IPCC leaked report, enhanced solar forcing

[Little Fish]

Look at this paper and particularly the graphs on 225 to see the complete absence of an upward trend in UV emissions since 1980.

http://lasp.colorado...Variability.pdf

Br Cornelius

it's a 10 year old paper. SORCE satellite showed previous measurements were underestimated 10 fold.

http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/nov/2nov2011a3.html

[Guest]

it's a 10 year old paper. SORCE satellite showed previous measurements were underestimated 10 fold.

http://www.nipccrepo...2nov2011a3.html

Trend Little Fish Trend - where is it.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

More analysis of why UV variability has insignificant effects on global mean temperature;

http://individual.utoronto.ca/ekwan/ozone.pdf

No overall trend.

The current measurments from NASA SORCE are open to debate as NASA believe that there is some undiscovered systematic instrument error - they are seeking opinions on what it might be.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

More analysis of why UV variability has insignificant effects on global mean temperature;

http://individual.ut...ekwan/ozone.pdf

No overall trend.

SORCE was only launched 10 years ago which means only 10 years of measurements, and you say there is no trend. there has been no global warming for 16 years.

The current measurments from NASA SORCE are open to debate

the measurements are open to debate, but the theory isn't, wtf?

NASA believe that there is some undiscovered systematic instrument error - they are seeking opinions on what it might be.

again, wtf?

how does an organisation "believe"?

so when the data does not match the theory, the data must be wrong? what happened to the scientific method?

[Guest]

SORCE was only launched 10 years ago which means only 10 years of measurements, and you say there is no trend. there has been no global warming for 16 years.

the measurements are open to debate, but the theory isn't, wtf?

again, wtf?

how does an organisation "believe"?

so when the data does not match the theory, the data must be wrong? what happened to the scientific method?

They have reason to believe that there is an error because it is so out of whack with every other measurement ever made - seems a reasonable position to take to me.

Meanwhile all data series for UV dating back over 35 years show absolutely no trend.

UV has been closely studied for a long time at this stage since it is such a crucial part of understanding the ozone hole, if there was a trend in the data it would be well documented at this stage.

The critical thing to realise with UV is that it is highly variable on all time scales and moves in cycles but those cycles average out to a mean zero trend. The second crucial thing to be aware of is that almost all UV is filtered out before reaching the troposphere, which is good otherwise we would be dead. The upper stratosphere and beyond varies in temperature over long and short periods by 10's of degrees but the tropopause varies very little in response - it is extremely stable and buffers us from the variability of heating of the upper atmosphere caused by variability in UV light and Visible light.

Your straw grasping has no basis in empirical data.You have no basis on which to blame UV just as Watts has no basis to blame the sun. There is no trend in UV on which to base a theory of UV forcing. No one is hiding some great UV warming which explains all Global warming

Br Cornelius

Edited December 20, 2012 by Guest

[Guest]

What NASA has to say about the potential error. If the data is found to be accurate it actually means a probable reduction in solar forcing due to UV;

Some climatologists, including Judith Lean of the United States Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, remain skeptical of the SORCE SIM measurements. "I strongly suspect the SIM trends are instrumental, not solar," said Lean, noting that instrumental drift has been present in every instrument that has tracked ultraviolet wavelengths to date.

"If these SIM measurements indicate real solar variations, then it would mean you could expect a warmer surface during periods of low solar activity, the opposite of what climate models currently assume," said Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeling specialist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.

It would also imply that the sun's contribution to climate change over the last century or so might be even smaller than currently thought, suggesting that the human contribution to climate change may in turn be even larger than current estimates.

http://www.nasa.gov/...ycle-sorce.html

If these results from SIM were proved correct then any connection between the sun and the Little Ice age would be totally inexplicable since we would expect a net warming over that period !

Not quite the smoking gun then.

Br Cornelius

Edited December 20, 2012 by Guest

[Little Fish]

The upper stratosphere and beyond varies in temperature over long and short periods by 10's of degrees but the tropopause varies very little in response - it is extremely stable and buffers us from the variability of heating of the upper atmosphere caused by variability in UV light and Visible light.

"Figure 2 shows the modeled zonal mean temperature difference throughout the whole column of atmosphere from 85 km down to the surface for solar minima minus solar maxima conditions. In general, very large temperature cooling of about 1 to 2°C in the mesosphere and stratosphere were seen in response to the large solar UV irradiance difference between solar activity minima and maxima, as suggested by Harder et al.'s SIM data. However, there are also regions of significant warming in the middle to high latitude regions of the surface-troposphere in the Northern hemisphere, which is probably a result of dynamical adjustments (rather than any strict radiation effects imposed from the top and throughout the whole atmospheric column). This finding contradicts the argument that the whole atmospheric column will warm or cool homogenously, which argument has been used by climate alarmists to dismiss any significant role of solar irradiance forcing on climate."

http://www.nipccrepo...2nov2011a3.html

using the UV measurements in gcms shows a warming of the troposphere due to UV variabilty.

http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/nov/InesonetalFig2.png

Edited December 20, 2012 by Little Fish

[Guest]

"Figure 2 shows the modeled zonal mean temperature difference throughout the whole column of atmosphere from 85 km down to the surface for solar minima minus solar maxima conditions. In general, very large temperature cooling of about 1 to 2°C in the mesosphere and stratosphere were seen in response to the large solar UV irradiance difference between solar activity minima and maxima, as suggested by Harder et al.'s SIM data. However, there are also regions of significant warming in the middle to high latitude regions of the surface-troposphere in the Northern hemisphere, which is probably a result of dynamical adjustments (rather than any strict radiation effects imposed from the top and throughout the whole atmospheric column). This finding contradicts the argument that the whole atmospheric column will warm or cool homogenously, which argument has been used by climate alarmists to dismiss any significant role of solar irradiance forcing on climate."

http://www.nipccrepo...2nov2011a3.html

using the UV measurements in gcms shows a warming of the troposphere due to UV variabilty.

http://www.nipccrepo...sonetalFig2.png

I pointed to the paper this assertion is based upon which concludes that the UV influence can effect local weather but not global climate.

Please explain the Little Ice age in your proposed model.

It seems that in your insistence on UV as been the hidden variable you have inadvertently proved that AGW is stronger than we thought - how inconvenient for you.

I personally doubt that SIM is correct.

Br Cornelius

Edited December 20, 2012 by Guest

[Little Fish]

I pointed to the paper this assertion is based upon which concludes that the UV influence can effect local weather but not global climate.

Please explain the Little Ice age in your proposed model.

It seems that in your insistence on UV as been the hidden variable you have inadvertently proved that AGW is stronger than we thought - how inconvenient for you.

I personally doubt that SIM is correct.

Br Cornelius

how so?

[Guest]

how so?

Because the net contribution of solar forcing over the last 100yrs would be reversed in sign (ie a net cooling effect) so the net contribution of CO2 would have to be increased to account for the warming trend.

That is the consequence of the SIM data been correct.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

Because the net contribution of solar forcing over the last 100yrs would be reversed in sign (ie a net cooling effect) so the net contribution of CO2 would have to be increased to account for the warming trend.

That is the consequence of the SIM data been correct.

Br Cornelius

can you explain what you mean with reference to measured data.

[Little Fish]

I personally doubt that SIM is correct

"Measurements (red) from another ultraviolet radiation-sensing instrument called SOLSTICE compare well with those from SIM"

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solarcycle-sorce.html

[Little Fish]

"Some of the variations that SIM has measured in the last few years do not mesh with what most scientists expected. Climatologists have generally thought that the various part of the spectrum would vary in lockstep with changes in total solar irradiance.

However, SIM suggests that ultraviolet irradiance fell far more than expected between 2004 and 2007 -- by ten times as much as the total irradiance did -- while irradiance in certain visible and infrared wavelengths surprisingly increased, even as solar activity wound down overall.

The steep decrease in the ultraviolet, coupled with the increase in the visible and infrared, does even out to about the same total irradiance change as measured by the TIM during that period, according to the SIM measurements.

The stratosphere absorbs most of the shorter wavelengths of ultraviolet light, but some of the longest ultraviolet rays (UV-A), as well as much of the visible and infrared portions of the spectrum, directly heat Earth's lower atmosphere and can have a significant impact on the climate."

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solarcycle-sorce.html

so total irradiance measurement is not the metric to examine with respect to the sun's effect on climate.

which validates what I said in post #1

alarmists and their blogs write off the sun as a significant climate driver by only pointing to TSI (total solar irradiation)

"strong evidence for solar forcing beyond TSI now acknowledged by IPCC"

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/13/ipcc-ar5-draft-leaked-contains-game-changing-admission-of-enhanced-solar-forcing/#more-75705

[Guest]

Its quite simple really - if UV is the hidden forcing, as suggested by SIM, it is strongest when TSI is lowest. Since TSI was attributed as the cause of 50% of the warming up to 1970, when TSI was increasing -according to SIM the actual influence was a cooling trend over that period. This means that the sun cannot account for early century warming if SIM is correct, and so we have to assume that there was another cause - which the most likely candidate was CO2.

Either SIM is grossly wrong, UV has no net cooling or warming effect, or the SIM result is a very short term localised one which cannot be used to infer anything about the long term trend. Take your pick.

You see that graph I produced on page one, you would have to flip the solar plot upside down if you are correct. There is a huge body of evidence pointing to TSI been the dominant driver here, and almost no strong evidence that UV is the dominant driver. It requires more than convenience to flip that much science on its head.

As I said I think SIM is wrong.The evidence of the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice age points to the relationship between TSI and surface temperature been the correct relationship and that SIM is not telling us anything new. There seems to be no logical consistency in your position.

Br Cornelius

Edited December 21, 2012 by Guest

[Little Fish]

if UV is the hidden forcing, as suggested by SIM, it is strongest when TSI is lowest

"the surprising SIM measurements correspond with a period of unusually long and quiescent solar minimum that extended over 2007 to 2009. It may not be representative of past or future solar cycles, solar scientists caution."

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solarcycle-sorce.html

you are just assuming that UV is only high when the total irradiance is low, there is no data to conclude that. as I said, these UV measurements have only been measured for less than one solar cycle, since 2003.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Little Fish

[Guest]

"the surprising SIM measurements correspond with a period of unusually long and quiescent solar minimum that extended over 2007 to 2009. It may not be representative of past or future solar cycles, solar scientists caution."

http://www.nasa.gov/...ycle-sorce.html

you are just assuming that UV is only high when the total irradiance is low, there is no data to conclude that. as I said, these UV measurements have only been measured for less than one solar cycle, since 2003.

That is an inference from the data.

All historic data points to TSI been the dominent forcing as far as the sun goes. UV is absorded in the upper atmosphere and doesn't correspond well to any solar forcing.

It all boils down to the fact that until you can show robust evidence for a clear upward trend in solar UV radiation (and a mechanism for why it would be trending upwards) you cannot attribute the warming which is observed to UV. A theory has to have an evidence base to be taken seriously. The only evidence supplied so far points to the opposite effect of UV.

Br Cornelius

Edited December 21, 2012 by Guest

[Little Fish]

"A new NASA research project aims to study how changes in water vapor and ozone in the upper atmosphere result in "significant climate impacts" on the Earth surface. Prior research has shown that tiny changes in solar activity within and between solar cycles can have greatly amplified effects upon climate by altering the specific humidity of the upper atmosphere, as well as ozone production in the stratosphere due to large changes in solar UV"

http://hockeyschtick...ow-how-sun.html

Edited January 13, 2013 by Little Fish

[Little Fish]

New paper finds another mechanism by which the Sun controls climate

http://hockeyschtick...anism-by_8.html

"A plausible physical mechanism how solar activity might alter the state of the middle atmosphere via UV radiation and how this change is transported to the troposphere is explained by a number of studies (Gray et al., 2010; Ineson et al., 2011; Kuroda and Kodera, 2002; Shindell et al., 2001; Spangehl et al., 2010). These studies conclude that an increase of UV radiation during periods of high solar activity heat the middle atmosphere due to photochemical reactions with stratospheric ozone. This leads to an altered stratospheric circulation that propagates pole and downwards to affect tropospheric jet streams and thus atmospheric circulation on a synoptic scale [large scale weather systems]."

"Variability in solar irradiance has been connected to changes in surface climate in the North Atlantic through both observational and climate modelling studies." Using new satellite data demonstrating that solar UV varies by a factor that is 4 to 6 times larger than typical previous estimates, the authors find a mechanism to explain the solar effect on these climate oscillations via increased production of ozone in the atmosphere. The authors conclude that these large changes in solar UV can have amplified effects on regional climate and may be useful for predicting seasonal and long term climate change in Europe."

http://hockeyschtick...chanism-by.html

Edited January 13, 2013 by Little Fish

[Guest]

Show us the trend in UV and we can start a discussion. To my certain knowledge there is no trend recorded so you are dealing in unsubstantiated speculation.

By the way - Adam Scaife gained his position modelling climate change and in no way makes any assertion that his research disproves AGW, worth remembering that when considering his work and his conclusions drawn from it.

http://www.vplay.ro/watch/5nqiidvv/

Br Cornelius

Edited January 13, 2013 by Guest

[Little Fish]

Show us the trend in UV and we can start a discussion. To my certain knowledge there is no trend recorded so you are dealing in unsubstantiated speculation.

your theory of co2 causing warming rests on the assumption of complete understanding of solar activity ("what we don't know we attribute to co2"), so if the co2 warmists understanding of the effect of solar activity on climate is incomplete as is likely, then the statement in the brackets is not logical. as a sceptical agnostic of AGW its not my job to provide measurements that don't exist to disprove the warmists assumptions. its not fully understood, otherwise nasa would have no reason to fly drones into the stratosphere as detailed above. my position here is that the shorter wavelengths of UV have not been taken into account by the alarmists and their modelers, and it likely does have an effect on climate.

there has been another paper published recently which explains carl sagans faint sun young earth paradox by setting co2 effects to negligible, so i too could argue that the alarmists speculation quoted in the brackets is unsubstantiated.

Edited January 13, 2013 by Little Fish

[Guest]

You postulate that UV has its own cyclic upward trend without any evidence and no conceivable mechanism - because its convenient to do so.

So you make convenient guesses without evidence - nice.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

The relationship between the solar cycle and its UV content has been studied in some detail and the conclusion was;

Solar cycle variability may therefore play a

significant role in regional surface temperatures,

even though its influence on the global mean

surface temperature is small (0.07 K for Decem-

ber–February).

http://individual.utoronto.ca/ekwan/ozone.pdf

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

The relationship between the solar cycle and its UV content has been studied in some detail and the conclusion was;

http://individual.ut...ekwan/ozone.pdf

Br Cornelius

that study was from 1999.

the new satellites launched in 2003 show UV is many times more variable and greater than previously thought

deja vu.

[Little Fish]

You postulate that UV has its own cyclic upward trend without any evidence and no conceivable mechanism - because its convenient to do so.

So you make convenient guesses without evidence - nice.

Br Cornelius

I've given you evidence before, but here is more

"Solar irradiance is the main external driver of the Earth's climate. Whereas the total solar irradiance is the main source of energy input into the climate system, solar UV irradiance exerts control over chemical and physical processes in the Earth's upper atmosphere. The time series of accurate irradiance measurements are, however, relatively short and limit the assessment of the solar contribution to the climate change. Here we reconstruct solar total and spectral irradiance in the range 115–160,000 nm since 1610. The evolution of the solar photospheric magnetic flux, which is a central input to the model, is appraised from the historical record of the sunspot number using a simple but consistent physical model. The model predicts an increase of 1.25 W/m2, or about 0.09%, in the 11-year averaged solar total irradiance since the Maunder minimum. Also, irradiance in individual spectral intervals has generally increased during the past four centuries, the magnitude of the trend being higher toward shorter wavelengths. In particular, the 11-year averaged Ly-α irradiance has increased by almost 50%. An exception is the spectral interval between about 1500 and 2500 nm, where irradiance has slightly decreased (by about 0.02%)."

http://onlinelibrary...015431/abstract

so clearly the low wavelength UV varies more than longer wavelengths, as confirmed by satellite readings previously given to you. UV and infra red behave differently, uv is more energetic and is abosorbed deep in the ocean unlike infra red.

why should i need a rhetorical mechanism for why the sun's uv is more variable than previosuly thought if the data shows it to be the case. I've given you a mechanism of how uv is thought to affect atmopsheric temperatures..

also, see that 1.25 w/m2 above, that would account for the majority of the global warming seen since the little ice wouldn't it? looking at the ipcc, to account for forcing they say solar has contributed 0.12 w/m2 and co2 1.5 w/m2 giving a total of the two of 1.62 w/m2, so if solar contributes 1.25 w/m2 then balancing it out by setting co2 to 0.37 w/m2 gives an overestimate of co2 forcing by 340%

Edited January 15, 2013 by Little Fish

[Guest]

S K Solanki , one of the lead authors, concludes that the effect he observed are not sufficient to explain current warming.

Although the

rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers

may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate

change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar

variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the

strong warming during the past three decades3

http://cc.oulu.fi/~u...nature02995.pdf

A direct quote from his webpage;

A misleading account of my views was published in the Toronto National Post in March, 2007 (and is to be found at different places on the web). In contrast to what is written there I am not a denier of global warming produced by an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases. Already at present the overwhelming source of global warming is due to manmade greenhouse gases and their influence will continue to grow in the future as their concentration increases. The same newspaper already misquoted other scientists on this topic. See, for example, the home page of Nigel Weiss of Cambridge Universityhttp://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/now/

http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/solanki/

In this case I prefer to take the opinion from the horses mouth rather than a skewed misrepresentation of what a real scientist believes to be true.

so clearly the low wavelength UV varies more than longer wavelengths, as confirmed by satellite readings previously given to you. UV and infra red behave differently, uv is more energetic and is abosorbed deep in the ocean unlike infra red.

Most UV is absorbed in the upper atmosphere - almost none reaches the surface of the planet - otherwise we would all die from sunburn.

also, see that 1.25 w/m2 above, that would account for the majority of the global warming seen since the little ice wouldn't it? looking at the ipcc, to account for forcing they say solar has contributed 0.12 w/m2 and co2 1.5 w/m2 giving a total of the two of 1.62 w/m2, so if solar contributes 1.25 w/m2 then balancing it out by setting co2 to 0.37 w/m2 gives an overestimate of co2 forcing by 340%

This is confusing different types of forcing, again, which we discussed previously.

http://en.wikipedia....g#Solar_forcing

What you are proposing is that the sun has suddenly diverged from well understood patterns of behaviour and mysteriously produced significantly more UV radiation on a rising trend when no mechanism for such appears in the historic record or in any physical model of the suns behaviour.

Br Cornelius

Edited January 15, 2013 by Guest