Scafetta-Wilson Paper: Increasing TSI between 1980 and 2000 could have contributed significantly to global warming during the last three decades

tsi_reconstructions

Some previous TSI reconstructions

Via Roger Pielke Sr. climatescience blog:

A New Paper On Solar Climate Forcing “ACRIM-Gap And TSI Trend Issue Resolved Using A Surface Magnetic Flux TSI Proxy Model By Scafetta Et Al 2009

At the December 2008 NRC meeting “Detection and Attribution of Solar Forcing on Climate” [see] there was extensive criticism by Gavin Schmidt and others on the research of Nicola Scafetta with respect to solar climate forcings.  He was not, however, invited to that December meeting.

There is now a new paper that he has published that needs to be refuted or supported by other peer reviewed literature (rather than comments in  a closed NRC meeting in which the presentors would not share their powerpoint talks).

The new paper is

Scafetta N., R. C. Willson (2009), ACRIM-gap and TSI trend issue resolved using a surface magnetic flux TSI proxy model, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L05701, doi:10.1029/2008GL036307.

The abstract reads

“The ACRIM-gap (1989.5-1991.75) continuity dilemma for satellite TSI observations is resolved by bridging the satellite TSI monitoring gap between ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 results with TSI derived from Krivova et al.’s (2007) proxy model based on variations of the surface distribution of solar magnetic flux. ‘Mixed’ versions of ACRIM and PMOD TSI composites are constructed with their composites’ original values except for the ACRIM gap, where Krivova modeled TSI is used to connect ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 results. Both ‘mixed’ composites demonstrate a significant TSI increase of 0.033%/decade between the solar activity minima of 1986 and 1996, comparable to the 0.037% found in the ACRIM composite. The finding supports the contention of Willson (1997) that the ERBS/ERBE results are flawed by uncorrected degradation during the ACRIM gap and refutes the Nimbus7/ERB ACRIM gap adjustment Fröhlich and Lean (1998) employed in constructing the PMOD.”

A key statement in the conclusion reads

“This finding has evident repercussions for climate change and solar physics. Increasing TSI between 1980 and 2000 could have contributed significantly to global warming during the last three decades [Scafetta and West, 2007, 2008]. Current climate models [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007] have assumed that the TSI did not vary significantly during the last 30 years and have therefore underestimated the solar contribution and overestimated the anthropogenic contribution to global warming.”


Interestingly, TSI has been on a slight downtrend in the past few years as we get closer to solar minimum. The graph below is from the ACRIM project page.

Click for a large image

It remains to be seen if we have hit the minimum yet.

About these ads

178 thoughts on “Scafetta-Wilson Paper: Increasing TSI between 1980 and 2000 could have contributed significantly to global warming during the last three decades

  1. I think Scafetta is onto something.
    Having spent a couple of hours trying to absorb

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v3.pdf

    Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
    Authors: Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner

    By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

    this paper also covers similar territory to Scarfetta, some I dont agree with but a good overview.

  2. Another nail in the coffin for those who believe in AGW. Just a pity it is such a technical paper that it is not likely to be headline news on any media outlets.

  3. Interesting to note that even Leif’s TSI track albeit much reducing TSI variability from previous estimates still preserves the match between lower TSI and observed cool periods.

    I accept that the match is not perfect but the lack of perfection could well, in my opinion, be a result of ocean cycle variability.

    However small the TSI variability actually is there really does seem to be a closer match to climate changes than anything in the CO2 measurements.

    The current absence of a generally accepted mechanism is not good grounds for denying the existence of a relationship.

  4. J recall reading a heated exchange between Willson and I think Judith Lean (don’t quote) in a blog a few years ago. It was pertaining to this very subject of ACRIM vs PMOD.

    Willson flat out stated PMOD is flawed was being used to promote AGW. Maybe this paper is an outgrowth of that discussion.

  5. Lindsay H
    ” there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects,”
    You have tried reading this first…..

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/25/a-short-primer-the-greenhouse-effect-explained/

    There is a greenhouse effect, though not the strawman you have attacked. CO2 does play a role. The debate is how much of a role, does it explain the recent warming and how much of a role will it play in the future. Papers like the above are what makes this debtate worth following.

  6. This on Guardian front page

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/14/al-gore-climate-change1

    Quotes:

    “Gore, awarded an Oscar for his 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth, held private talks with Obama in December in which they reportedly discussed the “green” components of the $787bn US stimulus package signed into law on 17 February.”

    Tell me how an unelected person like Gore who isn’t a scientist or engineer is allowed to decide, in secret, where US taxpayer money should go?

    “Gore says he has also detected a shift in the view of many business leaders. “They’re seeing the writing on every wall they look at. They’re seeing the complete disappearance of the polar ice caps right before their eyes in just a few years,” he says. ”

    He is living on another planet. Will the media not take issue with what he says?

    Responding to James Lovelock, the originator of the Gaia theory, who said the European trading system for carbon was “disastrous”, Gore says: “James Lovelock has forgotten more about science than I will ever learn.

    The founder of Gaia and the profiteer of Gaia have issues with each other. As much as I disagree with Lovelock’s theory of Gaia (it is a theory that I once believed independently years ago and no longer believe) he should fight back against Gore’s rude remark above and he should criticise those who have taken his theories and created a full blown cult.

  7. Considering the barnburning ramp of SC24 these days (another SC23 plage appears) we need something to sink teeth into.

  8. Um . . . TSI . . . uh . . . right! Turbulent Static Irridescence. No? . . . . oh, sure . . . .uh . . . Troubling Senescent Indignation! No?

    Maybe somebody could discuss what in the world this article is about. I understood nothing in it. I realize I am not UberEinstein, but most stuff here I can at least guess what it is about . . . a little help please?

  9. That is interesting about the closed minds at work in the government agencies as revealed by Roger Pielke.

    I have two contributions to make: one is about possibly fraudulent public officials; the other is about the Sun.

    Fraud
    In Australia, if government officials behaved like that –not funding policy relevant research because it would undermine their preferred policy perspective, they would be on the cusp of behaving fraudulently in relation to our Commonwealth Crimes Act.

    According to Australian Senior Counsel, to commit fraud in terms of the Commonwealth Crimes Act is to intentionally create a situation prejudicially affecting the Commonwealth in which any of the following occurs:
    • dishonestly causing economic loss to the Commonwealth;
    • dishonestly influencing the exercise of a public duty;
    • inducing the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency to do any act to its detriment.

    Quite clearly, the government officials identified by Roger Pielke are trying to create a situation that would prejudicially affect the USA by inducing a US Government to do something to its detriment. The argument in support of this goes along the lines that if the solar science research was funded as others recommended it could produce results which undermined the IPCC hypothesis. If this was achieved, the US Government might not then enact policies which have prejudicial effects. Thus funding solar science research could produce results which would be beneficial to the US Government. Whether US legislation about fraud is similar to Australia’s and whether this fraud argument has a US analogue would be worth exploring by others skilled in US law.
    There is also a plausible argument that if Australian officials acted like their US counterparts, they could be committing fraud by dishonestly influencing the exercise of public duty.

    The Sun
    The Sun affects climate dynamics in many more ways than merely electromagnetic radiation, even though this has been the predominant preoccupation of the scientific community that inquires into this phenomenon.
    There is solar plasma, the Sun’s electromagnetic field and the electromagnetic structures created by the Sun in the Heliosphere. See Professor Brian Tinsley’s home page for a good way into this work (http://www.utdallas.edu/nsm/physics/faculty/tinsley.html ). His view is that about half of the global warming over the past century can be accounted for by the impact of the solar processes he and associates study.

    Additionally, there is the gravitational interaction between the Sun and the Earth, especially, of course, the luni-solar tides. There is a substantial literature on this phenomenon, especially the 18.6 year lunar nodal cycle.

    Given this multiplicity of processes, the interaction between them and between them and climate processes becomes a key consideration.

    In the early years, before the seekers of the truth enabled their minds to be corrupted by the IPCC meme, US government agencies and NATO funded individual research projects as well as conferences that examined the totality of ways by means of which the Sun might regulate our climate.

    Here are some of the conferences from 1961 to 1993. There were several more.
    Solar variations, Climate Change, and Related Geophysical Problems, were published by the New York Academy of the Sciences: see Annals of the New York Academy of Science Vol 95, Art 1 pps 1 to 740 October 5, 1961.
    Bandeen, William R., and Maran, Stephen P., Possible Relationships between Solar Activity and Meteorological Phenomena Proceedings of a Symposium held November 7 8, 1973 at the Goddard Space Flight Center February 15 1974. This symposium was dedicated to Dr Charles Greeley Abbot, a pre-eminent pioneer worker in the field of the measurement of the Sun’s output and the identification of Sun climate relationships. Dr Abbot, who was aged 101 at the time, addressed the conference, only to die five weeks later.
    John R Herman and Richard A Goldberg Sun, Weather and Climate NASA 1978.
    McCormac, Billy M., and Seliga, Thomas A., Solar Terrestrial Influences on Weather and Climate. Proceedings of a Symposium/Workshop held at the Fawcett Center for Tomorrow, The Ohio State University, Columbia, Ohio, 24 28 August 1978. D. Reidel Publishing Company 1979.
    Elizabeth Nesme-Ribes (editor) The solar engine and its influence on terrestrial atmosphere and climate. Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop held in France October 25-29 1993. Published by Springer 1994. For some more history see http://www.agu.org/history/sv/articles/ARTL.html

  10. Ok, after poking around a bit I found “Total Solar Irradiance”. Please try to expand the TLIs every so often for us TCNs.

    Also the latest warming conference generated headlines about “Greenland melting faster than expected”. I’d love to see an analysis. I thought the latest evidence indicated that the amount of ice on Greenland has been growing.

  11. Grant Hodges –”TSI” = Total Solar Irradiance, in other words the output of the Sun. The AGWers blithely assume this to have been invariant over the period in question, and thus not responsible for any significant portion of observed global warming in recent decades.

  12. Quite clearly, the government officials identified by Roger Pielke are trying to create a situation that would prejudicially affect the USA by inducing a US Government to do something to its detriment.

    Economic suicide is the path by which government takes over various industries and then passes control of those industries to new elites. That’s what they did in the Soviet Union and still today in Russia.

    That’s a Power Shift…ahem…Org.

  13. Scafetta and Wilson findings coincide with those of Dr Nahle’s in Amplitude of Solar Irradiance and Change of Temperature:

    “Last week, Nicola Scafetta and Richard C. Wilson published a peer reviewed paper in which they revealed a considerable Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) increase of 0.033 % per decade between the solar activity minima of 1986 and 1996, which is comparable to the 0.037 % found in the ACRIM composite. The data gathered by satellites, which were reported by Scafetta and Wilson, coincide with my theory of a correlation between the Amplitude of TSI and the Change of the Earth’s Tropospheric Temperature until 1998. In my article “Heat Stored by Greenhouse Gases”, I concluded that the fluctuation of the TSI of the last 300 years had been 1.25 W/m^2, causing a change of the Earth’s temperature of 0.56 °C, which is the maximum averaged change in tropospheric temperature achieved in the 1990s (the average of change of temperature in 1998 was 0.51 °C). The correlation resides in the total change since 1610 AD, which I had calculated was 1.25 W/m^2. The new findings fix the change at 1.32 W/m^2 which would produce a change of temperature of 0.594 °C, while the change I had calculated would produce a change of temperature of 0.56 °C. Nonetheless, both calculations of the changes of temperature based on the fluctuation of the TSI coincide with the natural change observed in 1998 (0.52°C) and with the total natural oscillation of temperature of -3 °C to 3 °C in the Holocene Period.”

    http://biocab.org/Heat_Storage.html

    http://biocab.org/Amplitude_Solar_Irradiance.html

  14. Aron

    “He is living on another planet. Will the media not take issue with what he says?”

    Yes, he is living on another planet. Unfortunately it’s ours!

  15. The two Scafetta and West links in the post above aren’t working. For those interested, the following links do work. They’re from Nicola Scafetta’s Curriculum Vitae webpage.

    Scafetta and West 2007:

    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/complexity2007.pdf

    Scafetta and West 2008:

    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf

    If memory serves me well, for the 2007 paper, Scafetta and West used Lean 2000 and Wang 2005 composites, which are now considered obsolete.

    It’ll be interesting to read Scafetta’s upcoming paper (in press) “Total solar irradiance satellite composites and their phenomenological effect on climate.” To me, global temperatures during the period of the satellite composites are dominated by volcanic eruptions, ENSO, and ENSO aftereffects. With that in mind, will the paper illustrate a phenomenoloical explanation of the effects of solar on ENSO? We’ll have to wait and see.

  16. Dorlomin,

    Please read the paper Lindsay cited. I, also, was willing to concede some CO2 greenhouse effect until I just recently went through this paper. I found the paper to be well done and very thorough in its treatment.

    Side note to George Smith from a previous thread: Yes, the 2nd Law was initially formulated dealing with cyclic engines, but the more modern formulation deals with the net increase in entropy by counting accessible microstates. I totally agree a single photon re-radiated from a CO2 molecule can approach the sun and be absorbed, thereby giving the appearance of violating the 2nd Law. However, a more appropriate model is that of two blackbodies at two different temperatures separated from each in the vacuum. They will each radiate and absorb photons from each other. However, the higher temperature BB will have a greater proportion of higher energy photons in its emission spectrum. The number of accessible microstates for the higher energy photons is greater when they are absorbed by the lower temperature BB. Eventually both will reach the same equilibrium temperature as required by the 2nd Law. As the above cited paper argues, to have a net flow of energy (heat) from a cooler object, atmospheric CO2, to a warmer object, the earth’s surface, without adding work to the system is essentially the same as the two BB model I just looked at. The one objection that I could see being raised here is that perhaps the net incoming solar flux could provide the “work” to run this refrigerator.

    The paper has many more other lines of attack as Lindsay mentioned.

  17. The key sentence IMHO is in their conclusion:
    “[23] On a decadal scale, outside the ACRIM-gap period, KBS07 fails to reproduce the satellite data pattern and trend.”

    I would not put much credence in their use of the KBS07 reconstruction to justify the data inside the ACRIM-gap.

    The apparent decrease of PMOD TSI is likely an artifact, as
    PMOD has also decreased relative to the [much better calibrated SORCE TSI] as shown here:

  18. with TSI derived from Krivova et al.’s (2007) proxy model based on variations of the surface distribution of solar magnetic flux.

    The solar magnetic flux during solar cycle 23 was very much the same as in solar cycle 13, see e.g. the resulting Interplanetary Magnetic Field: http://www.leif.org/research/IMF-SC13-and%20SC23.png The blue diamonds show IMF observed by spacecraft for the current cycle shifted 107 years back, the green circles and curve show IMF inferred from geomagnetic observations for SC23 shifted, and the red curve shows IMF inferred the same way for SC13.

    And if that were the basis for TSI, then TSI for SC13 [a hundred years ago] would also be similar to TSI during the last decade, and if that in turn drives the temperature, then the temperature back then should also be similar to 1996-2008. So, two things:
    1) TSI has not changed since then
    2) TSI does not drive the climate significantly [and please - no silly comments about turning off the Sun]

  19. Grant Hodges (03:54:18) :

    > Um . . . TSI . . . uh . . . right! Turbulent Static Irridescence. No? . . . . oh, sure . . . .uh . . . Troubling Senescent Indignation! No?

    I agree there should have been a reference to total solar irradience.
    One aid here is the oft-forgotten links at the top, in particular
    the glossary, http://wattsupwiththat.com/glossary/

    Worth checking them out from time to time. It would be nice if they
    were cleaned up, improved, etc.

  20. Stephen Wilde (00:54:36) :

    Interesting to note that even Leif’s TSI track albeit much reducing TSI variability from previous estimates still preserves the match between lower TSI and observed cool periods.

    I accept that the match is not perfect but the lack of perfection could well, in my opinion, be a result of ocean cycle variability.

    Stephen,

    If you understand where the numbers that show Leif’s TSI come from — sunspot numbers — then the match between Leif’s and the others is not surprising. The dispute, as I understand it, between Leif (and others?) and Lean (and others) is how to relate historical SSN’s to TSI. Regardless of whether you think you can see a match to ocean cycle variability, what you’ve got is more or less a perfect match to solar cycle variability — sunspot numbers — converted to estimates of TSI based on sunspot numbers.

    And that graphic at the end of Anthony’s story doesn’t come from the Scafetta-Willson paper, or Peilke Sr.’s write up. It is just there, as stock imagery, to illustrate Anthony’s writeup.

  21. The ACRIM site has another interesting plot besides the one Anthony shows above http://acrim.com/ It show the TSI results from the various satellites that have been measuring the value since 1979. It is real clear why it is so hard to get a solid value for TSI and whatever trends it their may have been in the last 30 years let alone over longer periods of time. The plot Anthony showed had a slope in the curves of about -0.003 to -.009 percent per year (I think this is normalized data) since the sunspot max, but the trend since 2000 has been -0.014 percent per year in the ACRIM3 data or -.2 W/m2 per year in real units.

  22. Dorlomin (03:19:58) : There is a greenhouse effect, though not the strawman you have attacked.

    Lindsay was quoting from the abstract of the paper he linked.

  23. aron, to be fair, that comment by Gore is a compliment not an insult. it is an old joke to say “that guy has forgotten more than i will ever learn” meaning that they are so learned that they have forgotten more than most will ever even have the chance to learn.

  24. However small the TSI variability actually is there really does seem to be a closer match to climate changes than anything in the CO2 measurements.

    The current absence of a generally accepted mechanism is not good grounds for denying the existence of a relationship.

    If with more and better data we find a stronger correlation then that is good evidence for a causal mechanism even though we don’t know what the causal mechanism is.

    I remain sceptical that TSI is the primary driver of the observed temperature data reported as the global temperature anomaly, but then I think the main drivers are local and regional effects, UHI, aerosols, land use changes, etc.

    If these could be removed perhaps the temperature changes we would be left with are due to TSI with some contribution from GHGs.

  25. There is consensus across the scientific community regarding climate change….

    Oh really? There isn’t even consensus in the AGW community about it.

    At the recent Copenhagen conference they were raving about the increasing and accelerating sea-level rise attributable to Greenland ice melting faster than ever and faster than previously feared. Yet, at the same Conference they were presenting calm data that showed that an alleged “melting tipping point” was actually much further away than previously thought as Greenland’s ice is NOT as susceptible to warming as previously assumed.

    Both stories carried in the Guardian:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/mar/08/climate-change-flooding (sunday 8th March 2009)

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/10/greenland-ice-sheet-climate-change

    (Tuesday 10th March 2009)

    No points or prizes for guessing which of the two above stories coming out of the Copenhagen conference the BBC reported and which one they ignored!

  26. Re: Aron’s comment

    Aron, just to correct — when Gore said, as you quoted above:

    “James Lovelock has forgotten more about science than I will ever learn.”

    That was intended by Gore to be a compliment, not a criticism. (Ironically, though, it’s a form of compliment usually paid by one “man of science” deferentially to another, more senior person. But since Gore took only one (an intro) course in science while at Harvard, that is perhaps an unintended example of ‘damning by faint praise”)’

    So — the takeaway is, unsurprisingly, that Gore is in love with the “Gaia” stuff.

  27. So when are urban heat islands going to be brought up as a main driver of surface measurement data? I know they say they correct for it, but wouldn’t it be better to move the stations to a proper spot with proper data collection?

    The surface stations could be operated remotely now, if it can be done with buoys(JASON) it can be done with surface stations. With the billions being wasted trying to prove a hoax, why not do the simple science stuff first. It would be interesting to see what the results would be if only surface stations that still could achieve accreditation were used.

    Unless the obvious answer, you don’t want to know.

  28. Do we have temperature guages working on Mars? If earth may be heading toward doom, perhaps its worth sprinkling Mars with temperature guages or finding a satisfactory way to monitor temperature on a number of spots on Mars to see if the sun might be to blame before going to the astronomical cost of sequestering every extra CO2 molecule we make.

  29. “Mike Monce (05:42:26) :

    Dorlomin,

    Please read the paper Lindsay cited. I, also, was willing to concede some CO2 greenhouse effect until I just recently went through this paper. I found the paper to be well done and very thorough in its treatment.”
    Then read one of the rebuttals.

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf

    And while your at it may I suggest drafting a couple of letters, one to Richard Lidzen who famously wrote this….

    “”… [T]he impact of CO2 on the Earth’s heat budget is nonlinear. What this means is that although CO2 has only increased about 30% over its pre-industrial level, the impact on the heat budget of the Earth due to the increases in CO2 and other man influenced greenhouse substances has already reached about 75% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2, and that the temperature rise seen so far is much less (by a factor of 2-3) than models predict (assuming that all of the very irregular change in temperature over the past 120 years or so—about 1 degree F—is due to added greenhouse gases—a very implausible assumption).”.”

    And another to Freeman Dyson who wrote this widely published piec
    “Everyone agrees that the increasing abundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has two important consequences, first a change in the physics of radiation transport in the atmosphere”

    Id be grateful if you would post any responce from Freeman Dyson suggesting he does not understand basic physics.

  30. Ken Hall (07:26:38) :

    “No points or prizes for guessing which of the two above stories coming out of the Copenhagen conference the BBC reported and which one they ignored!”

    Which is why the MSM has lost so much mindshare. They have yet to grok the public’s migration to internet is a direct result of credibility loss. BBC, wire services, PBS, etc. don’t even hide their rubber-stamped scripts, and then stare like a deer in headlights at their audience exodus.

    Blogs and alt news sites, like mimeographed newsletters of yore, will gain mindshare proportional to MSM loss of street cred.

    Moderator: Is there a guide to text formatting for posts at MUWT?

  31. Philip_B (07:16:25) :
    “However small the TSI variability actually is there really does seem to be a closer match to climate changes”
    Evidence suggests otherwise. TSI a hundred years ago was no different from what it has been the last decade, but temperatures were, so “where is the beef”?

  32. Ken Hall

    Re the Guardian story of rising sea levels.

    The press always raises the deluge of the Ganges delta and other such places that would ensue if the sea level rose. I have never come across an objection to this outcome. It is well known that when sea level rises (or a delta slumps) that the river silt is arrested by the rising waters, drops its silt and builds up the delta again. Since the last ice age, Mississippi delta has risen 130 metres or so, keeping pace with rising sea levels. The added bonus for a place like Bangladesh is that aggrading of the river waters builds up the new land with fertile soil. I suspect there weren’t enough geologists invited to the AGW party when it got going.

  33. Hmmmph. I was explaining to my wife and nephew just last night that it was the heliosphere blocking cosmic rays and thus preventing cloud formation that was the sun’s contribution to global warning and not radiance. Now I gotta re-do my rant. RATS! “The Science is settled!” Indeed.

    For a glimpse at just how consensus is arrived at, take a look at Professor Mike Hulme’s guest post in Roger Pielke, Jr.’s Prometheus about the Copenhagen conference.

    http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/obama-on-cap-and-trade-climate-impacts-and-chicken-little-5054#comments

    Jeff Id has an interesting commentary on Professor’s Hulme’s piece here:

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/03/14/an-interesting-post-on-prometheus/#more-2726

    My own pontification in the matter is that while the science may not be settled the politics almost certainly are. We are watching Alinsky type tactics being played out before our very eyes. If a cap-and-trade bill is not in place soon, watch for a million man march on Washington demanding immediate action, which will be followed by executive orders and EPA regulations, bowing to the clear will of the people. Think November 9, 1938.

  34. Hans Erren (01:12:38) : Here is a comparison of Frolich and lean with Willson(1997) TSI reconstruction. http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/TSI_FLvsW.gif

    Is there an explanation for Fröhlich’s reconstruction appearing to be about ten times less variable than Willson’s? One also wonders about the level change before and after 1990 in Fröhlich’s data when compared to Willson’s.

  35. Hugo M (08:38:19) :
    Is there an explanation for Fröhlich’s reconstruction appearing to be about ten times less variable than Willson’s?
    One is daily values, the other monthly means. This is a reasonable trade-off to show the levels as otherwise the blue points would be largely covered up by the red ones.

  36. So why does the top graph say “LEIF2007″ and not “SVALGAARD2007″? Is Leif the only scientist referred to only by his first name in the literature? ;)

  37. Jeff Alberts (08:54:41) :
    So why does the top graph say “LEIF2007″ and not “SVALGAARD2007″? Is Leif the only scientist referred to only by his first name in the literature? ;)
    Tycho comes to mind
    I actually produced that graph and there was room in the Maunder Minimum period for LEIF2007 and not for SVALGAARD2007. Also a nice play on the four-letter LEAN.

  38. Dear Leif:

    Evidence suggests otherwise. TSI a hundred years ago was no different from what it has been the last decade, but temperatures were, so “where is the beef”?

    Oceans are the missed point. Oceans act as modulators of Earth’s climate, i.e. thermostats. Any changes of SI mean a change of temperature on planets; nevertheless, oceans may delay the effects or enhance them. Evidence points to a warming of the whole solar system; however, planets like Mars and Venus, which have not oceans, suffer of extremes violent changes, while on Earth those changes are smoothed by the large amounts of liquid, solid and gaseous water.

  39. Nasif Nahle (09:04:41) :
    “Evidence suggests otherwise. TSI a hundred years ago was no different from what it has been the last decade, but temperatures were, so “where is the beef”?

    Oceans are the missed point. Oceans act as modulators of Earth’s climate, i.e. thermostats. Any changes of SI mean a change of temperature on planets; nevertheless, oceans may delay the effects or enhance them.

    The evidence claimed is that there is no delay between TSI and temps. TSI was small around 1900 and Temp was low around 1900, not 1900+D. How large would you say D is? 1 year? 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years?

  40. Leif Svalgaard (09:18:26) :
    TSI was small around 1900 and Temp was low around 1900, not 1900+D.
    For clarification, the claim is that TSI was small. My argument is that TSI was the same, but temps were different, hence no connection. With a suitable D [you tell me what it is] one might restore a connection. But with a free parameter, like D, it is easy to find correlations…

  41. My own pontification in the matter is that while the science may not be settled the politics almost certainly are.

    Well, since they at least claim that the science is settled, why should we be expected to continue to fund it? There’s better ways to spend that money right now than on staring at a supposedly already well-established fact. I have a strange feeling that if the issue were approached in that manner, more questions than answers would suddenly appear and require further research.

  42. I seriously doubt there will be a million man march. Didn’t they just try that and ended up with a moving band of people so small that they did close-ups instead of wide angle shots to cover up that inconvenient truth?

  43. Dorlomin (08:02:50) :
    ““Mike Monce (05:42:26) :
    Dorlomin,
    Please read the paper Lindsay cited. I, also, was willing to concede some CO2 greenhouse effect until I just recently went through this paper. I found the paper to be well done and very thorough in its treatment.”
    Then read one of the rebuttals.

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf

    Read both papers. The original paper does have a good argument about the greenhouse effect being very poorly explain in many articles and in fact it is not why greenhouses get hot in the first place. He has many objections to the very simplified models used to calculate average global temperatures and the effect of the atmosphere on the average temperatures. I think he is right in that the models are wrong but in my opinion not so wrong that the values can-not be used as rough approximations of reality.

  44. @Dorlomin (08:02:50) :

    I’m curious. Which part of the Lindzen quote shows support for the current CO2 models?

  45. Mike Monce says:

    Please read the paper Lindsay cited. I, also, was willing to concede some CO2 greenhouse effect until I just recently went through this paper. I found the paper to be well done and very thorough in its treatment.

    As the above cited paper argues, to have a net flow of energy (heat) from a cooler object, atmospheric CO2, to a warmer object, the earth’s surface, without adding work to the system is essentially the same as the two BB model I just looked at. The one objection that I could see being raised here is that perhaps the net incoming solar flux could provide the “work” to run this refrigerator.

    No, there is a more fundamental objection, which is that the greenhouse effect does not posit a net flow of heat from the atmosphere to the earth’s surface. This may seem counterintuitive to you since you might think that such a net flow is necessary to get the warming of a greenhouse effect. However, it is not because the situation that we are comparing to is the case of an IR-transparent atmosphere. In that case, all of the energy that the earth radiates according to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law goes directly out into space and thus none of it returns to the earth’s surface. So, the fact that in the case of a greenhouse effect, some of the heat that the earth radiates can be absorbed by that atmosphere and then returned to it means that it will be warmer than the IR-transparent case. It is not necessary…and is indeed not the case…that the NET flow of heat be from the atmosphere to the earth.
    Hence, the atmospheric greenhouse effect does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

    The paper that Dorlomin cited by Arthur Smith rebuts at least one of the other major points of the G&T paper, namely their claim that there is no well-defined average surface temperature (or at least an upper bound on the average surface temperature) of the earth in the case of an IR-transparent atmosphere. (I.e., they claim that it is not correct to claim that the earth, with its current albedo, would be 33 C colder in average surface temperature in the absence of the greenhouse effect…and Arthur shows that indeed this is true, with the only correction being that it would have to be AT LEAST 33 C colder. The 33 C value is if the earth is at uniform temperature…with the number being larger…i.e., more than 33 C colder…due to any non-uniformity in temperature. [My guess is that the earth's temperature is close enough to uniform that the 33 C value is still pretty close to correct...although admittedly this uniformity itself is due in large part to the greenhouse effect.])

  46. Leif Svalgaard (09:18:26):

    The evidence claimed is that there is no delay between TSI and temps. TSI was small around 1900 and Temp was low around 1900, not 1900+D. How large would you say D is? 1 year? 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years?

    What I know is that D is unpredictable and that it oscillates according to inner factors related with oceanic currents, gravity, electrodynamics, etc., which are not well known to us until now. However, the answer is in the oceans.

  47. Nasif, Yes and also the oceans are sloshing about under the influence of other sources, such as gravity, indepenjdatly of the TSI, so there are many interacting cycles.

  48. Ooops … didn’t finish the last post. Here it is:

    Therefore, it may never be possible to point definatively to any one factor as the specific cause of any climate trends.

  49. Hard to see any Sun speck in the visual. The magnetogram actuallt suggests two cycle 23 specks.

  50. re: Pamela Gray (09:36:20) :

    I made my pontification before I found Aron’s link to

    http://www.powershift09.org/

    It’s no longer about science. It’s about equity, justice and fairness. It’s about huge revenue streams from cap and trade that will allow government to perform good works. It’s about getting a program in place before any incovenient facts derail it. That thing in Washington was not just a demonstration, it was also a series of seminars and workshops on community organization. However many demonstrators were there, there are now that many more organizers. Think seminars, teach-ins, moratoriums. Think direct action and think Kent State.

    Maybe I ought to get myself a sandwich board and a bell and stalk up and down 42nd Street and Times Square….

  51. Leif Svalgaard (09:22:21) :

    Leif Svalgaard (09:18:26) :
    TSI was small around 1900 and Temp was low around 1900, not 1900+D.
    For clarification, the claim is that TSI was small. My argument is that TSI was the same, but temps were different, hence no connection. With a suitable D [you tell me what it is] one might restore a connection. But with a free parameter, like D, it is easy to find correlations…

    As in the following?

    PC1 is the 1st PC from the covariance of an 11 year ma of your TSI with an 11 year ma of the Central England Temperature. Of course, it breaks down ~1990.

  52. Parse Error says:

    Well, since they at least claim that the science is settled, why should we be expected to continue to fund it? There’s better ways to spend that money right now than on staring at a supposedly already well-established fact.

    I tend to try to avoid that “science is settled” phrase anyway since I think it sows confusion. However, the point that I think is being made is that there is enough science settled to be able to say certain things (such as what the IPCC says) and, certainly, enough to argue for the necessity to take action. That there is still considerable uncertainty, however, is demonstrated for example by the fairly wide range of climate sensitivity (2 to 4.5 C) for the doubling of CO2 that the IPCC considers to be likely values. There are even larger uncertainties in regard to the effects of AGW on more regional scales.

    And technically, no subject in science is settled since science is inductive and can never prove things to absolute certainty. After all, there are still people trying to understand gravity…particularly how to unify what we understand about gravity with quantum mechanics. However, I don’t think many people would argue that we should not base our public policy and other decisions on what we do believe we understand about gravity.

  53. Does anyone know what affect, if any, did recent volcanic eruption events such as pinatubo, have on ocean temperatures? Did ocean temperatures remain flat? Did they drop as atmospheric temperatures did? If ocean temperatures dropped, was there a time delay to that drop?

  54. Joel Shore – I understand, the trouble is this illusion that “the science is settled” and states as a fact that the only way to save the world is through extremely unwise policies tailored specifically to suit only one set of ideologies. To present it that way is both unethical and counterproductive, but I realize you’re already aware of that. The real disaster is going to occur when such policies are already causing hardship, leading more people to examine the facts for themselves. As hard is it may be to get people to act on an uncertain risk, the results would be much better in the long run. If one wishes to make sensible policies based on what we believe we understand, that is fine, but if certain people are going to use what they claim to be irrefutable fact as a means to reshape society according to their own vision, the least they could do to maintain their charade is to stop researching what they expect everyone to believe is already beyond dispute. To make matters even worse, I don’t even see how anything being seriously considered right now is going to resolve the alleged problem, which wouldn’t count for very much were I not in the company of far better minds than my own in that regard. If they’re so concerned about it, why turn it into a cash cow instead of actually dealing with it? Combined with the dishonesty, it all paints an extremely revolting picture.

  55. Nasif Nahle (09:49:01) :
    What I know is that D is unpredictable and that it oscillates according to inner factors related with oceanic currents, gravity, electrodynamics,

    which means that one cannot claim there is evidence for a connection if you don’t know the randomly varying delay.

  56. “Joel Shore (10:13:55) :

    And technically, no subject in science is settled since science is inductive and can never prove things to absolute certainty. After all, there are still people trying to understand gravity…particularly how to unify what we understand about gravity with quantum mechanics. However, I don’t think many people would argue that we should not base our public policy and other decisions on what we do believe we understand about gravity.”

    I’d be interested to hear some broad public policy enacted on the basis of our current scientific understanding of gravity.

  57. Basil (10:08:56) :
    PC1 is the 1st PC from the covariance of an 11 year ma of your TSI with an 11 year ma of the Central England Temperature. Of course, it breaks down ~1990.

    AGW in action :-)

  58. “Basil (06:31:46) :

    Stephen Wilde (00:54:36) :

    Interesting to note that even Leif’s TSI track albeit much reducing TSI variability from previous estimates still preserves the match between lower TSI and observed cool periods.

    I accept that the match is not perfect but the lack of perfection could well, in my opinion, be a result of ocean cycle variability.

    Stephen,

    If you understand where the numbers that show Leif’s TSI come from — sunspot numbers — then the match between Leif’s and the others is not surprising. The dispute, as I understand it, between Leif (and others?) and Lean (and others) is how to relate historical SSN’s to TSI. Regardless of whether you think you can see a match to ocean cycle variability, what you’ve got is more or less a perfect match to solar cycle variability — sunspot numbers — converted to estimates of TSI based on sunspot numbers.”

    Interesting point, Basil.

    Leif and others have prepared their TSI reconstructions by estimating from sunspot numbers. They are therefore bound to be sinilar in shape but the amount of variation is a matter of personal judgement for each of them.

    The colder periods clearly align with lower TSI/sunspot numbers subject to a variable lag from another factor.

    I see the oceanic cycles as shifting the climate response to changes in TSI/sunspot numbers around in time, sometimes enhancing and sometimes offsetting the solar influence but overall, given enough time, following it and that is why we see the cooler spells approximately coincident with the lower TSI/sunspot numbers.

    I suggest that the oceanic variability is capable of enhancing or reducing the size of the solar variability by multiples of 5 to 10 times depending on the netted out influence of all the various ocean cycles which most of the time are not in alignment. When they are in alignment with each other and with solar changes then large and rapid temperature changes are possible such as from 1975 to 2000.

    The small size of the solar variability is not important. The charts show that the climate is sensitive to it regardless and that variability is filtered through the oceans in a very variable manner but when one sees a 400 year chart the connection is obvious.

  59. Leif Svalgaard (11:32:26) :

    Basil (10:08:56) :
    PC1 is the 1st PC from the covariance of an 11 year ma of your TSI with an 11 year ma of the Central England Temperature. Of course, it breaks down ~1990.

    AGW in action :-)

    So, no AGW until 1990 then ?

    How would that work ?

    Methinks a different explanation is more likely.

  60. Stephen Wilde (11:35:02) :
    The small size of the solar variability is not important. The charts show that the climate is sensitive to it regardless and that variability is filtered through the oceans in a very variable manner but when one sees a 400 year chart the connection is obvious.
    On the 400-year time scale there are only a few degrees of freedom and obvious connections dwindle into statistical coincidence. You could also plot the population of North America and see the obvious connection with something being low in the 1600s and high in the 2000s. Now, real enthusiasts will go further and say the that reason is obvious: with more TSI, better agriculture, higher population, see?

  61. Stephen Wilde (11:35:02) :

    Stephen,

    My gut says you are right…that the solar influence is being buffered and modulated by ocean dynamics. But coming up with a convincing demonstration of the relationship is no mean feat.

    Basil

  62. Leif Svalgaard (06:22:22) :

    with TSI derived from Krivova et al.’s (2007) proxy model based on variations of the surface distribution of solar magnetic flux.

    The solar magnetic flux during solar cycle 23 was very much the same as in solar cycle 13, see e.g. the resulting Interplanetary Magnetic Field: http://www.leif.org/research/IMF-SC13-and%20SC23.png The blue diamonds show IMF observed by spacecraft for the current cycle shifted 107 years back, the green circles and curve show IMF inferred from geomagnetic observations for SC23 shifted, and the red curve shows IMF inferred the same way for SC13.

    And if that were the basis for TSI, then TSI for SC13 [a hundred years ago] would also be similar to TSI during the last decade, and if that in turn drives the temperature, then the temperature back then should also be similar to 1996-2008. So, two things:
    1) TSI has not changed since then
    2) TSI does not drive the climate significantly [and please – no silly comments about turning off the Sun

    I don’t think one should simply compare one solar cycle with another taking each in isolation.

    The oceanic filtering which I referred to above is highly variable over several solar cycles because of the variable mismatch between all the seperate oceanic cycles.

    Additionally the earlier and later solar cycles are relevant to the observed effect of any single cycle.

    It most certainly does not follow that because cycle 13 looks like cycle 23 then the global temperatures should be similar.

    The level of complexity arising from multiple variable ocean cycles combining with multiple variable solar cycles is what lies at the heart of climate debate and the sooner the professionals get a grip on that the sooner all the AGW nonsense can be dispensed with and the sooner we can start making really useful decisions for the benefit of humanity and the environment.

    Wrong diagnosis plus wrongheaded treatment for our ills is the worst of all possible worlds.

  63. Joel Shore (10:13:55) : That there is still considerable uncertainty, however, is demonstrated for example by the fairly wide range of climate sensitivity (2 to 4.5 C) for the doubling of CO2 that the IPCC considers to be likely values.

    So what CO2/Temperature ratio would unequivocally disprove this 2C – 4C CO2 sensitivity claim? If CO2 rises but temperature decreases would that do it (IOW: NEGATIVE sensitivity)?

  64. Leif Svalgaard (06:22:22)

    “1) TSI has not changed since then
    2) TSI does not drive the climate significantly”

    I don’t know enough to argue point 1, but point 2 is unknown since the earth’s climate is a nonlinear system, chaotic. For a linear system, like a network of resistors, capacitors, and inductors, or simple quantum mechanical systems, the same input produces the same out. Superposition works. This is manifestly not true for nonlinear systems. The response depends not only on the input but also on the state of the system.

    Using the Lorenz attractor as an example, if the system trajectory is out in either wing, even very large perturbations of a trajectory produce almost no change in future evolution of the system. If the system state is close to where the trajectories cross from one wing to the other, it becomes extremely sensitive to small perturbations.

    Even with your minimalist reconstruction of TSI, it does vary by 1 w/m^2. If the state of the global climate is on the correct piece of its “attractor” there is every reason to think that even these small perturbations could produce large climate changes. If the relative time scales are right it’s possible that the 11 year solar cycle could produce multiple perturbations of the climate that all act in phase.

  65. Nasif Nahle (09:49:01) :
    What I know is that D is unpredictable and that it oscillates according to inner factors related with oceanic currents, gravity, electrodynamics,

    Leif Svalgaard (11:21:49) :

    which means that one cannot claim there is evidence for a connection if you don’t know the randomly varying delay.

    Dear Leif,

    Evidence consists of the correlation itself. Mechanisms of Earth’s system and breaks that causes D are what we don’t understand… yet. Nonetheless, the correlation is noticeable.

  66. Stephen Wilde (11:52:36) :
    I don’t think one should simply compare one solar cycle with another taking each in isolation.
    I don’t think we are communicating. People claim an obvious correlation between solar activity and climate. All the other effects you mention would degrade that correlation severely, showing that either
    1) these other effects are minor, or
    2) the obvious correlation is spurious to begin with.

  67. “DAV (11:52:41) :
    Joel Shore (10:13:55) : That there is still considerable uncertainty, however, is demonstrated for example by the fairly wide range of climate sensitivity (2 to 4.5 C) for the doubling of CO2 that the IPCC considers to be likely values.

    So what CO2/Temperature ratio would unequivocally disprove this 2C – 4C CO2 sensitivity claim? If CO2 rises but temperature decreases would that do it (IOW: NEGATIVE sensitivity)?”

    DAV, of course that wouldn’t disprove it! I don’t think it can be disproved in their minds.

  68. I too read both the Gerlich/Tscheuschner paper and the Smith paper. Understanding either paper requires multiple readings; and even then “holes” in understanding exist (at least in my understanding). However, weaknesses of the Smith paper are (a) its disregard of heat transfer from the surface of the earth to the atmosphere via convection and conduction, and (b) the resulting loss of thermal energy to space via radiation by that atmosphere. According to Gerlich/Tscheuschner, the Stefan-Boltzmann law doesn’t apply to gases. This makes sense to me if for no other reason than for a gas whose pressure changes with altitude, there is no “definable surface” at which to apply the Stefan-Boltzmann law. For a paper that purports to model energy leaving/impacting earth, to exclude the thermal radiation/absorption properties of an atmosphere is a major weakness.

    When Smith’s paper argues that in the absence of IR-absorbing gases the earth would be at least 33 degrees cooler, he bases that argument on a radiation model where only the earth’s surface radiates energy that is lost to space. Such a model can’t be correct because all matter above zero degrees Kelvin radiates energy; and for an atmosphere surrounding a black body, some of that energy will escape into space. Since an atmosphere that surrounds a black body will via conduction and convection receive heat from the black body surface, to ignore such atmospheric convection/conduction transfer and the resulting radiation of energy into space by the atmosphere renders Smith’s model of the earth suspect.

    I can envision several models for the earth’s loss of heat to space that I think are superior to Smith’s model. Unfortunately, I don’t have the knowledge to determine the temperature properties of those models–but I’d sure appreciate it if someone whose has such knowledge determined that temperature behavior. The simplest model is a spherical black body surface (thin shell whose radius is approximately equal to the earth’s radius, and whose mass is approximately equal to the earth’s mass) surrounded by a non-IR-absorbing ideal gas of constant mass comparable to the total mass of the earth’s atmosphere. For each square meter of the black body surface, thermal energy at a rate of approximately 342 Watts (the approximate power received from the sun averaged over the surface of the earth) is being generated. This energy (a) heats up the surface of the black body, which (b) via convection and conduction heats up the non-IR-absorbing ideal gas until the system comes to radiation equilibrium–i.e., until the total energy per unit time escaping into space equals the total energy per unit time generated at the black body’s surface. In addition to computing the temperature of the surface of the black body, such a model would include profiles (as a function of altitude above the surface of the black body) of (a) the density of the non-IR-absorbing ideal gas, and (b) the temperature of the non-IR-absorbing ideal gas.

    By symmetry, once such a system achieves “radiative balance” (assuming radiative balance is possible), all heat transfer via convection away from the black body surface will have ceased. However, heat will still leave the surface of the black body via both radiation and conduction. Furthermore, the non-IR-absorbing ideal gas will radiate thermal energy, some of which will escape into space. In such a model, the thermal energy input at the surface of the black body can leave that surface via both radiation and conduction; and as such, I have to believe the temperature of the black body surface would be different in the absence/presence of the non-IR-absorbing ideal gas. It may be that in the presence of a non-IR-absorbing ideal gas the temperature of the surface of the black body would be lower than in the absence of the non-IR-absorbing ideal gas. If so, the argument that IR-absorbing-gases are responsible for the earth’s surface temperature being 33 or more degrees higher than in the absence of IR-absorbing-gases. However, if in the presence of a non-IR-absorbing ideal gas, the temperature of the surface of the black body is higher than in the absence of the non-IR-absorbing ideal gas, then the argument that the presence of IR-absorbing-gases keeps the surface of the black body surface 33 degrees higher than would be the case in the absence of all IR-absorbing-gases is weak.

    Because, this post is probably too long as is, I’ll refrain at this time from describing more complex models which I believe are improvements to the model in Smith’s paper.

    Best, Reed Coray

  69. Paul Linsay (12:11:36) :
    “1) TSI has not changed since then
    2) TSI does not drive the climate significantly”

    I don’t know enough to argue point 1, but point 2 is unknown since the earth’s climate is a nonlinear system, chaotic.

    Yet people who claim there is strong evidence invariably show linear correlations. So, either those linear correlations are spurious to begin with or we cannot predict from solar influence what the climate outcome would be, or from any other set of data, e.g. CO2, orbital changes, etc.

  70. Nasif Nahle (12:36:30) :
    Evidence consists of the correlation itself. Mechanisms of Earth’s system and breaks that causes D are what we don’t understand… yet. Nonetheless, the correlation is noticeable.
    If the correlation is noticeable, D is known [can be deduced from the correlation]. The way to do this is simple: you calculate the correlation coefficient between two time series at zero lag. Then you move over one time series one step [e.g. a year if it were a yearly series] and calculate the correlation coefficient again. You do this again with a log of 2, then of 3, etc. The lag where the coefficient is the greatest is the delay. So, if you notice the correlation, you tell me the lag.

  71. Stephen Wilde (11:52:36):

    And if that were the basis for TSI, then TSI for SC13 [a hundred years ago] would also be similar to TSI during the last decade, and if that in turn drives the temperature, then the temperature back then should also be similar to 1996-2008. So, two things:
    1) TSI has not changed since then
    2) TSI does not drive the climate significantly [and please – no silly comments about turning off the Sun

    Dear Stephen,

    Recent studies show that TSI drives the climate drastically:

    Cowen, Ron. Stormy Weather – When the Sun’s Fury Maxes Out, Earth May Take a Hit. Science News. January 13, 2001. Vol. 159, Pp.26-28.

    Perkins, Sid. Pinning Down the Sun – Climate Connection-Solar Influence Extends Beyond Warm, Sunny Days. Science News. January 20, 2001. Vol. 159, Pp. 45-47.

    The authors of the investigations agree on D factor for explaining the negative correlations.

  72. “Leif Svalgaard (12:39:01) :

    Stephen Wilde (11:52:36) :
    I don’t think one should simply compare one solar cycle with another taking each in isolation.
    I don’t think we are communicating. People claim an obvious correlation between solar activity and climate. All the other effects you mention would degrade that correlation severely, showing that either
    1) these other effects are minor, or
    2) the obvious correlation is spurious to begin with.”

    I see your point but of course factors that dilute a correlation do not deny the correlation as you seem to suggest.

    The solar changes may be minor in the short term (a couple of solar cycles or even more) but they are large in human terms over a century or two and at any point the oceans can multiply them up or down by quite enough to yield a warming such as that observed from 1975 to 2000 without any need for an alternative cause.

    You claimed that cycle 13 should result in similar temperatures to cycle 23. I explained why that claim is wrong.

  73. Leif Svalgaard (05:55:36)

    much better calibrated SORCE TSI]

    The TIM instrument is yet to pass calibration as far as I am aware.It failed NIST verfication,Has this been Reebaluated

  74. “Leif Svalgaard (11:46:05) :

    Stephen Wilde (11:35:02) :
    The small size of the solar variability is not important. The charts show that the climate is sensitive to it regardless and that variability is filtered through the oceans in a very variable manner but when one sees a 400 year chart the connection is obvious.

    Reply from Leif:
    On the 400-year time scale there are only a few degrees of freedom and obvious connections dwindle into statistical coincidence. You could also plot the population of North America and see the obvious connection with something being low in the 1600s and high in the 2000s. Now, real enthusiasts will go further and say the that reason is obvious: with more TSI, better agriculture, higher population, see?”

    My reply:

    Yes I do see but you are stretching credibility in this case. I do not accept that cooler climates coinciding with a less active sun are simply a statistical coincidence.

    First you deny any significant correlation due to a less than perfect match. Then when I explain why the match cannot be perfect because of the oceanic effect you shift your case to a statistical point that has little merit when one can see that throughout 400 years the correlation has held in temperature movements up and down with rises and falls in sunspot numbers and we may be in the midst of another occasion now as warming of the globe stops just when solar activity declines and the oceans turn negative.

    I take the view that ongoing events provide additional evidence but it seems that you have a fixed opinion which you are not prepared to review. Of course I cannot speculate as to why that may be so.

  75. Basil (11:50:14) :

    “Stephen Wilde (11:35:02) :

    Stephen,

    My gut says you are right…that the solar influence is being buffered and modulated by ocean dynamics. But coming up with a convincing demonstration of the relationship is no mean feat.

    Basil”

    Thanks Basil, and of course the matter of a convincing demonstration is indeed the key. Earlier technology is not up to collecting the relevant data.

    I’m confident that modern techniques are up to it and I just have to wait and see what transpires over the next 5 to 10 years.

    Hopefully I will prove that an experienced and well informed human brain is better at pattern recognition than a computer model.

  76. Leif Svalgaard (12:39:01) :
    1) these effects are minor,
    2) the obvious correlation is spurious to begin with.

    This climate discussion appears to be far more interesting than I assumed.
    An interesting hobby for a retired engineer ?

  77. Stephen Wilde (13:40:04):

    Not only are the solar variations being modulated and buffered by ocean cycles but additionally the ocean cycles are being modulated and buffered by air circulation and weather systems.

    I agree; besides, there are other factors which could influence the TSI effects on Earth’s climate; EMF oscillations and ICR, for example. I’m almost sure we’ll find the mechanisms soon.

  78. Leif; did the temperature 100 years ago in SC 13 start from the same base? If the starting point was different there would be no reason to expect the end point ot be the same. Just asking.

  79. “Leif Svalgaard (12:46:51) :

    Nasif Nahle (12:36:30) :
    Evidence consists of the correlation itself. Mechanisms of Earth’s system and breaks that causes D are what we don’t understand… yet. Nonetheless, the correlation is noticeable.
    If the correlation is noticeable, D is known [can be deduced from the correlation]. The way to do this is simple: you calculate the correlation coefficient between two time series at zero lag. Then you move over one time series one step [e.g. a year if it were a yearly series] and calculate the correlation coefficient again. You do this again with a log of 2, then of 3, etc. The lag where the coefficient is the greatest is the delay. So, if you notice the correlation, you tell me the lag.”

    How can one apply that when the lag is highly variable as in my oceanic scenario ?

    In other words a correlation can be noticeable and true but extremely difficult to verify statistically but relatively easy to verify on a simple graph plotted over enough time.

  80. It’s also worth point out that Lovelock is also a Hockey Stick promoter, as I referenced on Climate Audit: Lovelock and the Revenge of Gaia

    For several years now I have had on the wall above my desk that amazing graph of the temperature of the northern hemisphere from the year 1000 to the year 2000. It was produced by the American scientist Michael Mann from a mass of data from tree rings, ice cores and coral. It is called in America, mostly by sceptics, the “Hockey Stick” graph. This is because it looks like a hockey stick lying flat with a striking end pointing upwards. I keep it in view to reinforce my arguments with sceptics of global heating and also as a reminder of how severe it will be.

    This was published in 2006 and so Lovelock has no excuses for ignorance.

  81. Stephen Wilde (13:24:07) :
    This seems almost impossible. Let me try one last time [for now]:
    There could be lots of subtle, interacting, obscuring, buffered, and variable causes and delays and so forth. This will obscure correlations without denying them, because you cannot deny what you cannot untangle. But, my simple point is that the enthusiasts all claims that the correlations are obvious, strong, robust, ‘drastic’, etc, and THAT is what I challenge. They are NOT obvious, strong, etc. Sigh, this last try will probably be in vain as well, as all the objections just looked like knee-jerk reactions.

  82. Ventana,

    I’m guessing that TCN stands for Totally Clueless Newbies.

    It would apply to me, anyway.

  83. Sorry to frustrate you, Lief.

    I think it has to be a judgement call in the absence of better evidence and my judgement differs from yours.

    I wouldn’t claim certainty but there is enough of a correlation to merit proper consideration rather than dismissal of the possibility.

  84. David A (14:21:51) :
    Leif; did the temperature 100 years ago in SC 13 start from the same base? If the starting point was different there would be no reason to expect the end point ot be the same. Just asking.
    Yes, -273 degrees Centigrade.

    Stephen Wilde (14:22:52) :
    when the lag is highly variable as in my oceanic scenario ?
    In other words a correlation can be noticeable and true but extremely difficult to verify statistically but relatively easy to verify on a simple graph plotted over enough time.

    No, there are statistical tools for this, e.g. wavelet power spectra. And I failed again. The correlations people claim as strong evidence do not show any variable lags. They don’t say: “here the temp max lines up with solar min 27 years ago, but over here the temp min lines up with solar max 8 years ago…” etc. well, perhaps some do, but such wiggle matching is usually not taken seriously.

  85. Stephen Wilde (15:04:12) :
    Sorry to frustrate you, Leif.
    I’m not really frustrated, just a bit puzzled over how hard this is, but it does teach something about human nature.

    I wouldn’t claim certainty but there is enough of a correlation to merit proper consideration rather than dismissal of the possibility.
    Nobody is dismissing the possibility, just the correlations, after giving them proper consideration, but finding them wanting. But, as you said, your bar is much lower than mine.

  86. Neil Crafter (12:41:12) : DAV, of course that wouldn’t disprove it! I don’t think it can be disproved in their minds

    I’m afraid that’s where this is headed. I’m getting tired of the it’s obvious, everybody says so and other specious claims. It’s time we started pinning them down to falsifiable specifics and stop letting them move the goal posts or give orthogonal answers to direct questions.

    Our claim is that the climate to date is natural. It’s the default position by definition. It’s not our job to supply theories for natural climate. Asking otherwise is plain misdirection. It should be remembered the AGW proponents need to supply proof of any non-natural claim, including the means of its disproof.

    Lets stop letting them wriggle out of this.

  87. I sometimes wonder whether “sceptics” read science papers. This paper provides zero, none, zilch information on temperature trends and the role of solar activity in their variation.

    This is the very reason why I state there is no science debate.

  88. Looked at the TSI data from the ACRIM 1, 2, and 3 instruments which covers 1980 to present. This data if my adjustments were correct (the three instruments vary a lot more among themselves than the solar cycle variations in the data) shows that there as been a slight decrease in TSI of -0.014±0.002 W/m2/yr over that time period and a rise in the average temperature of +0.0127±0.0025°C/yr according to the UAH data. 30 years is to short a time to prove anything but the data does not look overwhelming for the TSI having a major effect on surface temperature at the levels of variation we are seeing now.

    See http://web.me.com/wally/Site/Wallys_Climate_Blog/Entries/2009/3/14_Total_Solar_Irradiance.html for my plots and explanations of data adjustments.

  89. Pamela Gray (09:36:20) :

    > I seriously doubt there will be a million man march.

    I bet you didn’t know that after the original Million Man March, there
    was going to be a follow-up called the Million Microbe March. Sadly,
    someone made a mistake and autoclaved the wrong Petri dish.

  90. Here’s Bob Tisdale’s graph of temperature trends: click

    Notice how the trend line tracks a brightening sun: click

    And another trend line from 1980: click

    See, DJ? There’s a debate going on. You just don’t like it.

  91. You know, perhaps the thread earlier, about NASA saying cycle 24 was ended was wrong headed.

    If you believe there is another Sun speck, go to the SOHO magnetograph. I could arguably say there are two cycle 23 Sun-specks, although not visible in the visible band….or are they just confused, premature, cycle 25 specks???? :-)

  92. Smokey (16:39:18) :
    Here’s Bob Tisdale’s graph of temperature trends: click
    Notice how the trend line tracks a brightening sun: click
    And another trend line from 1980: click
    See, DJ? There’s a debate going on. You just don’t like it.

    Even Bob knows that the Lean2000 TSI is obsolete, so DJ cannot ‘see’ that a debate is going on. Perhaps you will also learn that TSI did not behave as in your 2nd ‘click’. Like it or not :-)

  93. Leif:
    I’m reading Micheals/Balling book “Climate of Extremes”. In it they are discussing the difference between the warming of ~1910-1945 and ~1979 – 2000.

    They include two charts. About the 1910-1939 of which they say: it “shows very little change in the trend of temperatures from the coldest to the warmest nights”

    About the 1979-1997 chart they say “notice how the coldest nights are warming up, much more than any others. This is the way greenhouse warming is supposed to work…..”

    “We are not saying that the sun has had no influence on recent temperatures, but rather that the solar influence was clearly much greater during the warming of the early 20th century.”

    This seems to contradict what you have been saying.

    My thoughts are – is this any type of proof that the sun had an influence in the early part of the 20th century – ie. the different pattern of warming?

    I wonder if people see a pattern which agrees with their hypothesis and they don’t bother to think about other mechanisms that might potentially cause a similar pattern.

    Sorry I don’t know how to show the charts but could send them to you.

    Any thoughts on this? I’m not making any assumptions.

  94. Leif, Stephen, Joel, Nasif, et al,
    I appreciate the effort you all appear to put into your research and analyses, but one thing continues to be clear as I read these posts. As I have posted in the past, the vast myriad of variables, many of which are yet unidentified, and the fact that the variability of many or perhaps most that are known has yet to be determined, clearly means THE SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED NOR WILL IT BE ANY TIME SOON!!! But keep working on it folks. You do make this site so very interesting.

    I just hate to see politicians trying to make decisions that impact the health, wealth and well being of billions of people based on what many erroneously believe is settled science.

  95. Leif,

    I did not know that TSI chart was obsolete. But you da man when it comes to solar knowledge, so I defer to you.

    Do you have a similar but more up to date chart that I can add to my collection? Thanks in advance.

  96. Well in my quick look at the ACRIM data up comments a bit, I set the solar cycle minimum of ACRIM 1 and 2 equal to adjust the data. Now that I have read the paper it appears what they are measuring is the change in the TSI at the minimums to get their +0.045 W/m2/yr change in TSI a quantity I set to zero. Having now read the paper It looks OK to me but my lack of knowledge in this area does not make me a fair judge of the arguments.

    How much this small change in TSI would effect global temperatures is a good question. The trend within a solar cycle is about 1.5 W/m2 during a half cycle or a rate of about 0.3 W/m2/yr. The surface temperatures do not track well with this larger change in flux I’m not sure that the much smaller trend would have enough effect to be seen over 30 years.

  97. Evidence suggests otherwise. TSI a hundred years ago was no different from what it has been the last decade, but temperatures were, so “where is the beef”?

    Leif, my point was that the global mean temperature as compiled by the likes of GISS and Hadley is not primarily a global signal resulting from a global effect whether that be TSI, CO2, GCR or whatever. It is the average of local, regional and global effects, with the first 2 likely predominating.

    Therefore any attempt to find a global cause for the (whole of the) land surface temperature record will fail, because one doesn’t exist.

    What happened around 1990?

    Chinese industrial production took off, followed by India. At the same time Ex-Soviet Union and Eastern Europe industrial production collapsed.

    Easily the largest regional effects on temperatures, primarily via aerosols, of the last century. I would be very surprised if significant divergences between TSI and surface temperatures weren’t found following 1990.

  98. Some Comments on Comments I Liked:

    anna v (07:09:53) said : OT another cycle twenty three tiny tim has formed.

    WHAT? WHERE? DID I MISS IT?? I am starting to post the now-mensual sunspots in my office, and I sure didn’t want to miss one. Really, I can’t find it.

    tarpon (07:51:56) said:

    With the billions being wasted trying to prove a hoax, why not do the simple science stuff first. It would be interesting to see what the results would be if only surface stations that still could achieve accreditation were used.

    I AGREE COMPLETELY. OCCAM’S says look for the simplest fix first.

    Parenthetically THIS REMINDS ONE of the DDT Scare of the 1960′s; everybody got frothed up and banned the stuff completely. The chemical companies gleefully cooperated, since DDT was off-patent, and other, less effective, PATENTED pesticides could be substituted for higher profits (ANY idiot could make DDT). Consequently, DDT was banned worldwide and disease (esp. malaria) in Africa skyrocketed. No need to get hyperbolic about the deaths there due to this decision suffice it to say it’s almost always stupid to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    In the AGW case, the oil companies realized that only THEY have the wherewithal to sequester HUGE amounts of CO2 quickly (by injecting it into depleted oil & gas reservoirs; “CO2 flood” is a well characterized but expensive “tertiary” production technique. Look it up), and they calculate that the gains (including increased oil & gas production essentially for FREE) would more than offset the Carbon Taxes.

    As we say in Texas, y’all are fixin’ to be had, people. Again.

    Joel Shore (10:13:55) :

    And technically, no subject in science is settled since science is inductive and can never prove things to absolute certainty. After all, there are still people trying to understand gravity…particularly how to unify what we understand about gravity with quantum mechanics. However, I don’t think many people would argue that we should not base our public policy and other decisions on what we do believe we understand about gravity.”

    Joel, I assume that you aren’t an engineer or an “applied” scientist (e.g. industrial chemist, etc). What you are describing is the difference between “pure”or “theoretical” science and “applied” or “engineering” sciences.

    The WHOLE problem with AGW is that folks have carried the AGW THEORY, whole cloth, across the divide between theoretical and applied science before it was “ready”, that is, actually proven with a reasonable confidnece interval, predictive, and economically quantifiable.

    AGW models remind me of CFD (computational fluid dynamics) models for erosive slurry flows. The vector maps look pretty, but if you ask the CFD folks to predict WHERE a pipe or valve will erode, they can’t tell. If you look at an eroded part next to the model, it becomes obvious what the vectors were trying to tell you, but then the next one isn’t predictive EITHER. We just don’t understand the cumulative effects (things like cushioning effect, angle of incidence, particle “sharpness” & friability, stuff like that). A lot like AGW, I’d say.

    When an AGW model actually (a) relies on good data and (b) actually PREDICTS climate within a reasonable confidence interval, THEN we should START talking about the cost-benefit ratio of different policies. In the meantime, suggest you buy coal stocks, they’re really really cheap.

  99. Thank you Bob Tisdale, I’ve seen all of your charts and picked the one I used to support my post.

    I consider you one of the premier climate analysts, in part because of your use of your unique charts. They greatly help to clarify the subject.

  100. Steve Hempell (16:56:23) :
    “We are not saying that the sun has had no influence on recent temperatures, but rather that the solar influence was clearly much greater during the warming of the early 20th century.”

    It’s that word ‘clearly’ that is bothersome. why is that so ‘clear’. What quantitative measure is there? difference in correlation coefficient? number of data points? error bars? what?

    Smokey (16:57:07) :
    Do you have a similar but more up to date chart that I can add to my collection? Thanks in advance.
    There is one at the top of this very page…
    You can find the numbers here: http://www.leif.org/research entry numbers 770 and 730.

    Philip_B (17:21:24) :
    Therefore any attempt to find a global cause for the (whole of the) land surface temperature record will fail, because one doesn’t exist.
    Tell that to all the people that are convinced that there is strong evidence for global changes.

  101. Leif Svalgaard (16:46:58) :

    Even Bob knows that the Lean2000 TSI is obsolete, so DJ cannot ’see’ that a debate is going on. Perhaps you will also learn that TSI did not behave as in your 2nd ‘click’. Like it or not :-)

    That’s why I included your database in my assessment. However, when I considered only amplitudes, there are not substantial differences. The change is 1.32 W/m^2.

  102. Leif,
    And if that were the basis for TSI, then TSI for SC13 [a hundred years ago] would also be similar to TSI during the last decade, and if that in turn drives the temperature, then the temperature back then should also be similar to 1996-2008.

    I don’t know if I can agree with that comment. You are starting your earlier temperature at a lower baseline than your current cycle so the temperature could never be similar to the temperature of the current cycle. However, the real question is: ‘is the RATE of temperature INCREASE similar for the 2 cycles?’ That would be a better comparison of the 2 cycles than just seeing if the absolute temperatures were similar.

    Leif; did the temperature 100 years ago in SC 13 start from the same base? If the starting point was different there would be no reason to expect the end point ot be the same. Just asking.
    Yes, -273 degrees Centigrade.

    Funny, but a little snarky. I think you know what he meant.

  103. Pete (19:58:31) :
    You are starting your earlier temperature at a lower baseline than your current cycle so the temperature could never be similar to the temperature of the current cycle.
    The concept of a baseline is not useful here, because TSI and solar activity in general return to the same level at every single minimum ‘forever’, so the ‘baseline’ is simply that minimum value, provided solar activity was the major driver. If on the other hand there are other ‘sources’ or conditions that drive climate then you can have a varying ‘baseline’, but then solar activity is no longer the major driver, so the discussion is moot.

  104. I’d like, with the full awareness, knowledge and consent of Anthony Watts and owners of this blog, to introduce a data that is including in Paleobiology and that apparently has been despised systematically since the 90s in almost all debates related to changes in Earth’s climate. I’m talking on the natural fluctuations of temperature and natural climate changes that we expected for the Holocene Period. Many modern authors have revised the subject, reaching to the same conclusions that our science grandparents, with slight modifications. The last revisions have been based on isotopes and iron stained grains, which reflect the intensity of TSI during specific periods of time:

    Bond, Gerard et al. Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene. Science 7 December 2001: Vol. 294. no. 5549, pp. 2130 – 2136.

    Jablonski, D., Erwin, D. H. and Lipps, J. H. Evolutionary Paleobiology. 1996. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago, Ill.

    Broecker, Wallace S. Was the Medieval Warm Period Global? Science. 23 February 2001. Vol. 291. No. 5508, pp. 1497 – 1499.

    From those studies, we expect a change of temperature of about 6 °C. Climate changes would be the resultant from this cipher as long as that fluctuation is reached and during the normal increase. Anyway, any climate change would be natural.

  105. Leif

    As I understand Michael’s argument it is simply the difference in the warming pattern that is the indication that it is the sun that has the greater influence in the early 20th century.

    I have sent you the pages of the book. The second paragraph on page 19 may make the context clearer also.

    Now just for the sake of argument, if the sun is causing a greater portion of the warming in the early 20th century, how do we know what pattern it might cause since we don’t have a plausible mechanism for the sun’s influence?

  106. Nasif Nahle (20:59:55) :
    The last revisions have been based on isotopes and iron stained grains, which reflect the intensity of TSI during specific periods of time:

    The association with TSI is based on what?

    I have discussed this with the late Gerard Bond many times [here is a nice picture of one of our discussions [ http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/sns/2003/sns_dec_2003.pdf page 4], and he does not show> that the Sun is respomsible, but instead assumes that it must be [the "what else" argument]:

    Bond, Gerard et al. Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene. Science 7 December 2001: Vol. 294. no. 5549, pp. 2130 – 2136.

  107. I thought AGW also relied at least partly on larger fluctuations of TSI in order to account for the portion of the upward temperature trend prior to around the mid twentieth century, so what happens when that gets removed?

  108. Stephen Wilde (13:31:40) :

    Basil (11:50:14) :

    “Stephen Wilde (11:35:02) :
    I agree…. there is a way to find out some of the correlation.
    go to radio shack and get a capacitor (electrolytic) value of 1000 or more at 25v -50v
    and a bunch of resistors mostly low values.
    watts=volts*amps and volts = amps^2 * resistance
    now you need a batterie/s and a transformer ( low voltage 1-3v) and a diode.
    breadboard is nice but not necessary ,
    print out leif’s TSI chart and match his values like tsi 1.635 at its lowest point
    then add to the battery voltage with resistors, then add the AC(transformer) resistor bridge on top of the battery resistor/s ( you get close and then use resistor pot’s for more accuracy )
    use your volt ohm meter to verify outputs and wattage change on your load resistor.
    now after all this is done and checked . get a digital temp. one with a probe like indoor out door etc. glue it to the load resistor. first read it with just the battery only. the add the AC bridge. is it hotter? how much? .1? more?
    the AC is what shows up on Leif’s graph. this is what “adds” to any “heating”
    Very basic electronic circuits. simple eh?
    graph your results thanks

  109. hareynolds (17:30:35) :

    It was a real tiny tim, it did not last more than 12 hours and it was not bigger than the pixel . Some people on solarcycle24 also saw it :). Now onlythe magnetic footprint shows. It was from the one on the left, seen at the time I posted anna v (07:09:53yesterday) :

  110. Leif Svalgaard (20:54:51):

    If on the other hand there are other ’sources’ or conditions that drive climate then you can have a varying ‘baseline’, but then solar activity is no longer the major driver, so the discussion is moot.

    Dear Leif,

    I think the discussion is not irrelevant. Let’s say the solar activity is the major driver of climate, and the other “sources” are modifiers of the climate changes caused by the solar weather.

  111. Wonder what Leif thinks of this (recent published work by W Soon))

    “The most recent scientific evidence shows that even small changes in solar radiation have a strong effect on Earth’s temperature and climate. In 2005, I demonstrated a surprisingly strong correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the Arctic over the past 130 years. Since then, I have demonstrated similar correlations in all the regions surrounding the Arctic, including the US mainland and China.”

    “There is no such match between the steady rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the often dramatic ups and downs of surface temperatures in and around the Arctic. I recently discovered direct evidence that changes in solar activity have influenced what has been called the “conveyor-belt” circulation of the great Atlantic Ocean currents over the past 240 years. For instance, solar-driven changes in temperature, and in the volume of freshwater output from the Arctic, cause variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic 5-20 years later.

    These previously undocumented results have been published in the journal Physical Geography. They make it difficult to maintain that changes in solar activity play an insignificant role in climate change, especially over the Arctic.”

  112. Joel Shore (10:13:55)
    ‘climate sensitivity (2 to 4.5 C) for the doubling of CO2 that the IPCC considers to be likely values.’

    So Joel, where’s the observed evidence of the hot spot, warming oceans and increase of heat trapping clouds or, in general, water vapor being a positive feedback to “heat”?

  113. I don’t know what he’ll say, but this looks mighty fishy even to my untrained eye:

    cause variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic 5-20 years later

    Some random number varying between 5 and 20 hardly seems like a “strong correlation.” If it were some fixed number that would be interesting, but I sense voodoo at work…

  114. Why does no one except Leif question the statistical basis for the Scafetta-Wilson paper? We have over 100 comments here, just regurgitating stuff which has already been done th death.

    The only interesting thing about this paper is that it was published, and passed review. It seems to have no content in itself.

  115. I find the above-stated idea, that the TSI could have different effects at different times, very intriguing. If an oceanic oscillation was rushing full speed from a warm phase to a cold phase, it makes sense to me that a slight effect from the sun would be less obvious, than the sun’s slight effect would be when the oscillation was hesitating indecisively, in a sort of precarious balance.

    I do like things neat and tidy, and was somewhat annoyed when I discovered that the warm phase of the AMO didn’t adhere to a thirty-year schedule like clockwork. However it doesn’t. In fact the AMO is likely impossible to predict, using past statistics. Something external is likely switching the AMO from cold to warm to cold again.

    I don’t discount the TSI, though it’s effect may seem weak, for it tends to be a persistent force, and a weak and flabby starfish can open a tough oyster through steady persistence. Also, at the right time in the right place, a little pebble can stop a mighty river, (when the pebble rattles down a slope and starts an avalanche.)

    The fact the TSI changes slightly during the sunspot cycle suggests its effect might switch from one way to another, perhaps cancelling itself out, however when a minimum is extended, the admittedly slight effect might become more obvious.

    The slight effect that the TSI would have would seemingly be quite different if the minimum began when the AMO was in full flood from cold to warm, than it might be if it was in full flood from warm to cold.

    I find this stuff engrossing and intriguing. It involves the study of chaos.

    I far prefer attempting to sort out the atmosphere to sorting out my desk and the chaotic system I call “my finances.” However I actually can sort out my desk, (and in fact must, with tax deadlines approaching.) Sorting out the atmosphere is another matter. But it is fun to try, even if it is impossible.

  116. Parse Error: You wrote, “I don’t know what he’ll say, but this looks mighty fishy even to my untrained eye…”

    I’d have to agree. The following is a graph of inverted Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (volume) versus NINO3.4 SST anomalies. Though there are divergences, they correlate well enough to illustrate that the North Atlantic AMOC responds without a lag to major changes in “forcings”. One wouldn’t expect a slow-acting variation in TSI to then have a lag.

    The graph is from my post “Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation Data”:

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/11/atlantic-meridional-overturning.html

    North Atlantic SST anomalies are tough to analyze. In order to weed out the impact of TSI, you also have to account for the changes in flow in addition to the usual suspects–ENSO, volcanic eruptions. And of course, the AMOC flow rate is impacted by the AO as well. There are also anomalous events that impact the North Atlantic SSTs. There’s a video that shows a Kelvin wave starting eastward in the Western equatorial Pacific. It gets about 3/4 of the way across the Pacific, then shifts course to the Northeast, crosses Central America, and causes a blossom of elevated SSTs across the North Atlantic up through Britain. It’s visible in the SSH video from the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. You can download it here:

    http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/tiffs/backup/videos/tpj1global.mpeg

    Fast forward to May 2001 and keep your eye on the central equatorial Pacific. Around July 2001, you’ll see the Kelvin wave moving east, but it doesn’t go all the way to Ecuador. It heads northeast and scoots across Central America into the North Atlantic. How would you factor that noise out of an analysis of the North Atlantic? It doesn’t show up in NINO3.4 data, but would in North Atlantic SSTs. Too bad that video ends so soon.

  117. I find it interesting that some think the science is settled on the TSI minimum. All current estimates are based on proxy records. Even more interesting is that we wont be able to prove where the TSI floor might be for several hundred years.

    The Upcoming grand minimum is just a baby, nothing like the Sporer or Maunder, but we may get a little insight….will Lean regret moving her 2000 TSI baseline?

    Also it seems we can have all sorts of random events associated with the Solar dynamo theories, but if we use that logic with our oceans and atmosphere it doesn’t cut it?

  118. Lindsay H,

    Thanks for the link to the pdf.

    Interesting. One of the “proofs” (the one relating to miscalculating 33C in the absence of a “greenhouse” effect) superficially strengthens the AGW case, perhaps — when considered from a certain slant. On the other hand, the basis for 33C (or any other baseline temperature, trying to exclude “greenhouse”) is certainly called into question to my way of thinking — now I need to learn more.

  119. Leif Svalgaard (20:54:51) :

    Pete (19:58:31) :
    You are starting your earlier temperature at a lower baseline than your current cycle so the temperature could never be similar to the temperature of the current cycle.
    The concept of a baseline is not useful here, because TSI and solar activity in general return to the same level at every single minimum ‘forever’, so the ‘baseline’ is simply that minimum value, provided solar activity was the major driver. If on the other hand there are other ’sources’ or conditions that drive climate then you can have a varying ‘baseline’, but then solar activity is no longer the major driver, so the discussion is moot.

    Leif,

    I believe there is a “baseline” of sorts in temperature series that can plausibly (but maybe not exclusively) related to solar as a major driver. I’ve displayed these kinds of charts before, but because of their novelty, I don’t think people appreciate or understand what they are looking at. If I can briefly indulge you here, I want to show you two, and make a couple of points about them.

    Here’s the first one:

    This is global data (HadCRUT3). What you are looking at are monthly rates of change (1st differences) in a smoothed series. But ignore the smoothing. If you can, just visualize what you see as a representation of the amplitudes of a wavelet transform (because I can demonstrate the equivalence). Globally, on decadal and bidecadal time scales, there is an amplitude of ± ~0.0025C. Not a lot, but it is there, it is “statistically significant,” and it is within a range that can be attributable to TSI.

    I think there is a lot of “averaging out” of the magnitude of the influence in global data, and it is about an order of magnitude greater in regional data:

    This is for the “Central Region” of the US. The variation, on decadal and bidecadal time frames, is ± ~0.015C, much greater, but still within a range than can be attributable to TSI.

    Now I understand that it takes a lot more than this to demonstrate a causal linkage. What I’ve shown here is a unique and novel way of presenting what has been argued in countless papers: evidence of decadal and bidecadal variations in “climate.” But rather than just present evidence of the frequency, I can quantify the magnitude of these decadal and bidecadal variations. And they seem to be of an order of magnitude that could be attributed to TSI.

    Finally, to make clear what I’m saying, and not saying, with reference to this image:

    What I understand you to be saying is that variations in TSI cannot account for the ~0.8C increase in global temperatures shown here for the past century and a half.

    What I’m saying is that variations in TSI could well explain the variation, or undulations, you see in the blue “smoothed” value of this trend. Basically, my “evidence” doesn’t do much to further the debate over the long secular trend in temperatures, but it does provide a new way of looking at all the spectral evidence that has been claimed for a solar-climate link.

    Basil

  120. There is a nice video of a presentation made by Judith Lean (the other solar expert besides Leif) where she goes through the impact of solar variability on temperature.

    She pulls out the impact of ocean cycles, GHGs, aerosols, volcanoes, etc and then comes up with a solar cycle influence through the residual of:

    +/- 0.1C at the surface,
    +/- 0.2C in the middle troposphere; and
    +/- 0.4C in the stratosphere (which is something I had not heard before this).

    It is also a nice overview of climate change from a middle-of-the-road point of view (and she is a very fast talker so in just a few minutes …)

  121. Leif Svalgaard (21:29:42):

    …and he does not show> that the Sun is responsible, but instead assumes that it must be [the "what else" argument]:

    Dear Leif,

    The correlation iron stained grains (ISG)-TSI has been demonstrated systematically and many researchers from diverse areas use ISG for assessing paleoclimate:

    http://www.agu.org/inside/awards/bios/bond_geraldc.html

    Bar-Matthews M., Ayalon A., Kaufman A., Wasserburg G. J. (1999) The eastern Mediterranean palaeoclimate as a reflection of regional events: Soreq Cave, Israel. Earth Planet Sci Lett 166:85–95.

    On the Medieval Global Warming:

    Schilman, B., Bar-Matthews, M., Almogi-Labin, A., Luz, B. (2001) Global climate instability reflected by Eastern Mediterranean marine records during the Late Holocene. Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology. 176:157–176.

    D. Kaniewski, E. Paulissen, E. Van Campo, M. Al-Maqdissi, J. Bretschneider, and K. Van Lerberghe. Middle East coastal ecosystem response to middle-to-late Holocene abrupt climate changes. 2008. PNAS. Vol. 105. No. 37. Pp. 13941-13946.

    There are substantial differences between volcanic iron stained grains and SI iron stained grains.

  122. I think it´s clear that when the Sun switched off, we ended with Maunder and Dalton minimum. So if it heats up more, there should be also visible effect. Btw, does anybody know the reason for MWP, when based on sunspot reconstructions the Sun was not stronger than nowadays?

  123. Nasif Nahle (06:56:14) :
    The correlation iron stained grains (ISG)-TSI has been demonstrated systematically and many researchers from diverse areas use ISG for assessing paleoclimate:

    http://www.agu.org/inside/awards/bios/bond_geraldc.html

    Post the exact paragraph here where they say that ISG is a proxy for TSI specifically. I see all the usual kinds of hand waving about heliomagnetic field, solar radiation, etc, but where does it say: “here we demonstrate that ISG depends on TSI, so many percent change in TSI producers such ans such change in ISG, with sucha nd such an error bar”.?

  124. Bill Illis (05:42:52) :
    There is a nice video of a presentation made by Judith Lean (the other solar expert besides Leif) where she goes through the impact of solar variability on temperature.

    Her conclusions are expressed in this paper:
    Lean J. L., D. H. Rind (2008), How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L18701, doi:10.1029/2008GL034864.
    and is:
    [17] None of the natural processes can account for the overall warming trend in global surface temperatures. In the 100 years from 1905 to 2005, the temperature trends produce by all three natural influences are at least an order of magnitude smaller than the observed surface temperature trend reported by IPCC [2007]. According to this analysis, solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100 years, not 69% as claimed by Scafetta and West [2008] (who assumed larger solar irradiance changes and enhanced climate response on longer time scales).

  125. In the video linked by Bill Illis, I believe Judith Lean mentioned the difference between the HadCRUT and the MSU lower troposphere temperature data. Tough to tell because she was talking so fast. For those who aren’t aware of it, a “chunk” (technical term) of the difference results from the Hadley Center’s switch to NCEP SST data in 1998. The NCEP data was incompatible with Hadley’s former COADS SST data, causing an upward step change in the HADSST data. Discussed here:

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/12/step-change-in-hadsst-data-after-199798.html

    Yet researchers continue to use the HadCRUT data and try to come up with some other plausible explanation for the difference between it and MSU TLT data. Go figure.

  126. Basil (05:33:00) :
    What I’m saying is that variations in TSI could well explain the variation, or undulations, you see in the blue “smoothed” value of this trend.

    A 0.1% variation of TSI results in a temperature variation [with no lag] of 0.1/4=0.025% = 288K*0.025/100 = 0.07 degrees, which is about what you see and what Lean also admits [her 10% solar forcing]. And I have no problem with that. I would have a problem if there were NOT such a variation.

  127. Bob Tisdale (08:08:22) :
    Yet researchers continue to use the HadCRUT data and try to come up with some other plausible explanation for the difference [...] Go figure.

    Just as they continue to use the outdated [and worse than useless] Hoyt-Schatten TSI when it fits with their pet theory

  128. Why should a few tenths of a percent of solar radiation difference matter so much? I’m not buying it. Is this sufficient even if we measure in Kelvins? Not going to bother with the math. You justify it. You posted it.

  129. From our article on Amplitude of Solar Irradiance and Global Temperature: Standard Temperature is the temperature and pressure where the equilibrium constant for the auto-ionization of water is 1.0×1014. For the Ambient Standard Temperature (AST) the value is 300.15 K (27 °C).

    On the other hand, applying the results from Leif calculation, the outcome is as follows:

    * The change of TSI in four years was 0.1%, that is 0.025% /year.
    * 0.025% /year means 3.41 W/m^2 per year.
    * alpha for TSI = 0.1 °C per (W/m^2) on the surface.
    * Consequently, the change of T on the surface is 0.34 K.

    I think this simply is not true. Multiply the result by 10 and one will have a more realistic value.

  130. Leif Savalgaard has commented at least eight times on this thread on the necessity of proof rather than an assumption or a claim of correlation for TSI “driving” global temperatures (and climate change). If I understand correctly, if one is going to make such a claim, one must use proper statistical methods; without proper statistics the correlation only fits one’s fantasies, even if it also looks beautiful and compelling on a chart — with a little wiggling. I was brought up a short by Sean Houlihane’s comment: “The only interesting thing about this paper is that it was published, and passed review. It seems to have no content in itself.”

    I keep reading about the demand for “a” or “the” DRIVER of climate change, even from many skeptics. Did this overriding mentality begin with the change: 1) from trying to identify true polluters (chemicals, particles, etc.) of the earth’s atmosphere; 2) to tying the guilty verdict to CO2 — for ulterior motives? There seem to be so many climate variables, and no one can predict anything at this time. Don’t these truths suggest that an idea such as “necessary and sufficient conditions” might be a more reasonable approach. Then Leif might have more of us helping him with the notion that, yes, the sun is “necessary” but we have no proof yet that it is “sufficient” in and of itself. What else is involved? (if I am understanding well enough)

    I realize that much of the debate is about the way fundamental data is gathered, interpreted, and made public, but the conceptual framework for the data seems to be problemmatic. It seems we love our Sun and linear cause-and-effect arguments. I have similar issues with “greehouse gasses” rather than “radiative effects of earth’s atmosphere” (or something like that). The concepts almost require a blockage or a halt to the thinking process.

  131. Nasif Nahle (09:17:18) :
    “* The change of TSI in four years was 0.1%, that is 0.025% /year.
    * 0.025% /year means 3.41 W/m^2 per year.

    No, 0.34 W/m2 per year. Your number is 10 times too high

    “* alpha for TSI = 0.1 °C per (W/m^2) on the surface.
    * Consequently, the change of T on the surface is 0.34 K.
    I think this simply is not true. Multiply the result by 10 and one will have a more realistic value.

    divide by 10

  132. Two other formulae would be (assuming TSI varies by 1 W/m2 over the solar cycle) is:

    - using Hansen’s unrealistic 0.75C per W/m2:

    1 W/m2 / 4 * 0.75C/W/m2 = 0.1875C change

    – or using the more realistic number based on what actually happens on Earth and what is currently used in the climate models including GISS Model E:

    1 W/m2 / 4 * 0.3C/W/m2 = 0.075C change

    I hope some notice how 0.3C per W/m2 actually works and Hansen’s number never seems to actually be used by Mama Nature.

  133. pyromancer76 (09:33:28):

    There seem to be so many climate variables, and no one can predict anything at this time.

    There are three streams:

    1. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
    2. Natural Global Warming (NGW).
    3. Indecipherable Global Warming (UGW).

  134. >DJ,
    >Here are some temperature trends for you:
    > click1
    > click2
    > click3

    Smokey they are not in the paper. Further the first is a nonsense – trend from a peak of El Nino to peak of La Nina is like a trend from summer to winter.

    Second is out of date.

    Third is not even temperature.

    It’s hard – well actually impossible – to have a science debate about human induced global warming when the the evidence for the sceptics consists of a paper which contains zero information about temperature.

    PS Bill Illis your analysis does not include albedo and assumes zero heat capacity. It also ignores the trend in the TSI outside of the minima. What purpose is served by presenting evidence so fatally flawed?

  135. Juraj V. (07:54:49) :

    I think it´s clear that when the Sun switched off, we ended with Maunder and Dalton minimum. So if it heats up more, there should be also visible effect. Btw, does anybody know the reason for MWP, when based on sunspot reconstructions the Sun was not stronger than nowadays?

    The MWP is a transition stage and stands out as one of the very few era’s in the past 11000 years that didn’t experience a solar grand minimum over several hundred years. Normally we have grand minima of varying strength around every 172 years avg, If we miss this event temperature’s naturally stay higher. When it comes to grand minima most people accept the planet cools.

    The MWP is around 1100AD on the graph, notice how previous periods are a lot more active.

  136. Geoff Sharp (14:06:19) :
    Normally we have grand minima of varying strength around every 172 years avg

    This is likely not the case. There does not seem to be such a quasi-period. E.g.:

    Solar Grand Minima and Random Fluctuations in Dynamo Parameters, by D. Moss, D. Sokoloff, I. Usoskin and V. Tutubalin (2008) Solar Grand Minima and Random Fluctuations in Dynamo Parameters. Solar Physics, 205. pp. 221-234. ISSN 0038-0938

    Abstract: We consider to what extent the long-term dynamics of cyclic solar activity in the form of Grand Minima can be associated with random fluctuations of the parameters governing the solar dynamo.We consider fluctuations of the alpha coefficient in the conventional Parker migratory dynamo, and also in slightly more sophisticated dynamo models, and demonstrate that they can mimic the gross features of the phenomenon of the occurrence of Grand Minima over suitable parameter ranges. The temporal distribution of these Grand Minima appears chaotic, with a more or less exponential waiting time distribution, typical of Poisson processes. In contrast, however, the available reconstruction of Grand Minima statistics based on cosmogenic isotope data demonstrates substantial deviations from this exponential law.We were unable to reproduce the non-Poissonic tail of the waiting time distribution either in the framework of a simple alpha-quenched Parker model or in its straightforward generalization, nor in simple models with feedback on the differential rotation. We suggest that the disagreement may only be apparent and is plausibly related to the limited observational data, and that the observations and results of numerical modeling can be consistent and represent physically similar dynamo regimes.

    http://eprints.ma.man.ac.uk/1169/

  137. Leif Svalgaard (14:46:22) :

    This is likely not the case. There does not seem to be such a quasi-period.

    Solanki and Usoskin’s own graph refutes that paper and statement. Where they both went wrong along with you is that they did not recognize events like the Dalton Minimum as a grand minimum. They assume only the very big events of >15 SSN to be grand minima.

    The graph I referred to in my previous post is a reconstruction of Usoskin and Solanki’s graph and includes Dalton type events. It clearly shows 172 year avg recurring grand minimum events that vary in intensity. There is no point denying such obvious evidence….its time to get on board.

  138. Leif (or any one else)
    Available temperature records are about 400 years long .Isnt this long enough to get a reasonable FFT made to see if there is any periodicity in the temperature. I have tried this with Excel with the results below . Perhaps a better FFt algorythm would give better results
    Data is from monthly record of central Englan temperature (hence large peak at 1 year)

    Looking at the Excel FFt shows very small peaks at 1.2 3.1 5.2 7.8 and possibly
    15 years. There is nothing centered on 8 to 11 year solar cycle
    Bill

  139. Leif Svalgaard (09:34:30) :

    Nasif Nahle (09:17:18) :
    * The change of TSI in four years was 0.1%, that is 0.025% /year.
    * 0.025% /year means 3.41 W/m^2 per year.

    No, 0.34 W/m2 per year. Your number is 10 times too high

    “* alpha for TSI = 0.1 °C per (W/m^2) on the surface.
    * Consequently, the change of T on the surface is 0.34 K.
    I think this simply is not true. Multiply the result by 10 and one will have a more realistic value.

    divide by 10

    0.034 K? Yes, that’s the averaged fluctuation of temperature in 2008. After all, there is a correlation.

  140. Nasif Nahle (19:47:19) :
    0.034 K? Yes, that’s the averaged fluctuation of temperature in 2008. After all, there is a correlation.
    I don’t know what is ‘the averaged fluctuation of temperature’.

  141. Dan S (19:10:14) :

    Was I wrong? Or did Duke fund this study? Is there a way to find out how they got funding for a paper?

    From their paper:

    The authors thank Solanki and his collaborators for the KBS07 data. NS thanks the Army Research Office for support (grant W911NF-06-1-0323). The National Aeronautics and Space Administration supported Richard Willson under contracts NNG004HZ42C at Columbia University and subcontract 1345042 at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

  142. Leif Svalgaard (20:58:03) :

    I don’t know what is ‘the averaged fluctuation of temperature’.>/i>

    Sorry for my English. I meant “the average of the monthly fluctuations of temperature during 2008.” Isn’t 0.034 K a handy coincidence?

  143. Leif Svalgaard (07:56:51) :

    Nasif Nahle (06:56:14) :
    The correlation iron stained grains (ISG)-TSI has been demonstrated systematically and many researchers from diverse areas use ISG for assessing paleoclimate:

    http://www.agu.org/inside/awards/bios/bond_geraldc.html

    Post the exact paragraph here where they say that ISG is a proxy for TSI specifically. I see all the usual kinds of hand waving about heliomagnetic field, solar radiation, etc, but where does it say: “here we demonstrate that ISG depends on TSI, so many percent change in TSI producers such ans such change in ISG, with sucha nd such an error bar”.?

    Those are examples on researchers who have used iron stained grains in Paleoclimate. The correlation SI-ISG-T has been tested experimentally. Probably Bond told you that because he knew about the Japanese experiments.

  144. Thanks – guess time to eat crow.

    But its always better to get it right than think your right and be wrong.

    I assumed that since NASA bought into AGW and with peer review journals in Climate Science skewing in favor of AGW that the government did the same.

    So now to try to refigure this in my head – we have Hansen head of GISS which is clearly AGW biased. We have Mann/Gore and friends that are AGW biased.
    BUT not ALL of NASA and those in control of the US Government are AGW biased. Doesn’t look at bleak as it did before.

  145. Nasif Nahle (07:16:44) :
    Sorry for my English. I meant “the average of the monthly fluctuations of temperature during 2008.” Isn’t 0.034 K a handy coincidence?

    but just that, of course. Put a little smiley, like this one :-) in your post for such small jokes…

  146. Leif Svalgaard (07:46:42):

    Nasif Nahle (07:27:03) :
    The correlation SI-ISG-T has been tested experimentally.
    Reference please.

    Dear Leif,

    There are lots of references to the process of ISG formation. Here, few references:

    http://www.archive.org/stream/annualreport26survgoog/annualreport26survgoog_djvu.txt

    K. Naha and S. K. Ray. Structural evolution of the Simla klippe in the lower Himalayas. International Journal of Earth Sciences. Volume 61, Number 3 / November, 1972.

    Stanley V. Margolis and David H. Krinsley. Submicroscopic Frosting on Eolian and Subaqueous Quartz Sand Grains. GSA Bulletin; December 1971; v. 82; no. 12; p. 3395-3406.

    As soon as I find the reference to the Japanese experiment simulating the SI, I’ll send it to you.

  147. “”” Mike Monce (05:42:26) :

    Side note to George Smith from a previous thread: Yes, the 2nd Law was initially formulated dealing with cyclic engines, but the more modern formulation deals with the net increase in entropy by counting accessible microstates. I totally agree a single photon re-radiated from a CO2 molecule can approach the sun and be absorbed, thereby giving the appearance of violating the 2nd Law. However, a more appropriate model is that of two blackbodies at two different temperatures separated from each in the vacuum. They will each radiate and absorb photons from each other. However, the higher temperature BB will have a greater proportion of higher energy photons in its emission spectrum. The number of accessible microstates for the higher energy photons is greater when they are absorbed by the lower temperature BB. Eventually both will reach the same equilibrium temperature as required by the 2nd Law.

    Well I’m not in disagreement with any of that; and I wasn’t talking about a single photon going to the sun. But what I did say was that no single photon out of a stream can identify the temperature of the source which emitted it.

    And you might be interested to know that the two black bodies at different temperatures is not any modern interpretation.

    In fact it was also Clausius, who used that concept in first proving one of the fundamental precepts of Optics; namely that no optical system can form an image who’se irradiance is greater than the radiance of the object being imaged. This i s today embodied in concepts such as the Lagrange invariant, and the Optical sine theorem, and that French term “etendue”.

    These ideas are often ascribed incorrectly to Optical workers, whereas they were all derived from the second law, by Clausius, a thermodynamicist.

    My point was that it is plain silly to deny the process we call (perhaps incorrectly) the “greenhouse effect” is possible by calling on the second law of thermodynamics. The second law does not prohibit long wave radiation fromt the atmosphere from returning to the ground (which is hotter) and slowing down the rate of cooling.

    I looked at some of those references cited; but didn’t get past the assumption they made that the earth was a blacl body and its emissivity is unity.

    That’s not a good way to start off a paper trying to convince someone there isn’t any “greenhouse” effect, even if it is misnamed.

    Likewise trying to argue that the Stefan- Boltzmann law is not applicable to gases, doesn’t fly; unless you try to use that to argue that the sun therefore is not a black body radiator.
    Well nothing is a black body radiator, and nothing has unity emissivity.

    But they are still useful concepts to approxijate real sources such as the sun, and the earth and its atmosphere. The BB radiation and spectrum does bound the possible thermal radiation from any real body, including gases.

  148. Nasif Nahle (09:25:04) :
    There are lots of references to the process of ISG formation.
    Sure. What I need to see is how many W/m2 an ‘ISG’-whatever corresponds to.

  149. Leif Svalgaard (10:46:18):

    Nasif Nahle (09:25:04) :
    There are lots of references to the process of ISG formation.
    Sure. What I need to see is how many W/m2 an ‘ISG’-whatever corresponds to.

    Dear Leif,

    Interesting question… I think experts have made the same comparisons as for other proxies; however, we know for sure that the Iron Stained Grains are produced by the solar radiation and that by means of measuring the volume of the Iron Stained Grains we can deduce the intensity of the incident solar radiation on soils, and the relative humidity and the temperature of the atmosphere.

  150. Nasif Nahle (14:03:32) :
    however, we know for sure that the Iron Stained Grains are produced by the solar radiation and that by means of measuring the volume of the Iron Stained Grains we can deduce the intensity of the incident solar radiation on soils

    to deduce a solar variation we have to do this to an accuracy of better that 0.1% in the inversion of the proxy and THAT is what I would like to see how is done.

  151. Further to my post above. I have added a FFT of Leifs TSI reconstuction to the FFT of the CET.
    As can be seen from plot below ther is no evidence of TSI having any effect on the CET.
    If there was an effect big enough to be above noise level then there shoud have been a slight raising of the noise at about the 10 to 11 years interval. There is none.

    Bill

  152. bill (17:38:07) :
    If there was an effect big enough to be above noise level then there shoud have been a slight raising of the noise at about the 10 to 11 years interval. There is none.

    Enthusiasts would say that there is considerable power at 100 years ….

  153. Leif Svalgaard (14:29:05):

    to deduce a solar variation we have to do this to an accuracy of better that 0.1% in the inversion of the proxy and THAT is what I would like to see how is done.

    The process is well explained here:

    Sam Boggs Jr. Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy (4th Edition).

  154. Nasif Nahle (22:18:22) :
    The process is well explained here:
    Sam Boggs Jr. Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy (4th Edition).

    On which page does it say how many Watt/m2 produces such and such ISG?

  155. Leif Svalgaard (03:33:32) :

    Nasif Nahle (22:18:22) :
    The process is well explained here:
    Sam Boggs Jr. Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy (4th Edition).

    On which page does it say how many Watt/m2 produces such and such ISG?

    Dear Leif,

    The author describes the process on page 125, but not how many Watts/m2 produces such and such ISG. I think we should look for the information you’re looking for in Geology or Paleoclimatology works.

  156. Nasif Nahle (06:58:40) :
    The author describes the process on page 125, but not how many Watts/m2 produces such and such ISG. I think we should look for the information you’re looking for in Geology or Paleoclimatology works.

    You should look for :-)

  157. Dear Leif,

    You know I never give up. The full explanation on the process o production of hematite stained grains is described in this book:

    I. P. Martini (Editor), W. Chesworth. Weathering, Soils & Paleosols (Developments in Earth Surface Processes). Chapter 12, page 283-299.

    Any advanced book on paleopedology (paleoedafology) describes the process, equivalences and algorithms.

Comments are closed.