Role of the Sun in Climate Change

[Snow_Miser]

The sun is the supply of all of the energy reaching Earth. It is what creates weather on a day to day basis. But the question is, does the sun have to do with the warming observed over the last 150 years since the end of the little ice age?

A good way to see if the sun has played a role in this warming is if the geomagnetic AA Index has increased at all during this timeframe. The AA Index is a measurement of how strong the Sun's Magnetic field is. The sun's magnetic field is what influences many oscillations that are well known on Earth, such as the NAO and ENSO. And any change in this magnetic field will mean that these cycles will be influenced, creating climatic changes on Earth. The AA Index not only impacts the cycles, but other parameters as well.

Sunspot activity could be used as a measurement of the amount of solar magnetic activity over recent years, but the sunspot activity doesn't fully take into account all of the sun's magnetic activity.

Kirov et. al 2005 found that the sunspot number is a poor indicator of the sun's magnetic activity, and when one substitutes the AA Index (which accounts for all magnetic changes) instead of the Sunspot Number, solar activity is highly correlated to temperature changes.

The study concludes that,

"the sunspot number is not a good indicator of solar activity, and using the sunspot number leads to the under-estimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming”

Lockwood et. al 1999 (Who is a warmer) found that the sun's magnetic field more than doubled over the last 120 years, with the magnetic flux rising by 40% since 1964 to a large peak in SC 22, which was the highest level of magnetic activity recorded over some of the highest levels of solar activity over the last 10000 years.

The graph above shows that the AA Index was the highest it ever was during the 20th Century in the late-20th Century, where some solar scientists claim the sun can no longer explain Global Temperature Changes.

The increasing Magnetic Activity during the late-20th Century also is in line with the ACRIM TSI composite, which shows a statistically significant increase in TSI between the minimas of SC 21 and 22 from 1986-1996, when temperatures were increasing.

Willson and Morvdinov 2003 has gotten over 160 citations, which means that the scientific community is treating it seriously.

From their conclusions:

The

"0.05%/decade minimum-to-minimum trend

appears to be significant. If so it has profound implications

for both solar physics and climatology."

Scafetta and Willson 2009 used Kirvova et. al 2007's magnetic proxy model to bridge the ACRIM Gap, a period where there were no observations from the ACRIM satellites. The ACRIM Gap persisted for 2 years. Lower quality satellites, like NIMBUS7/ERB, and ERBS/ERBE had to be used to "bridge" this gap. There is a controversy about which to use, since both of them face degredation issues. Scafetta and Willson used Kirvova's Magnetic Proxy model to bridge the gap. When this model is substituted into the ACRIM Gap for both the PMOD and ACRIM datasets, both display a secular and statistically significant upward trend between the SC 21 and 22 minimas, with the model's output during the gap matching more with NIMBUS7/ERB than ERBE/ERBS possibly suggesting that the NIMBUS7/ERB satellites are better to use during this gap than ERBE/ERBS. It also shows that Kirvova, Solanki, and Wenzler's model goes against their own conclusions of little solar warming past 1975.

Quoting Paper:

The relative difference between Nimbus7/ERB and

KBS07 during the ACRIM gap (Figure 2a) changed by

0.023 % (+0.31 W/m2) across the gap, significantly less

than the 0.063 % (0.86 W/m2) assessed by Fro¨hlich in the

PMOD composite. Additionally there is a virtually insignificant

ERB-KBS07 TSI difference of 0.006 % (+0.08 W/m2)

for the one year intervals before and after the 29th of

September 1989, the date of Fro¨hlich’s proposed Nimbus7/

ERB ‘glitch’. Clearly Fro¨hlich’s step function sensitivity

shift of 0.034 % (±0.47 W/m

2) that day is not supported by

the KBS07 proxy model.

[19] We can apply the KBS07 model as an independent

test of ERBS/ERBE uncorrected degradation during the

ACRIM gap [Willson, 1997; Willson and Mordvinov,

2003]. The ERBE-KBS07 ratio changes by 0.034 %

(0.47 W/m2) between the pre- and post ACRIM gap

comparisons (Figure 2b). This is approximately equal to

the trend difference between ACRIM and PMOD composites

during solar cycles 21–23, within computational

certainty, and clearly supports the contention of uncorrected

ERBE degradation during the ACRIM gap.

[20] The ERB and ERBE comparisons with KBS07

provide strong, independent evidence contradicting the

claims of Lee et al. [1995], Fro¨hlich [2004, 2006] and

Fro¨hlich and Lean

[1998] that (1) ERBS/ERBE is the most

reliable comparison database during the ACRIM gap; (2) that

Nimbus7/ERB experienced a large increase of sensitivity

during the ACRIM-Gap and (3) that Lean’s proxy reconstruction

can faithfully reconstruct the TSI.

The image above shows that with Krivova's magnetic proxy model used to bridge the gap, the PMOD dataset suddenly looks like the ACRIM dataset with a secular trend between SC 21 and 22 minimas.

Blanter et. al 2008 analyzed weather stations in Europe and in the United States, and found that a significant solar signature existed in these weather stations. They conclude that the Solar Forcing can be responsible for all of the temperature changes across the globe during the 20th Century.

Quoting Paper:

We analyze temperature data from meteorological stations in the USA (six climatic regions, 153 stations), Europe (44 stations,

considered as one climatic region) and Australia (preliminary, five stations). We select stations with long, homogeneous series of

daily minimum temperatures (covering most of the 20th century, with few or no gaps).We find that station data are well correlated

over distances in the order of a thousand kilometres. When an average is calculated for each climatic region, we find well

characterized mean curves with strong variability in the 3–15-year period range and a superimposed decadal to centennial (or

‘secular’) trend consisting of a small number of linear segments separated by rather sharp changes in slope. Our overall curve for the

USA rises sharply from 1910 to 1940, then decreases until 1980 and rises sharply again since then. The minima around 1920 and

1980 have similar values, and so do the maxima around 1935 and 2000; the range between minima and maxima is 1.3-1.8C. The

European mean curve is quite different, and can be described as a step-like function with zero slope and a 1.8C jump occurring in

less than two years around 1987. Also notable is a strong (cold) minimum in 1940. Both the USA and the European mean curves are

rather different from the corresponding curves illustrated in the 2007 IPCC report.We then estimate the long-term behaviour of the

higher frequencies (disturbances) of the temperature series by calculating the mean-squared interannual variations or the ‘lifetime’

(i.e. the mean duration of temperature disturbances) of the data series.We find that the resulting curves correlate remarkably well at

the longer periods, within and between regions. The secular trend of all of these curves is similar (an S-shaped pattern), with a rise

from 1900 to 1950, a decrease from 1950 to 1975, and a subsequent (small) increase. This trend is the same as that found for a

number of solar indices, such as sunspot number or magnetic field components in any observatory. We conclude that significant

solar forcing is present in temperature disturbances in the areas we analyzed and conjecture that this should be a global feature.

Scafetta 2009 found that if the ACRIM dataset were to be used, up to 65% of the warming could be attributed to TSI alone.

Scafetta and West 2008 concluded that when the ACRIM composite is used, nearly up to 70% of the variances in Global Temperatures over the last 50 years can be attributed to solar variability with TSI.

Hammel et. al 2007 found that albedo photometry associated with Neptune, while not statistically correlated with Earth's temperature increase, follows similar patterns to each other, and are correlated. They conclude that this could mean that there is a possible solar link to recent rising temperatures on Earth.

They also show TSI increasing over the last 30 years.

Dewitte et. al 2004 produced a third TSI composite, the IRMB dataset, and concluded that most likely, TSI increased from SC 21 to SC 22, with TSI increasing as much as 0.5 w/m^2 between the minimas of SC 21 and 22.

Quoting Paper:

A possible long-term trend of the total solar irradiance could be a natural cause for climate variations on Earth. Measurement of the total solar irradiance with space radiometers started in 1978. We present a new total solar irradiance composite, with an uncertainty of ± 0.35 W m⁻². From the minimum in 1995 to the maximum in 2002 the total solar irradiance increased by 1.6 W m⁻². In between the minima of 1987 and 1995 the total solar irradiance increased by 0.15 W m⁻².

Cloud Cover has shown to correlate indirectly with TSI directly, and these correlations have been found to be statistically significant in Cess et. al 2001.

Quoting Paper:

To investigate whether galactic cosmic rays (GCR) may influence cloud cover variations, we analyze cloud cover anomalies from 1900–1987 over the United States. Results of spectral analyses reveal a statistically significant cloud cover signal at the period of 11 years; the coherence between cloud cover and solar variability proxy is 0.7 and statistically significant with 95% confidence. In addition, cloud data derived from the NCAR Climate System Model (CSM) forced with solar irradiance variations show a strong signal at 11 years that is not apparent in cloud data from runs with constant solar input. The cloud cover variations are in phase with the solar cycle and not the GCR. Our results suggest that cloud variabilities may be affected by a modulation of the atmospheric circulation resulting from variations of the solar‐UV‐ozone‐induced heating of the atmosphere.

Kristjansson et. al 2004 finds a high, but not statistically significant correlation between direct variations in TSI and Cloud Cover. It should be noted though that indirect contamination like Volcanic Activity and ENSO, specifically ENSO, which can also independently impact Cloud Cover have not been removed, and are possibly contaminating the dataset.

So, what has Cloud Cover been doing? Using this analysis, if TSI were increasing, Clouds should be decreasing, right?

Well there's also a lot of evidence to support that Cloud Cover has decreased over the last 30 years.

Multiple regional studies have found increased TSI reaching Earth's Surface with a high correlation to the Cloud Radiative Forcing.

This regional study found that Cloud Cover decreased naturally in China, without the help of any aerosols.

An updated analysis of cloud cover during 1954–2005 in China was performed using homogeneous cloud cover data from 314 stations. Long-term changes in frequencies of different cloud cover categories and their contributions to long-term changes in cloud cover were assessed. Furthermore, aerosol effects on cloud cover trends were discussed based on comparison of cloud cover trends in polluted and mildly polluted regions. Frequencies of clear sky (cloud cover <20%) and overcast days (cloud cover >80%) were observed to increase by ~2.2 days and decrease by ~3.3 days per decade, respectively, which accounts for ~80% of cloud cover reduction. Larger decreasing trends in cloud cover due to larger increase in clear sky frequency and larger decreases in overcast frequency were observed at stations with lower aerosol optical depth. There is no significant difference in trends regarding cloud cover, clear sky frequency, and overcast frequency between mountain and plain stations. These results are inconsistent with our expectation that larger decreasing trends in cloud cover should have been observed in regions with higher aerosol loading where more aerosols could lead to stronger obscuring effect on ground observation of cloud cover and stronger radiative effect as compared with the mildly polluted regions. Aerosol effect on decreasing cloud cover in China appear not to be supported by this analysis and therefore, further study on this issue is required.

(Full paper available here)

From the summary:

Significant decline in cloud cover with trend of −1.6%per decade during 1954–2005 was derived. Occurrences of clear sky (cloud cover <20 %) and overcast days (>80 %) were observed to increase and decline by 2.2 days per decade and 3.3 days per decade, respectively. Approximately 80% of overall trend of cloud cover is attributable to an increase in clear-sky days and a decline in overcast days.

In Spain, statistically significant trends upward in TSI reaching the surface were found.

This paper proposes a semiempirical method to reconstruct ultraviolet erythemal (UVER) irradiance in the past from total shortwave radiation (SW) and total ozone column (TOC) measurements and has been used to obtain a long-term reconstructed UVER series in central Spain. The method is based on radiative transfer modeling combined with empirical relationships, giving an equation that relates UVER and SW irradiance measurements, solar zenith angle, as well as UVER and SW irradiance values calculated under cloudless conditions. TOC measurements are needed as input for the cloudless modeling. Hourly UVER radiation values have been reconstructed and compared with ground-based measurements for seven Spanish locations. The reconstructed hourly UVER irradiance values are in good agreement with the measurements, showing a determination coefficient between 0.95 and 0.99, and the lowest root mean square errors (rmse) in summer taking values from 5% to 9% in the seven stations. Reconstructed daily UVER doses have been compared for eight stations, showing a better agreement than in the hourly case with rmse values from 3% to 8% in summer and from 4% to 9% when all seasons are taken into account. A reconstructed 10 min UVER irradiance data set from 1991 to 2010 has been calculated using the proposed method for the city of Valladolid. Statistically significant UVER trends appear in summer and autumn when UVER levels increased 3.5% and 4.1% per decade, respectively. Brightening was found for SW measurements in the same period, with a statistically significant trend of 4.4% and 5.8% per decade in summer and autumn.

In Europe, statstically significant trends upward in TSI were found, as well as a correlation coefficient between the Cloud Radiative Forcing and the TSI to be 0.87, explaining most of the variability in TSI reaching the European Earth's Surface.

Quoting Paper:

The present study applies a regional climate model with coupled aerosol microphysics and transport in order to simulate dimming and brightening in Europe from 1958 to 2001. Two simulations are performed, one with transient emissions and another with climatological mean emissions over the same period. Both simulations are driven at the lateral boundaries by the ERA-40 reanalysis and by large-scale aerosol concentrations stemming from a global simulation. We find distinct patterns of dimming and brightening in the aerosol optical depth and thus clear-sky downward surface shortwave radiation (SSR) in all analyzed subregions. The strongest brightening between 1973 and 1998 under clear-sky conditions is found in mid-Europe (+3.4 W m⁻² per decade, in line with observations). However, the simulated all-sky SSR is dominated by the surface shortwave cloud radiative forcing (CRF). The correlation coefficient R between 5 year moving averages of the CRF and all-sky SSR equals 0.87 for all of Europe. Both model simulations show a similar evolution of cloud fraction and thus all-sky SSR due to the constrained circulation induced by the reanalysis at the lateral boundaries. For most subregions, the modeled differences in all-sky SSR due to transient versus climatological emissions are insignificant in comparison with estimates of the model's internal variability.

Satellite based measurements from Pinker et. al 2005 have measured large amounts of increased TSI reaching Earth, globally as a whole. This probably indicates a decrease in Cloud Cover, since the TSI that increased at Earth's Surface increased by 3 w/m^2, (2 w/m^2 when the ERBE satellite error is corrected).

Quoting Paper:

Long-term variations in solar radiation at Earth's surface (S) can affect our climate, the hydrological cycle, plant photosynthesis, and solar power. Sustained decreases in S have been widely reported from about the year 1960 to 1990. Here we present an estimate of global temporal variations in S by using the longest available satellite record. We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 watts per square meter (0.10%) per year; this change is a combination of a decrease until about 1990, followed by a sustained increase. The global-scale findings are consistent with recent independent satellite observations but differ in sign and magnitude from previously reported ground observations. Unlike ground stations, satellites can uniformly sample the entire globe.

Other datasets, like the Earthshine data and ISSCP, Global measurements also confirm that Cloud Cover has decreased as a whole, making the ACRIM dataset with its increased TSI a plausable candidate to explain most of the warming over the last century and the warming from 1970-2000.

[cmc0605]

Regardless of what metric you look at, there hasn't been much change in the sun since ~1950 (a number of papers by Lockwood show this; see also Gray et al 2010), and there are inconsistent spatio-temporal fingerprints in the Earth system itself (e.g., stratospheric cooling). Scafetta is wrong (and now he's moved on to astrology, trying to blame things on oribtal fluctuations involving Jupiter, etc); some other papers you cite are related to entirely different mechanisms altogether. You're throwing 100 darts on the wall at once and hoping something hits the bullsye...

[Snow_Miser]

Regardless of what metric you look at, there hasn't been much change in the sun since ~1950 (a number of papers by Lockwood show this; see also Gray et al 2010), and there are inconsistent spatio-temporal fingerprints in the Earth system itself (e.g., stratospheric cooling). Scafetta is wrong (and now he's moved on to astrology, trying to blame things on oribtal fluctuations involving Jupiter, etc); some other papers you cite are related to entirely different mechanisms altogether. You're throwing 100 darts on the wall at once and hoping something hits the bullsye...

The image below is from Gray et. al 2005, and it shows a reconstructed GCR dataset based off of the Solar AA Index. GCRs reached a record low during the late 20th Century in 1992, not only validating that Geomagnetic Activity has increased, but the TSI has also increased during the late-20th Century, validating the ACRIM dataset.

Please read the papers that I posted. They all "do not involve different mechanisms."

Thanks.

And a lot of factors go into stratospheric cooling, not just GHGs. That's the nature of the climate system. It's chaotic.

[cmc0605]

Sure, TSI is up since the Maunder Minimum, and that modulates the comsic ray influx. But there's little change since mid-century, right before the most sigificant global warming, and there has been no compelling physical basis for cosmic rays inducing cloud cover changes. There's a lot of steps in logic (i.e., that the cosmic rays sigifincantly impact CCN, that this will meaningfully impact clouds, and that it will be significant radiatively). It was an interesting hypothesis, and a lot of serious people have looked at it (unfortunately people like Svensmark gave the idea a bad reputation), but a number of studies over the last few years have shown it's too small of an effect to matter much, maybe a fine-tuning knob at best.

[skierinvermont]

TSI is down, AA is down at record low levels. Not only has the planet not begun to cool, it has continued to warm relatively rapidly.

Moreover, none of this addresses the theoretical and direct experimental evidence for an increasing greenhouse effect due to CO2.

[LithiaWx]

TSI is down, AA is down at record low levels. Not only has the planet not begun to cool, it has continued to warm relatively rapidly.

I agree it hasn't cooled but to say the last 7 years or so have warmed rapidly is completely false.

[skierinvermont]

I agree it hasn't cooled but to say the last 7 years or so have warmed rapidly is completely false.

Well I didn't say the last 7 years did I? Where the heck did the 7 year number come from? Starting a trend in 2005 would be cherry-picking by going from the end of a multi-year mod/strong Nino and ending in a multi-year Nina..

I also didn't say the atmosphere, I said the planet which includes oceans, land and ice masses.

[LithiaWx]

Well I didn't say the last 7 years did I? Starting a trend in 2005 would be cherry-picking.

I also didn't say the atmosphere, I said the planet which includes oceans, land and ice masses.

The last seven years or so coincides with the drop in AA levels correct?

[skierinvermont]

The last seven years or so coincides with the drop in AA levels correct?

Approximately. Although AA levels were considerably higher in the early 90s. Of course warming since the early 90s has been especially rapid.

If we are going to use the short-trend from 2005, it is necessary to statistically remove the effect of ENSO, which reveals a strong positive trend. No doubt in a few years the raw trend will be quite positive as well.

Regardless, I was speaking of the planet not the atmosphere. Global heat content, not atmospheric temperatures, are indicative of net energy flows.

[physicsguy21]

Sure, TSI is up since the Maunder Minimum, and that modulates the comsic ray influx. But there's little change since mid-century, right before the most sigificant global warming, and there has been no compelling physical basis for

cosmic rays inducing cloud cover changes. There's a lot of steps in logic (i.e., that the cosmic rays sigifincantly impact CCN, that this will meaningfully impact clouds, and that it will

be significant radiatively). It was an interesting hypothesis, and a lot of serious people have

looked at it (unfortunately people like Svensmark gave the idea a bad reputation), but a number of studies over the last few years have shown it's too small of an effect to matter much, maybe a

fine-tuning knob at best.

Why do you assume a linear correlation to TSI, or anything? How do you propose the oceans reach equilibrium so quickly? As you said 'warming down the pipeline' may result if an imput forcing remains the same but is significantly higher than it was previously due to the oceans' slow rate of response with high thermal capacity.

So there should be a healthy lag too.

[cmc0605]

Why do you assume a linear correlation to TSI, or anything? How do you propose the oceans reach equilibrium so quickly? As you said 'warming down the pipeline' may result if an imput forcing remains the same but is significantly higher than it was previously due to the oceans' slow rate of response with high thermal capacity.

So there should be a healthy lag too.

I'm not assumng anything. Why do people assume that they can make up their own physics to try to "replace" any anthroogenic signal that doesn't align with their political views?

Sure you can slow the evolution to equilibrium if you have suffcient thermal inertia, but the temporal structure of the solar forcing- temperature rise looks nothing like that situation. You don't damp out the forcing and then get an accelerated signal decades later, and then get "fingerprints" that "look like" greenhouse gases on top of that. Unless people want to propose a model that explains things better, it's just spinning wheels and placing a rather odd faith in the lack of anthropogenic influence. Moreover, when you actually put numbers of the solar forcing, you need to inflate the sensitivity by a factor of 10+ to even make sense. It's sort of ridiculous.

And as noted above, you don't "replace" greenhouse forcings with your favorite substitutes, since how the greenhouse effect works is well-known; rather, you put them side-by-side in a manner which involves quantifying the relative contributions and maximizes explanatory power in the spatial-temporal evolution of the response.

[WeatherRusty]

Why do you assume a linear correlation to TSI, or anything? How do you propose the oceans reach equilibrium so quickly? As you said 'warming down the pipeline' may result if an imput forcing remains the same but is significantly higher than it was previously due to the oceans' slow rate of response with high thermal capacity.

So there should be a healthy lag too.

Because the Planck equation is linear at equilibrium. The wavelength is inversely proportional to the temperature and by Stefan-Boltzmann the energy is proportional to T^4. This is for a black body at thermal equilibrium with radiation. The lags in temperature reflect the Earth in a state of non-equilibrium.

[physicsguy21]

I'm not assumng anything. Why do people assume that they can make up their own physics to try to "replace" any anthroogenic signal that

doesn't align with their political views?

Where did you pull this from? No one is making up physics, you should reconsider your political claims. Can you perhaps discuss rationally

instead of trying to guess my political affiliations?

Sure you can slow the evolution to equilibrium if you have suffcient thermal inertia,

but the temporal structure of the solar forcing-

temperature rise looks nothing like that situation. You don't damp out the forcing and then get an

accelerated signal decades later, and then get "fingerprints" that "look like" greenhouse gases on top of that. Unless people want to propose a

model that explains things better, it's just spinning wheels and placing a rather odd faith in the lack of anthropogenic influence. Moreover,

when you actually put numbers of the solar forcing, you need to inflate the sensitivity by a

factor of 10+ to even make sense. It's sort of ridiculous.

Well for one there has been no acceleration in the warming, we've seen a steady warming

trend. AR4 GCM ensemble mean. Data from NOAA.

http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/1-global.png

Forcing strength aside, with TSI remaining fairly

steady for 50 years after a substantial increase, it makes perfect sense to expect oceans to continuously warm during that period.

Moreover, if you are discussing forcing strength on the oceans, there can't truly be any anthro signal in OHC. Reason being backradiation cannot penetrate deeper than a fraction of a millimeter into water. Evaporation rate is determined largely by SST, affecting precipitation, wind, and cloud cover, which all impact the sea surface temperature.

Cloud cover variations are what I believe have warmed the oceans for the most part.

And as noted above, you don't "replace" greenhouse forcings with your favorite substitutes, since how the greenhouse effect works is well-known; rather, you put them side-by-side in a manner which involves quantifying

the relative contributions and maximizes explanatory power in the spatial-temporal evolution of the response.

Ok, but no one is 'replacing' anything. What exactly do you think I am 'replacing'? The problem is you're only accounting for the radiative greenhouse effect and assuming the 14.5C at the surface to -80C in the upper atmosphere is determined radiatively. It isn't, radiation is not heat, the slowing of surface cooling at night through backradiation must be deciphered from daytime heating in which there is no radiative warming occurring from the atmosphere itself. Radiative forcing from the atmosphere can only be accounted for at night.

[physicsguy21]

Because the Planck equation is linear at equilibrium. The wavelength is inversely proportional to the temperature and by Stefan-

Boltzmann the energy is proportional to T^4. This is for a black body at thermal equilibrium with radiation. The lags in temperature reflect the Earth in a state of non-equilibrium.

There can only be equilibrium in existence at TOA, the rate of energy-in/energy-out below TOA is nowhere close to equal mostly due to the oceans. Equilibrium could be possible below TOA if the Sun were shining all over the globe at once with an equal vector.

[skierinvermont]

Where did you pull this from? No one is making up physics, you should reconsider your political claims. Can you perhaps discuss rationally

instead of trying to guess my political affiliations?

Well for one there has been no acceleration in the warming, we've seen a steady warming

trend. AR4 GCM ensemble mean. Data from NOAA.

http://bobtisdale.fi...04/1-global.png

Forcing strength aside, with TSI remaining fairly

steady for 50 years after a substantial increase, it makes perfect sense to expect oceans to continuously warm during that period.

Moreover, if you are discussing forcing strength on the oceans, there can't truly be any anthro signal in OHC. Reason being backradiation cannot penetrate deeper than a fraction of a millimeter into water. Evaporation rate is determined largely by SST, affecting precipitation, wind, and cloud cover, which all impact the sea surface temperature.

Cloud cover variations are what I believe have warmed the oceans for the most part.

Ok, but no one is 'replacing' anything. What exactly do you think I am 'replacing'? The problem is you're only accounting for the radiative greenhouse effect and assuming the 14.5C at the surface to -80C in the upper atmosphere is determined radiatively. It isn't, radiation is not heat, the slowing of surface cooling at night through backradiation must be deciphered from daytime heating in which there is no radiative warming occurring from the atmosphere itself. Radiative forcing from the atmosphere can only be accounted for at night.

You are terribly confused and I advise you to go back to square one and relearn the basics of thermodynamics and radiation. It is impossible to even begin to correct this posts because it appears that many of the terms you are using and processes you are describing you do not actually understand. There is not even a common language upon which to begin discussion, because you are using an alternate physics of the imagination.

Perhaps somebody else will be able to decipher your post, but I cannot.

I will say this however, anthropogenic global warming can and does warm the oceans. Your idea that AGW cannot warm the oceans is crackpot science.

[physicsguy21]

Do you understand the concept of energy transfer? I'm having trouble understanding what you are trying to pinpoint. Help me out?

No one is denying that the rate of nighttime cooling of the land & ocean surface is slowed by atmospheric backradiation, but it is extremely negligible in nature.

First of all, there is virtually no diurnal SST variation, and SSTs are on average about 2-3C warmer than the air above them. Second, after accounting for backradiation from greenhouse gases, now account for the fact that 99% of the atmosphere does not back-radiate, but does conduct heat from the ocean surface and slows cooling in that manner. What little radiative forcing we've added to a hypothetical 300Wm2 radiative greenhouse egfect is completely unmeasurable, and has never been shown to be measurable.

Evaporation rate, cloud cover, and precipitation are regulatory mechanisms.

[skierinvermont]

What little radiative forcing we've added to a hypothetical 300Wm2 radiative greenhouse egfect is completely unmeasurable, and has never been shown to be measurable.

Blatantly false:

Satellites measure infrared radiation as it escapes out to space. A comparison between satellite data from 1970 to 1996 found that less energy is escaping to space at the wavelengths that greenhouse gases absorb energy (

Harries 2001). Thus the paper found

"direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect"

. This result has been confirmed by more recent data from several different satellites (

Griggs 2004,Chen 2007).

http://www.skeptical...al-warming.html

This has resulted in a corresponding increase in downward LW radiation reaching the surface:

That less heat is escaping out to space is confirmed by surface measurements that find more infrared radiation returning to earth. Several studies have found this is due to an increased greenhouse effect (

Philipona 2004,Wang 2009). An analysis of high resolution spectral data allows scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that"this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."

[cmc0605]

physicsguy,

I'm done with this exchange. I have no doubt that you are sincere in your beliefs, but I also know very little of it is originating from you, and most of it from certain sources on the web that you are confident in placing your trust (without the background to evaluate that confidence). Trust me when I say that you're not saying anything I haven't see a million times before from self-taught bloggers who are confident they have some secret knowledge that has escaped researchers for decades.

They don't, and as a graduate student in this field, I can assure you these aren't "interesting" exchanges in the sense that occurs at academic conferences or in the literature, concerning topics with legitimate uncertainty. This is just elementary textbook stuff that you aren't getting, and it's simply not practical for us to respond to a laundry list of arguments you have heard somewhere that do require some literacy in the field to evaluate. Otherwise, this is just a "who do you believe game." I've recommended some textbooks that might help, and I sincerely hope you look into them, but ultimately you will need to make the decision to learn the actual physics rather than get some second-rate information from "WUWT," Bob Tisdale, or other such venues. If you chose to operate under the belief that they know more than the climate community, or that simply energy balance/greenhouse physics are being computed entirely wrong, that's up to you but it will only live on in the imagination of a few bloggers without any dent on the field. You can spend $100 or less and be in a league well beyond what those people can ever hope to understand about climate, which really is a fascinating and remarkable subject when you move beyond whether humans are causing global warming or not.

[physicsguy21]

Blatantly false:

Satellites measure infrared radiation as it escapes out to space. A comparison between satellite data from 1970 to 1996 found that less energy is escaping to space at the wavelengths

that greenhouse gases absorb energy

(Harries 2001). Thus

the paper found

"direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect"

That is not what I meant, I'll try to re-phrase. The total radiative greenhouse effect is theorized to consist of approx 300+Wm2. With or without greenhouse gases, there would be virtually no diurnal SST cycle, simply due to the properties of water and it's thermal capacity. Human emissions have resulted in a net gain in radiative forcing of 1.7Wm2. Even without taking into account the conductive nature of our atmosphere, the possible 'slowing' of oceanic cooling through adding 100ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere is very negligible.

Molecules such as Oxygen and Nitrogen do the same thing CO2 does, insulate the surface at night, only it is accomplished through diffusion, not IR re-radiation.

The 480Wm2 from the Sun, on 1/2 the planet at a time, on it's own is enough to warm the oceans to present day levels due to the vast thermal capacity involved. 240Wm2 averaged over the globe assumes a value incident to -18C evenly distributed everywhere and equal rates of gain and loss from day to night.

This has resulted in a corresponding increase in downward LW radiation reaching the surface

I agree.

that less heat is escaping out to space

is confirmed by surface measurements that find more infrared radiation returning to earth.

This is true in the CO2 spectral window, but we have not seen any trend in the full OLR spectrum. The problem with the dampening of the CO2 spectral window is that it doesn't represent the full spectrum and increase of escape amplitude in other wavelengths. So guesses toward a theorized imbalance are speculative at best.

Several studies have found this is due to an increased greenhouse effect

I agree, an enhancement of the radiative greenhouse effect.

The results lead the authors to conclude that[/font][/color]"this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the

atmosphere and global warming.

Well that is a speculative conclusion, legitimate skeptics do not question whether or not we've enhanced the radiative greenhouse effect because we clearly have. The debate usually involves the contribution of the radiative greenhouse effect to the overall atmosphere & ocean effect, or the magnitude total energy budget to derive a global temperature from.

[physicsguy21]

physicsguy,

I'm done with this exchange. I have no doubt that you are sincere in your beliefs, but I also know very little of it is originating from you, and most of it from certain sources on the web that you are confident in placing your trust (without the background to evaluate that confidence). Trust me when I say that you're not saying anything I haven't see a million times before from self-taught bloggers who are confident they have some secret knowledge that has escaped researchers for decades.

Not really. I was once more of a believer in the magnitude of the radiative greenhouse effect than I am now. I prefer learning from professional scientists in peer review.

They don't, and as a graduate student in this field, I can assure you these aren't "interesting" exchanges in the sense that occurs at academic conferences or in the literature, concerning topics with legitimate uncertainty. This is just elementary textbook stuff that you aren't getting, and it's simply not practical for us to respond to a laundry list of arguments you have heard somewhere that do require some literacy in the field to evaluate. Otherwise, this is just a "who do you believe game." I've recommended some textbooks that might help, and I sincerely hope you look into them, but ultimately you will need to make the decision t learn the actual physics rather than get some second-rate information from "WUWT," Bob Tisdale, or other such venues. If you chose to operate under the belief that they know more than the climate community, or that simply energy balance/greenhouse physics are being computed entirely wrong, that's up to you but it will only live on in the imagination of a few bloggers without any dent on the field. You can spend $100 or less and be in a league well beyond what those people can ever hope to understand about climate, which really is a fascinating and remarkable subject when you move beyond whether humans are causing global warming or not.

This is a bunch of hot air. I appreciate the advice, but much of what you've written above is false. The current theory contains numerous physical errors. Many professional scientists in the field agree.

[WeatherRusty]

Do you understand the concept of energy transfer? I'm having trouble understanding what you are trying to pinpoint. Help me out?

No one is denying that the rate of nighttime cooling of the land & ocean surface is slowed by atmospheric backradiation, but it is extremely negligible in nature.

First of all, there is virtually no diurnal SST variation, and SSTs are on average about 2-3C warmer than the air above them. Second, after accounting for backradiation from greenhouse gases, now account for the fact that 99% of the atmosphere does not back-radiate, but does conduct heat from the ocean surface and slows cooling in that manner. What little radiative forcing we've added to a hypothetical 300Wm2 radiative greenhouse egfect is completely unmeasurable, and has never been shown to be measurable.

Evaporation rate, cloud cover, and precipitation are regulatory mechanisms.

guy21....Bethesda....whomever;

You are ruining yet another thread with crackpot science. I shouldn't even respond, but this is so full of elementary falsehoods it shouldn't be left standing without correction.

When you claim 99% of the atmosphere does not back-radiate you display an astounding degree of ignorance. I assure you, if 100% of the atmosphere does not radiate toward Earth then it is the only bulk matter object in the entire Universe which does not. The atmosphere radiates back toward Earth because it has a temperature, this has nothing to do with whether there are greenhouse gases present or not. The radiation is thermal energy, not infrared radiation/energy released by molecules as they enter a lower energy state. You are confusing the two.

This concept of back radiation to the surface specifically by greenhouse gases should be done away with in my opinion. It engenders a false impression as to what is going on. It's only real relevance is to the isotropic emission of IR when a greenhouse gas intercepts an outbound IR photon and then subsequently transfers that energy in all directions. The net result is the IR does not have a clear path through the atmosphere, so it's energy takes longer to escape the atmosphere into space. The absorption shows up as dark lines in the continuous spectrum (thermal radiation) emitted by the atmosphere surrounding the precise wavelength absorbed by the greenhouse gas.

You also fail to understand the meaning of radiative forcing. We should expect a bit less than 1.2C of temperature rise at the surface from a radiative forcing of 3.7W/m^2. No more, no less. You don't determine radiative forcing by playing with the numbers like you are doing. To bring relevence to this thread, the Sun would need to increase it's radiative output by 22W/m^2 to raise Earth's surface temperature 1.2C.

[Snow_Miser]

Sure, TSI is up since the Maunder Minimum, and that modulates the comsic ray influx. But there's little change since mid-century, right before the most sigificant global warming, and there has been no compelling physical basis for cosmic rays inducing cloud cover changes. There's a lot of steps in logic (i.e., that the cosmic rays sigifincantly impact CCN, that this will meaningfully impact clouds, and that it will be significant radiatively). It was an interesting hypothesis, and a lot of serious people have looked at it (unfortunately people like Svensmark gave the idea a bad reputation), but a number of studies over the last few years have shown it's too small of an effect to matter much, maybe a fine-tuning knob at best.

I don't think you can say the bolded portion of your post with absolute certainty.

GCRs are not what cause Cloud changes from the sun... it's the sun directly that causes the cloud changes.

[WeatherRusty]

I don't think you can say the bolded portion of your post with absolute certainty.

GCRs are not what cause Cloud changes from the sun... it's the sun directly that causes the cloud changes.

The Sun has increased it's radiative output since the Maunder Minimum by about 1.3Wm^2. This produces a radiative forcing of no more than 0.24W/^2. Compare that to 3.7W/m^2 for a doubling of CO2.

[Snow_Miser]

TSI is down, AA is down at record low levels. Not only has the planet not begun to cool, it has continued to warm relatively rapidly.

Moreover, none of this addresses the theoretical and direct experimental evidence for an increasing greenhouse effect due to CO2.

There is a lag, of course between the AA Index and the temperatures. I have heard that this lag is nearly instant with some solar scientists, and others say up to 20 years. I'm using a 10 year lag to compromise these two extremes.

Let's say the AA Index peaked in 1994, during the exceptionally strong SC 22.

Assuming a 10 year lag, the results are consistent with a drop in the AA Index.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut3vgl/from:2004/last:2012/trend

HadCruT3

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:2004/last:2012/trend

RSS

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/from:2004/last:2012/trend

GISS

Of course, none of these trends are statisticaly significant, nor could you derive any trend over such a short timeframe.

However, they are inconsistent with a "rapid warming" assuming a statistically significant increase in temperatures over the last 8 years during this lag.

[donsutherland1]

The sun is the supply of all of the energy reaching Earth. It is what creates weather on a day to day basis. But the question is, does the sun have to do with the warming observed over the last 150 years since the end of the little ice age?

The sun plays a role, but its role has diminished in relative terms with the rise in atmospheric concentration of CO2. When solar activity increases, temperatures will likely warm further. When solar activity becomes quieter, temperatures might be a little cooler than would otherwise be the case, but early evidence suggests that they would not decline to former levels.

Recent research revealed that even as the sun went through an abnormally lengthy inactive period, the earth maintained an energy imbalance: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2011/2011_Hansen_etal.pdf. Global temperatures did not return to levels more like the 1980s or even 1990s during the 2007-2010 bottom in solar activity. Instead, the anomaly during that timeframe was +0.55°C. That's above the 1990s mean anomaly of +0.33°C and somewhat above the 2000-2011 mean anomaly of +0.53°C. The persistent energy imbalance explains this failure of temperatures to respond dramatically to the extraordinary decline in solar activity during the period in question.

[WeatherRusty]

The sun plays a role, but its role has diminished in relative terms with the rise in atmospheric concentration of CO2. When solar activity increases, temperatures will likely warm further. When solar activity becomes quieter, temperatures might be a little cooler than would otherwise be the case, but early evidence suggests that they would not decline to former levels.

Recent research revealed that even as the sun went through an abnormally lengthy inactive period, the earth maintained an energy imbalance: http://pubs.giss.nas...Hansen_etal.pdf. Global temperatures did not return to levels more like the 1980s or even 1990s during the 2007-2010 bottom in solar activity. Instead, the anomaly during that timeframe was +0.55°C. That's above the 1990s mean anomaly of +0.33°C and somewhat above the 2000-2011 mean anomaly of +0.53°C. The persistent energy imbalance explains this failure of temperatures to respond dramatically to the extraordinary decline in solar activity during the period in question.

To further illuminate, a solar TSI induced increase of ~0.24W in radiative forcing gives about 0.08C of direct Planck Response (before any feedback) to temperature. The Planck Response being ~0.3C per 1 watt of forcing.

Does this AA index play a role? I would say that the evidence indicates it does as some of the peer-reviewed literature cited in the OP would indicate. How much though. Is it even within one order of magnitude the equivalent of what the rock solid physics associating TSI with global temperature indicates?

[donsutherland1]

To further illuminate, a solar TSI induced increase of ~0.24W in radiative forcing gives about 0.08C of direct Planck Response (before any feedback) to temperature. The Planck Response being ~0.3C per 1 watt of forcing.

A key point.

Does this AA index play a role? I would say that the evidence indicates it does as some of the peer-reviewed literature cited in the OP would indicate. How much though. Is it even within one order of magnitude the equivalent of what the rock solid physics associating TSI with global temperature indicates?

My guess is that the AA Index plays a very small role. In the past, I believe BethesdaWx suggested that the AA Index drives ENSO. I ran the statistical correlations at various lags, and the coefficient of determination between the AA Index and ENSO was extremely small.

[skierinvermont]

There is a lag, of course between the AA Index and the temperatures. I have heard that this lag is nearly instant with some solar scientists, and others say up to 20 years. I'm using a 10 year lag to compromise these two extremes.

Let's say the AA Index peaked in 1994, during the exceptionally strong SC 22.

Assuming a 10 year lag, the results are consistent with a drop in the AA Index.

http://www.woodfortr...last:2012/trend

HadCruT3

http://www.woodfortr...last:2012/trend

RSS

http://www.woodfortr...last:2012/trend

GISS

Of course, none of these trends are statisticaly significant, nor could you derive any trend over such a short timeframe.

However, they are inconsistent with a "rapid warming" assuming a statistically significant increase in temperatures over the last 8 years during this lag.

The 10 year trend is not very positive because you are starting in a multi-year nino and ending in a multi-year nina. The effect of ENSO is fairly easily and accurately statistically removed from global temperature records. When the effect is removed, it reveals a rapid warming rate over the last 10 years. You could also start the trends a couple years earlier, in 1999 or 2000 to get a fairly ENSO unbiased trend.

More importantly, a much more direct measure of the planet's energy imbalance is OHC which has continued to rise at the expected rate the last decade. This is despite TSI dropping and the AA index falling to record low levels. It has had no detectable effect on the planetary energy imbalance.

I also note that you did not include UAH because it actually shows the most warming over the last 10 years. Woodfortrees is also using the old HadCRUT3 which does not include arctic temperature change as HadCRUT4 does.

[physicsguy21]

Oxygen and Nitrogen do not absorb or emit IR photons on a molecular scale. The atmosphere & surface do shed energy but it is through molecular conduction to the surface which then promptly emits IR unimpeded unless intercepted by a greenhouse gas.

[LithiaWx]

Oxygen and Nitrogen do not absorb or emit IR photons on a molecular scale. The atmosphere & surface do shed energy but it is through molecular conduction to the surface which then promptly emits IR unimpeded unless intercepted by a greenhouse gas.

Hello BB.