More on the Solar Controversy

A physicist for The European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) has a post today addressing the controversy over the IPCC claim that anthropogenic forcing of climate dominates over natural forcings such as changes in the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). The post agrees with and quotes the scientists who operate the ACRIM satellite missions who state: "TSI variation has been the dominant forcing for climate change during the industrial era." The author also discusses why the alleged anthropogenic forcing is only one-twelfth of the uncertainty and thus far from statistical significance, as well as other uncertainties which show the IPCC conclusions to be unjustified or unqualified. [Google translation + editing]:

The mysterious role of anthropogenic radiative forcings - what's behind it?

Radiative forcing is the difference between of the incoming solar and outgoing long-wave radiation intensity. The IPCC defines this slightly differently: "The RF from the definition of TAR and earlier IPCC assessment reports is retained. Ramaswamy et al. (2001) define it as ' the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus longwave; in W/m2) at the tropopause after allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values "(AR4, Ch.2, p.133).

This implies that there is a balance, which corresponds to the assumption of an optimal climate, according to the IPCC. The total solar radiation intensity is given by the IPCC as RFTSI = 1367W/m2. The following graph shows the measurements from three satellites:

 

The reason for the difference of 0.35% (RFmeas = 4.8W/m2!) is not currently understood.

The IPCC says in its latest report:

"The differences in radiative forcing estimates between the present day and the start of the industrial era for solar irradiance changes and volcanoes are both very small compared to the differences in radiative forcing estimated to have resulted from human activities. As a result, in today's atmosphere, the radiative forcing from human activities is much more important for current and future climate change than the estimated radiative forcing from changes in natural processes. "(Ch.2, p.137) This position will be more closely considered.

The change in the total solar radiation since 1750 is estimated by the IPCC to 0.12 (-0.06 / +0.18) W/m2 (Ch.2, Table 2.12). This value is of the order of the relative change per decade of satellite measurements. ACRIM has measured as for the cycles 21-23% or 0.5W/m2 0037. The absolute error is about the satellite but with ± 3W/m2. How could you determine, however, without satellites in the past such small changes is not explained. To a completely different result, however come Solanki and Fligge (CRL 26 (1999) 2465). Their reconstruction shows the next graphic:

Both the absolute and the relative values are more than one order of magnitude larger than the values specified by the IPCC.

The anthropogenic CO2 according to the IPCC causes RFCO2 = (1.66 ± 0.17) W / m 2 (determined Ch.2, Table 2.12). In the following we will compare this value with other uncertainties and question its relevance.

Kevin Trenberth, one of the leading authors of the IPCC, author of the sentence "The fact is that we can not account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can not", has a new article on the global energy budget (published March, 2009 BAMS 311-323). Here is his flow chart:

The following table shows the differences to his earlier publication (J. Climate 10 (1997) 1771-1790).

The problem is not that there are corrections in the values and that many differences are greater than the ominous 1.66W/m2, but the fact that these values are used as input into the model calculations. Even under the unrealistic assumption that gains and losses offset each other, there remains a difference of 5W/m2 (3 times RFCO2) left (with no net absorption, see below). Errors were not taken into account for the different sizes in the table above. Before we come to that, another table from the work is discussed:

Kt97 represents Trenberth, NRA, ERA and JRA for the American, European and Japanese climate research and the remaining two for measurements. When the absorbed radiation (ASR), the maximum difference is 10.2W/m2 and the emitted radiation (OLR) 20.6W/m2. When the difference in the absorbed radiation is six times higher than the anthropogenic contribution, then, how can you be sure of the anthropogenic temperature contribution. Although the authors write: "It is not possible to give very useful error bars to the estimates.", they provide error bars elsewhere. The error values for entry into the atmosphere to be ± 3% and that on the surface are estimated to be ± 10%. The 3 percent add up again around 10W/m2 to the above 10.2W/m2 for the absorbed radiation, thus reducing the anthropogenic value to one-twelfth of uncertainty.

Understand you can not, however, that there should be a four-year averaged net absorption. When a body absorbs more energy than it emits, it must increase its temperature and as long again sets up a balance between radiation absorbed and emitted energy. But perhaps this is meant to be simple.

Another discrepancy is found if you look at the issue. The IPCC used for the emission of the Earth the value of one. A more realistic value can be estimated from the next graph (http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/browsesurft2 ).

The average is about = 0931 (0.70 ° 92 [water] + 0.15 ° 0.15 ° 0.95 + 0965 = 0931). For  = 1, the radiated intensity in accordance with the Stefan-Boltzmann law at T = 288K I = 390.1W/m2. But if we take the more realistic mean = 0931, we obtain I = 363.2W/m2. The difference is clear to 26.9W/m2, or 17 times the value corresponds to RFCO2.

The claim of the IPCC, that human influence is much greater than natural changes, will be by the numbers not supported and must be considered incorrect. This is supported by the last graph, which shows a clear correlation between total solar radiation and sunspots. 

Consequently, the scientists in charge of the ACRIM missions (http://www.acrim.com/) come to the following statement:

"The Earth's weather and climate regime is determined By The total solar irradiance (TSI) and its interactions with the Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses. TSI proxies during the past 400 years and the records of surface temperature show that TSI variation has been the dominant forcing for climate change during the industrial era. ". (Emphasis mine)

Dr. rer.nat. B. Huettner (physicist) for EIKE





also see: 



Recent Peer review papers on the solar earth climate connection

Long-term solar activity as a controlling factor for global warming in the 20th century, (Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 49, Number 8, pp. 1271-1274, December 2009) - V. A. Dergachev, O. M. Raspopov

A solar pattern in the longest temperature series from three stations in Europe (Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 72, Issue 1, pp. 62-76, January 2010) - Jean-Louis Le Mouel, Vladimir Kossobokov, Vincent Courtillot

Solar Minima, Earth’s rotation and Little Ice Ages in the past and in the future: The North Atlantic�European case (Global and Planetary Change, January 2010) - Nils-Axel Morner

Solar activity and climatic variability in the time interval from 10 to 250 Ma ago (Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Volume 50, Number 2, pp. 141-152, April 2010) - O. M. Raspopov et al.

A statistically significant signature of multi-decadal solar activity changes in atmospheric temperatures at three European stations (Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 72, Issues 7-8, pp. 595-606, May 2010) - Vladimir Kossobokov, Jean-Louis Le Mouel and Vincent Courtillot



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1467310/The-truth-about-global-warming-its-the-Sun-thats-to-blame.html