Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

[Furcifer]

What to you mean by "greatly"?
Can you give citations to "the actual wavelength and the distance traveled by the radiation vary greatly"?

DD quoted the relevant distances and the wavelength varies from 200nm to 2400nm.

I can see that the distance will vary annually by a "tiny" amount since the eccentricty of the Earth's orbit is tiny. However this will have no effect on climate.

Where do you live? On the equator?

What effect does the TSI being "very poorly understood" have?

It's the primary forcing. The engine that drives the climate isn't fully understood.

 

[Dancing David]

It's the primary forcing. The engine that drives the climate isn't fully understood.

Saying that does not make it so, the fluctuations are the topic , allegedly, of this thread.

Volocanic eruptions are as big a force.

 

[Reality Check]

DD quoted the relevant distances and the wavelength varies from 200nm to 2400nm.

I see - you stated the obvious, i.e. that the TSI is claculated from a range of wavelengths

Where do you live? On the equator?

No. Do you know that seasonal variations like summer and winter are weather, not climate?

From Wikepedia: Climate

Climate (from Ancient Greek klima, meaning inclination) is commonly defined as the weather averaged over a long period of time.[2] The standard averaging period is 30 years,[3] but other periods may be used depending on the purpose.

It's the primary forcing. The engine that drives the climate isn't fully understood.

That is right as far as it goes. Thre are several primary forces for variations in climate such as CO2, El Nino and volcanoes as DD mentioned.

What is the significance of the engine not being fully understood?
I hope that you are not suggesting that only science that is fully understood should be used because no science is ever fully understood. All that scientists need is that an area be adequately understood, e.g. that the models match what has been observed and make predictions that are found to be valid. This is the case with climate science, e.g. climate computer models are able to reproduce past observations and their predictions have matched observations.
But see How reliable are climate models? for a better explanation including the difficulties.

That is what Project Astrometria (the long lost OP of this thread) is about improving knwledge of the variations in TSI. Unfortunately the astronomers involved in that research are not climate scientists. They are not aware of (or are ignoring) the research that shows that TSI has no correlation with the current trend in global temperatures. See Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

 

[Furcifer]

Saying that does not make it so, the fluctuations are the topic , allegedly, of this thread.

Volocanic eruptions are as big a force.

You can't equate radiation with aerosols.

 

[Furcifer]

I see - you stated the obvious, i.e. that the TSI is claculated from a range of wavelengths

No it isn't, it's taken from SORCE measurements.

No. Do you know that seasonal variations like summer and winter are weather, not climate?

It depends on the period you choose. There predictability makes them part of the climate and not the weather. I shouldn't need to explain this.

What is the significance of the engine not being fully understood?

This shouldn't need explaining either.

I hope that you are not suggesting that only science that is fully understood should be used because no science is ever fully understood.

It depends on what you you intend to with it. It isn't sufficient for making predictions 20 or 30 years down the road.

That is what Project Astrometria (the long lost OP of this thread) is about improving knwledge of the variations in TSI. Unfortunately the astronomers involved in that research are not climate scientists. They are not aware of (or are ignoring) the research that shows that TSI has no correlation with the current trend in global temperatures. See Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

This makes no sense, you don't ignore something you don't understand.

 

[Reality Check]

No it isn't, it's taken from SORCE measurements.

Not quite right: A source of TSI measurements since 2003 is SORCE.

It depends on the period you choose. There predictability makes them part of the climate and not the weather. I shouldn't need to explain this.

A period of a year (annual) is weather.
A period of 30 years is climate.
I shouldn't need to explain this.

This shouldn't need explaining either.

Then I will take it that there is no significance. The climate "engine" is well enough understood that models fit what is observed.

It depends on what you you intend to with it. It isn't sufficient for making predictions 20 or 30 years down the road.

What is "it" and where are your citations for the "it" not being sufficient?

This makes no sense, you don't ignore something you don't understand.

This makes no sense. I never said that.


What I wrote was that the Project Astrometria astronomers were either

1. Unaware of the research that shows that TSI has no correlation with the current trend in global temperatures. See Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?
2. Or were ignoring that research (i.e. were aware but selected to ignore it).

The research is simple enough for anyone to understand:
Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

Until about 1960, measurements by scientists showed that the brightness and warmth of the sun, as seen from the Earth, was increasing. Over the same period temperature measurements of the air and sea showed that the Earth was gradually warming. It was not surprising therefore for most scientists to put two and two together and assume that it was the warming sun that was increasing the temperature of our planet.

However, between the 1960s and the present day the same solar measurements have shown that the energy from the sun is now decreasing. At the same time temperature measurements of the air and sea have shown that the Earth has continued to become warmer and warmer. This proves that it cannot be the sun; something else must be causing the Earth's temperature to rise.

The Intermediate version of that argument has a list of the papers that confirm that result.

An analysis of solar trends concluded that the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades (Lockwood 2008).
...


This conclusion is confirmed by many studies finding that while the sun contributed to warming in the early 20th Century, it has had little contribution (most likely negative) in the last few decades:

• Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming."
• Benestad 2009: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980."
• Lockwood 2008: "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is -1.3% and the 2? confidence level sets the uncertainty range of -0.7 to -1.9%."
• Lean 2008: "According to this analysis, solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100 years..."
• Lockwood 2008: "The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings."
• Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."
• Lockwood 2007: "The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."
• Foukal 2006 concludes "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."
• Scafetta 2006 says "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."
• Usoskin 2005 conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
• Solanki 2004 reconstructs 11,400 years of sunspot numbers using radiocarbon concentrations, finding "solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades".
• Haigh 2003 says "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."
• Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."
• Solanki 2003 concludes "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970."
• Lean 1999 concludes "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970."
• Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."
• Frolich 1998 concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade."

 

[Furcifer]

Not quite right: A source of TSI measurements since 2003 is SORCE.

I won't be holding my breath waiting for you to support your claim.

A period of a year (annual) is weather.
A period of 30 years is climate.
I shouldn't need to explain this.

I'm afraid Winter, Summer, Spring and Fall have been going on for more than 30 years. (just a bit)

Then I will take it that there is no significance. The climate "engine" is well enough understood that models fit what is observed.

Nope, not when it comes to TSI.

It's obvious you don't really understand the significance of TSI and how it relates to climate. Our current understanding is based on some rather simplified assumptions of the Sun and how the Earth absorbs and reflects radiation.

ETA: thanks for the copypasta

 

[Dancing David]

Um, I don't think that you have shown anything to support the OP that the irradiance is rapidly decreasing, now have you?

rather funny since your idea of evidence is rather lacking.

 

[Reality Check]

I won't be holding my breath waiting for you to support your claim.

What claim?

I'm afraid Winter, Summer, Spring and Fall have been going on for more than 30 years. (just a bit)

I'm afraid I know that Winter, Summer, Spring and Fall have been going on for more than 30 years. (just a bit)

I do hope that you have realized that climate is not weather .
Climate is wather that is averaged over the long term (decades). In that averaging seasonal variations cancel out.

Nope, not when it comes to TSI.

Climate models are not models of the TSI. Models of the TSI are solar physics.
I agree though that the causes of the variations in the TSI are not well understood.

It's obvious you don't really understand the significance of TSI and how it relates to climate. Our current understanding is based on some rather simplified assumptions of the Sun and how the Earth absorbs and reflects radiation.

I understand the significance of TSI - it is a primary driver of climate.
I understand that our current understanding is based on some rather simplified assumptions of the Sun and how the Earth absorbs and reflects radiation.
I understand that TSI and global temperatures have been going in opposite directions since the 1980's.

ETA: thanks for the copypasta

You are welcome. It seemed that were not bothering to follow the links and read up on the science about TSI and climate change.

 

[Furcifer]

Um, I don't think that you have shown anything to support the OP that the irradiance is rapidly decreasing, now have you?

rather funny since your idea of evidence is rather lacking.

None of the papers cited considers spectral variation in TSI as a possible source of cooling (or less warming).
The according to recent studies the actual incident solar entropy flux is 4 times larger than was previously estimated. So all of the papers you cited are seriously flawed.

Can you cite any paper that properly estimates the incident solar radiation entropy flux at 0.31Wm⁻² K⁻¹?

 

[Furcifer]

What claim?

That TSI has been properly calculated over the range of wavelengths.

Let's see them calculations you claim exist

I'm afraid I know that Winter, Summer, Spring and Fall have been going on for more than 30 years. (just a bit)

I do hope that you have realized that climate is not weather .
Climate is wather that is averaged over the long term (decades). In that averaging seasonal variations cancel out.

The seasons aren't weather, they are well defined periods of climate, albeit short. In the NH the climate in the Winter is cold, how cold is the weather.

How long are you prepared to keep up this "No, you're wrong" exchange?

Climate models are not models of the TSI. Models of the TSI are solar physics.
I agree though that the causes of the variations in the TSI are not well understood.

OK, well then how can you dismiss this theory entirely? People seem to presume more than is actually known.

 

[Reality Check]

That TSI has been properly calculated over the range of wavelengths.

Then you are right - I use the wroing word. The TSI is measured over the range of wavelengths. There may or may not be or were claculation.

The seasons aren't weather, they are well defined periods of climate, albeit short.

You are wrong. Climate is weather that is averaged over decades. By definition seasons cannot be climate.

You are also right . The common English usage (nothing to do with climate science or this thread) of climate is the same as weather

How long are you prepared to keep up this "No, you're wrong" exchange?

So long as you do not bother to look up the actual meaning of climate in climate science.

OK, well then how can you dismiss this theory entirely? People seem to presume more than is actually known.

What theory do I dismiss?

The theory that TSI is the cause of the measured increase in global temperature is debunked by the observed reduction of the TSI over the last 3 decades.

The TSI does have an effect. If it were not decreasing then temperatures would be probably be higher. If it continues to decrease to the levels of the Maunder Minimum as in the OP then the effect is predicted to be small (and probably desirable!):
Are we heading into a new Ice Age?

Let's say for the sake of argument that the sun does enter another Maunder Minimum over the 21st century. What effect would this have on Earth's climate? Simulations of the climate response if the sun did fall to Maunder Minimum levels find that the decrease in temperature from the sun is minimal compared to the warming from man-made greenhouse gases (Feulner 2010). Cooling from the lowered solar output is estimated at around 0.1°C (with a maximum possible value of 0.3°C) while the greenhouse gas warming will be around 3.7°C to 4.5°C, depending on how much CO2 we emit throughout the 21st century (more on this study...).

 

[Furcifer]

So long as you do not bother to look up the actual meaning of climate in climate science.

And the seasons meet every definition of climate. I do enjoy the pointless squabbling though, it shows your desperation to get something right

(a quick search shows weather, seasons and the climate as 3 distinct entities)

The TSI does have an effect. If it were not decreasing then temperatures would be probably be higher.

Funny, the temperatures are a sign of the weather, not the climate.

So where's the proof that the change in TSI spectrum isn't having the effect of slightly warming the lower parts of the atmosphere, while cooling the upper resulting in a net cooling. Has that been ruled out?

 

[Reality Check]

And the seasons meet every definition of climate. I do enjoy the pointless squabbling though, it shows your desperation to get something right

(a quick search shows weather, seasons and the climate as 3 distinct entities)

You are wrong - the seasons meet only one definition of climate, i.e. the climate that is not part of climate science. I do enjoy the pointless squabbling though, it shows your desperation to get something right

A quick search shows climate, climate and climate as at least 3 distinct entities (dictionaries mostly have 3 distinct entries for climate)

Funny, the temperatures are a sign of the weather, not the climate.

Funny, the global temperatures are a sign of the climate (as in climate science), not the weather.

So where's the proof that the change in TSI spectrum isn't having the effect of slightly warming the lower parts of the atmosphere, while cooling the upper resulting in a net cooling. Has that been ruled out?

That is another separate problem with TSI being a driver of global warming.

We already have: Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

As far as I remember, TSI would have the effect of heating the upper atmosphere and this is not observed. What is observed is heating of the lower atmosphere which is expected from a greenhouse effect.
Looked up and my memory is right: Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming? (Advanced version)

Inability to explain empirical observations
Aside from the fact that solar effects cannot physically explain the recent global warming, as with GCRs, there are several empirical observations which solar warming could not account for. For example, if global warming were due to increased solar output, we would expect to see all layers of the atmosphere warm, and more warming during the day when the surface is bombarded with solar radiation than at night. Instead we observe a cooling of the upper atmosphere and greater warming at night, which are fingerprints of the increased greenhouse effect.

Start with Laštovička et al. (2006).

 

[Mikemcc]

And the seasons meet every definition of climate. I do enjoy the pointless squabbling though, it shows your desperation to get something right

(a quick search shows weather, seasons and the climate as 3 distinct entities)



Funny, the temperatures are a sign of the weather, not the climate.

So where's the proof that the change in TSI spectrum isn't having the effect of slightly warming the lower parts of the atmosphere, while cooling the upper resulting in a net cooling. Has that been ruled out?

No, you've made the claim. It's up to you to show that it makes a difference. This is despite the authors of the paper that you are making a point about explicitly stating that it doesn't overturn AGW, and simply improves the models (as explained on the moderated AGW thread). You seem to be making a big fuss about nothing, and not adding to the Corbyn thread at all.

 

[Furcifer]

You are wrong - the seasons meet only one definition of climate, i.e. the climate that is not part of climate science. I do enjoy the pointless squabbling though, it shows your desperation to get something right

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

As far as I remember, TSI would have the effect of heating the upper atmosphere and this is not observed. What is observed is heating of the lower atmosphere which is expected from a greenhouse effect.
Looked up and my memory is right: Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming? (Advanced version)


Start with Laštovička et al. (2006).

This is most likely do to the spectral dependence that hasn't really been taken into account.

 

[Furcifer]

No, you've made the claim. It's up to you to show that it makes a difference. This is despite the authors of the paper that you are making a point about explicitly stating that it doesn't overturn AGW, and simply improves the models (as explained on the moderated AGW thread). You seem to be making a big fuss about nothing, and not adding to the Corbyn thread at all.

Nobody claimed it overturns AGW. Nice strawman!

Nothing can overturn the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. I'm not sure if you're aware of this? It's solid science and it's been around since the 1800's!

Pretty neat eh?

 

[CapelDodger]

Global Cooling is a sign of Global Warming dontcha know?

If global cooling comes along climate science will have something new to explain, and Piers Corbyn (and Bastardi) will have something to crow about. We'll all see how that works out. Corbyn has been predicting global cooling for some years now, without any luck.

Any change in the climate is Global Warming, and if the climate doesn't change it's a sign of Global Warming.

The climate not changing is, of course, not global cooling, and, as we all know, the climate is changing (it's getting warmer).

The IPCC says so

Who cares what the IPCC says? They only collate the actual science that's done, and the last report predates the recent cold winters in some parts of North America anyway (which I take to be what impresses you). It also predates the warm winters in Greenland, the Arctic, and other parts of North America.

The Corbyn Big Picture is Global Cooling. For Haig and Corbyn, Global Warming is Global Cooling if it's cold where they live and if it still snows in winter.

(I suspect the snow-extent snapshot posted by Haig is of the situation directly after a rather extreme storm in the US just recently, but I haven't checked on that yet.)

 

[CapelDodger]

Sure .... Corbyn doesn't get it right all the time, he has never claimed infallibility but he is right a lot of the time and you'll have to live with that.

He claims to get it right a lot of the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O76GO02LtlU&feature=related

Well PC did make a mistake in the UK in Jan (he admits the error and learns from it - see the end of the video) but he DID get a lot right in the UK in Dec and elsewhere in Jan but you don't want to give him credit for that, do you?

Why not?

You put a lot of trust in the official data from NOAA

You put a lot of faith in Corbyn's claims of his own accuracy.

NOAA and the New "Climategate" Scandal

NewAmerican quoting a FoxNews "article". You've outdone yourself.

... I'm sure you won't/didn't believe any of the above ...

Go figure.

but do you believe the latest from NOAA?

NOAA Satellite Map Shows Most of Northern Hemisphere is Covered in Snow and Ice
my bold ...a sign of things to come?

The first para from your link :-

"No matter what happens the warmist fraudsters will always claim that everything is happening because of man-made global warming"

I don't think that'll be a useful source, do you? The NOAA map shows snow pretty much where you'd expect it in winter, but I'd be interested in knowing what date it pertains to. Your link was posted on Feb 4th, so it's not quite the latest, is it?

 

[CapelDodger]

This http://www.nohrsc.noaa.gov/nsa/ seems to be a good link for the latest data on North America.