Solar Supersensitivity – a new theory?

Do the results described here and here constitute a new theory? What is the relationship to the AGW theory? What is a theory anyway?

The models I have been exploring, dubbed solar supersensitivity, predict a lot of global temperature observations: the dynamics of recent and paleoclimate climate variations, the range of glacial/interglacial transitions, the recent warming coinciding with the Grand Solar Maximum, and the more recent flattening of warming.

They make sense of the statistical character of the global temperature time series as an ‘almost random walk’, the shift in phase between solar insolation and surface temperature, and the range of autoregressive structure of temperature series in the atmosphere. These are all dynamic phenomena.

Conventional global warming models, based in atmospheric radiative physics, explain static phenomena such as the magnitude of the greenhouse effect, and are used to estimate the equilibrium climate sensitivity. The climate models, however, have very large error bands around their dynamics, and describe shorter term dynamics as chaotic. Does this mean they are primarily theories of climate statics, and supersensitivity is concerned with dynamics?

No. I see no reason why the accumulation theory could not be reconciled with coupled ocean/atmosphere general circulation models, once the parameterisation of these models is corrected, particularly the gross exaggeration of ocean mixing. Similarly there is no reason a model based on the accumulation of solar anomaly could not recover equilibrium states.

The difference between AGW theory and solar supersensitivity (SS) might lie more in the mechanisms. SS treats the ocean as a conventional greenhouse — shortwave solar isolation is easily absorbed, but the release of heat by convection at the ocean/atmosphere boundary is suppressed, so gradually warming the interior. In contrast, conventional AGW theory is focused more on mechanisms in the atmosphere, the direct radiative effects of gasses and water vapor. It combines many theories, of CO2 cycling, water relations, meteorology.

If mechanisms differentiate the theories, then the issue is the relative balance of the two mechanisms. Which is more responsible for recent warming? Which is more responsible for paleoclimate variations?

From basic recurrence matrix theory, the system with the largest eigenvalue will dominate the long-term, ultimate dynamics of a system, suggesting the ocean-related low loss accumulative mechanisms would dominate the short time-scale, high loss, low sensitivity atmospheric mechanisms.

If this view is correct, then what we have is a completion of an incomplete theory that promises to increase understanding and improve prediction by collapsing the range of uncertainty in the current crop of climate models.


0 thoughts on “Solar Supersensitivity – a new theory?

  1. Hi David. Have you looked at integrated cosmic ray data as an option? I find that the fit is somewhat better. This plot compares ocean temperature at the 30 meter depth (h/t Troy_CA) to the normalized integral of cosmic ray data (using mean plus 200 imp/min offset)

    • Layman, That does look good.  Have you taken it back to 1900?  The fit in the first half of the century is not as good with TSI, so it would be important if GRF was better.  The integration mechanism is still valid, but the driver different.

      • I used the data from the Moscow Nuetron Monitor which starts at 1958. The choice of 200 offset was not optimized, just eyeballed. Perhaps inclusion of volcanic aerosols prior to integrating could improve the fit (and the choice of cosmic ray offset) as well.

  2. David
    Your “solar supersensitivity” may be driven by the gravitational – nuclear reaction amplifier posited by Nicola Scafetta. See his presentation:
    Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter–Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle. Presented at 2012 SORCE Science Meeting – Annapolis, MD, 18-19 Sept., 2012.
    and paper:
    Scafetta N., 2012. Does the Sun work as a nuclear fusion amplifier of planetary tidal forcing? A proposal for a physical mechanism based on the mass-luminosity relation. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 81-82, 27-40.

    DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2012.04.002. PDF

  3. Pingback: witryna firmowa

  4. Pingback: tutaj

  5. Pingback: tani sylwester 2015

  6. Pingback: kliknij link

  7. Pingback: oferta

  8. Pingback: tutaj

  9. Pingback:

  10. Pingback: link do strony

  11. Pingback: darmowe pity 2014 -

  12. Pingback: link

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s