Satellite Evidence Affirms Solar Activity Drove ‘A Significant Percentage’ Of Recent Warming

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

In a new paper, two astrophysicists shred the IPCC-preferred and model-based PMOD solar data set and affirm the ACRIM, which is rooted in observation and shows an increase in total solar irradiance (TSI) during the 1980-2000 period. They suggest a “significant percentage” of recent climate change has been solar-driven.

Scafetta and Willson, 2019

I. The PMOD is based on proxy modeled predictions, “questionable” modifications, and degraded, “misinterpreted” and “erroneously corrected” results 

• “The PMOD rationale for using models to alter the Nimbus7/ERB data was to compensate for the sparsity of the ERBS/ERBE data and conform their gap results more closely to the proxy predictions of solar emission line models of TSI behavior.”
• “PMOD’s modifications of the published ACRIM and ERB TSI records are questionable because they are based on conforming satellite observational data to proxy model predictions.”
• “The PMOD trend during 1986 to 1996 is biased downward by scaling ERB results to the rapidly degrading ERBE results during the ACRIM-Gap using the questionable justification of agreement with some TSI proxy predictions first proposed by Lee III et al.(1995).”
• PMOD misinterpreted and erroneously corrected ERB results for an instrument power down event.”
• “PMOD used overlapping comparisons of ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 with ERBE observations and proxy models to construct their first composite. Other PMOD composites [17, 18] used different models of the ERBE-ACRIM-Gap degradation. The result of these various modifications during the ACRIM-Gap was that PMOD introduced a downward trend in the Nimbus7/ERB TSI data that decreased results by 0.8 to 0.9 W/m2 (cf. [18, 20]).”

II. The PMOD TSI composite “flawed” results were an “unwarranted manipulation” of data intended to support AGW, but are  “contraindicated”

• “The dangers of utilizing ex-post-facto corrections by those who did not participate in the original science teams of satellite experiments are that erroneous interpretations of the data can occur because of a lack of detailed knowledge of the experiment and unwarranted manipulation of the data can be made based on a desire to support a particular solar model or some other nonempirical bias. We contend that the PMOD TSI composite construction is compromised in both these ways.”
 “[O]ur scientific knowledge could be improved by excluding the more flawed record from the composite. This was the logic applied by the ACRIM team. In point of fact PMOD failed to do this, instead selecting the ERBE results that were known to be degraded and sparse, because that made the solar cycle 21–22 trend agrees with TSI proxy models and the CAGW explanation of CO2 as the driver of the global warming trend of the late 20th century.”
• “The use of unverified modified data has fundamentally flawed the PMOD TSI satellite composite construction.”
• “The consistent downward trending of the PMOD TSI composite is negatively correlated with the global mean temperature anomaly during 1980–2000. This has been viewed with favor by those supporting the COanthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis since it would minimize TSI variation as a competitive climate change driver to CO2, the featured driver of the hypothesis during the period (cf.: [IPCC, 2013, Lockwood and Fröhlich, 2008]).”
• “Our summary conclusion is that the objective evidence produced by all of the independent TSI composites [3,5, 6, 9] agrees better with the cycle-by-cycle trending of the original ACRIM science team’s composite TSI that shows an increasing trend from 1980 to 2000 and a decreasing trend thereafter. The continuously downward trending of the PMOD composite and TSI proxy models is contraindicated.”

III. The ACRIM TSI supports the conclusion that “a significant percentage” of climate change in recent decades was driven by TSI variation

Graph Source: Soon et al., 2015
• ACRIM shows a 0.46 W/m2 increase between 1986 and 1996 followed by a decrease of 0.30 W/m2 between 1996 and 2009. PMOD shows a continuous, increasing downward trend with a 1986 to 1996 decrease of 0.05 W/m2 followed by a decrease of 0.14 W/m2 between 1996 and 2009. The RMIB composite agrees qualitatively with the ACRIM trend by increasing between the 1986 and 1996 minima and decreasing slightly between 1996 and 2009.”
• “ACRIM composite trending is well correlated with the record of global mean temperature anomaly over the entire range of satellite observations (1980–2018) [Scafetta. 2009]. The climate warming hiatus observed since 2000 is inconsistent with CO2 anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) climate models [Scafetta, 2013, Scafetta, 2017]. This points to a significant percentage of the observed 1980–2000 warming being driven by TSI variation [Scafetta, 2009, Willson, 2014, Scafetta. 2009]. A number of other studies have pointed out that climate change and TSI variability are strongly correlated throughout the Holocene including the recent decades (e.g., Scafetta, 2009,  Scafetta and Willson, 2014, Scafetta, 2013Kerr, 2001, Bond et al., 2001, Kirkby, 2007, Shaviv, 2008, Shapiro et al., 2011, Soon and Legates, 2013, Steinhilber et al., 2012, Soon et al., 2014).”
• “The global surface temperature of the Earth increased from 1970 to 2000 and remained nearly stable from 2000 and 2018. This pattern is not reproduced by CO2 AGW climate models but correlates with a TSI evolution with the trending characteristics of the ACRIM TSI composite as explained in Scafetta [6,12, 27] and Willson [7].”

IV. The Correlation:

Graph Source: Soon et al., 2015
Image Source: Smith, 2017

V. The Mechanism: Higher solar activity on decadal-scales limits the seeding of clouds, which means more solar radiation is absorbed by the surface, warming the Earth 

Image Source: Fleming, 2018

Image Source: Sciencedaily.com

VI. The radiative forcing from the increase in surface solar radiation: +4.25 Wm-2/decade between 1984-2000

Image Source: Goode and Palle, 2007

Image Source(s): Hofer et al., 2017 and Kay et al., 2008
Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

41 responses to “Satellite Evidence Affirms Solar Activity Drove ‘A Significant Percentage’ Of Recent Warming”

  1. Kelvin Vaughan

    There is a good correlation between the annual England max and mean temperatures and the annual sunshine hours.

    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/datasets/Tmax/date/England.txt

    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/datasets/Sunshine/date/England.txt

    If you divide the sunshine hours by 100 you can easily plot them on the same graph.

    1. SebastianH

      Something like this?

      https://imgur.com/a/2wBRBBl

      Is it suprising that the temperature somewhat correlates with a solar variable? Is it warmer during the day than at night? The Sun is the source for the energy that makes up (most of) the heat content of this planet.

      1. Kelvin Vaughan

        SebastianH 25. March 2019 at 5:18 PM

        No not surprising at all, that’s the point.

        1. SebastianH

          I think you missed my point, Kelvin Vaughan. The point was that it somewhat correlates. It’s not a good correlation and it doesn’t say anything about the global picture when looking at just one region. E.g. the gulf stream code stop tomorrow and cause vastly different climate in the UK, probably a much cooler one. What would looking at such a change mean for the global picture?

  2. Lasse
  3. Satellite Evidence Affirms Solar Activity Drove ‘A Significant Percentage’ Of Recent Warming – Truth is difficult but essential…

    […] […]

  4. Yonason

    Haven’t read everything above yet, but think it’s important to add this on TSI by Willie Soon.
    https://youtu.be/qbTo2q4o0tM?t=83

    There are/were serious problems with determining what it’s absolute value is, without knowing which not much can be said with any degree of certainty about how earth’s energy budget is impacted by it.

    Also, from Don Easterbrook, via Nils Axel-Moerner
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4wov0kc3yg

    TSI variation isn’t strong enough by itself, but the fact that it so well correlates with earth’s temperature tells us that whatever is affecting TSI is also affecting temperature.

    1. tom0mason

      And here Yonason, (https://phys.org/news/2019-03-solar-variability-weakens-walker-cell.html ) research shows more strange solar effects on weather and climate.

      An international team of researchers from United Kingdom, Denmark, and Germany has found robust evidence for signatures of the 11-year sunspot cycle in the tropical Pacific. They analyzed historical time series of pressure, surface winds and precipitation with specific focus on the Walker Circulation—a vast system of atmospheric flow in the tropical Pacific region that affects patterns of tropical rainfall. They have revealed that during periods of increased solar irradiance, the trade winds weaken and the Walker circulation shifts eastward.

      “Soon enough, we realized that the magnitude of the wind anomalies that we detected in observations simply could not be explained by radiative considerations alone. We thought that if it comes from the sun, there must be another mechanism that amplifies the weakening of the Walker circulation,” said Prof. Lesley Gray of University of Oxford.

      However they do have a theory to explain what’s happening.
      Now all they have to do is collect the observational evidence and prove that it is so.
      I don’t think much funding will be forthcoming for ongoing research, after all it goes against the cAGW meme.

      1. Yonason

        Thanks, tomO. Nice find.

  5. Dr Francis Manns
    1. Yonason

      They don’t like you much here.
      https://environmentdebate.wordpress.com/2007/07/02/doctor-no-dr-fran-manns/amp/

      Keep up the good work.

      1. SebastianH

        Dr. Francis Manns: “CO2 was as high as 400ppm in 1942 only to fall again during the 1940-60 cooling period.”

        Oh dear … 2 “charming” commentators found each other.

        1. Yonason

          Plant stomata reconstructions (Kouwenberg et al., 2005, Finsinger and Wagner-Cremer, 2009) and contemporary chemical analyses (Beck, 2007) indicate that CO2 levels in the 1930′s to early 1940′s were in the 340 to 400 ppmv range and then declined sharply in the 1950’s. These findings have been rejected by the so-called scientific consensus because this fluctuation is not resolved in Antarctic ice cores. However, MacFarling Meure et al., 2006 found possible evidence of a mid-20th Century CO2 decline in the DE08 ice core…”
          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/a-brief-history-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-record-breaking/

          Activists cherry pick out the inconvenient data they don’t want, and then pretend it never existed.

          What part of “there’s data to support that assertion” don’t you get, Mr. anti-science?

          1. SebastianH

            Hey Mr. Science Yonason,

            you do know how science works, do you? There are also “scientists” who claim that gravity sets the surface temperature of planets with an atmosphere. That doesn’t mean that it’s true.

            But of course we should follow any fringe result of all scientists and never question whether there could be any merrit to the findings, right? As long as they confirm your feeling of what is really going on, Mr. Science. As long as you can call others activists and whatnot.

            I really hope you don’t see the article behind your link as science. I’ve read it and it is really interesting to see people argue this way, but it is complete nonsense nonetheless. But does one expect from guest posts on WUWT …

            Here is another “science” paper from an author skeptics should be familiar with:
            https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS%20Pre-industrial%20CO2.pdf

            Did you know that apparently CO2 concentrations were way higher than today in pre-industrial times? Who would have thought that? Actual science is surely ignoring this because it’s inconvenient and doesn’t fit in the huge conspiracy that is going on, right? 😉

          2. Yonason

            Easy there, pardner. Get a grip, and face the AGW is a hoax music.

            “…political goals have become more important than the scientific truth in …[climate “science”]. Most of the people who were hired to this discipline since 1988 or so became (or have always been) fraudsters and demagogues who are spinning and fabricating the facts, terminology, and emphases in order to strengthen the case for a predetermined political goal. This is not science. – Lubos Motl (actual scientist)
            https://motls.blogspot.com/2018/12/its-spin-to-call-1850-1900-pre.html

            As to the strawman/red herring about atmospheric pressure, Motl deals with that a bit here.
            https://motls.blogspot.com/2010/05/tamino-vs-goddard.html

            I don’t know why the troll keeps accusing me of believing something I’ve never said I believed in, i.e., that pressure alone (in the absence of a temp difference between a planet and space) determines lapse rate.

            When they get rattled, activists say the darnedest things. //;o]

          3. Yonason

            It can’t be science if it’s fraud.

            “A recent letter from 300 scientists is requesting that Congress assure that the Data Quality Act is complied with, which NOAA has not done regarding both the U.S. and global empirical temperature observations.

            When 300 scientists put their name and reputations on the line criticizing NOAA, it can be assumed that the issue is one of significance and importance to science.

            And this issue is now coming to a head after 7+ years of both NOAA and NASA blatantly adjusting historical temperature measurement records on a continual basis.” – C3Headlines
            https://www.c3headlines.com/2016/01/a-legitimate-question-how-much-of-modern-global-warming-is-fabricated-by-noaa-nasa.html

          4. SebastianH

            When they get rattled, activists say the darnedest things. //;o]

            Case in point … are you an activist then?

            I am not accussing you of anything but being anti-science. Your links are as interesting as they always are …

            You have a very weird and selective perception, Yonason. That’s what makes you a perfect fit for a community like this one. From you previous comments I gather you are or could be a member of many other fringe oppinion communities as well. I have no problem with that, but apparently you do … just own it, Yonason! There is no shame in being weird.

          5. Yonason

            Weak response, SebH.

            If it isn’t mockery or deceit, it’s deflection. Why? Because he has no response to the substance of what I referenced, that the people he calls “scientists” are frauds. He has nothing to show that I’m wrong, so he attacks me personally.

            What the real scientists I link to write shows that he’s wrong, so he calls me “weird.” And with that he thinks he can discredit what they say? This has to be one of his most desperate and pathetic posts yet.

  6. Satellite Evidence Affirms Solar Activity Drove ‘A Significant Percentage’ Of Recent Warming – Climate Collections

    […] Reblogged from the NoTricksZone: […]

  7. Robert Folkerts

    With all the propaganda regarding AGW, it is no wonder the “Illusory Truth Effect” is likely in play now!

    No doubt part of the plan.

  8. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #354 – Enjeux énergies et environnement

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close