Thursday
Oct072010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill New solar study
Oct 7, 2010 Climate: Models Climate: other There is much excitement in the MSM today over a new paper by Joanna Haigh et al. This is Nature's take:
An analysis of satellite data challenges the intuitive idea that decreasing solar activity cools Earth, and vice versa. In fact, solar forcing of Earth's surface climate seems to work the opposite way around — at least during the current Sun cycle.
The Express asked me to comment on the story and I gave them a couple of lines that I imagine they will have found rather too cautious for their liking. I can't see their story online though.
Update on Oct 7, 2010 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
The Express story is here, and they have squeezed me in near the end.
Reader Comments (80)
Even the BBC mentioned this on Today, tho' I missed hearing it. Richard Black perhaps?
Firstly
Over the three-year study period, the observed variations in the solar spectrum have caused roughly as much warming of Earth's surface as have increases in carbon dioxide emissions, says Haigh.
Then
"All the evidence is that the vast majority of warming is anthropogenic," agrees Lockwood. "It might be that the solar part isn't quite working the way we thought it would, but it is certainly not a seismic rupture of the science."
So we have evidence of a forcing that causes as much increased warming as CO2 but that doesn't change our view that CO2 is the main cause of warming during the period concerned????????
Left hand meet right hand, right hand this is left hand!
Lord Beaverbrook:
Mike Lockwood is another alarmist. Along with other alarmists Julia Slingo, Bob Watson and Andrew Watson, (an over representation of Reading University and UEA?) they are members of NERC and thus you can see why so much funding is wasted on "climate change" research, to the detriment of research that might help the country get out of its current state of near-bankruptcy.
Here's the link
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8046586/A-stronger-Sun-actually-cools-the-Earth.html
Online at http://dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/203989/Solar-probe-warms-hopes-of-climate-change-sceptics, along with a beautiful photo of a polar bar jumping from one ice floe to another.
A study over a 3 year period, I thought that less than 30 years was Weather and only 30+ years was Climate. Not impressed, looks like grant application fodder.
We found something funny but need more time and money. Gimme Gimme Gimme
This research is a piece of eco-heresy.
Warmists have argued for years that solar activity plays no part in AGW or GAGW, none what-so-ever. You would/will get shouted down by warmists if you attempt to argue this point.
Now these scientists are arguing that three years of data show increasing visible light from recent solar activity has actually heated the planet.
Now where does that leave the consensus?
It leaves it in an utter mess!
This research is a piece of eco-heresy.
Warmists have argued for years that solar activity plays no part in AGW or GAGW debate, none what-so-ever. You would/will get shouted down by warmists if you attempt to argue this point.
Now these scientists are arguing that three years of data show increasing visible light from recent solar activity has actually heated the planet.
Now where does that leave the consensus?
It leaves it in an utter mess!
So, it was the sun wot did it !
Who'd a thunk it ?
Now why didn't anybody else think that the source of all heat to the planet might have a big effect on the climate ?
Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, the Director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London, said: "We know that the Earth's climate is affected both by human activity and by 'natural forces' and today's study improves our understanding of how the Sun 'influences' our climate.
Oh Dear! Oh Dear!
Looks like Brian maybe in for the Bob Ward treatment.
Would they know if there were a team of, lets say non consensus scientists, about to publish research based on similar data?
Maybe I'm overly cynical this morning, but the Nature article reads like a pre-emptive statement. I expect that once some serious research is published, they will point back to this and say "ahh yes we know all about that and "All the evidence is that the vast majority of warming is anthropogenic"
It could be they went to the same typing school as our friend Bob :)
AG warmists have been arguing for a long time that the second half of the 20th C was warmer than the first half. So this this bit I didn't quite understand. :
"If the climate were affected in the long term, the Sun should have produced a notable cooling in the first half of the twentieth century, which we know it didn't," she says.
In April of this year, 2010, Professor Mike Lockwood published a paper that showed that cold winters excursions occur more commonly in Europe during low solar activity.
What we are witnessing are scientists realising that solar activity has a quantifiable and much more complex impact on this planet's climate than the simplistic notion that CO2 is the sole determining factor.
Man made CO2 affects the sun aswell?
GC
I think that is a good summary of the Warmists' position now.
Contrast the sense of an aura of calm, confident and authoritative understanding of the total perspective demonstrated by leading 'sceptics' such as Lindzen, to the frightened, defensive desperate appeals to authority by mainstream spokespeople.
Mac, could we work this up into a plausible theory, to be sent to Louise Gray at the Telegraph, starting with the line "As the sun circles the earth......." and finishing ".....more research funding is required"
"Scientific author Andrew Montford, a prominent sceptic commented: “As Professor Haigh says, we have to be cautious with such a short record, but her team’s findings do seem to further discredit any suggestion that the science of climate change is settled.”"
Yay! That's a good quote.
The counter-response is predictable, but clever:
If low solar activity (as indicated by low sun spot numbers SSN) warms the planet, why were the Maunder and Dalton minima COLD?
They should, surely, have been WARM, as each was characterised by sustained periods of low SSNs.
Thus (runs the counter-argument) the likelihood is that climate sensitivity to CO2 is higher that we thought and fluctuating levels of CO2 caused the temperature variation.
I DO NOT endorse this position. I simply repeat it here for discussion. You will come up against it soon enough elsewhere.
GC
Louise Gray - proposed headline and story, "The Sun both warms and cools the planet - man to blame"
"The Aztecs often performed sacrifices to ensure the rising and setting of the sun. Recent research shows that man is interfering with the the Sun's impact on the planet by releasing CO2 into space. Scientists have called for more government money to send a monkey into space to collect man-made CO2 molecules in a jar to prove man's involvement. Meanwhile organisers of the 10:10 campaign have called for a blood sacrifice by blowing up sceptics on the night of 10th October to ensure the Sun will rise the next day."
"All the evidence is that the vast majority of warming is anthropogenic.."
They never say what that evidence is, though, do they? It also seems to imply that we alone are warming the planet - nothing to do with our proximity to a minor star!
And as I'm feeling picky, you can't have a majority of one thing - a major proportion, perhaps.
You almost wish for a Carrington event to demonstrate who is really still in charge...
There are two important aspects to this new research which revealed scientists understanding of and predictions on solar activity are in serious error.
1. There was a four to six times larger decline in ultraviolet than would have been predicted on the basis of previous understanding of solar activity.
2. Also there was a detected increase in 'visible' wavelengths, again unpredicted, and this increase in visible wavelights 'warmed' the planet.
This research shows how poor we understand the compexities of solar activity, but, and this is an important but, it does show a clear cause-and-effect relationship, however small, between an increase in visible radiation and surface temperature on this planet.
Now that connection between solar activity and surface temperature is a CAGW heresy, a clear breach of the IPCC consensus where CO2 is deemed to be the sole factor in determining this planet's climate and humanity's future. It is an article of the CAGW faith that the sun plays no part in the climate change debate.
It is little wonder that scientists involved are so concerned about the impact of their research. This research has a career threatening impact - because it can be argued that they are denouncing an article of faith.
Thanks Mac, that should be good for £10,000 of grant funding
I have a boiler system in my house that does exactly this - more heat less warming. Marvellous
Slightly OT, I'm watching the Michael Wood series on the History of England - the third program. He has mentioned climate change in connection to start of the LIA.
But hang on, I thought the LIA didn't exist ?
Maybe he didn't get the memo.
I am completely baffled by this.
I defer to others - m'Learned Friend Dung for example - to explain to me exactly how this is yet more evidence for AGW and fully supports the ever-stronger consensus that all our woes (if indeed they are woes at all) are caused purely by devil-worship - oops sorry - burning things.
For Josh and LA
It is clear that there have been deliberate attempts to muddy the water on this new research, i.e. "a decrease in solar activity results in more global warming", but if you look at the paper it clearly shows that;
1. There was a four to six times larger decline in ultraviolet than would have been predicted on the basis of previous understanding of solar activity.
2. Also there was a detected increase in 'visible' wavelengths, again unpredicted, and this increase in visible wavelights 'warmed' the planet.
This research shows how poor we understand the compexities of solar activity, but, and this is a very important but, it does show a clear cause-and-effect relationship, however small, between an increase in visible radiation and surface temperature on this planet.
It is that connection between an increase in visible light and an increase in surface temperature that the warmists are trying desperately to gloss over.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11480916
....... also, don't forget the research done by Mike Lockwood this year which showed a clear and strong long term link, going back centuries, between a decrease in sunspot activity and much colder European winters.
This new study by researchers from Imperial College London and the University of Colorado was for data over a 3 year period. The effects maybe anomalous for such a short period of solar activity, but the conclusions of the research aren't. Here we have scientists admitting that an increase in visible light resulted in an increase in surface temperatures. It is little wonder that they wish to muddy the waters.
Martin Dameris, an atmospheric scientist at the German Aerospace Center in Oberpfaffenhofen -
So there you have it. Apart from contibuting a little curvature to localised space time and a bit of radiance, the sun really hasn't much to offer the planet and is a bit player in climate change. Not worthy of further study. Back to RegEM, PCA, verification statistics and the things that really drive climate science research. I don't know what all the excitement is about.
Chris: The LIA is just a regional thingy dontcha know - it completely disappears when you homogenise it with tree rings from the other side of the world.☺ The fascinating thing about that BBC series is the marvellous archives about the Kibworths at Merton College. They could teach the "scientists" at CRU a thing or two about keeping records.
Essentially this is a simple two body system. How are the average temperatures of each body measured? You have to suspect that the data is being manipulated to support an illogical view, i.e. AGW.
GB
That statement by Martin Dameris is a game changer, "But no matter how you look at it, the Sun's influence on current climate change is at best a small natural add-on to man-made greenhouse warming."
From no effect to an admission to a 'small natural add-on' means that the Sun is back into the climate change debate.
From what I've gleaned from warmist sites the new position of the Sun in the CAGW debate is this, "solar cycles may be having less effect on our climate and more effect on our weather", a retreat to the weather-is-not-climate defence.
That conclusion that "an increase in visible light led to an increase in surface temperatures" is highly damaging to the consensus.
@Mac
Gor blinking blimey, swipe me, knock me down wiv a fevver, who'd ever a thort it'
You mean if the sunshine is stronger the Earth warms up? I will need to have a fit of the vapours while I digest this entirely counter-intuitive result. Sort of like summer and winter ...when there's more sunshine, it is generally hotter, and when there's less it's colder? Gosh..I'm glad we employ so many climate scientists to note this (after only 30 years of study). Coz otherwise nobody had ever remarked on this phenomenon before.
Funny old world innit? Still..it just goes to show 'more research grants are needed' as the old catch phrase would have it.
Probably re-hash of an old (perhaps naive) idea; but would it not be valuable to put instruments on, say, the moon, and get average "whole view" temperatures of the Earth and the Sun on a real-time basis?
Re Mac
They can't be too contrarian for fear of invoking the Wrath of Bob, being added to the blacklist and blackballed from the global warming funding club. There's no pressure on them at all, oh no.
There's also other potential interaction with the carbon cycle from TSI variations, ie energy distribution in the photosynthetically active region affecting the biosphere. What it doesn't help is supporting a high senstivity for CO2 though.
The 'orthodox' AGW line is that the variability in the sun's output is so small that it cannot be a major driver. Whether higher solar power causes increases or decreases in temperature is considered largely irrelevant because the magnitude of forcing is so small.
The problem with this approach is that it focuses on a crude aspect of the energy budget - that the sun's power output is practically constant. But this is incredibly blinkered. There are lots of other effects going on in the sun, by which the earth is affected, that vary by orders of magnitude: the magnitude of the solar wind, the magnitude and polarity of the sun's magnetic field etc, variations in the spectral distribution of the power. These large variables are ignored because the climate scientists don't know what their effects are on weather: in other words, all variables they can't understand they ignore or class as zero in their models. In epidemiology, that would be like saying that because at one time epidemiologists didn't understand the exact mechanism by which mosquitoes spread malaria, they were justified in ignoring mosquitoes as a vector for malaria.
Climate science is a laughingstock. Anything that is a large variable (sun's magnetic field; solar wind flux etc) should be given a great deal more attention than something like anthropogenic CO2, which is a bit player in total CO2 fluxes (3%?). Here we are in 2010 and no-one has bothered to look at the sun's power spectral density variations until now and the significant effects this can have on ozone production. What a pathetic performance.
Re Michael Wood's series 'A History of England'.
Just to add that I think it is superb, both for its content and for his presentation. And wonderful incidental music by Howard Davidson.
Even if you have only the slightest interest in history - do not miss! It will be seen as a landmark 'series for many years to come.
In introducing a paper on modelling the effects of solar variability on the atmsphere in 2002 Martin Dameris was forced to concede, "The effects of solar activity on the middle atmosphere are 'controversial' since no clear physical mechanism exists to explain the interactions. Further, it is extremely difficult to isolate any solar-induced variability, since the 'dominant influence' on the middle atmosphere appears to be tropospheric forcing." This was climate science's stated position - you can engage in flight's of fancy by modelling but the reality is that sun has no real impact on climate.
For Martin Dameris to admit now that solar variabilty does have a real impact on climate is a game changer.
Josh. Going back to your central heating boiler for a moment. The idea that changes in room temperature are due to variable heat output from your boiler (furnace for the USA readership) flies in the face of all accepted climate science. What is more likely is that someone is making adjustments to the thickness of your loft insulation.
Rob Schneider,
The photo in the Express article is familiar to me. The Daily Mail had it on an article yesterday.
The article reads
That is the first admission in the media of such pictures showing normal conditions that I can recall.
I knew it!
You lot never read my posts -.-
I posted this in the last week (though a briefer version)
In 2007 Nigel Calder and Henrik Svensmark published a book called "The Chilling Stars"
It had long been known that less sun spots meant cooling but the mechanism was never understood.
In brief, Svensmark's theory was that when cosmic rays hit the Earth's atmosphere, the collisions between those particles and the molecules and atoms in the atmosphere produced enough large heavy molecules reaching the lower atmosphere to cause an increase in low (cooling) cloud)
Sunspots mean increased solar activity, which means a stronger solar wind, the stronger solar wind deflected more cosmic rays.
Less cosmic rays = less low level cloud = cooling.
This was his theory (plus more about how the level of background cosmic rays varied as our sun travels through the galaxy).He tested the theory in his own small lab and confirmed it.
His results were sufficiently convincing to persuade CERN to give him time to use the Hadron Collider to do large scale experiments to further confirm his work. Results are so far very good.
Correction:
Less sunspots = less solar wind = more cosmic rays = more cooling low cloud
more sunspots = more solar wind = less cosmic rays = less cooling cloud
Dung
Whoever heard of doing large scale experiments, in connection with climate science? It will never catch on. Models dear boy, yes scientificly proven computer models thats the ticket. Do you know, some of them can even be used to verify each other. That's how clever this new science is. Large scale experiments are just so passee..
Anyway why would you expect real climate scientists to read your posts about that sun thingy? It's irrelevent, everyone knows that.
I liked the New Scientist's take of this study;
"IF NEW satellite data can be trusted, changes in solar activity warmed the Earth when they should have cooled it."
Notice an attempt to both undermine and muddy the science.
1. NS tries to undermine the conclusion that an increase in visible light resulted in an increase in surface temps - can the data be trusted they ask.
2. NS then tries to muddy the waters by saying that a decline in solar activity, a large decline in untraviolet radiation associated with a decline in sunspot activity, has led to an increase in surface temps - "weird or what?" is the NS response.
Nice try NS but no biscuit.
The new warmist position on solar activity is that the sun has a greater impact on regional weather than on the global climate. That signifies a retreat, an admission that solar activity does impact on climate.
Mac
I think the "increase in visible light" is a red herring.
I think the actual mechanism they are seeing is that described by Svensmark but then I am just a retired wannabe alcoholic hehe
This issue is agreat one to expose just how stupid the IPCC 95% certainty of CAGW is.
Despite hundreds of years of sunspot records that correlate far better than CO2 with warming and cooling, solar activity was ignored as a factor because "the mechanism was not understood".
The reasons for interglacial warming during ice ages is not understood so they ignored that as well (Milankovich Cycles).
When you ignore all the known big effects its then easy to say that it has to be CO2 hehe
Dung
Its not the Hadron Collider. Its a specially constructed Cloud Chamber they are doing the tests in. Photos and diagrams of the setup are here ( large file >6Mb)
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1257940/files/SPSC-SR-061.pdf
Setup is complex untested and sensitive, anticipate some teething design problems, but proper status not revealed.
Dung
I don't think this new study has any real bearing on Svensmark's work.
SORCE is looking at the solar flux and saying 'more visible light and less UV than we expected'. The visible (short wave) radiation is what warms up the surface.
As you say above, Svensmark is examining the link between incoming cosmic radiation and cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) formation. He claims a quiet sun lets in more cosmic radiation, which should increase low cloud cover and cool the surface.
There is growing interest in the way that UV changes wind patterns in the stratosphere. If changes in the UV flux can move the polar jets latitudinally this will produce major changes in low cloud (spatial and extent). In turn, the clouds modulate the amount of SW that reaches (and warms) the oceans. Over time, climatic effects might be produced.
Lots and lots of uncertainty.
The orthodoxy insists that solar activity doesn't have much effect on post-1950 warming 'so it must be CO2'. It won't give up on that over one study. Rather, the findings will be 'torqued' (as Judith Curry so neatly puts it) until they fit with the 'consensus'.