[Vision2020] Solar Energy As Climate Variable

[Ted Moffett]

Paul et. al.

I am not sure what you are confused about.  Perhaps if you read this post in
full (it is long for Vision2020), and respond to or at least carefully
consider these references to published scientific work on solar forcing and
climate change, we can clear up any misunderstandings.  We may still
disagree, but we can better understand where each other is coming from...
However, this will be my last response to your posts on solar forcing of
current climate change, unless there is compelling new data on this issue.
I will attentively read any response you offer.

I posted info, under the subject heading "La Nina?...," that suggested that
La Nina might have been an influence on the cooler winter and spring we just
experienced in the Northwest.  I did not mention global warming, or solar
forcing of climate, in that post.  My post was not addressing those issues.
ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation, a coupled ocean/atmospheric circulation
model, which includes La Nina) existed before the dramatic rise in
anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.  You appear to think that my
post about La Nina was aimed at addressing either global warming or solar
forcing of climate?  It was not.

The content in your response to the "La Nina?..." post near the bottom
here, regarding contemporary global warming, and its relation to solar
climate forcing, more properly fits in the thread "Solar Energy As Climate
Variable," from this months posts:

http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-June/054333.html

I raised a question in the post at the URL above, that you did not
specifically address, that I have read.  Maybe I missed it.  I will address
the point of my question in detail below.  Given this post is mainly about
solar forcing of climate, or rather the lack thereof, I am posting this
response under that subject heading.

This is territory that has been addressed on Vision2020 in recent months in
detail.  I presented references to some of the most well respected climate
scientists in the world, who have concluded, in peer reviewed articles and
other commentary, that solar forcing of climate, to explain the past 30
years of increasing rate of global warming, is not supported by the
evidence, as the IPCC has concluded  Of course there is disagreement on this
issue.  But the consensus in the climate science community is clear that the
primary driver of climate change is anthropogenic, at this time in history.

Your responses appear to indicate you either did not read my former posts
and the evidence presented on this issue, or...?

Reasonable fact based disagreement is one thing. But not acknowledging
substantive evidence, such as the satellite data presented contradicting the
claim that solar forcing is a significant influence on the past 30 years of
global warming, is another.  Maybe you responded to this, and I missed it.
Months ago you raised the issue of solar forcing of climate, referencing the
Maunder Minimum, sun spot cycles, the Little Ice Age, etc. and applied these
issues to current climate change.  I responded to similar claims made on
local blog right-mind.us regarding the same issue.

Here again is one of the sources I presented, as I mentioned, regarding the
past 30 years of satellite data on solar energy input.  The general
conclusions of this article are accepted by the climate science community.
You may disagree with these findings.  And I recognize it's possible
the climate science community may be making a mistake.  But the satellite
data of the past 30 years is rather compelling evidence, if it is not being
misinterpreted:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html

*Nature* *443*, 161-166 (14 September 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature05072
Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate

P. Foukal1<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html#a1>,
C. Fröhlich2<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html#a2>,
H. Spruit3<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html#a3>and
T. M. L. Wigley
4 <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html#a4>
Top of page<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html#top>
Abstract

Variations in the Sun's total energy output (luminosity) are caused by
changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the
11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978
are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming
over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of
these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of
solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that
brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on
global warming since the seventeenth century. Additional climate forcing by
changes in the Sun's output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas,
cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to
evaluate meaningfully at present.
-------------------------------
Sometimes repeating arguments is a must, given critical issues demanding
action, that are still not well understood or sufficiently emphasized, in
the public mind.  Witness the current redundant discussions on Vision2020,
regarding human rights and habeas corpus, in reference to Gitmo and the
recent US Supreme Court decision.  This issue has been previously argued to
death on Vision2020; and may continue to be argued to death, hopefully to
good effect, till people stop defending the alarming and dangerous erosion
of our civil rights!

Similarly, the necessity to take immediate substantive action to reduce
anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, appears to also require endless
redundant argumentation, given that so many actually believe the global
scientific community is engaged in a conspiracy to construct a hoax
regarding the problem of anthropogenic global warming, or are taken in by
junk science on climate change being peddled in the media.

I am not sure we substantially disagree, unless you are claiming that solar
forcing is the primary driver of current global temperature increases,
rather than climate forcing from anthropogenic greenhouse gases and other
human impacts, being the primary driver; a primary driver that is increasing
in power as greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase in our atmosphere.
Emissions that will reach levels that will induce massive and destructive
climate change, given the potential for CO2 loading of the atmosphere, and
the resultant climate feedback effects, if coal, oil and natural gas
continues to increase in use as primary energy sources for human
civilization (without CO2 sequestration), clearly the current global trend.
And this is not including the potential development of methane hydrates as
an energy source, which contain double the stored carbon of all traditional
fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas.  Thankfully, methane hydrates may
remain too impractical for large scale energy use.

Paul wrote:

"Isn't it possible that the Sun is having a warming effect that is
exacerbated or amplified by the CO2 we've been dumping into the air?  Does
it have to anthropogenic-only or nothing?"

I do not rule out any variable as an influence on contemporary climate
change, unless the preponderance of the evidence indicates a variable is
not a major influence on climate forcing or feedback.

Let's look closer at the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum:

Published in the journal "Science" December 7, 2001:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/294/5549/2149

Solar Forcing of Regional Climate Change During the Maunder Minimum

*Drew T. Shindell,1 Gavin A. Schmidt,1 Michael E. Mann,2 David Rind,1 Anne
Waple3 *
We examine the climate response to solar irradiance changes between the late
17th-century Maunder Minimum and the late 18th century. Global average
temperature changes are small (about 0.3° to 0.4°C) in both a climate model
and empirical reconstructions. However, regional temperature changes are
quite large. In the model, these occur primarily through a forced shift
toward the low index state of the Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic
Oscillation as solar irradiance decreases. This leads to colder
temperatures over
the Northern Hemisphere continents, especially in winter (1° to 2°C), in
agreement with historical records and proxy data for surface temperatures.
---------------------
Note the discussion of the regional temperature shift compared to the global
average temperature during the LIA.  I have read other scientific sources
that confirm that the Little Ice Age was more a regional than a global
climate change.  Europe dropped 1-2 degrees C., but globally the average
temperature drop was .3-.4 C., according to this article.

In my post this month on "Solar Energy As Climate Variable" I asked you to
provide a reference to a scientific article (in a well regarded journal, not
junk science) arguing for a 2 degree C. shift in global average
temperatures, in a few decades, at some point in paleoclimate history,
solely from solar forcing.  This was based on your comment that "small
perturbations in the radiation output of this gigantic ball of energy can be
enough to have catastrophic effects," a comment emphasizing solar forcing as
a profound climate forcing variable, rather than a more stable
climate influence  The 2 degree C. shift, in a few decades, of
global average temperature change parameters are derived from a statement
you made that the effects we are talking about regarding global warming are
"small ones," "a few degrees over a few decades," which is not necessarily
correct (correct me if I misunderstood your meaning), given the IPCC's 2007
report estimate regarding the upper range for potential anthropogenic driven
global average temperature increase by the end of this century at 5.8 C.
(10.44 degrees F.):

http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/55

This is an alarming prediction we can hope will never happen.  To consider
it acceptable to assume even a small risk this might happen, is playing
Russian Roulette with our Earth, and all life upon it.

Anyway, The Little Ice Age (a mere .3-.4 C. global average temperature
change) does not come close to qualifying as a solar forcing (or reduced
forcing, I should say) event of 2 degree C. of average global temperature
change.  The Maunder Mimimum solar impact on global average temperature
reduction, assuming the .3-.4 C. temperature drop of the LIA was mostly due
to the Maunder Minimum, which is still constroversial, if duplicated during
this next century, could be totally overcome, resulting in major temperature
increases, by the climate forcing impacts of increasing anthropogenic
greenhouse gases.

I suppose it is possible that there is a period when the sun either dimmed
or brightened enough to change Earth's climate by 2 degree C. global average
temperature, solely by solar input (and resultant feedback effects, of
course), perhaps as quickly as a few decades.  Given your emphasis on the
profound impacts of solar climate forcing, I asked for a well documented
example of such a profound rapid climate shift, in paloeclimate history,
which the LIA and the Medieval Warming Period are not.

Examples of more than 2 degree C. shift in average global temperature from
natural atmospheric increases in CO2 and/or CH4 (they are coupled
sometimes in climate feedback mechanisms where one drives the other and
vice-versa) are well documented in climate history, though for this
to happen in a few decades is very fast. This is partly why the potential
climate changes from human sourced greenhouse gases, which may increase
average global temperatures more than 2 degree C. in a few decades (by the
end of this century), are alarming.  The explosion of the Yellowstone
Caldera, or a large asteroid impact, have or will immediately alter climate
quickly and dramatically.  But this is not the sort of climate change under
discussion.

What is surprising is the "Faint Young Sun Paradox," as I mentioned (not by
this name) in "Solar Energy As Climate Variable," the fact that millions of
years ago the sun generally emitted less energy to Earth than now, during
some of the warmest periods in Earth's climate history.  Explanations for
the PETM (Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum), 55.5 million years ago, given
the evidence, do not include solar forcing as a major impact.

Anyway, back to the Science article on solar forcing/Maunder Minimum quoted
above.  Note the concluding paragraph in the discussion of this article at
the URL below (this Science journal article was co-authored by climate
scientist Gavin Schmidt, who is one of the regular monitors and contributors
to Realclimate.org, who I quoted on Vision2020 previously referencing
his article "The Lure Of Solar Forcing," discussing the emphasis to explain
current climate change via solar forcing):

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2001/200112065794.html

"The period of low solar activity in the middle ages led to atmospheric
changes that seem to have brought on the Little Ice Age. However, we need to
keep in mind that variations in solar output have had far less impact on the
Earth's recent climate than human actions," Shindell said. "The biggest
catalyst for climate change today are greenhouse gases," he added.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Here is the URL to the article by climate scientist Gavin Schmidt on "The
Lure of Solar Forcing," from Realclimate.org, that I previously presented to
Vision2020.  The numerous and detailed responses from readers of Realclimate
are as illuminating as the article itself:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=171
----------------
Paul wrote:

"As I've tried to make clear, it's complex."

This goes without saying.  Anyone who argues otherwise has not studied
climate science.

Ted Moffett

On 6/14/08, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Color me confused, but didn't we just go through a cold, snowy, wet, active
> winter here in Moscow?  I seem to remember the University being closed for a
> couple of days and having to shovel some snow off the roof of my house for
> the first time ever.  Isn't that expected in a La Nina year?
>
> It's also not clear that La Nina or El Nino years have much correlation
> with global warming, positive or negative.
>
> As I've tried to make clear, it's complex.
>
> While looking around for real-time sunspot numbers (I haven't found any
> yet), I came across a science article from the BBC in 2004 that claims that
> the Sun has been the most active in the past 60 years than at any other time
> in the past 1000 years.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3869753.stm
>
> Isn't it possible that the Sun is having a warming effect that is
> exacerbated or amplified by the CO2 we've been dumping into the air?  Does
> it have to anthropogenic-only or nothing?
>
> Since the Sun seems to have stalled on it's climb back up to activity this
> solar cycle, maybe we'll get a break.
>
> Paul
>
> Ted Moffett wrote:
>
>> In the March-May US temperature map from NOAA, Idaho was assigned the next
>> to lowest number, thus was second coolest in the lower 48, with Oregon the
>> coolest and Washington third coolest.  Thus based on this map, the Northwest
>> had the coolest weather in the contiguous US from March to May.  La Nina?
>>  Info on La Nina and Northwest US weather from Western Regional Climate
>> Center:
>>  http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/enso/ensofaq.html
>>  From URL above:
>>  In the Pacific Northwest, this appears to be not as true. La Nina
>> generally brings cold, snowy, wet, active winters to the northern Cascades
>> and the northern Rockies.
>> -----------------------------------
>>
>> http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/images/03-05Statewidetrank_pg_final.gif
>>   -----------------------------------------
>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080615/d0c6a159/attachment-0001.html