supposed increase in the amount of supposedly cooling induced low clouds associated with increased cosmic rays, which result from a quieter sun. (I know that a recent reading seemed to indicate a sig. drop in low cloud cover, which would be counterintuitive being that we're now in a high quantity cosmic ray cycle. I don't know what to make of that.)

IF the sun remains in a relatively quiet phase between now and 2025-3030 like a good number of scientists expect and IF there is a rather distinct trend of global cooling between now and 2030, I'd think that the degree of the sun's influence would raise more and more eyebrows. We'll see. I don't think there's really a question about whether there is AGW. However, I do think that there is a big Q about the % of warming during 1915-2000 that really can be attributed to AGW vs. the more active sun then. The higher the % influence from the sun, the more the cooling potential in the next 20 or so years assuming a continued relatively quiet sun.

(Aside: I currently expect the current sunspot cycle to peak in 2013-4 based on past cycle patterns. Then I'll be looking for the potential of a very low min. during ~2017-21 quite possibly followed by another weak cycle, which would take us to ~2030.)

There is no lack of ongoing research into the matter concerning a relationship between Galactic Cosmic Rays and low cloud amount as this relates to the magnetic Sun.

Here is a paper detailing a recent disconnect in the apparent correlation.

It is concluded that the observational results presented,

showing several years of disconnect between GCRs and

lower-troposphere global cloudiness, add additional concern

to the cosmic ray–cloud connection hypothesis. In

fact, this has been done in the most dramatic way with the

measurement of record-high levels of GCRs during the

deep, extended quiet period of cycle 23–24, which is accompanied

by record-low levels of lower-troposphere

global cloudiness.

SEE HERE

We know from standard meteorology that cloud amount is considered a feedback to prevailing atmospheric conditions. The solar modulated low cloud hypothesis presents the possibility that cloud amount can also be a derivative of external influence and therefore a cause of climate change rather than merely an emergent characteristic of climate.

[GaWx]

As could be seen in the chart above, there was pretty steady cooling from 1880 to 1910...nearly 1 F (~0.5C). During the period 1875-1915, the sun was fairly quiet sunspotwise vs. the post-Dalton 1835-1875 years as well as the years immediately following this period. Could the period of global cooling from 1880 through 1910 have largely been an infuence of the then quieter sun?

Here is a graph of monthly sunspot activity since 1750 (note the quieter 1880-1910 period vs. both earlier and later):

Here is a link to a table with month by month global land/sea temp. anomalies:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

Here is a link to the Nino 3.4 anomalies (see 2nd table):

http://www.cgd.ucar....limind/TNI_N34/

1880's avg. global temp. was ~-0.1 C. 1880's avg. 3.4 anomaly, incorporating the four month lag "skier" recommends, was -0.8 C (associated with a moderate La Nina peak). 1905's avg. global temp. was ~-0.3 C while its lagged avg. 3.4 anomaly was +1.3 C (associated with a moderate El Nino peak). So, despite 1905 being associated with 4 month lagged 3.4's averaging 2.1 C warmer than 1880, its global avg. temp. was actually 0.2 C cooler than 1880!

Could the quieter sun have been the main cause for this cooler comparison of 1905 to 1880 despite a much warmer Nino 3.4? If not, what could have been the main cause(s)? Was there unusual volcanic activity during that interval that didn't also occur during, say,1870-1880? This is food for thought as I feel the sun's longterm cycles deserve more discussion especially since we might very well be in the early stages of a longterm minimum and 1950-2000 was apparently the most active 50 year period overall in at least several hundred years.

[Snow_Miser]

GaWx is right on the money here. It is the sun whose activity is modulated by the changes in the PDO and AMO that can easily replicate temperature anomalies over the last 150 years.

Cliver et. al 1998

Cliver et. al 1998 also used the Geomagnetic AA Index to estimate the solar contribution to climate change.

Above figure: From Cliver et. al 1998. The AA Index is the dotted line, and the solid line are the temperature anomalies.

They found that 50-100% of the warming could be due to the sun, but it should be noted that this analysis does not include other factors like volcanic activity and anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions when estimating the total contribution. Nonetheless, this study also shows that other studies which do include these factors are only at the lower end of the 50-100% range for the solar contribution over the last 100-150 years. It also supports other studies with a larger solar contribution to climate change because of the remarkable correlation with the AA Index and temperatures.

Scafetta and West 2008

Scafetta and West 2008 adresses the uncertainty raised in the first paper. If a TSI curve that shows an upward trend from Solar Cycle 21 to 22 is used from the ACRIM TSI composite rather than the flat PMOD TSI composite, then a higher contribution from the sun would be needed. The authors find that up to 69% of the variances in temperatures can be explained by solar activity.

The image above from Scafetta and West 2008 shows the divergence between the PMOD and ACRIM TSI datasets, which makes attribution to past climate change even harder. The red curve is the ACRIM TSI composite, the blue curve is the PMOD TSI Composite, and the black curve and green line are the Global Temperature anomalies.

Kilcik et. al 2010

By applying multitaper methods and Pearson test on the surface air temperature and flare index used as a proxy data for possible solar sources of climate-forcing, we investigated the signature of these variables on middle and high latitudes of the Atlantic–Eurasian region (Turkey, Finland, Romania, Ukraine, Cyprus, Israel, Lithuania, and European part of Russia). We considered the temperature and flare index data for the period ranging from January 1975 to the end of December 2005, which covers almost three solar cycles, 21st, 22nd, and 23rd.

We found significant correlations between solar activity and surface air temperature over the 50–60° and 60–70° zones for cycle 22, and for cycle 23, over the 30–40°, 40–50°, and 50–60° zones.

The most pronounced power peaks for surface air temperature found by multitaper method are around 1.2, 1.7, and 2.5 years which were reported earlier for some solar activity indicators. These results support the suggestion that there is signature of solar activity effect on surface air temperature of mid-latitudes.

Mufti and Shah 2011

The abstract and key points read:

A long uninterrupted homogeneous data set on the annual mean Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomaly records as a representative of the Earth's climatic parameter has been analyzed in conjunction with 158 year long time series on the annual sunspot indices, Rz and geomagnetic activity indices, aa for the period 1850–2007. The 11-year and 23-year overlapping means of global (δtg) as well as northern (δtn) and southern (δts) hemispheric SST anomalies reveal significant positive correlation with both Rz and aa indices. Rz, aa and δtg depict a similar trend in their long-term variation and both seem to be on increase after attaining a minimum in the early 20th century (∼1905). Whereas the results on the power spectrum analysis by the Multi-Taper Method (MTM) on δtg, Rz and aa reveal periodicities of ∼79–80 years (Gleissberg's cycle) and ∼9–11 years (Schwabe solar cycle) consistent with earlier findings, MTM spectrum analysis also reveals fast cycles of 3–5 years. A period of ∼4.2 years in aa at 99% confidence level appears recorded in δtg at ∼4.3 years at 90% confidence level. A period of ∼3.6–3.7 years at 99% confidence level found in δtg is correlating with a similar periodic variation in sector structure of Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF). This fast cycle parallelism is new and is supportive of a possible link between the solar-modulated geomagnetic activity and Earth's climatic parameter i.e. SST.

Raspopov et. al 2007 Found that long term trends in solar activity can create SIGNIFICANT temperature changes. A substantial lag can also occur with the sun and the temperature on the Earth, which would refute your earlier logic that just because the sun's irradiance according to PMOD has flatlined, does not bmean that it has not contributed to the recent warming. They also find that recent warming from 1945-2003 matches with expected predictions from a long term increase in solar activity.

From the abstract:

The influence of ∼200-year solar activity variations (de Vries cyclicity) on climatic parameters has been analyzed. Analysis of palaeoclimatic data from different regions of the Earth for the last millennium has shown that ∼200-year variations in solar activity give rise to a pronounced climatic response. Owing to a nonlinear character of the processes in the atmosphere–ocean system and the inertia of this system, the climatic response to the global influence of solar activity variations has been found to have a regional character. The regions where the climatic response to long-term solar activity variations is stable and the regions where the climatic response is unstable, both in time and space, have been revealed. It has also been found that a considerable lag of the climatic response and reversal of its sign with respect to the solar signal can occur. Comparison of the obtained results with the simulation predictions of the atmosphere–ocean system response to long-term solar irradiance variations (T > 40 years) has shown that there is a good agreement between experimental and simulation results.

[PhillipS]

As could be seen in the chart above, there was pretty steady cooling from 1880 to 1910...nearly 1 F (~0.5C). During the period 1875-1915, the sun was fairly quiet sunspotwise vs. the post-Dalton 1835-1875 years as well as the years immediately following this period. Could the period of global cooling from 1880 through 1910 have largely been an infuence of the then quieter sun?

Here is a graph of monthly sunspot activity since 1750 (note the quieter 1880-1910 period vs. both earlier and later):

Here is a link to a table with month by month global land/sea temp. anomalies:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

Here is a link to the Nino 3.4 anomalies (see 2nd table):

http://www.cgd.ucar....limind/TNI_N34/

1880's avg. global temp. was ~-0.1 C. 1880's avg. 3.4 anomaly, incorporating the four month lag "skier" recommends, was -0.8 C (associated with a moderate La Nina peak). 1905's avg. global temp. was ~-0.3 C while its lagged avg. 3.4 anomaly was +1.3 C (associated with a moderate El Nino peak). So, despite 1905 being associated with 4 month lagged 3.4's averaging 2.1 C warmer than 1880, its global avg. temp. was actually 0.2 C cooler than 1880!

Could the quieter sun have been the main cause for this cooler comparison of 1905 to 1880 despite a much warmer Nino 3.4? If not, what could have been the main cause(s)? Was there unusual volcanic activity during that interval that didn't also occur during, say,1870-1880? This is food for thought as I feel the sun's longterm cycles deserve more discussion especially since we might very well be in the early stages of a longterm minimum and 1950-2000 was apparently the most active 50 year period overall in at least several hundred years.

While I agree that the Sun's variability has an effect on the Earth's climate, I don't feel that its effect is as great as you seem to believe. The figure I've seen a number of times is that the difference in global temps between a solar min and a solar max is about 0.1 C.

Bart Verheggen has a column on the Sun and global climate. (Yes, I know that it is a blog post and not peer-reviewed research, but it links to the underlying peer-reviewed research so it's worth a read anyway.) Here is one of the charts:

The correlation between sunspots and global temps looked rather impressive for much of the record, but they've headed in opposite directions in recent years. Bummer. Here are the conclusions from the column:

So what does this tell us? Of course changes in the sun affect our climate (coherence check: This implies a certain degree of determinism). Low solar activity (e.g. during the Maunder and the Dalton minima) played a role in the so called

‘little ice age’

. In the beginning of the 20th century solar activity increased, which contributed to the warming (together with greenhouse gases and a lack of volcanic activity). However, since the

solar output (including cosmic rays) remained steady (or even decreased a bit) since the 1950′s

, it doesn’t seem very likely that the sun contributed to the recent increase in temperatures since the 1970′s. The little ice age ended (~1850) long before the recent warming started (~1975), so no causal relation there either.

The main reasons that disqualify the sun as being a major culprit in recent global warming are:

• No increase in solar output (or decrease in cosmic rays) over the past 50 years

• Nighttime temperatures increased more than daytime (inconsistent with solar forcing; consistent with GHG forcing)

• Stratospheric cooling (inconsistent with solar forcing; consistent with GHG forcing)

[Snow_Miser]

The main reasons that disqualify the sun as being a major culprit in recent global warming are:

• No increase in solar output (or decrease in cosmic rays) over the past 50 years

• Nighttime temperatures increased more than daytime (inconsistent with solar forcing; consistent with GHG forcing)

• Stratospheric cooling (inconsistent with solar forcing; consistent with GHG forcing)

Wrong on all counts.

Whether there has been an increase or decrease in TSI over the last 50 years is still currently open for debate.

There has been a decrease in Cosmic Rays, and an increase in all other solar variables, other than TSI.

This figure from Dorman 2012 above combines the global temperature anomalies to the Cosmic Ray Flux (CRF) from 1937-1994. There is a very good correspondance between the two variables, suggesting that Cosmic Rays (modulated by solar activity) play a large and dominant role in current climate change.

The SSN is a poor indicator to use for quantifying the solar impact, since it does not include all of the aspects of the geomagnetic activity from the sun.

Using the geomagnetic AA Index instead of the SSN gives a better approximation of solar activity than the SSN, since it accounts for all of the sun's magnetic activity changes.

When you do so, the Global temperature is highly correlated (r^2=0.85) to temperature changes.

"We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes

in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using

this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming

in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all

solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period

for which we have data."

Urbanization can primarily be responsible (as well as warming oceans) for the negative trend in the DTR observed in most weather stations.

Fall et. al 2011 finds that in the CRN 5 weather stations, there is a significant decrease in the DTR range. Keep in mind that the CRN 5 stations are the worst quality stations, with many of them being impacted by urbanization.

The graph above shows the trends in the diurnal temperature range for each type of weather station. There is no statistically significant trend in the diurnal temperature range for the best quality stations, wheras in the urbanized stations there is a statistically significant decrease in the DTR. What does this mean? It means that urbanization could account for most or all of the decrease in the DTR for most of the weather stations, since the highest quality weather stations do not display a trend in the DTR.

This also means that CO2 is not the driver of climate change in the best quality weather stations, or else we still would have observed a statistically significant decrease in the DTR in these non-urbanized weather stations, since there is no urban effect to contaminate the trends in the DTR in the best quality weather stations.

Stratospheric Cooling is entirely consistent with the sun theory. Shall I explain why?

[TerryM]

Not my field at all - but it seems to me that if solar variability was causing global warming, the tropics would be heating much faster than polar regions, and polar winters would be completely unaffected.

If my reasoning is faulty, please point out the flaw.

Thanks

Terry

[Snow_Miser]

Not my field at all - but it seems to me that if solar variability was causing global warming, the tropics would be heating much faster than polar regions, and polar winters would be completely unaffected.

If my reasoning is faulty, please point out the flaw.

Thanks

Terry

Arctic Amplification associated with decreasing ice and snow and natural climatic variability. This is what happens with any warming.

That's why.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Arctic Amplification associated with decreasing ice and snow. This is what happens with any warming.

That's why.

How does that work? How can decreasing solar output coincide with increasing arctic warming ?

ghg forcing works with solar radiation. If the sun was the driver the warming would be methodical not abrupt during spring.

the ice and snow was at normal levels in March and April.

now they are at recorded lows.

[LakeEffectKing]

Arctic Amplification associated with decreasing ice and snow and natural climatic variability. This is what happens with any warming.

That's why.

And wouldn't that phenomena be magnified even further if indeed increased solar influences were to lead to a stronger ITCZ, thus stronger Hadley circulations? Seems as though any warming in the tropics would necessarily equate to a lessening of a latitudinal teperature gradiant from 0 to 90.....

[TerryM]

Arctic Amplification associated with decreasing ice and snow and natural climatic variability. This is what happens with any warming.

That's why.

Thanks for the quick reply.

Arctic amplification, as I understand it relates to albedo changes, which actually have a negative effect on warming in the polar winter and increased out gassing of greenhouse gasses, which you don't seem to think are of much import.

Natural climatic variability is a given, but does little to explain the anomalously high temperatures experienced in an area with little to no sunlight. If global records were being smashed regularly in the tropics, as opposed to in the far north I might be inclined to agree with you, however, the most extreme heating is not only far from the tropics, but also is occurring during winter periods.

You mention decreasing ice and snow levels, how would increased solar radiation have an effect on winter snow and ice when the sun never gets above the horizon? Isn't it more likely that a greenhouse 'blanket' is keeping the heat in during winter months?

Terry

[TerryM]

And wouldn't that phenomena be magnified even further if indeed increased solar influences were to lead to a stronger ITCZ, thus stronger Hadley circulations? Seems as though any warming in the tropics would necessarily equate to a lessening of a latitudinal teperature gradiant from 0 to 90.....

I fail to see why overheating the tropics would cause a lessening of the latitudinal temperature gradient. Intuitively I would expect the opposite. If however the poles were being heated to a greater extent than the tropics, which is what we are experiencing, then the gradient must flatten.

Terry

[LakeEffectKing]

I fail to see why overheating the tropics would cause a lessening of the latitudinal temperature gradient. Intuitively I would expect the opposite. If however the poles were being heated to a greater extent than the tropics, which is what we are experiencing, then the gradient must flatten.

Terry

Increased convection would increase albedo over the tropics (where changes in albedo result in a larger change in surface energy absorption, not to mention, the tropics compose a larger area than the polar regions). Couple that with a hypothesize negative feedback with additional cloud cover due increased convection, and the gradient is reduced. A tremendous amount of heat can be transported into the UA via tropical convection, which ultimately ends up at the poles.

[TerryM]

Increased convection would increase albedo over the tropics (where changes in albedo result in a larger change in surface energy absorption, not to mention, the tropics compose a larger area than the polar regions). Couple that with a hypothesize negative feedback with additional cloud cover due increased convection, and the gradient is reduced. A tremendous amount of heat can be transported into the UA via tropical convection, which ultimately ends up at the poles.

Convection has no effect on albedo other than an increase in cloud propagation or density. If you're arguing that increased cloudiness over the tropics limits solar radiation, you're arguing against yourself. Convection increases as the temperature delta increases, and if increased cloudiness lowers tropical temperatures then convection will decrease unless the polar zones decrease in temperature by an equal or greater amount.

I can't imagine why you are arguing this. I recall you stating you understood that greenhouse gasses were responsible for the preponderance of the global warming.

Terry