Scafetta: New paper on TSI, surface temperature, and modeling

JASP_coverNicola Scaffetta sent several people a copy of his latest paper today, which address the various solar TSI reconstructions such as from Lean and Rind 2008 and shows contrasts from that paper. While he suggests that TSI has a role in the temperature record, he also alludes to significant uncertainty in the TSI record since 1980.  He writes in email:

…note the last paragraph of the paper. There is a significant difference between this new  model and my previous one in Scafetta and West [2007]. In 2007 I was calibrating the model on the paleoclimate temperature records. In this new study I “predict” the paleoclimate records by using the solar records. So, I predict centuries of temperature data, while modern GCMs do not predicts even a few years of data!

Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2009.07.007 By Nicola Scafetta

Abstract

The solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change is analyzed by using an empirical bi-scale climate model characterized by both fast and slow characteristic time responses to solar forcing: View the MathML source and View the MathML source or View the MathML source. Since 1980 the solar contribution to climate change is uncertain because of the severe uncertainty of the total solar irradiance satellite composites. The sun may have caused from a slight cooling, if PMOD TSI composite is used, to a significant warming (up to 65% of the total observed warming) if ACRIM, or other TSI composites are used. The model is calibrated only on the empirical 11-year solar cycle signature on the instrumental global surface temperature since 1980. The model reconstructs the major temperature patterns covering 400 years of solar induced temperature changes, as shown in recent paleoclimate global temperature records.

Scaffeta_figure-temperature_cycle and solar_cycle

Image courtesy an email from Nicola Scaffeta (image is not part of this paper)

Excerpts from the Conclusion (from a pre-print provided by the author)

Herein I have analyzed the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change. A comprehensive interpretation of multiple scientific findings indicates that the contribution of solar variability to climate change is significant and that the temperature trend since 1980 can be large and upward. However, to correctly quantify the solar contribution to the recent global warming it is necessary to determine the correct TSI behavior since 1980. Unfortunately, this cannot be done with certainty yet. The PMOD TSI composite, which has been used by the IPCC and most climate modelers, has been found to be based on arbitrary and questionable assumptions [Scafetta and Willson, 2009]. Thus, it cannot be excluded that TSI increased from 1980 to 2000 as claimed by the ACRIM scientific team. The IPCC [2007] claim that the solar contribution to climate change since 1950 is negligible may be based on wrong solar data in addition to the fact that the EBMs and GCMs there used are missing or poorly modeling several climate mechanisms that would significantly amplify the solar effect on climate. When taken into account the entire range of possible TSI satellite composite since 1980, the solar contribution to climate change ranges from a slight cooling to a significant warming, which can be as large as 65% of the total observed global warming.


This finding suggests that the climate system is hypersensitive to the climate function h(T) and even small errors in modeling h(T) (for example, in modeling how the albedo, the cloud cover, water vapor feedback, the emissivity, etc. respond to changes of the temperature on a decadal scale) would yield the climate models to fail, even by a large factor, to appropriately determine the solar effect on climate on decadal and secular scale. For similar reasons, the models also present a very large uncertainty in evaluating the climate sensitivity to changes in CO2 atmospheric concentration [Knutti and Hegerl, 2008]. This large sensitivity of the climate equations to physical uncertainty makes the adoption of traditional EBMs and GCMs quite problematic.

Scafetta figure 6

Scafetta figure 6

About the result depicted in Figure 6, the ESS curve has been evaluated by calibrating the proposed empirical bi-scale model only by using the information deduced: 1) by the instrumental temperature and the solar records since 1980 about the 11-year solar signature on climate; 2) by the findings by Scafetta [2008a] and Schwartz [2008] about the long and short characteristic time responses of the climate as deduced with autoregressive models. The paleoclimate temperature reconstructions were not used to calibrate the model, as done in Scafetta and West [2007]. Thus, the finding shown in Figure 6 referring to the preindustrial era has also a predictive meaning, and implies that climate had a significant preindustrial variability which is incompatible
with a hockey stick temperature graph.

The complete paper is available here:

Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change.

About these ads

437 thoughts on “Scafetta: New paper on TSI, surface temperature, and modeling

  1. The peer-reviewed work that effectively roasts the AGW alarmists is mounting steadily. Will President Obama follow through on this promise to return scientific integrity to the governing processes?

    Perhaps John Holdren, Jane Lubchenco, Steven Chu, and Carol Browner need to pay close attention to Scafetta’s conclusion: “The PMOD TSI composite, which has been used by the IPCC and most climate modelers, has been found to be based on arbitrary and questionable assumptions. . . . climate had a significant preindustrial variability which is incompatible
    with a hockey stick temperature graph.”

  2. Taking into account the warm bias in the surface temperature record, this wouldn’t leave much for CO2….

  3. What he does [his Figure 5] is trying to show that the rise in Temps since 1980 is much larger than can be accounted for by any of the assumed TSI-reconstructions. One could argue that this could be due to three things
    1) his model is wrong
    2) TSI is wrong
    3) Temp increase is due to CO2 and not solar activity.
    Clearly he excludes (1). And since he believes that the climate is hyper-sensitive to solar changes, he concludes (2).

    He is partly correct. All of his choices of TSI [A, B, or C] have two problems:
    a) they are based on the Group Sunspot Number which is indeed wrong
    b) they show a secular increase in the first half of the 20th century that didn’t happen
    Unfortunately, those errors also invalidates his calibration.

  4. There are some irritating typos in the captions to the Figures: where he says: “The model is forces with the TSI” he probably means “The model is forced with the TSI”, condisering that s and d are adjacent keys.

  5. I love this! The past four weeks have delivered one trip hammer blow after another to the AGW frauds. Real science will eventually trump all fictions. A few of us may be burned at the stake, drawn, quartered, dissed, or otherwise abused by the “faithful,” but Science and Facts will win in the end.

    Color me, another delighted physicist.

  6. Leif Svalgaard (09:41:48) : 1. There is a fourth possibility, namely that the rise is not real but an artifact of the warm bias in the data (I personally believe that that is part of it, but some is probably due to CO2 also.

    2. “Unfortunately, those errors also invalidates his calibration.” No. It may invalidate the “reconstruction” part of the “solar signature”, but the calibration has nothing to do with any of those things you mentioned and is made solely on the basis of the TSI composite records (PMOD and ACRIM).

    But here’s an idea, why doesn’t somebody try redoing all the calculations and see if the tiny difference between your reconstruction (Leif) and Solanki’s group (Krivova) actually effects the pre-satellite results. I think it probably doesn’t matter as much as you suppose.

  7. Scafetta provides a predictive empirical model incorporating dynamic parameters driven by TSI. Svensmark’s climatology theory of solar parameters modulating cosmic rays which modulate clouds and albedo may provide the major link between TSI and climate.
    Their predictions can be tested against those of CO2 driven global climate models. May the best model(s) win.

  8. Leif Svalgaard (09:41:48) :
    What he does [his Figure 5] is trying to show that the rise in Temps since 1980 is much larger than can be accounted for by any of the assumed TSI-reconstructions. One could argue that this could be due to three things
    1) his model is wrong
    2) TSI is wrong
    3) Temp increase is due to CO2 and not solar activity.

    Or:
    4. Recent increase in speed of magnetic poles drift, affecting oceans’ conveyor belt circulation.

    http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/40/88/86/PDF/NATA.pdf

  9. In the first image, the correlation between solar activity and ENSO & volcano adjusted temperature may be deceiving. Note that the rises in temperature occured on three occasions: 1976-8, 1986/7, and 1997/8 – three major El Nino events. These El Ninos released the heat building up in the tropics from El Nino dominant conditions poleward during the period 1976-1998.

    I have a new post up using sea level data to show beyond a doubt that this is how the system works.

    http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/sea-level-data-exposes-el-ninos-secret/

  10. As he says: “The ACRIM-PMOD controversy is quite complex”
    But there is too much “pathos” (passion) around this. pointing perhaps to something that really happened back then in the 80’s and which irritates those who want temperatures only related to CO2 instead of what common sense indicates: the Sun (that round and brilliant thing up there which warm us all).
    As the proverb says: “when the river sounds it’s because it’s carrying pebbles down”

  11. If Scaffetta’s model were correct (and I have no idea whether it is, or whether the problems that Leif brings up are dealbreakers), then shouldn’t the conclusion from this paper be that we really don’t know what caused the temperature rise since 1980? It could be CO2, it could be the sun, it could be a combination of the two, or it could be some other player that as (up to now) been assumed moot.

  12. timetochooseagain (10:17:21) :
    2. “Unfortunately, those errors also invalidates his calibration.” No. It may invalidate the “reconstruction” part of the “solar signature”, but the calibration has nothing to do with any of those things you mentioned and is made solely on the basis of the TSI composite records (PMOD and ACRIM).

    “ESS curve has been evaluated by calibrating [...] (2) by the findings by Scafetta (2008) and Schwartz (2008) about the long and short characteristic time responses of the climate as deduced with autoregressive models.”

    There is little doubt that the solar cycle signal is of the order of 0.1K. The response times, however, cannot be determined from just the last few decades and here the long-term behavior sneaks in through the backdoor.

    BTW, I’m puzzled by people saying that this kill’s AGW dead. Rather Scafetta shows clearly [if he is correct] that by far the greatest contribution since 1980 is not solar [his figures 5 and 6]. Al Gore could use Scafetta’s Figures as great support for AGW.

  13. Correlation is not causation, but… Could it be another no solar causation?:

    Notice the correlation between asymmetries of ΔT and TSI in the last 50 years (approximately since the operation of satellites) are almost all positive.

    An asymmetry is described as the deviation of an obtained magnitude from an accepted standard magnitude, 1364.5 W/m^2 for TSI and 0 K for ΔT. I took 0 K for ΔT because it would be a deviation as from the baseline, and the baseline for change of temperature is 0.0 K.

  14. timetochooseagain (10:17:21) :
    <iThere is a fourth possibility, namely that the rise is not real but an artifact of the warm bias in the data (I personally believe that that is part of it, but some is probably due to CO2 also.

    “the ESS curve has been evaluated by calibrating the proposed empirical bi-scale model only by using the information deduced: (1) by the instrumental temperature and the solar records since 1980 about the 11-year solar signature on climate;”

    So, the biased temperature was used in the calibration too. The big problem is the short lever arm. Use 20 years to calibrate and then extrapolate to 400 years, especially when the TSI is uncertain and the temperatures are biased over the calibration period.

    BTW, I found the paper almost unreadable, with a clear lack of focus and with the burying of important details in other publications. Had I been a referee, I would have insisted on at least a short statement of summary of where these other statements are based on. [end gripe]

  15. vukcevic (10:33:22) :
    4. Recent increase in speed of magnetic poles drift, affecting oceans’ conveyor belt circulation.
    At least we can discuss Scafetta’s finding as it is plausible and quantified. Yours is neither.

  16. vukcevic (10:33:22) : What is it the cause of that “Recent increase in speed of magnetic poles drift” ?

  17. All of his choices of TSI [A, B, or C] have two problems:
    a) they are based on the Group Sunspot Number which is indeed wrong
    b) they show a secular increase in the first half of the 20th century that didn’t happen

    Are not PMOD and ACRIM direct satellite measurements of TSI (as opposed to to sunspot-based measures)?

  18. Leif Svalgaard (11:15:54) :

    “There is little doubt that the solar cycle signal is of the order of 0.1K. ”

    I totally agree with you that TSI alone is not sufficient to produce the effects observed, especially with the results of Lindzen, Spencer and others showing negative feedback on radiative perturbations, meaning that TSI variations would be attenuated, not amplified.

    Which leaves cosmic rays and clouds. The energy transfer is still small, but the energy entering the camera lens is small too, but you still get the picture. Its what’s inside the camera that counts.

  19. Also note that the rises in temperature in 1976, 86/7, and 97/8 preceded the rises in solar activity.

  20. Leif Svalgaard (11:15:54) : Schwartz’s analysis, as well as Scafetta’s, of time response are 1. Entirely and 2. Mostly independent of the TSI data. The only objection you may raise to this paper from your area of expertise would be that Lean is used in the model:

    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD009586.pdf

    But Schwartz’s analysis was quite different.

    Also: “BTW, I’m puzzled by people saying that this kill’s AGW dead. Rather Scafetta shows clearly [if he is correct] that by far the greatest contribution since 1980 is not solar [his figures 5 and 6]. Al Gore could use Scafetta’s Figures as great support for AGW.”

    This is an odd attempt to gloss over nuance. Nobody doubts that there is some AGW (fellow deniers, speak now or forever hold your peace (piece?)!) but if the magnitude is significantly reduced, where is the alarm? Or as Michaels and Balling (Climate of Extremes) say “The more “something else” is causing warming, the less sensitive the climate is to greenhouse emissions.” and “We’re not arguing against AGW, but rather against DAGW (dangerous anthropogenic global warming).

    Incidentally, I recommend Climate of Extremes to all WUWT readers. You won’t agree with everything in it (they think there is good evidence for an emerging AGW signal) but it is a marvelous book nonetheless.

  21. It is necessary to attribute sufficient modulating effects to the filtering of the TSI signal through the oceans.

    It is necessary to recognise that all the events in the air including cloudiness and albedo changes are a consequence of changes in the rate of energy emission from the oceans and not themselves a cause of climate change whether or not changes in cosmic ray quantities have some effect on overall cloudiness.

    The Svensmark theory might have a modulating effect on the primary effect on climate initiated by the oceans but does not in itself initiate anything. The absence of a 30/60 year periodicity in cosmic ray quantities is evidence of that. If Svensmark were right we would see an 11 year periodicity in oceanic phase changes but we do not.

    It needs to be appreciated that changes in the radiative balance of the oceans is a combination of long term solar changes and shorter term internal oceanic changes. Consequently very small changes in solar input can build up over several solar cycles (usually about 3) to enable a phase shift in the oceans to reveal that in the intervening period there has been a small background trend (the ‘stepped’) effect.

    Whilst there is an upward solar background trend the steps will be slightly raised from the end of one positive phase to the beginning of the next positive phase at approximately 30 year intervals

    The opposite for a downward solar background trend.

  22. This paper basically shows that there is either new factor emerging since 1980, affecting the temperature (like increased greenhouse effect), or the temperatures measured are wrong. Since satellite temperatures follow the [B] curve pretty good, I vote for UHI effect, artificially flawing the surface station temperature record, which is well known fact.
    [B] curve shows no net increase between 1980 and 2009; UAH shows exactly the same.
    @Kum Dollison, El Nino looks quite unwell: http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
    SOI index oscillates between negative and positive: http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/SeasonalClimateOutlook/SouthernOscillationIndex/30DaySOIValues/

  23. Mark Wagner (11:55:33) :
    Are not PMOD and ACRIM direct satellite measurements of TSI (as opposed to to sunspot-based measures)?
    Yes but Scafetta uses the Krivova TSI reconstruction [based on Group Sunspot Numbers] to justify the ACRIM composite rather than the PMOD calibration. All these things hang together.

    timetochooseagain (12:20:24) :
    This is an odd attempt to gloss over nuance. Nobody doubts that there is some AGW (fellow deniers, speak now or forever hold your peace (piece?)!) but if the magnitude is significantly reduced, where is the alarm?
    This is not an ‘attempt to gloss over’ anything. Just a simple observation. In Figure 5 he says that he uses three different TSI-reconstructions A, B, and C. He actually only uses one [Krivova] supplemented by three TSI composites [that are spliced to Kriviova's]. He clearly likes A [ACRIM] the best. If one goes with B or C, almost all the GW is non-solar [at least according to his model], so it comes down to ACRIM and the support it gets from Krivova using the Group Sunspot Numbers.

    In his discussion http://www.leif.org/research/2008GL036307-pip.pdf of using the Krivova TSI [KBS07], he claims it is good for bridging the ACRIM-gap, but that it is otherwise deficient: “Both findings suggest that on a decadal scale KBS07 should be significantly corrected downward during the solar cycle 21-22 minimum and
    upward during solar cycle 22-23, to make it compatible with the unquestioned TSI observations. Consequently, a corrected KBS07 proxy model is expected to reproduce the upward trend of the ACRIM TSI composite between the 1986 and 1996 TSI minima.”

    I’m not impressed.

  24. Stephen Wilde (12:21:26) : “It is necessary to recognise that all the events in the air including cloudiness and albedo changes are a consequence of changes in the rate of energy emission from the oceans and not themselves a cause of climate change whether or not changes in cosmic ray quantities have some effect on overall cloudiness.
    I think you have a logic error.
    If changes in cosmic ray quantities do indeed have some effect on overall cloudiness, then they are in themselves a cause of climate change. Hence your initial assertion that “all the events in the air including cloudiness and albedo changes are a consequence of changes in the rate of energy emission from the oceans” may be false.

  25. Stephen Wilde (12:21:26) :
    “Consequently very small changes in solar input can build up over several solar cycles (usually about 3) “
    You keep repeating that mantra, but have shown no support for it. Even Scafetta disagrees with you. His long-term time constant is a lot shorter.

  26. The Pacific equatorial positive SST’s appear to be weakening. I predict ENSO neutral by winter. Some of the NOAA statistical models are predicting ENSO neutral as well. All of the NOAA dynamical models (large coded programs that purport to model how climate works) predict moderate to strong El Nino through the winter. So far only May, June, and July are above .5. That means that JJA, JAS, ASN and SND will also have to be .5 or above in SST anomaly (5 consecutive overlapping 3-month anomalies of .5 or better) in order for El Nino to move in and unpack his bags. So we are still only in El Nino conditions. I am waiting for the easterlies to kick up and move that warm surface layer west.

  27. “When taken into account the entire range of possible TSI satellite composite since 1980, the solar contribution to climate change ranges from a slight cooling to a significant warming, which can be as large as 65% of the total observed global warming.”

    Kinda like the FIIK stamp I used to use.

  28. Juraj V. (13:16:32) : SOI index oscillates between negative and positive:
    Going up…so el nino going out and la nina coming back?

  29. Juraj V. (13:16:32) :

    This paper basically shows that there is either new factor emerging since 1980, affecting the temperature (like increased greenhouse effect), or the temperatures measured are wrong. Since satellite temperatures follow the [B] curve pretty good, I vote for UHI effect, artificially flawing the surface station temperature record, which is well known fact.
    [B] curve shows no net increase between 1980 and 2009; UAH shows exactly the same.
    @Kum Dollison, El Nino looks quite unwell: http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
    SOI index oscillates between negative and positive: http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/SeasonalClimateOutlook/SouthernOscillationIndex/30DaySOIValues/

    The correlation between solar irradiance and temperature is quite clear on the main part of the period. We have now a very serene Sun, and tropospheric temperatures are very calmy also.

    During the years of high solar activity the energy incoming from the Sun was stored by the ocean, the ground and the subsurface materials of the ground in form of chemical energy, nuclear energy, potential gravitational energy and kinetic energy. The time those systems would spend before releasing the stored energy has not been determined, although we are close to clear up the question.

    Things will become clearer now that the Sun is in a low level of activity. The whole thing can be explained if we take into account that the energy flows from systems with a high energy density to the systems with low energy density. The problem with those people who thing the Sun is no more than a torch drawn on a crystal sphere above is that they dismiss the second law of thermodynamics; thus, they cannot explain why the surface doesn’t release the stored energy immediately after it (the surface) has absorbed it.

  30. Raven (13:58:25) :
    How certain are you that the relationship between sunspots and TSI is actually a constant?
    It is not that simple. We are reasonably certain that TSI contains two components: one that comes from the ‘basal’ photosphere [the temperature of which we have measured carefully over the past 30+ years and have not been able to detect any variation] and one that comes from the magnetic field. As far as we have been able to model there is a good relationship between the field and its contribution to TSI [which again has two components, one bright and one dark, with the bright winning 2 to 1], so the question comes down to how well the sunspot number is a proxy for the magnetic field. And that is difficult to say. There are indications that the sunspot number may not be a good measure [see some of the recent articles on this blog], but we try to do the best we can to figure this out. The question should perhaps also be supplemented with “how well do we know the sunspot number” and there we do know that we have problems.

  31. Nasif Nahle (14:17:17) :
    During the years of high solar activity the energy incoming from the Sun was stored by the ocean..
    But was not the TSI FLAT all the time? . GWRs. say it’s CO2!
    “On Thursday, March 9, 1989 astronomers at the Kitt Peak Solar Observatory spotted a major solar flare in progress. Eight minutes later, the Earth’s outer atmosphere was struck by a wave of powerful ultraviolet and X-ray radiation” http://www.solarstorms.org/SWChapter1.html

  32. Nasif Nahle (14:17:17) :
    During the years of high solar activity the energy incoming from the Sun was stored by the ocean, etc
    Each year [in northern winter] the Earth receives 100 times more energy from the Sun as that due to solar activity at solar maximum.
    This heats the ocean that therefore expands 7 millimeter in the next few months. That heat is lost again during the other half of the year. So why would the few photons that are due to solar activity also not get lost again, but stored up for decades? How does a photon know that is to radiate away or that it is to stay stored?

  33. Leif Svalgaard (13:31:50)-I’m not terribly impressed either but then I’m puzzled where PMOD gets it’s physical basis for their reconstruction’s adjustments. The whole argument for PMOD has generally been that it agrees with proxy models, but that is certainly not true for Krivova during the ACRIM gap, it certainly isn’t true of Lean’s proxy model during the most recent minima compared to the last…And while there is no physical justification for saying that ACRIM’s bridging with Nimbus is worse than what PMOD does (especially since the latter appears to be totally arbitrary) it shouldn’t be an issue of whether models “support” a TSI composite at all, but whether the composites use methods that make sense. Doug Hoyt and Richard Wilson have been unable to understand how PMOD figures that they can find a problem with Nimbus that they can’t.

    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/NS_grl-supplement.pdf

  34. Mike Jonas (13:34:52)
    I acknowledged that the effect of cosmic rays, if demonstrated, would have a modulating effect on climate changes initiated by the oceans. I think that is enough to cover your point.

    Leif Svalgaard (13:35:50)
    And I’ll keep repeating it in any relevant context until real world evidence disproves it or someone comes up with a better proposition.
    How can someone who accepts that so much is not known be so sure that he is right in dismissing so much ?
    There is a certain dissonance in your contributions.
    I defer to you in solar matters but in nothing else.

  35. Does TSI have some theoretical or at least oberved lower bound? (as does F10.7)

    Are we headed towards such a low, or did it occur during the just concluded minimum? Or are we perhaps on the way to another bottom? The sun is very quiet, particularly considering that in this stage of most cycles it is heading sharply upward. STEREO shows little on the way for the next weekas well.

  36. Nogw (11:38:29) :
    vukcevic What is it the cause of that “Recent increase in speed of magnetic poles drift” ?

    Just an idle speculation, but it does appear to be some loose correlation between speed and direction of magnetic poles movement and the intensity of solar activity, possible both relating to the same planetary reference.
    If polar moves can affect oceans conveyor belt, than it would appear that the solar activity is affecting temperature anomaly, but it is not necessarily so. Of course, none of it can be conclusively proved, otherwise we would not have such raging battle between the two camps.
    In this kind of science there is no certainty, just set of probabilities.

  37. There is large amount of wood for trees talk and though it can be constructive and illuminating (pardon the pun) I don’t think TSI really can be considered until the CO2 forcing mechanism has been properly quantified. I’ve been looking into this recently and I have yet to find anybody who has built a clear walled tank with one dark surface, put thermocouples everywhere, had mass spectrometers, humidity sensors, resevoirs of water, bottles of CO2 and O3 and a big solar simulator (like that used in satellite testing) and tried to quantify the increase in the dark surface due to different concentrations of CO2 and humidity. Doing control runs etc and adjusting one parameter at a time under as close to steady-state conditions for everything else. This would go a long way to help with models (as slabs are used) and would at least provide some idea of forcing effects. But no. No real laboratory evidence in 20 or more years since the early Hansen papers.
    All papers I have seen extrapolate from more simple emission and absoprtion data and then use global measurements, from satellites for example. These are two extremes (like quantum mechanics compared to planetary motion) and there is no satisfactory overlap of the two regimes. And nothing considering radiative-convective coupling (even though this was discussed in the 60s eg Manabe and Strickler). This is making me much more of a skeptic day by day. If someone is doing this great. If the results are out there (I haven’t seen them on literature searches) then let’s shout about it. I don’t care it matches the original estimates. This is where the AGW argument should get made. Not in cyberspace or in the low correlation coefficients of proxies.

    Also with regards to simple thermodymanics, even though the heat moves from the oceans to the atmosphere, remember that the atmosphere does not release it like a blackbody straight to space but through the lapse rate, hence the effective temperature moves higher into the atmosphere. I’m not trying to lecture people; just reminding them that like or not the atmosphere has a large hand (perhaps the largest) in controlling the temperature of the surface of the planet. So I would tend to look at the atmosphere constituents first rather than an external forcing.

  38. Leif Svalgaard (14:42:20) :

    Each year [in northern winter] the Earth receives 100 times more energy from the Sun as that due to solar activity at solar maximum.

    And each year, the southern hemisphere, with a more extensive ocean surface than the northern hemisphere, during northern winter, receives ~3.3% more energy from the Sun than the northern hemisphere. Remember that the Earth is Northern Hemisphere + Southern Hemisphere.

    This heats the ocean that therefore expands 7 millimeter in the next few months. That heat is lost again during the other half of the year. So why would the few photons that are due to solar activity also not get lost again, but stored up for decades? How does a photon know that is to radiate away or that it is to stay stored?

    Because the energy is not stored in the oceans, ground and subsurface materials only as kinetic energy, but also as chemical energy, potential gravitational energy, etc. It is not that the photon knows that it has to be radiated away; it is not possible because the absorbed photon is no more there. There would be photons to be radiated away when the surroundings outside the oceans, including the outer space, would offer more available microstates toward which that energy can be transferred (or diffused… or dispersed).

  39. Micky C (16:38:33) :
    tried to quantify the increase in the dark surface due to different concentrations of CO2
    Sorry, CO2 it is NOT BLACK, it is transparent (unless you are actually seeing your exhaling gases black…are you one of the 666 baby boomers´generation?)

  40. vukcevic: You wrote, “What he does [his Figure 5] is trying to show that the rise in Temps since 1980 is much larger than can be accounted for by any of the assumed TSI-reconstructions. One could argue that…Recent increase in speed of magnetic poles drift, affecting oceans’ conveyor belt circulation.”

    I’ve shown the rise to be an aftereffect (residuals) of the significant El Nino events of 1986/87/88 and 1997/98:

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of.html

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of_11.html

    That’s what the SST data says. No theories, just cause and effect that’s present in the data.

  41. Stephen Wilde (12:21:26) :
    “Consequently very small changes in solar input can build up over several solar cycles (usually about 3) “

    Here comes the MANTRA again:
    FAO uses 55+ years for changes in fish catches (sea temperatures); i.e: three solar cycles.

  42. Micky C (16:38:33) :

    And nothing considering radiative-convective coupling…

    Search “radiative convective” at J. Climate or use Google Scholar. Lots of papers!

    Nogw (16:47:08) :

    Micky C (16:38:33) :
    tried to quantify the increase in the dark surface due to different concentrations of CO2
    Sorry, CO2 it is NOT BLACK, it is transparent (unless you are actually seeing your exhaling gases black…are you one of the 666 baby boomers´generation?)

    I think the dark surface is supposed to represent the ground/ocean surface in the experiment he describes.

    Leif Svalgaard (14:42:20) :

    So why would the few photons that are due to solar activity also not get lost again, but stored up for decades? How does a photon know that is to radiate away or that it is to stay stored?

    Oh, I dunno, maybe the warm water occasionally moves or something?

  43. Robert Wood (09:51:12) :

    “I haven’t read the paper. Why does he say the TSI is uncertain since 1980?”

    Watch this video where Scarfati explains the issues about TSI measurements due to the use of different satelites and different quality sensor equipment and the controversy among the people operating these satelites and (here we go again) the used computer models to tie the data from the different measurements together.

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/century-to-decade-climate-change-created-by-planetary-motion/

  44. MDR: You wrote, “I have no idea whether it is, or whether the problems that Leif brings up are dealbreakers.”

    Scafetta also assumes that climate responds linearly to ENSO events, and they do not. That’s discussed in this post:

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/07/regression-analyses-do-not-capture.html

    Anthony ran it at WUWT here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/27/why-regression-analysis-fails-to-capture-the-aftereffects-of-el-nino-events/

    You wrote, “It could be CO2, it could be the sun, it could be a combination of the two, or it could be some other player that as (up to now) been assumed moot.”

    It’s the last choice. The significant El Nino events of 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 caused step changes in SST anomalies for 25% of the global ocean. Discussed in these posts:

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of.html

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of_11.html

    Anthony also ran those

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/11/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of-the-global-warming-since-1976-%e2%80%93-part-1/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/12/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of-the-global-warming-since-1976-%e2%80%93-part-2/

    Regards

  45. Pamela Gray: You wrote, “The Pacific equatorial positive SST’s appear to be weakening. I predict ENSO neutral by winter. Some of the NOAA statistical models are predicting ENSO neutral as well.”

    It would be nice. There’s still some elevated subsurface anomalies (though they do seem to be disappearing):

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/wkxzteq.shtml

    The problem with that suburface profile is we can’t tell why those subsurface anomalies are declining. Did they dissipate? Did subsurface currents carry them out of the profile area? Will they reappear?

  46. Off Topic…

    Dear all… I’ve lost some files on phytoplankton abundance in the Mexican Gulf shoreline during the last 30 years. :(

    I would be extremely grateful if you give me a link to those databases. Thanks in advance for your kindness…

  47. Interesting that Scafetta has dropped all references to what he thinks drives the modulation of the Sun which in turn affects our climate. He is very firmly in the Planetary Influence camp but not quite prepared to come out in this paper.

  48. Geoff Sharp (17:54:57) : He is very firmly in the Planetary Influence
    James Shirley:An unusual “solar event” will take place in the years 1990-1992″
    “When the sun goes backward”, James Shirley.
    Something indeed happened in 1989-90 and considering time lag: 97-98 El Nino.

  49. What I get out of this is … uncertainty. You can agree or disagree with the conclusions and arguments but it is obvious that there are lots of unknowns. With more and more unknowns the position of skeptics becomes stronger and stronger.

  50. Stephen Wilde (12:21:26) BTW I was rethinking about “mantras”. It is curious, but whoever has heard a mantra will recognize that it is cyclical in nature, seeking to resonate in one´s inner self. …cycles…resonance.
    It´s a good mantra anyway!

  51. Nogw (18:51:51) :

    James Shirley:An unusual “solar event” will take place in the years 1990-1992″
    “When the sun goes backward”, James Shirley.
    Something indeed happened in 1989-90 and considering time lag: 97-98 El Nino.

    The Sun goes backward every 10 years, its is going backward right now, but the difference is the shape of that backward path that happens 3 times every 172 years. Shirley was close, as was Landscheidt both recognizing the increased momentum in 1990 but both failing to see the full impact of the N/U factor.

  52. Geoff Sharp (17:54:57) :

    Interesting that Scafetta has dropped all references to what he thinks drives the modulation of the Sun which in turn affects our climate. He is very firmly in the Planetary Influence camp but not quite prepared to come out in this paper.

    Planetary influence, lunar influence, galactic influence and God knows what influence.

    All these correlations with cyclical data are just fortuitous in my opinion, and it behooves serious scientists to be wary of making causative statements, so it is good that he does not mention such stuff.

    Let me give an example: Take a clock on the X axis and the position of the sun to the earth on the Y axis. Correlation is maximum, causation 0.

    continuing:
    Nogw (18:51:51) :

    Geoff Sharp (17:54:57) : He is very firmly in the Planetary Influence
    James Shirley:An unusual “solar event” will take place in the years 1990-1992″
    “When the sun goes backward”, James Shirley.
    Something indeed happened in 1989-90 and considering time lag: 97-98 El Nino.

    Considering the time lag 9/11 also happened.

    Planetary motions are like a giant clock ( as are all astrological mathematics). The data from a giant clock will correlate with data from another giant clock, time delays and all, because both of them are clocks. The lunar influence for example, as somebody else has studied. It is possible too that the sun’s chaotic behavior ends up as also some type of giant clock ( the 22/11 year cycle). Again correlations will be found, but correlation is not causation.

    And I have not entered into the correlations possible between wave sequences of the atlantic and the pacific oceans, which though the result of chaotic dynamics, display regularities that to a cycle seeking person can be correlated.

    correlation is not causation should be ingrained in the subconscious of all scientists.

  53. anna v (21:28:10) :

    Planetary influence, lunar influence, galactic influence and God knows what influence.

    All these correlations with cyclical data are just fortuitous in my opinion, and it behooves serious scientists to be wary of making causative statements, so it is good that he does not mention such stuff.

    I doubt whether you have even looked at the correlations, but instead blindly fob it off with grand sweeping statements. A lot of famous discoveries start off with great correlations which are subsequently proved at a later stage.

    Using your logic none of those discoveries would be with us today.

  54. Stephen Wilde (15:07:22) :
    And I’ll keep repeating it in any relevant context until real world evidence disproves it
    In science it is not enough to maintain something just because there is no evidence against it. There must be some positive evidence for it.

    Lee (15:43:45) :
    Does TSI have some theoretical or at least observed lower bound? (as does F10.7)
    Yes, when there is no magnetic field. And we are close to that point.

    Are we headed towards such a low,
    We are close.

    vukcevic (15:44:36) :
    none of it can be conclusively proved,
    But is easily conclusively disproved.

    In this kind of science there is no certainty
    Your speculations are not science.

    Geoff Sharp (17:54:57) :
    Interesting that Scafetta has dropped all references to what he thinks drives the modulation of the Sun which in turn affects our climate. He is very firmly in the Planetary Influence camp but not quite prepared to come out in this paper.
    Perhaps he doesn’t think so anymore…

  55. correlation is not causation –

    But you make it sound as though correlation means no causation. In fact, correlation implies causation. It is the engine that drives scientific enquiry. What causes what, or is it a third or fourth or more elements that cause the correlated observations?

    Consider the Earth-Venus resonance. There does not seem to be enough force acting between the 2 bodies to create a resonance, but a resonance is observed. Is it a fluke? Is the theory inadequate? Is there another explanation altogether?

    It may well be that planetary influence are bigger than suspected due to some as yet unknown factor that multiplies its effect like resonance.

  56. I stil don´t know which sense has to use HadCRUT or GISTEMP or which dataset has been used in this paper; the only result will be discrepancies with reality. Has the author used UAH/RSS, there would be good agreement.
    On another note, you do not need increasing TSI to get increasing temperatures, if there was no equilibrium reached. MWP was caused by row of average strong solar cycles with no weak cycles spoiling the run, when solar energy got absorbed into ocean. On shorter time scale, PDO/AMO can increase/decrease temperature trend despite constant solar activity.

  57. Lee (15:43:45) :
    Does TSI have some theoretical or at least observed lower bound? (as does F10.7)
    Lee, I forgot this reference:

    http://www.leif.org/research/Froehlich-Sofia-2008.pdf

    Especially slide 21. The green curve at ~1363.8 is the theoretical minimum TSI. Since the absolute level is uncertain, it might be better to simply say that the theoretical minimum is 1.7 W/m2 below the solar cycle minimum values. We probably will never get down there.

  58. TSI variations are so small that they should result in small temperature variations in their own right. However, I would like to know whether a small increase in global temperature resulting from a TSI nudge, from CO2 or any other warming influence, could decrease cloudcover globally, because air temperature responds faster than humidity. This would lead to feedback, and the reverse would be true (more cloud) during cooling from any cooling forcing mechanism. I keep hearing about increased cloudcover with warming, but I think this could only possibly happen in the long term, and that, in the short term, warming should lead to clearer skies and higher clouds (further from the dew point!). Could this be significant or lead to some sort of vicious cycle that could explain correlations between solar intensity and temperature that otherwise make no physical sense? No friggin’ idea! Any experts out there???

  59. Micky C (16:38) If the results[of properly quantifying the CO2 forcing mechanism] are out there (I haven’t seen them on literature searches) then let’s shout about it. I don’t care it matches the original estimates. This is where the AGW argument should get made. Not in cyberspace or in the low correlation coefficients of proxies.

    Hear, hear. Anyone got any info? Anyone asked at RC?? Noted that Steve Mc over at Erice is working for part of this too?

    Meanwhile, I want to hear that Scafetta’s material re. ACRIM can be replicated. His adjustment makes a lot of sense but I want to see the data in the open. And I want to see how the “fit” with solar patterns can be used to extract the “65% solar” conclusion – with or without a mechanism to explain the correlation. Those who haven’t seen it might enjoy Scafetta’s February presentation and the accompanying slides.

  60. OT:
    Dr. Svalgaard,

    (you´ll have to excuse my english, it´s not my native language)

    I`ve come across your posts at ClimateAudit, and find it very plausable that there hasen´t been any trend in the TSI for the past century.

    So, I guess I´m asking, that if i go through the comments at CA, whit time, is there any discussion about the impact of this to the feedbacks and climate sensivity? I´ve gone throw some of the comments there and this far there hasn´t been very much discussion about the sensivity issues.

    I wont bother, if most off the comments over there just offer their own theories and discus the TSI and not the impacts of it beeing at the same levels as hundreds of years ago. If this is the case, could you point out anything to start whit?

  61. Do any of you academic loons appreciate how goofy you appear to the typical engineer? I once worked for the Sperry Research Center (last of the old corporate “think tanks”) where I served as the “blood and guts” engineer responsible for actually building an experimental power plant their world-class PhD.’s had dreamed up. I spent more time stopping their 175 or so academics from chasing their own tails every time a problem arose than I did building the project. I once squandered two valuable weeks beating off a blaze of computer simulations to determine whether a small hole would weaken a geothermal well casing more than a big hole.

    You simply cannot take such a noisy environment filled with statistically skewed data as the author of this paper has done and draw the kinds of conclusions he has drawn.

    Back off and look at the 450,000 year envelope of derived global temperature data. It represents a classical chaotic system that over the short term has a life of its own, cycles between high and low temperatures on approximately 100,000 year cycles and is bounded, hell or high water, by upper and lower limits that span approximately 12 degrees C. Catastrophic meteor strikes and cataclysmic volcanic episodes have not changed that pattern one whit. Mankind’s comparatively puny impacts will not affect that pattern and the chaotic nature of the global climate system most likely precludes precise short term temperature predictions more precise than “trending upward or trending downward”.

    Jeese!

    Claude Harvey

  62. lulo (23:54:38)

    Correct, and a point I have made elsewhere.

    Warming ocean surfaces initially reduce low cloud cover as the higher temperature in the air leads to an increase in vapour carrying capacity.

    Then increased evaporation and convection leads to increased cloud cover but at a higher level with precipitation and an increase in the speed of the hydrological cycle and a faster transfer of energy from surface to space.

    The opposite happens when the ocean surfaces cool down.

    It is the variability of the global ocean surfaces in their rate of energy release to the air which is the driving force. Nothing else comes close but there may be modulating factors such as the Svensmark idea.

  63. Stephen Wilde (15:07:22) :
    And I’ll keep repeating it in any relevant context until real world evidence disproves it
    Leif Svalgaard:
    In science it is not enough to maintain something just because there is no evidence against it. There must be some positive evidence for it.

    The evidence in favour would be that over time it fits real world events.
    You have exceptional knowledge as regards your speciality but as regards the climate consequences of your solar data you know no more than the rest of us and often less.

  64. Leif, you unfairly edited my comment before you replied to it. I also said I would consider better propositions. Perhaps you would like to come up with one and be constructive for once ?

    Sitting in an ivory tower, using your specialist knowledge as a defensive barrier is all very well but it doesn’t give you authority on non solar issues and such an approach is essentially very easy and very lazy.

    Knowledge about the sun is all very well but it tells us nothing about how the climate system responds to solar input.

  65. Agree Claude, reading various climate websites it strikes me that most of the climate scientists are suffering from heavy tunnel view…..

  66. When people realize that main focus of Global Warming criticism should be focused to UHI? It is not so clever to make thousands of papers trying to explain GISS dataset (especially last decades) with various reasons regarding dataset as reliable to describing global temperature trends.

    Is there any paper which compares global temperature trends taken from urban/rural stations? If not, I strongly recommend to do one to someone who has needed data available. After that we should discuss and explain that trend which is obtained using rural stations only.

  67. Claude Harvey (01:02:39)

    As a non scientist I heartily agree and you will see that I have been adopting the large scale top down approach which you recommend.

  68. anna v (21:28:10) “correlation is not causation

    Screaming this does not advance the discussion Anna.

  69. Leif Svalgaard (23:06:39) :
    In this kind of science there is no certainty
    Your speculations are not science

    Well observed. Sir here is what I said:
    “vukcevic (15:44:36) : Just an idle speculation…”, by definition no one’s speculations are science. Declaring that someone’s thoughts are idle speculation should be banned?

    I thought this was more than self evident:
    In this kind of science there is no certainty, just set of probabilities.

    May be I missed it, but don’t you think , as an eminent scientist, it is time you declared your own ideas on the subject.
    Is it TSI, CO2, is it something else ? What do you think is cause of the climate change?
    You can’t for ever hide behind everlasting criticisam of others, I mean serious contributors, and I do not count myself in there.
    Give us a chance to get even!
    Or, if you don’t know it would be only fair to add that qulification whenever you sit in judgment of others.
    So what is it: TSI, CO2, God, something else, don’t know ?
    Fair play, Sir!

  70. Claude Harvey (01:02:39) :

    Well said! I couldn’t agree more.

    I’m reading Ian Plimer’s book, heaven and earth, and it singularly compels you to look at much larger timescales when considering earth’s climate. Anything less than 1000 years all you can say about temperature is, as you so succinctly put it “trending upward or trending downward”.

    There is clearly no evidence in paleoclimate histroy that says CO2 is a key driver of climate change. Moreover man’s impact on CO2 levels has been infinitesimal when considered in a historic context over the last 540 million years.

    What we do know is that earth’s climate is driven by a number of factors which combine in an impossibly complex and chaotic fashion.

    What we don’t even know is what all those factors are let alone how they combine. To start to build models that can therefore predict climate is no more than a start and we should not rely on them for policy. [BTW the good folks who contribute to this excellent blog with their some very well thought out theories may want to consider this point].

    There is a good analogy I think with the art of stock trading: Stock market traders have been looking for the holy grail (a model that predicts market moves) since trading began and every year models come and go because markets are complex and chaotic (the model fails after a while).

    In the meantime we will have to pay for this AGW/Climate change alarmist nonsense with jobs, wealth destruction and the inevitable brownouts that will come until folks can see the emporers (our political leaders) have no clothes on.

    Perhaps the scientists studying climate change should all go away and work out how it all works and say nothing until they can agree on a model that clearly predicts climate for the next million years :-) just a thought.

  71. If each phase of the PDO contains three solar cycles, and some phenomenon of the solar cycle alternates, then you will have two solar cycles of one type in each phase of the PDO and one solar cycle of the other type. If the alternation from one solar cycle to the other has differential earth heating from one to the other, then you can explain the alternate heating and cooling cycles of the PDO. And lo, the shape of cosmic ray peaks alternates from one solar cycle to the next, from broader to more peaked. If cosmic ray peak shape effects clouds, then you have a mechanism for the sun driving the main ocean oscillation.

    Leif Svalgaard speaks of this alternation of cosmic ray peaks being a second order effect. But if TSI doesn’t vary much, and if enhancement of a solar phenomenon to modify climate does happen, then this is a possible mechanism. Shouldn’t someone be trying to figure out if the variation in the shape of cosmic ray peaks have a variable heating effect?
    ===================================

  72. There are five ‘ifs’ in that comment, Leif. That’s as close to quantifying the mechanism that I can get. ::grin::
    =========================================

  73. And the alteration of cosmic ray peaks doesn’t have to work through clouds to have an effect on heating. If it doesn’t, though, then the proposed mechanism is even more occult.
    =============================

  74. Kim

    Interesting proposition.

    Cosmic rays would presumably work through clouds by altering solar shortwave quantities hitting the ocean. For that reason I am inclined to concede an effect but what about timing, scale and causation ?

    There is no 30 year periodicity in cosmic ray variation as far as I know but you have suggested a way of fitting one in. What indications do you have that your suggestion is soundly based ? I don’t see how the shape of a peak would affect energy budget globally. It helps with tallbloke’s observation of a change in oceanic phases at the minimum of every third cycle though. Mind you we don’t have many oceanic phase change records to rely on.

    There seem to be plenty of particulates in the air already so how does one quantify the cosmic ray component when cloudiness changes ?

    The oceanic changes seem to come first with the shift in air circulation patterns following. For cosmic ray effects to be doing the driving you need the air circulation shifts first and then the oceanic changes (on ENSO timescales) but I don’t see that happening.

  75. “Claude Harvey (01:02:39) :

    Do any of you academic loons appreciate how goofy you appear to the typical engineer? I once worked for the Sperry Research Center (last of the old corporate “think tanks”) where I served as the “blood and guts” engineer responsible for actually building an experimental power plant their world-class PhD.’s had dreamed up. I spent more time stopping their 175 or so academics from chasing their own tails every time a problem arose than I did building the project. I once squandered two valuable weeks beating off a blaze of computer simulations to determine whether a small hole would weaken a geothermal well casing more than a big hole.

    You simply cannot take such a noisy environment filled with statistically skewed data as the author of this paper has done and draw the kinds of conclusions he has drawn.

    Back off and look at the 450,000 year envelope of derived global temperature data. It represents a classical chaotic system that over the short term has a life of its own, cycles between high and low temperatures on approximately 100,000 year cycles and is bounded, hell or high water, by upper and lower limits that span approximately 12 degrees C. Catastrophic meteor strikes and cataclysmic volcanic episodes have not changed that pattern one whit. Mankind’s comparatively puny impacts will not affect that pattern and the chaotic nature of the global climate system most likely precludes precise short term temperature predictions more precise than “trending upward or trending downward”.

    Jeese!

    Claude Harvey”

    Maybe OT, but while I was working for a large computer mfg company in the ’80’s, no names OK, I had the “pleasure” of training University vocational students who’d studied electronics from (UK) “O”, to “A” and then on to “degree” level study. Many did not know how to use an AVO, nor did they know what it was (Or how it’s name was derived). Which always brings me to recall the joke; What do you say to someone with a “degree” qualification in “anything” (Specifically in the “climate science” space)? Big Mac and large fries!!

  76. I agree with Claude. As an engineer looking at the total system including the galaxy, the sun, the atmosphere, the oceans, etc. Man’s contributions to climate are but a flyspeck of nothingness. Zoom out. DAGW is a farce.

  77. What I can’t understand is how people can argue that the sun’s variance is too weak to cause recent warming but then admit that it was the trigger for the start and end of the ice ages (now official). Surely the assumption of the latter proves there exists an amplifying mechanism for the former. How could a weak solar effect be a trigger of anything? The two hypotheses are contradictory.

    And no the GHG feedback half-theory doesn’t fill the gap because it only covers the heating part of the cycle, is responsible for a max. of 30% even of that heating part (ref. Severinghaus on realclimate) and is clearly neither the actual trigger nor has much retardation effect on the cooling (a problem the alarmists just calmly skip over).

  78. “The PMOD TSI composite, which has been used by the IPCC and most climate modelers, has been found to be based on arbitrary and questionable assumptions [Scafetta and Willson, 2009].”

    It has been known for some time that the VIRGO and ACRIM data used in GW models is suspect due to the cobbling together of various instruments and the use of arcane mathematical methods to make data fit. And if the instrument was degrading or out of sync with other ones, another wave of math using various “Levels” made the data “fit” again.

    http://www.acrim.com/Reference%20Files/SORCETIM_SolarPhysics.pdf

    There even was a joint meeting of experimenters in 2006 to try to resolve these differences.

    The new direct total TSI instrument used in SORCE and its expanded use in the 2010 Glory Mission will finally provide clear unambiguous TSI data.

    To avoid acrimony between VIRGO and ACRIM scientists and SORCE scientists, the SORCE website simple notes:

    “The TIM measures TSI values 4.7 W/m2 lower than the VIRGO and 5.1 W/m2 lower than ACRIM III.”

    http://lasp.colorado.edu/cgi-bin/ion-p?page=input_data_for_tsi.ion#note

    That is scientific speak for “their data sucks”.

    With some more years, decades perhaps, of direct measurements by SORCE and GLORY, the earlier best efforts based on instruments then available will probably be excluded from TSI models.

    In my basic course of statistics, the Professor was very clear:

    “If the statistics don’t make sense, don’t believe it.”

    Too bad the AGW’ers weren’t in that class.

    Footnote

    Greg Kopp is a principal SORCE investigator at the University of Colorado and one who has lead the investigation in 2006 on instrument differences. When I emailed him some months ago, he responded with the following:

    Greg Kopp -TIM Instrument Scientist Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics

    “We have been working with the TSI community on resolving these differences, starting with a NASA-organized community workshop at NIST a couple of years ago. Since then, we have built a new facility to calibrate TSI radiometers against a NIST-calibrated cryogenic radiometer prior to flight, and have used this facility to validate the performance of the next TIM, which will launch in early 2010 on NASA’s Glory mission.

    Prior to the Glory/TIM, no flight TSI instrument has been validated end-to-end for irradiance under flight-like operating conditions (my emphasis)”

  79. Actually Svensmark posited another amplifier to add to Leif’s shortlist – that of positive water vapor feedback – which of course exists for all ocean heating mechanisms. I suspect he just felt like hoisting the alarmists with their own petard.

  80. Leif Svalgaard (11:32:45) :

    The big problem is the short lever arm. Use 20 years to calibrate and then extrapolate to 400 years, especially when the TSI is uncertain

    I never thought I’d see the day.

    :-)

    I note however, that Scafetta also mentions the Loehle reconstruction, and this would offer another guide to long timescale calibration of the model. As you said the other day, you don’t rely on one series or type of quantity in coming to conclusions about the calibration and quantification of TSI.

  81. @Leone (01:37:26) :

    “When people realize that main focus of Global Warming criticism should be focused to UHI? It is not so clever to make thousands of papers trying to explain GISS dataset (especially last decades) with various reasons regarding dataset as reliable to describing global temperature trends.”

    Perhaps it’s even more basic than that. If you haven’t yet visited E.M. Smith’s blog here

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/05/agw-is-a-thermometer-count-artifact/

    you may find it helpful. Check out the related posts after you scan the the post in the link I gave.

  82. vukcevic (03:02:39) :
    it is time you declared your own ideas on the subject.
    Is it TSI, CO2, is it something else ? What do you think is cause of the climate change?

    As Stephen points out, I don’t know. The large changes [glaciations] are very likely due to orbital changes. The rest probably don’t have a single cause, but many interacting ones. So it becomes a question of degree: so many % of this and so many of that etc. As time goes on, we’ll get a handle on those percentages. Some comparative planetary climatology [e.g. ice cores from Mars] will help. In the meantime I just pull weeds.

  83. Paul Vaughan (02:17:52) :

    anna v (21:28:10) “correlation is not causation“

    Screaming this does not advance the discussion Anna.

    I am fairly sure that on the net,
    bold is emphasis
    capitals is shouting
    bold capitals is screaming.

    So I was just using emphasis, not screaming.

  84. I’ve just been having a look at Scafetta’s paper. As someone who proofreads scientific papers published by Japanese researchers, I have to say that I am disappointed that Scafetta was too lazy to bother having his paper checked. The paper contains literally hundreds of minor grammatical errors and awkward-sounding phrases, and it is written in a style which frequently obscures the point that the author wishes to make. The cumulative effect is so off-putting as to deter all but the most persistent readers.

    Spoken English does not have to be perfect. People repeat themselves a lot when they talk, and they often use body language and intonation to convey their meaning when words do not suffice. That is why in everyday conversation, native English speakers tend to be tolerant of grammatical mistakes by non-native speakers. Indeed, confusing “he” and “she” is just about the only mistake that is guaranteed to provoke an irate correction from a native English listener. Written English, by contrast, has to be perfect, or it will either confuse or bore the reader. When I am reading a book, magazine, newspaper or scientific journal, I expect the writing to be completely free of spelling, grammatical and stylistic errors. I also expect the author to communicate his/her meaning plainly and clearly, so that I don’t have to puzzle over what the author meant. This is a matter of basic courtesy. An author who fails to write clearly and correctly is simply being rude to his/her readers.

    Global warming is an important issue, and I have no doubt that Scafetta did some first-class research in his field. It’s a real pity that he couldn’t be bothered asking a professional editor, or even a colleague of his, to check his paper. He had an opportunity to make an impact in the scientific world, and he missed it.

  85. Leif Svalgaard (09:41:48) :
    “What he does [his Figure 5] is trying to show that the rise in Temps since 1980 is much larger than can be accounted for by any of the assumed TSI-reconstructions. One could argue that this could be due to three things
    1) his model is wrong
    2) TSI is wrong
    3) Temp increase is due to CO2 and not solar activity.”

    I assume you are a big supporter of theory #3? I have heard so.
    One couldn’t argue this because there are hundreds of variables which could be have caused this.
    Three may be a pretty neat number and it is tempting to dismiss solar activity and conclude: “Well if it ain’t the sun, it must be CO2″, but considering we know close to nil about the sun and its connections to climate we can’t make such assumptions.
    Maybe it is not the sun directly, but maybe it is not CO2 either.

  86. To consider, from FAO abstract:
    Spectral analysis of the time series of dT, ACI and Length Of Day (LOD) estimated from direct
    observations (110-150 years) showed a clear 55-65 year periodicity. Spectral analysis of the reconstructed time series of the air surface temperatures for the last 1500 years suggested the similar (55-60 year) periodicity. Analysis of 1600 years long reconstructed time series of sardine and anchovy
    biomass in Californian upwelling also revealed a regular 50-70 years fluctuation. Spectral analysis of the catch statistics of main commercial species for the last 50-100 years also showed cyclical fluctuations of about 55-years.

    Klyashtorin, L.B.
    Climate change and long-term fluctuations of commercial catches: the possibility of
    forecasting.
    FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 410. Rome, FAO. 2001. 86p.

  87. From the same paper:
    George Vangengeim, the founder of ACI, is a well-known Russian climatologist. The Vangengeim-Girs classification is the basis of the modern Russian climatological school of thought. According to this system, all observable variation in atmospheric circulation is classified into three basic types by direction of the air mass transfer: Meridional (C); Western (W), and Eastern (E). Each of the abovementioned forms is calculated from the daily atmospheric pressure charts over northern Atlantic-Eurasian region. General direction of the transfer of cyclonic and anticylonic air masses is known to
    depend on the distribution of atmospheric pressure over the Atlantic-Eurasian region (the atmosphere topography).
    The recurrence of each circulation form (W, E, or C) during the year is expressed in days. Total annual duration of the three circulation forms sums therefore to 365 (or 366 in a leap year). The index is defined by the number of days with the dominant form of atmospheric circulation. It is more
    conveniently expressed as an anomaly (actual data minus the long-term average). The sum of anomalies can be displayed in a chart of the so-called integral curve of the atmospheric circulation. The annual sum of the occurrence of all circulation anomalies is equal to zero: (C) +(W) + (E) = 0.
    The periods dominated by any single form of atmospheric circulation have alternated with a roughly 30-year period for the last 100 years. These periods were named “Circulation epochs”. These may be pooled into two principal groups: meridional (C) and combined “latitudinal” epochs (W+E): (W + E) =
    – (C) Meridional (C) circulation dominated in 1890-1920 and 1950-1980. The combined, “zonal” (W+E) circulation epochs dominated in 1920-1950 and 1980-1990. Current “latitudinal”(WE) epoch of 1970-1990s is not completed yet, but it is coming into its final stage, and so the “meridional” epoch (C circulation) is now in its initial stage. (It will be useful for the reader to note here the relation that shows that the “transition” from C to W-E is ontinuous, and the equation balances to 100%, in the form of a simple graphic without any other variables included). It was found that “zonal” epochs correspond to the periods of global warming and the meridional ones
    correspond to the periods of global cooling.
    (Lamb 1972; Lambeck 1980). The generalised time series on the atmospheric circulation forms for 1891-1999 were kindly placed at our disposal by the Federal Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute (AARI) in St. Petersburg (Russia). This is also consistent with the theories and observations described by Leroux (1998).
    The third important index is Length of Day (LOD) – a geophysical index that characterizes variation in the earth rotational velocity. Full time series of LOD cover more than 350 years, with the mostreliable data obtained in the last 150 years (Stephenson and Morrison 1995). The long-term LOD 5
    dynamics is in close correlation with the dynamics of the main commercial fish stocks (Klyashtorin and Sidorenkov 1996).
    More to be found in:

    http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y2787e/Y2787E00.HTM

    and at Google:

    http://books.google.com.pe/books?id=q3mGCiLjkBIC&dq=Climate+change+and+long-term+fluctuations+of+commercial+catches:+the+possibility+of+forecasting&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=eeMbhAuqBz&sig=_1lsR1rSR_VCIgSqgHop2hvARQk&hl=es&ei=AhmMSsnhFsiQtge1mejCDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

  88. Leif Svalgaard (06:32:38) :

    “Some comparative planetary climatology [e.g. ice cores from Mars] will help.”

    Leif

    I wonder if you could answer a couple of questions? [again :-)]

    – what is your take on Titanium 44 isotope findings from extraterrestrial objects (meteors and the like) when it comes to solar activity?

    – how do they compare with your own and Scafetta’s analysis?

    Apologies if I have not phrased the question quite correctly but I recall reading something somewhere that Usokin suggested this showed solar activity had been high in the last century. Is this a robust line of enquiry?

    Thanks as ever.

  89. tallbloke (06:27:36) :

    I note however, that Scafetta also mentions the Loehle reconstruction, and this would offer another guide to long timescale calibration of the model. As you said the other day, you don’t rely on one series or type of quantity in coming to conclusions about the calibration and quantification of TSI.

    Some of the proxies used for the reconstruction of temperature for the last two millennia have been used also for the reconstructions of total solar irradiance in the same period. Loehle’s database on temperature for the period comprehending the last 400 years and Lean’s TSI reconstruction using proxies and sunspots for the same period are highly correlated. However, when we compare the Lean’s reconstruction of TSI based only on 11 years cycles with Loehle’s reconstruction of temperature, we find the correlation fails in the middle of the database, so we have to disregard the totals and use magnitudes related to amplitude and longitude of the cycles. After that, the events match perfectly.

    Anna… The Sun is the source of energy for the Earth, thus, in this case, the Sun is the cause of warming; even when some people try to turn the Sun down, it is warming the Earth… yet.

  90. vukcevic (03:02:39) :
    it is time you declared your own ideas on the subject.
    Is it TSI, CO2, is it something else ? What do you think is cause of the climate change?
    Leif Svalgaard (06:32:38) :
    As Stephen points out, I don’t know. The large changes [glaciations] are very likely due to orbital changes. The rest probably don’t have a single cause, but many interacting ones. So it becomes a question of degree: so many % of this and so many of that etc. As time goes on, we’ll get a handle on those percentages. Some comparative planetary climatology [e.g. ice cores from Mars] will help. In the meantime I just pull weeds.

    Fair enough doc !
    As a scientist, you may not be inclined to speculate. For the rest of us, not considered to be scientists, open public speculation, on the blogs like WUWT, gives opportunity to get our illusions cut to size, and an incentive to start anew.

  91. Re: anna v (06:55:49)

    anna v (21:28:10) “correlation is not causation”

    Clarification:
    This does not advance the discussion (whether emphasized, shouted, screamed, … or whispered).

  92. “Leif Svalgaard (06:32:38) :

    vukcevic (03:02:39) :
    it is time you declared your own ideas on the subject.
    Is it TSI, CO2, is it something else ? What do you think is cause of the climate change?

    As Stephen points out, I don’t know. The large changes [glaciations] are very likely due to orbital changes. The rest probably don’t have a single cause, but many interacting ones. So it becomes a question of degree: so many % of this and so many of that etc. As time goes on, we’ll get a handle on those percentages. Some comparative planetary climatology [e.g. ice cores from Mars] will help. In the meantime I just pull weeds”

    Fair enough, Leif but a weed is just a plant in the wrong place. Why not try to move it to the right place, figuratively speaking.

    Let me press you on one point.

    If the sun is more active, however little, then more energy is going into the oceans.

    The oceans don’t store energy in the sense that they carry over energy from a run of strong cycles to compensate for a subsequent run of weak cycles. I accept that. The adjustments made by the ocean during short term ENSO type episodes and also during longer term PDO type phase shifts see to that.

    Nevertheless if the sun is slowly increasing output for several centuries at a time and then slowly decreasing output for several centuries at a time then the ocean energy content is going to follow however small the variation.

    Thus there is high sensitivity to solar changes in the sense that however large or small those changes may be then the oceans will quickly make a proportionate adjustment.

    Now we really do see that as soon as the ocean energy content changes the rate of flow of energy to the air also acquires a potential for changing. However, the oceans themselves then impose their own ENSO type and PDO type cycles on top of that to produce quite discernible climate changes in regions closest to the air circulation systems that are forced to change position.

    So for decades at a time the oceanic changes can either suppress or supplement those long slow solar changes.

    What is your problem with that scenario ?

    It happens, we see it.

    The solar changes are indeed small and incremental and it may seem from our puny perspective that the observed climate changes are disproportionate to the solar changes but the fact is that observation demonstrates that they are not disproportionate.

    What is it that convinces so many that such small shifts in solar activity over centuries are not sufficient to provide the background forcing for the events we see ?

    It’s simply not good enough to assert that just because the solar changes are a miniscule proportion of total solar output then they cannot be driving the observed climate changes.

    It’s like the difference between a thermometer with a fluid that responds a lot to a small temperature change and a thermometer that changes very little in response to the same small temperature change.

    That is what I mean by sensitivity. The Earth is a very sensitive water based thermometer.

    The fact is that tiny changes in the rate of energy flow through the system cause a significant shift in the distribution of the air circulation systems that produce climate changes we can readily see and feel. Not because those changes are large in the scheme of things but because our daily well being is affected by them.

    We are highly sensitive in our sensations and lifestyles to tiny changes in our climatic environment.

    Who is to say that the climate changes are disproportionate to the solar changes at all ?

  93. PaulHClark (08:29:51) :
    - what is your take on Titanium 44 isotope findings from extraterrestrial objects (meteors and the like) when it comes to solar activity?
    44Ti is created by cosmic rays in meteorites [while still out in space] and thus gives a [crude] indication of the level of cosmic rays. One of the problems with 44Ti is [was?] that its half-life was rather uncertain [about 60 years IIRC], and also that the statistics is poor because there are only a few [19 or so] meteorites that have been seen falling. The time of fall to Earth must be known for the 44Ti to be useful.

    showed solar activity had been high in the last century. Is this a robust line of enquiry?
    It is [to a point - we need more data]. The data so far [see: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2005JA011459.pdf ] has been used to infer the cosmic ray flux back to 1700. Of note is that solar activity in the late 20th century seems to be similar to that in the late 18th century and mid-19th [see their Figure 6].
    But the uncertainties are large.

  94. Stephen Wilde (08:43:09) :
    The oceans don’t store energy in the sense that they carry over energy from a run of strong cycles to compensate for a subsequent run of weak cycles. I accept that.
    I would have sworn on a stack of Bibles that all your postings gave the strong impression that you were advocating the strong-cycle compensation idea [like also promoted by tallbloke], and almost all my criticism of your ideas has been focused on that.

    Nevertheless if the sun is slowly increasing output for several centuries at a time and then slowly decreasing output for several centuries at a time then the ocean energy content is going to follow however small the variation.
    Of course, who in his right mind would argue otherwise?
    The change since the Maunder Minimum has been of the order of at most 0.1K, no doubt about it. The 0.1% solar cycle variation is also of that order.

  95. Leif Svalgaard (09:03:11) :
    in reply to Stephen Wilde (08:43:09) :
    The total change since the Maunder Minimum has been of the order of at most 0.1K, no doubt about it.
    Now, whether we can even measure that small change is another matter.

  96. Stephen Wilde (08:43:09):

    Nevertheless if the sun is slowly increasing output for several centuries at a time and then slowly decreasing output for several centuries at a time then the ocean energy content is going to follow however small the variation.

    Thus there is high sensitivity to solar changes in the sense that however large or small those changes may be then the oceans will quickly make a proportionate adjustment.

    This is exactly what happens. As long as the available microstates -toward which the energy stored by the oceans would be transferred, diffused, dispersed- stay at low numbers, as long as the oceans will keep in that absorbed energy. When available microstates in the surroundings of the system (oceans) increase, the energy is transferred towards those coexisting microstates. It would happen in days, months or years after the energy incoming from the Sun was stored by oceans, ground and subsurface materials of the ground. It is not speculation, as Stephen Wilde says, “we see it”.

    On the other hand, we must to consider (yes, I wrote MUST) the solar photon stream, which is the most powerful stream interacting with the Earth.

    The radiative intensity of the atmosphere of Earth can be calculated by the following formula:

    Iav = h 1/4π [(Aul/Bul) / (gl *Blu / gu*Bul) e^hν/kT^- 1

    The same algorithm is valid for the Sun; when you apply it on the Sun and the Earth, you’ll find there is no way of comparison. :)

  97. Hofstadter noted that the bulk of mathematics, whether ‘discovered’ or ‘invented’, fails to find practical application within its period of study and is lost, awaiting resurrection.

    The notion of progress in Science, herein assumed by most, is one of those unexamined assumptions we tend to take for granted. That the data are reliable if repeatable is another, appropriately challenged by the authors.

  98. “Stephen Wilde (08:43:09) :
    The oceans don’t store energy in the sense that they carry over energy from a run of strong cycles to compensate for a subsequent run of weak cycles. I accept that.
    I would have sworn on a stack of Bibles that all your postings gave the strong impression that you were advocating the strong-cycle compensation idea [like also promoted by tallbloke], and almost all my criticism of your ideas has been focused on that.”

    No I’ve never actually said that . I’m glad we have resolved the point because I was unaware that that was the problem.

    As my articles at climaterealists.com explain at rather tedious length it is not the quantity of energy involved that sets temperature but the speed of transmission through the system.

    Faster transmission = lower temperature overall and vice versa but the situation is complicated by the fact that the speed through air and water are both independently variable.

  99. Here’s a thing I’ve been toying with for a few days. You take the temperature record – hadcrut3v global. Use narrow band bandpass filters on it to find peak frequencies/phase/amplitude. Add the output of the filters ansd see what you get.
    By taking mid band frequency amplitude and phase one should then be able to reconstruct the temperature record from a series of sine (cosine) waves – this is shown in the second plot.

    1/Frequency bands from .5 years to 1000 years were searched but the longest period that produced output was 150years.

    The green line in these plots is the output of the 36 bands/cosines and as can be seen there is no trend. There is something else pushing the trend upwards.

    One bodge has been to increase the amplitude of all bands by 2.3 to give the same sort of variability in the temp record.

    A second bodge is to add a trend line that forces the synthesised temperature to conform to the hadcrut3v. As can be seen both the cosine and filter outputs follow the curve “rather well”. Of particular note is the lack of temperature increase followed by fall over the last few years and 2 peaks at 1877 and 1998 being modelled with a “good” correlation.

    There is a rapid warming between 1930 and 1945 which is not followed by the synthesised data.

    This plot shows the relative amplitudes and periods of the synthesised waves

    The synthesis of course means that individual periods can be removed to see the effect of tsi etc.

    This is a work in progress but unless someone shows it to be a pile of poo I think it is interesting!

  100. “Leif Svalgaard (09:17:22) :

    Leif Svalgaard (09:03:11) :
    in reply to Stephen Wilde (08:43:09) :
    The total change since the Maunder Minimum has been of the order of at most 0.1K, no doubt about it.
    Now, whether we can even measure that small change is another matter.”

    I suggest that it can be measured, or rather observed, from the consequences of that tiny change. Assuming that is that the size of the change was indeed of that order, not everyone agrees with you.

    The consequences being a shift in the balance between the solar and equatorial air masses with a consequent latitudinal shift in the air circulation systems.

    It happened, it cannot be denied and it was not a result of anything that humans did.

    The fact is that throughout the history of the world, for so long as we have had liquid water and air above it the response of the hydrological cycle really has been that fast and responsive and the sooner that is realised by the climate establishment the sooner everyone can get back to proper climatology.

    I could arrange to be a Consultant to a high powered climate think tank for a suitable fee.

  101. Stephen Wilde (09:32:22) :
    not the quantity of energy involved that sets temperature but the speed of transmission through the system.
    You lost me on that one. The system consisting of the Sun and the Earth involves a transmission of energy from Sun to Earth at the speed of light… Same thing for the steak broiling on a BBQ…

  102. This 1977 paper in the Nature journal effectively speculates that the Maunder Minimum could make a repeat performance exactly 357.4 years (2 X 178.7 years) later. Using 1649 to 1710 as a conservative estimate of the actual spotless interval of the Maunder Minimum rather than 1645-1715 yields a tentative prediction of a spotless solar minimum from 2007.4 to ~2067. Chance or more than chance? Only time will tell. There is still time to place your bets.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v266/n5601/abs/266434a0.html

    Nature 266, 434 – 435 (31 March 1977); doi:10.1038/266434a0
    Planetary tides during the Maunder Sunspot Minimum
    CHARLES M. SMYTHE & JOHN A. EDDY
    High Altitude Observatory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado 80303

    “CONTROL of the 11-yr and longer cycles of solar activity tides raised on the Sun resulting from the gravitational pulls of the planets has often been suggested. Rudolf Wolf and R. C. Carrington were among the early astronomers who pointed out this possibility in the middle nineteenth century1. The close coincidence of the sidereal period of gravitationally important Jupiter (11.87 yr) with the mean period of the observed annual sunspot means (11.3 yr) raises the possibility of such a relationship; the range of possible configurations of the other planets allows a wide realm of other tidal periods and effects. In daily sunspot numbers, a small but consistent periodicity at the sidereal period of the planet Mercury has been found2, and a possible 178.7-yr period in sunspots (about twice the Gleissberg cycle) has been linked with multi-planet tidal influences3. Wood and Wood4 have applied a dynamical theory which includes all planets but Mars to reinforce their belief in a more than chance relationship. We reconstruct here Sun-centred planetary conjunctions and tidal potentials for the AD 1645−1715 period of sunspot absence (the Maunder Minimum). These are found to be effectively indistinguishable from patterns of conjunctions and power spectra of tidal potential in the modern era of a well-established 11-yr sunspot cycle. This places a new and difficult constraint on any tidal theory of sunspot formation.”

  103. Stephen Wilde (09:57:59) :
    “Now, whether we can even measure that small change is another matter.”
    I suggest that it can be measured

    Of course we can measure 0.1K, but do we have measurements at the time of Maunder Minimum with that accuracy? I think not, so it has not been observed.

  104. Consider the following series of events:
    1989-1992.Sevensmark opens his clouds’ window over the pacific ocean. (low peak in GCR-The Chilling Stars p.77)
    1989 As predicted by Shirley, based on SIM:James Shirley:An unusual “solar event” will take place in the years 1990-1992″
    1989 March and September Big solar CME, Quebec black out.
    1997-1998 Big El Nino, pacific ocean begins cooling (heat emission).

  105. If we have five boxes and three cats are caged into the boxes, one cat per cage, we would have two available boxes for being occupied by one cat each. If we have other three cats into a bigger cage which can contain all of them, that is, the six cats, and we have the remainder three cats into the bigger cage and wish to distribute the remainder these three cats into the smaller boxes, we would be able of accomodating only two cats in the remainder two boxes because the other three boxes had bee occupied, each one with one cat, so we would have one cat that cannot be distributed into the boxes. That remainder cat will be retained into the huge box until one of the five smaller boxes is available for accomodating the last cat.

    Damn! Your friend came with other six cats!!! Well, the big box can contain them all, no problem. We have to wait Charles to come with more empty cages, or wait, perhaps hours, days, months, years or centuries, until the small cages will be available (empty) again, so we could distribute five of the six new cats into the empty small boxes, one cat per cage.

    It’s quite simple. :)

  106. Leif,

    It’s been too long since I watched you in action on the blogs. You still continue to amaze me. I won’t bore you with praise this time however. This time I want to focus on a particular aspect of the calibration. Scattered throughout the comments you will find people mentioning UHI and your response has been that Dr. S calibrated to the record. I think there might be something worth looking at here. I only say that because early on in Anthony’s project I went hunting for Microsite bias and UHI. I had very limited data to work with ( it was early in the project) so rather than just throw data at the meat grinder I thought about the problem. I was looking for the Microsite bias ( bad siting) a subspecies of UHI. What I had to work with:

    1. CRN ratings 1-5 ( but these only “measure” present conditions”)
    2. Population R,S,U ( three categories of population not current)
    3. Instrument type ( MMTS or min/max. Recall that MMTS are close to buildings because of the cabling issue)

    My working hypothesis was that if I wanted to find a microsite bias my best bet was to do a time slice through the data. I picked the date 1980.
    The plan was to look at sites after 1980. Why?

    1. I was pretty sure that we could get population data on every site for 1980 to the present.
    2. 1979 was the year that stevenson screens started to get painted with latex.
    3. MMTS started to replace min max in the mid 80s.

    The thought was that microsite bias, if it existed, would be most noticable in the post 1980 time period. hey, that’s a hypothesis. The results were promising, but the station count was still too small. Anyways, what I’m saying is that the contribution of UHI and microsite bias is not constant over time. My back of the envelop estimate for microsite bias ( don’t ask me to repeat the guesswork) was about .15C. That’s not a step function that starts in 1980, but ( speculating) a bias that increases over time. Relative to Dr. S paper he is calibrating to a temperature record from 1980 to the present. That record doesnt have a constant bias from UHI and microsite bias but an increasing one. The bias is not zero in 1980 and the bias in 2009 is greater than that in 1980. FWIW

  107. Paul Vaughan (08:38:39) :

    Re: anna v (06:55:49)

    anna v (21:28:10) “correlation is not causation”

    Clarification:
    This does not advance the discussion (whether emphasized, shouted, screamed, … or whispered).

    Can you expand on this statement?

    In my opinion “correlation is not causation” is one of the two basic scientific fundaments that climate science is mixed up about, including the contingent of planet cycle fans. The other is the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions for a proof of a scientific statement. This cannot be repeated often enough either in whispers or in shouts.

  108. This is chart recording one of the components of the geomagnetic field (values are changed by a fixed factor) at a specific location:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GeoMagField.gif
    as quoted by:
    The National Geophysical Data Center

    http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/

    Hence, I am tempted to state:
    Dr Svalgaard is wrong
    Nicola Scafetta is wrong
    Henrik Svensmark is wrong
    CO2 theorists are wrong
    Any scientist among you, if interested in cooperation my email can be found here:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/em.txt

  109. Stephen Wilde (09:32:22) :
    not the quantity of energy involved that sets temperature but the speed of transmission through the system.

    Leif Svalgaard:
    You lost me on that one. The system consisting of the Sun and the Earth involves a transmission of energy from Sun to Earth at the speed of light… Same thing for the steak broiling on a BBQ…

    No, the system being sun to oceans, oceans to air and air to space.

    Shortwave entering air and water gets slowed down and re radiated as longer wave radiation and the energy lost in the conversion from shortwave to longwave manifests itself as an increased temperature of both water and air.

    It’s like the flow of current through a resistor. Whilst passing through the resistor the electical current slows down temporarily and generates heat and then leaves the resistor at a lower voltage but at the same speed as it entered the resistor.

    Now in the case of the Earth which is a sphere floating in space ALL the departing energy is in the form of radiated longwave because the heat energy gets converted back to radiative energy before it can depart.

    That is why the energy value of the shortwave coming in and the longwave going out are pretty much the same except during periods of minor radiative imbalance.

    The thing is that the oceans and the air deal with that incoming shortwave very differently.

    Each has internal circulations and deals with the energy passing through on different timescales. The oceanic effect far outweighs the effect of the air and so drives the whole process with the effect of the air as a mere passenger. The air is always forced to emulate the oceans and the mechanism for that is the speed of the hydrological cycle mediated by the latitudinal positions of all the air circulation systems.

    As you will know any quantity of power can pass through something with nil resistance and no heat energy will be generated. On the other hand a small amount of energy passing through something with high resistance will generate much energy as heat.

    So it is with the Earth. The temperature of the Earth is set by the resistance to the solar energy flow provided by both air and water and by far the greater effect is from the water. The Hot Water Bottle Effect as I have named it.

    The greenhouse effect in the air is relatively insignificant and any human contribution truly miniscule and unmeasurable.

    Does that help ?

    As regards the other query that was a typo and should read ‘polar and equatorial air masses’.

  110. Paul Vaughan (08:38:39) :
    Clarification:
    This does not advance the discussion (whether emphasized, shouted, screamed, … or whispered).

    IIRC, none of your comments have ever advanced any discussion, so perhaps be a bit less holy. Anna v is quite correct.

  111. Stephen Wilde (09:57:59) :
    “Now, whether we can even measure that small change is another matter.”
    I suggest that it can be measured

    Leif Svalgaard
    Of course we can measure 0.1K, but do we have measurements at the time of Maunder Minimum with that accuracy? I think not, so it has not been observed

    We can see that if you are right about the quantity of energy variation then the observed real world and apparently proportionate climate response is that which we see from the Maunder Minimum to today.

    That is 0.1K over 400 years = one Maunder Minimum if you insist on an equation.

    If you cannot be that precise then some other quantity = one Maunder Minimum.

    Either way the cause and effect should not be denied on the basis of a subjective assumption that for some unspecified reason the variation in energy is ‘too small’.

    Unless you can come up with a new reason for the Maunder Minimum then that apparently tiny solar variation is the only card on the table and you should not deny it.

  112. Nasif Nahle (08:33:10) :

    Anna… The Sun is the source of energy for the Earth, thus, in this case, the Sun is the cause of warming; even when some people try to turn the Sun down, it is warming the Earth… yet.

    I do not think anybody is disputing that the source of energy is the sun.

    The source of energy for making my coffee is 220volts delivered to my house at a maximum current of 35amp: 7700 watts available . I use 1200 watts for a few minutes. It is necessary to have a source, but the magnitude of the source is not sufficient to determine what part of the energy available I am using.

    The same with the sun. It is necessary to have and know the energy from the sun, but that knowledge is not sufficient to tell us how much of that energy we, as earth, are using.

  113. Stephen Wilde (11:09:43) :
    That is 0.1K over 400 years = one Maunder Minimum if you insist on an equation.
    so 0.1K/400 = 0.00025K per year

    Unless you can come up with a new reason for the Maunder Minimum then that apparently tiny solar variation is the only card on the table and you should not deny it.

    It is not the only card. There are other cards. Here is another one: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2005JA011459.pdf:
    “[44] 44Ti activity in meteorites shows a decreasing trend during the past 235 years over which the data are available. This implies that GCR flux in the interplanetary space (1 to 3 AU) has decreased over the past 235 years by about 43%”

    Some people would consider that another card, others would say that the geomagnetic field has declined during that time and that that is yet another card, perhaps biospheric cards, or AGW [CO2 or land-use, burning of hardwood forests in the US, asheries], spectral changes [one of yours I think], volcanoes, planets manipulating LOD or shining their magnetic fields on us, and so on. Lots of cards, some [admittedly] weirder than others.

  114. “Stephen Wilde (11:00:14) :
    Does that help ?

    Leif Svalgaard
    No, as I don’t think the concept “resistance to energy” has any meaning”

    There you go misquoting again.

    I said “resistance to the solar energy flow” and compared it to the flow of current through an electrical resistor.

    Can you deny that solar shortwave coming in is converted to radiated longwave going out. What is that exactly if not a consequence of resistance in the air and water to the flow of solar energy ?

  115. “Leif Svalgaard (11:31:42) :

    Stephen Wilde (11:09:43) :
    That is 0.1K over 400 years = one Maunder Minimum if you insist on an equation.
    so 0.1K/400 = 0.00025K per year”

    Reply:
    That is the observed climate response whether you like it or not.
    Anyway it is not appropriate to divide it equally over the number of years. A good number of the years concerned were closer to 0.1K lower as compared to now. The progression of the solar variation over the past 400 years has been pretty uneven. There was a Dalton Minimum as well plus other variations en route.

    Perhaps 0.5K over 200 years = one Dalton Minimum.

    Stephen Wilde
    “Unless you can come up with a new reason for the Maunder Minimum then that apparently tiny solar variation is the only card on the table and you should not deny it.”

    Leif Svalgaard
    It is not the only card. There are other cards. Here is another one: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2005JA011459.pdf:
    “[44] 44Ti activity in meteorites shows a decreasing trend during the past 235 years over which the data are available. This implies that GCR flux in the interplanetary space (1 to 3 AU) has decreased over the past 235 years by about 43%”

    Some people would consider that another card, others would say that the geomagnetic field has declined during that time and that that is yet another card, perhaps biospheric cards, or AGW [CO2 or land-use, burning of hardwood forests in the US, asheries], spectral changes [one of yours I think], volcanoes, planets manipulating LOD or shining their magnetic fields on us, and so on. Lots of cards, some [admittedly] weirder than others”

    Reply:
    On a balance of probability I would go for solar variability of one sort or another. I’ve no more idea than you how it is done but real world observations prevail.

    As regards spectral changes it was not and is not ‘one of mine’. I merely started asking you for advice on that but your replies were so slippery that I was no better informed at the end of our exchange.

  116. anna v (11:11:39) :

    The same with the sun. It is necessary to have and know the energy from the sun, but that knowledge is not sufficient to tell us how much of that energy we, as earth, are using.

    Perhaps our knowledge is not sufficient, but the Sun positively is sufficient and more.

    Consider the Sun’s core temperature is 1.5 x 10^7 K and its surface temperature is 6800 K; then, compare it with the Earth, which core’s temperature is 7.3 x 10^3 K and its surface temperature is ~300 K.

    The solar photon stream, obviously, is stronger than the Earth’s photon stream; it’s enough on seeing Mercury’s conditions. Consequently, the available energy absorbed by the Earth-system would depend on the microstates available at the Earth-system. So, if the change of the solar output is small, the Earth would be excessively receptive if its available microstates are high in “number”.

    Evidently, it’s not hard to fill the Earth with solar energy. The problem is how much of the energy accepted by the Earth-system would be dispersed toward other surrounding systems’ microstates and if those microstates are available or not.

    Please, tell me if I have not been enough clear in my explanation.

  117. vukcevic (11:44:35)

    Thanks. I noticed that earlier and the remarkable similarity to the 20th Century temperature change profile.

    I’m open minded on the issue since my climate description does not need to rely on any particular cause for solar and oceanic variation. I have concentrated on trying to explain the consequences of those variations within the Earth system of ocean and air.

    The problem for Leif is that his expertise ceases at the point where solar energy reaches the Earth and most of the story starts at that point.

  118. Nasif.

    For completeness then microstates are relevant but for a general overview they are (in my humble opinion) too small to consider.

    The oceans literally swamp everything else.

  119. Leif Svalgaard (09:03:11) :

    Stephen Wilde (08:43:09) :
    The oceans don’t store energy in the sense that they carry over energy from a run of strong cycles to compensate for a subsequent run of weak cycles. I accept that.

    I would have sworn on a stack of Bibles that all your postings gave the strong impression that you were advocating the strong-cycle compensation idea [like also promoted by tallbloke], and almost all my criticism of your ideas has been focused on that.

    According to the best science available, ocean heat(energy) content has been mostly increasing since the fifties, maybe since the thirties. If that increased energy content isn’t due to the sun and/or it’s modulation of the CR flux, what is it due to? Can’t be co2, because the longwave radiation from the air can’t penetrate and heat the ocean.

    I don’t see anything in Dr Scafetta’s paper which excludes the possibility of a long term trend under the decadal cycle he observes, in fact it could well be that it is pretty much a given considering his observation of a small 0.5% shift in the ‘h’ value leading to a long term rising of temperature.

    My cumulative sunspot model produces very similar results to his, and I take that as an encouraging sign.

  120. tallbloke (12:19:34)

    I certainly support a gradual increase on ocean heat content whilst solar input is rising and possibly a short lag before ocean heat content comes down from a peak and starts falling in response to a falling solar input.

    However I tend to agree with Leif and Nicola about the lack of long term energy storage because of the cooling effects of positive ENSO and PDO phenomena which warm the air but try to reduce ocean energy content quite quickly during periods of high solar input.

    Nevertheless the oceans are a long term heat store but only as a historical product of past solar/oceanic interactions so there is a bit of a contradiction there.

    Certainly the solar input exceeded oceanic energy release right through cycles 18 to 23 which suits you and Nicola but Leif seems to have problems with that on the grounds that to him solar variation is so small.

    Personally I think Leif a bit blinkered on that. If there is a conflict between reality and assumptions then reality wins every time and I think Leif’s views on scale are adrift of what reality is telling us.

    I don’t think anyone’s ideas need to rely on a carry over of stored energy in the oceans from a run of strong solar cycles to a period of weak cycles anyway and I’m puzzled as to how Leif got that bee in his bonnet. Someone may have said it at one point but without realising that it is unnecessary.

    To square the circle I would suggest that over time the ocean energy content does follow the sun and rises and falls with it’s level of activity but the process is very irregular because of the overlapping ENSO and PDO phenomena which can both accelerate and decelerate accumulation or loss of oceanic energy on very differing timescales and both in opposition to and in support of solar trends at any given time. Additionally different oceans have different cycles on different time scales so that makes it messier still.

    In the end the best diagnostic indicator of net global warming of the oceans or net global cooling of the oceans is the average latitudinal position of the air circulation systems.

    Of course, when the oceans are cooling the air is warming and vice versa.

  121. Stephen Wilde (11:55:14) :
    Can you deny that solar shortwave coming in is converted to radiated longwave going out. What is that exactly if not a consequence of resistance in the air and water to the flow of solar energy ?
    Putting ‘solar’ in the sentence doesn’t change anything. The ‘resistance’ idea still doesn’t make sense..

    Stephen Wilde (12:07:59) :
    Perhaps 0.5K over 200 years = one Dalton Minimum.
    Perhaps you mean 0.05K…

    On a balance of probability I would go for solar variability of one sort or another. I’ve no more idea than you how it is done but real world observations prevail.
    And what would they be? What observations show us that the temperature now is no more than 0.1K [and that was an upper limit] higher than during the Maunder Minimum? I thought people were throwing numbers around at least ten or twenty times higher….

  122. tallbloke (12:19:34) :
    I don’t see anything in Dr Scafetta’s paper which excludes the possibility of a long term trend under the decadal cycle he observes
    long-term trend in what? Temperatures? TSI?
    He does not observe any long-term trend in TSI. He ‘assumes’ one. If anything, TSI since 1986 has gone down according to him. That there is a long-term trend in Temps is just good ole GW.

  123. Stephen Wilde (13:04:55) :
    To square the circle I would suggest that over time the ocean energy content does follow the sun and rises and falls with it’s level of activity
    I have indicated that we agree on this, and that that ‘swell’ is of the order of at most 0.1K, so is hardly observable, therefore the observed much larger variation is not due to the tiny changes in heat input that solar radiation gives us.

  124. Leif Svalgaard (13:11:08) :

    Stephen Wilde (11:55:14) :
    Can you deny that solar shortwave coming in is converted to radiated longwave going out. What is that exactly if not a consequence of resistance in the air and water to the flow of solar energy ?

    Leif Svalgaard
    Putting ’solar’ in the sentence doesn’t change anything. The ‘resistance’ idea still doesn’t make sense..

    Reply:
    I’ll leave others to judge the merits of your comment. Of course I could have said ‘former solar energy’ but any sensible reader would get the point.

    Stephen Wilde (12:07:59) :
    Perhaps 0.5K over 200 years = one Dalton Minimum.
    Leif Svalgaard
    Perhaps you mean 0.05K…

    Reply
    Yes. Quite right. Thank you.

    Stephen Wilde
    On a balance of probability I would go for solar variability of one sort or another. I’ve no more idea than you how it is done but real world observations prevail.

    Leif Svalgaard
    And what would they be? What observations show us that the temperature now is no more than 0.1K [and that was an upper limit] higher than during the Maunder Minimum? I thought people were throwing numbers around at least ten or twenty times higher…

    Reply:

    A change of 0.1K in solar energy received does not necessarily result in a climate response of 0.1K at every location on the planet. Or indeed anywhere on the planet and that begs the question as to whether your numbers are correct which not all solar scientists accept.

    The energy in the climate system is not evenly distributed. An expansion of the polar air masses at the expense of the equatorial air masses (as a result of a small average temperature change) can result in huge temperature changes for areas that move from one side of the mid latitude jets to another or which have the experience of winds switching from maritime sources to continental sources.

    There are many other variables involved in translating a change in solar energy input to real world climate consequences.

    That is the point at which your solar expertise breaks down :)

  125. Stephen Wilde (12:17:08) :

    Nasif.

    For completeness then microstates are relevant but for a general overview they are (in my humble opinion) too small to consider.

    The oceans literally swamp everything else.

    I agree. Microstates would better fit on topics related to hyperexcited photons.

    I was only explaining the subjacent quantum process which explains any delay in the response of Earth-system before small changes of energy radiated by the Sun.

    Your illustration of thermal systems using electrical systems processes is quite correct. You have introduced resistance; someone else suggested capacitance. The similitude arises immediately under pollster’s eye, so it would be very interesting, and completely on topic, to explain the issue with those systems.

  126. “Stephen Wilde (13:04:55) :
    To square the circle I would suggest that over time the ocean energy content does follow the sun and rises and falls with it’s level of activity

    Leif Svalgaard
    I have indicated that we agree on this, and that that ’swell’ is of the order of at most 0.1K, so is hardly observable, therefore the observed much larger variation is not due to the tiny changes in heat input that solar radiation gives us

    Reply:
    Firstly I really don’t accept the validity of all the adjustments you have been making to TSI and sunspot numbers since the Maunder Minimum but I don’t want to make an issue of that here. Suffice it to say that not all solar scientists are in full agreement with your approach.

    Anyway, whatever the ‘swell’ may have been the global climate has changed since 1600. As it had previously from the Roman Warm Period to the Dark Ages to the Mediaeval Maximun to the Little Ice Age to today with our recent Modern Maximum.

    The only source of energy to the system is the sun. It cannot come from nowhere. All those changes pre date the effects of significant human CO2 emissions.

    So, either the changes are caused by the sun or they are caused by some internal Earthly process or by a combination of both.

    I have selected a combination of sun and oceans. You are determined to exclude the sun at all costs. God knows why but take it from me that that is damaging your credibility and trying my patience.

    I am open to any suggestions that seem plausible but your solar stability ideas just don’t ring true.

    Now I’m happy to take you at your word and watch real world events to see what transpires. However we now have a less active sun, negative oceans and a cooling world.

    May I respectfully suggest that unless real world events reverse in the very near future your ideas will go the way of the dodo.

    Please forgive my directness. I am getting too old to waste time.

  127. Nogw (12:51:57) :
    vukcevic (12:22:47) : Could it be at 79.593889 N, 52.000556 W?
    What a precision of coordinates. Maybe, or on the other hand maybe not.
    There are number of geomagnetic stations on Greenland, not aware of one on that location.

  128. Stephen Wilde (13:51:36) :
    However we now have a less active sun, negative oceans and a cooling world.

    In my post above bill (09:51:01) : I showed a synthesised a temperature emulation using 36 fundamental frequencies – Did not really expect it to be possible but have a look at the result.

    This shows that the temperature record can be simulated for short term perturbations, BUT there is no frequency that simulates the last few decades of temperature rise. The last decade of static temperature with a fall for the last couple of years is well simulated and shows temperature rise continuing after 2010. the world is not cooling!

    By summing only the periods associated with TSI (9 to 14 years) the simulation shows an effect on temperature of 0.14C Peak which is inline with Leif’s 0.1C (average?)

  129. Perhaps we need to look at all the changes that happen during changes in solar activity, not just the increase and decrease in TSI. Other changes could also have an impact on earth climate, such as changes in proportion of the different wavelengths, changes in amount of energy recieved from solar ion stream, etc. An holistic approach is needed, rather than expecting an ‘X’ factor to pop out.

    Our climate is a very complex dynamic chotic system and even a what seems to be a small change can have a massive long-term impact should it cause a bifurcation from warm to cool, or vice-versa.

    We could also make better progress, I think, by changing the way we look at climate.

    Average global temperature is a meaningless concept when trying to understand earths energy budget, and until we fully understand how the energy budget changes over time we won’t know what is going on. It is also wrong to think of climate as a global entity, when in fact it is just the sum total of many interrelated local events which change over long periods of time.

  130. Leif Svalgaard (08:55:56) :

    RE: Ti44 in meteors

    Thank you for the Taricco et al paper.

    I managed to find the Usokin paper but haven’t had chance to digest it yet in depth – you may have seen it in the past but if not here’s the link:

    http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/44Ti_A&A_2006.pdf

    Also came across this (while searching) that looks like it came from a Heartland Conference on the role of solar activity and climate – again I guess you know most of it and are not short of reading material [:-)} but should you care to glance through it and add any comments idc on another thread I’ll pick them up.

    http://www.heartland.org/publications/NIPCC%20report/PDFs/Chapter%205.pdf

    My quick read on the Usokin paper drew me to this quote:

    “The extended 44Ti data set and the model computations
    also allow a verification of the model reconstruction of the
    solar open magnetic flux, which exhibits a significant secular
    variation, including nearly a doubling over the last century
    (Lockwood et al. 1999; Solanki et al. 2002).”

    Am I correct in reading this as a significant rise in solar activity over the last century?

    If not would you be so kind as explain in rather plain terms what the statement says I would as ever be grateful.

    Please note that thanks to your guidance I now believe our climate is an incredibly complex and chaotic system and that the Sun is just a part of it….

    Thanks for your contribution as always.

  131. bill (15:05:46) : SIMULATION:Latin: simulatus; 1.To give a false indication or appearance of; pretend;feign (to simulate an interest), 2.to have or to take on the external appearance of; look or act like…etc.

  132. Tenuc (15:57:44) :
    Our climate is a very complex dynamic chotic system
    “God does not play dice” (A.Einstein)
    After one knows something it happens to be so simple.
    It is very easy to conveniently label all what we don´t know as “chaotic”; that is like a MD saying:”that was caused by a virus”(btw, the next time somebody tells you that, ask him to show you a photo of it)

  133. Stephen Wilde (13:31:15) :
    A change of 0.1K in solar energy received does not necessarily result in a climate response of 0.1K at every location on the planet. Or indeed anywhere on the planet and that begs the question as to whether your numbers are correct which not all solar scientists accept.
    Nobody would be so silly to suggest a uniform response. I’m talking about average over the globe, as everybody else is when discussing this.

    Firstly I really don’t accept the validity of all the adjustments you have been making to TSI and sunspot numbers since the Maunder Minimum but I don’t want to make an issue of that here. Suffice it to say that not all solar scientists are in full agreement with your approach.
    There is growing acceptance that the variation is much smaller than previously thought. I have gone over this many times. Your acceptance is not needed in this process.

    As it had previously from the Roman Warm Period to the Dark Ages to the Mediaeval Maximun to the Little Ice Age to today with our recent Modern Maximum.
    The Sun has not varied the same way. See, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Holocene-TSI.pdf [Figure 3]. The typical deviations have been of the magnitude of 0.1% of TSI, commensurate with the change we had kicked around in our discussion.

    All those changes pre-date the effects of significant human CO2 emissions.
    And what has that to do with any reasonable discussion of solar influence? They also pre-date the spelling reform of Dutch orthography, equally irrelevant.

    I have selected a combination of sun and oceans.
    A priori selection is not science.

    You are determined to exclude the sun at all costs.
    No waiting for someone to show evidence of significant solar influence, rather than pre-selection of that as the cause.

    trying my patience.
    Not my convern.

    I am open to any suggestions that seem plausible but your solar stability ideas just don’t ring true.
    One has to go where the data leads, liking the ringing or not.

    I am getting too old to waste time.
    have you considered that your ideas might be just that?

    PaulHClark (17:02:48) :
    nearly a doubling over the last century
    (Lockwood et al. 1999; Solanki et al. 2002).”

    Not even Lockwood believes that any more. The ‘doubling’ was first suggested by me back in 1978 and elaborated on by Lockwood et al. in 1999 and modeled by Solanki in 2002. I and Lockwood have since realized that we were both wrong: http://www.leif.org/research/GC31B-0351-F2007.pdf
    and that there has been no such doubling. The flux is now what it was 108 years ago.

  134. Stephen Wilde (13:31:15) :
    A change of 0.1K in solar energy received does not necessarily result in a climate response of 0.1K at every location on the planet. Or indeed anywhere on the planet

    Nobody would be so silly to suggest a uniform response. It may be positive in one area and negative in an other. I’m talking about average over the globe, as everybody else is when discussing this, e.g. Scafetta himself.

  135. Leif Svalgaard (17:46:20) :

    Thanks for the explanation.

    My take is therefore that the sun remains a part of the complex and chaotic system that is earth’s climate but seems not to have been a key player over the last century (as we may currently understand it).

    Still an enormously complex and chaotic system though eh?

    Any guess, after the last 10 years of debate that you have witnessed, how much manmade CO2 contributions really make to changing our climate?

    It’s only for a bit of fun you know!

  136. PaulHClark (18:41:28) :
    Any guess, after the last 10 years of debate that you have witnessed, how much manmade CO2 contributions really make to changing our climate?

    As Stephen points out I have no clue.

  137. anna v (10:52:48) “This cannot be repeated often enough either in whispers or in shouts.”

    We disagree – and I don’t see that as a problem. I respect your perspective & your choice of emphasis.

  138. PaulHClark (18:41:28) :
    Any guess, after the last 10 years of debate that you have witnessed, how much manmade CO2 contributions really make to changing our climate?

    Leif Svalgaard (18:56:59) :
    “…I have no clue.”

    Now try getting that response (the only correct one, IMHO) from a ‘climate scientist’!

  139. I think too much time is spent on the supposed .01 TSI variable. Solar output is not just TSI. UV is known to vary by 16% over the solar cycle and we all know about the Svensmark theory, and no doubt there will be other unknown variables.

    I wonder if its possible to record the TSI just above sea level across the oceans and monitor what energy is entering the oceans over time.

    This method would certainly answer a lot of questions.

  140. Jimmy Haigh (19:19:23) :

    PaulHClark (18:41:28) :
    Any guess, after the last 10 years of debate that you have witnessed, how much manmade CO2 contributions really make to changing our climate?

    Leif Svalgaard (18:56:59) :
    “…I have no clue.”

    Now try getting that response (the only correct one, IMHO) from a ‘climate scientist’!

    Honest climate scientist would say “It’s negligible” because, from the total of 107 ppmV of atmospheric carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere in the last 24 years, human activities are responsible of a tiny 5%, which barely represents 5.35 ppmV. 5.35 ppmV would drive a change of temperature of 0.03 K.

    On the other hand, the natural contribution for the current concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 101.65 ppmV, which would drive a change of temperature of 0.45 K.

    However, if you ask a honest physicist, he would tell you that the contribution to the atmospheric carbon dioxide from human activities would drive the tropospheric temperature by some 0.02 K, while the natural contribution to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide would drive the tropospheric temperature up to 0.3 K.

    If you ask again a physicist about the change of temperature of the surface due to the human contribution to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, he would tell you… null. Why? Because the physicist knows that the carbon dioxide does not store more energy than the surface (land and oceans) and the subsurface materials because of its low Pp in the atmosphere and its poor thermal properties, and the energy always flows (or is transferred, dispersed or diffused) spontaneously from the systems in a high energy density state (like the Sun, for example) towards the systems in a low energy density state (like the carbon dioxide system, for example). ;)

    I hope my dissertation has answered your question.

  141. Geoff Sharp (19:50:14) :
    UV is known to vary by 16% over the solar cycle and we all know about the Svensmark theory, and no doubt there will be other unknown variables.
    Of the total TSI of 1361 W/m2, 105 W/m2 is in wavelengths below 400 nm, thus in the UV [and beyond]. If UV varied 16%, that would mean a variation of 105*0.16 = 17 W/m2. The total variation of TSI [and TSI includes the UV] is more than ten times less, so even assuming that ALL the variation of TSI was due to a variation of UV, UV could vary at most by 1.6% and in reality varies less than that, so UV is not ‘known to vary by 16% over the solar cycle’

  142. Nasif Nahle (12:10:40) :

    You are clear in your explanation, but you are demonstrating what I said about not knowing the difference between necessary and sufficient in scientific proofs.

    It is not sufficient to have the sun and its huge energy to be able to know the climate as we measure it. You yourself say:
    Evidently, it’s not hard to fill the Earth with solar energy. The problem is how much of the energy accepted by the Earth-system would be dispersed toward other surrounding systems’ microstates and if those microstates are available or not.

    talking of “how much of the energy accepted” “how it is dispersed” means that it is not sufficient to have the large impinging sun energy to solve the problem. It is necessary to know many other conditions too.

    That the sun outputs a lot of energy is a necessary but not sufficient condition to define climate.

  143. Nasif Nahle (19:57:38) :

    Nasif. Thanks for the reply. I think it shows that there is more than one answer to any question. Paul’s original question of Dr. Svalgaard was:

    “PaulHClark (18:41:28) :
    Any guess, after the last 10 years of debate that you have witnessed, how much manmade CO2 contributions really make to changing our climate?”

    My reply as a geologist, would also be that I have no idea. My opinionis that it isn’t very much at all – in fact, insignificant. As we say in Scotland: ‘we are awfy wee’ in the grand scheme of things.

  144. Nasif Nahle (19:57:38) :
    If you ask again a physicist about the change of temperature of the surface due to the human contribution to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, he would tell you… null.
    And he would be wrong.

  145. Leif Svalgaard (20:50:29) :

    Ok…thanks for the explanation, I must revisit my source suggesting the 16% variation (it did seem very credible at the time). But I still think the argument of collecting TSI at sea level would end a lot of this debate.

  146. anna v (21:42:46) :

    Nasif Nahle (12:10:40) :

    You are clear in your explanation, but you are demonstrating what I said about not knowing the difference between necessary and sufficient in scientific proofs.

    It is not sufficient to have the sun and its huge energy to be able to know the climate as we measure it. You yourself say:
    Evidently, it’s not hard to fill the Earth with solar energy. The problem is how much of the energy accepted by the Earth-system would be dispersed toward other surrounding systems’ microstates and if those microstates are available or not.

    talking of “how much of the energy accepted” “how it is dispersed” means that it is not sufficient to have the large impinging sun energy to solve the problem. It is necessary to know many other conditions too.

    That the sun outputs a lot of energy is a necessary but not sufficient condition to define climate.

    I think I have understood your argument; is it related to the mechanisms? Or to the trajectories?

  147. Leif Svalgaard (21:57:56) :

    Nasif Nahle (19:57:38) :
    If you ask again a physicist about the change of temperature of the surface due to the human contribution to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, he would tell you… null.
    And he would be wrong.

    Where and why?

  148. Nasif Nahle (22:26:41) :
    “And he would be wrong.”
    Where and why?

    It is not a ‘where’ or ‘why’, but a ‘how’

    maksimovich (22:26:42) :
    uv variance T. Dudok de Wit 2008
    You have to multiply a) and b) to get the amount of variation in what matters [W/m2]. It doesn’t matter that the variation is 200% of a 1/1,000,000 of a W/m2.

  149. Leif Svalgaard (22:47:45) :

    Nasif Nahle (22:26:41) :
    “And he would be wrong.”
    Where and why?
    It is not a ‘where’ or ‘why’, but a ‘how’

    Go on… Say “how”.

  150. Removal of solar variability from the climate equation leaves us with nothing to rely on to explain climate variability other than little green men.

    Something is wrong with the solar observations, solar equations or our understanding of how solar changes affect the Earth. Possibly all three.

    That is what the climate is telling us.

  151. Stephen Wilde (13:31:15) :
    A change of 0.1K in solar energy received does not necessarily result in a climate response of 0.1K at every location on the planet. Or indeed anywhere on the planet

    Leif Svalgaard
    Nobody would be so silly to suggest a uniform response. It may be positive in one area and negative in an other. I’m talking about average over the globe, as everybody else is when discussing this, e.g. Scafetta himself

    Reply:
    My point was that a small average change in global temperatrure can produce large variability in individual locations because of the shift of that location in relation to the positions of the nearby air circulation systems.

    Whether the temperature change which you calculate is sufficient to, say, move large areas of the continental parts of the northern hemisphere to the north of the mid latitude jets makes a huge difference especially given that most observations of climate in those times were in such regions.

    If your figures are right about the extremely limited (even negligible) solar variability then the climate is telling us that that is nevertheless sufficient to make a huge difference to the climate conditions over the northern land masses and that would have a sizeable ‘knock on’ effect on the rest of the globe.

    So. one could add the globally unbalanced conductive behaviour of the northern land masses to a variable energy supply to the air from the oceans in trying to explain the sheer size of observed climate variability in the face of a negligible solar forcing. That still seems unlikely so that something is probably still not properly understood about solar influences on climate.

    Alternatively there are little green men moving the Earth’s air circulation systems around :)

    When it is clear that something is not correctly understood then judgement has to come into play to decide on a way forward. Sticking to existing assumptions is merely a blind mantra in such a situation. Not that I am really suggesting those little green men but the solar stability idea is moving in that direction.

    Once one has excluded all other possibilities then the obvious one must be the truth however unlikely, so in the end the sun it is as the final arbiter as regards Earth’s climate.

    It’s just an issue of how.

  152. Leif Svalgaard (22:47:45)

    :”maksimovich (22:26:42) :
    uv variance T. Dudok de Wit 2008
    You have to multiply a) and b) to get the amount of variation in what matters [W/m2]. It doesn’t matter that the variation is 200% of a 1/1,000,000 of a W/m2.”

    Irrelevant nonsense.UV variation and the instability, induced in the reactive diffusion atmospheric chemistry is frequency ” induced”,some chemical reactions are provoked only by light of frequency higher than a certain threshold; light of frequency lower than the threshold, no matter how intense, does not initiate the reaction.

    This is well understood eg A. N. Gruzdev et al.2009: Effect of solar rotational variation on the atmosphere.

    “Experiments with different forcing amplitudes have shown
    that the responses of temperature and of the concentrations of
    chemical species to 27-day forcing are non-linear. Their sensitivities
    (not amplitudes) generally decrease when the forcing
    increases. This conclusion is important to understand
    the possible differences of observational studies obtained at
    times of different forcing amplitudes.”

    However on the other hand exact observations (instrumental) in the important “precurser” frequencies are at best minimalist.

  153. How, Stephen? Why two out of three of the solar cycle cosmic ray peaks cool the earth in one phase of the PDO and two out of three of the solar cycle cosmic ray peaks in the next phase of the PDO warm the earth. I’ll leave the more quantitative explications of the ‘how’ to you and Leif.
    ============================================

  154. Leif Svalgaard (17:46:20) :

    PaulHClark (17:02:48) :
    nearly a doubling (of the solar open magnetic flux) over the last century
    (Lockwood et al. 1999; Solanki et al. 2002).”
    Not even Lockwood believes that any more. The ‘doubling’ was first suggested by me back in 1978 and elaborated on by Lockwood et al. in 1999 and modeled by Solanki in 2002. I and Lockwood have since realized that we were both wrong: http://www.leif.org/research/GC31B-0351-F2007.pdf
    and that there has been no such doubling. The flux is now what it was 108 years ago.

    An interesting non-sequiteur. That the flux is now what it was 108 years ago tells us very little about what it has been doing in between times eh Leif?

    I would suggest that people who want to know more about how variable the sun really is have a look at the 2007 paper by Rouillard and Lockwood, after the corrections to the aa index detwermined by Leif were applied. It seems to have changed things from a ‘doubling’ to around a 40% increase (by eyeball).

    http://www.eiscat.rl.ac.uk/Members/mike/publications/pdfs/2007/2006JA012130.pdf/

    Right, back to work.

  155. Leif Svalgaard (22:47:45)
    uv variance T. Dudok de Wit 2008
    You have to multiply a) and b) to get the amount of variation in what matters [W/m2]. It doesn’t matter that the variation is 200% of a 1/1,000,000 of a W/m2.”

    maksimovich (22:26:42) :
    Irrelevant nonsense.

    Reply:
    Yes, a total red-herring from Leif. It’s how earth systems respond to different wavelengths that is important when examining the impact of cyclical changes in UV, and perhaps other high energy radiation such a x-rays.

  156. kim (23:57:49)

    I’d love to know the answer.

    Leif is far better qualified than me on the solar quantities side of things but I think I have a better grip on the mechanics of what happens after the solar energy reaches the Earth.

    Note that my climate description does not depend on any particular level of solar variability as long as it is not zero. That is why Leif’s apparent enthusiasm to get it as near to zero as possible is rather unsettling to me. His efforts are an unnecessary distraction away from the mechanics of the overall global system that I am describing.

    All I need is a radiative imbalance between solar energy penetrating the oceans and the oceans then releasing that energy to the air.

    As long as there is such an imbalance on any scale then over time the system will behave in the way I have described it. I don’t thoink it is seriously disputed that such an imbalance is always present to some extent hence all the talk about ocean energy/heat content which does indeed vary.

    I should leave Leif to his own devices because unless he can get solar variability down to zero then I should have no concerns.

    As long as there is any solar variability however small (and he does admit some) then my ideas work and the problem of scaling from small solar variability to apparently large climate responses just requires extensions and enhancements of my climate description. I am happy to leave the oceanic side of the system to others. I am satisfied that I have got the ocean to air to space portion correct and in accordance with both basic physics and observations.

    I am also sure that many other ideas such as those of Svensmark and others including possibly yourself, tallbloke Erl Happ and lots more can be slotted in but probably as second order modulating factors rather than primary drivers.

    As far as the air is concerned the oceans are in absolute control and any realistic climate description has to be built on that.

    Any challenge to my description can only be successful if it can be shown that the oceans are not in control once the solar energy arrives in the Earth’s climate syatem.

  157. “The Sun has not varied the same way. See, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Holocene-TSI.pdf [Figure 3]. The typical deviations have been of the magnitude of 0.1% of TSI, commensurate with the change we had kicked around in our discussion.”

    Well I’ve had a look at that Figure 3 and there, clear to all, are oscillations corresponding approximately with the Roman Warm Period, The Dark Ages, The Mediaeval Warm Period, The Little Ice Age and The Modern Maximum.

  158. Stephen Wilde (23:08:27) :
    Removal of solar variability from the climate equation leaves us with nothing to rely on to explain climate variability other than little green men.
    Something is wrong with the solar observations, solar equations or our understanding of how solar changes affect the Earth. Possibly all three.

    Why ignore all the other factors – GHGs (reduce radiation away), Albedo (reflect radiation away), Dust (check out the dust levels during ice ages – it is usually elevated), O3 (absorbs uv), milankovich cycles, etc

    Every year the earth temperature cycles – in UK perhaps an average of -2 to +18C mainly due to the angle presented to the sun. The top few metres of sea also change in temperature (people swim in the UK sea during summer but less do in winter). Changes in solar radiation have a time lag to temperature of less than 1 year. Changes in temperature due to solar irradiation differences (11 year cycle) will be seen in the temperature record. A simple FFT of single station or global temperature shows that these cycles are only present in the background noise – using narrow band bandpass filters as I showed above, shows that the temperature fluctuation due to TSI is less than 0.15C peak-peak.

    There is no significant 11 22 18.6 year cycles present in the temperature record.
    The only sources of energy is the sun (ignoring the very small core heating). The only loss of energy is via radiation (however, growing things will store energy indefinitely). The sea will only “store” energy for short periods
    The short term fluctuations in the sun output have little measured effect. That only leaves changing the radiation out or locking/releasing the energy in organic stuff for long term (greater than 1000years) variation

  159. bill (01:57:30)

    Sorry bill.

    I should have said ‘long term variability’ since ultimately it is the long term variability of the sun which is the only source of long term variability in oceanic energy content.

    All the other variables act on shorter time scales and involve wavelengths that do not penetrate back into the ocean surface unless they affect the amount of sunlight reaching the surface so that it’s back to the sun again.

  160. bill:
    “There are no significant 11 22 18.6 year cycles present in the temperature record”.

    Quite right, they are all swamped by the superimposed oceanic phase changes at about 30 year intervals.

    That is the best evidence available for the oceans as drivers of events in the air and for events in the air being unable to drive the oceans.

    Nothing else seems to be able to alter those phase shifts either so we need to be looking at internal oceanic variability on such time scales. The extent to which the solar cycles might be involved will be interesting to me and Leif in particular.

    I’m calling them Wildean Ocean Cycles until there is a better term. For certain technical reasons I have been told that the term PDO is not suitable because the PDO is apparently just a statistical artifact derived from ENSO data.

  161. Stephen 00:40:06

    Thanks for that. We still have the thorny problem of how any magnifying mechanism for a solar phenomenon is prevented from a runaway effect on climate. This is the bucket of cold water Leif keeps pitching upon hot speculation. I think that climate regulation is complex enough to have so many varying feedbacks as to be self-centering, the water cycle being foremost among them, but I’m just speculating, at which Leif rightfully sneers. By the way, don’t underestimate Leif’s knowledge of the climate systems; he’s been thinking about them for a long while, and is well known for putting his finger precisely on the main flaw in a lot of theories.

    I think I’ve never heard so loud
    The quiet message in a cloud.
    ====================

  162. Wilde (02:58:50) :
    Quite right, they are all swamped by the superimposed oceanic phase changes at about 30 year intervals

    But:
    1. there are no ~30 year cycles either
    2. ocean cycles simply move the heat around (unless I misunderstand?) They do not add to the overall energy content of the system. so this does not explain the temperature rise over the last 100years.
    3. solar cycles are 11 and 22 years – sea temperatures to a few 10s of metres are heated and cooled summer to winter (a much shorter timescale). What property of water stores heat for 30 years at greater depths. For the “solar” radiation to reach these greater depths it will have heated the interveining water (to a higer temp) as it gets progressively absorbed.

    Most of the info on inversion layers suggested that these are transient phenomena and very localised.

    As I have said before, it’s all about radiation budget – more solar in or less radiation out is all that will give a significant long term heating. (perhaps one should also consider radiation trapped in the biomass or released by fossil fuel use?)

    Moving trapped “heat” from one place to another in the ocean will not produce 100years of warming!

  163. Leif Svalgaard (22:10:50) :

    Geoff Sharp (21:58:06) :
    Ok…thanks for the explanation, I must revisit my source suggesting the 16% variation (it did seem very credible at the time).
    But I still think the argument of collecting TSI at sea level would end a lot of this debate.
    ————–
    TSI has been measured like that for more than a century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Greeley_Abbot

    Come on Leif that link is a joke….the project has never been undertaken. Also the amount of your UV variance in the TSI is also of question. I will come back shortly with some data. Stay tuned…..

  164. “bill:
    But:
    1. there are no ~30 year cycles either”

    What makes you think that ?
    See here:

    http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

    As for a long term match between solar trends over centuries and the main climate trends from the Roman Warm Period to date see here:

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/Holocene-TSI.pdf

    where all the main changes in global temperature trend fit the estimated solar activity levels.

    Now we all know that the figures don’t make sense but that doesn’t disprove reality. There is something wrong with the numbers and/or our understanding of the mechanisms.

    The oceans do just move heat around but in doing so they also decrease and accelerate energy release to the air for 30 years at a time and that variation is superimposed on a background which seems to be solar induced somehow.

  165. “By the way, don’t underestimate Leif’s knowledge of the climate systems; he’s been thinking about them for a long while, and is well known for putting his finger precisely on the main flaw in a lot of theories.”

    Point taken, but from time to time it’s very tempting to respond with like for like.

  166. Tenuc (00:36:50) :
    Yes, a total red-herring from Leif. It’s how earth systems respond to different wavelengths that is important
    I was not commenting on the effect, only on the number, 16%.

    Geoff Sharp (06:13:19) :
    TSI has been measured like that for more than a century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Greeley_Abbot
    Come on Leif that link is a joke….the project has never been undertaken.

    The historical development and present status of solar radiation measuring instruments
    Yellott, J. I.
    In: Sun II; Proceedings of the Silver Jubilee Congress, Atlanta, Ga., May 28-June 1, 1979. Volume 3. (A80-33401 13-44) Elmsford, N.Y., Pergamon Press, Inc., 1979, p. 2169-2173.
    Abstract
    The measurement of solar radiation intensity began in 1838 when Pouillet introduced an instrument for measuring the sun’s direct beam radiation and the name pyrheliometer. Electrical methods of radiation measurement were adopted in 1896 by Angstrom who introduced his comparison-type pyrheliometer. Abbot began his work in solar radiometry in 1905 with his silver disk and water-flow pyrheliometers which were used to establish the Smithsonian radiation scales in use until 1956. Between the two World Wars, electrical instruments were introduced for the continuous measurement of direct, diffuse and total irradiance, and integrators gave values of hourly and daily irradiation. With the space age, improved absolute radiometers and new radiometric standard to replace IPS 1056 were introduced.

    tallbloke (02:12:52) :
    Correction, the paper says 70% increase in the solar open magnetic flux over the last century, not 40%.

    One little word ‘over’ is the important one. The solar magnetic field ‘over’ the 20th Century has varied in a cyclic manner with a maximum in the middle of the century. Lockwood computed his ‘centennial’ increase as the change from 1903 to 1956. It has now come down to where it started. So, no change ‘over’ the century. In addition, his values around 1900 are in error [as Rouillard has admitted] and in his latest paper ["The Rise and Fall of the Open Solar Flux (ApJ 2009)] he omits his erroneous data before 1905.

  167. “kim (05:14:24) :

    Stephen 00:40:06

    Thanks for that. We still have the thorny problem of how any magnifying mechanism for a solar phenomenon is prevented from a runaway effect on climate. This is the bucket of cold water Leif keeps pitching upon hot speculation. I think that climate regulation is complex enough to have so many varying feedbacks as to be self-centering, the water cycle being foremost among them, but I’m just speculating, at which Leif rightfully sneers”

    It’s a good point to suggest that any mechanism that can magnify the tiny solar variability enough to produce the observed climate response should be so powerful as to cause a runaway effect.

    However I’m not sure that it does indeed need to be magnified in the sense of being made larger or rather amplified.

    My point about sensitivity comes back here. A tiny solar change can apparently produce what appears to us to be a large climate response but so what ?

    All one needs to start with is a radiative imbalance into and out of the oceans then add time then add the oceanic ability to sometimes accelerate and sometimes decelerate the rate of energy release to the air.

    That seems to be enough to shift the size and positions of the air circulation systems but then that process itself changes the rate of energy transfer from surface to space and prevents a runaway situation.

    You might call my comments speculation but I don’t think they are. They are logical interpretations of what we actually see.

    The oceans do vary the rate of energy release to the air on 30 year timescales.I’ve no idea why.

    The latitudinal positions of the air circulation systems do change in response (always following, never leading the oceans).The reason for that is clear in that faster energy release from the oceans increases the size of the equatorial air masses.

    The speed of the hydrological cycle does change with the shifts in the air circulation systems. That is also clear.

    The main global temperature trends do follow trends in solar activity back to at least the Roman Warm Period. Even Leif’s charts show that.

    Now all that is data and a logical interpretation of that data is not
    mere speculation.

    One cannot ignore all that data just because what we know of the numbers involved fails to match that data.

    The numbers are either wrong or irrelevant, possibly both.

  168. Stephen Wilde (07:07:16) :
    As for a long term match between solar trends over centuries and the main climate trends from the Roman Warm Period to date see here:

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/Holocene-TSI.pdf

    where all the main changes in global temperature trend fit the estimated solar activity levels.

    If you compare the actual data rather than eyeballing/memory you get this: http://www.leif.org/research/2000%20Year%20Temp%20and%20TSI.png and that does not strike me as convincing or even suggestive.

  169. Stephen Wilde (08:08:24) :
    The main global temperature trends do follow trends in solar activity back to at least the Roman Warm Period. Even Leif’s charts show that.

    Or even closer geomagnetic activity. There is, however remote, possibility they are part and parcel of the same controlling mechanism.
    Here is my updated temp-geomag chart

  170. Stephen Wilde (08:08:24) :
    The main global temperature trends do follow trends in solar activity back to at least the Roman Warm Period. Even Leif’s charts show that.
    I don’t think so: http://www.leif.org/research/2000%20Year%20Temp%20and%20TSI.png
    Temps on top, TSI on bottom. And in any case, the TSI variation is within +/- 1 W/m2 or +/- 0.07%, which over long time scales [as shown here] would correspond to +/- 0.05K, which is below what we can detect in the record.
    Hypersensitivity as was pointed out would lead to runaways. “Tipping points” and all that. Since we have not had those [or maybe we have: snowball Earths etc if you believe in those] hypersensitivity is not likely.

  171. Leif Svalgaard (23:04:12) :

    Nasif Nahle (22:58:53) :
    Go on… Say “how”.
    It was your how that was wrong.

    Again, and for the last time, go on… Say “how”.

  172. Leif Svalgaard (09:03:51) :
    “Based on a cherry picked [undisclosed] location. Pick another one [POT-SED-NGK] and you get the opposite variation: http://www.leif.org/research/Component.png

    You could not be more wrong Sir, as a scientist of repute, you should know what to look for. Not my fault you looked at geomag data for 40 + years and failed to spot it.
    If you looked at right PLACES you would have found this!

    You can check provenance of my data by getting in touch with your mates at NOAA (NGDC), with their powerful computers, they could check it in no time at all. If they whish to save time and effort, someone could contact me. In time, I will give a full description of the process, until then Sir, patience is advisable, or maybe look into some dubious aspects of the proposed SSN revision.
    Do not waste time with TSI and SSN counts, get your self a magnetometer ! If you whish to counter AGW, ask NOAA to verify data with me, and then email chart to your member of parliament, to your senator or congressman, or whoever you voted to represent your interests!

  173. “If you compare the actual data rather than eyeballing/memory you get this: http://www.leif.org/research/2000%20Year%20Temp%20and%20TSI.png and that does not strike me as convincing or even suggestive”

    The MWP, LIA and Modern Maximum look suggestive but not the pre 1000 AD period on those charts.

    Personally I’d go for the solar activity level as being a more accurate reflection of pre 1000 temperatures due to the problems with global proxies for temperature that far back.

    But it’s a judgement call and careful observations during the current lull in solar activity should resolve the issue in due course.

  174. Leif Svalgaard (08:17:33) : Pleased you pointed that out as I could see no similarity!
    This plot derived from the sum of 36 sines and a trend is a much better fit!

    Stephen Wilde you say:
    All one needs to start with is a radiative imbalance into and out of the oceans then add time then add the oceanic ability to sometimes accelerate and sometimes decelerate the rate of energy release to the air.

    Care to hazard a guess as to what property of the ocean could hold back/control energy for 30 years?

    http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ does not show 30 year cycles it shows a random? 5 to 20 year oscillation.

  175. vukcevic (09:37:38) :
    In time, I will give a full description of the process, until then Sir, patience is advisable
    Until you give that now, you have no credibility. In the caption to the Figure you stated: “This is chart recording one of the components of the geomagnetic field (values are changed by a fixed factor) at a specific location”

    Which component and which location? I picked another location at random and got the opposite result. And the value at one ‘specific’ location is hardly important on a global scale.

    Stephen Wilde (09:48:07) :
    Personally I’d go for the solar activity level as being a more accurate reflection of pre 1000 temperatures due to the problems with global proxies for temperature that far back.
    They are both uncertain, but Leif’s Law says that you would pick the one that fits your ideas the best [to wit your comment].
    I have two points:
    1) the ‘reality’ of the correlation is shaky [not even there IMHO]
    2) the variation is in any case tiny, and the expected response on time scales of centuries is of the order of 0.05K as I have been saying all along.

  176. steven mosher (10:44:13) :
    Relative to Dr. S paper he is calibrating to a temperature record from 1980 to the present. That record doesnt have a constant bias from UHI and microsite bias but an increasing one. The bias is not zero in 1980 and the bias in 2009 is greater than that in 1980.
    Scafetta ‘calibrates’ a disputed TSI record against a disputed Temp record and so his conclusion is questionable, at best.

  177. Leif Svalgaard (10:21:24) :

    “Until you give that now, you have no credibility. In the caption to the Figure you stated: “This is chart recording one of the components of the geomagnetic field (values are changed by a fixed factor) at a specific location”
    Which component and which location? I picked another location at random and got the opposite result. And the value at one ’specific’ location is hardly important on a global scale. ”

    Why should I publicly disclose to you details before I am ready ?
    Forward me an email of a reliable scientist working at NOAA (NGDC), who is willing in confidence, to check data and than confirm it or otherwise. You got my email address (or use SC24 web contact). If you are so keen to question veracity, would you publicly accept that there is a serious causation, if data is of sufficient volume and is verified as accurate.
    I suspect, even than you’ll probably moan about coincidence, energy required, mechanism, numerology or something else.
    Come on, the ball is in your corner !

  178. Leif Svalgaard (10:36:55) :

    Nasif Nahle (09:12:54) :
    Again, and for the last time, go on… Say “how”.
    You can find a lot of material on this at

    http://www.ipcc.ch/

    supported by 30,000 scientists, no less.
    There is even a Spanish version of the salient points.

    30000 people (including non scientists) are pronouncing against the second law of thermodynamics? Wow! No matter, nature and all physicists say those 30000 people are wrong and the second law of TD is working in the whole known Universe.

    But… You have not described the “how” is it that I’m wrong.

  179. “Stephen Wilde (09:48:07) :
    Personally I’d go for the solar activity level as being a more accurate reflection of pre 1000 temperatures due to the problems with global proxies for temperature that far back.”

    “Leif Svalgaard:
    They are both uncertain, but Leif’s Law says that you would pick the one that fits your ideas the best [to wit your comment].
    I have two points:
    1) the ‘reality’ of the correlation is shaky [not even there IMHO]
    2) the variation is in any case tiny, and the expected response on time scales of centuries is of the order of 0.05K as I have been saying all along.”

    That’s fair enough but of course Leif’s Law is a two edged sword so that leaves us all square if both are uncertain.

    It boils down to a disbelief on your part that a solar variation so small can provide the observed climate response. The trouble is that you then combine that with an assertion that anything which served to adequately magnify the solar input would have to be so powerful that the whole system would have been destabilised already presumably giving us a very different world. You create a logical impossibility – a Catch 22. The sun cannot do it and there is nothing that can enable the sun to do it. Very helpful.

    Then a disbelief on my part that it cannot provide the observed climate response when solar energy is the only available energy source for the climate system (if one excludes geothermal).

    For the solar variations not to be at root of it puts us in breach of the Laws of Thermodynamics and firmly in the world of little green men.

    For how long do you think that the world can generate it’s own spontaneous variations in climate and energy flow – without the sun’s involvement ?

    Is the Earth’s climate system a perpetual motion machine ?

  180. Stephen Wilde (12:43:22) :
    Is the Earth’s climate system a perpetual motion machine ?
    This a belief system, that round thing above it is just a mirage.
    it is CO2 that shines above!

  181. vukcevic (11:16:25) :
    Why should I publicly disclose to you details before I am ready ?
    If you are not ready, then keep it to yourself until you are.
    Come on, the ball is in your corner !
    I have already shown that you cherry picked one location and shown you another one with the opposite ‘signal’

    Nasif Nahle (11:39:14) :
    But… You have not described the “how” is it that I’m wrong.
    Don’t need to, it has been hashed and rehashed enough elsewhere. Seek and ye shall find.

    Stephen Wilde (12:43:22) :
    It boils down to a disbelief on your part that a solar variation so small can provide the observed climate response.
    As I have shown http://www.leif.org/research/2000%20Year%20Temp%20and%20TSI.png there is no clear signal, so no ‘observed’ response, so what is there to have disbelief about?
    And from the inferred TSI variation of +/- 1 W/m2, the expected response from the laws of physics is 0.05 K which might very well [actually MUST] be there but is visible above the unrelated much larger variations.

    You can counter that all the data is so uncertain that nothing can be discerned, but then it is also hard to make the claims you do.

  182. Yes, I think the Earth’s climate system is very close to a perpetual motion machine but very complex and chaotic within latitude and longitude areas. However, it can and does breathe out some of the energy the Sun provides (meaning the machine is somewhat leaky) and sends it out to space. But since the Sun is a rather steady source and the leak is rather small, the climate system hardly notices the topping off of the tank.

  183. Stephen Wilde (12:43:22) :

    For the solar variations not to be at root of it puts us in breach of the Laws of Thermodynamics and firmly in the world of little green men.

    I don’t suppose you’d like to explain why the Laws of Thermodynamics trump little green men in this particular case?

    For how long do you think that the world can generate it’s own spontaneous variations in climate and energy flow – without the sun’s involvement ?
    Is the Earth’s climate system a perpetual motion machine

    Nobody is suggesting that the Sun isn’t shining on the earth. So long as the sun keeps supplying energy to the earth to offset dissipation, there’s no perpetual motion machine.

    Meanwhile, I can keep exciting a double pendulum with steady sinusoidal forcing and, given a certain amount of energy to play with, I can produce lots of “spontaneous” variations.

  184. Leif Svalgaard:
    “which might very well [actually MUST] be there but is NOT visible above the unrelated much larger variations.”

    Reply:

    Another logical bind.

    You accept that it MUST be there and that it is NOT visible.

    (I agree but consider that it is peeking through and just needs seperating out and, crucially, I have suggested a means whereby the much larger variations are NOT unrelated).

    The trouble is that you then combine that with an assertion that anything which served to adequately magnify the solar input would have to be so powerful that the whole system would have been destabilised already presumably giving us a very different world. You create a logical impossibility – a Catch 22. The sun cannot do it and there is nothing that can enable the sun to do it. Very helpful

    You close off ALL alternative possibilities and contribute nothing of your own.

    And the assertion that the much larger variations are NOT related puts us in the arena with little green men again.

    How could they NOT be related when the only energy in the system was originally solar ?

    Madness, in my humble opinion.

  185. Leif Svalgaard (10:24:25) :

    I probably wasn’t clear. having followed your writings ( as best I can ) I would say that the debate over TSI is swinging your way, towards less variability in TSI. Unlike others I don’t think it is your task to explain the variability of the climate. You are following the data where it leads. If that results in people struggling to explain the “observed” variability with accuracy, that’s their problem. I liked Dr. S’s approach, but am merely pointing out the other half of what you point out. He calibrated against a suspect record AND calibrated over a period in which there is, arguably, a trend bias ( al beit small). Personally, I’d like to see his approach done with your model of TSI ( to test the robustness of the method to TSI recon) and would like to see his approach done with other temp records ( RSS or UAH) for example, again to show the sensitivity to the selection of data sources.

    PS. you have the patience of Job.

  186. Leif Svalgaard (13:52:14) :

    “Seek and ye shall find.
    Anticipating that you could not, I’ve done your homework:

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm#molecule

    Note that the reality of CO2 being a greenhouse gas [coming from calculations based on fundamental physics] is different from the question whether to rise we see is due to CO2. Don’t let disbelief in the latter cloud your understanding of the former.

    Well, time to know if you have got at least a bit of my lessons on thermal science. Do you know what’s the Pp of the CO2 in the atmosphere? What its absorptivity-emissivity is?

    If you answer these two easy questions, you’ll see that your homework is wrong and why you got an “F” in TD.

  187. I think I can take another step.

    I said above that my climate description does not rely on any particular level of solar variability as long as it is not zero. It matters not whether the observed solar change over 400 years is 0.05K or 0.005K. In fact it might work even at zero but not as dramatically.

    If ANY variability is present in the flow of energy from the sun it will be compounded when it interacts with the inevitable variability in a fluid surrounding the bulk of a planet and the more of that fluid the better.

    Once an imbalance exists (and of course it always does) then oscillations in the flow of energy will be set up within the receiving fluid.

    The issue then is as to how large those oscillations can get. I propose that the size of the oscillations is not significantly dependent on the variability of the sun. Rather it is primarily dictated by the properties of the air and the oceans or more particularly by the circulation systems in each.

    One could liken it to the resonance qualities of a tuning fork.

    So despite the solar variations of only 0.05K (or whatever it might be) the system adopts whatever scale of oscillation it’s internal characteristics are tuned to produce and we see in the real world just how much larger than the solar variation it can become.

    Then there is the tipping point issue which seems to concern you if the effects that magnify the solar variations are to be powerful enough to do their work.

    Well, just look at what the air can do. The hydrological cycle is almost infinitely variable in speed and efficiency depending on the latitudinal shifts available to the air circulation systems and the size and speed of upward convection wherever it occurs.

    The ocean circulations magnify the solar variability creating oscillations in the process and the air circulations suppress those oscillations to maintain global stability.

    Just as I say in one of my articles the oceans create discontinuities in the flow of energy through the system and the air has to neutralise those discontinuities in order to both maintain sea surface and surface air temperature equilibrium AND AT THE SAME TIME ensure that the energy value of radiated longwave to space is the same over time as the energy value of solar radiation reaching the system.

    So, we have much larger variations which ARE related to some degree (but not necessarily a lot) to the solar variations.

    You helped me a lot by your incorrect assertion that the much larger variations were unrelated to the solar variations. Once I started to consider how they must be related then another brick fell into place.

    Now I could be wrong, but……..

  188. Stephen Wilde (15:03:51) :
    You accept that it MUST be there and that it is NOT visible.
    (I agree but consider that it is peeking through and just needs seperating out and, crucially, I have suggested a means whereby the much larger variations are NOT unrelated).

    I contend that the variations shown here http://www.leif.org/research/2000%20Year%20Temp%20and%20TSI.png are not correlated to an extend that there is anything to ferret out. So, all the rest of your argument doesn’t matter. If there is no observed relationship, then there is nothing to explain. It is incumbent on the one claiming a correlation to show [rather than ad nauseam just state so] that the correlation is significant, and IMHO it is not there. So, the small variation that MUST be there does not rise above the background variability.

    Nasif Nahle (15:45:17) :
    What its absorptivity-emissivity is?
    This is a standard technique of yours, but it doesn’t work with me. Since you, obviously, have not carefully studied the documents I linked to, I’ll give you [last time] the skinny here:
    From energy balance the absorbed solar radiation [and yes it is absorbed] determines the effective blackbody radiation temperature Tb of the planet. This is not the surface temperature, but the temperature at some [pressure] level in the atmosphere Pb characterising the infrared opacity of the atmosphere, namely the effective altitude from which infrared radiation escapes to space. The pressure Pb is determined by the concentration of the greenhouse gas [with more than two atoms in the molecules], any GHG, be it H2O, CO2, CH4, O3, whatever. The surface temperature Ts can now be found by following the adiabat from Tb down to the surface. Since temperature decreases with altitude, that surface temperature will be higher than Tb. Increasing the concentration of the GHG increases Pb and hence
    Ts, because of following the adiabat over a greater pressure range. So, the greenhouse effect works by allowing a planet to radiate at a temperature colder than the surface, and thus relies on decreasing atmospheric temperature with altitude, due to the adiabatic profile established by convection.
    This mechanism works in general no matter which planet you are on and no matter which GHG you are talking about, so the answers to your [superfluous] questions are irrelevant.

  189. ********************************
    Leif Svalgaard (17:04:29) :
    From energy balance the absorbed solar radiation [and yes it is absorbed] determines the effective blackbody radiation temperature Tb of the planet. This is not the surface temperature, but the temperature at some [pressure] level in the atmosphere Pb characterising the infrared opacity of the atmosphere, namely the effective altitude from which infrared radiation escapes to space. The pressure Pb is determined by the concentration of the greenhouse gas [with more than two atoms in the molecules], any GHG, be it H2O, CO2, CH4, O3, whatever. The surface temperature Ts can now be found by following the adiabat from Tb down to the surface. Since temperature decreases with altitude, that surface temperature will be higher than Tb. Increasing the concentration of the GHG increases Pb and hence
    Ts, because of following the adiabat over a greater pressure range. So, the greenhouse effect works by allowing a planet to radiate at a temperature colder than the surface, and thus relies on decreasing atmospheric temperature with altitude, due to the adiabatic profile established by convection.
    This mechanism works in general no matter which planet you are on and no matter which GHG you are talking about, so the answers to your [superfluous] questions are irrelevant.
    ******************

    Hi Leif –
    What is the [pressure] level at night?

  190. Leif Svalgaard (17:04:29):

    What its absorptivity-emissivity is?
    This is a standard technique of yours, but it doesn’t work with me. Since you, obviously, have not carefully studied the documents I linked to, I’ll give you [last time] the skinny here:

    I use to study from real scientific texts, not from political propaganda.

    From energy balance the absorbed solar radiation [and yes it is absorbed] determines the effective blackbody radiation temperature Tb of the planet. This is not the surface temperature, but the temperature at some [pressure] level in the atmosphere Pb characterising the infrared opacity of the atmosphere, namely the effective altitude from which infrared radiation escapes to space. The pressure Pb is determined by the concentration of the greenhouse gas [with more than two atoms in the molecules], any GHG, be it H2O, CO2, CH4, O3, whatever. The surface temperature Ts can now be found by following the adiabat from Tb down to the surface. Since temperature decreases with altitude, that surface temperature will be higher than Tb. Increasing the concentration of the GHG increases Pb and hence
    Ts, because of following the adiabat over a greater pressure range. So, the greenhouse effect works by allowing a planet to radiate at a temperature colder than the surface, and thus relies on decreasing atmospheric temperature with altitude, due to the adiabatic profile established by convection.
    This mechanism works in general no matter which planet you are on and no matter which GHG you are talking about, so the answers to your [superfluous] questions are irrelevant.

    The things are simple. I am talking about carbon dioxide because it was Jimmy Haigh’s question. The data I have shown in my post to Jimmy Haigh is real, not simple speculation. Read my post again and say “how” it is wrong:

    Nasif Nahle (19:57:38)

    And, please, a scientific serious “how”.

  191. steven mosher (15:17:24) :
    show the sensitivity to the selection of data sources.
    If your result is a bit shaky, the least thing you want is a sensitivity analysis…
    The standard argument against sensitivity analyses is that they just show have bad the other data is and therefore do not apply to my beautiful data set and careful analysis and impeccable logic.

  192. Lief:

    “This is not the surface temperature, but the temperature at some [pressure] level in the atmosphere Pb characterising the infrared opacity of the atmosphere, namely the effective altitude from which infrared radiation escapes to space.”

    As a scientist, you have earned my respect and I read what you say with a rather high confidence rating.

    However, I do have a little problem with your definition of Pb as atmospheric in origin while ignoring a vitally important. You are almost correct, if the Earth was a dry planet without any oceans or lakes.

    I offer this example in rebuttle:

    Please explain how “radiation fog” forms over a lake, after a cool but very clear sky in the morning.

    “The pressure Pb is determined by the concentration of the greenhouse gas [with more than two atoms in the molecules], any GHG, be it H2O, CO2, CH4, O3, whatever.”

    I humbly submit that H2O (two molecules) in a 100% “atmosphere” of water will always be the most inportant location for the Pb interface.

    On average, that pressure is 1013 mb and called “Sea Level” here on Earth.

  193. I see that my point has not been taken, c’est la vie.

    Just note that it is not only the temperature of the source (the sun) that dictates the temperature of the medium through which the energy is being transmitted (the oceans).

    It is the speed of transmission of solar energy through the oceans that varies via the oscillations I referred to.

    When the change in speed of transmission varies then the amount of solar energy converted to heat also changes and the temperature change for the oceans can be much more than the temperature change one would expect from any observed changes in the energy supply from the sun.

    The oceans act like a variable electrical resistor.

    Nothing more I can add – to the relief of some, no doubt.

  194. Jim (17:24:11) :
    What is the [pressure] level at night?
    I don’t think that makes any difference, I’m sure you [we] can look that up, but so what? The atmosphere radiates all the time, also at night.

    Nasif Nahle (17:37:53) :
    I am talking about carbon dioxide
    The Greenhouse Effect works with CO2 as well, so don’t worry.
    “how”.
    Your contention was that the Greenhouse effect was ‘null’. I just showed that it is not. End of story.

    Stephen Wilde (18:39:27) :
    the temperature change for the oceans can be much more than the temperature change one would expect from any observed changes in the energy supply from the sun.
    This argument is void because the observed temperature changes do not mirror the solar input, even if multiplied by a factor ten. That is the point: you attempt to explain a relation that is not there.

    Steve Huntwork (17:59:11) :
    I humbly submit that H2O (two molecules) in a 100% “atmosphere” of water will always be the most inportant location for the Pb interface.
    The lower atmosphere is opaque to much IR radiation, and the IR photons do therefore not escape to space. Now, in a ‘real’ atmosphere the problem is a bit more complex because the opacity varies with wavelength and with species so there will be ‘windows’ here and there. Nevertheless an ‘effective’ pressure can be defined and that is what matters, and it is not 1013 mb.

    The example you mention is more related to the near-surface temperature inversions that often arise. In general, the greenhouse effect works by allowing a planet to radiate at a temperature colder than the surface, and thus relies on decreasing atmospheric temperature with altitude, due to the adiabatic profile established by convection.

  195. Carl Wolk (12:16:22) :

    “Also note that the rises in temperature in 1976, 86/7, and 97/8 preceded the rises in solar activity.”

    This should NOT be a problem Carl, any more than the fact that increases in Earth temperature precede increases in CO2.

    To be a True AGW Believer, one has to suspend scientific logic and simply accept that these petty inconsistencies are part of THE FAITH.

    Now everyone, pray with me, slowly and reverently, with eyes closed:
    “The future CAN cause the past, the future CAN cause the past…”

    :^)

  196. Stephen Wilde (15:46:48) :

    Nice words. Please supply the math details. Otherwise what you have to say doesn’t have any explanatory power or skill or interest.

  197. Leif Svalgaard (19:15:07) :

    Nasif Nahle (17:37:53) :
    I am talking about carbon dioxide
    The Greenhouse Effect works with CO2 as well, so don’t worry.
    “how”.
    Your contention was that the Greenhouse effect was ‘null’. I just showed that it is not. End of story.

    Mm… Nope, it was not my “contention”. I wrote:

    However, if you ask a honest physicist, he would tell you that the contribution to the atmospheric carbon dioxide from human activities would drive the tropospheric temperature by some 0.02 K, while the natural contribution to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide would drive the tropospheric temperature up to 0.3 K.”

    And the paragraph where I used the word “null”:

    “If you ask again a physicist about the change of temperature of the surface due to the human contribution to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, he would tell you… null.”

    As you can see, I didn’t mentioned a word of what you call my “contention”… Where is the “how” error you had found?

  198. Leif Svalgaard (10:30:26) :
    Throw in plenty more sines and get an even better fit. :-)
    Any function can be fitted arbitrary well with enough sines:

    Agreed! However the plot shows a good correspondance with the temp record for he full period of that record.
    Having now derived the required frequencies phases and amplitudes of the component sines enables the synthesised temperature to be extended bak and forward in time compared to the measured temperature.

    Perhaps the most interesting extension is forwards of 2000. Much noise has been generated here about how the temp has remained static for the last 5 to 10 years, and the last couple has actually shown a decrease. The synthesised temp waveform does show this flattening and drop, over the required periods. BUT this can now be extended forward in time to show that the dip is just temporary and heating will continue after 2009

  199. Nasif Nahle (21:29:41) :
    “If you ask again a physicist about the change of temperature of the surface due to the human contribution to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, he would tell you… null.”
    And here is where you go wrong.
    1) CO2 up means temps up
    2) humans make CO2 go up [I just added several kg today]
    3) thus effect is not null
    Now, people quibble about how big the effect is, some say catastrophic, others are more reasonable, still others say trivial, but your physicist is just wrong that the effect is null.

  200. bill (21:38:16) :
    enables the synthesised temperature to be extended bak and forward in time compared to the measured temperature.
    The Fourier series has absolutely no predictive of post-dictive power, unless you can show that each of the sine waves has a cause or explanation in physical terms.

  201. Leif Svalgaard (22:54:38) :

    bill (21:38:16) :
    enables the synthesised temperature to be extended bak and forward in time compared to the measured temperature.
    The Fourier series has absolutely no predictive of post-dictive power, unless you can show that each of the sine waves has a cause or explanation in physical terms.

    More precisely, the discrete Fourier transform assumes periodic boundary conditions. You can’t use the fact that a reasonable Fourier approximation exists on a finite interval to prove periodicity.

  202. “1) CO2 up means temps up”
    Yes the temp has gone up so the oceans released CO2

    “2) humans make CO2 go up”
    Unprovable. If we could test by stopping emitting CO2 as a race while keeping the climate ‘fixed’ then we could measure ‘human CO2 emissions’.
    Consider the question as to what the CO2 in the atmos. would be if man had side-stepped fossil fuel technologies.
    Would it be lower because Man hadn’t been naughty?
    Or would the ocean have set the CO2 at precisely the same concentration for today’s temperature?
    Even those massive forest fires in SE Asia a few years back didn’t leave a step in the CO2 record.
    So I’ll stand up as a physicist and say man’s effect on global temperatures via CO2 has been null because the ocean sets CO2 levels.

  203. Stephen Wilde (18:39:27) :
    the temperature change for the oceans can be much more than the temperature change one would expect from any observed changes in the energy supply from the sun.

    Leif Svalgaard
    This argument is void because the observed temperature changes do not mirror the solar input, even if multiplied by a factor ten. That is the point: you attempt to explain a relation that is not there.

    Reply.

    The observed temperature changes in the ocean have no need to mirror changes in the the solar input.

    The oceans change their net release and net absorption characteristics at 25 to 30 year intervals quite independently of anything the sun does.

    Increasing the rate of energy flow from ocean to the air reflects an increase in the rate of energy flow through the oceans. The ocean energy content falls but the air warms.

    Decreasing the rate of energy flow to the air reflects an reduction in the rate of energy flow through the oceans. The ocean energy content rises but the air cools.

    All the while the sun varies independently, different in both timing and scale which is why I say the net energy budget outcome is a consequence of the interplay of the two processes sometimes supplementing and sometimes offsetting one another.

    I don’t know why the oceans do as they do but we see it. My best guess for the reason is the idea of an oscillation set up between the variability of solar input such as it is and variations within the oceans arising from changing density, temperature and movements.

    Slower passage of solar energy through the oceans generates more heat energy within the oceans than can be explained by solar changes alone. Just like an electrical resistor a slower passage of energy reduces voltage but increases the heat energy generated.

    The increase in wavelength as the Earth converts incoming solar radiation to outgoing longwave is the equivalent of the reduction in voltage. In both cases additional heat energy is produced within the system independently of anything that the source of energy does.

    Thus your criticism is wrong. I know that the relation is not there. It does not need to be there.

  204. “steven mosher (20:39:38) :

    Stephen Wilde (15:46:48) :

    Nice words. Please supply the math details. Otherwise what you have to say doesn’t have any explanatory power or skill or interest.”

    Why do you need math details ?

    The oceans change phase, the global temperature trend changes, the air circulation systems change latitudinally.

    You don’t need math to tell you that your head hurts when someone hits it with a hammer.

    Math details would be of use in seperating solar and oceanic effects and Leif would be the master there but I don’t need that for my simple observation of real world events or to interpret the most likely implications.

    How would you account for it ?

  205. Stephen Wilde (23:37:17) Slower passage of solar energy through the oceans generates more heat energy within the oceans than can be explained by solar changes alone. Just like an electrical resistor a slower passage of energy reduces voltage but increases the heat energy generated.

    Electricity energy
    If an electric current passes through a resistor, electric energy is converted to heat; if the current passes through an electric appliance, some of the electric energy will be converted into other forms of energy (although some will always be lost as heat). The amount of electric energy due to an electric current:
    E=Current^2*Resistance*time
    or
    E=Voltage^2/Resistance*time

    The energy is constant (solar). It available only whilst the input is present so time is fixed.
    if you change R then Current/Voltage must change to maintain constant energy.

    How do you slow down time?
    Where do you get more heat than is possible from the energy input?

    Leif Svalgaard (22:54:38) :
    The Fourier series has absolutely no predictive of post-dictive power, unless you can show that each of the sine waves has a cause or explanation in physical terms.

    Agreed, but the frequency series was derived from bandpass filtering the temp record. moving the centre freq until it was at a peak. The amplitude of the filtered output was then checked to ensure minimal variation (<0.0001C) over the 150years of the temp record. I assumed therefore that this frequency would continue for a couple of decades out side the temp record (no guarantee of course!). The sum of sines uses the amplitude/frequency/phase of the filter outputs. (it is possible by tweeking centre frequency/phase/amplitude to get a better fit but I did not think that justified.
    Some of the frequencies can be related to physical events e.g. a number around 11 years, 22 years (solar). Notably absent are periods to do with the Jovian year 11.86 years (nearest 11.44 12.536); Gleissberg cycle 83 to 88 years (nearest 69.192 187.142); LUNAR NODAL CYCLE 18.6134 YEARS (nearest 14.88 22.12)

    The 6 most significant cycles are 3.78, 4.00, 6.00, 9.03,9.125,10.6 years (with temp amplitude of gt +-0.007C)

    Long cycle gt 150y are not discovered by this technique.

  206. **************
    Leif Svalgaard (19:15:07) :

    Jim (17:24:11) :
    What is the [pressure] level at night?
    I don’t think that makes any difference, I’m sure you [we] can look that up, but so what? The atmosphere radiates all the time, also at night.
    *****************
    That’s right. The atmosphere (and surface) radiate at night, but the Sun does not heat the ground (then atmosphere) at night. I never hear anyone talk about how night affects the radiational balance. Only day is discussed. So the Sun is in play on only half the Earth, while the outgoing radiation is present 24/7.

  207. bill:
    “The energy is constant (solar). It available only whilst the input is present so time is fixed.
    if you change R then Current/Voltage must change to maintain constant energy.

    How do you slow down time?
    Where do you get more heat than is possible from the energy input.”

    Reply:

    The solar energy varies a little but let’s ignore that.

    If one inserts a resistor into an electrical circuit then the current slows down whilst it is travelling through the resistor and leaves the resistor at the same speed as it entered it but at a lower voltage because the resistance to the flow of energy has converted some of the energy to heat.

    If one inserts the Earths oceans in the path of sunlight reaching the Earth and then leaving for Space around the Earth then the flow of solar energy slows down whilst it is travelling through the water and leaves the water at the same speed as it entered it but at a longer wavelength (equivalent to reduced voltage) because the resistance to the flow of energy has converted some of the energy to heat.

    We can see that the resistance of the oceans varies from the simple observation that over 25 to 30 year periods the oceans change the rate at which they release energy to the air.

    No slowing down of time and no more heat than is possible from the energy input (whatever you meant by that).

  208. Leif Svalgaard (22:52:10) :

    Nasif Nahle (21:29:41) :
    “If you ask again a physicist about the change of temperature of the surface due to the human contribution to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, he would tell you… null.”
    And here is where you go wrong.

    1) CO2 up means temps up

    Nope… CO2 also could mean temps down, especially for the surface.

    2) humans make CO2 go up [I just added several kg today]

    The proportion of carbon dioxide of human origin, from the total added to the atmosphere, natural+human, is only 0.05; your problem is that you are considering the whole as if it had been produced by humans. Humans’ part is only 0.05.

    3) thus effect is not null
    Now, people quibble about how big the effect is, some say catastrophic, others are more reasonable, still others say trivial, but your physicist is just wrong that the effect is null.

    The effect of carbon dioxide on the surface temperature is… null; or… would you say that the energy is transferred from a low energy density system to another high energy density system?

    It is not “my” physicist; all physicists, authors, academics, etc., say what “my” physicist says. The atmospheric carbon dioxide system cannot warm up a warmer system. Check it out in your book of physics or thermodynamics and you will see that the energy always flows from high to low. Even knowledge respects this law. :)

  209. >> Jim (05:40:57) :

    That’s right. The atmosphere (and surface) radiate at night, but the Sun does not heat the ground (then atmosphere) at night. I never hear anyone talk about how night affects the radiational balance. Only day is discussed. So the Sun is in play on only half the Earth, while the outgoing radiation is present 24/7. <<

    I hear it. The Earth (as a sphere) captures a circular swath from the solar radiation stream. It radiates as a sphere. The ratio of the area-of-a-circle to the area-of-a-sphere is 1:4 or 1/4. If the incoming solar radiation is 1368 W/m^2, then the average solar radiation is 1368 W/m^2/4 = 342 W/m^2. When you see 342 W/m^2 on a diagram, they are averaging over both day and night.

    Jim

  210. (quote)
    Leif Svalgaard (17:04:29) :

    Since temperature decreases with altitude, that surface temperature will be higher than Tb. Increasing the concentration of the GHG increases Pb and hence Ts, because of following the adiabat over a greater pressure range. So, the greenhouse effect works by allowing a planet to radiate at a temperature colder than the surface, and thus relies on decreasing atmospheric temperature with altitude, due to the adiabatic profile established by convection.
    (unquote)

    Temperature DOES NOT ” decreases with altitude” in major parts of the Earth’s atmosphere. Radiative transfer is a lesser method of transferring thermal energy from the Earth’s surface to interplanetary space. The fallacy in focusing upon radiative transfers of thermal energy to space is the fact most thermal energy is transferred from the surface of the Earth by the physical convective processes of the water cycle and its phase changes to the tropopause and stratosphere, where radiative transfers to interplanetary space can then occur. The physical convective processes and phase changes of the water cycle are a major component in the mechanisms which modulate transfers of thermal energy in time and space within the Earth’s planetary environment/s. Radiative transfers of thermal energy in the Earth’s environments is a lesser mechanism and does not represent the properties of the dominant convective transfers and associated effects of the water cycle.

  211. D. Patterson (09:58:51) :
    Temperature DOES NOT ” decreases with altitude” in major parts of the Earth’s atmosphere. Radiative transfer is a lesser method of transferring thermal energy from the Earth’s surface to interplanetary space.

    Not true, radiative transfer is the only method of transferring thermal energy from the Earth’s surface to interplanetary space!

    The fallacy in focusing upon radiative transfers of thermal energy to space is the fact most thermal energy is transferred from the surface of the Earth by the physical convective processes of the water cycle and its phase changes to the tropopause and stratosphere, where radiative transfers to interplanetary space can then occur.

    Not true either the major method of transfer from the surface to the atmosphere is radiative transfer.

    The physical convective processes and phase changes of the water cycle are a major component in the mechanisms which modulate transfers of thermal energy in time and space within the Earth’s planetary environment/s. Radiative transfers of thermal energy in the Earth’s environments is a lesser mechanism and does not represent the properties of the dominant convective transfers and associated effects of the water cycle.

    As above you’re wrong.

  212. Pamela Gray (14:48:34) :
    Yes, I think the Earth’s climate system is very close to a perpetual motion machine but very complex and chaotic within latitude and longitude areas. However, it can and does breathe out some of the energy the Sun provides (meaning the machine is somewhat leaky) and sends it out to space. But since the Sun is a rather steady source and the leak is rather small, the climate system hardly notices the topping off of the tank.

    Actually the leak is rather large since it is approximately all of the input!

  213. Nasif Nahle (07:38:36) :

    The atmospheric carbon dioxide system cannot warm up a warmer system. Check it out in your book of physics or thermodynamics and you will see that the energy always flows from high to low.

    Look in your physics or thermodynamics books for examples similar to this one:

    Heat a semi-infinite metal bar at the fixed end with a heat flux H; the other end has the BC: T = 0. Now play with the heat conductivity k and see how the equilibrium solution changes (sometimes warmer and sometimes cooler at a fixed point near the heated end) without violating the laws of thermodynamics.

  214. ***********************
    Jim Masterson (07:41:48) :

    I hear it. The Earth (as a sphere) captures a circular swath from the solar radiation stream. It radiates as a sphere. The ratio of the area-of-a-circle to the area-of-a-sphere is 1:4 or 1/4. If the incoming solar radiation is 1368 W/m^2, then the average solar radiation is 1368 W/m^2/4 = 342 W/m^2. When you see 342 W/m^2 on a diagram, they are averaging over both day and night.
    Jim
    **************************
    Thanks for that! There is another non-linearity at play. If a point on the day side gets hotter than before by any cause, it will cool more quickly when it rotates into the night side. The temperature of space will be the same, but the point will be hotter. It will cool more quickly due to the higher temperature differential. So if the day side temperature achieves a, say,10% higher temp, the average global temp won’t go up 10%, it will be something less. Do you agree?

  215. Phil. (10:48:44) :

    D. Patterson (09:58:51) :
    Temperature DOES NOT ” decreases with altitude” in major parts of the Earth’s atmosphere. Radiative transfer is a lesser method of transferring thermal energy from the Earth’s surface to interplanetary space.

    Not true, radiative transfer is the only method of transferring thermal energy from the Earth’s surface to interplanetary space!
    —–
    Which statement naturally implies you disregard the obvious fact that the water cycle and associated clouds, thunderstorms, and cyclones do exist in the real world.

  216. In Jim (11:50:08) : , I didn’t state that very well. If the dayside temp went up enough to increase the the global temp 10% based geometrical considerations, the global temp wouldn’t go up that much due to increase rate of cooling on the night side due to the greater temperature differential.

  217. D. Patterson (11:58:47) :
    Phil. (10:48:44) :

    D. Patterson (09:58:51) :
    Temperature DOES NOT ” decreases with altitude” in major parts of the Earth’s atmosphere. Radiative transfer is a lesser method of transferring thermal energy from the Earth’s surface to interplanetary space.

    Not true, radiative transfer is the only method of transferring thermal energy from the Earth’s surface to interplanetary space!
    —–
    Which statement naturally implies you disregard the obvious fact that the water cycle and associated clouds, thunderstorms, and cyclones do exist in the real world.

    No it means your reading comprehension is poor have another go.

  218. Stephen Wilde (00:46:45) :

    “Why do you need math details ?”

    To confirm or disconfirm your claims. Otherwise what you say is mere
    speculation, if that.

    “The oceans change phase, the global temperature trend changes, the air circulation systems change latitudinally.”

    Do tell. Let’s see the data: phase you should know is mathematically describable. How does it change? when does it change? and ultimately
    why does it change. Global temperature trends? Do tell. Trend is a mathematically describable entity. How does it change? when does it change? are you sure? how sure? Change point analysis? Air circulation
    systems change? same set of questions.
    The simple point is this. Nothing that you say comes close to being a confirmable or disconfirmable statement of science.

    “You don’t need math to tell you that your head hurts when someone hits it with a hammer.”
    Yes, but we are not talking about raw feels. the ocean was freezing last time I swam. the desert was hot. And your point would be? You do need math to do science. To understand why things happen and test that explanation by making predictions.

    “Math details would be of use in seperating solar and oceanic effects and Leif would be the master there but I don’t need that for my simple observation of real world events or to interpret the most likely implications.”

    Sorry, you may be able to convince yourself, but this jury member requires more than your impressionistic analogy ridden speculations.

    “How would you account for it ?”

    How would I account for what? the data? that would be math.

    The ocean is a capacitor. no wait, it’s a ferrite bead.

  219. >> Phil. (10:48:44) :

    Not true, radiative transfer is the only method of transferring thermal energy from the Earth’s surface to interplanetary space! <<

    I don’t think you stated this very well. According to Kiehl and Trenberth (1997), 102 W/m^2 transfers from the Earth’s surface to the atmosphere by sensible and latent heat and of the 390 W/m^2 radiated from the surface, only 40 W/m^2 goes through the IR window directly to space.

    However, radiative transfer is the only method of transferring thermal energy from the Earth as a whole to interplanetary space.

    Jim

  220. >> Jim (11:59:48) :

    In Jim (11:50:08) : , I didn’t state that very well. If the dayside temp went up enough to increase the the global temp 10% based geometrical considerations, the global temp wouldn’t go up that much due to increase rate of cooling on the night side due to the greater temperature differential. <<

    I only have a planetary average model, so your question is not something my model will answer directly. I can’t really do temperatures directly. If we use the Stefan-Boltzmann law, then we can do some calculations with heat fluxes. But your problem is ambiguous. Is your 10% increase based on Kelvin’s scale or Celsius’s scale?

    If it’s Kelvin’s, then we are increasing the temperature from 288K to 316.8K. This increases the heat flux from 390 W/m^2 to 571 W/m^2. If we average with the night side, then we get an average heat flux of 481 W/m^2 or a temperature of 303.4K and a 5.4K rise.

    If it’s Celsius’s, then we are increasing the temperature from 288K to 289.5K. This increases the heat flux from 390 W/m^2 to 398 W/m^2. If we average with the night side, then we get an average heat flux of 394 W/m^2 or a temperature of 288.8K and a 0.8K rise.

    These are greatly simplified examples only, and I don’t guarantee the math either. To get more accurate answers, we must feed these changes into a model with the appropriate feedbacks, latent/sensible heat fluxes, and a day/night response. The night side should be cooler (I used 15C), so that will modify these numbers more.

    Jim

  221. Jim Masterson (12:41:50) :

    “…most thermal energy is transferred from the surface of the Earth by the physical convective processes of the water cycle and its phase changes to the tropopause and stratosphere, where radiative transfers to interplanetary space can then occur. ”

    In other words:
    The convection of water molecules from, meaning away from, the surface of the Earth to the tropopause is a convective transfer of matter and not a radiative transfer of electromagnetic energy. Once the water molecules have undergone a phase change and radiated thermal energy into the upper troposphere and the stratosphere, the radiative transfer of the thermal energy becomes the principal means by which final transfer of the thermal energy from the upper troposphere and stratosphere to interplanetary space occurs. Although radiative transfer of electromagnetic energy remains a very significant secondary means by which thermal energy is transferred from the surface to the stratosphere and beyond, most thermal energy is transfered away from the surface by a convective transfer of matter and not by a radiative transfer of electromagnetic energy.

  222. Jim Masterson (12:41:50) :
    >> Phil. (10:48:44) :

    Not true, radiative transfer is the only method of transferring thermal energy from the Earth’s surface to interplanetary space! <<

    I don’t think you stated this very well. According to Kiehl and Trenberth (1997), 102 W/m^2 transfers from the Earth’s surface to the atmosphere by sensible and latent heat and of the 390 W/m^2 radiated from the surface, only 40 W/m^2 goes through the IR window directly to space.

    However, radiative transfer is the only method of transferring thermal energy from the Earth as a whole to interplanetary space.

    Not my choice of words Jim, Patterson said: “Radiative transfer is a lesser method of transferring thermal energy from the Earth’s surface to interplanetary space” and I corrected the error.

  223. D. Patterson (15:05:42) :

    In other words:
    The convection of water molecules from, meaning away from, the surface of the Earth to the tropopause is a convective transfer of matter and not a radiative transfer of electromagnetic energy. Once the water molecules have undergone a phase change and radiated thermal energy into the upper troposphere and the stratosphere, the radiative transfer of the thermal energy becomes the principal means by which final transfer of the thermal energy from the upper troposphere and stratosphere to interplanetary space occurs. Although radiative transfer of electromagnetic energy remains a very significant secondary means by which thermal energy is transferred from the surface to the stratosphere and beyond, most thermal energy is transfered away from the surface by a convective transfer of matter and not by a radiative transfer of electromagnetic energy.

    You still haven’t got it right about five times as much energy is transferred from the surface to the troposphere by radiative means as by latent heat transport. All the energy transport to space is by radiative means.

  224. >> D. Patterson (15:05:42) : <<

    Hand waving works in science until you start talking numbers. Once numbers enter the conversation, it’s hard to wave it off.

    If we assume the surface of the Earth is 15C or 288K then the Stefan-Boltzmann law gives us 390 W/m^2. That’s for a blackbody with an emissivity of 1.0. The lowest arguable emissivity for the Earth’s surface is around 0.9. If we use that worst case we get 351 W/m^2. You have two choices: 1) either come up with values for latent and sensible heat flux that are far greater than 351 W/m^2 or 2) the Stefan-Boltzmann law is wrong. (You’re going to have tough time proving item 2.)

    The way they compute latent heat flux is from total rainfall. The idea here is that what goes up must come down. The total rainfall on the Earth is estimated at about 1m/yr (per unit area). There’s a simple conversion from water at 0C to vapor at 100C (using latent heat of vaporization). This gives us about 78 W/m^2. Error values are probably high and are around plus or minus 25 W/m^2.

    There’s a bulk aerodynamic formula for estimating the sensible heat flux. That value is around 24 W/m^2. Even if these values are off by 100%, radiant heat flux is still much higher. You have your work cutout for you.

    Jim

  225. *********************
    Jim Masterson (13:26:50) :
    >> Jim (11:59:48) :
    I only have a planetary average model, so your question is not something my model will answer directly. I can’t really do temperatures directly. If we use the Stefan-Boltzmann law, then we can do some calculations with heat fluxes. But your problem is ambiguous. Is your 10% increase based on Kelvin’s scale or Celsius’s scale?
    ******************
    I should have said just X %. And I appreciate you helping me to understand some things. My only point here was that the higher temperature (X% higher) would cause a larger rate of cooling on the night side. It might well not be significant if the warming were small. Is there anywhere on the web that has an example mathematical model of some of the concepts we have been discussing? I need a kick start as it has been many years since P-chem.

  226. Jim Masterson (16:40:22) :

    There are many “expert” sources who know a whole lot more about the subject than I ever will, so I’m not going to try and wade ito an area which even they cannot seem to agree even in some of the gross magnitudes. I’ve seen many of them over the years, including Trenberth et al. I do not recall at the present time which sources persuaded me long ago about the extent to which the non-radiative thermal energy transfer processes were somewhat dominant. I do not trust relying upon Trenberth et al to the exclusion of the other sources. So, I can only recommend you keep an open mind, as I will, and investigate the issue further knowing there are conflicting authorities on this subject. For an example which does not necessarily agree with my statement of Trenberth’s diagram, see the diagram from the Encyclopedia Britannica 1994, Solar Radiation: Energy Exchange. If I can rediscover one of my sources, I’ll follow up with a reference. Sorry, but that is the best I can do for the moment. Just understand this is not as cut and dried an issue as some in the present day climate science community would have you believe.

  227. D. Patterson (18:17:44) :

    If I can rediscover one of my sources, I’ll follow up with a reference. Sorry, but that is the best I can do for the moment. Just understand this is not as cut and dried an issue as some in the present day climate science community would have you believe.

    Please do follow up if you can find those sources. The reasons for any discrepancies would be interesting to follow up on.

    The Kiehl and Trenberth estimates seem reasonable in relative magnitude, even if the exact values might be harder to believe uncritically. Direct measurements, e.g. taken during TOGA/COARE (Tropical Ocean Global Atmospheres/Coupled Ocean Atmosphere Response Experiment), seem to support those type of numbers.

  228. I note the figures which suggest that radiant energy transfer from surface to upper levels of the atmosphere (before radiation of all energy to space) dominates over the effect of the hydrological cycle in shifting energy from the surface to the same upper levels.

    However the hydrological cycle with it’s clouds and rainfall is highly variable in speed and efficiency involving as it does all the air circulation systems around the globe.

    Furthermore various features of the hydrological cycle themselves directly affect the rate of transfer of radiative energy both incoming and outgoing.

    I don’t find it hard to envisage a greater contribution to variations in the overall energy budget from variations in the speed and efficiency of the hydrological cycle than from variations in any other factor.

    It is variability in the energy flows that causes changes in global air temperatures whereas the standard averaged background numbers merely represent a stable scenario at a fixed point in time. There never actually is such a stable scenario in reality, there is always constant change.

    Do the available figures help with that aspect at all ?

  229. Nasif Nahle (07:38:36) :
    you will see that the energy always flows from high to low.
    Except when it is carried by your quantum tunneling mechanism that heats the solar corona.

  230. oms (01:02:34) :

    I haven’t looked into it, but I did notice there is some controversy regarding the numbers used in the IPCC diagram based on Kiehl and Trenberth 1997. For one such example, opinion and not an academic paper, see the PDF by an hydrologist who offered the observation or opinion that the numbers used in the diagram don’t add up:
    Will Alexander,Greenhouse confusion

    http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Memo_2508_Greenhouse_confusion.pdf

    Caveat, I have not attempted to analyze his comments, so I have no particular opinion about their accuracy or lack thereof. I have not tried to add up the numbers to see whether or not his criticism is valid. Just note his comments are there for whatever they are worth, and note his comment about the relative importance of radiative transfer versus convective transfer.

    “In essence, they referred to the traditional view that is based on heat transfer to the atmosphere via radiation, whereas heat from the earth’s surface is mainly transferred by convection. Radiation only accounts for about 8% of the total heat transfer from the earth’s surface to the troposphere.”

    At the risk of inviting some abuse for mentioning it, there is another altrnative source discussing the energy budget. Again, I’ve made no attempt yet to fully read or analyze the source, so I am certainly not offering any opinions about it one way or another. Since you are interested in other sources besides Kiehl and Trenberth, I’m only noting the opposing point of view is out there for investigation and perhaps discussion for anyone who may feel it is warranted. See:
    The new climate theory of Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi

    http://www.landshape.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=introduction

    Now I’m wishing I had some notes to the old sources. It is one of thsoe circumstances where you learn some information in the course of your work which was supposedly non-controversial in its day, and you do not anticipate a need to defend it in the future.

  231. The following appears to be the likely source for some of Will Alexander’s comments. I have to chuckle, however, when I read the part where they describe the Kiehl and Trenberth theory as a “traditional” point of view. The below cited paper was published only very recently, whereas the dominance of convective transfers in contradiction to Kiehl and Tranberth was a concept we used routinely thirty to forty years ago. So, this paper cannot possibly be one of my old sources. Makes you wonder if climate science suffers from memory holes analogous to those ozone holes.

    G. V. CHILINGAR,1 L. F. KHILYUK,1, and O. G. SOROKHTIN2; 1Rudolf W. Gunnerman Energy and Environment Laboratory, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA; 2Institute of Oceanology of Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia; Energy Sources, Part A, 30:1–9, 2008; Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC; ISSN: 1556-7036 print/1556-7230 online; DOI: 10.1080/15567030701568727.

    Abstract The writers investigated the effect of CO2 emission on the temperature of atmosphere. Computations based on the adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming of the Earth’s atmosphere.

    “Introduction
    Traditional anthropogenic theory of currently observed global warming states that release of carbon dioxide into atmosphere (partially as a result of utilization of fossil fuels) leads to an increase in atmospheric temperature because the molecules of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) absorb the infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface. This statement is based on the Arrhenius hypothesis, which was never verified (Arrhenius, 1896). The proponents of this theory take into consideration only one component of heat transfer in atmosphere, i.e., radiation. Yet, in the dense Earth’s troposphere with the pressure pa > 0:2 atm, the heat from the Earth’s surface is mostly transferred by convection (Sorokhtin, 2001a). According to our estimates, convection accounts for 67%, water vapor condensation in troposphere accounts for 25%, and radiation accounts for about 8% of the total heat transfer from the Earth’s surface to troposphere. Thus, convection is the dominant process of heat transfer in troposphere, and all the theories of Earth’s atmospheric heating (or cooling) first of all must consider this process of heat (energy)–mass redistribution in atmosphere (Sorokhtin, 2001a, 2001b; Khilyuk and Chilingar, 2003, 2004).”

    Note, Eli Rabett and others have undertaken the usual disparagement of these latest opposition sources.

  232. >> Jim (17:54:39) :

    Is there anywhere on the web that has an example mathematical model of some of the concepts we have been discussing? <<

    Not that I know of. I made my own using an Excel spreadsheet with macros to get around the self referencing cell problem.

    >> oms (01:02:34) :

    The Kiehl and Trenberth estimates seem reasonable in relative magnitude, even if the exact values might be harder to believe uncritically. Direct measurements, e.g. taken during TOGA/COARE (Tropical Ocean Global Atmospheres/Coupled Ocean Atmosphere Response Experiment), seem to support those type of numbers. <<

    I’m very critical of K-T 1997. For example, where did they get the 40 W/m^2 for the IR window? Their calculation is nonsense. I asked Dr. Roy Spencer what the value was, and he said it was very difficult to measure/calculate but gave no value or estimate. Nowhere do I find any support for that figure, yet it’s THE figure.

    >> D. Patterson (08:43:37) :

    I haven’t looked into it, but I did notice there is some controversy regarding the numbers used in the IPCC diagram based on Kiehl and Trenberth 1997. For one such example, opinion and not an academic paper, see the PDF by an hydrologist who offered the observation or opinion that the numbers used in the diagram don’t add up:
    Will Alexander,Greenhouse confusion . . . . <<

    It’s just more hand waving.

    >> The new climate theory of Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi . . . . <<

    It would be nice if these new theories would create a corrected cartoon of their heat flows. In the end, the heat flows have to balance, and I’ve not seen much of a balancing act. All they say is that K-T 1997 is wrong. Fine, so do I.

    >> D. Patterson (09:47:11) :

    The following appears to be the likely source for some of Will Alexander’s comments. <<

    You left out the title (Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission). Someday, I’ll read it. For now, I would like to see their numbers balance.

    Jim

  233. I am a little bit reticent to put my 2c-worth into this erudite discussion, but it seems that one or two straightforward points have been missed.

    bill (05:45:24) : “2. ocean cycles simply move the heat around (unless I misunderstand?) They do not add to the overall energy content of the system. so this does not explain the temperature rise over the last 100years.

    Yes I’m sure they do just move the heat around. But they can move the heat around vertically as well as horizontally. I suspect that only the SST affects atmospheric temperature directly, and the “temperature rise over the last 100years” was atmospheric or at the surface – therefore the ocean cycles could have been responsible for the obsereved temperature rise.

    3. solar cycles are 11 and 22 years – sea temperatures to a few 10s of metres are heated and cooled summer to winter (a much shorter timescale). What property of water stores heat for 30 years at greater depths. For the “solar” radiation to reach these greater depths it will have heated the interveining water (to a higer temp) as it gets progressively absorbed.

    Same basic error as before. Solar radiation can warm water near the surface, which can subsequently flow to a greater depth. Thus the deeper water can effectively receive solar heat without intermediate water having to do so.

    Leif Svalgaard (13:30:38) : “And from the inferred TSI variation of +/- 1 W/m2, the expected response from the laws of physics is 0.05 K which might very well [actually MUST] be there but is visible above the unrelated much larger variations.

    I think that you are here referring to the output from the sun (“TSI”) and sea temperature (“0.05 K”). If so, then I would (with some trepidation!) suggest that you are incorrect. The variation in TSI – if I have understood you correctly – is not the same as the variation in solar energy reaching the oceans, primarily because of clouds. Variation in cloud cover can at least theoretically cause far greater variation at sea level. Indeed, an examination of the Earth’s albedo (primarily cloud cover) from the 1980s onwards, and ocean temperature, as in papers by Palle (albedo), Willis, Cazenave and Leuliette (ocean temperature), to my eye shows that the ocean temperature has very likely been driven in large part by cloud cover.

  234. Mike Jonas (01:11:13) :
    that the ocean temperature has very likely been driven in large part by cloud cover.
    And then you will have to assume that the Sun drives the cloud cover. [which, of course, some people do].

  235. Leif Svalgaard (06:20:45) :
    And then you will have to assume that the Sun drives the cloud cover.

    The sahara must be a very cloudy place with all that sun!

    Mike Jonas (01:11:13) :
    … Solar radiation can warm water near the surface, which can subsequently flow to a greater depth. Thus the deeper water can effectively receive solar heat without intermediate water having to do so.

    OK but what propery of water makes hot sink and without loosing heat to the top layers.?
    Salinity increase due to evapouration? You still have a hotter surface than at depth.

    I thought most inversions occurred at river interfaces. Any references for inversions lasting decades?
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/luh162830307jm43/ – only annual

  236. I think ocean SSTs drive cloud cover (and everything else) rather than vice versa.

    Of course there will then be a feedback effect from the change in cloud cover but I’m not aware of any such feedback reversing the 25 to 30 year oceanic phase shifts from net global warming to net global cooling.

    Linking those oceanic changes to solar changes is the problem.

    But then I have suggested that that may not be necessary if the oceans themselves generate more or less heat energy over time by decelerating and accelerating the flow of energy through the system periodically.

    If that were so then the smallness of the solar variability wouldn’t really matter over periods of less than centuries but could conceivably provide a small slow background trend such as we do observe and without invoking CO2 as a driver.

    I think there was a terminological misunderstanding between me and Leif above.

    When he said that the much larger variations in the climate system were ‘unrelated to the sun’ I took that literally instead of realising that he meant ‘unrelated to variations in the sun’.

    I would like to hear views as to whether accelerating and decelerating the flow of energy through the oceans could indeed generate less or more energy in the form of heat independently of solar input.

    Certainly the oceans do seem to perform most of the function of converting shorter wavelength solar energy coming in to longer wavelength radiative energy going out. Is that in dispute or not ?

    In performing that function would varying amounts of heat energy be produced within the oceans or not ?

  237. “Mike Jonas (01:11:13) :
    … Solar radiation can warm water near the surface, which can subsequently flow to a greater depth. Thus the deeper water can effectively receive solar heat without intermediate water having to do so.

    OK but what propery of water makes hot sink and without loosing heat to the top layers.?
    Salinity increase due to evapouration? You still have a hotter surface than at depth”.

    I’ll have a go at this.

    Each wavelength of incoming energy from sun to oceans has a different effect. Many fail to penetrate the surface at all. Many get no further than the region involved in evaporation so that their energy is converted to latent heat and lost back to the air above. Many get past the evaporative region and contribute to the oceanic energy content.

    Even those in the last group vary considerably. Some get just beyond the evaporative region and others penetrate to 100 metres or more before they are fully absorbed.

    As far as ocean heat content is concerned we should only consider the wavelengths that get beneath the region involved in evaporation.

    The deeper a particular wavelength can penetrate the more likely it is that the energy injected into the ocean by that wavelength will be moved around by subsurface oceanic movement. There seems to be a process whereby the oceans become capable of redistributing internally the energy absorbed from the more energetic wavelengths received from the sun. Once absorbed the energy from those wavelrengths becomes represented by an increase in water temperature.

    As far as I know we have no knowledge of the ocean mechanics involved in such processes but they must exist because we observe the consequences.

    Those consequences are the phase changes in the oceans whereby for 25 to 30 years at a time the rate of energy release from oceans to air is either warming or cooling the air around the globe.

    There is plenty of material available confirming that which happens in the Pacific. During a negative (cooling) period El Nino events are suppressed and La Nina events enhanced. Vice versa during a positive (warming) period.

    Similar phase shifts occur in other oceans.

    We cannot ignore those oceanic phenomena and it seems that we cannot attribute them either to changes in the air or changes in the sun yet they seem to be the primary driver of all observed climate changes.

    The way the oceans ‘process’ those more energetic wavelengths and then decelerate or accelerate the energy flow back into the air seems to be at the heart of climate change.

  238. We seem to be under the impression in this discussion that Earth and its atmosphere is a one way open system of energy intake and is thus very sensitive to minute changes in solar input of whatever kind and fairly good at storing it. I see the Earth as very leaky in a chaotic way and not very good at storing solar energy for long periods of time. Our atmosphere is both chaotic in the amount of solar energy it lets in, it is chaotic in the way it leaks it out. It therefore stands to reason that variations of ocean and land surface temperatures on both short and long term scales are an endogenous process unique to our planet.

    Maybe we should be using chaotic calculations such as can be demonstrated with multi-dimensional random walk fractal math.

  239. addendum: The Earth’s flora and fauna is very good at using solar energy, thus can be said to be a consistently reliable and calculable storage system, in a sense. My above post is related to only that part of the budget that can be measured with a simple thermometer stuck in the oceans, measured throughout the atmosphere from space, and measured outside your back door (which assumes that you are away from the building, no BBQ, and other such standard surroundings).

  240. Stephen Wilde (07:03:13) :
    Certainly the oceans do seem to perform most of the function of converting shorter wavelength solar energy coming in to longer wavelength radiative energy going out. Is that in dispute or not ?
    That function is performed on any and all bodies in the solar system, even the Moon, oceans or not. On the Earth is just happens that most of the surface is covered by oceans. If the Earth was covered with green cheese, then it would be correct to say that green cheese performs the function of converting shorter wavelength solar energy in to longer wavelength radiative energy going out.

  241. Leif Svalgaard (07:50:13) :
    tallbloke (02:12:52) :
    Correction, the paper says 70% increase in the solar open magnetic flux over the last century, not 40%.

    One little word ‘over’ is the important one. The solar magnetic field ‘over’ the 20th Century has varied in a cyclic manner with a maximum in the middle of the century. Lockwood computed his ‘centennial’ increase as the change from 1903 to 1956. It has now come down to where it started. So, no change ‘over’ the century. In addition, his values around 1900 are in error [as Rouillard has admitted] and in his latest paper ["The Rise and Fall of the Open Solar Flux (ApJ 2009)] he omits his erroneous data before 1905.

    The maximum is around 1990 according to fig 1 in the pdf

    http://www.eiscat.rl.ac.uk/Members/mike/publications/pdfs/2007/2006JA012130.pdf/

    So, from a minima around 1900 which would still be a minima even if the anomalously low data point were ignored, there is a big rise of 70% in the solar open flux up to 1990 (not “the middle of the century”) and then a rapid falloff to now from ~2000. Very, very significant.

    The anomalously low data point around 1900 is discussed in the paper too. Of interest to me is that the low point around 1900 and high point in 1990 coincide with extrema in the solar-barycentric ‘z’ axis motion too. Around 1900 there seems to be a shift in the lag period between LOD and temperature.

  242. Stephen Wilde (07:03:13) :
    Certainly the oceans do seem to perform most of the function of converting shorter wavelength solar energy coming in to longer wavelength radiative energy going out. Is that in dispute or not ?

    Leif Svalgaard:
    That function is performed on any and all bodies in the solar system, even the Moon, oceans or not. On the Earth is just happens that most of the surface is covered by oceans. If the Earth was covered with green cheese, then it would be correct to say that green cheese performs the function of converting shorter wavelength solar energy in to longer wavelength radiative energy going out.”

    Of course it would. That must be trivially correct.
    However the physical properties of liquid water and the stabilising effect of an infinitely (almost) variable hydrological cycle embedded in air and water vapour are somewhat different to the physical properties of green cheese.

    In the process converting shortwave to longwave heat energy is released. The question is whether the oceans can vary the amount of heat energy generated independently of variations in solar input.

    Likewise would it not be the case that the Earth’s temperature depends primarily on that interaction occurring in the oceans and not on the trivial portion of that interaction that occurs in the air ?

  243. tallbloke (10:12:18) :
    The maximum is around 1990 according to fig 1 in the pdf
    Except that Fig 1 does not show the heliospheric magnetic field. Fig 5 is somewhat better, although the best representation we have is this one http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric-Magnetic-Field-Since-1835.png There is no centennial rise, there may be a hint of the ~100 Gleissberg ‘cycle’, but it would be better to say that the HMF consists of ‘pulses’ of ~50 years, so there is no significance to the 1900-1990 trend as such.

  244. Stephen Wilde (11:12:45) :
    The question is whether the oceans can vary the amount of heat energy generated independently of variations in solar input.
    This depends on the time scale. On a time scale of, say one year, that may be true, but not on a time scale of centuries. If you claims this, you must justify the claim with a mechanism and/or order-of-magnitude calculation.

    Likewise would it not be the case that the Earth’s temperature depends primarily on that interaction occurring in the oceans and not on the trivial portion of that interaction that occurs in the air ?
    Why bring in the red herring of the air? Who cares about that? The atmosphere is basically heated from below subject to whatever effect we get from the greenhouse gases that allow the Earth to radiate at the lower temperature from a higher altitude.

  245. Jim Masterson (15:34:50) :

    >> oms (01:02:34) :

    The Kiehl and Trenberth estimates seem reasonable in relative magnitude, even if the exact values might be harder to believe uncritically. Direct measurements, e.g. taken during TOGA/COARE (Tropical Ocean Global Atmospheres/Coupled Ocean Atmosphere Response Experiment), seem to support those type of numbers. <I’m very critical of K-T 1997. For example, where did they get the 40 W/m^2 for the IR window? Their calculation is nonsense. I asked Dr. Roy Spencer what the value was, and he said it was very difficult to measure/calculate but gave no value or estimate. Nowhere do I find any support for that figure, yet it’s THE figure.> D. Patterson (08:43:37) :

    I haven’t looked into it, but I did notice there is some controversy regarding the numbers used in the IPCC diagram based on Kiehl and Trenberth 1997. For one such example, opinion and not an academic paper, see the PDF by an hydrologist who offered the observation or opinion that the numbers used in the diagram don’t add up:
    Will Alexander,Greenhouse confusion . . . . <It’s just more hand waving.> The new climate theory of Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi . . . . <It would be nice if these new theories would create a corrected cartoon of their heat flows. In the end, the heat flows have to balance, and I’ve not seen much of a balancing act. All they say is that K-T 1997 is wrong. Fine, so do I.> D. Patterson (09:47:11) :

    The following appears to be the likely source for some of Will Alexander’s comments. <You left out the title (Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission). Someday, I’ll read it. For now, I would like to see their numbers balance.

    Jim<

    Yes, sorry about that. Lost it in the editing.

    All of this makes a person wonder what independent experiment/s would be capable of confirming or denying the validity and accuracies for some of these foundational assumptions, such as K-T 1997?

  246. bill (06:59:24) :
    >OK but what propery of water makes hot sink and without loosing heat to the top layers.?<

    Displacement and a number of other factors in combinaton with displacement. Although some or much heat will be lost to overlying layers, warmer water sinks in circumstances where horizontal displacement of colder bottomwater occurs. Coriolis force, lunar tides, Solar tides, and a combination of other influences cause cold water to wellup off coasts such as Chile in South America and warm waters to subside elsewhere as the cold bottomwater is displaced in the circumglobal circulations.

  247. Leif Svalgaard (12:26:36) :

    >Who cares about that? The atmosphere is basically heated from below subject to whatever effect we get from the greenhouse gases that allow the Earth to radiate at the lower temperature from a higher altitude.<

    We care about it because its is often the small details overlooked when oversimplifying a problem which holds the key to an unexpected effect or combination of effects. In this case, it is untrue in the absolute sense to say, "The atmosphere is basically heated from below…." In fact, the atmosphere gets warmer as altitude increases within the stratosphere, where the UV catalytic photolysis reactions result in significant warming and the permanent presence of the stratosphere as an inversion layer. Although the quantitative proportion of the stratospheric versus tropospheric warming can be regarded as assymetrical, there are other known and perhaps yet unknown considerations in which the stratospheric warming exerts a disproportionate qualitative influence. The influence of the thermosphere and its inversion layaer effects are still a subject of early and ongoing research. So, eliminating them from all substantial consideration may not be warranted and constitute an oversimplification of the problem being researched.

  248. “>OK but what propery of water makes hot sink and without loosing heat to the top layers.?<"

    Evaporation of warmer surface layers gives higher salinity hence density which overcomes the tiddly thermal expansion of water.

  249. bill (06:59:24) : “The sahara must be a very cloudy place with all that sun!
    Inverse relationship – more solar = less cloud. And non-linear and non-uniform too, which is why no-one has nailed it yet. ["non-linear" : more solar = less cloud but n*solar does not necessarily give m*cloud. "non-uniform" : the effect may occur more in some places than in others.]

    OK but what propery of water makes hot sink and without loosing heat to the top layers.?

    ENSO/PDO do it, for starters. D. Patterson (13:34:57) provides more suggestions. I don’t think anyone has suggested that when warm water moves down from the surface, the surface stays unchanged.

  250. Stephen Wilde (11:12:45) :
    The question is whether the oceans can vary the amount of heat energy generated independently of variations in solar input.

    Leif Svalgaard:
    This depends on the time scale. On a time scale of, say one year, that may be true, but not on a time scale of centuries. If you claim this, you must justify the claim with a mechanism and/or order-of-magnitude calculation.

    Reply:
    It appears to be true on a time scale of 25 to 30 years because that is the time scale upon which the oceanic phase shifts have been observed to occur. I rely on that observed phenomenon as the mechanism. No one has yet quantified it on an order of magnitude it so you cannot expect me to do so.
    On the scale of centuries I think that in due course we may or may not find that solar variations are enough to provide a background trend upwards or downwards.
    I do not currently claim an oceanic effect on century time scales but of course we might in the future find an ocean cycle that covers that time scale too.
    My current concern is primarily to ascertain the reason for and effect of the 25 to 30 year phase shifts because they appear to be the primary driver of multidecadal shifts in global air temperature trends such as occurred during the 20th Century
    If you accept that that particular role of the oceans occurs on a scale of one year or so then I would agree with you because of the existence of the ENSO phenomenon. However it also appears to occur on that 25 to 30 year timescale and that is seen to have a far more profound effect on global air temperature trends than shorter term ENSO events.
    If we do find an ocean cycle on even longer time scales that will further reduce the need to fall back on solar variations over centuries but observations do not yet support that. If we did find such a longer term ocean cycle then that would take us close to agreement about the relative insignificance of solar variations.
    What matters to me most at this point is that you do seem to accept the general principle that the slowing down or acceleration of solar energy transmission through the oceans would affect the oceanic energy content independently of solar variation.

    Stephen Wilde
    Likewise would it not be the case that the Earth’s temperature depends primarily on that interaction occurring in the oceans and not on the trivial portion of that interaction that occurs in the air ?

    Leif Svalgaard
    Why bring in the red herring of the air? Who cares about that? The atmosphere is basically heated from below subject to whatever effect we get from the greenhouse gases that allow the Earth to radiate at the lower temperature from a higher altitude

    Reply:
    It’s not a red herring in my description because it is needed to put the role of anthropogenic CO2 in it’s correct miniscule and insignificant context. I think we are in agreement that CO2 is not a significant climate driver and that the air is heated from below and not by GHGs within the air.

    Summary:
    The sole remaining difference between us appears to be whether on century time scales the solar variations are sufficient to deal with multi – century scale background global temperature trends. If there are found to be century scale oceanic cycles (effectively a third level of oceanic variation) then that would square the circle and we would have no reason to disagree. That said your solar knowledge is formidable and what you say leads me to think there may well be another (third) level of oceanic variation yet to be found.

    However we do not need to resolve that issue to dispose of AGW theory. The current background warming trend has been ongoing for several centuries and therefore cannot reasonably be attibuted to human CO2 emissions. For AGW purposes the clear background warming trend over the past several centuries plus the 25 to 30 year ocean phase changes are enough to explain all observed regional climate changes without involving human CO2.

  251. Leif Svalgaard (12:26:36) :

    >Who cares about that? The atmosphere is basically heated from below subject to whatever effect we get from the greenhouse gases that allow the Earth to radiate at the lower temperature from a higher altitude.<

    D Patterson
    We care about it because its is often the small details overlooked when oversimplifying a problem which holds the key to an unexpected effect or combination of effects. In this case, it is untrue in the absolute sense to say, "The atmosphere is basically heated from below…." In fact, the atmosphere gets warmer as altitude increases within the stratosphere, where the UV catalytic photolysis reactions result in significant warming and the permanent presence of the stratosphere as an inversion layer. Although the quantitative proportion of the stratospheric versus tropospheric warming can be regarded as assymetrical, there are other known and perhaps yet unknown considerations in which the stratospheric warming exerts a disproportionate qualitative influence. The influence of the thermosphere and its inversion layaer effects are still a subject of early and ongoing research. So, eliminating them from all substantial consideration may not be warranted and constitute an oversimplification of the problem being researched

    Comment:

    This is an interesting issue from my point of view.

    I have said before that the oceans appear to set up discontinuities in the energy flow and it is the job of the air circulation systems to both equalise sea surface and surface air temperatures whilst simultaneously ensuring that outgoing longwave approximately equals incoming shortwave in terms of the total energy value of each.

    That is not an easy task because it means that from time to time the air circulations in the stratoshere have to restrain the rate of energy lost to space even while warming SSTs are pumping energy into the troposphere during a positive oceanic phase.

    I think that when warming occurs with increasing height then that is part of the mechanism for reducing the speed of energy flow from stratosphere to space and it may well (for a time) stabilise the overall energy flow by overriding the effect of a speeded up hydrological cycle moving energy from surface to stratosphere.

    There is a complex worldwide energy balancing act going on at all times so that all we observe in climate and weather is a consequence of that moment by moment balancing of energy flows through the seperate parts of the system (ocean and air).

  252. Leif Svalgaard (12:20:42) :

    tallbloke (10:12:18) :
    The maximum is around 1990 according to fig 1 in the pdf
    Except that Fig 1 does not show the heliospheric magnetic field. Fig 5 is somewhat better, although the best representation we have is this one http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric-Magnetic-Field-Since-1835.png There is no centennial rise, there may be a hint of the ~100 Gleissberg ‘cycle’, but it would be better to say that the HMF consists of ‘pulses’ of ~50 years, so there is no significance to the 1900-1990 trend as such.

    Thanks Leif, especially for the reference to the more recent paper, much to digest in currently limited spare time.

    I think it’s a bit early to draw conclusions about the meaning of the levels currently being back down to those of the start of the C20th. After all, the sun is not currently behaving in line with the theoretical expectations of the proponents of the currently dominant Babcock Leighton dynamo theory.

    We may be witnessing a once in 180 year event more in line with the planetary theory of solar activity modulation.

    It’s interesting to watch it all unfold before our eyes.

  253. >tallbloke (15:57:03) :

    It’s interesting to watch it all unfold before our eyes.<

    It would be even more interesting if they didn't keep trying to hide things from our eye sight.

  254. D. Patterson (13:55:26) :
    In fact, the atmosphere gets warmer as altitude increases within the stratosphere, where the UV catalytic photolysis reactions result in significant warming and the permanent presence of the stratosphere as an inversion layer.
    And that has nothing to due with the climate, so is a red herring.

    tallbloke (15:57:03) :
    After all, the sun is not currently behaving in line with the theoretical expectations of the proponents of the currently dominant Babcock Leighton dynamo theory.
    But it is. Our prediction of a weak SC24 depends on the BL dynamo theory and more detailed calculation of the same supports that, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Jiang-Choudhuri-2007.pdf
    The Sun is doing just what BL says it should be doing.

  255. D. Patterson (13:34:57)
    Sandy (14:09:23)

    I already gave you salinity. BUT the hot has to sink through the rising cold transfering heat and salinity.

    I alrady said I knew of places where annual inversions occur. BUT I though we were looking for inversions that were stable over decades.
    If you have references for such a stable pattern why not give them?

  256. >bill (22:20:22) :

    D. Patterson (13:34:57)

    I already gave you salinity. BUT the hot has to sink through the rising cold transfering heat and salinity.<

    No, it does not, because you are wrongly asuming vertical mixing.

    The cold water is not rising at the location where the arm water is sinking/subsiding. The cold bottomwater circulates away from the location along the seafloor to another location. The cold bottomwater upwelling along the coast of Chile began its journey from other locations far removed from the coast of Chile. When the cold water flow encounters the continental shelf, the momentum causes the denser cold water to flow upwards, displacing the warm surface waters adjacent to the coastline.

    Back at the location where the cold bottomwater originated, the outflow of the cold bottomwater can cause warm topwater adjacent to a continental shelf, for one example, to subside or simk by force of gravity to fill the space vacated by the cold bottomwater. As the warm topwater subsides or sinks to refill the space vacated by the cold bottomwater, adjacent topwater may flow into the space being vacated by the sinking warm topwater. Oceanic circulation is not controlled eclusively by convection. Coriolis force, tidal, submarine topography all contribute to establishing, sustaining, and redirecting oceanic circulation patterns. Consequently the departure of cold water on the seafloor can cause the overlying layers of water to fall and flow into the oceanic depths when submarine terrain and/or other circulation patterns prevent other cold bottomwater from flowing into the space vacated by the departing mass of cold bottomwater.

  257. Leif Svalgaard (17:05:37) :

    >And that has nothing to due with the climate, so is a red herring.This mechanism works in general no matter which planet you are on and no matter which GHG you are talking about<

    Earth and the inversion layers of its stratosphere and thermosphere are extraordinary in comparison with the atmospheres of the other planets. It is this isothermal atmospheric difference in optical depth which has played a critical role in the evolution of Earth's atmosphere and maintained it as a suitable environment for all life on the planet. For you to say the increasing temperatures with altitude and unique characteristics of the stratosphere and thermosphere "has nothing to due with the climate" is so patently false and bizarre, we have to wonder what you did with the real Leif Svalgaard. Are you holding him for ransom, or what?

  258. Geoff Sharp (06:13:19) :

    Leif Svalgaard (22:10:50) :

    Geoff Sharp (21:58:06) :
    Ok…thanks for the explanation, I must revisit my source suggesting the 16% variation (it did seem very credible at the time).
    But I still think the argument of collecting TSI at sea level would end a lot of this debate.
    ————–
    TSI has been measured like that for more than a century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Greeley_Abbot

    Come on Leif that link is a joke….the project has never been undertaken. Also the amount of your UV variance in the TSI is also of question. I will come back shortly with some data. Stay tuned…..

    After a total pc rebuild I have had time to find some data. There looks to be conflicting reports on the level of UV change over the cycle and also on what wave length is measured. But here is one excerpt from Landscheidt that casts some doubt:

    “Change in the ultraviolet radiation of the sun is much greater than in the range of visible radiation. The ultraviolet range of the spectrum lies between 100 Å and 3800 Å. Wavelengths below 1500 Å are called extreme ultraviolet (EUV). The variation in radiation between extrema of the 11-year sunspot cycle reaches 35% in the EUV- range [119], 20% at 1500 Å [21], and 7% around 2500 Å [34,97]. At wavelengths above 2500 Å, the variation reaches still 2% [21]. At the time of energetic solar eruptions, the UV-radiation increases by 16%. At a sunspot maximum the EUV-radiation raises the temperature in the Ionosphere by 300% in relation to the minimum [21]. Yet most important is that the UV-radiation below 2900 Å is completely absorbed by ozone in the stratosphere. The resultant rise in temperature is augmented by positive feed-back, as the UV-radiation also generates new ozone. Satellite observations show that the ozone content grows by 2% from sunspot minimum to maximum [113]. D. Rind and J. Overpeck are working on a model which explains how the rising temperature in the stratosphere influences the circulation in the troposphere. J. D. Haigh [29] has already assessed this effect in quantitative terms and shows that temperature in the Subtropics and North Atlantic storm tracks are especially affected.”

    I have found several references to 16% variance of UV during solar eruptions, and 2% total over the cycle. Some of the EUV range looks to vary by large proportions.

  259. Geoff Sharp (18:01:39) :
    But here is one excerpt from Landscheidt that casts some doubt
    Landscheidt is hardly a reliable source of anything.

    I have found several references to 16% variance of UV during solar eruptions, and 2% total over the cycle. Some of the EUV range looks to vary by large proportions.

    You are not thinking here. The total radiation below 400 nm is 105 W/m2. We call that ‘the UV’ [includes a negligible amount of radiation ‘below’ UV [X-rays, gamma rays]. You claimed earlier:
    Geoff Sharp (19:50:14) :
    “UV is known to vary by 16% over the solar cycle”
    Now you say 2% over the cycle. The 16% during solar eruptions is also wrong. 16% of 105 W/m2 is 17 W/m2. The biggest flare ever observed [in modern times] resulted in an increase of TSI [which includes UV] of 0.35 W/m2 [ http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/~tohban/wiki/index.php/Chree_Analysis_for_Flares ] or 0.267%. which is 60 times smaller than the 16% you quote.

  260. Leif Svalgaard (18:48:25) :
    or 0.267%. which is 60 times smaller than the 16% you quote.
    Even I was wrong here. It is 0.33% [0.35W/m2 out of 105W/m2] if we assume that ALL the increase was in the UV.

  261. Leif Svalgaard (18:53:58) :

    Leif Svalgaard (18:48:25) :
    or 0.267%. which is 60 times smaller than the 16% you quote.
    Even I was wrong here. It is 0.33% [0.35W/m2 out of 105W/m2] if we assume that ALL the increase was in the UV.

    Some of the EUV varies more than 16%….the point being that the TSI 0.1% variance doesnt tell the whole story. Even at a 2% variance total UV there is reason to think there could be climate implications. There is too much emphasis on the 0.1% figure, the data range is too short, some papers suggest the difference during the Maunder was 0.4% TSI.

  262. Geoff Sharp (19:37:52) :
    Some of the EUV varies more than 16%…
    some varies by several hundred percent…
    My comment was simply that your claim “UV varies 16% over the cycle” was grossly incorrect.
    some papers suggest the difference during the Maunder was 0.4% TSI.
    So? Any paper on this before about 2007 is suspect, obsolete, outmoded, not to be used.

  263. Leif Svalgaard (07:49:15) :

    Nasif Nahle (07:38:36) :
    you will see that the energy always flows from high to low.
    Except when it is carried by your quantum tunneling mechanism that heats the solar corona.

    Evidently, you don’t know what “quantum tunneling means”. It has nothing to do with creation of energy or the flux of energy from a low density field towards another high density field.

    Quantum tunneling refers to the possibility that a particle confined behind a barrier (Plasma Helmet Streamers, for example) without an adequate amount of energy for overcoming the barrier, may cyclically appear on the other side of the barrier (the interplanetary space, for example) without permeating or collapsing it.

    What you are saying is a fragment of a TV series at SciFi, i.e. imaginary stuff.

    Reply: Go back to playing nice. Both of you ~ ctm

  264. Leif Svalgaard (19:56:38) :

    Geoff Sharp (19:37:52) :
    Some of the EUV varies more than 16%…
    some varies by several hundred percent…
    My comment was simply that your claim “UV varies 16% over the cycle” was grossly incorrect.
    some papers suggest the difference during the Maunder was 0.4% TSI.
    So? Any paper on this before about 2007 is suspect, obsolete, outmoded, not to be used.

    I didnt say total UV….and who knows what part of the UV spectrum is the most able to inflict climate changes.

    So what was the big deal in 2007, did they invent a time machine and send satellites (which work) back 350 years?….. The data is shaky, no firm conclusions can be made, the 0.1% figure only relates to recent times, proxy figures are just that.

  265. Geoff Sharp (21:26:11) :
    I didnt say total UV
    But you evidently meant it. It is meaningless to say that an unspecified part of something vary 16%.

    proxy figures are just that.
    But are, apparently, happily used when supporting one’s viewpoint.

    Nasif Nahle (20:54:58) :
    Evidently, you don’t know what “quantum tunneling means”.
    I was being slightly nasty and making fun of you, as “quantum tunneling” has nothing to do with coronal heating.

  266. Leif Svalgaard (22:52:01) :

    I was being slightly nasty and making fun of you, as “quantum tunneling” has nothing to do with coronal heating.

    Hah! How do you explain it, then? The another explanation has to do with a not so gaseous Sun’s core. As you will never accept the latter, then you have to adhere to the quantum tunneling explanation. There is not another soup, nasty kid.

  267. Nasif Nahle (23:09:00) :
    Hah! How do you explain it, then?
    By the explosions of millions of ‘nanoflares’ caused by twisted magnetic fields relaxing to a lower energy state heating the plasma in the process to millions of degrees. There is no ‘heat flow’ involved.

  268. Leif Svalgaard (23:16:23) :

    Now there is a quite unique way of describing immaculate concepcion….

  269. Leif Svalgaard (22:52:01) :

    Geoff Sharp (21:26:11) :
    I didnt say total UV
    But you evidently meant it. It is meaningless to say that an unspecified part of something vary 16%.

    proxy figures are just that.
    But are, apparently, happily used when supporting one’s viewpoint.

    Your problem is you are using a proxy record to determine a value that needs precision. A 1% change can mean the difference between a climate driver or not. My use of proxy records is over centuries and the same level of precision is not required. The record could be out 10 years because of calibration issues etc and the result would still be the same. I also have the added advantage that my data cross checks from 3 other separate sources that verify the proxy record is good. The current grand minimum will prove it again.

    Its very clear that the 0.1% TSI flag (if correct?) alone is not solid evidence for rejecting a Sun/Climate link…. I continue to wonder why you are so obsessed in trying to disprove it, with so much unknown wouldn’t it be safer to wait until all the evidence has been collected?

  270. Leif Svalgaard (23:16:23) :

    By the explosions of millions of ‘nanoflares’ caused by twisted magnetic fields relaxing to a lower energy state heating the plasma in the process to millions of degrees. There is no ‘heat flow’ involved.

    That’s the same that I said many posts above; the cause of the high temperature of the corona is due to hyperexcited plasma particles trapped by Helmet Streamers. That has not merit, including your singular providential nanoflares. The problem is that you have not (cannot do it yourself) explained the mechanism that permitts the thermal energy (kinetic energy) crosses the barrier towards the interplanetary space and, eventually, to the Earth’s system. You have not explained either the mechanism by which those plasma particles remain trapped there. There are only two solutions to this conundrum and it is quantum tunneling and solid Sun’s core.

  271. Geoff Sharp (03:35:29) :
    Your problem is you are using a proxy record to determine a value that needs precision. A 1% change can mean the difference between a climate driver or not.
    Indeed a 1% change would be major: 1 degree.

    with so much unknown wouldn’t it be safer to wait until all the evidence has been collected?
    But we have. Here is the TSI over the entire Holocene: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Holocene-TSI.pdf Figure 3. It shows that the variation is of the order of +/- 1 W/m2, thus less that 0.1%.

  272. Nasif Nahle (07:35:53) :
    the mechanism that permits the thermal energy (kinetic energy) crosses the barrier towards the interplanetary space
    It is called evaporation. There is no barrier, once a gas is hot enough it can cross anything.- Tunneling or solid Sun are both nonsense.

  273. Leif Svalgaard (11:09:35) :

    It is called evaporation. There is no barrier, once a gas is hot enough it can cross anything.- Tunneling or solid Sun are both nonsense.

    You’re implying nucleons and electrons, that is, charged and uncharged particles, while I’m talking about thermal energy. Helmet Streamers are electrodynamic barriers for nucleons; besides, thermal energy doen’t evaporate. :)

  274. Nasif Nahle (12:33:16) :
    while I’m talking about thermal energy.

    (sigh). The plasma particles are heated in place by the nanoflares and the hot material evaporates into space taking their thermal energy with them.

    Helmet streamers have nothing to do with this (e.g. at solar minimum from the polar regions of the Sun there is a fast solar wind, but no streamers). There are no ‘electrodynamic barriers': Magnetic fields are caught up in the flow and dragged out from the Sun. In the inner corona, the field can in places be strong enough to guide the flow, but eventually the evaporation wins and the plasma and the field escape together as a supersonic magnetized solar wind.

  275. Leif Svalgaard (16:48:24) :

    (sigh). The plasma particles are heated in place by the nanoflares and the hot material evaporates into space taking their thermal energy with them.

    Think in the solar corona like a thermodynamic system and in the radiation of energy. Your assertion seems to describe a thermal energy strongly confined to particles without a chance of being radiated towards other systems. Remember that the space is the most efficient sink of energy.

    Helmet streamers have nothing to do with this (e.g. at solar minimum from the polar regions of the Sun there is a fast solar wind, but no streamers).

    I think Helmet Streamers (HS) are the clue for the confinement of charged and uncharged particles in the solar corona. You are describing (perhaps trickly) coronal magnetic holes through which plasma can scape at supersonic velocities. Coronal holes are the source of solar wind. Nevertheless, your original question was not about the generation of solar winds, but on the, apparently, paradoxical increase of temperature in the solar corona.

    Well, I’ve proposed two possible explanations and presented them as simple arguments taken from the kingdom of speculation. You don’t like any of my hypotheses even when you know one of them is a possible answer to your question.

    I stand myself on my second hypothesis and sustain that the hyperexcited particles remain trapped in the solar corona due to HS. It’s a verifiable hypothesis. Those particles can go out from the solar corona through coronal magnetic holes, I agree with this argument; however, it is not the answer to your original question:

    Why the temperature in the solar corona is about 3 x 10^6 K, while the temperature at the photosphere is around 5800 K.

    The most feasible explanation is the charged and uncharged particles that remain trapped in the corona by the HS. Those hyperexcited particles, whose high density energy state you have accepted, store kinetic energy which is impeded from being transferred to the interplanetary space by quantum barriers. This is a reality that allows you to read these lines on the screen of your computer without bein toasted (a pity) by the excited photons coming out from your monitor, and that’s the reason by which the Earth has not been toasted by the energy which otherwise could be released from the solar corona at 3 million degrees of temperature, which “tentacles” stretch far into the interplanetary space.

    There are no ‘electrodynamic barriers’: Magnetic fields are caught up in the flow and dragged out from the Sun. In the inner corona, the field can in places be strong enough to guide the flow, but eventually the evaporation wins and the plasma and the field escape together as a supersonic magnetized solar wind.

    Helmet Streams are magnetic loops which are the product of solar electrodynamics. The real problem is that, if you accept this physical issue, you would be thinking twice on rejecting the speculations on a solid Sun’s core. I have no problems with this because I’m a humble scientists that some times talks assertive “nonsense”.

  276. a jones (17:25:38) :
    And what is the speed of sound in space?
    Sound is a pressure wave. The particle density in space is too low to sustain pressure waves. The magnetized plasma can and does sustain magnetohydrodynamic waves which propagate at something called the Alfven speed, which is typically 40 km/sec. This is about a tenth of the solar wind speed [440 km/sec], so in that sense [in analogy with sound waves], the solar wind is ‘supersonic’ with an Alfvenic Mach Number of about 11.

    Nasif Nahle (18:00:46) :
    Think in the solar corona like a thermodynamic system and in the radiation of energy. Your assertion seems to describe a thermal energy strongly confined to particles without a chance of being radiated towards other systems.
    You cannot think of the corona in that way. Energy flow in the corona is not by radiation.

    I think Helmet Streamers (HS) are the clue for the confinement of charged and uncharged particles in the solar corona.
    You may think so, but that is not the way it works. For once, there are no uncharged particles [apart from the occasional vaporizing meteoroid]

    Nevertheless, your original question was not about the generation of solar winds, but on the, apparently, paradoxical increase of temperature in the solar corona.
    The same thing, as the solar wind arises simply from the corona being so hot. It just boils off into space. There is no paradox

    Well, I’ve proposed two possible explanations and presented them as simple arguments
    They are both so way off base that they are ‘not even wrong’.

    I’m a humble scientists that some times talks assertive “nonsense”.
    To the detriment of sound and reasonable discussion.

  277. a jones (17:25:38) :

    Oh Aye!

    And what is the speed of sound in space?

    Just curious.

    Kindest Regards.

    Good question… There is sound in the interplanetary space. The problem is that it is inaudible for humans and its speed is modified by solar wind and other rarities of space like the ICR. :)

  278. Leif Svalgaard (18:31:22):

    Nasif Nahle (18:00:46) :
    Think in the solar corona like a thermodynamic system and in the radiation of energy. Your assertion seems to describe a thermal energy strongly confined to particles without a chance of being radiated towards other systems.
    (1.) You cannot think of the corona in that way.

    (2.) Energy flow in the corona is not by radiation.

    1. But it is a TD system according to the description.

    2. I’m not talking about flow of energy in, but precisely from the solar corona to the space, which definitely is by radiation.

    I think Helmet Streamers (HS) are the clue for the confinement of charged and uncharged particles in the solar corona.
    You may think so, but that is not the way it works. For once, there are no uncharged particles [apart from the occasional vaporizing meteoroid]

    Snip the word “apart” from your argument and you’ll be in favor on there are uncharged particles in the solar corona. Perhaps I have to clarify that “uncharged” doesn’t mean void of charge, but with nullified charges.

    Nevertheless, your original question was not about the generation of solar winds, but on the, apparently, paradoxical increase of temperature in the solar corona.
    The same thing, as the solar wind arises simply from the corona being so hot. It just boils off into space. There is no paradox

    Your argument above doesn’t explain why the solar corona is at 3 million Kelvin, while the photosphere is at 5800 K. My hypothesis positively does.

    You established the “paradox”, in the first place. It was you, not me. There is no paradox for me from the standpoint of my preliminar hypothesis.

    Well, I’ve proposed two possible explanations and presented them as simple arguments
    They are both so way off base that they are ‘not even wrong’.

    Classical counterargument without offering scientific basis. You’re just saying “it’s wrong and point”. Tell me the reasons, so I could consider heavy reasons to discharge my hypothesis.

    I’m a humble scientists that some times talks assertive “nonsense”.
    To the detriment of sound and reasonable discussion.

    You know the meaning of “assertive”? Hah!

  279. No marks that boy.

    When I was about 8 or 9 I wrote in an essay that Alfred the Great founded the British Navy by building ships like the Danes.

    And got my essay back with a neat little sketch of a floating Dane.

    Kindest Regards

  280. Describing terms for Leif Svalgaard:

    Thermodynamic System is any amount of matter isolated from the surroundings by real or imaginary limits.

    Paradox is any apparent contradiction in physical descriptions of the Universe (Notice that I capitalized the initial letter of the word “Universe”), generally due to deep flaws in theories. The latter means that paradoxes don’t exist in the real world.

  281. Nasif Nahle (19:25:40) :
    2. I’m not talking about flow of energy in, but precisely from the solar corona to the space, which definitely is by radiation.
    No.

    Snip the word “apart” from your argument and you’ll be in favor on there are uncharged particles in the solar corona. Perhaps I have to clarify that “uncharged” doesn’t mean void of charge, but with nullified charges.
    You may mean ‘electrically neutral’, but there are no such particles there [apart from inconsequential vaporizing cometary debris which can be ignored]

    Your argument above doesn’t explain why the solar corona is at 3 million Kelvin, while the photosphere is at 5800 K.
    In a (nano)flare, movements of the magnetized plasma twists the magnetic field, pressing fields of opposite polarities together. A strong electric current develops separating the two polarities. The current heats the plasma and the electric field accelerates the particles which when crashing into other particles causes more heating.

    Classical counterargument without offering scientific basis. You’re just saying “it’s wrong and point”. Tell me the reasons, so I could consider heavy reasons to discharge my hypothesis.
    Suppose my argument was: “the hyper bucolic jabber ding gyres extricately while sustaining vertical vorticity conservation”.
    How would one counter that? One cannot, because it is devoid of meaning. Same thing with your ‘hypotheses’.

    You know the meaning of “assertive”?
    It was more the ‘nonsense’ bit that was applicable to you.

  282. Nasif Nahle (19:45:18) :
    Thermodynamic System is any amount of matter isolated from the surroundings by real or imaginary limits.
    No part of the solar corona is isolated from the surroundings. If you wish to invoke ‘imaginary limits’, then what would be an ‘imaginary TD system’ but no real one.

    Paradox is any apparent contradiction in physical descriptions of the Universe. The latter means that paradoxes don’t exist in the real world.
    Paradox is a result of lack of understanding, and your demonstrated lack thereof is most certainly real.

  283. Leif Svalgaard (19:56:48) :

    Nasif Nahle (19:25:40) :
    2. I’m not talking about flow of energy in, but precisely from the solar corona to the space, which definitely is by radiation.
    No.

    Are you saying that the energy in the corona is not radiated out to the space? Wow! Perhaps it is transferred by convection of ether waves?

    Snip the word “apart” from your argument and you’ll be in favor on there are uncharged particles in the solar corona. Perhaps I have to clarify that “uncharged” doesn’t mean void of charge, but with nullified charges.
    You may mean ‘electrically neutral’, but there are no such particles there [apart from inconsequential vaporizing cometary debris which can be ignored]

    No neutrons and neutrinos in the coronal TD system? Leif… Do you know the work of Hashemi and Fowler?

    Your argument above doesn’t explain why the solar corona is at 3 million Kelvin, while the photosphere is at 5800 K.
    In a (nano)flare, movements of the magnetized plasma twists the magnetic field, pressing fields of opposite polarities together. A strong electric current develops separating the two polarities. The current heats the plasma and the electric field accelerates the particles which when crashing into other particles causes more heating.

    Nope, that’s not an explanation because you’re not describing the origin of those imaginary nanoflares. The decay of Neutrons in the solar corona is just a hypothesis, like mine.

    Classical counterargument without offering scientific basis. You’re just saying “it’s wrong and point”. Tell me the reasons, so I could consider heavy reasons to discharge my hypothesis.
    Suppose my argument was: “the hyper bucolic jabber ding gyres extricately while sustaining vertical vorticity conservation”.
    How would one counter that? One cannot, because it is devoid of meaning. Same thing with your ‘hypotheses’.

    Again, you’re avoiding the point.

    You know the meaning of “assertive”?
    It was more the ‘nonsense’ bit that was applicable to you.

    And “assertive” is just the opposite with respect to what exactly applies to you.

  284. Leif Svalgaard (20:03:13) :

    No part of the solar corona is isolated from the surroundings. If you wish to invoke ‘imaginary limits’, then what would be an ‘imaginary TD system’ but no real one.

    From the sense you give to the concept “boundary”, you have not real boundaries, so you are an imaginary entity. The investigator who studies the TD system define the boundaries, Leif. Besides, the solar corona has limits.

    Paradox is any apparent contradiction in physical descriptions of the Universe. The latter means that paradoxes don’t exist in the real world.
    Paradox is a result of lack of understanding, and your demonstrated lack thereof is most certainly real.

    As we say in Spanish: “Iguanas ranas”, literally, “As iguanas, so frogs” (i.e. you’re in the same situation).

  285. Nasif Nahle (20:15:51) :
    Are you saying that the energy in the corona is not radiated out to the space? Wow! Perhaps it is transferred by convection of ether waves?
    The corona is 95% fully ionized Hydrogen. A proton cannot radiate. A hydrogen atom can radiate by an electron ‘jumping’ from one bound orbital to another produced a photon with the energy of the difference between the two orbitals. But since there are no Hydrogen atoms in the corona, there is no radiation [I ignore the minute contributions from the other elements]. The energy is transferred as kinetic energy of the solar wind [with a smattering of thermal and magnetic energy]

    No neutrons and neutrinos in the coronal TD system? Leif… Do you know the work of Hashemi and Fowler?
    The 2.22 MeV gamma ray line that would result from their hypothesis is not observed, so out the window goes that one.
    Neutrinos do not interact and play no role in the heating budget.

    Nope, that’s not an explanation because you’re not describing the origin of those imaginary nanoflares.
    I just described how the nanoflares originate:
    “In a (nano)flare, movements of the magnetized plasma twists the magnetic field, pressing fields of opposite polarities together…”

    Again, you’re avoiding the point.
    No, as your statement has to contain meaning in order to be discussed and it is devoid of such. This is the meaning of ‘not even wrong’.

    Besides, the solar corona has limits.
    There is no outer limit. Limits imposed by the investigator are imaginary,

    “Iguanas ranas”
    I eat these.

    Perhaps stop digging your hole any deeper might be advisable.

  286. Leif Svalgaard (07:59:28) :

    But we have. Here is the TSI over the entire Holocene: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Holocene-TSI.pdf Figure 3. It shows that the variation is of the order of +/- 1 W/m2, thus less that 0.1%.

    Your still missing the point, even if your presented graph is accurate (the methods used are not convincing) you are still hedging all your bets on the TSI component only. What you need to wait for is more evidence of how the other solar factors like UV, Svensmark etc play out…but thanks for 10Be graph, I am sure I can use it to bolster my own work.

    I am currently working on a 6000 yr temp trend line produced by Hong using Chinese peat bog data that looks to fit very nicely over the 14C & 10Be record. If the temp trend matches the isotope records its pretty clear cut where the climate change factor is coming from, you cant run away from it, it is solar induced. Instead of living in denial, it would be better to find the missing links that pull it all together….TSI might only play a part role.

    Also interesting to see the regular (172 yr) fluctuation in the 10Be graph as in the 14C record….not something you would expect from a Sun running on a random number generator?

  287. Geoff Sharp (22:11:08) :
    hedging all your bets on the TSI component only. What you need to wait for is more evidence of how the other solar factors like UV, Svensmark etc play out…
    The TSI graph is just another way of expressing the 10Be modulation or solar activity as such. And UV follows ‘TSI’ and cosmic rays too, they shouldn’t be any different, so there is nothing to wait for.

    Also interesting to see the regular (172 yr) fluctuation in the 10Be graph as in the 14C record
    I do not see the 172 yr fluctuation in the 10Be graph. And you have not demonstrated it in the 14C either. Try to superpose the two.

  288. Leif Svalgaard (21:43:33) :

    The corona is 95% fully ionized Hydrogen. A proton cannot radiate. A hydrogen atom can radiate by an electron ‘jumping’ from one bound orbital to another produced a photon with the energy of the difference between the two orbitals. But since there are no Hydrogen atoms in the corona, there is no radiation [I ignore the minute contributions from the other elements]. The energy is transferred as kinetic energy of the solar wind [with a smattering of thermal and magnetic energy]

    Then, the Sun doesn’t radiate energy either… Hehehe!

    On energy radiated by protons:

    http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/AccelConf/pac97/papers/pdf/4V036.PDF

    http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jps/jpsj/2001sb/pdf/b-73.pdf

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5735/746

    What’s that luminosity of solar corona during total eclipses?

    1. The 2.22 MeV gamma ray line that would result from their hypothesis is not observed, so out the window goes that one.

    2. Neutrinos do not interact and play no role in the heating budget.

    1. That’s why I said the work of Hashemi and Fowler was a hypothesis, like mine. My hypothesis is better because it is based on observation of real phenomena.

    2. So, Neutrinos don’t radiate energy?

    I just described how the nanoflares originate:
    “In a (nano)flare, movements of the magnetized plasma twists the magnetic field, pressing fields of opposite polarities together…”

    Oh! Sorry… Nevertheless, those nanoflares are an impossibility in the real world and have not been observed or confirmed, but only on models of the solar magnetohydrodynamic made by Welsh and company. So your nanoflares are in the same situation that my quantum barriers.

    By the way, Welsh also considered a system similar to my quantum barriers as a possible explanation to the solar corona temperature “paradox”.

    No, as your statement has to contain meaning in order to be discussed and it is devoid of such. This is the meaning of ‘not even wrong’.
    There is no outer limit. Limits imposed by the investigator are imaginary

    Leif, that’s precisely the definition of thermodynamic systems, real or imaginary, if a system has magnitudes or quantities flowing through that system, it is a thermodynamic system.

    “Iguanas ranas”
    I eat these.

    I don’t, no one is kosher.

    Perhaps stop digging your hole any deeper might be advisable.

    Perhaps you must stop first, aha?

  289. Leif Svalgaard (22:36:02) :

    The TSI graph is just another way of expressing the 10Be modulation or solar activity as such. And UV follows ‘TSI’ and cosmic rays too, they shouldn’t be any different, so there is nothing to wait for.

    Crazy logic, its already known the UV components can vary much more than the rest of the TSI so they can not be treated the same and just ignored. The same goes for cosmic rays, these 2 factors alone leave the door well and truly open. Your sounding like the IPCC with their “science is settled” argument.

    Also interesting to see the regular (172 yr) fluctuation in the 10Be graph as in the 14C record
    I do not see the 172 yr fluctuation in the 10Be graph. And you have not demonstrated it in the 14C either. Try to superpose the two.

    I have already shown clearly the 172 period in the 14C record…but you just blindly ignore it. I have compared the major dips in both the 14C & 10Be graph you referenced and they line up accurately, just as the strong AM disturbances that all line up with those major dips (which you also choose to ignore). Once I get my software sorted again I am planning to overlay Hong’s temperature reconstruction over both isotope records.

    Here is an older graph showing both 14C & 10Be:

  290. Nasif Nahle (22:49:43) :
    Then, the Sun doesn’t radiate energy either… Hehehe!

    On energy radiated by protons:
    All of these are non-thermal emissions due to changing the direction of a moving proton and do not heat the corona and are of such low intensity that they don’t matter.
    What’s that luminosity of solar corona during total eclipses?The visible corona is not due to protons radiating, but to ordinary sunlight scattering of electrons in the corona. You can see the same effect if you drive a car on a foggy night. The headlight beams become visible, not because the fog is glowing white-hot, but because the drops scatter the the beam.

    My hypothesis is better because it is based on observation of real phenomena.
    Explain again how ‘your’ hypothesis works. It didn’t make sense before. Try again.

    2. So, Neutrinos don’t radiate energy?
    No. Radiative energy is in electromagnetic waves, and neutral particles like a neutrino does not emit electromagnetic waves.

    I just described how the nanoflares originate:
    “In a (nano)flare, movements of the magnetized plasma twists the magnetic field, pressing fields of opposite polarities together…”

    Oh! Sorry… Nevertheless, those nanoflares are an impossibility in the real world
    And show why that is.

    and have not been observed or confirmed,

    http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_articles/nanoflares_boost_heat_suns_corona

    if a system has magnitudes or quantities flowing through that system, it is a thermodynamic system.
    A vacuous definition. Anything would qualify. The magnitude could by accident even be zero and it would still be a TD. The 2nd law works well with dQ = 0. So, a red herring.

    Perhaps you must stop first
    The folks have a reasonable expectation of a website with real information.

    Nasif Nahle (22:57:51) :
    The system ate my last post…
    Perhaps a built-in filter doing its job :-)

  291. Geoff Sharp (23:51:48) :
    Crazy logic, its already known the UV components can vary much more than the rest of the TSI so they can not be treated the same and just ignored.
    UV is but a small part of TSI and cannot vary more than TSI.

    The same goes for cosmic rays, these 2 factors alone leave the door well and truly open.
    The variation of cosmic rays is but a few percent. The change of the cosmic ray flux due to the changing magnetic field of the Earth is MUCH larger than that due to solar activity:
    e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/14C-past-11000-years.png
    or http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg

    Your sounding like the IPCC with their “science is settled” argument.
    Most of science is settled in the sense that a vast body of knowledge exists.

    I have compared the major dips in both the 14C & 10Be graph you referenced and they line up accurately, just as the strong AM disturbances that all line up with those major dips (which you also choose to ignore).
    No, you have not done that at all. What you need to do is for each dip produce a figure [there should only be about 12000/172 = 70] so it is a doable job well worth it [or do you consider it worthless?] that shows three curves: 14C, 10Be, and AM and show that they line up. The long, stretched out, curves with connecting lines and dots sprinkled here and there do not show anything.

    Here is an older graph showing both 14C & 10Be:
    And the dips disagree at times up to several hundred years, and the heavy smoothed lines have a quasi-period closer to 500 years.
    You have good 14C and [now] 10Be. Show 1st, that they line up in detail [not smoothed over a century], then show that each line-up line up with your AM-curve. That is how to do it. As I said, don’t you consider this to be worthwhile? If so, do it. If not, continue as before.

  292. Leif Svalgaard (00:25:16) :
    I am truly impressed yet again at your ability to calmly answer the same question/statement for the umpteenth time, and your depth of knowledge which you willingly share. Thank you!!!!!!

    Geoff Sharp (23:51:48) : Even I as a mere electronics engineer understand that TSI means TOTAL SI i.e. it is all the energy thrown out from the sun at all wavelengths that arrives at the top our atmosphere.
    UV is a fraction of that total not separate from it. If Yobba rays ( http://homepages.tesco.net/~space.patrol/SpacePatrol/SlimW.htm ) were 0.0001% of the TOTAL tsi and they increased 100% then I think you would agree that Yobba rays must be pretty amazing to have any climate influence at 0.0001% of TSI increase. The amplification factor would be phenomenal!

    UV (long to ultra short) changes TOTAL SI only fractionally. If the amplification factor were sufficiently large that they had SIGNIFICANT effect at these changed levels then we would be in serious trouble. The ozone layer SIGNIFICANTLY affects the amount of UV reaching the surface. The ozone hole(s) is a significant size and the increase in UV allowed through would have cooked us by now if a large amplification were present.

    The only very slight possibility in solar variation that could affect climate is GCRs and clouds. But even this is unlikely. GCR do vary with solar activity. But they are always present in large numbers. But so are micro particles (dust, pollen etc). At low altitude just how many GCRs/particles are required to create a cloud?

    Some of these discussions have been getting weirder by the comment – perhaps the next step is postulating the presence of yobba rays capable of tunnelling past atmosphere an ocean surface and re-appearing in the ocean depths where they create a pure energy store which one day appears at the surface!

  293. bill (02:19:57) :
    Some of these discussions have been getting weirder by the comment – perhaps the next step is postulating the presence of yobba rays capable of tunnelling past atmosphere an ocean surface and re-appearing in the ocean depths where they create a pure energy store which one day appears at the surface!

    Or, like neutrinos tunneling up through the Earth to erupt on the night side… and heating the Ocean from the bottom up, hey, here is an idea: warm water is buoyant and will rise, so this mechanism certainly has legs. But it will not work when Neptune/Uranus are opposing, of course, so that explains why it was so cold on that fateful Jan. 13th, 1812.

  294. Bill 2:19:57

    I read a long time ago that cosmic rays have an outsized effect because the atmosphere is often supersaturated with water vapor, that in fact there is a dearth of dust and other cloud forming nuclei.
    =========================================

  295. kim (04:30:16) :
    I read a long time ago that cosmic rays have an outsized effect because the atmosphere is often supersaturated with water vapor, that in fact there is a dearth of dust and other cloud forming nuclei.

    The main modulator of cosmic rays reaching the Earth’s atmosphere is not solar activity, but the changing magnetic field of the Earth.

    shows the 14C proxy for cosmic rays as the red curve. You can see the very large variation which is unrelated to solar activity. If you subtract this variation you get the blue curve that shows the solar modulation. There you can see the Maunder Minimum and the other solar variations. In this graph: http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg I show the Earth’s magnetic dipole moment directly and compared with the cosmic ray activity. You can clearly see the anticorrelation and also how puny the solar modulation is compared to the elephant in the room that is the changing geomagnetic dipole. Now if cosmic rays have such an outsized effect then the temperature should vary according to the actual cosmic flux [red curve] which it has not. The solar modulation is only a tenth of the actual change and the actual flux does not match the reconstructed temperatures for the past 12000 years.

  296. Leif Svalgaard (00:25:16) :

    And the dips disagree at times up to several hundred years, and the heavy smoothed lines have a quasi-period closer to 500 years.
    You have good 14C and [now] 10Be. Show 1st, that they line up in detail [not smoothed over a century], then show that each line-up line up with your AM-curve. That is how to do it. As I said, don’t you consider this to be worthwhile? If so, do it. If not, continue as before.

    I am sorry but you are making no sense in regard to the other solar factors that influence climate….so lets leave that one until the discoveries are unveiled.

    I have completed a first pass on combining the 2 isotope graphs and the initial result is very promising. They look to agree with only a few anomalies, which is backing up my earlier work. There does seem to be a difference in the overall shape of the curve (the 10Be is flatter) which suggests perhaps a different outcome on the TSI level for both graphs. Which one is correct?

    You will also notice the black and purple squares on the graph that represent AM in timing and strength, the purple squares with green arrows representing strong AM disturbance. Almost all the strong grand minima line up with strong AM disturbance that also line up with the Suns altered path of the era along with the exact planetary position…too many coincidences to ignore.

  297. Geoff Sharp (06:08:23) :
    You will also notice the black and purple squares on the graph that represent AM in timing and strength, the purple squares with green arrows representing strong AM disturbance. Almost all the strong grand minima line up with strong AM disturbance that also line up with the Suns altered path of the era along with the exact planetary position…too many coincidences to ignore.

    The ‘agreement’ is simply not there. You are not following my advice as how to present this in a convincing manner. First, you get rid of the black squares as they are just fluff that doesn’t mean anything. So, for each of your grand minima show the 10Be and 14C and AM curves. You can do one at a time and show the result here as separate posts as you make then with an explanation of how to interpret just that one minimum. Start now and work back in time.

  298. Geoff Sharp (06:08:23) :
    I am sorry but you are making no sense in regard to the other solar factors that influence climate…
    No need to feel so sorry for yourself. See my reply to ‘kim’ that disposes of the cosmic rays. The UV is dealt with by ‘bill’.

  299. Leif Svalgaard (06:02:30) :

    The main modulator of cosmic rays reaching the Earth’s atmosphere is not solar activity, but the changing magnetic field of the Earth.

    The 14C record (INTECAL98) already has the adjustments made for Earth’s magnetic field?

    Also the temp record does follow the 14C record fairly closely if using a mean value. Hongs overlays to follow.

  300. Leif Svalgaard (06:36:03) :

    No need to feel so sorry for yourself. See my reply to ‘kim’ that disposes of the cosmic rays. The UV is dealt with by ‘bill’.

    See my reply that disposes your reply to Kim (this is getting ridiculous). Bills comments are as vague as your own. Its not rocket science to see that there is a greater variance in UV over the cycle compared with the total TSI. You need to isolate that component and make sure it doesnt affect climate.

  301. Leif Svalgaard (06:23:26) :

    The ‘agreement’ is simply not there. You are not following my advice as how to present this in a convincing manner. First, you get rid of the black squares as they are just fluff that doesn’t mean anything. So, for each of your grand minima show the 10Be and 14C and AM curves. You can do one at a time and show the result here as separate posts as you make then with an explanation of how to interpret just that one minimum. Start now and work back in time.

    I am in the process of doing that Leif, so far the results are quite astounding but no response from you? This now shows both isotope records are in agreement.

    You dont quite understand the AM component, I cant plot an AM graph against an isotope record, I would have to reconfigure it somehow. What is important is to show the strength of the disturbance as well as the timing, which I have done with the purple squares (the timing is right altho just showing the centre). I have used a rough scale for the strength of the disturbance which can be improved on but basically the lower the purple square is on the graph, the stronger the disturbance.

    Your suggestion is good though, I just need to come up with a better method of displaying AM.

  302. Geoff Sharp (06:53:11) :
    The 14C record (INTECAL98) already has the adjustments made for Earth’s magnetic field?
    No, see: http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg
    Since our knowledge of the Earth’s field is evolving, we cannot and do not make adjustments. Solanki’s reconstruction of SSN does have adjustments. Follows closely the blue curve in

    Also the temp record does follow the 14C record fairly closely if using a mean value.
    Mean value? And the temperature record does not match. Going back 7000 years the cosmic ray intensity goes way up, which should give more clouds and colder temps, but temps have declined over the past 7000 years. I’ll let you find the links.

    a greater variance in UV over the cycle compared with the total TSI. You need to isolate that component and make sure it doesnt affect climate.
    The greater variance is of a much smaller number so the effect will be much smaller. It is like thinking the variations of the coins in my pocket are more important than my total assets.

    I am in the process of doing that Leif, so far the results are quite astounding but no response from you? This now shows both isotope records are in agreement.
    Because you are not doing what I asked you.The isotopes are in agreement [as I knew they would be - BTW the 10Be is the better one, because the 10Be deposition is better understood and more direct than the 14C cycle]. The issue is the match with AM.

    What is important is to show the strength of the disturbance as well as the timing
    You have zero, nada, zilch if you cannot put a number to or definition of the ‘disturbance’.

    Your suggestion is good though, I just need to come up with a better method of displaying AM.
    My suggestions are always good :-)
    You problem is not displaying AM, but putting a number or measure to ‘the disturbance’.

  303. Geoff Sharp (06:58:09) :
    See my reply that disposes your reply to Kim (this is getting ridiculous).
    The ridiculous bit is that you make statements with no base on fact, because you don’t check things out:
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    “The Holocene Climate Optimum [HCO] was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years B.P..”
    So, one more time: going back 7000 years, the cosmic rays intensity was much larger [compared to recent variations] which should mean more clouds and colder, yet at that time we had the HCO. So, the temperatures do not match the cosmic rays. But it beats me why this is such a problem for you, as it has nothing to do the your planets. What difference would it make to your ideas if Svensmark is wrong? None.

  304. Leif Svalgaard (07:50:19)

    So, one more time: going back 7000 years

    I dont think that Wiki page is too accurate…a lot of the records are showing a cooling 7000 years ago. Hong (2000) shows a sharp decline in temps at 6000 years ago. More homework required there I think.

    Yes the climate aspect is secondary for me, but still relevant.

  305. Leif Svalgaard (23:55:19) :

    On energy radiated by protons:
    All of these are non-thermal emissions due to changing the direction of a moving proton and do not heat the corona and are of such low intensity that they don’t matter.

    Your concept of radiative energy is wrong, I see. It seems you think there is no thermal energy in the solar corona, although you see the solar corona exhibits temperature. The solar corona exhibits temperature; temperature is clear indication that the system has thermal energy. This argument from you is an absolute contradiction to the observations and to what you say.

    What’s that luminosity of solar corona during total eclipses?The visible corona is not due to protons radiating, but to ordinary sunlight scattering of electrons in the corona. You can see the same effect if you drive a car on a foggy night. The headlight beams become visible, not because the fog is glowing white-hot, but because the drops scatter the the beam.

    Hey! Don’t shift so fast!!! Haven’t you assured the solar corona was not a thermodynamic system and it had not limits?

    My hypothesis is better because it is based on observation of real phenomena.
    Explain again how ‘your’ hypothesis works. It didn’t make sense before. Try again.

    2. So, Neutrinos don’t radiate energy?
    No. Radiative energy is in electromagnetic waves, and neutral particles like a neutrino does not emit electromagnetic waves.

    I just described how the nanoflares originate:
    “In a (nano)flare, movements of the magnetized plasma twists the magnetic field, pressing fields of opposite polarities together…”

    Oh! Sorry… Nevertheless, those nanoflares are impossibility in the real world
    And show why that is.

    I am taking all your twaddle to give a concrete answer below. I will answer only two of the next “questions”:

    http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_articles/nanoflares_boost_heat_suns_corona

    That’s not a confirmation of the occurrence of nanoflares in the corona, but of a flare. The remainder of the article points to a model, that is, conjectures:

    “We simulate bursts of heating and predict what the loop should look like when observed with a variety of instruments.”

    A vacuous definition. Anything would qualify. The magnitude could by accident even be zero and it would still be a TD. The 2nd law works well with dQ = 0. So, a red herring.

    Uh! Oh! Major mistake! Another war of definitions. My definition was taken from Glasser’s Biophysics and Engel’s Thermodynamics. So those authors are vacuous.

    Perhaps you must stop first
    The folks have a reasonable expectation of a website with real information.

    Nasif Nahle (22:57:51) :
    The system ate my last post…
    Perhaps a built-in filter doing its job :-)

    Nope, it was only that they were giving you the time for thinking about your physical concepts mistakes.

    My answer to other of the above Leif’s “questions”:

    Leif says that neutrinos don’t emit electromagnetic waves because they are neutral, so they do not emit energy:

    You’re confounding “emission of electromagnetic waves” with “ionization” and, perhaps, with “emission of Cherenkov light”. Neutrinos don’t ionize because they are neutral. Nevertheless, neutrinos emit and absorb energy because they undergo acceleration. Saying that neutrinos don’t emit and/or absorb real photons is as saying that neutrinos violate the law of conservation of energy and momentum. Neutrinos are electrically neutral, of course; however, it doesn’t mean they cannot emit energy, but only that neutrinos don’t emit Cherenkov light, which is a very different thing. Cherenkov emission is due to the alteration of an electromagnetic field when a charged particle passes through it. Now you’re digging your hole when introducing the concept of those phony “dark neutrinos”.

    Leif says the solar corona is not a thermodynamic system:

    Nevertheless, you describe solar corona like a Fermi liquid in a critical quantum state. You cannot say that about a non thermodynamic system, let’s say, a process or a trajectory. Everything with mass is a thermodynamic system.

    Regarding your Fermi system in a quantum critical state (deduced from your descriptions), which is absolutely homogeneous and symmetric (deduced from your descriptions), it seems to be a black hole that emits energy only when matter collapses (by gulp) into it. Are you talking about a black hole in the solar corona, Leif?

    With respect to my hypothesis, I am yet elaborating it and you must wait until it is finished. I’ll send you the abstract via E-mail, if you have not an inconvenient.

  306. Geoff Sharp (09:03:50) :
    a lot of the records are showing a cooling 7000 years ago. Hong (2000) shows a sharp decline in temps at 6000 years ago. More homework required there I think.

    Many here believe the Ice core data. I therefore present this below for you.

    You will note that only the grip core (greenland) shows the younger dryas. However this shows slightly elevated temps from 2000 bp to 10000bp of ~.25degC
    You will also note that the vostok core shows a dip to about -.25C variation at 7000 bp (corresponding to the CO2 dip)

    which to believe – Vostok – no climate optimum and no younger dryas and no “sharp decline”
    – GRIP no dip?

    Or are these ice core data just rough indicators. (Why on earth does the CH4 have a younger dryas but offfset by 500years?)

  307. Geoff Sharp (09:03:50) :
    a lot of the records are showing a cooling 7000 years ago.
    Figure 5 shows a good compilation: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Holocene,Historicandrecentglobaltemperatures.pdf
    As usual you tend to cherry pick an isolated point. There are records that there was cooling 7000 years ago, but that is not the point [and you know it - if not, your opinion doesn't count], which is that between now and 7000 years ago, there was a steady increase in temperature. As http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg shows, here was indeed cooling at and before 7000 years ago. Sad that you resort to cheap tricks like that.

  308. Nasif Nahle (09:06:36) :
    The solar corona exhibits temperature; temperature is clear indication that the system has thermal energy. This argument from you is an absolute contradiction to the observations and to what you say.
    The question was if the protons radiate with a spectrum representative of their temperature, and they do not, because they cannot.

    Hey! Don’t shift so fast!!! Haven’t you assured the solar corona was not a thermodynamic system and it had not limits?
    Your question was what the luminosity of the corona was. I told you that the light of the visible corona is not due to radiation from protons, but to scattering of ordinary sunlight by electrons.

    And you leave out the observations:
    “To test their model, the team observed gas emissions in the solar corona using the NASA-funded X-Ray Telescope and Extreme Ultraviolet Imaging Spectrometer on Japan’s Hinode spacecraft.”

    So those authors are vacuous.
    No, just you.

    Nevertheless, neutrinos emit and absorb energy because they undergo acceleration.
    How do you accelerate something with no charge and almost no mass? They do not emit or absorb energy. They can pass through a light-year of solid lead without interaction.

    Everything with mass is a thermodynamic system.
    As I said: a vacuous definition if everything qualifies.

    Are you talking about a black hole in the solar corona, Leif?
    Guess where I think the black hole is? :-)

    With respect to my hypothesis, I am yet elaborating it and you must wait until it is finished.
    I have better things to do.

  309. bill (11:13:30) :
    Geoff Sharp (09:03:50) :
    So can we agree that as we go from today back in time to ~7000 years, the was a gradual warming? and that we ‘today’ are cooler than back then. If so, that disposes of the cosmic ray hypothesis, which predicts that as we go back in time to 7000 years ago, the cosmic ray flux increases dramatically [ten times as much as the solar modulation] and therefore predicts a strong and steady cooling back to then.

  310. bill (02:19:57)

    UV (long to ultra short) changes TOTAL SI only fractionally. If the amplification factor were sufficiently large that they had SIGNIFICANT effect at these changed levels then we would be in serious trouble. The ozone layer SIGNIFICANTLY affects the amount of UV reaching the surface. The ozone hole(s) is a significant size and the increase in UV allowed through would have cooked us by now if a large amplification were present.

    UVA and UVB increases decrease phytoplankton (UVA: 320 – 400 most important)
    UVA decreases photosynthesis by 40-50% (Cullen et al., 1992; Holm-Hansen et al)

  311. maksimovich (12:27:43) :
    UVA and UVB increases decrease phytoplankton (UVA: 320 – 400 most important)
    UVA decreases photosynthesis by 40-50% (Cullen et al., 1992; Holm-Hansen et al)

    But none of these have any significant influence on the climate.

  312. Leif Svalgaard (11:41:38) :

    The question was if the protons radiate with a spectrum representative of their temperature, and they do not, because they cannot.

    There are thermal energy in the solar corona which causes temperature, Ok? Those protons, which you describe as isolated and closed systems, collide one with each other, right? Part of the thermal energy (internal energy) of those protons is released and transferred, correct? Now you see clearly that protons in the solar corona are not isolated, closed and paradoxical systems, but perfectly normal systems:

    Two protons in the solar corona medium collide and from the collision two kinds of particles are released, one with a positive charge known as positron, and another known as neutrino, which has no electrical charge. The positrons collide with the electrons in the solar corona and completely annihilate mutually and release… Uh! Oh! Yeah, Leif! PHOTONS!

    Your question was what the luminosity of the corona was. I told you that the light of the visible corona is not due to radiation from protons, but to scattering of ordinary sunlight by electrons.

    And your explanation on luminosity of the solar corona fits perfectly with thermodynamic systems… No way. :)

    And you leave out the observations:
    “To test their model, the team observed gas emissions in the solar corona using the NASA-funded X-Ray Telescope and Extreme Ultraviolet Imaging Spectrometer on Japan’s Hinode spacecraft.”

    No, I didn’t. The observation of gas emissions in the solar corona are not evidence of “your” nanoflares, but only about a fragment of the electrohydrodynamical equilibrium in the Sun. No one has observed a single, solitary nanoflare in the solar corona. Nanoflares are simply hypothetical.

    No, just you.

    And for extension, those authors. Look for the definition of thermodynamic systems in your preferred source of knowledge, Wikipedia. :)

    How do you accelerate something with no charge and almost no mass? They do not emit or absorb energy. They can pass through a light-year of solid lead without interaction.

    Epur it has mass. Yours is not a valid argument.
    Epur they interact. You have been “crossed”, at least, by 50 trillion neutrinos in the last second, for example. If they have hit on your neurons, then we have a feasible explanation for that idea of you on a black hole in the solar corona.

    As I said: a vacuous definition if everything qualifies.

    Tell physicists about your opinion. I cannot change the description of a thermodynamic system.

    Guess where I think the black hole is? :-)

    Oh! Don’t guess any more, I found its position and origin two paragraphs above these lines. :)

    With respect to my hypothesis, I am yet elaborating it and you must wait until it is finished.
    I have better things to do.

    I see… you have to invent solar coronas which are not thermodynamic systems, but black holes; dark neutrinos; temperature generated by static protons, neutrons and neutrinos, etc.

  313. Leif Svalgaard (12:08:27) :
    bill (11:13:30) :
    Geoff Sharp (09:03:50) :
    So can we agree that as we go from today back in time to ~7000 years, the was a gradual warming? and that we ‘today’ are cooler than back then. If so, that disposes of the cosmic ray hypothesis, which predicts that as we go back in time to 7000 years ago, the cosmic ray flux increases dramatically [ten times as much as the solar modulation] and therefore predicts a strong and steady cooling back to then.

    CERN’s Jasper Kirkby would disagree with you, I think.
    These results confirm the pattern seen in Fig. 4 for the Little Ice Age, and extend it throughout the
    Holocene, namely a high cosmic ray flux is associated with a southerly displacement of the ITCZ. Taken
    together, the observations suggest that solar/GCR forcing has been responsible for significant centennial
    and millennial scale climate variability during the entire Holocene, on a global scale.

    see 2.2.1 in

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf

  314. Leif Svalgaard (12:48:22) :

    maksimovich (12:27:43) :
    UVA and UVB increases decrease phytoplankton (UVA: 320 – 400 most important)
    UVA decreases photosynthesis by 40-50% (Cullen et al., 1992; Holm-Hansen et al)
    ——————————
    But none of these have any significant influence on the climate.

    Have you not heard of albedo changes and ocean heat absorption changes because of increased levels of phytoplankton. You are too quick to dismiss as there is so much to learn in this area.

    Leif Svalgaard (12:08:27) :

    bill (11:13:30) :
    Geoff Sharp (09:03:50) :
    So can we agree that as we go from today back in time to ~7000 years, the was a gradual warming? and that we ‘today’ are cooler than back then. If so, that disposes of the cosmic ray hypothesis, which predicts that as we go back in time to 7000 years ago, the cosmic ray flux increases dramatically [ten times as much as the solar modulation] and therefore predicts a strong and steady cooling back to then.

    How can we agree when there are conflicting reports?

  315. Mike Jonas (15:39:31) :
    CERN’s Jasper Kirkby would disagree with you, I think.
    Jasper makes a fatal error. You can see it in his Figure 8, where he shows 14C and 10Be as a function of time. But these proxies have been corrected for the change in the Earth’s magnetic field as is proper if one wants to study the Sun. But it is wrong if one wants to study the climate. What matters then is the uncorrected flux because that is the GCR flux that the atmosphere sees. http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg

    There are other errors in Kirkby’s paper [e.g. that the interplanetary magnetic field has doubled the past 100 years [it has not; it is now right were it was 108 years ago], but the above error is the worst. Compare his blue 14C curve with the blue curve in http://www.leif.org/research/14C-past-11000-years.png
    They should agree and they both show a flat production rate over the past 10000 years, but the real rate [not corrected for the change of the dipole] is the red curve.

  316. Geoff Sharp (15:54:36) :
    Have you not heard of albedo changes and ocean heat absorption changes because of increased levels of phytoplankton.
    Of course, but it has not been shown that there are such changes and that they are significant. Link please with a graph that shows that over say a century.

    How can we agree when there are conflicting reports?
    Becasue Hongs is but one of many and is a single local report. And by the way shows cooling the past 4000 years while cosmic rays flux predicts warming.

  317. Nasif Nahle (13:13:28) :
    Two protons in the solar corona medium collide and from the collision two kinds of particles are released, one with a positive charge known as positron, and another known as neutrino, which has no electrical charge. The positrons collide with the electrons in the solar corona and completely annihilate mutually and release… Uh! Oh! Yeah, Leif! PHOTONS!
    The proton are too cold to collide and the 0.511 MeV gamma ray that would be emitted is not observed from the corona, although has been seen in very strong flares with temperatures in the 10s of millions K.

    And your explanation on luminosity of the solar corona fits perfectly with thermodynamic systems… No way. :)
    “Light from the corona comes from three primary sources, which are called by different names although all of them share the same volume of space. The K-corona (K for kontinuierlich, “continuous” in German) is created by sunlight scattering off free electrons; Doppler broadening of the reflected photospheric absorption lines completely obscures them, giving the spectral appearance of a continuum with no absorption lines. The F-corona (F for Fraunhofer) is created by sunlight bouncing off dust particles, and is observable because its light contains the Fraunhofer absorption lines that are seen in raw sunlight; the F-corona extends to very high elongation angles from the Sun, where it is called the Zodiacal light. The E-corona (E for emission) is due to spectral emission lines produced by ions that are present in the coronal plasma; it may be observed in broad or forbidden or hot spectral emission lines and is the main source of information about the corona’s composition.” as I said.

    No one has observed a single, solitary nanoflare in the solar corona. Nanoflares are simply hypothetical.
    Krucker et al. report one nanoflare every three seconds:

    http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0004-637X/488/1/499/

    You have been “crossed”, at least, by 50 trillion neutrinos in the last second,
    But they have not interacted with me. Right now it is night here and the neutrinos that hit me come up through the Earth because they have not interacted with the Earth either. Neutrinos do not emit radiation, they are indeed dark and almost impossible to observe. We can observe the cosmic 2.7K microwave flux from the Big Bang. There should also be a similar [but slightly cooler, 2K] neutrino flux, but it is unobservable [so far, but surely there] because they are dark.

    I think you have gone on long enough. All of those statements by you here are way off the cliff and show such profound ignorance that it is hard to believe they were uttered by a ‘scientist’ [even if self-proclaimed] by any measure.

  318. >Leif Svalgaard (12:08:27) :

    bill (11:13:30) :
    Geoff Sharp (09:03:50) :
    So can we agree that as we go from today back in time to ~7000 years, the was a gradual warming? and that we ‘today’ are cooler than back then. If so, that disposes of the cosmic ray hypothesis, which predicts that as we go back in time to 7000 years ago, the cosmic ray flux increases dramatically [ten times as much as the solar modulation] and therefore predicts a strong and steady cooling back to then.<

    No, because you are once more oversimplifying and misrepresenting the complexities of the events. Stepping back even further in time by tens of millions of years and hundreds of millions of years, we can observe how Milankovitch Cycles are a more frequent and much smaller amplitude cycle superimposed upon much longer and larger amplitude cycles of other yet to be identified cycles of temperature and changes in biogenic activities and atmospheric chemistry. It remains to be determined how many factors and what factors in addition to cosmic rays may be occuring in cycles and thereby reinforcing and dampening the overall result of global atmospheric temperatures and climates.

  319. D. Patterson (17:12:40) :
    No, because you are once more oversimplifying and misrepresenting the complexities of the events.
    The GCR hypothesis was supposed to be straightforward and was put forward based on a couple of solar cycles worth of data. It is a classical rhetorical trick when things don’t pan out, to resort to ‘complexity’ and ‘yet to be identified’ stuff over hundreds of millions of years. The best data we have is for the holocene [rather than 100 million years ago] and does not show the effect.
    And apart from this, the Kirkby is flawed as I pointed out.

  320. Leif Svalgaard (17:11:59) :

    Two protons in the solar corona medium collide and from the collision two kinds of particles are released, one with a positive charge known as positron, and another known as neutrino, which has no electrical charge. The positrons collide with the electrons in the solar corona and completely annihilate mutually and release… Uh! Oh! Yeah, Leif! PHOTONS!
    The proton are too cold to collide and the 0.511 MeV gamma ray that would be emitted is not observed from the corona, although has been seen in very strong flares with temperatures in the 10s of millions K.

    My description is what is happening just now in the Sun. You are saying that the protons at the solar corona are too cold to collide, etc. You are wrong:

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/x65r11v456647672/

    http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0004-637X/485/1/430

    http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/sun.htm

    http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2006-1&page=articlesu34.html

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1967ApJ…148..229M

    http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/485/1/430/36021.text.html

    And your explanation on luminosity of the solar corona fits perfectly with thermodynamic systems… No way. :)
    “Light from the corona comes from three primary sources, which are called by different names although all of them share the same volume of space. The K-corona (K for kontinuierlich, “continuous” in German) is created by sunlight scattering off free electrons; Doppler broadening of the reflected photospheric absorption lines completely obscures them, giving the spectral appearance of a continuum with no absorption lines. The F-corona (F for Fraunhofer) is created by sunlight bouncing off dust particles, and is observable because its light contains the Fraunhofer absorption lines that are seen in raw sunlight; the F-corona extends to very high elongation angles from the Sun, where it is called the Zodiacal light. The E-corona (E for emission) is due to spectral emission lines produced by ions that are present in the coronal plasma; it may be observed in broad or forbidden or hot spectral emission lines and is the main source of information about the corona’s composition.” as I said.

    http://www.helioslab.org/thermo/thermo.htm

    No one has observed a single, solitary nanoflare in the solar corona. Nanoflares are simply hypothetical.
    Krucker et al. report one nanoflare every three seconds:

    http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0004-637X/488/1/499/

    You have been “crossed”, at least, by 50 trillion neutrinos in the last second,
    But they have not interacted with me. Right now it is night here and the neutrinos that hit me come up through the Earth because they have not interacted with the Earth either. Neutrinos do not emit radiation, they are indeed dark and almost impossible to observe. We can observe the cosmic 2.7K microwave flux from the Big Bang. There should also be a similar [but slightly cooler, 2K] neutrino flux, but it is unobservable [so far, but surely there] because they are dark.

    I think you have gone on long enough. All of those statements by you here are way off the cliff and show such profound ignorance that it is hard to believe they were uttered by a ’scientist’ [even if self-proclaimed] by any measure.

  321. Nasif Nahle (17:52:19) :
    My description is what is happening just now in the Sun. You are saying that the protons at the solar corona are too cold to collide, etc. You are wrong
    Too cold to collide and produce positrons, of course. They collide all the time as all atoms of a hot gas does. In rare, big flares 10s or 100s of millions of degrees are reached, but that is not what heats the corona.

    It has been known for decades what makes the corona visible and it has nothing to do with thermodynamics, jut scattered light, like headlight on a foggy night.

    I think you have gone on long enough. All of those statements by you here are way off the cliff and show such profound ignorance that it is hard to believe they were uttered by a ’scientist’ [even if self-proclaimed] by any measure.

  322. Leif Svalgaard (17:11:59) :

    I think you have gone on long enough. All of those statements by you here are way off the cliff and show such profound ignorance that it is hard to believe they were uttered by a ’scientist’ [even if self-proclaimed] by any measure.

    http://www.helioslab.org/thermo/thermo.htm

    http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/476/1/385/33737.text.html

    http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1981ARA%26A..19….7K/0000007.000.html

    http://www.pnas.org/content/104/14/5749.full

    Markus J. Aschwanden. Physics of the solar corona: an introduction with problems and solutions. Chapter 10.

    http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/research/solar/plasma.html

    http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA153737

    http://www.ann-geophys.net/24/785/2006/angeo-24-785-2006.html

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/302/5648/1165.pdf

    At least I am not so ignorant or stupid as to say the solar corona is not a thermodynamic system and has no boundaries.

  323. Nasif Nahle (18:21:12) :
    At least I am not so ignorant or stupid as to say the solar corona is not a thermodynamic system and has no boundaries.

    It is worse than that. You are dishonest and will quote, e.g.
    http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/research/solar/plasma.html as support for your view even if it explains their research on the physically impossible [according to you] nanoflares. It is easy to pick things up on the internet. It requires knowledge and insight to put them together in a meaningful way, rather than just [as you do] regurgitate undigested pieces out of context and out of measure.

  324. Nasif Nahle (18:21:12) :
    I wonder what the many classical authorities you continually refer to would say to this quote from a link you provide about thermodynamics:

    http://www.helioslab.org/thermo/thermo.htm

    “[...]solar corona heating and solar wind, with the aid of thermodynamics or possibly modify the classical thermodynamics theory to comply with what are happening on the Sun.”

    Do you actually yourself read [and perhaps more importantly understand] the stuff you link to? The links, I presume, were all in support of your ideas and to prove that you know what you are talking about.

  325. Leif Svalgaard (18:53:10) :

    Nasif Nahle (18:21:12) :
    At least I am not so ignorant or stupid as to say the solar corona is not a thermodynamic system and has no boundaries.

    It is worse than that. You are dishonest and will quote, e.g.
    http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/research/solar/plasma.html as support for your view even if it explains their research on the physically impossible [according to you] nanoflares. It is easy to pick things up on the internet. It requires knowledge and insight to put them together in a meaningful way, rather than just [as you do] regurgitate undigested pieces out of context and out of measure.

    On the contrary, it is a proof of my honesty. Besides, the authors do not mention the observation of “nanoflares”, but of flares and magnetic loops, as the remainder of authors have done:

    “Efforts to determine α from analysis of individual events have proved inconclusive…”

    Besides, I didn’t quoted it in support of “my” view, but only for demonstrating to my colleagues here that the solar corona is a thermodynamic system, contains thermal energy and has boundaries.

  326. It has occurred to me that if there are enough of these innumerable climate effectors then we’ll never figure out exactly the true contribution of anthropogenic CO2. We’ll run out before we know what we’ve put up can do.
    ========================================

  327. I have special ed colleagues who make the same mistake by equating reading with writing. They have a vague understanding based on the oft repeated “teach reading and writing together” mantra repeated in do-all, be-all, no planning scripted curriculum. The two are far apart and require different skills and areas of the brain unique to each. Yes they share a bit. But thinking that by being a good reader you will be a good writer is a simplistic view regurgitated by the barely educated lot who have not taken the hard courses of neuro-anatomy and language pathology. In fact, most teachers are not prepared to teach writing, not even reading specialists.

    So for those of us who are arm chair Sun worshippers, including me, who think we have any kind of deep understanding about the Sun and its characteristics compared to someone who has dedicated his/her life to its study, we be pissing in the wind.

  328. Leif Svalgaard (19:01:16) :

    Nasif Nahle (18:21:12) :
    I wonder what the many classical authorities you continually refer to would say to this quote from a link you provide about thermodynamics:

    http://www.helioslab.org/thermo/thermo.htm

    “[...]solar corona heating and solar wind, with the aid of thermodynamics or possibly modify the classical thermodynamics theory to comply with what are happening on the Sun.”

    Do you actually yourself read [and perhaps more importantly understand] the stuff you link to? The links, I presume, were all in support of your ideas and to prove that you know what you are talking about.

    You’re “cherry picking” what better fits into your wrong ideas. From the same reference we can read:

    The aim of this studies, as a logic continuation of the previous studies of thermodynamics of the solar corona heating problems and solar wind mechanism, is to establish a comprehensive theory of the solar thermodynamics in order to explain the major phenomena of sun activities, particularly the energy balance and radiation mechanism.”

    Ciao! :)

  329. Nasif Nahle (19:07:19) :
    Besides, the authors do not mention the observation of “nanoflares”, but of flares and magnetic loops

    They say:
    “The observational data were compared with a Monte-Carlo type numerical simulation code, which made it possible to estimate the energy and occurrence rate of nanoflares in an Active Region observed with Yohkoh/SXT”.

    You do not understand how science works in such cases.

    Nasif Nahle (19:17:40) :
    From the same reference we can read
    “I consider myself as a new type thermodynamic consultant, with the main business of the application of thermodynamic and thermophysical theories and technologies to carry out exergetic and exegoeconomic (thermoeconomic) analysis of the thermal systems, equipments, and other systems.”

    My bulls**t and buzz-word filter kick in when I come across self-agrandissement like the above, but he seems to strike a cord with you… I guess that for some the bar is lower…

  330. Leif Svalgaard (19:37:07) :

    Nasif Nahle (19:07:19) :
    Besides, the authors do not mention the observation of “nanoflares”, but of flares and magnetic loops

    They say:
    “The observational data were compared with a Monte-Carlo type numerical simulation code, which made it possible to estimate the energy and occurrence rate of nanoflares in an Active Region observed with Yohkoh/SXT”.

    You do not understand how science works in such cases.

    Indeed, I don’t understand how science works in case of deep fantasies like yours. Where the authors say they have observed nanoflares? You’re inventing them!

    Nasif Nahle (19:17:40) :
    From the same reference we can read
    “I consider myself as a new type thermodynamic consultant, with the main business of the application of thermodynamic and thermophysical theories and technologies to carry out exergetic and exegoeconomic (thermoeconomic) analysis of the thermal systems, equipments, and other systems.”

    My bulls**t and buzz-word filter kick in when I come across self-agrandissement like the above, but he seems to strike a cord with you… I guess that for some the bar is lower…

    You make me laugh… I don’t need such sophisticated ad hominem attacks. It is enough for me to know that you don’t know what a thermodynamic system is, that you think the protons have not energy, that they don’t collide, that they don’t release energy, that the temperature of the solar corona is not due to thermal energy, etc., etc., etc. Those are real demonstrations of the level of your bar. ;)

  331. Hey, free drinks at my bar. What about the idea that climate regulation is so complex we’ll never separate the anthropogenic from the natural causes?
    =============================================

  332. Leif Svalgaard (16:35:39) :

    Geoff Sharp (15:54:36) :
    Have you not heard of albedo changes and ocean heat absorption changes because of increased levels of phytoplankton.
    Of course, but it has not been shown that there are such changes and that they are significant. Link please with a graph that shows that over say a century.

    (Unpublished from Penner and Andronova)

    It is impossible to ascertain centennial observations,Indeed in the satellite era accurate uv observations are only 7 years old.Previous has uncertainties of 50% in specific PS attenuation frequencies(you need to relate specific frequencies to specific taxa extrapolation is out and our understanding of this fact with uv is 100 years old eg Gurwitsch)

    Another and not insignificant problem, is specific species like increases in uv and have evolved and indeed expect (the seasonal anticipators in the Antarctic) changes in uv flux which is the impervious barrier to biospheric modelling eg Monod.

  333. Nasif Nahle (20:19:10) :
    Those are real demonstrations of the level of your bar.
    I have been checking into the wondrous world that opens up when one follows the links provided by your new type of thermodynamic consultant/expert. Here is an excerpt:

    “The solar surface has recently been imaged in high resolution using the Swedish Solar Telescope. These images reveal a clear solar surface in 3D with valleys, canyons, and walls. Relative to these findings, the authors insist that a true surface is not being seen. Such statements are prompted by belief in the gaseous models of the Sun. The gaseous models cannot provide an adequate means for generating a real surface. Solar opacity arguments are advanced to caution the reader against
    interpretation that a real surface is being imaged. Nonetheless, a real surface is required by the liquid model. It appears that a real surface is being seen. Only our theoretical arguments demand the neglect of the obvious.”

    It is becoming clear where you are coming from and to what pseudo-scientific [PS] clan you belong. Of course, you are not the only such PS on this blog. One can only implore the depth of ignorance the public has sunk to.

  334. Leif Svalgaard (23:17:35) :

    It is becoming clear where you are coming from and to what pseudo-scientific [PS] clan you belong. Of course, you are not the only such PS on this blog. One can only implore the depth of ignorance the public has sunk to.

    Its not clear to me….maybe you could inform us?

    Leif’s law. Anything that does not fit the agenda and cannot be changed is Pseudo Science.

  335. Dear Leif

    Do you think you could stop lacing your responses with gratuitous ad hominem attacks as they make your arguments appear much weaker than they already are?

  336. Geoff Sharp (00:15:02) :
    Of course, you are not the only such PS on this blog.
    Perhaps I should have added: “[and you know who you are]“, but obviously there was no need for that.

    Its not clear to me….maybe you could inform us?
    I have held forth on that repeatedly.

  337. maksimovich (23:15:02) :
    Indeed in the satellite era accurate uv observations are only 7 years old.
    We have good data for the Near UV [Ca II K-line] back to 1915

  338. tom (03:03:22) :
    Do you think you could stop lacing your responses with gratuitous ad hominem attacks as they make your arguments appear much weaker than they already are?

    If they are already so weak, they don’t lose much by appearing weaker still.

  339. Geoff Sharp (00:15:02) I agree that one should not dismiss Pseudo Science out of hand. Something may be missed.
    However, I do believe that where physical evidence for wrong PS is concerned one is right to dismiss and even ridicule it!

    For example the change in UV is science but as a change in TSI it is very very small. For it to have an effect on global temperature there would have to be a multiplier in the loop. If this multiplier were present then there would be instability as the ozone level changes. This has not ben observed. Also being part of TSI it would leave a 11 year hall mark on the temperature. This is not visible above the general noise.

    Holding energy in deep oceans is an impossible concept for me to understand. Water can be heated, be set in motion or grow biomass as a means of storing energy,I cannot see any state of water that could otherwise retain energy. It has been said that the ocean will retain TSI input during the peaks and release it in the troughs or other TSI minima. The shortest time it has to keep this energy away from the atmosphere is 5 years. Energy stored as motion would not last this long friction etc. Heat in an inversion layer perhaps could (although conduction and mixing would diminish the store amount. But I have seen no reports of a massive inversion layer remaining stable for 5 years (annual events perhaps). If you know of such research can you give a link to it? One also has to question how this energy “knows” that TSI is low and should therefore re-emerge. If stored as biomass then how does this then give up the energy when required?

    If logic says the PS is BS then I am afraid PS should be dismissed

  340. Leif Svalgaard (23:17:35) :

    I have been checking into the wondrous world that opens up when one follows the links provided by your new type of thermodynamic consultant/expert. Here is an excerpt:

    “The solar surface has recently been imaged in high resolution using the Swedish Solar Telescope. These images reveal a clear solar surface in 3D with valleys, canyons, and walls. Relative to these findings, the authors insist that a true surface is not being seen. Such statements are prompted by belief in the gaseous models of the Sun. The gaseous models cannot provide an adequate means for generating a real surface. Solar opacity arguments are advanced to caution the reader against
    interpretation that a real surface is being imaged. Nonetheless, a real surface is required by the liquid model. It appears that a real surface is being seen. Only our theoretical arguments demand the neglect of the obvious.”

    It is becoming clear where you are coming from and to what pseudo-scientific [PS] clan you belong. Of course, you are not the only such PS on this blog. One can only implore the depth of ignorance the public has sunk to.

    You’re obssessed on trying to denigrate my person; however, my work is absolutely adhered to clean and clear science.

    It is not my fault that you confound thermodynamic concepts. I have shown you in good terms what aspects of your arguments are plainly wrong comparing them with scientific literature: Engels, Potter, Glasser, etc. Even so, you insist on changing the basic concepts and mixing them; so, it is not me who are on the side of pseudoscience, as you are pretending to place my person, but you, Leif, who is inventing terms, unexistent systems, processes, dennying the basic physics, etc.

    The readers on this blog are not stupid. They can take any book on physics, thermodynamics, thermal science, astrophysics, solar science, etc. and corroborate that I have been given real concepts about the issues touched by you and I; the readers will also corroborate that you are deeply confused on physical concepts.

    If you are not just confused, but you are conscious of what you are doing, you would be doing pseudoscience, then.

    See for yourself. Look for the definition of thermodynamic system, heat, thermal energy, internal energy, kinetic energy, etc., and recognize, honestly, that you are wrong.

    You can continue doing ad hominem attacks. Science is supporting what I am saying. There are many books on physics, thermodynamics, solar physics, etc., and the readers and moderators perfectly know that I am right and mine is not pseudoscience, but clean, clear and real science.

  341. Nasif Nahle (07:39:02) :
    he readers and moderators perfectly know that I am right and mine is not pseudoscience, but clean, clear and real science.

    And I’m sure they appreciate this to the fullest, including neutrinos emitting electromagnetic radiation and the physical impossibility of nanoflares.

  342. Leif Svalgaard (07:46:18) :

    Nasif Nahle (07:39:02) :
    he readers and moderators perfectly know that I am right and mine is not pseudoscience, but clean, clear and real science.

    And I’m sure they appreciate this to the fullest, including neutrinos emitting electromagnetic radiation and the physical impossibility of nanoflares.

    And I sustain what I said. When you or other scientists demonstrate the existence of those imaginary nanoflares, I would accept that I was wrong.

    Regarding neutrinos, it is elementary knowledge. Neutrinos are moving fast, so they contain thermal energy and momentum. From time to time, neutrinos interact with molecules and release energy. The possibility on the annihilation of neutrinos and antineutrinos is real, so don’t tell me they don’t interact with other particles:

    http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/~grb07/Presentations/Birkl.pdf

    http://www.acadjournal.com/2001/v4/part4/p1/

    Now it is time for you to be humble for an instant and accept that you are wrong in some thermodynamics concepts. I’m not discussing your knowledge on solar physics. Your opinions are valuable for many people in WUWT; but my knowledge and the knowledge of all my colleagues here is valuable also.

    Ad hominem attacks weakens your credibility. Accepting your errors strengthen your credibility.

  343. bill (06:04:43) :

    For example the change in UV is science but as a change in TSI it is very very small. For it to have an effect on global temperature there would have to be a multiplier in the loop. If this multiplier were present then there would be instability as the ozone level changes. This has not ben observed. Also being part of TSI it would leave a 11 year hall mark on the temperature. This is not visible above the general noise.

    Holding energy in deep oceans is an impossible concept for me to understand. Water can be heated, be set in motion or grow biomass as a means of storing energy,I cannot see any state of water that could otherwise retain energy. It has been said that the ocean will retain TSI input during the peaks and release it in the troughs or other TSI minima. The shortest time it has to keep this energy away from the atmosphere is 5 years. Energy stored as motion would not last this long friction etc. Heat in an inversion layer perhaps could (although conduction and mixing would diminish the store amount. But I have seen no reports of a massive inversion layer remaining stable for 5 years (annual events perhaps). If you know of such research can you give a link to it? One also has to question how this energy “knows” that TSI is low and should therefore re-emerge. If stored as biomass then how does this then give up the energy when required.”

    The above post returns to issues of more interest to me.

    I agree that the quantities of UV variation are very small but if it is primarily UV that gets past the region of ocean surface involved in evaporation then variations in UV could have disproportionate effects on the ocean energy balance. I previously asked which wavelengths are most successful in getting past the region of ocean surface involved in evaporation but did not get a reply.

    I doubt that that would be sufficient on it’s own but the presence of multipliers such as the response of oceanic organisms and the response of internal oceanic movements could well scale it up several times.

    I agree that it is misleading to propose that oceans hold energy in reserve for use at a later date.

    However, solar energy is always entering and leaving the oceans. The amount of energy held by the oceans is simply a function of how long the oceans slow down the release of the energy received. The longer it is retained the higher the ocean energy content and the higher the temperature. If the solar energy were passing through the oceans with no delay at all then there would be no heat energy in the oceans, the oceans would have long ago frozen solid or would have been evaporated to space because there would be no hydrological cycle either.

    I have no difficulty envisaging that the oceans themselves (possibly over very long time scales in a number of overlapping cycles) vary the speed of transmission of solar energy through those oceans before it is released to the air. If the ocean temperature is a function of the speed of transmission of energy (rather than the absolute quantity of that energy) then that largely decouples the small solar variations from climate changes except over even longer periods of time.

    A constant current through a resistor will result in different amounts of heat being produced depending on the efficiency of the resistor.

    There is no need for the oceans to be ‘holding’ any energy. All they need to do is accelerate or decelerate the release of energy to the air and that results in temperature changes largely independent of solar variations.

    The higher the input and the lower the output the higher will be the ocean energy content and thus the temperature at any given time and vice versa.

    Furthermore when the oceans release energy faster as in El Nino conditions the air warms but the oceans are in the process of losing energy unless it is being replaced even faster.

    Faster release of energy to the air implies that the oceans have become a less effective resistor and less heat is produced within the oceans. Slower release of energy to the air implies that the oceans have become a more effective resistor and more heat is produced within the oceans.

    But the air warms as the seas cool and the air cools as the sea warms.

  344. Leif Svalgaard (03:51:56) :

    maksimovich (23:15:02) :
    ‘Indeed in the satellite era accurate uv observations are only 7 years old.
    We have good data for the Near UV [Ca II K-line] back to 1915′

    Du Wit et al 2009

    “Unfortunately, there has been no long-term and continuous measurement of the full solar UV spectrum until Feb. 2002, when the TIMED satellite started operating.”

    ….The altitude of strongest absorption is shown in Fig. 1, together with the average spectral irradiance. No single proxy can reproduce the solar variability over the whole UV spectrum.

  345. Nasif Nahle (08:54:20) :
    Regarding neutrinos, it is elementary knowledge. so don’t tell me they don’t interact with other particles
    I tell you that they interact extremely rarely, but the issue was not interaction, but whether they emit electromagnetic radiation, and they do not. Be humble and accept that. It is, of course , a hallmark of pseudo-science to divert to irrelevant straw men [do neutrinos interact?]

    you are wrong in some thermodynamics concepts.
    This is a hold-over of the previous discussion of storage of heat. I pointed out that this was not a question about thermodynamics, but simple of accepted usage in climate science. I cannot be right or wrong on that, the usage is what it is and hampers communication if you try to correct that.

    but my knowledge and the knowledge of all my colleagues here is valuable also.
    And what knowledge would that be? radiating neutrinos? solid sun? quantum tunneling through non-existing barrier? None of this has any value.

    Ad hominem attacks weakens your credibility. Accepting your errors strengthen your credibility.
    I’m not fishing for credibility. And you have not demonstrated any errors. If and when you do, I’ll be glad to accept.

  346. maksimovich (12:03:07) :
    No single proxy can reproduce the solar variability over the whole UV spectrum.
    This is a straw man, as we don’t need to be perfect and cover the whole spectrum, only the part that is of interest, and that would be the near UV [which we have observed back to 1915] as that is what mostly reaches the ocean. The shorter wavelengths are completely absorbed much higher up.

  347. Stephen Wilde (10:41:32) :
    A constant current through a resistor will result in different amounts of heat being produced depending on the efficiency of the resistor.
    A constant current through a fixed resistor produces the same amount of heat (I^2*R). The actual temperature will depend on rate of loss of heat (thermal resistance)

    UV seems to penetrate to 10 to 40 m (2nd paper). However it is absorbed all the way down. i.e. the surface will receive and absorb most UV allowing progressively less UV to pass and be absorbed as depth increases. UV does not bypass intervening layers and simply heat the water at max penetration depth.
    The increased temperature generated by UV will immediately begin diffusing through the water and in general the warmer water will convect to the surface. The increased surface temperature will allow the air to heat. (1deg C increase at sea surface will allow the surface air to heat to 1 deg higher

    http://spg.ucsd.edu/People/Mati/2002_Vasilkov_et_al_Opt_Eng.pdf

    http://www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_34/issue_8/1623.pdf

    I do not understand how you expect heat to be generated by the water. The only way I can thik of is similar to the vortex tube – http://www.airtxinternational.com/vortex-tubes/?google&gclid=CLvTpsLwxJwCFUYA4wodh18XoA – centrifuging to separate hot and cold molecules. I’m sure you do not mean this. I need an explanation please!

  348. bill (15:26:59)

    “I do not understand how you expect heat to be generated by the water. ”

    You may as well ask how heat can be generated by the metal in a resistor. It isn’t the material that generates the heat. The heat is generated when current passing through the resistor is slowed down whilst it is being transmitted through the resistor and in the process one gets a reduction in voltage plus heat.

    As for the oceans the solar energy enters the oceans and in the process is slowed down which increases wavelength and generates heat within the oceans. The length of the delay is only miniscule as is the length of delay in the energy flow through any resistor but it is enough).

    The loss of heat (thermal resistance) occurring in the oceans appears to be variable due to the internal behaviour of the oceans quite unlike a fixed resistor. The oceans are therefore collectively a variable resistor generating heat from the energy flow and the heat generated varies in quantity over time independently of solar variability.

    The variations in the length of delay in the transmission of solar energy are miniscule but enough to show varying heat production.

    The only energy from the sun which significantly affects ocean energy content is that portion which gets past the region of the surface water involved in evaporation.

    As you point out that would appear to be quite a narrow band of UV (or is it near UV as per Leif). Yet that UV varies more than TSI so if only UV gets deep enough to make a difference then it is the proportionate variation in UV that matters not the proportionate variation in TSI. The deeper the solar energy (whether it be UV or more energetic wavelengths) gets into the water the more is likely to be diverted away from the surface by internal oceanic movements.

    That UV varies by 6% or so does it not ? That is somewhat more than the TSI variation of 0.01% which Leif has told us about.

  349. bill (06:04:43) :

    It has been said that the ocean will retain TSI input during the peaks and release it in the troughs or other TSI minima. The shortest time it has to keep this energy away from the atmosphere is 5 years. Energy stored as motion would not last this long friction etc. Heat in an inversion layer perhaps could (although conduction and mixing would diminish the store amount.

    Bill, mixing and conduction (molecular diffusion) are very slow processes in the abyssal ocean. Meanwhile, friction is so small compared to the inertial masses that you can virtually ignore it in the ocean interior.

    Besides, if the energy does dissipate as heat in the interior (near rough topography or whatever), that would be a way for energy to be moved to depth.

    But I have seen no reports of a massive inversion layer remaining stable for 5 years (annual events perhaps).

    It doesn’t need to be an inversion layer; it only needs to be substantially different from what would otherwise be there (in a completely “stable” profile) to count as stored heat or potential energy.

    One also has to question how this energy “knows” that TSI is low and should therefore re-emerge.

    Imagine a smoke plume — it doesn’t need to “know” anything to fill in the holes, it just does after a long time.

  350. As seen in this new WUWT thread http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/27/ncar-spots-the-transistor-effect-small-solar-activity-fluctuations-amplify-to-larger-climate-influences/ there is much we dont know about UV and climate effects but it is thought to play an important role.

    The previous statements seem to be concentrating on the UV and how it is absorbed/used in the oceans, but as the article referenced suggests UV causes secondary processes that affect cloud cover which in turn sends less or more heat to the hot water bottle.

  351. Stephen Wilde (16:22:58) :
    oms (16:48:40) :

    What are you lot talking about – it certainly is not scientific!
    Solar radiation enters the ocean. It heats surface layers down to a depth where the final energy is converteed to heat (or it could be absorbed by organics for growth). You now have warmer water (the molecules vibrate more).
    The oceans are therefore collectively a variable resistor generating heat from the energy flow and the heat generated varies in quantity over time independently of solar variability
    What???? Ok the temperature of the water will fall over time with no energy input. Once the solar energy has been converted to heat then the temperature of the water will rise no more. The conversion of solar radiation to heat will be fast and then there will be no more solar energy to convert. The water temp will therefore not be able to rise without further energy input – turn the power to the resistor off and the resistor temperature will fall there is no other option.

    UV is a small part of tsi and will have little effect on climate. Changing this a few percent will have even smaller delta effect.

  352. Leif Svalgaard (12:13:48) :

    I tell you that they interact extremely rarely, but the issue was not interaction, but whether they emit electromagnetic radiation, and they do not. Be humble and accept that. It is, of course , a hallmark of pseudo-science to divert to irrelevant straw men [do neutrinos interact?]

    This is a hold-over of the previous discussion of storage of heat. I pointed out that this was not a question about thermodynamics, but simple of accepted usage in climate science. I cannot be right or wrong on that, the usage is what it is and hampers communication if you try to correct that.

    And what knowledge would that be? radiating neutrinos? solid sun? quantum tunneling through non-existing barrier? None of this has any value.

    I’m not fishing for credibility. And you have not demonstrated any errors. If and when you do, I’ll be glad to accept.</i

    Then accept reality… You are wrong and point. You're spending too much energy and resources trying to create your own science on a phony universe plagued with dark protons, dark neutrons, dark neutrinos, dark solar corona, etc.

    Leif… I insist because I am right and you are wrong. Neutrinos have movement, that is, thermal energy or kinetic energy. There is not system in the known Universe which escapes to its laws. As they "move" out from the Sun's core to the end of the known Universe, they are losing thermal energy in form of radiative energy. Your "systems" violate fundamental laws of thermodynamics. That's the same problem AGWers have.

    Besides, you have made that protons, neutrons, neutrinos, etc., don't radiate energy (again, you transformed them into dark matter), and that the solar corona stops being a thermodynamic system!

    Get some advice from your colleague, revise those points where you are wrong and accept that you-are-wrong.

    The magnetic barriers exist and most astrophysics authors talk about those barriers. Get rid of your obsession, Leif.

  353. Sorry, I forgot to close itallics. My text is as follows:

    Then accept reality… You are wrong and point. You’re spending too much energy and resources trying to create your own science on a phony universe plagued with dark protons, dark neutrons, dark neutrinos, dark solar corona, etc.

    Leif… I insist because I am right and you are wrong. Neutrinos have movement, that is, thermal energy or kinetic energy. There is not system in the known Universe which escapes to its laws. As they “move” out from the Sun’s core to the end of the known Universe, they are losing thermal energy in form of radiative energy. Your “systems” violate fundamental laws of thermodynamics. That’s the same problem AGWers have.

    Besides, you have made that protons, neutrons, neutrinos, etc., don’t radiate energy (again, you transformed them into dark matter), and that the solar corona stops being a thermodynamic system!

    Get some advice from your colleague, revise those points where you are wrong and accept that you-are-wrong.

    The magnetic barriers exist and most astrophysics authors talk about those barriers. Get rid of your obsession, Leif.

  354. By the way, as Leif has mentioned that I “believe” in a solid Sun, I have to give an explanation.

    Perhaps Leif has not read about neutrinos oscillations. Neutrinos oscillations refers to the results from four experiments that demonstrated the neutrinos have two masses (two states of energy which couldn’t be explained but through the absorption-emission of energy by the particle) and that it oscillates between two energy density states. One moment it is a neutrino and the next second it is a muon neutrino. The latter cannot occur if neutrinos, which carry energy, don’t radiate or absorb energy and don’t interact with particles.

    What it has to do with a solid solar core? The experiments demonstrated three possible explanations:

    1. The standard model on a completely-gaseous Sun’s is wrong.
    2. The neutrino model is wrong.
    3. Both models are wrong.

    It’s a pity that Leif consider that clean science is pseudoscience just because it shows that the Earth is not flat. The results of the experiments show that both models are wrong, i.e. the standard solar model and the neutrinos model.

    Perhaps I think the natural way by which gravity took the heaviest elements just to the center of the solar system and the lighter elements of the Sun were trapped by the positive gravity appeared from the formation of that massive core, which is the way on how matter is arrayed by the gravitational forces in the observed Universe and in each one of the cells of our body.

    Perhaps I think a “singularity” occurred in the solar system during its formation which took the lighter materials to the center of the solar system, which is the most weird, tricky paradox offered by some solar physicists, opposed to the laws of physics acting in the macroscopic systems.

    As long as those guys, i.e. some solar physicists, insist on walking away from common sense, observation and experimentation, as long the paradoxes and singularities have to be invented about how the Universe works.

    I don’t know if other bloggers have noticed it, but always when an observed process or experiment contradicts the “masters’” ideas, paradoxes and singularities pop out trying to explain that “abnormality” of nature.

    Now, go on the thermo-dynamicity of the solar corona. I have to say that Leif has a wrong concept about thermodynamic systems or he has none. Every author on thermodynamics defines a thermodynamic system as any system with mass contained into real or imaginary limits. When I mentioned the word “imaginary”, Leif immediately took the word and criticized it labeling as pseudoscience. However, every author defines “imaginary” as the decision of the investigator on placing the limits. In observations of nature, we can identify the limits of a thermodynamic system as walls, membranes, the place where a process begins and where that process finishes , the space between the point of origination and the point of rupture of homogeneity and symmetry of the system occurs, etc.

    For the case of the solar corona, the investigator can place the limits precisely in where the temperature begins to increase above the photosphere (internal boundary) and where the temperature of the solar corona begins to decrease in the solar corona (external boundary), for example. The studied system considered between the inner and the outer boundaries is a thermodynamic system. Those are simple things that every scientist should have in mind when talking about temperature, heat transfer, etc.

  355. bill (18:36:22) :

    UV is a small part of tsi and will have little effect on climate. Changing this a few percent will have even smaller delta effect.

    That’s a wild statement Bill…you are no authority on the topic to dismiss it. The previous link I gave and the article is in complete disagreement with you.

  356. bill (18:36:22) :

    Stephen Wilde (16:22:58) :
    oms (16:48:40) :

    What are you lot talking about – it certainly is not scientific!

    Please separate out what you found unscientific about my posts so I can respond. Thanks!

  357. Leif Svalgaard (12:48:22) :

    maksimovich (12:27:43) :
    UVA and UVB increases decrease phytoplankton (UVA: 320 – 400 most important)
    UVA decreases photosynthesis by 40-50% (Cullen et al., 1992; Holm-Hansen et al)
    ——————–
    But none of these have any significant influence on the climate.

    A post by anna v on another thread shows how NASA seems to think there might be climate implications by fluctuating levels of plankton…

    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/0702_planktoncloud.html

    The science is far from settled…

  358. Nasif Nahle (22:05:18) :
    I think a “singularity” occurred in the solar system during its formation which took the lighter materials to the center of the solar system, which is the most weird, tricky paradox offered by some solar physicists, opposed to the laws of physics acting in the macroscopic systems.

    I accept complete and total defeat. You are just too far gone.

  359. oms, apologies, I was going to add something about your piece, but not as non-scientific. Then I forgot!

    Imagine a smoke plume — it doesn’t need to “know” anything to fill in the holes, it just does after a long time.

    It was this statement that I could not see the relevance for

    Statements had been made that suggested that energy was stored in the ocean that emerged during lows of tsi. There was no suggestion that it was a continuous interplay between hot and cold and energy input. To me it seemed that what was being stated was that the “energy” stayed hidden and gained energy during TSI peaks to suddenly jump out during lows.

    I have no problem with your smoke – it just seemed irrelevant. I have no problem with the ocean acting as a large heat capacitor reducing highs and increasing lows. I only have a problem in the idea of the ocean “slowing” energy down ie. acting as a lossless delay line!

  360. bill (03:22:46) :

    “Imagine a smoke plume — it doesn’t need to “know” anything to fill in the holes, it just does after a long time.”

    It was this statement that I could not see the relevance for

    Statements had been made that suggested that energy was stored in the ocean that emerged during lows of tsi. There was no suggestion that it was a continuous interplay between hot and cold and energy input.

    Such an interplay had been suggested earlier in the thread (and elsewhere) but probably just got lost in the noise. To me it sounds a lot more likely than hidden energy jumping anywhere. :)

  361. The issue as to whether there is truly a slowing down of the flow of energy when it flows through a resistor is technically quite complex and this is the best answer I could find:

    “DC (direct current) only flows in one direction. AC (alternating current) is current which changes direction back and forth with a regular period.
    The electrons really do flow. If you look at the “drift”, or physical motion of an individual electron, it is much slower than you might think. In a 12-gauge copper wire carrying 20 Amps of current, the average speed of an electron is quite slow; about 1/250 of a mile per hour. There’s just so many electrons moving along so slowly that it adds up to a substantial current.
    Why then, when you flip a switch, does the light turn on so quickly? That’s due to wave propagation, which is much faster. Think of waves in the deep ocean; the waves can move quite quickly, but if you’re swimming in it, you’re not moving nearly so quickly. You feel a slight up and down motion, but the wave may be propagating at 30 MPH. The water itself is not flowing along across the surface at 30 MPH, but the wave is.
    It is exactly the same with electrons. While the wave is moving very quickly, the electrons themselves move very little. In the wiring of your house carrying 20 Amps of AC current, the electrons are wiggling back and forth 60 times per second over a distance of about one thousandth of an inch.
    However, the wave moves much much faster, when you flip the switch, the change in voltage travels along the wiring at very near the speed of light (it’s slowed down about 30% below the speed of light by the plastic insulation on the wire).
    With that prelude, to answer your questions:
    – the copper wire is not typically called an ion. During current flow, an atom may hand its extra electron to the next copper atom, but it also gets an electron from the atom on the other side. Thus, each atom always stays about neutral in charge. This is described as the copper atoms forming a lattice through which the “sea” of electrons can freely flow.
    – a heater does not work by converting kinetic energy of electrons to heat quite the way you describe. Instead, it uses the electrical energy available on the conductors of the power cord, which takes the form of electrostatic force of attraction which pushes electrons from the negative line to the positive line. As an electron eneters the heating element from the negative line, it feels a strong force of attraction towards the other end of the heating element, which is connected to the positive line. The electron accelerates due to this force, and speeds up somewhat, but it travels only a fraction of a millimeter before it collides with a microscopic defect in the lattice of the heating element, and decelerates and transfers its kinetic energy into vibration of the lattice of atoms of the heating element (i.e. into heat). It then accelerates again, then hits another defect.
    The main thing which distinguishes the metal of the heating element from the metal of the copper wires feeding them is that the heating element has a higher density of lattice defects (i.e. higher resistance). An excellent analogy is American falls at Niagra, where the water approaches in a deep, broad stream moving relatively slowly at high potential (i.e. the negative copper wire), then tumbles down quickly under acceleration of gravity, losing potential, but hitting a bunch of rocks on the way down. Hitting each rock slows the water down, and also transfers some heat to the rock, but after each impact the water accelerates again as it falls to the next rock. Then, the water leaves at lower potential in another slow, deep stream (i.e. the positive copper wire).”

    However one describes it the oceans do vary in their rate of energy release to the air, they do convert incoming solar shortwave to outgoing longwave and so it appears that they should also be generating heat energy internally independently of solar input.

  362. Leif Svalgaard (00:01:02) :

    Nasif Nahle (22:05:18) :
    I think a “singularity” occurred in the solar system during its formation which took the lighter materials to the center of the solar system, which is the most weird, tricky paradox offered by some solar physicists, opposed to the laws of physics acting in the macroscopic systems.

    I accept complete and total defeat. You are just too far gone.

    I said “Perhaps”. Isn’t the standard theory weird, tricky and paradoxical?

  363. Thanks to discussions on another thread I now accept that I should not have referred to the oceans as capable of generating energy independently of solar input but rather accumulating energy or dissipating energy to the air independently of variations in solar input.

    Either way the ocean energy content does not show a close correlation with solar variability over periods of less than centuries.

  364. Nasif Nahle (08:48:53) :
    Isn’t the standard theory weird, tricky and paradoxical?
    The Standard Model is fully vindicated, both neutrino measurements and helioseismology show that the Sun is just as standard theory says it should be [to high accuracy]. And I don’t need to hear your opinion about that, I have already capitulated completely in my quest for educating you about this. No more, please.

  365. Geoff Sharp (22:55:15) :

    A post by anna v on another thread shows how NASA seems to think there might be climate implications by fluctuating levels of plankton…

    “The science is far from settled…”

    If we look at MSA (which is solely produced from DMS) from an icecore we see some interesting problems.

  366. maksimovich (16:05:26) :

    It looks on that information that there is a reduction in DMS as the TSI or UV increased. Sort of goes against the NASA story. I find it amazing that there is data in this area in ice cores.

  367. Geoff Sharp (17:20:46) :

    maksimovich (16:05:26) :

    It looks on that information that there is a reduction in DMS as the TSI or UV increased. Sort of goes against the NASA story. I find it amazing that there is data in this area in ice cores.

    If we look at “singularities” in the historical record eg around 1880″s we can see the inverse relationship of volcanic attenuation of SW radiation and a positive response in MSA. Also if we observe the decrease in MSA (or divergence of the correlation) in the recent ( post war) record this is conjucent to ozone depletion or UVB amplification n ogreat “mysteries” here.

  368. Leif Svalgaard (14:45:33) :

    Nasif Nahle (08:48:53) :
    Isn’t the standard theory weird, tricky and paradoxical?
    The Standard Model is fully vindicated, both neutrino measurements and helioseismology show that the Sun is just as standard theory says it should be [to high accuracy]. And I don’t need to hear your opinion about that, I have already capitulated completely in my quest for educating you about this. No more, please.

    Ok! You’ve got tired of showing your Achilles Heel, that is, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics; I understand your sentiments, though I have not experienced them, yet.

  369. maksimovich (17:40:10) :

    If we look at “singularities” in the historical record eg around 1880″s we can see the inverse relationship of volcanic attenuation of SW radiation and a positive response in MSA. Also if we observe the decrease in MSA (or divergence of the correlation) in the recent ( post war) record this is conjucent to ozone depletion or UVB amplification n ogreat “mysteries” here.

    Interesting…so if this theory has validity it means man may have had a hand in global warming by reducing plankton numbers through changes to ozone and perhaps also due to polluting the marine environment. Seems more plausible than what the IPCC and others tell us.

  370. Leif Svalgaard (12:13:48) :

    “I’m not fishing for credibility. And you have not demonstrated any errors. If and when you do, I’ll be glad to accept.”

    Here is a brief list of some of your errors taken from this thread:
     
    1.   You maintain that thermal energy is heat when thermal energy is the portion of a systems internal energy called kinetic energy.

    2.   You maintain that heat is stored when heat is energy in transit and cannot be stored.

    3.   You maintain that the solar corona does not have limits and cannot be considered a thermodynamic system when anything in the Universe possessing mass is a thermodynamic system. You refuse to accept that the boundaries of a thermodynamic system may be invisible as some researchers have postulated. For example, the solar corona has mass because it is composed of protons, neutrons and electrons, neutrinos, positrons, etc. It does not have a visible boundary; nevertheless, it is certainly possible to distinguish where the corona begins and where it ends; the clue is the temperature. The outer band, where the temperature does not exceed 1 million Kelvin, sets the outer limit. The inner band, where the temperature begins to exceed 1 million Kelvin, sets the inner limit.

    4.  You maintain that there are no barriers in the solar corona, but ignore the Helmet Streamers – those magnetic barriers which maintain particles in the solar corona. For these charged particle to escape into outer space, those barriers have to be cracked open. And that is precisely what happens when the solar winds blow.

    5.   You maintain that protons, neutrons and neutrinos do not emit energy. Which is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, because those particles have motion.

    6.   You maintain that there is no thermal energy (kinetic energy) in the solar corona, but then fail to explain how it is that the solar corona has temperature when temperature is the measure of the kinetic energy of the particles.

  371. tom (19:44:17) :
    You maintain that heat is stored when heat is energy in transit and cannot be stored.

    This is sloppy terminology but not worth weeks of back-and-forth commentary. The working definition in the climate literature is temperature * heat capacity. (I happen to be among those who think that delta “heat content” does not strictly have to equal the “heat flux”, but whatever…)

  372. tom (19:44:17) :
    5. You maintain that protons, neutrons and neutrinos do not emit energy. Which is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, because those particles have motion.
    You are as far gone as Narif. And rely on the same vague concepts. “emit energy” for example. Consider your thermodynamic system that consists of a little sphere around a neutrino. Outer boundary is the sphere. Inner boundary is .. [never mind the inner]. For the system to “emit energy”, energy must be leaving the system [the sphere], thus the neutrino must be losing energy thus move slower and slower if it has energy by virtue of it having motion. But already Galileo knew that this is not the case.

    Pseudo-Science relies on the subtle misdirections. The original question was if a neutrino ‘emits electromagnetic radiation’, now that has been broadened to ‘emits energy’. So you must specify what form of energy is being emitted. The rest of your list is equally ambiguous. But the same goes for you as for Narif: ‘to far gone’.

  373. This could be my last post in this thread on this topic.

    It is common that when we talk about particles we think they are not interchanging energy with their environment or with other particles. They are so small that we often think they are not driven by the fundamental laws. Nothing farther from reality. Fundamental laws were once asymmetric. Currently they are symmetric and act over all kind of systems in this universe, whether those systems are symmetric or asymmetric.

    Let’s travel a bit towards the past, 13.8 billion years ago, some 10^-37 seconds before the exponential inflation started. Imagine a superhot bubble of plasma with a temperature above 3000 K, high enough as to prevent the synthesis of complete atoms. Protons, neutrons, electrons, positrons, electron neutrinos, muon neutrinos, tau neutrinos, muons, tau, quarks, etc. constituted that superhot quantum soup. The density of that bubble was high, so the collisions among those particles were frequent and the energy of a particle was transferred to another particle. Behind each collision and after the exponential inflation, photons were released towards the walls of the bubble, while others were absorbed by other particles. Many of those “free” photons traveled at c speed towards the tridimensional space and continue traveling still now in straight trajectories toward us (CMBR). The soup cooled down and the expansion decelerated. Could any physicist think on the veracity of the theory described if he/she believed that particles don’t emit and absorb photons, which are the carriers of electromagnetic force? How could the emission of photons could be possible if particles cannot emit energy?

    Something very important is that the energy has not “charge”, as Leif is trying to make us believe. Photons has not charge either. Neutrinos has not charge, but Leif has made them -without mass- also, i.e. Leif has dismissed the classification of particles.

    I have to say that I don’t believe in “singularities” and “paradoxes”. Those concepts don’t go with me neither with reality. I sustain that there are not “singularities” and “paradoxes” in the Universe, but only in humans’ mind. I do believe that the origin of the known Universe was from a false void bubble which was created from another father-universe. (Alan Guth. 1997). Anyway, the true origin of the Universe is 100% independent of my individual, personal or scientific viewpoints.

    When I said, “Perhaps I believe in [this or that system]”, I was not trying to stand opposed to any theory, but trying to say that the real natural systems are absolutely independent of my beliefs or desires. Nature would be as it is, whether I believe one thing or another.

    And here the big problem and major mistake of us comes into view: If we have not a feasible explanation for an observed phenomenon, we resort to “weird, tricky, paradoxical” hypothesis and explanations; like the concentration of gas in the center of the solar system, for example. It is not that I believe or not in this hypothesis, but the hypothesis is weird, tricky, paradoxical and absolutely opposed to the observed trajectories in the Universe. It’s more natural to think that the Sun is not completely gaseous, including for explaining the existence of those magnetic traps in the solar corona which prevent the particles escape freely towards the deepens of the 3D, unbounded, infinite space.

    Cheers!

  374. oms (23:44:10) :

    This is sloppy terminology but not worth weeks of back-and-forth commentary. The working definition in the climate literature is temperature * heat capacity. (I happen to be among those who think that delta “heat content” does not strictly have to equal the “heat flux”, but whatever…)

    It’s not sloppy terminology. It is correct scientific terminology. We cannot say a horse is a monkey.

    I think the confusion emerged when someone confused “heat” with “thermal energy”.

  375. Nasif Nahle (09:28:32) :
    Fundamental laws were once asymmetric. Currently they are symmetric
    The other way around: they were once symmetric, now that symmetry is broken.

    How could the emission of photons could be possible if particles cannot emit energy?
    Charged particles can emit electromagnetic radiation. Neutral particles cannot. The original question was whether the protons in the solar corona emit light – “what is the luminosity of the corona at a total eclipse”, remember?. And the answer is no. The light we see comes from photons from the photosphere which are scatted off from electrons, light a searchlight on a foggy night. The protons in the corona do not radiate, not because Hydrogen atoms cannot radiate, but because protons are not Hydrogen atoms, so there are no electrons that can jump orbitals and emit light.

    Neutrinos has not charge, but Leif has made them -without mass- also, i.e. Leif has dismissed the classification of particles.
    When Fermi introduced neutrinos they were thought to be massless particles. Very recently, we have to give them a very tiny mass if we want to understand neutrino oscillations within the standard model.

    like the concentration of gas in the center of the solar system, for example. It is not that I believe or not in this hypothesis, but the hypothesis is weird, tricky, paradoxical and absolutely opposed to the observed trajectories in the Universe.
    Any large gas cloud will contract under its own gravity and form stars. There is nothing weird etc about this. The “observed trajectories” is another PS idea of yours [or rather of the fringe websites where you pick things like this up]

    It’s more natural to think that the Sun is not completely gaseous, including for explaining the existence of those magnetic traps in the solar corona which prevent the particles escape freely towards the deepens of the 3D, unbounded, infinite space.
    It is not magnetic forces that prevents escape of particles, but solar gravity, just like it is the Earth’s gravity that prevents our atmosphere from escaping. If the Sun did not have a magnetic field there would be no solar wind and no escape of anything.

  376. Dr. Svalgaard

    Sometimes I wonder at your patience, but perhaps I have become more testy in my old age.

    But I would add two points. Yes the laws are assymetric as on a classical view they must be. That is because the universe is a naked singularity and therefore has to be handed, either right or left as you might prefer to think of it. But symmetry cannot be maintained. It is also why of course there can be no naked singularity inside this naked singularity which is why black holes must obey the second law of thermodynamics and do.

    This is the irreversibilty of the arrow of time.

    As for neutrinos we had an inkling that they might have mass, albeit tiny, back then: but physics has moved on a bit since.

    Incidentally I noticed to my amazement on the Reference Frame that there appear to be some physicists who do not believe in the second law, and consequently the arrow of time: the most basic building block of modern physics.

    It made my jaw drop.

    Kindest Regards

  377. Leif,

    There is a good question here that I would like to see answered. What is it that allows a hydrogen nucleus in the photosphere to radiate while one in the corona does not? Or, if neither can radiate, then what process does a photon or gamma ray go through as it travels toward the surface? We know it does not travel at light speed, so what is impeding it?

  378. Leif Svalgaard (11:10:22) :

    Nasif Nahle (09:28:32) :
    Fundamental laws were once asymmetric. Currently they are symmetric
    The other way around: they were once symmetric, now that symmetry is broken.

    Where the laws of physics do not work?

    http://www.phys.utk.edu/witek/NP621/symmetries1.pdf

    I think you’re talking about systems, not laws. The laws are symmetric, systems in the universe are not symmetric.

    The asymmetry of the laws occurred once during the cooling of the Universe when barions were produced intensively:

    SYMMETRY: Three indistinguishable interactions and three indistinguishable particles. Rotational invariance.

    SPONTANEOUS RUPTURE OF THE SYMMETRY (HIGGS’ MECHANISM): Symmetry is broken. Three distinguishable interactions and three distinguishable particles. Three distinguishable rotational trajectories.

    LOW ENERGY PHYSICS: Three distinguishable interactions, three distinguishable particles. Three fundamental speeds of light and three fundamental spatial trajectories

    HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS: Phase transition at high temperature; symmetry is reestablished. Rotational invariance. The subjacent laws of physics make no distinction among neutrinos, electrons and quarks.

    How could the emission of photons could be possible if particles cannot emit energy?
    Charged particles can emit electromagnetic radiation. Neutral particles cannot. The original question was whether the protons in the solar corona emit light – “what is the luminosity of the corona at a total eclipse”, remember?. And the answer is no. The light we see comes from photons from the photosphere which are scatted off from electrons, light a searchlight on a foggy night. The protons in the corona do not radiate, not because Hydrogen atoms cannot radiate, but because protons are not Hydrogen atoms, so there are no electrons that can jump orbitals and emit light.

    http://www.ejournal.unam.mx/rmf/no481/RMF48109.pdf

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVN-4G94F1C-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=994617771&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=66f0aed4b3b52a0acf4359184ddce01b

    Loss of neutrino’s energy: http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0256-307X/24/7/020/

    http://www.worldscinet.com/mpla/24/2411n13/S0217732309000577.html

    http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1996ApJS..102..411I/0000411.000.html

    Neutrinos has not charge, but Leif has made them -without mass- also, i.e. Leif has dismissed the classification of particles.
    When Fermi introduced neutrinos they were thought to be massless particles. Very recently, we have to give them a very tiny mass if we want to understand neutrino oscillations within the standard model.

    I agree.

    like the concentration of gas in the center of the solar system, for example. It is not that I believe or not in this hypothesis, but the hypothesis is weird, tricky, paradoxical and absolutely opposed to the observed trajectories in the Universe.
    Any large gas cloud will contract under its own gravity and form stars. There is nothing weird etc about this. The “observed trajectories” is another PS idea of yours [or rather of the fringe websites where you pick things like this up]

    What you say is what I say in my article on the Solar System Origin. However, isn’t it a weird, tricky and paradoxical hypothesis? :)

    It’s more natural to think that the Sun is not completely gaseous, including for explaining the existence of those magnetic traps in the solar corona which prevent the particles escape freely towards the deepens of the 3D, unbounded, infinite space.
    It is not magnetic forces that prevents escape of particles, but solar gravity, just like it is the Earth’s gravity that prevents our atmosphere from escaping. If the Sun did not have a magnetic field there would be no solar wind and no escape of anything.

    I agree. However… Answer this in one hour. I’m leaving out for lunch.

  379. a jones (11:43:17) :
    that there appear to be some physicists who do not believe in the second law, and consequently the arrow of time: the most basic building block of modern physics.
    The second law [and thermodynamics in general] is valid for a collection of particles, and becomes less and less applicable for smaller or smaller systems, e.g. in the end for a single particle, where it is meaningless.

  380. There are a lot of professional scientists of every type who seem to have abandoned basic principles for some new fangled speculative relativism. It’s very confusing for the rest of us who just try to get a grip.

    Whom to believe is becoming a lottery.

  381. Nasif Nahle (12:05:32) :
    I have given up on you. This latest post shows again that you have no idea whatsoever of what you are talking about.

    Loss of neutrino’s energy
    Of course, neutrinos can lose energy. But they don’t do it by emitting electromagnetic radiation.

    What you say is what I say in my article on the Solar System Origin. However, isn’t it a weird, tricky and paradoxical hypothesis?
    No, it is a natural consequence of the law of gravity.

    Another hallmark of the pseudi-scientist is the excursions into exotic corners [false vacuum, neutrinos, etc] as straw men to divert attention from the issue at hand.

  382. Got back to the unanswered paragraph from Leif’s post:

    Nasif Said: “It’s more natural to think that the Sun is not completely gaseous, including for explaining the existence of those magnetic traps in the solar corona which prevent the particles escape freely towards the deepens of the 3D, unbounded, infinite space.”

    Leif said: “It is not magnetic forces that prevents escape of particles, but solar gravity, just like it is the Earth’s gravity that prevents our atmosphere from escaping. If the Sun did not have a magnetic field there would be no solar wind and no escape of anything.”

    I answered: “I agree.” Nevertheless, the closed magnetic lines of the magnetic field are the regions of the solar corona where plasma gets confined and accumulated. Helmet streamers are active regions where plasma is denser than in other regions… Bah! I’m speaking with a solar physicist who must know every detail on this. Anyway… The plasma which forms the solar corona is ejected through coronal magnetic holes. If it was gravity alone which maintains the plasma confined to the corona, well… Our Sun is not a black hole, the solar corona either, OK? The second law of thermodynamics works here and there and over every system in the whole universe.

    I have not had yet news about a rupture of the fundamental laws’ symmetry.

  383. Dr. Svalgaard

    I must dispute. You suggest that the second law becomes less applicable at smaller and smaller scales so that in the case of single particle it becomes meaningless.

    From a classical standpoint I would say that in such a case it is not the second law that becomes meaningless but rather it is the concept that a single particle can exist in this universe unaffected by all the other particles in the universe that has no meaning.

    Kindest Regards

  384. Leif Svalgaard (13:00:04) :

    Nasif Nahle (12:05:32) :
    I have given up on you. This latest post shows again that you have no idea whatsoever of what you are talking about.

    Loss of neutrino’s energy
    Of course, neutrinos can lose energy. But they don’t do it by emitting electromagnetic radiation.

    Isn’t it a contradiction on what you said that neutrinos don’t interact with other particles? Where the lost energy (from neutrinos) goes to? Yes, I know, to the gravity field; however, have you thought by means of which process? Radiation, of course, i.e. emision of photons.

    What you say is what I say in my article on the Solar System Origin. However, isn’t it a weird, tricky and paradoxical hypothesis?
    No, it is a natural consequence of the law of gravity.

    I disagree absolutely on your viewpoint. Law of gravity would take the heaviest materials just to the center, not to a median region.

    Another hallmark of the pseudi-scientist is the excursions into exotic corners [false vacuum, neutrinos, etc] as straw men to divert attention from the issue at hand.

    Leif!!!!! What are you saying? False void (or false vacuum) is the heart of the Inflationary Theory!!!

  385. pochas (11:58:32) :
    There is a good question here that I would like to see answered. What is it that allows a hydrogen nucleus in the photosphere to radiate while one in the corona does not?

    Electromagnetic radiation comes about when a charged particle is accelerated. Most of the F10.7 microwave radiation, for instance, is generated by electrons being deflected by other charges in the solar atmosphere. To generate light we can see [rather than very weak radio waves] requires a very large acceleration, e.g. from particles moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light. They don’t do that in the solar atmosphere [but do in supernova remnants and in the core of the Sun]. Consider now an ordinary Hydrogen atom. It consists of a proton surrounded by an electron in an ‘orbital’ cloud. Left to itself it does not radiate, but is stable. Now, excite the atom and move the electron out to ‘higher orbital’. This is an unstable situation and the electron will return to a lower ‘orbital’ very shortly. In doing so, it is accelerated very strongly and emits visible light whose quanta will have an energy equal to the difference in energy levels of the two orbitals. If you remove the electron [heating the corona to millions of degrees ionizes the atom] and dilute the material [expansion because of high temperature], the electrons are no longer bound to orbitals around the proton and so do not quantum jump from an orbit to the innermost orbit emitting light in the process. You see, it is not the protons that emit light, it is the electrons when they jump. Not bound, no jumps, no light.

    Or, if neither can radiate, then what process does a photon or gamma ray go through as it travels toward the surface? We know it does not travel at light speed, so what is impeding it?
    This is a different issue. A gamma ray is created at the Sun’s core and moves a short distance at the speed of light. Then it is absorbed by a proton [heating it] and a bit later re-emitted, only to be absorbed and re-emitted zillions of times before the energy finally works it ways to the surface. The process takes about a quarter million years. And it is not the same photon that makes it out, it only ‘lives’ between emission and subsequent absorption.
    BTW, strangely enough, the light from the photosphere does not come from neutral Hydrogen atoms [then it would red H-alpha light], but from negative Hydrogen ions, i.e. from atoms that have captured an extra electron.

  386. Leif Svalgaard (13:00:04) :
    I’ll not comment any further on your misconceptions of exotic physics, that is quite hopeless.

    “No, it is a natural consequence of the law of gravity.”
    I disagree absolutely on your viewpoint. Law of gravity would take the heaviest materials just to the center, not to a median region.

    A feather and a lead bullet fall with the same speed in a gravitational field, so a feather and a lead bullet at the outskirts of the cloud would both fall together, side by side, towards the center. Few people today [but, apparently, some] believe that heavier materials fall faster [as Aristotle thought]. Perhaps your disagreement here shows how much credibility on the attach to any of your statements.

  387. Leif Svalgaard (13:44:29) :
    Nasif Nahle (13:20:08) :
    …….
    I’ll not comment any further on your misconceptions of exotic physics, that is quite hopeless.
    ——-
    perhaps this is better.

  388. I could guess why Leif doesn’t like the inflationary theory; perhaps because he’s an advocate (be read “worshiper”) of the no- viable tale of the Big Bang. With the inflationary theory we have no need of unfeasible Big Bangs, but that’s another story.

  389. Leif Svalgaard (13:44:29) :

    Leif Svalgaard (13:00:04) :
    I’ll not comment any further on your misconceptions of exotic physics, that is quite hopeless.

    “No, it is a natural consequence of the law of gravity.”
    I disagree absolutely on your viewpoint. Law of gravity would take the heaviest materials just to the center, not to a median region.
    A feather and a lead bullet fall with the same speed in a gravitational field, so a feather and a lead bullet at the outskirts of the cloud would both fall together, side by side, towards the center. Few people today [but, apparently, some] believe that heavier materials fall faster [as Aristotle thought]. Perhaps your disagreement here shows how much credibility on the attach to any of your statements.

    Ok, I respect your decision on not talking more on physics. I see you have problems with mass, also.

    Reply: Both of you, please stop. This is just silly. You guys are talking past each other and not to each other and there is no point to any of it. ~ charles the moderator

  390. Nasif Nahle (14:13:53) :
    interested on solar-weather connections
    I think they have discovered that already…
    From the release:
    “The new study could help scientists use solar-cycle predictions to estimate how that circulation, and the regional climate patterns related to it, might vary over the next decade or two.”

    And just how good is NASA at predicting solar cycles? Perhaps pseudo-science can come to the rescue and we can use the planets to predict the climate.

  391. This Leif’s assertion deserves a more precise explanation:

    Few people today [but, apparently, some] believe that heavier materials fall faster [as Aristotle thought]. Perhaps your disagreement here shows how much credibility on the attach to any of your statements.

    Heavier objects have more inertia, so gravity has to use more force to get it to move at the same acceleration as a lighter object. So, in a rotary system, heavier elements concentrate at the center and less massive elements are placed in the periphery. Otherwise, how Leif would explain Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus are in the periphery?

    Nariai, K. Mass Loss from Coronae and Its Effect upon Stellar Rotation. Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp.156-157.

    An excerpt from the article:

    “In the gravitational field, heavier elements tend to concentrate toward the center, while lighter elements rise towards the surface, according to Boltzmann’s law…”

    We are not talking about free fall, but on gravity fields, right? Now, tell me, Leif, who is dealing with pseudoscience? Evidently, it is not me.

  392. Geoff Sharp (18:49:41) :

    maksimovich (17:40:10) :

    If we look at “singularities” in the historical record eg around 1880″s we can see the inverse relationship of volcanic attenuation of SW radiation and a positive response in MSA. Also if we observe the decrease in MSA (or divergence of the correlation) in the recent ( post war) record this is conjucent to ozone depletion or UVB amplification no great “mysteries” here.

    “Interesting…so if this theory has validity it means man may have had a hand in global warming by reducing plankton numbers through changes to ozone and perhaps also due to polluting the marine environment. Seems more plausible than what the IPCC and others tell us.”

    The importance of DMS in albedo is robust.The major source of CCN over the oceans is dimethylsulphide (DMS)e.g., Andreae and Crutzen,1997.

    UV attenuation of DMS in experiments is observed in the finer resolutions.

    eg Kniveton et al.

    Dimethylsulphide (DMS) is a climatically important component of global biogeochemical cycles, through its role in the sulphur cycle. Changes in ultraviolet radiation (UV) exhibit both positive and negative forcings on the dynamics of production and turnover of DMS and its precursor dimethylsulphoniopropionate (DMSP). In this study we investigate the net forcing of UV on atmospheric DMS. The work is based on a 10-year record of observed DMS at Amsterdam Island in the southern Indian Ocean, and satellite-based retrievals of surface UV and photosynthetically active radiation (PAR). The results show an inverse relationship between UV radiation and atmospheric DMS associated with extreme changes (defined as the greatest 5%) in daily UV, independent of changes in wind speed, sea surface temperature, and PAR.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GB002033.shtml

    As we can see further there is a definite trend in cloud (and hence albedo) over a reasonable time eg

    So one would presume that Albedo is not constant,and here Ramanathan poses some open questions.

    “It is remarkable that general circulation climate models (GCMs) are able to explain
    the observed temperature variations during the last century solely through variations in greenhouse gases, volcanoes and solar constant. This implies that the cloud contribution to the planetary albedo due to feedbacks with natural and forced climate changes has not changed during the last 100 years by more than ±0.3%; i.e, the cloud forcing has remained constant within ±1 Wm–2. If indeed, the global cloud properties and their influence on the albedo are this stable (as asserted by GCMs), scientists need to validate this prediction and develop a theory to account for the stability”….

    “Why is the global albedo about 29%? Two following examples illustrate why this is
    an important question. A global albedo of 32% would plunge the Earth into a climate
    similar to that of the last ice-age; while an albedo of 27% would be comparable to a
    seven-fold increase in the CO2 concentration, close to the values required to bring the planet to the warm cretaceous.”

    Benestad and Schmidt fix albedo at 30% this would imply a change in GHG forcing of around 5 watts^m2

  393. maksimovich (20:48:21) :

    A great example of how the IPCC are so away from reality.

    The GCM’s could never account for all the variances involved, it seems as though the hardest quest is to measure cloud cover at different levels and quantify the climate affects. We are just babes in the woods.

    But those who think the science is settled in this area are surely on a mission that is non scientific…your albedo constraints look feasible, but what influences cloud formation is on the fringe, lets hope science moves more swiftly in this direction.

  394. Leif Svalgaaard said:
    “So why would the few photons that are due to solar activity also not get lost again, but stored up for decades?”
    1. The ocean … “Distinct time intervals of alternating positive and negative values are found: 1960– mid 1970s (−0.15), mid-1970s–2000 (+0.15), 2001–present (−0.2 W/m2)” (Douglass, D.H. and R. Knox, 2009). This passage is often quoted.
    For me, here, the most convincing is this picture of Bob Tisdale: http://i31.tinypic.com/24zd5l0.jpg; and his comment: “If this lag is correct, the small area of the Pacific Ocean is reacting today to changes in TSI that occurred in 1975.”
    Or energy can not be put in – after 33-35 years? Average for the world but it is probably about 40-45 years.
    “And if one is going to attest a 40 year time lag based on a correlation coefficient of 0.3, one may as well attest a time lag of -20 years which is also represented by a correlation coefficient of 0.3.” “those are very low correlation coefficients”. (the citation from the commentary with “Chris” in “Skeptical Science”).
    Indeed the correlation for the shift of about 40 years is only about 0.3, but for specific areas where work with different periodicity – different “complementary” circulation …?
    “How unusual is the recent series of warm years?”, “Under two statistical null-hypotheses, autoregressive and long-memory, this probability turns to be very low: for the global records lower than p = 0.001, and even lower for some REGIONAL records.” (Zorita, 2008).
    2. Looking at these figures: http://www.abcaustralia.com/unleashed/images/graph2_glikson.jpg; http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/tsi_vs_temp.gif; whether we can say – with J. Cook: “In other words, the study most quoted by skeptics actually concluded the sun can’t be causing global warming. Ironically, the evidence that establishes the sun’s close correlation with the Earth’s temperature in the past also establishes it’s blamelessness for global warming today”; “… and is “negligible for warming since 1980 (Benestad, 2009)”?
    Looking at both graphs the same could be said about the year 1931 on the year 1916-17 …
    Should ask – why despite the fall in the TSI, the temperature rise? Similarly, in the years 1940-195x?
    If guided straight lines: one from the point – the year of circa 1895 (TSI – red), to the point – the year, c. 1940 (for temperature – blue), and similarly for the period c. 1945 to 1990, or from 1955 to 2000 …
    Of course a straight line for the years 1955-2000 will be more steep, but perhaps because these two maps are similar: page 7 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/pdf/poznan/pres_kundzewicz.pdf and http://www.wiking.edu.pl/upload/geografia/images/Europa_rozmieszczenie_ludno.jpg (population density of Europe). Sub-continental UHI it is not fiction (“Current Climate Impact of Heating from Energy Usage.” ATJ de Laat, 2008).
    Other reasons why this example can be found here: JL Lean and DH Rind (2008) “How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006″ (“We find a response to solar forcing quite different from that reported in several papers published recently in this journal, and ZONALLY averaged responses to both natural and anthropogenic forcings …”); or (NBL) here: Christy, J. R. (2009) “Surface Temperature Variations in East Africa and Possible Causes “. (“Note that this warming is due to a redistribution of heat, not to heat added by the DOWNWARD radiation. [...]“).
    3. THC – if the Gulf Stream waters drowning, because they are cooler – they have less energy ? No. They are simply HEAVIER.
    Thermoclines …
    Ocean can store a great deal of energy – be a buffer. How much ? At least as much as it is a big difference between the changes of temperature in the Antarctic, the United States (but not in Europe, UHI + sea) and the oceans.
    4. Is the current variability of the TSI is able to induce such changes in temperature as today? “Solar effects continues to oscillates affecting about +/-0.1 degrees C (abcaustralia.com)” “Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1%” for the 20th century…” (Benestad, 2009).
    But let’s look at these figures, for example: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/Europe08_fig1.JPG (“warming of nearly 3ºC occurred from 1810 to 1825 while of warming of over 2ºC occurred from 1840 to 1865.”); already cited (Zorita, 2008) of von Storch – http://www.korthweb.de/PhZT/Temperatur_Intcal2.gif (black line); or http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10536/F4.large.jpg (L.G. Thompson, 2006 – he says: “… that the current warming at high elevations in the mid-to low latitudes is unprecedented for at least the last 2 millennia.” However, the abruptness and extent of changes in temperature were similar past OR GREATER than today’s …)
    Changes in the TSI proposed by L. Svalgaard (http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-recon3.png) are responsible for it?
    Much more likely is probably this (see: the circa AD 1200 – 2000) SOLAR “hockey stick” – http://www.aanda.org/images/stories/highlight/vol471-1/7704Usos.gif.

  395. 5. CO2. If he actually had a large share of the warming since 1980, it would have to cool the lower stratosphere.
    Does the lower stratosphere cools evenly – parallel, with the increase in global temperature and atm. CO2 concentrations ?
    Nothing could be further from the truth – where temperature changes look like this: http://omsriram.com/GlobalWarming_files/Global19.jpg. We can not agree with most of the conclusions from the study where is the latter figure, but these sentences: “… the cooling [stratosphere] over this time span appears to be mostly due to loss of ozone.”, and: “The temperature changes before 1966 are most likely the result of change in the rate of solar energy that hits earth and maybe some volcanic activity. [...]”
    Rich in aerosols – sulfur, volcanic eruptions (Agung 63 to Hekla 1970, El Chichon and 1982 Mt. Pinatubo 1991 – http://i30.tinypic.com/2uzxe0k.jpg) but raised the temperature and “destroy” ozone.
    However, then both the 1971 and circa 1985, 1995; we see a sharp decline and then became a small increase in temperatures in the lower stratosphere, which shows just how slowly ozone layer is recovering …
    Indeed in the upper stratosphere – there is no jumping and the “linear” temperature drop (http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/media/archive/4197.jpg), but it is probably just the same SMOOTHING EFFECT as the impact on oceans global temperature …
    Besides, after a sharp drop in temperatures in the 90s – after Mount Pinatubo, there is no downward trend in the upper stratosphere (http://www.acd.ucar.edu/Research/Highlight/strat-cooling.jpg).
    So is the greenhouse effect of CO2 would be really so small as Lindzen his found (http://www.americanthinker.com/Attachment%202.PNG) ?
    6. And if the TSI affects growth of CO2 in the atmosphere?
    http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/Jan%20Pompe_co2%20and%20temp2.gif – We see here that, among other things, after each major volcanic explosion (1963, 1982, 1991) followed by a sharp drop in the number accumulated in the atmosphere of CO2 (green curve).
    Moreover, as the temperature drops and (always – parallel) the accumulation of CO2. Volcanoes show, however, that change must be subject to CO2 emissions rather, than the sinks.
    – Biosphere – photosynthesis, they react negatively to cool and no sun. Cooling of the ocean? In the years 1982-4 to SST NH (sensitive to change than SH), in contrast to the land, not decreased (http://mclean.ch/climate/figures/Hemi_NH_L_S_80-05.gif). Here you can see that slowing reacted (indeed) only land (http://global-warming.accuweather.com/julyall-thumb.gif).
    In addition, there is no evidence that the ocean absorbs more CO2 when slightly cooled. Warm water – water sapphire – Oolite – DIC in deep water …
    Jeffrey Severinghaus discovered the cause of the sharp (8 x) increase in CO2 in Biosphere 2 experiment. It turned out that everything is “guilty” of soil bacteria.
    “Soil respiration in terrestrial ecosystems worldwide is estimated to be 50-75 Pg C/year” (Raich and Schlesinger 1992).” “The mean annual global soil-CO 2 flux over this 15-y period [1980-94] was estimated to be 80.4 (range 79.3-81.8) Pg C. At the global scale, however, annual soil-CO 2 fluxes correlated with mean annual temperature, with a slope of 3.3 PgCY -1 per degree Celsius. Although the distribution of precipitation influences seasonal and SPATIAL PATTERNS of soil-CO 2 emissions, global warming is likely to stimulate CO 2 emissions from soils. (Raich, 2003, by CDIAC).” “Lloyd and Taylor (1994) found that the relative sensitivity to temperature change is much greater for soils at LOW temperatures than for warmer soils. For example, in the absence of moisture limitations, an increase from 0 to 1 deg C would result in a 22% increase in respiration, while an increase from 25 to 26 deg C leads to a 5% increase.” “Thus, modest global change scenarios resulting in a 1 to 2 deg C increase in mean temperature would have the most significant effect on the 60 g C/m2 year respired by tundra. [... and in the tundra -1 / 5 land area - where the temperature has risen the most - from 2 to 3 deg C; and soil detritus is a great weight - most of the accumulated 21,6 kg C x m -2 (average) ...] (http://www.biology.duke.edu/bio265/ajm21/intro.html) Nevertheless, the contribution of soil to total atmospheric CO2 is not expected to be as important as fossil fuel combustion or deforestation.”
    Really?
    From the analysis cited above figure of blog J. M., shows that it must be less than 0.5 – 1ppm “our” of CO2 per year added to the atmosphere. The rest (2 / 3 – 3 / 4) to soil bacterial respiration (after all have great potential for breeding; developing rapidly over the past 50 years, extensive farming simple in: Africa, South America, Asia …) and (possibly) oceanic heterotrophic bacteria – highly occurring in the violent El Nino …

  396. Leif Svalgaard (01:17:23) :
    tom (19:44:17) :
5. You maintain that protons, neutrons and neutrinos do not emit energy. Which is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, because those particles have motion.

    “You are as far gone as Narif. And rely on the same vague concepts. “emit energy” for example. Consider your thermodynamic system that consists of a little sphere around a neutrino. Outer boundary is the sphere. Inner boundary is .. [never mind the inner]. For the system to “emit energy”, energy must be leaving the system [the sphere], thus the neutrino must be losing energy thus move slower and slower if it has energy by virtue of it having motion. But already Galileo knew that this is not the case.”

    But the point is, when a neutrino changes from a high energy density state to a lower energy density state, it loses energy; that is, the neutrino radiates photons, or electromagnetic energy, as you have said. However, when the neutrino recovers its initial energy density state it does so by absorbing photons; again, electromagnetic energy, as you have not said.

    One has to keep in mind that the system-neutrino can be either charged or uncharged when it emits or absorbs radiative energy, because radiative energy does not carry a charge and because the electromagnetic interactions of the particles can still be induced by quantum loops if they are not electrically charged. Photons don’t carry a charge and so the charge does not matter. Neutrons don’t carry a charge either, but they do emit and absorb electromagnetic energy. Your concept of electromagnetic energy is restricted only to electrons and protons, which is pseudoscience. ;)

    “Pseudo-Science relies on the subtle misdirection. The original question was if a neutrino ‘emits electromagnetic radiation’, now that has been broadened to ‘emits energy’. So you must specify what form of energy is being emitted. The rest of your list is equally ambiguous. But the same goes for you as for Narif: ‘too far gone’.”

    The ambiguity is all yours… and resides precisely in attributing a charge to radiative energy and then restricting its absorption and emission to electrically charged particles only. In other words, subtle misdirection. Your fatal flaw is your ignorance of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. Worst of all, you present reality as pseudoscience and attack those who question your logic with gratuitous ad hominems.

Comments are closed.