Nicola Scaffetta sent several people a copy of his latest paper today, which address the various solar TSI reconstructions such as from Lean and Rind 2008 and shows contrasts from that paper. While he suggests that TSI has a role in the temperature record, he also alludes to significant uncertainty in the TSI record since 1980.  He writes in email:

“...note the last paragraph of the paper. There is a significant difference between this new model and my previous one in Scafetta and West [2007]. In 2007 I was calibrating the model on the paleoclimate temperature records. In this new study I “predict” the paleoclimate records by using the solar records. So, I predict centuries of temperature data, while modern GCMs do not predicts even a few years of data!”

Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2009.07.007 By Nicola Scafetta

Abstract:

The solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change is analyzed by using an empirical bi-scale climate model characterized by both fast and slow characteristic time responses to solar forcing. Since 1980 the solar contribution to climate change is uncertain because of the severe uncertainty of the total solar irradiance satellite composites. The sun may have caused from a slight cooling, if PMOD TSI composite is used, to a significant warming (up to 65% of the total observed warming) if ACRIM, or other TSI composites are used. The model is calibrated only on the empirical 11-year solar cycle signature on the instrumental global surface temperature since 1980. The model reconstructs the major temperature patterns covering 400 years of solar induced temperature changes, as shown in recent paleoclimate global temperature records.

Larger image here.

Excerpts from the Conclusion (from a pre-print provided by the author)

Herein I have analyzed the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change. A comprehensive interpretation of multiple scientific findings indicates that the contribution of solar variability to climate change is significant and that the temperature trend since 1980 can be large and upward. However, to correctly quantify the solar contribution to the recent global warming it is necessary to determine the correct TSI behavior since 1980. Unfortunately, this cannot be done with certainty yet. The PMOD TSI composite, which has been used by the IPCC and most climate modelers, has been found to be based on arbitrary and questionable assumptions [Scafetta and Willson, 2009]. Thus, it cannot be excluded that TSI increased from 1980 to 2000 as claimed by the ACRIM scientific team. The IPCC [2007] claim that the solar contribution to climate change since 1950 is negligible may be based on wrong solar data in addition to the fact that the EBMs and GCMs there used are missing or poorly modeling several climate mechanisms that would significantly amplify the solar effect on climate. When taken into account the entire range of possible TSI satellite composite since 1980, the solar contribution to climate change ranges from a slight cooling to a significant warming, which can be as large as 65% of the total observed global warming.

This finding suggests that the climate system is hypersensitive to the climate function h(T) and even small errors in modeling h(T) (for example, in modeling how the albedo, the cloud cover, water vapor feedback, the emissivity, etc. respond to changes of the temperature on a decadal scale) would yield the climate models to fail, even by a large factor, to appropriately determine the solar effect on climate on decadal and secular scale. For similar reasons, the models also present a very large uncertainty in evaluating the climate sensitivity to changes in CO2 atmospheric concentration [Knutti and Hegerl, 2008]. This large sensitivity of the climate equations to physical uncertainty makes the adoption of traditional EBMs and GCMs quite problematic.

The complete paper is here.

Read a summary of the irradiance issue and some of those other solar factors that amplify brightness or irradiance changes here.

Way back in February 2007 I went to an Emerging Energies Technology meeting in Santa Barbara, and along to way picked up a book “Unstoppable Global Warming - every 1,500 years,” to read on the plane. I wrote a post for The Oil Drum combining the opinions expressed in the book with my conclusions from the Conference. I got some 262 comments to that post – there were some 150-odd about the book, some 55 of which were straight ad hominem attacks and a total of 5 addressed the scientific points that were brought up. It got me curious since, not having ventured in those waters before, I had presumed that the debate on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) and the argument that carbon dioxide was causing global warming was being carried out as a scientific debate, and not a political or religious one.

So from then on, usually when writing about other conference trips, I would spend some time digging deeper into the subject and seeing what the data said. I soon came to the conclusion that there was indeed a Medieval Warming Period, a Little Ice Age, and a Roman Warming Period. But as I slipped in these tidbits to what are otherwise posts on the coming energy crisis, almost all the response was “ad hominem.” (You can see a small example recent example in my review of Richard Heinberg’s book which was put up on TOD last week) there are some 32 comments in the thread.

At the end of the last Administration, and with the incoming one heavily committed to the AGW belief, I wrote a post in which I tried to point out that with the evidence starting to be a lot less convincing, it would be dangerous for the Administration to go too far out on a limb supporting something that might not be true. This time there were 466 comments, though less of the ad hominem (though still some 25 folk that used it, some several times) and more of the science. But even though it brought a level of censorship to TOD that I found disturbing I felt the post worthwhile, and it did lead to the creation of this site.

I now see that my original projections are beginning to be born out, as more questioning editorials, and scientific information begin to appear in the daily press. Thus when a Conference brought 8 of those that would speak on “Debunking Climate Change Myths” to Springfield - which is close - I decided to go. And in my usual mode, here is what I saw and heard.

The meeting, which was organized by Ron Boyer of Surefire Strategies, had somewhere around 150 present, including students from a local school. (They had watched “An Inconvenient Truth” the previous day).

Icecap Note: David then went on to highlight what the the speakers (including myself) presented. He then summarized as follows:

The meeting, in short, was a roll out of a series of scientific information to buttress the claim that many of the facts about Climate Change are Myths, although no one disagreed that the world has been warming. It was thus a change from the ad hominem attacks that are the usual part of the global climate debate.

If I had a concern, and it is a serious one, it is that this is becoming very much a politicized debate. This audience was drawn from the heart of the conservative Republican base. The folk that push AGW appear to be increasingly those out of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

Unfortunately nature, and the study of science to describe it, is party neutral. Making too many predictions as to what will happen can be dangerous to political health when they are proved wrong. We may not have to wait too much longer to find out who is correct. Read full post here.

UPDATE: See the Andrew Orlowski’s account of the issue in the UK Register here. Ask yourself would a corporation be able to get away with excuses and obstructionism like this during an audit? Especially since the main purpose of the Hadley Center was to gather archive and analyze global data for use by scientists. Note how they refused to send the data to Steve because he was not an academic (they had sent the data to Webster at UGA) but see here when Ross McKitrick who is clearly an academic at the University of Guelph requested the data, he was refused for entirely different and obtruse reasons. Below is the Pielke Jr. story and other comments.

Steve McIntyre, of ClimateAudit, is a determined individual. While this may be no fun for those who fall under his focus and happen to have something to hide, more sunlight on climate science cannot be a bad thing. Lately Steve has been spearheading an effort to get the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia to release the data that underlie its analysis of global temperature trends. Such a request should not at all be controversial. Indeed the atmospheric sciences community went to great lengths in the 1990s to ensure that such data would be openly available for research purposes, culminating in World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Resolution 40 on the international exchange of meteorological and related data and products. The Resolution states:

Members should provide to the research and education communities, for their non-commercial activities, free and unrestricted access to all data and products exchanged under the auspices of WMO. WMO recognized the need to protect commercial activities, but placed no restrictions on the exchange of climate information described as follows:

All reports from the network of stations recommended by the regional associations as necessary to provide a good representation of climate . . .

Obviously, the ability to do good research depends upon good data with known provenance. At the time WMO Resolution 40 was widely hailed in the atmospheric sciences community as a major step forward in data sharing and availability in support of both operations and research.

Thus it is with some surprise to observe CRU going through bizarre contortions to avoid releasing its climate data to Steve McIntyre. They first told him that he couldn’t have it because he was not an academic. I found this to be a petty reason for keeping data out of the hands of someone who clearly wants to examine it for scholarly purposes. So, wanting to test this theory I asked CRU for the data myself, being a “real” academic. I received a letter back from CRU stating that I couldn’t have the data because “we do not hold the requested information.”

I found that odd. How can they not hold the data when they are showing graphs of global temperatures on their webpage? However, it turns out that CRU has in response to requests for its data put up a new webpage with the following remarkable admission (emphasis added):

We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.

Say what?! CRU has lost track of the original data that it uses to create its global temperature record!? Can this be serious? So not only is it now impossible to replicate or reevaluate homogeneity adjustments made in the past—which might be important to do as new information is learned about the spatial representativeness of siting, land use effects, and so on—but it is now also impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. CRU is basically saying, “trust us.” So much for settling questions and resolving debates with empirical information (i.e., science).

To be absolutely clear, none of what I write here should be taken as implying that actions to decarbonize the global economy or improve adaptation do not make sense—they do. However, just because climate change is important and because there are opponents to action that will seize upon whatever they can to make their arguments, does not justify overlooking or defending this degree of scientific sloppiness and ineptitude. Implementing successful climate policy will have to overcome the missteps of the climate science community, and this is a big one. See post here.Follow the saga on Climate Audit here.

DANGEROUS DECEPTION
By Dr. Timothy Ball, Canada Free Press

Critical Evidence
Two pieces of evidence dominated recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports. They were instrumental in convincing the that world global warming due to humans was a scientifically indisputable fact.  One was the graph known as the “hockey stick” because it purported to show little temperature change for approximately 1000 years then a sudden rise in the 20th century.  The second was a global temperature increase of 0.6C (1F) in over 100 years, a rate claimed to be beyond any ‘natural’ increase.

The first is now fully discredited thanks primarily to the work of Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. They carried out the standard scientific test of trying to reproduce the results obtained in the original work. They showed the almost flat line temperature of the hockey stick handle was artificially contrived.

The second piece of evidence, the claim of temperature increase, continues to dominate and is presented in many places as the truth. The person primarily responsible for the number is P.D. Jones. He is currently Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England. In order to verify the number Warwick Hughes, an Australian climate researcher asked Jones how it was derived. He received the following reply on 21, February 2005. “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.” Since then Jones has stonewalled every effort to obtain the information. But why is it so important? Surely, the raw data is available and all you have to do is use it to recreate the number.

Global Temperature
The first problem is the original temperature increase was actually given as 0.6C plus or minus 0.2C or a 66 percent error factor. It is a virtually meaningless number but still used to argue for warming. The raw data is retained by the originating country, which then submits modified data to central agencies such as the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN).

Each year different groups calculate an annual global average including NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). There are also the data sets maintained jointly between the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit called HadCRUT3 and CRUTEM3.

When an annual average temperature is created each agency chooses different stations and modify the data for a variety of factors. The result is each produce different graphs as in Figure above. In this case results from two satellite studies are included.

So what we need to know is which stations Jones used and how he adjusted the data to achieve his result. We need to be able to carry out the standard reproducible results test applied to the hockey stick data. He continues to refuse to provide the information.

Withholding Information
In recent attempts to obtain the information the United Kingdom Meteorological Office (UKMO) has become involved. As Steve McIntyre writes a bureaucrat was required to write the following in denying the information; Some of the information was provided to Professor Jones on the strict understanding by the data providers that this station data must not be publicly released and it cannot be determined which countries or stations data were given in confidence as records were not kept.

They are talking about data obtained by weather stations funded by the public. How that can be limited in its availability to anyone is impossible to understand. It is weather data so what possible strategic or national security risk can possibly be compromised? The data providers are other nations who provide it under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) that require open access.

Is there some proprietary right to how Jones has adjusted the data? Possibly, but surely that is offset by the fact that scientific work must be available to testing and confirmation by other scientists. It is the promoters of human induced global warming who have championed the need for peer review. I have spoken often about the two responsibilities with climate research. First is the scientific responsibility and Jones fails that by not revealing how the results were achieved. Then there is the social responsibility when you take your scientific findings public and they become the basis of policy. Jones fails that because his claimed temperature increase remains pivotal in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) argument.

Now there is more disturbing evidence that Jones’ original data doesn’t bear examination.  One of the major adjustments that vary considerably from station to station is for the urban heat island effect (UHIE). The IPCC refers to Jones et al. (1990) for its claim that the non-climatic bias due to urbanization is less than one-tenth of the global trend. In other words they have rejected what everyone has known for a long time. More important, if urban stations dominate those used the false warming signal is enhanced. Now Jones is acknowledging the UHIE is greater than he allowed at least in China. As Warwick Hughes notes, “Urban-related warming over China is shown to be about 0.1 degree per decade, hey that equates to a degree per century. Huge.”

The Damage is Done
If the UHIE is even half of this value for the rest of the world stations chosen by Jones then his claim of a 0.6C increase virtually disappears. And so does the claim that human produced CO2 is causing warming because there is virtually no warming over the post-industrial period. We can speculate on Jones’ motive without resolution, however, we know to which half of the world’s work it belongs. It is more important to question how and why Jones has been able to deny access to information for so long. Who is to hold him to account? A world threatened with draconian and unnecessary energy and economic policies because of his silence should ask questions. We should also reject his claims and the IPCC reports based on his findings because we are unable to verify his results with standard scientific measures.  Read full story here.

President Obama says his cap-and-trade energy tax won’t hurt the economy, but at least 10 Senate Democrats disagree. Last week they sent Mr. Obama a letter demanding that any bill taxing U.S. CO2 emissions must include a carbon tariff “to ensure that manufacturers do not bear the brunt of our climate change policy.”

Hmmm. This sure sounds like an explicit admission that cap and tax would add so much to the cost of doing business in the U.S. that it would drive factories and jobs overseas. The 10 mostly liberal Senators come from states like Ohio, Michigan and West Virginia whose economies rely heavily on manufacturing and coal. “We must not engage in a self-defeating effort that displaces greenhouse gas emissions rather than reducing them and displaces U.S. jobs rather than bolstering them,” wrote the Senators.

Thus their demand that “a longer-term border adjustment mechanism” - a euphemism for tariffs - “is a vital part of this package to prevent the relocation of carbon emissions and industries” to countries that aren’t as foolish as to impose a similar tax. Those countries include China and India, which have told Obama officials that they have no intention of signing on to the rich world’s growth-killing obsessions.

All of which puts the President in an economic policy bind. When the House passed its cap-and-tax bill in June, he warned against a carbon tariff by saying “I think we need to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals.” But these 10 Senate Democrats are saying explicitly that protectionism is the price of their support. So Mr. Obama can opt to impose a huge carbon tax and drive jobs overseas, or he can impose the tax along with a tariff, and kick off a trade war. Better to call the whole thing off.

Read more here.

Critical Evidence
Two pieces of evidence dominated recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports. They were instrumental in convincing the that world global warming due to humans was a scientifically indisputable fact.  One was the graph known as the “hockey stick” because it purported to show little temperature change for approximately 1000 years then a sudden rise in the 20th century.  The second was a global temperature increase of 0.6C (1F) in over 100 years, a rate claimed to be beyond any ‘natural’ increase.

The first is now fully discredited thanks primarily to the work of Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. They carried out the standard scientific test of trying to reproduce the results obtained in the original work. They showed the almost flat line temperature of the hockey stick handle was artificially contrived.

The second piece of evidence, the claim of temperature increase, continues to dominate and is presented in many places as the truth. The person primarily responsible for the number is P.D. Jones. He is currently Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England. In order to verify the number Warwick Hughes, an Australian climate researcher asked Jones how it was derived. He received the following reply on 21, February 2005. “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.” Since then Jones has stonewalled every effort to obtain the information. But why is it so important? Surely, the raw data is available and all you have to do is use it to recreate the number.

Global Temperature
The first problem is the original temperature increase was actually given as 0.6C plus or minus 0.2C or a 66 percent error factor. It is a virtually meaningless number but still used to argue for warming. The raw data is retained by the originating country, which then submits modified data to central agencies such as the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN).

Each year different groups calculate an annual global average including NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). There are also the data sets maintained jointly between the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit called HadCRUT3 and CRUTEM3.

When an annual average temperature is created each agency chooses different stations and modify the data for a variety of factors. The result is each produce different graphs as in Figure above. In this case results from two satellite studies are included.

So what we need to know is which stations Jones used and how he adjusted the data to achieve his result. We need to be able to carry out the standard reproducible results test applied to the hockey stick data. He continues to refuse to provide the information.

Withholding Information
In recent attempts to obtain the information the United Kingdom Meteorological Office (UKMO) has become involved. As Steve McIntyre writes a bureaucrat was required to write the following in denying the information; Some of the information was provided to Professor Jones on the strict understanding by the data providers that this station data must not be publicly released and it cannot be determined which countries or stations data were given in confidence as records were not kept.

They are talking about data obtained by weather stations funded by the public. How that can be limited in its availability to anyone is impossible to understand. It is weather data so what possible strategic or national security risk can possibly be compromised? The data providers are other nations who provide it under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) that require open access.

Is there some proprietary right to how Jones has adjusted the data? Possibly, but surely that is offset by the fact that scientific work must be available to testing and confirmation by other scientists. It is the promoters of human induced global warming who have championed the need for peer review. I have spoken often about the two responsibilities with climate research. First is the scientific responsibility and Jones fails that by not revealing how the results were achieved. Then there is the social responsibility when you take your scientific findings public and they become the basis of policy. Jones fails that because his claimed temperature increase remains pivotal in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) argument.

Now there is more disturbing evidence that Jones’ original data doesn’t bear examination.  One of the major adjustments that vary considerably from station to station is for the urban heat island effect (UHIE). The IPCC refers to Jones et al. (1990) for its claim that the non-climatic bias due to urbanization is less than one-tenth of the global trend. In other words they have rejected what everyone has known for a long time. More important, if urban stations dominate those used the false warming signal is enhanced. Now Jones is acknowledging the UHIE is greater than he allowed at least in China. As Warwick Hughes notes, “Urban-related warming over China is shown to be about 0.1 degree per decade, hey that equates to a degree per century. Huge.”

The Damage is Done
If the UHIE is even half of this value for the rest of the world stations chosen by Jones then his claim of a 0.6C increase virtually disappears. And so does the claim that human produced CO2 is causing warming because there is virtually no warming over the post-industrial period. We can speculate on Jones’ motive without resolution, however, we know to which half of the world’s work it belongs. It is more important to question how and why Jones has been able to deny access to information for so long. Who is to hold him to account? A world threatened with draconian and unnecessary energy and economic policies because of his silence should ask questions. We should also reject his claims and the IPCC reports based on his findings because we are unable to verify his results with standard scientific measures.  Read full story here.

-----------------------------

The relative electrial energy potential of various sources thanks to Bill DiPucchio. Larger version here. It clearly shows why wind and solar must be considered supplemental sources in any sane energy plan.

See Peter Lang’s analysis of the realities about wind power here and solar here.