Role of the Sun in Climate Change

[Snow_Miser]

Take for example, the differences between warming due to Solar changes versus an enhancement to the greenhouse effect.

We should expect and do see, a pattern of warming indicative of greenhouse warming.

Solar warming should warm both the troposphere and the stratosphere, greenhouse warming warms the troposphere and cools the stratosphere.

Nights are warming faster than days. Solar warming would warm days and nights more equally.

Thanks for the clarification. So with a change in the RF of the sun and the same change in RF with CO2 will be different because of the other solar mechanisms that an increase of TSI will manipulate with or is associated with.

The problem is that solar activity, CFCs, and GCRs all can contribute to ozone depltion which creates stratospheric cooling, making it difficult to attribute stratospheric cooling to GHG warming.

A problem with attributation and the diurnal temperature range is that urbanization has played a significant role in reducing the diurnal temperature range at many weather stations. I can post many peer reviewed papers supporting this if you would like.

[Snow_Miser]

Donna Laframboise?

so now you are 100% trolling.

Show where her research is wrong before you accuse me of trolling. It doesn't take a climate scientist to find out who is authoring these reports, what their affliations are, and what their funding sources are, .

[The_Global_Warmer]

Show where her research is wrong before you accuse me of trolling. It doesn't take a climate scientist to find out who is authoring these reports, what their affliations are, and what their funding sources are, .

What research?

[Snow_Miser]

What research?

She has researched the IPCC's authors, their credentials, and their affiliations. 40 other people researched the IPCC's peer reviewed citations, and for a scientific document, it has a pretty large amount of non-peer reviewed citations.

[donsutherland1]

How do you know that "If solar irradiance largely explained the recent temperature trends, there should have been much more response than there was."

Because that's what happened in the past. However, solar activity and temperatures have decoupled in recent decades.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif

The forcing associated with the growing atmospheric concentration of CO2 is exerting a relatively greater influence.

[WeatherRusty]

Because that's what happened in the past. However, solar activity and temperatures have decoupled in recent decades.

http://www.skeptical..._Temp_basic.gif

The forcing associated with the growing atmospheric concentration of CO2 is exerting a relatively greater influence.

And that is the clincher. Again, the Sun would have to increase TSI by 22W/m^2 in order give a forcing the equal of a doubling of CO2. That is unless basic geometry and physics are grossly in error, not a likely possibility.

[physicsguy21]

Because that's what happened in the past. However, solar activity and temperatures have decoupled in recent decades.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif

TSI has been very high and the oceans take hundreds of years to equilibrate to a forcing. If we assume solar to be the only driver of climate the net upward trend in temps still today is exactly what you'd expect.

But in truth solar is not the only forcing, there are many forcings within various energies, as chemical reactions convert energy while gravity coverts potential energy into mechanical energy nearer to the Earth surface. Remember the resulting molecular line broadening, a very large flow time redirector that dwarfs all else.

So expecting a linear trend becomes even more bizarre.

The forcing associated with the growing atmospheric concentration of CO2 is exerting a relatively greater influence.

Radiatively this is initially true. It doesn't mean too much in the end though.

[The_Global_Warmer]

And that is the clincher. Again, the Sun would have to increase TSI by 22W/m^2 in order give a forcing the equal of a doubling of CO2. That is unless basic geometry and physics are grossly in error, not a likely possibility.

The next step is to either accept and understand how that takes the sun out of the equation for cause. Or just accept this because you want it to be true.

There is no where else to go with this, no where, unless it can be proven we have no idea of TSI and all we have done with it is just wrong.

[skierinvermont]

There is not a scientific consensus. The studies that claim so are all flawed for various reasons.

Satellites are the most accurate way of measuring energy imbalance changes, but enegy imbalance changes can also be measured through heat content changes.

But you're taking one study for granted.

Another study by Douglass and Knox 2009 found that using the OHC to calculate radiative energy imbalances found an energy imbalance of ~-0.2 w/m^2 over the last decade, which is consistent with decreasing Solar radiation over this timeframe.

Earth’s radiation imbalance is determined from ocean heat content data and compared with results of

direct measurements. Distinct time intervals of alternating positive and negative values are found: 1960–

mid-1970s (

−0.15), mid-1970s–2000 (+0.15), 2001–present (−0.2 W/m2), and are consistent with prior

reports. These climate shifts limit climate predictability.

Knox and Douglas was a sham that failed to calibrate the ARGO data properly as numerous other papers have documented.

Well that's because they may not have fully responded yet because there is a lag between the solar radiation and the temperature changes, primarily due to the fact that the oceans take years to fully equilibriate to a climate forcing. That is also why CAGW advocates say even if we stop emitting CO2 now, the Earth will still continue to warm, because the oceans have not equilibriated to the CO2 forcing yet. The same applies to the solar forcing.

False. TSI and AA have returned to near record low levels (or at least levels not last seen since the early 20th century). That is not analogous to CO2 emissions stopping. It is analogous to CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere instantaneously returning to 300ppm. The earth would immediately enter a negative energy balance and the atmosphere would begin to cool.

If TSI or AA were responsible for much of the temperature rise, their return to very low levels should prompt an immediate negative energy balance and cooling. It might take many decades, perhaps even a century or two for the heat to dissipate, but it would begin to dissipate immediately. I agree that it is possible for the oceans and atmosphere to continue to warm many years after TSI, or AA, (or CO2) stopped rising as long as they remained at elevated levels. But if any of those three forcings returned to very low levels, the earth would begin losing energy and immediately begin to cool. Up until a 15 years ago it was difficult to say that the effect was CO2 not TSI or AA because TSI and AA had remained at very high levels. Even though they had not really increased since 1950, hypothetically it was possible that they had created a planetary energy imbalance and the thermal inertia of the oceans meant it was taking a while for equilibrium to occur. But in the last 15 years TSI and AA have dropped off a bridge.. and it is now easy to definitively rule out their effect on planetary energy balances.

Of course, that's just statistically speaking. Physics has told us for a long time that CO2 forcing dwarfed the fluctuations in TSI or AA. The last 15 years have confirmed that statistically.

[donsutherland1]

And that is the clincher. Again, the Sun would have to increase TSI by 22W/m^2 in order give a forcing the equal of a doubling of CO2. That is unless basic geometry and physics are grossly in error, not a likely possibility.

Exactly. The radiative forcing figures vividly illustrate why it's no mystery that the sun's relative impact on global temperatures has declined as the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has risen.

[WeatherRusty]

Exactly. The radiative forcing figures vividly illustrate why it's no mystery that the sun's relative impact on global temperatures has declined as the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has risen.

Here is the relevant radiative forcing formula for changes in TSI:

Forcing = (solar constant) * (percent change / 100) * (1/4) * (0.7)

where the 1/4 and 0.7 factor account for the geometry and albedo of the Earth, respectively.

Change in temperature is linearly related to forcing by:

change in T = 0.27C / forcing .............before any feedback and at radiative/thermal equilibrium

where 0.27C is the Planck Response (black body or Stefan-Boltzmann proportional to T^4)

[LithiaWx]

TSI has been very high and the oceans take hundreds of years to equilibrate to a forcing. If we assume solar to be the only driver of climate the net upward trend in temps still today is exactly what you'd expect.

But in truth solar is not the only forcing, there are many forcings within various energies, as chemical reactions convert energy while gravity coverts potential energy into mechanical energy nearer to the Earth surface. Remember the resulting molecular line broadening, a very large flow time redirector that dwarfs all else.

So expecting a linear trend becomes even more bizarre.

Radiatively this is initially true. It doesn't mean too much in the end though.

It's obvious you are BethesdaWx. First off how are you allowed to post here under a sockpuppet account? Secondly, how can you show back up around here after your awful prediction that didn't even come close to verifying wrt the 20-40" DC was going to see in March and April? You are a laughing stock around here, why you would come back is more mind boggling than your 20-40" prediction.

[donsutherland1]

But in the last 15 years TSI and AA have dropped off a bridge.. and it is now easy to definitively rule out their effect on planetary energy balances.

Of course, that's just statistically speaking. Physics has told us for a long time that CO2 forcing dwarfed the fluctuations in TSI or AA. The last 15 years have confirmed that statistically.

Very well said. The evidence/outcome is consistent with what the science has been saying.

[donsutherland1]

So expecting a linear trend becomes even more bizarre.

Expecting a meaningful response is not the same thing as expecting a linear trend. What amounted to essentially a near non-response speaks for itself.

[dabize]

Very well said. The evidence/outcome is consistent with what the science has been saying.

A little OT, but still.....

It's funny to stop back here just now. I just finished participating in a conference call review session of NIH grant applications. There, people who specialize in areas unrelated to the grant in question tend to shut up, or limit themselves to general science issues that call for no specialized knowledge. What the science has been saying RULES.

Here, its so.........different.

[Snow_Miser]

Because that's what happened in the past. However, solar activity and temperatures have decoupled in recent decades.

http://www.skeptical..._Temp_basic.gif

The forcing associated with the growing atmospheric concentration of CO2 is exerting a relatively greater influence.

What that graph on SKS does it that it takes a solar proxy from Solanki up to 1975. I have absolutely no problem with that.

What they then do use the PMOD TSI composite after that proxy. This composite is controversial, because the ACRIM TSI composite totally disagrees with its lack of an increase in TSI over the last 30 years from 1970-2000.

The PMOD dataset above, showing a slight decline in TSI over the last 30 years while temperatures spiked up pretty sharply.

There is another dataset called the ACRIM dataset, and the PMOD and ACRIM datasets look NOTHING alike over the past 30 years.

Do you notice a difference between the PMOD and the ACRIM datasets over the last 30 years? The power in (w/m^2) of TSI during the minima of Solar Cycle 21 and 22 significantly increased by nearly 0.6 w/m^2 over the last 30 years, when we were still warming on the ACRIM dataset. We flatlined over the last 10 years, "coincidentally" when TSI fell back down again.

However, PMOD shows a flat line between the minima of SC 21 and 22.

This is because of their different choices of satellites to bridge the ACRIM Gap.

ACRIM in black and PMOD in grey, showing that ACRIM can explain most of the warming over the last thirty years.

There seems to be more evidence that supports that the ACRIM dataset is correct, moreso than there is for the PMOD dataset being correct, as I have shown in my opening post of this thread.

[Snow_Miser]

And that is the clincher. Again, the Sun would have to increase TSI by 22W/m^2 in order give a forcing the equal of a doubling of CO2. That is unless basic geometry and physics are grossly in error, not a likely possibility.

Again, the sun's TSI increases are amplified through the sun's magnetic activity, solar wind, GCRs, through cloud cover changes, oceanic oscillations, and magnetic oscilaltions.

So the forcing of TSI alone isn't quantifiable for the sun's impact on climate change.

[Snow_Miser]

she's a women's studies major, not a scientist.

Are you arguing that she has to be a scientist in order to dig up the funding sources, affiliations, and credentials of these IPCC scientists? I hope you're joking.

[Snow_Miser]

False. TSI and AA have returned to near record low levels (or at least levels not last seen since the early 20th century). That is not analogous to CO2 emissions stopping. It is analogous to CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere instantaneously returning to 300ppm. The earth would immediately enter a negative energy balance and the atmosphere would begin to cool.

They have returned to record low levels just a few years ago. If the solar lag is up to 20 years, we haven't seen anything quite yet.

[WeatherRusty]

Again, the sun's TSI increases are amplified through the sun's magnetic activity, solar wind, GCRs, through cloud cover changes, oceanic oscillations, and magnetic oscilaltions.

So the forcing of TSI alone isn't quantifiable for the sun's impact on climate change.

I guess the Earth is unique in the universe then, standard physics and thermodynamics fail us here on our very special little planet.

[donsutherland1]

There seems to be more evidence that supports that the ACRIM dataset is correct, moreso than there is for the PMOD dataset being correct, as I have shown in my opening post of this thread.

The literature suggests otherwise. It suggests that PMOD is more "realistic."

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1367.abstract

[Snow_Miser]

The literature suggests otherwise. It suggests that PMOD is more "realistic."

http://rspa.royalsoc...4/1367.abstract

See Willson and Scafetta's 2009 paper in response to Frolich and Lockwood. There were some claims made in that paper that were simply not true according to this paper's analysis, such as the ERB correction and the TSI difference between the ERB/NIMBUS7 satellite and KBS07.

[Snow_Miser]

i'm saying her 'journalism' about that report has been completely dismantled, and exposed her complete lack of understanding of how the document was constructed, how graduate level science works, and about how scientific publishing is done.

why is everything you post taken from denier sites?

Fine. Disprove her claims that scientists in the IPCC are tied to the WWF and have green vested interests. Disprove that students were lead authors for climate change reports.

I guess you missed all of those peer reviewed papers I posted in the first post of this thread.

[Snow_Miser]

I guess the Earth is unique in the universe then, standard physics and thermodynamics fail us here on our very special little planet.

The solar forcing is unique, because it has many forms of amplification not seen with the Carbon Dioxide forcing. Carbon Dioxide does not impact the magnetic field, GCRs, etc.

[donsutherland1]

See Willson and Scafetta's 2009 paper in response to Frolich and Lockwood. There were some claims made in that paper that were simply not true according to this paper's analysis, such as the ERB correction and the TSI difference between the ERB/NIMBUS7 satellite and KBS07.

And their conclusion is disputed due to their use of a model that is not well-suited for short timescales: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040707.shtml

[WeatherRusty]

The solar forcing is unique, because it has many forms of amplification not seen with the Carbon Dioxide forcing. Carbon Dioxide does not impact the magnetic field, GCRs, etc.

Granted, but what is the need to employ arcane, nebulous concepts associated with solar amplification when much more simple, well understood physics works so well to establish the temperature of the Earth? All you are doing is attempting to replace the physics behind the CO2 enhanced greenhouse effect with the illusion of great complexity that we don't fully understand wrapped up in the concept of 'solar amplification'.

[Snow_Miser]

And their conclusion is disputed due to their use of a model that is not well-suited for short timescales: http://www.agu.org/p...9GL040707.shtml

That study is not scientifically robust.

Quoting Dr. Nicola Scafetta:

Their argument is foolish. First they calibrate their SATIRE model on PMOD, and then they claim to have disproven ACRIM. You need to read our paper, "ACRIM-gap and Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) trend issue resolved using a surface magnetic flux TSI proxy model", To understand that Krivova, S. K. Solanki, T. Wenzler were not able to disprove our original argument, so they changed their model of reference."

[Snow_Miser]

Granted, but what is the need to employ arcane, nebulous concepts associated with solar amplification when much more simple, well understood physics works so well to establish the temperature of the Earth? All you are doing is attempting to replace the physics behind the CO2 enhanced greenhouse effect with the illusion of great complexity that we don't fully understand wrapped up in the concept of 'solar amplification'.

Not necessarily.

We understand various methods where the solar signal is amplified in the climate.

Just because a theory may be simpler, doesn't mean it's more right.

[Snow_Miser]

quoting a comment he made on a well-known denier blog isn't science.

source for that quote, which again omitted: http://wattsupwithth...#comment-837801

Not commenting on what the comment actually stated is non-productive and detracts from the discussion.

[donsutherland1]

That study is not scientifically robust.

Quoting Dr. Nicola Scafetta:

Their argument is foolish. First they calibrate their SATIRE model on PMOD, and then they claim to have disproven ACRIM. You need to read our paper, "ACRIM-gap and Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) trend issue resolved using a surface magnetic flux TSI proxy model", To understand that Krivova, S. K. Solanki, T. Wenzler were not able to disprove our original argument, so they changed their model of reference."

The paper I cited was peer-reviewed. As far as I know, Scafetta did not subject his criticism of that paper to peer review, something that one would reasonably expect when scientific findings are being contested. Peer review is also far more robust than discussion of a quote on a blog. Furthermore, he also did not subject ACRIM to the reconstructions used by Krivova, et. al.

At worst, one can state that there remains some difference of opinion concerning whether PMOD or ACRIM is better. However, one can correctly note that subsequent research has raised questions about the paper that attempted to advance ACRIM as the better measure, namely that paper's use of a model that is arguably not well-suited for the shorter timescales in question. That argument was not rebutted.