Role of the Sun in Climate Change

[Snow_Miser]

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.

It wasn't peer reviewed, which is correct.

Scafetta is getting his peer reviewed paper for this paper.

The geomagnetic AA Index increasing over the last 30 years, decreasing Cloud Cover over the last 30 years, and the GCR count reaching record lows in 1992, all support the ACRIM dataset of increasing TSI.

[physicsguy21]

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.

You're saying because TSI leveled off after a multiple century increase, that OHC should also have leveled off? That is incorrect.

[donsutherland1]

You're saying because TSI leveled off after a multiple century increase, that OHC should also have leveled off? That is incorrect.

That's not what I'm saying. If solar forcing played the dominant role in explaining the energy imbalance, there should have been a significant reduction or even elimination of the energy imbalance during the extreme solar minimum. There wasn't. The energy imbalance persisted and the outcome is consistent with the much greater forcing being exerted by the rise in atmospheric CO2 than that associated with solar activity. The deep solar minimum constituted an almost de facto experiment to test the hypothesis some have insisted on that solar activity largely explains the observed warming of recent decades. That hypothesis was badly weakened by the outcome experienced during the solar minimum (persistence in energy imbalance, near non-response in global temperatures despite La Niña conditions that were also present during part of the low solar cycle, etc).

[FPizz]

he is not a credible source so why bother? why do we have to waste time constantly refuting debunked theories and scientists?

You can always not respond. That would help every thread you post in.

[donsutherland1]

For perspective, here's a chart on various radiative forcings published by the IPCC:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-5.html

Notes:

1. LOSU = Level of scientific understanding

2. The [bracketed figures] are 90% confidence intervals

Solar irradiance is tiny compared to CO2. That helps explain why one of the deepest and longest solar minimums in a century yielded such a small response when it came to the global energy imbalance and global temperature trends.

[The_Global_Warmer]

For perspective, here's a chart on various radiative forcings published by the IPCC:

http://www.ipcc.ch/p.../tssts-2-5.html

Notes:

1. LOSU = Level of scientific understanding

2. The [bracketed figures] are 90% confidence intervals

Solar irradiance is tiny compared to CO2. That helps explain why one of the deepest and longest solar minimums in a century yielded such a small response when it came to the global energy imbalance and global temperature trends.

They really need to add Ice and Snow Albedo. They can easily use older data to comprise an average number for RF, it may not be very big, but it will be worth tracking. on a year to year basis the amount of water and land taking it in compared to the Ice and Snow of before has to be substantial enough to track considering North America in Spring-Fall is down 2-3 million square kilometers of ice and snow to 6-7 million at any given time.

[physicsguy21]

That's not what I'm saying. If solar forcing played the dominant role in explaining the energy imbalance, there should have been a significant reduction or even elimination of the energy imbalance during the extreme solar minimum. There wasn't. The energy imbalance persisted and the outcome is consistent with the much greater forcing being exerted by the rise i

atmospheric CO2 than that associated with solar activity. The deep solar minimum constituted an almost de facto experiment to test the hypothesis some have insisted on that solar activity largely explains the observed warming of recent decades. That hypothesis was badly weakened by the outcome experienced during the solar minimum (persistence in energy imbalance, near non-response in global temperatures despite La Niña conditions that were also present during part of the low solar cycle, etc).

Hansen's energy imbalance is based off of OHC in the first place. With TSI being high, OHC should still be increasing with or without adding CO2. What imbalance are you referring to? The TSI minimums are still higher than the maxes used to be.

The earth as a whole emits a 240wm2 average, equal to the manually distributed 240wm2 entering from the Sun. Energy in must = energy out at TOA as required by the conservation of energy. However the rate of energy in and energy out is not equal, greenhouse gases or not. How can the surface not end up warmer than the TOA release? Perhaps it would be equal without the oceans which retain almost all of their energy at night. If total OLR had decreased it would be another story but it has not decreased since 1979.

Many applications must be performed to the energy budget before the imbalance can be determined. It is questionable whether or not there is even an imbalance.

[WeatherRusty]

Hansen's energy imbalance is based off of OHC in the first place. With TSI being high, OHC should still be increasing with or without adding CO2. What imbalance are you referring to? The TSI minimums are still higher than the maxes used to be.

The earth as a whole emits a 240wm2 average, equal to the manually distributed 240wm2 entering from the Sun. Energy in must = energy out at TOA as required by the conservation of energy. However the rate of energy in and energy out is not equal, greenhouse gases or not. How can the surface not end up warmer than the TOA release? Perhaps it would be equal without the oceans which retain almost all of their energy at night. If total OLR had decreased it would be another story but it has not decreased since 1979.

Many applications must be performed to the energy budget before the imbalance can be determined. It is questionable whether or not there is even an imbalance.

OLR should have increased since 1979. The surface of the oceans and land are warmer than back several decades ago. Remember radiance is proportional to T^4. A warmer surface emits higher energy at all wavelengths.

TSI may have been on the high side over the past several decades compared to earlier 20th century, but the radiative forcing is minor. The radiative forcing give for changes in TSI since mid 19th century is about 0.12W/m^2. Maybe it could be as much as 0.30W/^2 when allowing for uncertainty. When we apply the Planck Response (0.27C/watt of forcing) we get an expected increase <0.1C of warming.

So at the very most, according to the science, solar variation could account for 0.1C before feedback. This factual reality does not go away because you choose not to believe it.

[donsutherland1]

Hansen's energy imbalance is based off of OHC in the first place.

The oceanic heat content was used to measure the energy imbalance. The energy imbalance is responsible for the observed warming that has been occurring. The energy imbalance persisted despite the extreme solar minimum. Were solar forcing the leading driver, or even a more prominent driver behind the warming temperatures, the energy imbalance would have been slashed substantially or disappeared altogether from the fall off in incoming solar radiation. That's not what happened. The imbalance persisted. It persisted because variations in solar irradiance play a small role compared to the anthropogenic forcings. Furthermore, as the atmospheric concentration of the greenhouse gases continues to increase, the solar contribution is becoming relatively smaller.

Not surprisingly, despite the extreme solar minimum, the imbalance was still measured at 0.58 watts of excess energy per square meter. In 2005, the imbalance was measured at about 0.85 watts per square meter. The decline in solar radiation from the maximum to minimum solar activity was about 0.25 watts per square meter.

It is questionable whether or not there is even an imbalance.

The scientific consensus is that there is an energy imbalance, even as calculations have not yet been perfected. The warming temperatures are an expected response to the imbalance. The major question concerned where the excess heat was going.

[WeatherRusty]

The oceanic heat content was used to measure the energy imbalance. The energy imbalance is responsible for the observed warming that has been occurring. The energy imbalance persisted despite the extreme solar minimum. Were solar forcing the leading driver, or even a more prominent driver behind the warming temperatures, the energy imbalance would have been slashed substantially or disappeared altogether from the fall off in incoming solar radiation. That's not what happened. The imbalance persisted. It persisted because variations in solar irradiance play a small role compared to the anthropogenic forcings. Furthermore, as the atmospheric concentration of the greenhouse gases continues to increase, the solar contribution is becoming relatively smaller.

Not surprisingly, despite the extreme solar minimum, the imbalance was still measured at 0.58 watts of excess energy per square meter. In 2005, the imbalance was measured at about 0.85 watts per square meter. The decline in solar radiation from the maximum to minimum solar activity was about 0.25 watts per square meter.

The scientific consensus is that there is an energy imbalance, even as calculations have not yet been perfected. The warming temperatures are an expected response to the imbalance. The major question concerned where the excess heat was going.

Because it is not being radiated back out to space. If it is not being radiated back out to space then it must be warming some part of the Earth.

[donsutherland1]

Because it is not being radiated back out to space. If it is not being radiated back out to space then it must be warming some part of the Earth.

Of course. The idea that it is "questionable" whether an energy imbalance exists is astounding.

[physicsguy21]

The oceanic heat content was used to measure the energy imbalance. The energy imbalance is responsible for the observed warming that has been occurring.

Why did you omit the most important points in my post?

Problem is the continued warming of OHC actually supports the impact of TSI since it is still historically high compared to where it used to be, the recent minimum included. The oceans respond slowly to any forcing and take hundreds of years to equilibrate to a forcing.

The energy imbalance persisted despite the extreme solar minimum.

What do you mean 'extreme solar minimum'? The TSI minimum was possibly higher than many of the maximums earlier this century. OHC has not witnessed any statistically significant trend in the ARGO era, which prompted Hansen to lower his theoretical imbalance to 0.6Wm2 which is possibly less than the increase in solar since the 1820s.

Were solar forcing the leading driver, or even a more prominent driver behind the warming temperatures, the energy imbalance would have been slashed substantially or disappeared altogether from the fall off in

incoming solar radiation. That's not what happened.

Please explain? I do not see how this is physically possible. The TSI minimum in 2008 was still very high compared to many maximums the early 20th century. The oceans equilibrate over hundreds of years. How would the imbalance have been slashed? That is impossible.

The imbalance persisted. It persisted because variations in solar irradiance play a small role compared to the anthropogenic forcings.

Solar variations are small radiatively compared to the effect of greenhouse gases. But that isn't very important on it's own. OHC does not prove or disprove an imbalance because it is affected by many factors. The only way we could actually determine an imbalance would be though a reduction in total OLR at TOA which has not occured and can't occur for long periods of time.

Furthermore, as the atmospheric concentration of the greenhouse gases continues to increase, the solar contribution is becoming relatively smaller.

It seems you weight IR backradiation very heavily in contribution to surface warming over the S-B constant, I don't think we're going to agree there.

Let me put this idea forth. The oceans are a greenhouse fluid, they attain energy rapidly and retain almost all of it at night. So it is physically impossible to expect the oceans to match the temperature of the S-B constant and should be much warmer in order to attain equilibrium. The oceans and atmosphere are thermally coupled.

Not surprisingly, despite the extreme solar minimum, the imbalance was still measured at 0.58 watts of excess energy per square meter. In 2005, the imbalance was measured at about 0.85 watts per square meter. The decline in solar radiation from the maximum to minimum solar activity was about 0.25 watts per square meter.

I agree that the solsr changes are radiatively minute compared to an increase in greenhouse gases. But that does not matter much in the end.

The scientific consensus is that there is an energy imbalance, even as calculations have not yet been perfected. The warming temperatures are an expected response to the imbalance. The major question concerned where the excess heat was going.

Consensus isn't science, and the 97% figure is hogwash. Often times you'll find these 'consensuses' are not fueled by science, but by funding. Using OHC to determine an imbalance is no better than guesswork or rough speculation.

[physicsguy21]

Because it is not being radiated back out to space. If it is not being radiated back out to space then it must be warming some part of the Earth.

Total OLR at TOA has not decreased, or at least a decrease has not been measured. So how can you assert this?

[physicsguy21]

OLR should have increased since 1979. The surface of the oceans and land are warmer than back several decades ago. Remember radiance is proportional to T^4. A warmer surface emits higher energy at all wavelengths.

TSI may have been on the high side over the past several decades compared to earlier 20th century, but the radiative forcing is minor. The radiative forcing give for changes in TSI since mid 19th century is about 0.12W/m^2. Maybe it could be as much as 0.30W/^2 when allowing for uncertainty. When we apply the Planck Response (0.27C/watt of forcing) we get an expected increase <0.1C of warming

So at the very most, according to the science, solar variation could account for 0.1C before feedback. This factual reality does not go away because you choose not to believe it.

I meant net OLR at the TOA level. Net OLR at the TOA level is not projected to increase during greenhouse warming, it is projected to emit at ~240Wm2 when averaged globally.

A decrease in the CO2 spectrum prompts an increase in other wavelengths, "working harder" so to speak. The theory is that the delay in IR escape through CO2 as the atmospheric emission altitude increases leads to warming. Can you see the possible speculative error here?

[donsutherland1]

What do you mean 'extreme solar minimum'? The TSI minimum was possibly higher than many of the maximums earlier this century. OHC has not witnessed any statistically significant trend in the ARGO era, which prompted Hansen to lower his theoretical imbalance to 0.6Wm2 which is possibly less than the increase in solar since the 1820s.

...The TSI minimum in 2008 was still very high compared to many maximums the early 20th century.

It was the deepest solar minimum in perhaps a century. I don't believe there is any peer-reviewed paper that questions the magnitude of the recent solar minimum.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/

If ever there was a real world test of the hypothesis that solar variability has been the main driver of the ongoing climate change, the recent solar minimum provided it. The lack of meaningful response in the energy imbalance attests to the scientific consensus as to the relatively greater role being played by greenhouse gases in driving ongoing climate change. Indeed, a few years ago, NASA estimated that solar variability accounted for only 25% of the warming over the past century. Research also suggests that even a new Maunder Minimum-type event would not offset the warming on account of greenhouse gases.

Consensus isn't science, and the 97% figure is hogwash. Often times you'll find these 'consensuses' are not fueled by science, but by funding. Using OHC to determine an imbalance is no better than guesswork or rough speculation.

The "97%" figure you cite concerns the climate change position. I noted that there is a consensus that the earth is experiencing an energy imbalance. That's a different matter. Hansen, et. al., have estimated the size of the energy imbalance.

[physicsguy21]

It was the deepest solar minimum in perhaps a century. I don't believe there is any peer-reviewed paper that questions the magnitude of the recent solar minimum.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/

It was the deepest sunspot minimum in over a century. It was the 4th *highest* TSI minimum in over 350 years. And we're at record levels historically. http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/VieiraTSI3000.png

If ever there was a real world test of the hypothesis that solar variability has been the main driver of the ongoing climate change, the recent solar minimum provided it.

Huh? How so? Again aside from the fact that TSI was still extremely high, your claims about the oceans' response is physically impossible. It would take them hundreds of years to equilibrate.

The "97%" figure you cite concerns the climate change position. I noted that there is a consensus that the earth is experiencing an energy imbalance. That's a different matter. Hansen, et. al., have estimated the size of the energy imbalance.

The figure is derived from 77 scientists, most without education in physics or chemical engineering. Of course there should be a 100% consensus that the climate is out if balance.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I am not as well versed as some in this subject but I know enough to see the processes at work here. Maybe not all by no means but we are arguing one thing with delayed time series correlations and sketchy data VS another argument that explains the situation nearly perfectly.

We have physically measured and proven GHG warming.

We have physically measured Surface Daily Solar Irradiance. As well as OLR. Surface Skin Temperature, Sea Surface Temperature, bottom line we can measure the sun's direct forcing, which means we have proven the snow albedo, ice albedo, and any other surface albedo feedback.

We have physically proven aerosol cooling and Water Vapor Feedback.

We have proven within small small error margins Sea Ice volume, thickness, extent, area. We have observed by photo, in situ measurements, temp extrapolation vs climate forcings, and Grace data land, glacier, and ice cap ice mass loss.

We can physically measure how much heat is in the oceans, how much it changes, how warm they are at most depths. We have thousands of buoys, and many deep water measuring floats, arctic buoys(50-100) a year now.

Microwave frequency satellites, alimeters, lazers, about any means to measure gases, temperature, soil vegetation, soil water, soil frozen depth, clathrate depth and size.

Dual Pol Radar, Gravity detectors for the entire globe and parts of the solar system, many sats dedicated to the solar weather 24/7 to understand that.

Hundreds of thousands of in situ daily obs global from COOP. Amazing.

When we add the sum of our parts we have a good idea of whats happening. We are very technologically advanced at this point.

In 10-20 years it will explode even further to heights unthinkable a decade ago.

We know what is going on, or we just delude ourselves.

[physicsguy21]

I am not as well versed as some in this subject but I know enough to see the processes at work here. Maybe not all by no means but we are arguing one thing with delayed time series correlations and sketchy data VS another argument that explains the situation nearly perfectly.

I disagree, it is physically impossible for the oceans to equilibrate to any forcing in less than a century. How can you possibly disagree with this?

We have physically measured and proven GHG warming.

We have physically measured and proven warming, not *greenhouse* warming. If anything greenhouse gases are less likely to be the main culprit, since the notoriously modeled tropospheric hotspot is nonexistent unless radiosonde error boundaries are nearly doubled so their devations become exponential and hence overlap the trendline. No direct satellite based measurements reveal a hotspot of any kind, and radiosondes feature more uncertainty than any other method.

What we *have* measured more closely represents ozone destruction by solar, a significant positive feedback to high solar activity, cooling most of the atmosphere above 250mb while enhancing the input into the oceans. Measurements support this.

We have physically measured Surface Daily Solar Irradiance. As well as OLR. Surface Skin Temperature, Sea Surface Temperature, bottom line we can measure the sun's direct forcing, which means we have proven the snow albedo, ice albedo, and any other surface albedo feedback.

We cannot attribute measurements to hypothesized feedbacks resulting from hypothesized forcings in a sea of chaos and forcings. We do not understand the climate well at all. Our biggest gaffe is our neglecting to account for most of our own energy budget.

We have physically proven aerosol cooling and Water Vapor Feedback.

No we have not, climate models only resolve through the equations we put into them. We have not measured 'water vapor temperature feedback' because we can't actually do that.

We have proven within small small error margins Sea Ice volume, thickness, extent, area.

Ice volume is highly uncertain. We have the PIOMAS model and Cryosat2 beam satellite which deviate hugely from one another.

We can physically measure how much heat is in the oceans, how much it changes, how warm they are at most depths. We have thousands of buoys, and many deep water measuring floats, arctic buoys(50-100) a year now.

Agreed?

Microwave frequency satellites, alimeters, lazers, about any means to measure gases, temperature, soil vegetation, soil water, soil frozen depth, clathrate depth and size.

Ok?

Dual Pol Radar, Gravity detectors for the entire globe and parts of the solar system, many sats dedicated to the solar weather 24/7 to understand that.

Point being?

When we add the sum of our parts we have a good idea of whats happening. We are very technologically advanced at this point.

We need to eat some humble pie. Sure, we're in a technological revolution. What we need now is a physics revolution to understand what we're actually measuring.

In 10-20 years it will explode even further to heights unthinkable a decade ago.

Hopefully the stagnation in physical climate science will end as a result? We can really only hope.

We know what is going on, or we just delude ourselves.

This is wrong.

[donsutherland1]

It was the deepest sunspot minimum in over a century. It was the 4th *highest* TSI minimum in over 350 years. And we're at record levels historically. http://www.skeptical...eiraTSI3000.png

Your graph is outdated. The solar minimum occurred in 2008. One cannot make a claim about TSI from the solar minimum using a graph that extends only to 2000 and, therefore, predates the solar minimum. In fact, a recent paper estimates that the TSI fell to around 1361 during the solar minimum.

Huh? How so? Again aside from the fact that TSI was still extremely high, your claims about the oceans' response is physically impossible. It would take them hundreds of years to equilibrate.

As you appear to be confusing the approach for measuring with the variable being measured:

1. The earth has been in a persistent energy imbalance (earth absorbs more energy from the sun than it emits).

2. The energy imbalance has resulted in rising global temperatures (as physics would suggest).

3. Solar variability explains only a small part of that imbalance.

4. Radiative forcings suggest that anthropogenic forcings play a much larger role.

5. The extreme solar minimum and exceptional drop in the TSI did not erase the imbalance. The imbalance remained more than twice the peak-to-trough decline in solar energy (0.57 watts per square meter vs. 0.25 watts per square meter).

6. The remaining energy balance would be eliminated if the equivalent measure of reducing atmospheric CO2 to 350 parts per million were achieved.

7. The persistence of the energy imbalance in the face of the extreme solar minimum demonstrates that solar activity didn't create the largest share of the energy imbalance and diminished solar activity won't eliminate it. Other factors--anthropogenic ones--largely explain the energy imbalance. That outcome is consistent with the broad scientific understanding of the issue. In turn, that imbalance has led to rising temperatures. Hence, the rising atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases on account of the marginal anthropogenic contribution is the most significant driver of rising global temperatures.

[WeatherRusty]

Why did you omit the most important points in my post?

Problem is the continued warming of OHC actually supports the impact of TSI since it is still historically high compared to where it used to be, the recent minimum included. The oceans respond slowly to any forcing and take hundreds of years to equilibrate to a forcing

However the magnitude of solar radiative forcing is very small. The entire temperature response to the known range of solar variation is approximately 0.1C as I have shown in earlier posts.

What do you mean 'extreme solar minimum'? The TSI minimum was possibly higher than many of the maximums earlier this century. OHC has not witnessed any statistically significant trend in the ARGO era, which prompted Hansen to lower his theoretical imbalance to 0.6Wm2 which is possibly less than the increase in solar since the 1820s.

Yes, a prolonged solar minimum where sunspot count was very low to non-existent for 2-3 years longer than the usual term. The Sun's output varies about 1.3W/m^2 at TOA between solar max and solar min. That's one tenth of 1% change in solar radiative energy. That value is also considered the most likely change since the Maunder Minimum, but due to uncertainty it could possibly be about double that amount. Solar radiative forcing ~= 0.12Wm^2 to 0.24Wm^2. About 0.1C Planck temperature response. That's theory....actual observation/statistical analysis teases out 0.1C variation between solar min and max. Coincidence or verification of theoretical expectation?

Please explain? I do not see how this is physically possible. The TSI minimum in 2008 was still very high compared to many maximums the early 20th century. The oceans equilibrate over hundreds of years. How would the imbalance have been slashed? That is impossible.

This is just plain false. The total known range is 1.3Wm^2 or maybe double that representing a radiative forcing of 0.12W to 0.24W/m^2=<0.1C. Look at either ACRIM or PMOD. Extrapolate back to early 20th century, which by proxy measurements indicates not much change from modern times. Minimum values are all quite similar, any differences involving duration.

Solar variations are small radiatively compared to the effect of greenhouse gases. But that isn't very important on it's own. OHC does not prove or disprove an imbalance because it is affected by many factors. The only way we could actually determine an imbalance would be though a reduction in total OLR at TOA which has not occured and can't occur for long periods of time.

The complex detail of energy flow within the climate system, ocean, land, atmosphere is largely irrelevant. The net flow of energy in and out of the system at TOA is what determines temperature and direction of change. Again, OLR will increase as the oceans continue to warm...remember the Planck equation relating power of emissivity to temperature.

It seems you weight IR backradiation very heavily in contribution to surface warming over the S-B constant, I don't think we're going to agree there.

Yes, exactly. Physics indicates energy flow in and out of the system changing due to alteration of the greenhouse effect and not so much from long term changes in TSI. That kind of theory backed up by hard evidence is difficult to ignore. You can try to introduce additional complicating factors, but their influence has been even less than either greenhouse warming or solar warming. Show me that albedo has changed significantly and we can talk.

Let me put this idea forth. The oceans are a greenhouse fluid, they attain energy rapidly and retain almost all of it at night. So it is physically impossible to expect the oceans to match the temperature of the S-B constant and should be much warmer in order to attain equilibrium. The oceans and atmosphere are thermally coupled.

The S-B constant (225K) is not thermally matched at the surface or in the oceans. That equilibrium takes place at the IR layer of emissivity...on average 16,000 feet above the surface.

Much warmer....you mean a maximum of 0.1C warmer?

I agree that the solsr changes are radiatively minute compared to an increase in greenhouse gases. But that does not matter much in the end.

Simple thermodynamics and radiative transfer theory indicate just the opposite. Energy in versus energy out is all important, and changes in forcing by the greenhouse effect are far outwaying forcing changes due to TSI. You can dice and slice it anyway you like, just to give the appearance of mind boggling complexity, but the net result is still determined by the simplest of physics.

Consensus isn't science, and the 97% figure is hogwash. Often times you'll find these 'consensuses' are not fueled by science, but by funding. Using OHC to determine an imbalance is no better than guesswork or rough speculation.

Should we place more faith in the 97% consensus of publishing climate scientists or in the relatively tiny consensus of their less educated, politically driven opposition?

Guesswork or rough speculation? Your opinion is noted, you hold a deep disrespect for science and it's methodologies. The National Academies of Science, the AGU et al., hold a very different opinion....but then you'll say that's hogwash too.

[donsutherland1]

Outstanding points, WeatherRusty.

IMO, the solar argument that was the basis of this thread cannot be sustained when one considers the radiative forcings and observed outcome related to the extreme solar minimum during which an energy imbalance more than twice as great as the peak-to-trough decline in solar radiation persisted. The physical basis for the energy imbalance and temperature response is strong.

The two principal arguments made to counter what the scientific consensus suggests have been:

1. TSI has remained high [and therefore explains the observed rise in temperatures]: In fact, it has not. The chart on which that argument was based was outdated. It predated the solar minimum. A recent paper estimated TSI of approximately 1361 during the solar minimum, which would constitute an exceptionally low value.

2. It is 'questionable' whether an energy imbalance exists: Although there are uncertainities in terms of precise measurements, improvements in measurement methodology and technology have allowed scientists to confirm the existence of an energy imbalance with a 90% or greater level of confidence. Rising sea levels and rising temperatures all provide substantiating evidence for the existence of an energy imbalance.

In the end, physical scientific principles and observation have sustained, even strengthened, the prevailing scientific argument that solar variability cannot account for the majority of observed temperature rise over the past century, particularly during recent decades. The decoupling of solar variability from global temperatures also illustrates a declining relative role for solar variability. Rising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases play the leading role in driving the global temperature trend (as would be expected given the radiative forcings involved) and also in displacing some of the contribution previously resulting from solar variability. That same growing role of the increasing atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases also explains the regional phenomonon of a divergence of U.S. temperatures from the PDO-AMO since 1995.

[physicsguy21]

Thanks. Some points

- If OHC is being used to determine a hypothetical imbalance then a single solar minimum cannot provide a hypothesis test because the oceans cannot equilibrate to a forcing within less than a century. This is my main point but not the problem with the greenhouse theory.

- The main amplification mechanism to an active Sun is ozone destruction which cools the atmosphere above 250mb and lets deep-penetrating UV rays into the oceans. This is supported by observations.

- Total OLR at TOA is not projected to increase by GCMs, the Earth is predicted to emit at 240Wm2 averaged globally at TOA. Below TOA OLR is projected to increase. If total OLR does not decrease at TOA an imbalance cannot actually be shown.

- I could care less about radiative forcing, it only matters what influences the *MSAT* which is where heat flow begins from the surface to the atmosphere. The backradiation assumption of over 300Wm2 is based on OHC differing over the 255K emission value at TOA, nighttime heat retainment. What we're doing wrong in that is ignoring the conductive properties that dominate in 99% of the atmosphere to the surface at night resulting in the insulation effect, only 0.4% of the atmosphere truly backradiates and it represents much less energy. We're also ignoring the oceans thermal release rate, and actually discounting over 70% of the total energy budget.

Today's physics are attempting to explain the surface 288K completely through backradiation from the atmosphere which is how CO2 sensitivity is determined. That is such irrational thinking, it really bothers me. Most of that results from conduction to the surface at night from the atmosphere, the oceans acting as a greenhouse fluid, and higher air pressure closer and molecular line broadening closer to the surface slowing the rate of heat loss, slowing photon release.

Increase molecular density and a photon is more likely to be intercepted or heat conducted kinetically.

[physicsguy21]

Think about this. When a molecule is thrusting upward during convection, it must overcome gravity. Once a body on a *non molecular* scale attains kinetic energy it cannot be converted to thermal energy again, but can only be discharged electrically.

[TerryM]

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.

Amen

[The_Global_Warmer]

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.

This is something we agree on. I called out this out last summer, and was told I was insane.

this one is more obvious. why is he allowed to do this, that is a great question.

But worse is how he can do this to post bad data while stretching the truth.

The worst is when someone posts a paragraph and he can break it into 10, 15, 20 or more individual refutes which then he sprinkles in lies, half truths and facts knowing people won't reply I the same crazy manner, now he accomplishes complete distortion of reality and full on apathy from the other party, this also completely confuses and puts off third party watchers who want any tiny reason to find doubt in real science.

It works, as long as he doesn't post dozens of mocking insults and smileys then no rules are broken.

That snow fall prediction was crap and based on crap.

But his geomag temp predictions are crap that are failing and will fail harder, he will then change his username, tune, or not come back

[physicsguy21]

You are the 4th person to claim I'm apparently someone else and I have no idea who you are talking about but you're wrong.

When it comes to the physics there are simply too many speculative assumptions drawn from measurements we do not understand.

We think there is an imbalance because CO2 slows radiative release and OHC just so happened to be rising at the time.

- We didn't bother to understand that a dampening in one wavelength leads to an amplification in another.

- We didn't bother to understand why our greenhouse theory only applies to a closed system such as a star where the system itself is the heat source.

- We didn't bother to take into account gravity, charge, and mechanical energy when balancing the energy budget. That is at least 50% of the total budget.

- We didn't bother to take into account conduction from atmospheric molecules to the surface, or the oceans heat capacity over absorption time.

There is so much missing.

[cmc0605]

In debates such as the one this thread has devolved to, I can't help feel that I somehow got caught up in a barnyard fest of clucking chickens or an ugly bar brawl with 50 drunk people. It is unfortunate that the number of people preaching their self-taught insights into what science is doing all wrong far outweighs the number of people who actually know what they are talking about.

Unfortunately, I don't suspect a large number of climate scientists will get an account here, so that is unlikely to change. I also suspect that at this point the majority of comments are now being directed toward one or two deviant posters that get way too much information from wingnut sources, and do not have the intellectual integrity to spend some time with a textbook (or take a couple classes) before commenting. As much as they feel every blog post has caused a paradigm shift, you will virtually never see their "results" published or discussed in academic conferences. There's no point in trying to educate these people or to continue arguing nonsense, even in the hope that it might benefit third party readers who find their way here. They will just end up more confused. There are also legitimate uncertainties in the science that can be discussed without having to examine stuff like whether the field has taken gravity into account.

In that light, I'd like to lay out a basic outline for some general points where there shouldn't be much disagreement.

1) There is absolutely no doubt that a radiative imbalance exists at the top of the atmosphere. This net flux (the difference between absorbed shortwave radiation and emitted thermal radiation) is non-zero and is nearly equivalent to the ocean heating rate, tthough with a small difference owing to the heat uptake by the land and cryosphere, which is much smaller. The net flux measured by satellites (such as the CERES instrument) and the ocean heating rate measured by XBT and Argo networks are generally consistent with each other but seemed to diverge in the last several years, giving rise to the concept of "missing heat," (discussed in many of Trenberth's papers) but does not appear to be statistically significant however (Loeb et al 2012 summarize the issues nicely). While scientists are always arguing the details and including higher-order effects, the "broad brush" expectations of what happens when you add GHGs are occurring and are robust.

2) Global warming results from this small but persistent imbalance in radiant energy at the top of the atmosphere. It is true that an increase in CO2 initially decreases the outgoing longwave radiation. This means that the net energy will be positive as there will be more incoming shortwave energy than emitted thermal energy.

The corresponding increase in temperature increases the planetary emission back to its original value (for fixed sunlight/albedo). Thus, the radiative imabalnce viewed from space decays to zero as the planet warms. This means that, in equilibrium, there is no increase or decrease in OLR relative to the initial, unperturbed state. However, the temperature has increased to maintain this state of affairs and the vertical distribution of where energy can freely emit to space changes. Unfortunately, in the real atmosphere simple formulas such as σT^4 are not often readily applicable because the atmosphere is semi-transparent and has opacity that changes strongly as a function of wavelength. Moreover, the water vapor feedback makes the OLR-T dependence much more linear than a fourth power relation, and in the extreme limit (say, a runaway greenhouse) the OLR needn't increase at all even as the surface temperature increases rapidly. It is thus necessarily to numerically solve for the vertical structure of atmospheric temperature and absorber distributions, as well as resolve the spectral dependence of multiple gases, which is done in modern GCMs,.

3) The emphasis on solar min/max is a bit of red herring because the solar cycle has a rather high-frequency sinusoid-like structure while the the radiative forcing of the type you get from CO2 is a monotonically increasing function, and the global temperature time series displays a long-term upward trend. It may be true that the solar irradiance is higher in its absolute magnitude than in the recent past (say, at the Maunder minimum) but unlike the luxury of people on the internet who can just make stuff up without needing to justify or document their equations/assumptions, scientists actually work out the math and feed the documented changes into GCMs and it is still an extremely small forcing. WeatherRusty is the only person I've seen who has correctly demonstrated how such a forcing calculation is done, and the back-of-envelope calculations do not do too bad relative to much more sophisticated models.

It is possible that the models are missing some extreme bit of physics that inflates the solar sensitivity by a factor of 10-20 while leaving the greenhouse sensitivity unchanged, but you'll have a hard time convincing anyone serious of that. It is also possible there are indirect solar effects (e.g., cosmic ray modulation of cloud cover) might be important. These have been studied by a lot of people and all the available evidence indicates that they are best, extremely small fine-tuning knobs (see Gray et al., 2010 for a review). It is ultimately irrelevant since the sun has not undergone any significant changes since the mid-20th century. "physicsguy" has tried to get around this by significantly expanding the role of thermal inertia in creating a lag in the system response, so much so that he's just creating a hypothesis that he will never be able to convince himself is falsified. Indeed, in attribution studies, the spatial and temporal evolution of the response is extremely important for diagnosing climate change causes. Thermal inertia, however, does not mean you suddenly get an accelerated response decades after the forcing flatlines. Rather, it slows the rate to equilibrium. Even if a full 100% equilibrium takes "hundreds of years" you still expect a meaningful response as the forcing is applied. By his reasoning, we'd expect the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo to cause global cooling sometime next decade.

[TerryM]

Thank you

Terry

[donsutherland1]

Outstanding post, cmc0605.

[WeatherRusty]

I meant net OLR at the TOA level. Net OLR at the TOA level is not projected to increase during greenhouse warming, it is projected to emit at ~240Wm2 when averaged globally.

A decrease in the CO2 spectrum prompts an increase in other wavelengths, "working harder" so to speak. The theory is that the delay in IR escape through CO2 as the atmospheric emission altitude increases leads to warming. Can you see the possible speculative error here?

You are correct about that, as the Earth warms the average wavelength of emission is shortened. However the difference is quite minor given the small change in temperature involved.