Nicola Scafetta Dr Curry

Dr. Curry has referenced a work by Feulner G., Rahmstorf S. (2010), that uses a traditional climate model to evaluate the effect of the sun on the climate in the eventuality that a new prolonger sola minimum would occur. The conclusion is that the Sun would do little in any case.

The problem is whether the traditional climate model is correctly interpreting climate change. The only way to do that is to evaluate whether the climate model properly reconstruct the solar signature observed in the climate.

As IO have extensively proven in my papers and by proponent of the AGW (see for example Crowley, Science 2000), the traditional climate models produce a signature quite similar to the hockey stick graph by Mann which not only simply disagree with history but has also been seriously put in question under several studies.

Moreover, the traditional climate models also fail to properly reconstruct the correct amplitudes of the climate oscillations that have clear solar/astronomical signature.

Given the above, there is little hope that the traditional climate models correctly interpret climate change and nothing concerning the real climate can be inferred from them because from a false premise everything can be concluded.

In fact, the traditional climate models do not model several mechanisms that may contribute to a significant amplification of the solar impact on climate beginning from a cloud modulation from the cosmic ray which is solar induced.

Because of the lack of the current physics of climate change, the only way to correctly interpret climate is by phenomenological modeling the points to the direct simulation of the temperature patterns as I have proposed.

Once this is done, it is found that solar impact on climate is severely underestimated by the traditional models by a large factor while that the anthropogenic component has been overestimated by at least 2-3 times. That is, while the IPCC claims with the traditional models (which do not reconstruct the climate cycles) that more than 90% of the warming since 1850 is anthropogenic, the reality is very likely that no more than 30% of the warming may be anthropogenic and that this anthropogenic warming may not be GHG induced because may also be UHI induced, at least in part.

Thus, if the Sun will enter in a new prolonged period of minima, it is very unlikely that the global temperature will go up as predicted by the traditional climate models. It will go down as predicted by the models I have proposed in my papers (look at my web-page). For example “N. Scafetta, “Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications”. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 72, 951–970 (2010), and “Climate Change and Its Causes, A Discussion About Some Key Issues”

(Also there is a new paper under press on these issues)

Nicola, thanks for your comment. You may be interested in my recent post that addresses uncertainty in the IPCC’s attribution methods, including solar
http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/14/overconfidence-in-ipccs-detection-and-attribution-part-iv/

Filed under: In other online forums,Natural Processes,Supporting Research — by Richard Holle @ 9:15 am on June 16, 2011

Comments

There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment