Dr. Nicola Scafetta summarizes “why the anthropogenic theory proposed by the IPCC should be questioned”

Dr. Nicola Scafetta has written an extensive summary of the state of climate science today. He’s done some very extensive analysis of the solar contribution that bears examination. Pay particular attention to this graph from page 49:

Top: The figure shows the global surface temperature (black) detrended of its quadratic fit function as done in Figure 1. The data are plotted against the 60 year modulation of the speed of the sun relative to the center of mass of the solar system (red) shown in Appendix T. The 60 year modulation of SCMSS has been time-shifted by +5 years. Bottom: The figure shows the global surface temperature (black) filtered within its two decadal oscillation. The temperature modulation is plotted against the SCMSS (red) shown in Appendix T. No time-shift has been applied. The figures suggest that the 60 and 20 year modulation of the SCMSS can be used for forecasting these global surface temperature oscillations and has been used to reproduce the forecast modulation curves in Figure 13.

WUWT readers may remember him from some previous papers and comments he’s written that have been covered here:

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

Scafetta: Benestad and Schmidt’s calculations are “robustly” flawed.

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

He writes to me with this introduction:

On February 26, 2009 I was invited by the Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Science Advisor (OSA) and National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) to present a talk about my research on climate change. I thought that the best way to address this issue was to present an overview of all topics involved about the issue and their interconnections.

So, I prepared a kind of holistic presentation with the title  “Climate Change and Its Causes, A Discussion about Some Key Issues”. Then, a colleague from Italy who watched my EPA presentation suggested me to write a paper in Italian and submit it to an Italian science journal which was recently published.


I realized that it could be done more, so I thought that actually writing a short booklet summarizing all major topics and possible future perspectives could be useful for the general public. So, this work I am presenting here and which is supposed to be read by the large interested public came out. It contains a translation into English of my Italian paper plus numerous notes and appendixes covering also the most recent results that have transformed the original paper in a comprehensive booklet.

This booklet covers more or less all topics I believe to be important for understanding the debate on climate change. Herein, I argue why the anthropogenic theory proposed by the IPCC should be questioned.

Finally, a suggestion for those who would like to print it, the best way is to use the “booklet option” of the printers and staple it in the middle.

========================

Download the report here (PDF -warning over 10 MB – long download time on slow connections)

This work covers most topics presented by Scafetta at a seminar at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, DC USA, February 26, 2009. A video of the seminar is here:

The Italian version of the original paper can be downloaded (with possible journal restrictions) from here

========================

Here is the table of contents, there’s something in this report for everyone:

Climate Change and Its Causes: A Discussion About Some Key Issues

Introduction … 4

The IPCC’s pro-anthropogenic warming bias … 6

The climate sensitivity uncertainty to CO2 increase … 8

The climatic meaning of Mann’s Hockey Stick temperature graph … 10

The climatic meaning of recent paleoclimatic temperature reconstructions … 12

The phenomenological solar signature since 1600 … 14

The ACRIM vs. PMOD satellite total solar irradiance controversy … 16

Problems with the global surface temperature record … 18

A large 60 year cycle in the temperature record … 19

Astronomical origin of the climate oscillations … 22

Conclusion … 26

Bibliography … 27

Appendix…29-54

A: The IPCC’s anthropogenic global warming theory … 29

B: Chemical vs. Ice-Core CO2 atmospheric concentration estimates … 30

C: Milky Way’s spiral arms, Cosmic Rays and the Phanerozoic temperature cycles … 31

D: The Holocene cooling trend and the millennial-scale temperature cycles … 32

E: The last 1000 years of global temperature, solar and ice cover data … 33

F: The solar dynamics fits 5000 years of human history … 34

G: The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age – A global phenomenon … 35

H: Compatibility between the AGWT climate models and the Hockey Stick … 36

I: The 11-year solar cycle in the global surface temperature record … 37

J: The climate models underestimate the 11-year solar cycle signature … 38

K: The ACRIM-PMOD total solar irradiance satellite composite controversy … 39

L: Willson and Hoyt’s statements about the ACRIM and Nimbus7 TSI published data .. 40

M: Cosmic ray flux, solar activity and low cloud cover positive feedback … 41

N: Possible mechanisms linking cosmic ray flux and cloud cover formation … 42

O: A warming bias in the surface temperature records? … 43

P: A underestimated Urban Heat Island effect? … 44

Q: A 60 year cycle in multisecular climate records … 45

R: A 60 year cycle in solar, geological, climate and fishery records … 46

S: The 11-year solar cycle and the V-E-J planet alignment … 47

T: The 60 and 20 year cycles in the wobbling of the Sun around the CMSS … 48

U: The 60 and 20 year cycles in global surface temperature and in the CMSS … 49

V: A 60 year cycle in multisecular solar records … 50

W: The bi-secular solar cycle: Is a 2010-2050 little ice age imminent? … 51

X: Temperature records do not correlate to CO2 records … 52

Y: The CO2 fingerprint: Climate model predictions and observations disagree … 53

Z: The 2007 IPCC climate model projections. Can we trust them? … 54

About these ads

494 thoughts on “Dr. Nicola Scafetta summarizes “why the anthropogenic theory proposed by the IPCC should be questioned”

  1. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/acid_test.pdf

    ““OCEAN ACIDIFICATION” – THE EXTREMISTS’ FALLBACK SCARE
    First, they called it “global warming”. Then they noticed there had been no warming for 15 years, and cooling for 9, so they hastily renamed it “climate change”. Then they noticed the climate was changing no more than it ever had, so they tried “energy security”, and even named a Congressional Bill after it. Then they noticed that most Western nations already had bountiful energy security, in the form of vast, untapped domestic supplies of oil, gas, coal, or all three, so they switched to “ocean acidification”.”

  2. ((This work covers most topics presented by Scafetta at a seminar at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, DC USA, February 26, 2009….))

    ..And yet our government is bent on listening to no such thing. Immediately after, the EPA listed Carbon Dioxide as a “harmful gas.”

  3. This is a wonderfully clear and impressive presentation. Very welcome, very recommended. Thank you.

  4. Wait, do I smell a barycentre?

    Note the cycle of the PDO is about the same as that 60 year cycle.

    Ooops, Leif incoming.
    ============

  5. Thank you Dr. Scaffeta for putting this work together. I’ve just downloaded it and look forward to a little light reading before bed.

  6. Prof. Horst Malberg , retired director of Berlin Free University’s Institute of Meteorology has just published “La Niña – El Niño and Solar Influence: Climatic Trends 1950 – 2008″ and “Solar influence on long-term climate change, globally since 1860, in Central Europe since 1672″ — a pair of real game-changers for the climate debate that demolishes AGW and, IMHO, deserve widest-possible dissemination. Can’t fit them in here, so please e-mail me an address.
    R.

  7. Interesting. I do not think that anyone has an argument against the TSI effecting things to some extent. But it appears that the effect is rather small and somewhat secondary. D’Aleo found that adding it to his model along with the PDO and AMO did not add much.

  8. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I actually hadn’t heard of this work before. I shall download and read Dr. Scaffeta’s entire report “Climate Change and Its Causes” with much interest.

    From a quick preview, it appears that he believes that we are in for a period of global cooling, bottoming out in 2030 or so, and it’s got nothing to do with GH gases, but is related to solar and astronomical cycles. Is this correct? And if this is what he predicts, then his hypothesis can be put directly up against the AGW hypothesis, which would state that we should see many new record global high temps between now and 2030, along with the disappearance of summer arctic sea ice, etc.

    Both theories can’t be correct, and it even looks as though, according to Dr. Scaffeta’s own graphs, that we should already be seeing a downward plunge in temperatures heading to that 2030 low. If we see a new global record warm year in 2010, as the Met Office (and I believe) will likely happen, what problems would that represent for Dr. Scaffeta’s hypothesis?

  9. I’ve read it. And this has been presented to the EPA?

    I noticed that you didnt elaborate much on CRU station removal, and not much on GISS versus UHI opposite compensation. But, since you were to present it to the EPA, I can understand it.

    A very interesting read. Maybe this can help in trying to turn the IPCC into another direction? Like, changing

    The IPCC mission:

    “The IPCC reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socioeconomic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of human induced climate change.”

    For example;
    “The IPCC reviews and assesses the most recent scientific information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of human induced pollution.”

  10. Is Scafetta going to let RealClimate have the code that he used for his paper?

    Or is he going to use the same excuses that Michael Mann, Tamino, & Co have been using?

  11. I have just downloaded it and haven’t yet had a chance to study it but it seems we have needed a compendium of research summaries and how they relate to the AGW debate. Perhaps this can serve that purpose.

  12. Wow!

    This is all a bit too scientific and factual for our friends at Real Climate, Ed Miliband, Patchi, Jones, Mann et alia.

    I expect the silence of their response will be deafening. Perhaps the argument they will use will be that any comments on climate by people with Italian sounding names are irrelevant – makes as much sense as most of their arguments.

  13. For clarification, was Dr. Scafatta “invitation” to present to the EPA mean he was paid by the EPA to produce a research product, paid expenses to present independent research, or prepared this with no contractual relationship with the EPA. (I haven’t been able to complete a download yet, so I apologize if those details are included.)

  14. At long last! An Overview! I can see where all my spare time will be going, for a while.

    However I’ll bet a nickel that this only scratches the surface of the countless interactions which make up the entire “system.”

    My question to anyone who steps out their door, looks up at the sky, and thinks they have the “system” all figured out is, “Are you sure you aren’t being just a little bit arrogant?”

  15. I clicked Submit, before saying that I found the paper very, very interesting. Thank you very much for posting here on WUWT!

    Regards, kwik.

  16. ?? The figure shows the global surface temperature (black) detrended of its quadratic fit function as done in Figure 1. ??

    ?? The 60 year modulation of SCMSS has been time-shifted by +5 years ??

    So the detrended temperatures fit the variation in the sun if we shift it by 8% .

    So what causes the trend? Now there must be a study there?

  17. Discover Magazine has a very interesting two part interview with Judy Curry and Michael ‘Piltdown’ Mann. Judy seems to have caught on to the importance of the oceanic oscillations to the cooling from the ’40s to the ’70s and the subsequent warming, whereas Mann seems to willfully disregard it. Found through tomnelson.blogspot.com
    ==============

  18. Please don’t read any of this, because the science is already settled. I have spoken.

    Signed, *Man Behind the Curtain*

  19. Thank You Dr. Scaffeta for presenting your work to the general public. I look forward to reading it in depth.

    Best Regards,
    John from California

  20. R Shearer (11:13:40) :

    “Wait a minute, how could we possibly influence the center of mass of the solar system?”

    Because the masses (planets) are constantly changing positions and their orbits are slightly elliptical.

  21. For heavens sake, I download the pdf and the title page was the first surprise. Many apologies to Dr. Nicola Scafetta NOT “Scaffeta” as it appears in the headline of this article and my last comment.

    [Fixed, thanks. ~dbs, mod.]

  22. It has recently been proven that if a report or article has any errors at all, the entire content is rendered meaningless, or perhaps even a hoax.

    What then, should we make of the erroneous spelling of Dr. Nicola Scafetta, above? Is this some attempt at covering up previous publications by Dr. Nicola Scafetta? Is there some recent reports of criminal activity circulating on the Internet that a misspelled name would fail to turn up? Has the editorial integrity of WUWT broken down, requiring a total redesign so that this never happens in the future?

    The implications of this error are vast – I think we better clear this up before we talk about the contents of the article at all.

  23. One of the major cycles in the Chinese astrological calendar, which was/is used a lot for determining ‘lucky’ days for planting etc., consists of 60 years. This is made up of the 12 animals, which change every year, and the 5 elements, which change every two years. Each animal/element therefore occurs every 60 years.

    The point being that maybe the cycle observed by Dr. Nicola Scaffeta has been observed in the past over an extended period of time.

  24. It’s interesting that one of Scafetta’s main arguments seems to be similar to, dare I say it, a “Landscheidt” approach to explaining climate cycles. If this is right, it would be ironic that the one “scientific” topic banned on this skeptic’s site, which has done so much to challenge AGW, is a discussion of exactly that climate mechanism. Or, am I off base here?

    REPLY: Yes I noted that, but I decided that the best approach is to face it head on, if it is junk, it will shake out. – Anthony

  25. Ron (13:19:58) :
    R Shearer (11:13:40) :

    “Wait a minute, how could we possibly influence the center of mass of the solar system?”

    Ron, Shearer was being sarcastic. If we are going to force these uncanny natural cycles to match the IPPC models, how much world-wide taxation would we need?

    hoho!

  26. Landscheidt had talked about this for many years. (Why is it not ok to mention his name on this forum??)

    I even wrote a paper on the (slightly less than) twenty year pattern in Iowa tree ring data. I speculated that it was linked to the Saturn/Jupiter lap. It was published back in 1995, I think. We should be susceptible to drought in the midwestern US over the next few years from this cycle. I suspect the AGW alarmists will seize this, if indeed it does occur, as proof of continued global warming.

  27. How could we possibly influence the center of mass of the universe? Maybe jumping up and down all at once, everyone on earth? Hmmm, no, that won’t do it.

    I got it! Everyone turn off your lights for an hour. Pick a day and just do it. Maybe sacrifice a few virgins, too.
    ===================

  28. If Al Gore and his sycophant team of Hansen, Smith, Jones, Trenberth, et. al. were smart, they would go hide quietly now. Their game is over.

  29. Quite amazing. Scafetta manages to pack in almost every “sceptical” talking point, paying no attention to their credibility or consistency.
    So we have doubts about the instrumental temperature record, but no doubts about Beck’s CO2 compilation despite the internal contraditions of the latter. Scafetta argues that the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 has a considerable natural component due to solar induced warming. Were that the case, it would suggest that feedbacks are huge. Fortunately, the most recent analysis, even covered on WUWT, would suggest otherwise. We even have the lie that Jones said their had been no warming since 1995 (rather than there being no statistically signigicant warming).
    And then we have the baryocentric argument, though without naming it as such. As always, it is presented without any consideration of its physical plausibility. Tides on earth have a minor contribution to the climate system, increasing mixing in the ocean. The tides on the sun are going to be orders of magnitude smaller, and have a period orders of magnitude longer. It is difficult to concieve of them having an important effect.

  30. Dr. Scafetta, thank you for your work and for publishing this for free. It is a fascinating article. I sent the link to numerous colleagues.

    This will create conversation for many years, I am sure.

    Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
    Marina del Rey, California

  31. Dr. Scafetta (and his co-authror West) were earlier contributors to the IPCC reports in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. Remember these were the days before the hockey stick and the outrageous claims of impending doom. In the early to mid 2000’s Scafetta and West started to downgrade the impact of anthropogenic caused warming to around half their earlier estimates based on their more recent studies. This occurred at a time that Mann and the “Team” introduced the hockey stick and began pushing for a more exaggerated portrayal of anthropogenic induced doom. While Scafetta was still recognized as a leading contributor his later work just didn’t fit the narrative. So he was relegated to the “has beens” of climatology with little of his later work being considered for inclusion.

    Finally, the political environment in climatology has changed enough so that sound views of rational scientists can once again be heard. Thank you Dr. Scafetta for staying true to your convictions and speaking only where the science compels you to speak.

  32. Why is it that when I read the posts on this web site I get angry?
    You may not agree, but I am a true skeptic.
    What I keep seeing here is not skepticism but political machinations.
    I do not see a desire to find the truth, and to thus come to a logical conclusion.
    rather I see blind parroting of “slogans” and outright toadyism.
    This is not science. It is anti-science.
    sad just sad
    The really sad part is 50 years from now, what will your children and grand childrens opinion be of you?

  33. “Anu (13:28:07) :

    It has recently been proven that …”

    Lots of words for a really lame joke.

  34. read all….

    15 March: UK Times: John Houghton: We climate scientists are not ecofanatics
    If the IPCC has a fault, it is that its reports have been too cautious, not alarmist
    A third myth is that the IPCC has refused to recognise that there has been no significant increase in global average temperature in the past decade or so. Sceptics cite this as evidence against human-induced global warming. But the level of natural year-to-year variability in the temperature record shows that a decade is too short a time to establish a change in the long-term trend…
    Perhaps there is a criticism that can be made of IPCC scientists: they have been too slow publicly to defend their integrity. They have not been willing or able to hit the airwaves or make their case in newspapers. But scientists are now faced by powerful lobbies who are working to distort and discredit the science behind climate change. We scientists have facts on our sides — we must not be afraid to deploy them.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7061646.ece

  35. Richard Telford,

    There is no doubt that incremental increases in CO2 cannot influence the earth’s average temperature, because to do so requires violation of the fundamentals of process control. Nobody, and no system, can violate that.

    The IPCC and any governmental body that claims increases in CO2 or other greenhouse gases will cause global warming are quite wrong.

    http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/chemical-engineer-takes-on-global.html

    Dr. Scafetta’s conclusion is consistent with the fundamentals of process control, and therefore deserves serious consideration.

  36. Guido Guidi (12:05:23) “Dr. Scafetta [...] on line interview with questions directly from the readers. The discussion (in italian) is ongoing here http://www.climatemonitor.it/?p=8378. “

    For those who may not know, just:
    1) drop that webpage-address into the box on this http://translate.google.com/ webpage,
    2) set the form to Italian-to-English, and
    3) hit the “Translate” button – (scroll over to the far right to find it on narrower screens).

    The translation isn’t perfect, but errors are rarely problematic. Scafetta tells all in the interview.

  37. I find this to be a good exposition of how unsettled is the science called climate science. When one tries to make sense of the Sun in response to planatary forcings . . .

    (from page 48) These curves are just proxies of the modulation of the gravitational and magnetic planetary forcings on the Sun.

    . . . things get a bit murky. See Friday’s “Solar Conveyor Belt” post and comments: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/12/hathaway-on-the-solar-conveyor-belt-and-deep-solar-minimum/

    As the internal workings of the Sun are poorly known it may be awhile before an explanation exists for for the effect of the combined synodic periods of Jupiter and Saturn and of Uranus and Neptune.

  38. Richard Telford (13:55:02) :
    Quite amazing. Scafetta manages to pack in almost every “sceptical” talking point, paying no attention to their credibility or consistency.
    Yes, Scafetta throws in everything plus the Kitchen sink. Most of this stuff is not credible and in the end it seems we are talking about an effect of one or two tenths of a degree [and filtered data to boot]. solar activity could well account for one tenth, leaving the rest [GW if any] unexplained. It is sad to see Scafetta sinking to the level of Vuk et al.

  39. To Robert of Ot. above,

    “Detrended” refers to a mathematical function of dendro-chronology that allows for wiggle matching between trees of different ages (compensates for thinner rings of older wood of greater biomass). This is discussed in a major paper by Jan Esper in Science, 2002. This function in many tree-ring sequences reduces the sensitivity of dendro-chronological records to long-term climate change (low-frequency signals). It is a factor not fully understood by Mann and Briffa as revealed in CRU email comments, FYI (de-trending makes the shaft nice and straight).

    Bruce M. Albert, Ph.D., PDRA, Durham University, UK

  40. Marvellous resource, thank you! Especially the appendices. Read it immediately. Now I know that not only do sunspots influence temperature but the Earth, Jupiter and et al influence sunspots.

    Slightly OT, but Bjorn Lomborg has another opinion piece in The Australian today, with some eminently sensible (but heretical!) comments about the economics of AGW.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/fixing-climate-change-shouldnt-cost-the-earth/story-e6frg6zo-1225840644967

  41. aqz (13:30:36) : Chinese astrological calenda

    Today is pi day and a good day to search on this phrase:
    numerological 60

  42. “Richard Telford (13:55:02) :
    [...]
    Scafetta argues that the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 has a considerable natural component due to solar induced warming. Were that the case, it would suggest that feedbacks are huge.

    Only when you mix the arguments of the “CO2 is the major climate driver” theory with the “natural variabilty determines the climate” theory. Which you shouldn’t do; nonsensical statements like yours would be the result.

  43. “Henry (14:09:14) :
    [...]
    The really sad part is 50 years from now, what will your children and grand childrens opinion be of you?”

    The Hansen line, “Storms of my Grandchildren”. Do you have a factual argument to make, Henry? Bring us your best evidence.

  44. Re: Hank Hancock (Mar 14 14:08),
    Dr. Scafetta (and his co-authror West) were earlier contributors to the IPCC reports in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s.
    Really? He only submitted his PhD in 2001, the year AR3 came out. His collaboration with West started 2003, but then they were writing about human gait. It wasn’t till 2005 that they turned their attention to climate matters.

  45. Henry (14:09:14) :
    (…)
    The really sad part is 50 years from now, what will your children and grand childrens opinion be of you?

    “Thank God he was too cheap to buy the good latex.”

  46. Richard Telford (13:55:02) :
    (Snip)
    “”Tides on earth have a minor contribution to the climate system, increasing mixing in the ocean. The tides on the sun are going to be orders of magnitude smaller, and have a period orders of magnitude longer. It is difficult to concieve of them having an important effect.””

    my reply;
    There are atmospheric tides as well as ocean tides, with several periods of oscillation in the atmosphere, due to the Lunar declinational tides that produce and control the propagation of the Rossby waves and jet stream movement, that are important to weather and climate modeling.

    Every one sees these secondary actions, with out realizing they are being driven by the moon. The beat frequency of the declinational tides and the phase tides results in the modulation of the shape of the QBO activity, which is another secondary reaction nobody doubts, but few can explain fully.

    The interactions of the solar wind with the lunar declinational tides in the atmosphere, drives the weather to the point that models that do not account for them only work for 7 to 10 days, however a forecast model that uses them is accurate for 15 to 18 years. How many more important effects do you to need to conceive of before it makes sense to you.

    That the whole solar system is suspended in space with only gravity, tidal, and electromagnetic forces, holding them together while moving with inertia that must be interconnected some way Is not hard to grasp for a person that thinks a lot.

  47. Vuk etc. (14:26:19) :
    Doc Svalgaard your verdict is eagerly expected.
    Asked and answered.
    As that Great Serbian pseudo-scientist put so clearly:
    “on face of it, if one was to be too pedantic, one would be obliged to ascertain that energy levels required to satisfactorily passed the test, as required by the most rigorous of scientific standards, are to a degree numerically challenged”

  48. “Anu (13:28:07) :

    The implications of this error are vast – I think we better clear this up before we talk about the contents of the article at all.”

    Not to worry, Anu.

    It has been peer reviewed and corrected.

    :)

  49. kim (11:28:18) : You wrote, “Note the cycle of the PDO is about the same as that 60 year cycle.”

    The assumption is, the 60-year cycle of the PDO continues back in time. It does not. I’ve just finished the graphs on a post of PDO paleoclimatological reconstructions. Here’s the short-term comparison graph:

    Not one of them shows a 60-year cycle, and none seem to correlate with 30-year smoothing. I’ll try to write up the post tomorrow morning.

  50. pat says:
    March 14, 2010 at 2:10 pm
    ……”recognise that there has been no significant increase in global average temperature in the past decade or so. Sceptics cite this as evidence against human-induced global warming. But the level of natural year-to-year variability in the temperature record shows that a decade is too short a time to establish a change
    in the long-term trend…”

    wait a minute! The point of Mann’s hockey stick graph of 1998 is that the temperature was going up up up, significantly in a decade . Well , it’s 2010 and no increase, so now we are cautioned by the AGW crowd that the climate doesn’t work that way, that there are decadal fluctuations. Then why did Mann et al. claim in 1998 that a decadal rise was significant and unprecedented. Give me a break! Do these guys even listen to themselves?

  51. JohnWho (14:50:11) :

    “Not to worry, Anu.”
    “It has been peer reviewed and corrected.”

    But obviously not by the HockeyTeam.
    How could this happen?

    Its a travesty!

  52. Bob Tisdale @ 14:58:21

    Thanks for that graph. That answers several questions I’ve had that I am too lazy or too ignorant to discover the answer for myself. I’d wondered if there were six solar cycles in each cycle of the PDO, also.
    ===============

  53. Re Fig 10 – that 1960 mini-peak may well be a residuum of the bucket sampling issue, what created flat SST trend from 1940-1960 instead of decreasing trend. This has contaminated the global record, since SST make 70% of it. The abrupt drop of 0.3 deg C after 1945 is not seen in any surface record and has been artificially introduced with intention to mask the inconvenient cooling, despite rising CO2.
    PMOD vs ACRIM TSI reconstruction issue is very interesting.
    Overall must-read.

  54. O/T from the main thrust of this thread, but is there a calculation of how high Earth’s temperature could get, theoretically, with the atmosphere we have?

  55. Thanks to WUWT for posting this. I’m looking forward to having a good read tomorrow. Clearly, the science is not settled!

  56. Robert of Ottawa (11:19:58) : You asked, “What is meant by ‘de-trended’?”

    The easiest way to explain it is to show you. The following is a graph of the Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomalies of the North Atlantic. Also included on the graph is the linear trend line:

    To detrend the North Atlantic SST anomaly data, subtract the values of the linear trend from the values of the North Atlantic SST anomalies:

    And by detrending the North Atlantic SST anomalies, one creates the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation dataset. I discussed it in this post:

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/04/atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation.html

    Regards

  57. Can someone, perhaps Leif Svalgaard himself, point me to a single argument, debate, website, presentation, speech, paper, etc. where Leif explains why exactly he considers himself a skeptic, or lukewarmer, or a…whatever?

    I’m sure I haven’t seen a tenth of his comments, but I have yet to see a single comment that doesn’t emit disdain of a skeptical argument, other than one brief statement where he simply states that climate science is “voodoo science”. Perhaps he was being sarcastic, in that comment?

    I’m not attacking, I don’t even necessarily disagree with his comment about this paper, I’m just curious.

  58. I suppose this would be yet one more argument that we should be using a 60-year period for calculating “normal” temperatures and not a 30-year.

  59. “annie (15:16:27) :

    A silly Q , but could nuclear power generation affect mass of earth?”

    No. The energy is derived from a very slight loss of mass of atomic nuclei, following the equation
    e = mc^2
    c is the speed of light, 300,000,000 m/s , c^2 is even bigger: 9*10^16.
    So you get a lot of energy from destroying very little mass.

  60. Juraj V. (15:18:17) :
    PMOD vs ACRIM TSI reconstruction issue is very interesting.
    The decrease in PMOD over the last cycle is very likely due to degradation of the instrument [being subjected to the harsh space environment for decades. See Figure 10 of http://www.leif.org/research/Historical%20Solar%20Cycle%20Context.pdf that shows [the yellow curve] the ration between PMOD and SORCE-TIM. note the progressive decrease.
    ————
    There is increasing evidence that perhaps the Maunder minimum was not such a quiet period, and that solar activity lately has not been unusually high. E.g.: A 600-year annual 10Be record from the NGRIP ice core, Greenland; A.-M. Berggren et al.,
    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L11801, doi:10.1029/2009GL038004, 2009
    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004.pdf :
    “Periodicity in 10Be during the Maunder minimum reconfirms that the solar dynamo retains cyclic behavior even during grand solar minima. We observe that although recent 10Be flux in NGRIP is low, there is no indication of unusually high recent solar activity in relation to other parts of the investigated period. [last 600 years]

    Scafetta’s data is often dubious. An example is in Appendix M, page 41. Figure upper left. Solar magnetic flux is shown there to have a steady increase [red curve, inversed], the last 100 years. This is not the case as several recent papers document [as we have discussed many times on this blog].
    Another example is the use of the obsolete Hoyt and Schatten TSI reconstruction. This obsolete [read: wrong] data is often used by enthusiasts that invoke solar activity.

    The general problem with Scafetta’s paper is the attempt to explain all. This usually ends up explaining nothing.

  61. annie (15:16:27) :
    A silly Q , but could nuclear power generation affect mass of earth?>>

    Of course. E=MC^2 is the formula for how much energy is produced when matter is converted to energy by nuclear power generation. Leaving equipment on the moon also reduces the mass of the earth. As does sending space probes out to Mars and Jupiter.

    But the actual amount is insignificant in comparison to the mass of the earth. Its not even significant compared to the amount of dust earth’s gravity captures from space every year.

  62. Quite a document. Refers to the all the recent greats in the field: the chemical CO2 measurements of Beck, the musings of Viscount Monckton, the ‘NIPCC’ report, D’Aleo and Watts …..

    All the more puzzling then, that Scafetta still is ‘stonewalling’ (Copyright S. McIntyre) requests for his code…

    Good science is based on the principles of transparency, openess, replication, falsification, blah blah……..

  63. Henry (14:09:14) : You wrote, “Why is it that when I read the posts on this web site I get angry?”

    There’s a very simple cure for your anger. Stop reading the posts on this website! ;^)

  64. Phil Clarke (15:47:51),

    What a perfect opportunity to avoid charges of hypocrisy, by demanding that Mann and the rest must make their data, code and methods transparent.

    The reason they don’t can be seen in the Harry_Read_Me file, in which 13 years of temperature station data is invented, rather than admitting it doesn’t exist.

  65. “Anu (13:28:07) “It has recently been proven that if a report or article has any errors at all, the entire content is rendered meaningless, or perhaps even a hoax.”
    Equating a spelling mistake with deliberate manipulation and deception is a bit of a stretch, don’t you think? And surely the point regarding AR4 is not that there are “mistakes”, but that there aren’t any at all – only lies!

  66. Juraj V. (15:18:17) : You wrote, “The abrupt drop of 0.3 deg C after 1945 is not seen in any surface record and has been artificially introduced with intention to mask the inconvenient cooling, despite rising CO2.”

    The abrupt drop appears in marine air temperature and cloud cover data:

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/large-1945-sst-discontinuity-also.html

    And it also appears inverted in wind speed anomalies:

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/part-2-of-large-sst-discontinuity-also.html

  67. “Phil Clarke (15:47:51),

    What a perfect opportunity to avoid charges of hypocrisy, by demanding that Mann and the rest must make their data, code and methods transparent.”

    Mann had a funny way of padding his data. If you don’t know what that means: When you do a filtering operation on a time series like a running average you have the problem that the length of the filter makes it impossible to run it to the end of the data; the right half of the filter will dangle in the air. Rahmstorf and Hansen have also been caught doing funny things in this situation:

    http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/03/the-secret-of-the-rahmstorf-non-linear-trend/

    As this affects the output, the nice graphs they’re publishing, especially at the interesting end – where they meet the present – it is of rather big importance to find out how the researcher handled this situation, and it is not nasty or hypocriticical to ask this question at all. It is a matter of honesty and the duty of the researcher to answer such a legitimate question.

    “Smokey (15:56:38) :

    The reason they don’t can be seen in the Harry_Read_Me file, in which 13 years of temperature station data is invented, rather than admitting it doesn’t exist.”

    Link:

    http://di2.nu/foia/HARRY_READ_ME-0.html

  68. John L (15:38:59) :
    Can someone, perhaps Leif Svalgaard himself, point me to a single argument, debate, website, presentation, speech, paper, etc. where Leif explains why exactly he considers himself a skeptic, or lukewarmer, or a…whatever?

    For the record:
    1) Temperatures are higher now than 100 years ago. Exactly how much can be discussed [fakings, UHI, etc].
    2) Solar activity has been ‘flat’ since 1700 with a ~100-yr ‘cycle’ on top. It is not clear if this ‘cycle’ is a real cycle or just a random fluctuation.
    3) Solar activity and cosmic ray modulation do not go away during Grand Minima [although sunspots are less visible]
    4) There is a 0.1% change of TSI between solar min and solar max, resulting ~0.1C temperature variation
    5) No long-term variation of TSI has been demonstrated
    6) No convincing evidence for a sizable solar modulation of climate has been demonstrated
    7) No convincing evidence for CO2 being the cause of the warming [see point 1]
    8) In the deep past [billions of years] CO2 was a significant greenhouse gas, because of its much higher partial pressure than today
    9) Solar models are not good enough for detailed prediction, but our understanding of the solar interior and explanation of energy production are on firm footing
    10) Solar polar fields seem to be a useful predictor [and it is semi-understood why]
    11) Climate models have not been very successful, but should work in principle
    12) Both the Sun and the Earth can exhibit ‘internal’ cycles. E.g. some stars pulsate and change luminosity on a large scale [50-100%]
    13) Various ‘external’ influences [planets, galactic 'positions', interstellar clouds, electric currents from the galaxy, etc] are either not operating or their effects are negligible
    14) The cosmic rays vary too little to have any effect and the mechanism proposed does not seem to work [you can always extend your belief a bit by claiming that more data is needed]

    Considering the above, I don’t know what you would call me. And I don’t care.

  69. I have been avoiding opening this video for fear it would be completely biased however, conservative talk radio host Amy Holmes added good balance to the discussion. She even mentioned sunspots and the Himalayan glaciers in the debate. Maher showed the Al Gore naked magazine cover and the front page of the USA Today article on waning support for MMGW. That in itself made it worth watching.

    Bill Maher: The Environment Is The Ultimate Health Care Issue (VIDEO)

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/13/bill-maher-the-environmen_n_497781.html

  70. Smokey – I am puzzled

    Perhaps you could confirm that Ian ( ‘Harry’) Harris’s comments refer to his work on the CRU TS 2.1 to 3.0 upgrade, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the flagship HADCRUT global temperature time series, as referenced by the IPCC?

    I am unable, also, to locate the point at which he’ invents’ the station data…. academic interest only, but could you enlighten us?

  71. Anu (13:28:07) “It has recently been proven that if a report or article has any errors at all, the entire content is rendered meaningless, or perhaps even a hoax.”>>

    Methinks you have it backwards. should read:

    If the entire content is a hoax, then any errors discovered are evidence.

  72. Leif Svalgaard (16:12:55) :
    For the record [...]
    Here is an interesting exercise: consider the 14 points and give yourself a score of +1 if you agree with a point, of -1 if you disagree and of 0 if you are neutral. Your ‘Leif Score’ would then be the sum of those 14 scores. Mine is obviously +14. Alternatively give a 1 if you agree or a 0 otherwise, your ‘Leif Number’ would be the decimal number that is formed by the sequence of 1s and 0s. Mine is obviously 11111111111111 = decimal 16383.
    A handy binary-decimal converter is here: http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~gurwitz/core5/nav2tool.html
    Attach your Leif score and number to your posts at all times, and we know where everybody stands :-)

  73. Nick Stokes (14:36:38) :

    Really? He only submitted his PhD in 2001, the year AR3 came out. His collaboration with West started 2003, but then they were writing about human gait. It wasn’t till 2005 that they turned their attention to climate matters.

    I was working from memory of his academic and professional history and in retrospect, would have been more accurate to have left the “late 90’s out of my comment. His academic works did date to the late 90’s while his firs professional climate related publications arrived in the early 2000’s.

    Scafetta received his Laurea Dottore in Physics in 1997 (Universita di Pisa) and his Ph.D in physics in 2001. His work in the climate climate sciences began as early as 2002, not 2005 as you state. True, Scafetta worked also on a few studies on human gait as well as some interests in economic models in that time frame. It is clear his interests refocused on climate sciences in 2002. His earliest published work in climatology was in 2002, not 2005:

    “Temperature reconstruction analysis” N Scafetta, T Imholt, P Grigolini, J Roberts – 2002 arXiv:physics/0202012

    “Solar flare intermittency and the Earth’s temperature anomalies” – 248701 N Scafetta, BJ West – Physical review letters, 2003

    “A stochastic analysis of the solar and non-solar forcings on global climate during the solar cycles 21-23 (1978-2003).” N. Scafetta with B.J. West

    To name a few of his earlier publications.

    My point remains that his earlier work overestimated the anthropogenic contribution. When he downgraded the anthropogenic contributions in his later works, it placed him in bad light with the alarmist community, relegating him to be somewhat of an outsider. That was my central point.

  74. Leif Svalgaard (15:42:04) said:

    There is increasing evidence that perhaps the Maunder minimum was not such a quiet period, and that solar activity lately has not been unusually high.

    A shocking thought. I shudder at its implications.

  75. Leif
    How can you continue posting here?
    Having read all of your papers, I find you a good solid scientist.
    Yet here I find that science is not what is being done.
    It is politics.
    So do are you thus Politically in the camp of these here.
    Or are you really a scientist interested in finding the truth.
    I think at some point you will have to decide if you can keep stomaching the posts here.
    I think it is time for some retrospective……

  76. Bob Tisdale,

    Thanks for drawing attention to these upthread:

    Looking forward to your forthcoming 60 year &/or/vs. PDO write-up. I agree that imagining a 60 year cycle running indefinitely both forward & backward in time is silly. Analyses like yours help with speculation about more realistic envelopes (as opposed to overly-simple cycles).

    Cheers.

  77. “Dr. Nicola Scafetta summarizes “why the anthropogenic theory proposed by the IPCC should be questioned”” Oh, I don’t know. Because it is all a lie? Or, upon further thought, perhaps, because it is all a lie? Maybe because it is all a lie? Or it could have something to do with it all being a lie? Its a stumper, thats fer sure!

  78. Wow. How embarrassing! Beck’s nonsense and Douglass et al. (who apparently don’t understand the fundamental difference between standard error and standard deviation) all rolled into one!

    And, this from a physicist, no less. I thought Scafetta was better than this. I was wrong. Why publish work in physics journals when you can get it published by Science and Public Policy Institute, the organization of which Lord Monckton is the Chief Policy Advisor.? It is kind of sad to see serious scientists sink to this level.

  79. QUOTE: DIRK
    The Hansen line, “Storms of my Grandchildren”. Do you have a factual argument to make, Henry? Bring us your best evidence.
    ENDQUOTE
    Why should i provide any evidence when you do not?
    All you do is criticize without providing any evidence.
    Sounds to me like FUD.

  80. P.S.
    Paid by Exxon.
    No worries folks, it will be out eventually, and all the skeletons in the closets of the posters here wiil eventually be out.

  81. Mia Nony (11:02:22) :

    First, they called it “global warming”. Then they noticed there had been no warming for 15 years,
    ———-
    What I like about WUWT is that people here go off and get the actual data and test statements by scientists, journalists, bloggers and other commenters.

    Shall we ?

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

    The most recent data is from Dec 2009.
    15 years before that was Dec 1994

    So, was there any warming in the last 15 years ?
    Dec 1994 global temp. anomaly 0.217
    Dec 2009 global temp. anomaly 0.407

    Yup, the planet warmed 0.19 deg C.
    These anomalies are with respect to the average for 1961-1990.

  82. Leif
    In response to your solar response.
    I find it odd that all your arguments only fall into the area of your speciallity.
    Have you at all considered that something else may cause a problem?
    Mayhaps you are too focused on your own work to see the broader picture?
    Sorry but my respect for your opinions have plummeted :(
    take care

  83. Leif Svalgaard (16:12:55) :
    “Considering the above, I don’t know what you would call me. And I don’t care.”

    Objective? Impartial?Pragmatic? And this kinda attitude has no place in climate science, either side o the divide!;-) Good on yer.

  84. “Henry (17:00:37) :

    Leif
    How can you continue posting here?
    Having read all of your papers, I find you a good solid scientist.
    Yet here I find that science is not what is being done.
    It is politics.”

    S/N = 0 in your case.

  85. Re: Hank Hancock (Mar 14 16:43),
    My point was really directed to this:
    Dr. Scafetta (and his co-authror West) were earlier contributors to the IPCC reports in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s.
    He can hardly have contributed to AR1, AR2 or AR3. Are you saying that they were contributors to AR4?

  86. “Henry (17:46:30) :
    [...]
    Why should i provide any evidence when you do not?
    All you do is criticize without providing any evidence.”

    You are a pretty disturbed person. You don’t even know my position (or maybe you have already “dug out some dirt”, what a deeply disturbed way of arguing). But it’s not a secret. Ferenc Miskolczi’s theory appeals to me.

    This is what i wrote in an earlier thread:

    I think i understood it now.
    While Gerlich and Tscheuschner as well as William C. Gilbert dismiss the natural (and anthropogenically enhanced) greenhouse effect altogether, arguing with the laws of Thermodynamics, there should still be a measurable effect due to the fact that water vapour and CO2 actually absorb LWIR radiation, causing increased radiation towards the surface. How can these two seemingly contradictory statements be united?

    The solution lies in the word “equilibrium”. An equilibrium in a vast system like the earth’s atmosphere needs time to be achieved. Here, the statistical analysis by Beenstock and Reingewertz fits in perfectly; saying that the temperature anomaly may not be caused by the absolute level of CO2 but by the first derivative.

    So an increase in CO2 leads to a temporary upswing in temperature that levels off again as the system readjusts (cools through increased convection). A decrease in CO2 leads accordingly to a temporary downswing in temperature.

    This can also be interpreted as the negative feedback posited by Miskolczi’s theory.

    As our CO2 emissions rise pretty much linearly ATM (not exponentially as assumed by the IPCC) this leads to a roughly constant positive anomaly for the time being.

  87. Leif,

    You have to consider that:

    1. Our current metrics may not be sufficiently sensitive to detect a solar effect on our climate.

    2. We may be looking at the wrong metrics.

    You sound way too over-confident about our current abilities to detect fluctuations in solar forcings. You sound like Louis XIV’s physician who said in the early 18th century that “medicine is now so advanced that we will not learn anything new for centuries”.

  88. Anu (17:51:46):

    “What I like about WUWT is that people here go off and get the actual data and test statements by scientists…”

    You have the gall to quote CRU temperature data??

    You do understand that rather than “actual data,” what we’re been given by CRU has been made up as they went along – in one case, for a 13 year stretch.

    “Trust, but verify.” Since Climategate, we find that we can do neither.

  89. Leif Svalgaard (16:12:55)

    “Temperatures are higher now than 100 years ago.”

    Ah, but are they any higher than 70 or 80 years ago?

  90. I have a lot of confidence in science. I really do. But to put it terms relevant to the discussion, my confidence in science being “robust” is, shall we say, on the century level.

  91. Re:
    JP Miller (13:34:27) :

    It’s interesting that one of Scafetta’s main arguments seems to be similar to, dare I say it, a “Landscheidt” approach to explaining climate cycles. If this is right, it would be ironic that the one “scientific” topic banned on this skeptic’s site, which has done so much to challenge AGW, is a discussion of exactly that climate mechanism. Or, am I off base here?

    REPLY: Yes I noted that, but I decided that the best approach is to face it head on, if it is junk, it will shake out. – Anthony

    Thanks, Anthony. So long as there at least some sensible effort to connect data to a physical explanation (even if tortured) for how shifting solar system gravity could drive climate, then the theory ought to be examined. And there’s no better place than here. Reminds me of the tectonic plate argument circa 1915.

  92. Leif S. has the correct attitude for a scientist. Trust in no one, (and that goes double for oneself).

    If trust played a part in science there would be no reason to reproduce experiments.

  93. 2 years ago I found multivariate patterns in local climate data suggesting the following harmonic spectrum (in years): 3.2, 6.4, 12.8, 25.6, 51.2, along with 6.4 year beats with the terrestrial year: 1.185 years = 433 days (Chandler wobble), 2.37 years = 28.4 months (QBO = Quasi-Biennial Oscillation).

    Studying solar system dynamics alerted me to the existence of such spectra in: Jupiter-Neptune relations, Earth-Venus relations, & higher derivatives of solar system barycentric motion.

    Cautionary Note for solar system barycentre enthusiasts:
    The same spectrum arises in Earth-Sun-Moon relations.

    Based on draconic month harmonics & the nearest Gregorian (used for purposes of illustration) year harmonics:

    (13.60611)*(13.5275) / (13.60611 – 13.5275) = 2341.389811 days = 6.410507569 years

    (28.09557692)*(27.21222) / (28.09557692 – 27.21222) = 865.4972869 days = 2.369651086 years = 28.43581303 months

    2.369651086 / 2 = 1.184825543 years = 432.7486434 days

  94. 4) There is a 0.1% change of TSI between solar min and solar max, resulting ~0.1C temperature variation

    This is a very simple explanation and does not allow for other climate influencing factors that vary greatly during the solar cycle. Extreme UV being one of those factors. The 0.1C temperature value does not take this into consideration.

    3) Solar activity and cosmic ray modulation do not go away during Grand Minima [although sunspots are less visible]

    They might not go away but are severely reduced, once again EUV being just one factor.

  95. If every researcher were required to know the mechanism of every pharmaceutical drug’s effect on the human body, how many would see the light of day?

    http://tinyurl.com/ylja32r

    In the same light, if the various solar effects mechanism is not known on their influence of earth’s weather/climate system, does that still render them “pseudoscience”? Just because they are not understood?

  96. On how ones like the CO2, Earth First, Climate Change deal with facts.

    Take for example how many of these ones inside the U.S.A. delt with the
    facts from John F. Kerry’s communication logs, his now proved up acts in a combat zone, and things like “Christmas in Cambodia”, “CIA” hats and
    “2000 meters up and down river under hostile fire”, then the one comm.
    out..”We need a tow boat.”

    They still deny, they still claim “swiftboated”, and this know liar and fraud sits in the U.S. Senate defending “Climate Change”.

    They live, and die by lies, and are willing to do so.

    Only ice and snow will change them, and still they will blame humans, it is what they are.

    Im my opinion, facts do not matter to them one bit.

  97. My dear Henry, please take my advice. Your hysteria is showing and it seems to be about to overtake your soul. Have a piece of chocolate, or a nap. Have you a cat to pet? Or a dog to walk? I worry about you. Be good to yourself.
    =============

  98. Henry (17:48:05) :

    P.S.
    Paid by Exxon.
    No worries folks, it will be out eventually, and all the skeletons in the closets of the posters here wiil eventually be out.
    ==========
    God forbid, if all the skeletons of all the posters on this site wiil be out.

  99. I commented very quickly about this post BEFORE I had read and digested it. I pat myself on the back that I recognized its importance. I slightly modify my previous comment: THIS POST IS WHY WATT’S UP WITH THAT IS ON THE CUTTING EDGE OF TRUTH…..AND BEAUTY.

  100. R Shearer (11:13:40) :

    Wait a minute, how could we possibly influence the center of mass of the solar system?

    We do but the influence is very tiny. Follow this:

    First, do you know exactly what the barycenter is? If there were only the Sun and Jupiter, they would both revolve around the common center of mass, the barycenter. If Jupiter’s orbit is slightly elliptical, they both would follow the same shaped ellipse around the barycenter, but the Sun’s orbit would be much smaller due to the mass ratio.

    Once you add a significant third mass, as Saturn, the path of the Sun around the barycenter is no longer a conic shape but a bit like a Spiro-graph trace. Add the other planets and the Sun’s tiny orbit (the orbit is small enough to fit entirely within the Sun itself) is now very irregular over decades but still somewhat resembles a deformed, varying Spiro-graph tracing.

    Now the Earth and the other planets do not affect this much but we, on Earth, are also revolving around the barycenter. That means we are sometimes closer or farther from the sun by the radius of the Sun’s orbit around the barycenter. That is determined by where the big planets are in their orbits.

    It is the Sun’s deformed Spiro-graph path that makes this easy to be described by cycles of the large planets orbits.

    That’s it in a nutshell and is what all of talk of barycenter and how it varies the total solar irradiance slightly, therefore climate slightly.

    Hope that helped.

    —-

    Dr. Scaetta, I will enjoy your paper. It’s great to get an overview in one single place.

  101. I have always found that Leif backs up his assertions with facts and invites proof that he is wrong. I have not seen the occasion where this proof has been given wrt TSI. So why is everyone piling on him? Seems that he has a very good grasp of the facts.

  102. Henry (17:00:37) :
    Yet here I find that science is not what is being done.
    There is a lot of pseudo-science, but most people here are not scientists so one would not expect much science to be done here.

    Henry (17:56:41) :
    I find it odd that all your arguments only fall into the area of your specialty. Mayhaps you are too focused on your own work to see the broader picture?
    I comment on what I know something about. Other posters supply a broad picture that covers all aspects of human folly.

    Mike Ewing (17:58:05) :
    And this kinda attitude has no place in climate science, either side o the divide!;-) Good on yer.
    I don’t do climate science, just regular science :-)

    François GM (18:21:11) :
    1. Our current metrics may not be sufficiently sensitive to detect a solar effect on our climate.
    As I have said many a time, there is no doubt that the Sun has some effect, but if our current metrics can’t detect it, it cannot be the [or even 'a'] major driver.

    ————–

    BTW, I note that nobody has manned up to give their ‘Leif score/number’ :-)

  103. wayne (19:25:48) :
    talk of barycenter and how it varies the total solar irradiance slightly, therefore climate slightly.
    No, the distance between the Sun and the Earth is not affected by this [because the Earth orbits the ‘barycenter’ determined by the Sun and the Earth [+the Moon], no matter what the Sun does. Just like the Moon orbits the ‘barycenter’ determined by the Earth and the Moon, no matter what the Sun does. If the Sun had a companion star [Nemesis] very far away, the barycenter of the total system would be way outside our planetary solar system. But [as we have discussed so often], the barycenter of the solar system is irrelevant because the Sun and all the stuff in the solar system are just in free fall in their combined gravitational field and feel no forces from that.

  104. wayne (19:25:48) :

    There are many errors in your statement. May I suggest you research the amount of solar movement from the SSB and how this movement has NO effect on the solar/planet distance.

  105. “Leif Svalgaard (19:30:49) :
    [...]
    BTW, I note that nobody has manned up to give their ‘Leif score/number’ :-)”

    I didn’t see anything i disagree with in your list.

  106. Sorry Leif, you said ‘Temperatures 100 years ago were higher…’ You didn’t say what temperatures. So this can be both true and false, since not every place on Earth is warming. Do I credit for either answer? :-)

  107. In contrast to older reconstructions,[36] most recent reconstructions of total solar irradiance point to an only small increase of only about 0.05 % to 0.1 % between Maunder Minimum and the present.[37][38][39]

    Having found this tidbit on wikipedia, I would venture to say that ANYONE should be able to see that small TSI changes are only PART of the evidence of the large changes that the sun causes here on earth. I hear all the time on the blogosphere, ” the sun only changes a little bit over the years, how can it be the cause of global warming?”.
    Yet, when climate scientists start talking about amplification of CO2 they all nod their heads. I used to be a warmer, then I researched the science. I strongly believe that ANYONE who took the time to research AGW would become a skeptic over time. All warmers I have ever met, including myself, believe(d) because they felt it was true.

  108. stan stendera (11:16:47) :
    This post is why WUWT is the cutting edge of truth.

    Leif got the topic of this post banned at Climate Audit and has done his best to get it suppressed here too. He has been scathingly insulting to myself and others who have tried to discuss the barycentric issues raised in Scafetta’s work here before. This led to Geoff Sharp getting banned when he lost his temper with Anthony due to the suppression of the subject and the uneven treatment whereby Leif was allowed to openly insult and degrade contributors who discussed this topic while they were snipped when responding in kind.

    Nicola Scafetta emailed me two days ago with a link to his new work. He asked me if I had tried to get any of my own discoveries published yet. I told him we are conducting an open source investigation of this interesting field of enquiry at the blog I started at http://tallbloke.wordpress.com

    I started that blog out of respect for Anthony’s wishes after we were told discussion of solar motion relative to the solar system barycentre was not welcome here. There are some threads there which may be of interest to open minded WUWT readers.

    Hats off to Anthony for reversing his moratorium on discussion of barycentric related discussion on this site and “facing it head on”.

    Leif Svalgaard (16:45:32) :

    f Svalgaard (16:35:08) :
    You can also give your Leif Number in Hex: mine is 2FFF.

    Mine is 3F0FF

    I can’t be bothered rebutting the tripe in your 14 points yet again. If you want to mislead people about the sun here instead of presenting a balanced account and admitting uncertainty levels, and Anthony is prepared to let you, then so be it.

  109. “DirkH (19:59:30) :
    [...]
    I didn’t see anything i disagree with in your list.”

    well, okay, 2FFF. Gotta get used to that.

  110. I’m sorry but am I the only one having a great time reading Henry’s posts?

    Tell us more about our evil carbon ways Henry! Tell me the one about how big oil is sitting in my closet watching me sleep. Make it good… wave the hands, handle the snakes!

    REPENT NOW OH DOUBTING ONES!

    …LEST YOUR GRANDCHILDREN BURN IN THE SLIGHTLY HIGHER TEMPERATURES PROJECTED BY THE MODELS

    IT IS THE LORD OF CONFUSION, EXXON, THAT HAS LED YOU CHILDREN ASTRAY

    /sarcoff

  111. My official Leif Score is a 9.

    [But I'm not sure mine carries much weight LOL].

    ;-)

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  112. Leif Svalgaard (19:30:49) :
    BTW, I note that nobody has manned up to give their ‘Leif score/number’ :-)>>

    Ah, well… for starters there’s no mechanism for calculating Leif Score on points that I only partly agree with and further, you said you didn’t care what anyone thought…. :-)

    Your points rest on showing that climate isn’t forced by TSI or CO2. While I may agree with the bulk of the points, I think the logic would suggest that TSI and CO2 and other “forcings” (I detest that word) are minimized by interlocking feedback mechanism in the climate system as a whole, such mechanisms being triggered by the “forcing” itself.

  113. Leif,

    You have seemingly put your own views out as the standard by which all posters should measure themselves (e.g. ‘Leif score/number’). It does not surprise me that this has been pretty much ignored, given that this is not a particularly Leif-centric site.

  114. Clive E Burkland (19:49:45) :
    wayne (19:25:48) :

    There are many errors in your statement. May I suggest you research the amount of solar movement from the SSB and how this movement has NO effect on the solar/planet distance.

    No, I think no errors. The Earth’s distance from the surface of the sun does vary by the amount of the radius of the Sun’s orbit about the SSB. Go to NASA Horizons system, detail your objections, and post them back so I can clearly see why you think that your statement is correct. You give blatant objections to my attempt to help another commenter but you give no backup to your claims. A least I clearly stated mine.

    I can only guess you are saying the Earth orbits the Sun proper and not the SSB. Back it up, and if your are correct, I will gracefully back down with an apology for offending you. Will you do the same?

  115. I dunno, when someone resorts to quoting the infamous faked Oregon survey on the first page of the introduction, and the release of stolen emails on the second page, to support their thesis, it kind of makes a person a bit suspicious of the robustness of the paper.

    And they’ve upped the ‘natural warming’ from 50% to 60% from the look of things. Are they going to release the code this time, I wonder? Or are they still afraid someone might find a few flaws in the calculations?

    This little article reads more like a political manifesto than a scientific paper. But whatever turns you on.

  116. It is perfectly reasonable to say to all this, we don’t have enough information yet as to why the temperatures on Earth fluctuate relatively chaotically but with tantalizing glimpses of inter-glacial oscillations and short term forcings such as with volcanic eruptions and ice jams in major water ways. Regarding CO2 and solar influences, I am not overly concerned about either one of these factors causing much warming or cooling that I would notice or that would cause our climate zones to receive higher or lower category labels.

  117. tallbloke (20:14:50) :

    I certainly respect your scientific mind, Tallbloke, and appreciate the diversity on here.

    I have learned much from many of you on here. Hopefully we can all figure it out and get along in the process.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  118. Steve Hempell (18:46:40) :
    “Temperatures are higher now than 100 years ago.”
    Ah, but are they any higher than 70 or 80 years ago?

    The summer I was born was the warmest one on record in Denmark. My point was that the solar activity is now where it was 107 years ago, but temperatures now are higher than 107 years ago.

    Clive E Burkland (19:00:54) :
    Extreme UV being one of those factors
    The energy in the EUV is minute compared to all of TSI, and the observed variation during the cycle is of the order of 0.1K or less. Just look at Scafetta’s graph at the top of the page and find an 11-year variation that is larger. Ain’t there.

    kim (19:53:32) :
    Leif, I would like to know what you think of Miscolzi’s work.
    Haven’t read it, so don’t know. What is his bottom line?

    DirkH (19:59:30) :
    “BTW, I note that nobody has manned up to give their ‘Leif score/number’ :-)”
    I didn’t see anything i disagree with in your list.

    So your number is 3FFFF.

    Dave F (20:02:33) :
    You didn’t say what temperatures.
    The ‘Global Temperature’, of course. :-)
    Now some fools say that there is no ‘Global Temperature’ or that it is meaningless. They wouldn’t say that if the ‘Global Temp’ reported the next ten years would drop by 2 degrees and disprove AGW, would they?
    Of course, there is a meaningful global temperature. If you measured the total radiation the Earth gives off, then you can calculate an ‘effective’ temperature from that. We do this for stars and the Sun.

  119. “Dave F (20:02:33) :

    Sorry Leif, you said ‘Temperatures 100 years ago were higher…’ You …”

    Leif:
    “1) Temperatures are higher now than 100 years ago. Exactly how much can be discussed [fakings, UHI, etc].”

    I think you misread it, Dave. Interesting here is that E.M. Smith didn’t find any warming in Germany during the last 260 years:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/germany-not-warming/

    Maybe we are so stable because of the gulf stream’s influence.

  120. Sou (20:39:08):

    Citations, please:

    How was the Oregon survey “faked”?

    and

    Provide evidence that the emails were “stolen”.

  121. Re: Anu (Mar 14 13:28),

    Gee thanks for that contribution ANU.
    You have also made a mistake in your post. You left out the ‘S’ at the end of your screen name.

    p.s. if your post was satire, then pls treat this the same.

  122. tallbloke (20:14:50) :
    If you want to mislead people about the sun here instead of presenting a balanced account
    People asked for my opinion… not for ‘balanced account’.

    And if you remember, the discussion back then was if the ‘Angular Momentum’ explanation was viable, and we showed it was not [as even elementary physics shows you directly]. If you can substantiate the correlation [which you have not] and you have another explanation that overcomes the energy problem, then by all means present it. Write a paper, get it published, etc.
    I note that Scafetta does not seem too hot on the Angular momentum idea either.

    I realize that some people get insulted if you show that their pet theory doesn’t stack up, and I guess that is just human nature that we must live with.

  123. Leif Svalgaard (16:12:55) :

    I’m still digging on #1, and I cannot find any evidence that today’s temps are not trumped 70 – 130 years ago. It’s a slow process when the old Weather Bureau records are not digitized.
    As for #3, I’ll wait for Svensmark to have his day. The uncertainty of proxies being able to distinguish different forms of solar activity is not entirely useful to me.
    If anyone knows where to find daily station data or more complete summaries of the Weather Bureau, I’m all ears.

  124. “Leif Svalgaard (20:45:56) :
    kim (19:53:32) :
    Leif, I would like to know what you think of Miscolzi’s work.
    Haven’t read it, so don’t know. What is his bottom line?”

    http://miskolczi.webs.com/ZM_v10_eng.pdf

    “If the system energetically could increase its
    surface temperature, it need not wait for our
    anthropogenic CO2 emissions, since another
    GHG, water vapor, is available in a practically
    infinite reservoir, in the surface of the
    oceans.”

  125. Leif Svalgaard (19:40:28) :
    wayne (19:25:48) :

    No, the distance between the Sun and the Earth is not affected by this [because the Earth orbits the ‘barycenter’ determined by the Sun and the Earth [+the Moon], no matter what the Sun does. Just like the Moon orbits the ‘barycenter’ determined by the Earth and the Moon, no matter what the Sun does. If the Sun had a companion star [Nemesis] very far away, the barycenter of the total system would be way outside our planetary solar system. But [as we have discussed so often], the barycenter of the solar system is irrelevant because the Sun and all the stuff in the solar system are just in free fall in their combined gravitational field and feel no forces from that.

    Careful Leif, sometimes you jump too fast, I programmed ephemeris systems for four years and have a close (I wish it closer) version of the Horizon system running on my older machine to my left, written by me from the ground up. I have different versions using nine or ten different ODE integrators to boot. Have you ever written an ephemeris software system? Try it, they are challenging!

    Your statement is almost like the other planets gravitation fields do not also affect the Earths orbit. Are you sure of your statement? If it was only the Sun and the Earth I would concur with you.

    Now if you are saying this small amount does not amount to much, I agree, but the fact that scientifically the difference exists and since it exists it must affect the TSI however tiny. Get my drift.

    I hate to hide proper science, even how tiny its effect is, because it can confuse people that logically know it must have SOME effect. The amount of effect is for others to determine (and may have already determined). But please don’t jump on my attempts to teach people here, just make a comment that its effect is so small it can be ignored. Let’s build on each other, not tear each other apart. OK?

  126. Leif (16:12:55):

    For the record:

    1. Don’t know if it is significantly warmer.
    2. If it is, the cause is probably not external.
    3. If it is, the cause is probably not external.
    4. If it is, the cause is probably not external.
    5. If it is, the cause is probably not external.
    6. If it is, the cause is probably not external.
    7. If it is, maybe it is CO2, maybe not.
    8. If it is, CO2 changes in the distant past aren’t relevant.
    9. If it is, the cause is probably not external.
    10. If it is, the cause is probably not external.
    11. If it is, climate models haven’t answered No. 7.
    12. If it is, maybe it is just Earth’s internal cycles. As for external cycles, see Nos. 2-6, 9-10, 13-14.
    13. If it is, the cause is probably not external.
    14. If it is, the cause is probably not external.

    I appreciate the effort, but basically all you have said here is: “Idunno, but it ain’t anything external to the Earth”. I would think you’d have something more to offer on the radiative physics of greenhouse gases. And none of this explains why you compare climate science to “voodoo science”.

  127. Leif Svalgaard (21:00:29) :

    tallbloke (20:14:50) :
    If you want to mislead people about the sun here instead of presenting a balanced account

    People asked for my opinion… not for ‘balanced account’.

    Fair enough, but I note you snipped the uncertainty levels bit though, and you present your opinion as definite fact sufficient to diss other people with when that isn’t warranted.

    And if you remember, the discussion back then was if the ‘Angular Momentum’ explanation was viable, and we showed it was not [as even elementary physics shows you directly].

    No it doesn’t. JPL Horizons presupposes that the solar system’s angular momentum sums to zero between the sun and planets, so you wouldn’t expect to find the energy of a spin-orbit coupling there.

    If you can substantiate the correlation [which you have not] and you have another explanation that overcomes the energy problem, then by all means present it. Write a paper, get it published, etc.

    At least you now admit there is a correlation to substantiate. This is progress! ;-)

    I realize that some people get insulted if you show that their pet theory doesn’t stack up

    No Leif, you insult people with discourtesy and disrespect (Astologer, pseudoscientist), which should have no place on this (or any other) blog.

    savethesharks (20:40:58) :
    I have learned much from many of you on here. Hopefully we can all figure it out and get along in the process.

    Amen to that.

  128. Leif,
    I think I very well might have been one of the ones you referenced, talking about the absurdity of a global average temperature. I can only speak for myself, but when I have made statements like that it has been in regards to the myopic overemphasis on the global average surface temperature record as the adjudicator of all things climate when it is, in fact, a proxy to the temperature you’re talking about.

    I think to describe what you’re getting at we’d be talking about total heat content (ocean + surface + atmospheric) – which I agree would be useful. Why aren’t radiative analyses being taken, or are they and nobody is paying them any attention? Also, could an AGW signal be deduced from an analysis like this?

  129. Leif Svalgaard (20:45:56) :

    I would say that the process of adding up temperatures about 6 feet off of the surface and averaging them out would seem like an exercise in futility.

    As to measuring the radiation coming off of the Earth, isn’t that what Lindzen was measuring with CERES (I am pretty sure that is the right acronym)?

  130. Scafetta and Willson try to prove that the ACRIM data gap (caused by the Challenger disaster) show that the Sun is actually getting brighter, and assuming they are correct, they then show that this warming Sun can account for a good bit of the observed global warming (at least 10% to 30%).

    Here’s the data gap.
    At issue is the calibration of the satellites on both sides of the gap – the ACRIM device measures TSI variances very precisely, but it’s much harder to get an absolute measure like 1368 watts/m^2.

    Here’s one calibration that NASA favors now.

    It differs crucially from the interpretation NASA used to use earlier, in 2003 when Scafetta began trying to derive consequences of this “brightening Sun”.

    http://www.physorg.com/news6892.html

    , challenged the previous satellite interpretations of solar output. Willson and his colleagues concluded, rather that their analysis revealed a significant upward trend in average solar luminosity during the period.
    Using the Columbia findings as the starting point for their study, Scafetta and West then statistically analyzed how Earth’s atmosphere would respond to slightly stronger solar heating. Importantly, they used an analytical method that could detect the subtle, complex relationships between solar output and terrestrial temperature patterns.

    Applying their analytical method to the solar output estimates by the Columbia group, Scafetta’s and West’s paper concludes that “the sun may have minimally contributed about 10 to 30 percent of the 1980-2002 global surface warming.”

    The March 2009 Scafetta/Willson paper (preprint here) attempting to show a brightening Sun, once again, using a solar model (developed by Solanki and Krivova) for estimating TSI for that troublesome ACRIM gap, is later slapped down by none other than Solanki and Krivova, for failing to understand the limitations of their solar model, and saying explicitly that it was misapplied for those timescales, and redoing the work using a more appropriate model of TSI.

    This slapdown was published in record time in the same journal (Geophysical Research Letters) in October 2009.
    Preprint here.

    Nicola Scafetta’s recent paper, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
    Volume 71, Issues 17-18, December 2009, Pages 1916-1923
    is more hesitant now, after so much controversy over the TSI trends:
    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.

    Here is the PMOD (Swiss Observatory and World Radiation Center) TSI results. Even the ACRIM composite solar minimums that Scafetta prefers is no longer trending upwards, by 2008.

    So yeah, if the Sun was brightening decade after decade after decade, that would certainly explain a big part of the planet warming decade after decade after decade.
    But it isn’t, so it doesn’t.

  131. And Leif, I read you speaking of this “angular momentum” bit, I also am very leery of it. My only guess is they are trying to put some important sounding words (angular momentum) on some basic gravitational effects like the tiny difference I described and build a theory on it. It’s a fancy way of saying the planets orbits are all affected by the other planets. I hate fancy words! But to drag that into some sizeable effect on Earth’s climate system, I for one don’t buy that. Please don’t think I was describing that in my previous comment! I was not.

  132. @ Smokey (20:58:39)
    Google or bing ‘Oregon petition debunked’ for the story behind the fake Oregon Petition.

    The Norfolk Police are investigating the theft of CRU emails. I don’t believe they have arrested anyone yet, but they should release their findings at some stage, whether they catch the thieves or not.

    BTW – Thanks for responding to my post again, I think I’ve got a fan :)

  133. Nick Stokes (18:08:59) :

    He can hardly have contributed to AR1, AR2 or AR3. Are you saying that they were contributors to AR4?

    I remember following a debate regarding the differences between Scafetta’s earlier estimates of TSI influence vs. his later estimates. One point made was his later revisions contradicted his earlier work cited by the IPCC and created quite a dispute with the IPCC. I couldn’t find the citation myself but I was able to find a seemingly related comment and response in the AR4 working group 1 notes:

    The expert review comments on the First-Order Draft (16 November 2005), comment # 2-1786 requests that the Scafetta N. and B.J. West (2005) paper should be cited in the next draft. The reviewer’s response is: “Their paper is cited but with caveats that their claim depends crucially on the observational solar irradiance time series adopted for that period…”

    I’m not sure where the line of demarcation is between being a reference source and contributor is nor can I determine if he submitted his paper for consideration but it seems certain his work was was at least reviewed, considered, discussed, and cited in the IPCC’s AR4 WG1 report for what it’s worth.

  134. Henry (17:48:05) :

    P.S.
    Paid by Exxon.
    No worries folks, it will be out eventually, and all the skeletons in the closets of the posters here wiil eventually be out

    Did it ever occur to simplistic twits like you that at the widely touted Exxon figure of 20 million bucks divided by all the sceptics equals a flat rate of about $1.85 each? You can make better money by collecting empty beer cans which is about your intellectual level.

  135. Oh, Leif, please read Miscolzi. He’s got the saturated gassy argument, that past a certain concentration, CO2 has no further greenhouse effect. His math is well beyond me, but it seems his thesis is highly controversial, embraced by skeptics and trashed by alarmists. Me? I know nossing.
    ================

  136. Wayne, @ 20:38:09

    Is there enough difference in the variable TSI by your mechanism to account for the wide variation in climate?
    =================

  137. Re: R Shearer (11:13:40) :

    “Wait a minute, how could we possibly influence the center of mass of the solar system?”

    Simple: Girth.

    Al Girth’s movement has been shown to affect climate. If you move a mass that large it’s going to have a dramatic effect.

    (To the Mod, If this post doesn’t make it, no harm no foul… it’s clearly OT)

  138. Baa Humbag (21:00:27) :
    Re: Anu (Mar 14 13:28),

    Gee thanks for that contribution ANU.
    You have also made a mistake in your post. You left out the ‘S’ at the end of your screen name.

    —–
    It started, before any comments had yet been posted, as a comical riff on the small errors which are used in the media to discredit entire thousand page reports by the IPCC.
    I was then interrupted by my young daughter for two hours or so…
    Later, uninspired, I finished up lamely and posted it.

    It would have been dangerously, coffee-spitting funny if I had been able to finish it as originally envisioned.
    No, really.

  139. Leif Svalgaard (20:45:56) :

    The energy in the EUV is minute compared to all of TSI, and the observed variation during the cycle is of the order of 0.1K or less. Just look at Scafetta’s graph at the top of the page and find an 11-year variation that is larger. Ain’t there.

    Its not about the energy, its about the measured quantity of EUV and how it fluctuates over the solar cycle. When comparing the EUV levels of this minimum compared to 1996 during the last minimum there is a 6% difference. Compare the EUV figures of the last minimum and the height of SC19 and the variation is many times larger.

  140. The question we’re all not paying attention to is: “Why are all the world leaders pushing for carbon trading?”

  141. Smokey (18:23:49) :
    You have the gall to quote CRU temperature data??
    You do understand that rather than “actual data,” what we’re been given by CRU has been made up as they went along – in one case, for a 13 year stretch.

    ———-

    Sure, they “made up data for a 13 year stretch”.
    I guess the Parliament investigation forgot to bring that one up. Which high schooler MySpace page did you find this out on ? I’d like to take a look at her evidence.

    Meanwhile, back in the real world, let’s look at that same data from NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies, since they estimate polar temperatures left out by HadCrut and the satellite datasets (UAH, RSS):

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

    So, was there any warming in 15 years ?
    Dec 1994 global temp. anomaly 0.25
    Dec 2009 global temp. anomaly 0.58

    Yup, the planet warmed 0.33 deg C.
    These anomalies are with respect to the average for 1951-1980.

    If your stock goes up by $3.30/share, it doesn’t matter how “statistically significant” this is. If you have 10,000 shares, you just made $33K.
    Profited.
    Warmed.
    Get it ?

  142. wayne (20:38:09) :

    No, I think no errors.

    The centre of the Sun moves to a max of about 2.18 of a solar radius. (about 1.5 million km)

    Fred Bailey made the same error as yours regarding what he thought was a fluctuating Sun/Earth distance due to the solar motion about the barycenter in a paper he co wrote with Alexander and others. This is easily tested via JPL which shows a 15000 km variance per year due to planet perturbations.

    Scafetta’s argument has nothing to do with a varying Sun/Earth distance.

  143. u.k.(us) (19:18:59) :
    Henry (17:48:05) :
    No worries folks, it will be out eventually, and all the skeletons in the closets of the posters here wiil eventually be out.
    ==========
    God forbid, if all the skeletons of all the posters on this site wiil be out.

    I prefer to think of them as “an eclectic series of unfortunate Life Experiences”…

  144. : 4) There is a 0.1% change of TSI between solar min and solar max, resulting ~0.1C temperature variation

    The problem is the overall change is 0.1,however the spectral irriadiance is inverse to the solar cycle ie the absorption bands of interest in H2o an co2 are of opposite sign to the solar cycle,eo Krivova et al

    The role of the solar UV radiation for the Earth’s climate is boosted
    further by the fact that variations of solar irradiance are also strongly wavelength
    dependent. Whereas the total (integrated over all wavelengths) solar
    irradiance varies by only about 0.1% over the solar cycle, the UV irradiance
    varies by 1 to 3 orders of magnitude more (e.g., Floyd et al., 2003).
    Solar near-IR radiation absorbed by water vapour and carbon dioxide is
    an important source of heating in the lower atmosphere (Haigh, 2007). Solar
    variability in the IR is comparable to or lower than the TSI variations and
    in the range between about 1500 and 2500 nm it is reversed with respect to
    the solar cycle (Harder et al., 2009; Krivova et al., 2009b).

    A non trivial problem,

  145. Well, Pooh Bear has an interesting poem:

    The more it snows
    the more it snows
    the more it goes on
    snowing.

    I checked, and there are no chaotic dynamics considered in the review, and to me this is an important enough lack to dissuade me from reading it carefully.

    I agree with Leif that barycenter influences are on the same level as ghost manifestations and should not be discussed seriously in realistic physics blogs ( one can have fun with higher dimensions etc. but those are different kinds of blogs). In real life physics the barycenter is a noetic construct, has no mass, and cannot affect matter with its convoluted motions, in the same way that epicycles, though real and still there if one plots a geocentric system, have no relationship to physical forces governing orbits. Fancy what those epicycles would do to the sun if their motion had a meaning. Galilean relativity holds in the macrocosm, and so any coordinate system is equally valid as any other. The heliocentric dominates because of the physical forces, and the barycenter has a meaning because it is needed to describe the center of mass of the solar system within the galaxy, no more.

    Only through the tiny, mm, tides is the sun affected by the planets, and no mechanism is proposed for the amplification of these.

    Back to deterministic chaos. Similar coupled differential equations give solutions that have similar characteristics. It was/is the basic principle behind analogue computers designed to solve specific differential equations : the elements solve the differential equations of electricity and magnetism in circuits and one makes analogues of the equations one wants to solve, by controlling the constants and the couplings.

    The equations one wants to solve may be the planetary ones, does this mean that the analogue circuits which generate the planetary orbits, which will be completely in step by construction, create the planetary orbits?

    Leif should add
    15) correlation is not causation

    Chaotic systems emerging from similar coupled differential equations will have similar solutions and could be correlated though completely a-causal.

    Already somebody pointed up that just the Moon Sun Earth calendar gives similar correlations. That is all what any planetary clock can provide, a time scale against which changes in whatever can be measured. Climate, being chaotic, can, with shifts harmonics and whatnots, be brought to dance to any tune with similar frequencies.

    I have linked here before how dynamical chaos can produce beats and order.
    It is worth contemplating the cornstarch experiment.

    If one were observing the fingers, could one guess that the physics behind it is a constant shaking frequency, the viscosity/elasticity of cornstarch and a small perturbation by a stick, by studying the numerology of the order of the fingers?

  146. Anthony,

    Seems I may have innocently wandered into an area I should have heeded. I reviewed your policy and noticed the word “barycenterism”. The science I have studied of late is the solar system and gravity and the barycenter is part of that, it didn’t even cross my mind people would take me so wrong and tie the two together. Wow! Kind of like stirring up a bee hive! I’ll be more careful. No barycenter and no <!

    REPLY: No worries, I poked it first by posting this article. – A

  147. wayne: “Now if you are saying this small amount does not amount to much, I agree, but the fact that scientifically the difference exists and since it exists it must affect the TSI however tiny. Get my drift?”

    Good post and good quote. I get your drift.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  148. “Anu (22:12:26) :
    [...]
    Meanwhile, back in the real world, let’s look at that same data from NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies, since they estimate polar temperatures left out by HadCrut and the satellite datasets (UAH, RSS):

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt


    You have the “estimate” right there.
    Unfortunately we can’t say “measure” because they have nothing up there that measures anything. So much for your pompous “Meanwhile, back in the real world,”; i suggest a “Meanwhile, back in the brain of James Hansen”.

  149. wayne (22:40:30) :

    Seems I may have innocently wandered into an area

    Yes and unfortunately with incorrect information which may mislead. I appreciate your attempts to educate but when confronted it is better to produce evidence to support your case or at least double check your sources before venturing further.

    JPL is the only source and the evidence is clear. Please post your JPL results to support your claim.

  150. pat (14:10:02) :

    read all….

    But the level of natural year-to-year variability in the temperature record shows that a decade is too short a time to establish a change in the long-term trend…

    I keep reading this, but then I happen to remember that the apprent warming thru the Period from the late 70’s to the late 80’s was sufficient to cause the creation of the IPCC.

    Nuff said.

  151. kim (21:42:11) :
    Wayne, @ 20:38:09

    Is there enough difference in the variable TSI by your mechanism to account for the wide variation in climate?

    First, it’s not my mechanism. If you get knee deep in solar system mechanics you will find it is more Newton’s mechanism. :-)

    I just calculated an estimate, we are only talking of ~0.0005% and that is only when all major gas planets in conjunction or opposition to the earth at the same time and all on the same side to boot. So no, too small to discern in the solar noise to measure or affect the climate. (I learned something today, had never stopped to calculate that!)

  152. ANU @ 21:51:25

    You might find it informative to look at Richard Tol’s takedown of the reliability of all of the IPCC reports. There aren’t just a few small errors, rather the reports are rife with bad science. I also note that many of the most fearful messages in the Summary for Policymakers have been found to be exaggerated. The reports are rubbish.
    ================

  153. I thought Bary Centre was banned here… Don’t mention the L word!

    I haven’t read the booklet yet but climate is basically weather over time. If there is a link between barycentre changes and the PDO and AMO then climate is much more sensitive to the sun than is implied by the 0.1% changes in TSI. The cause is unknown yet. Possible candidates are cumulative TSI, magnetic effects on the ionosphere, or increased downwelling radiation from the stratosphere driven by changes of UV. UV changes much more than TSI and the stratosphere absorbs UV.

  154. R. Gates (17:00:22) : writes:

    “Just wondering, how does this graphic, showing the high temps we saw in January 2010 fit in with Dr. Scafetta’s model [should't the planet be cooling?]”

    As with everything that comes from Climategaters, they chose to make the data ambiguous and multiply so. They do not give a temperature reading for each day. Instead, they give an average of a daylight reading and a moonlight reading for each day. Of course, the causes of changes in the two temperatures might be altogether unrelated. UHI could have a powerful impact at night but little during the day. There is no reason to create this ambiguity in temperature readings. We have computers, for goodness sake, and we can record both. Good old Climategater procedure, corrupt the data from the very start and irretrievably so. Corrupt data never limits the imagination and imagination is the Climategater strong point.

  155. Anu (22:12:26) :

    Math games. You posit two numbers above 1. This is not consistent with your warming scenario. No cookies for you. In fact, you are extending the subconscious forward with this exaggeration. 10,000*3.3=33,000. Well, in reality, since warming is on a decimal level, you have to correct both sides of your equation to relate to reality. See, we are talking about the Earth, of which there is one. So our dividend is more like 1 share = $.00033. Hardly significant. Perhaps angels should watch over your calculations? Snark intended. :|

    In fact, given the fraction of a degree we can measure Earth’s temperature to on a surface basis, I find it odd that we can not simply study patterns of temperature flow to arrive at a meaningful weather prediction system. What do you think about this? And please answer the important question this time instead of running off into distractions.

  156. kim (21:37:47) :

    To the best of my research on him, he assumed in his calculations that the atmosphere orbited the Earth somehow? I could be wrong, since I am not the one to make wither claim, and am too busy to successfully research either.

  157. Leif,

    My Leif score is 3FFFF.

    I always look forward to your comments especially when the topic has anything to do with that big yellow ball in the sky.

    You seem to strike a reasonable balance of stating your opinions and sighting the evidence to back them up.

    You sometimes throw in a little humor and sarcasm to spice it up, usually with enough good natured self-deprecation to take the sting off of your slightly blunt remarks.

    Maybe I’ve been swayed by your evil “the sun didn’t do it” opinions, but I also note that Lindzen largely agrees with you on this topic and discounts the solar theories as explaining any recent warming.

    I sometimes worry that people will piss you off and you will march off, but you seem pretty thick-skinned.

    I’m glad because I think you add a much needed scientific perspective to this site. I like the other perspectives but we need more scientists to contribute to this blog.

  158. I see ‘Anu’ is making free with the fog machine of cherry picked statistics?

    Yes the earth has warmed very slightly though how a wholly artificial global average construct can be measured with any accuracy when the margin of error is larger than the supposed warming is beyond me.
    We know that the very slight warming trend has been augmented by statisical machinations as measured by the ground stations and we also know the unreliable nature of space based measurement of global temperatures.
    The nature of the uncertainty and the margins of error involved and the contamination of collected and collated data combined with the obvious vested political interests strongly suggests a full and thorough re examination of all the data.
    The tiny variation in temperature over a very short period of time when combined with the known margins of error in measurements makes the supposed causes of that warming open to debate
    It is almost a waste of time to calculate unknown and uncertain variables by applying adjustments based on theoretical models and then arrive at conclusions that actually mean anything.

    We still do not know exactly how much warming has occured over what time frame.
    We still do not know exactly how much warming is natural and how much is antropogenic.
    We still do not know exactly what effects solar activity or lack of it has on the warming trend.
    We still cannot account fully and exactly for the relative contribution of atmospheric gasses to the greenhouse effect.
    We still cannot accurately model future climate states when the models are programmed with so many uncertainties and variables.

    What our chronic lack of accurate knowledge does tell us very clearly is that untill we obtain a far more accurate picture of the planets state we are doing nothing more than dancing in the dark. The best course of action when faced with such uncertainty is obvious isnt it?

  159. wayne (21:10:05) “I have different versions using nine or ten different ODE integrators to boot.”

    Many will see clearly where you are going here.

  160. Clive E Burkland (22:15:13) :
    wayne (20:38:09) :

    Clive, respectably, I think you and I are on different wavelengths. I’ve never heard of Fred Bailey, sorry. You mentioned the word “yearly”. No, no. I am speaking of decades if not centuries. How often do the major gas planets align, conjunction or opposition. That is the time period between maximums and minimums of the sun’s actual center to the SSB. Sounds like the men in the paper were also speaking of yearly.

    I will have to check your “about 1.5 million km”. I remember reading that the SSB never gets even one radius from the sun’s center. One and a half million kilometers would place it clearly outside the sun’s surface proper. I could be wrong on that, never gave it much thought or testing, interesting though.

    The Horizons system should show that between 199x or so when they aligned (remember to newspaper articles) and some many decades forward or backwards when they align on the opposite side should show a rough reading to the suns’ orbit’s maximum diameter when you subtract those points. Be sure to use barycenter coordinates without light-time corrections if you try that.

    Or simpler is to use a calculator, gravity equations, mass, and mean radius of the bodies with all bodies aligned, you won’t even need vectors. Sorry, I’m not going to do the calculations for you though.

    Or, believe me, the effect I mentioned is absolutely real, tiny, and occurs over decades.

  161. anna v (22:30:05) :

    I just laugh when on one hand some folks decry the state of temperature data and on the other hand applaud when cycles can be found.
    Selective skepticism.

  162. Leif,

    With the following caveats,

    1) As a human, I always resented being given a number, whether it was SS#, driver License, military draft number, etc

    2) My college professor in Static and Dynamics gave me advice once, “In your engineering career you will always be asked for a number, I have found the number six to be highly useful. You are welcome to use it.”

    3) My philosophical alter ego is whispering in my ear that some of the 14 Svalgaardian points should be reworded. I may do that eventually, but for now . . . .

    4) I am willing to see where this leads me, that is, I am willing to see how deep the rabbit hole is. I am taking the red pill.

    Here goes:

    a) My Leif Score = 9

    b) My Leif # = 16308 [Hex 0x3fb4 if I got the Deci to Hex conversion right]

    John

  163. 60 YEAR CYCLE (approx) can be due to a number of phenomena. Most likely is linked to the period of circulation in one of the two mayor Atlantic gyres (subpolar or more likely subtropical, controlling AMO, and affecting PDO, Pacific is only twice volume of Atlantic).
    I understand that Dr. Svalgaard thinks that there is also part related to TSI, the solar cycles have one of its spectrum peaks just above 50 years http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/FFT-Power-Spectrum-SSN.png.
    Dr. Scafetta went complicated way about it to link it to barycentre, but if he is not astronomically or astrologically challenged, there is far simpler explanation. Every ~59.5 years Jupiter and Saturn meat at the nose end of heliosphere in mar 1881, jan 1941, june 2000, the years that coincide with a significant turn around in so called ‘global temperature’

    http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar?date=0&utc=2069%2F07%2F20+20%3A17%3A43&jd=2476948.34564&img=-k1&sys=-Sf&eyes=0&imgsize=600&orb=-b2&lat=50&ns=North&lon=7%B0&ew=East&hlat=90%B0&hns=North&hlon=0%B0&elements=

  164. wayne (00:28:19) :

    Clive E Burkland (22:15:13) :
    wayne (20:38:09) :

    Clive, respectably, I think you and I are on different wavelengths.

    Wavelengths are not important, we are dealing with distances that can be measured accurately. This is a science blog, please present your JPL evidence or retract.

  165. OT

    The Catlin Arctic Survery Team hit by severe weather, latest report

    Ice Teams Feeling Under the Weather

    It’s been a tough week for our teams in Resolute this week. Having worked like huskies to get everything ready for a planned midweek drop off onto the sea ice, the elements have intervened and kept them land-bound and cooped-up in Resolute Bay.

    http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/

  166. I’ve got it! The dark matter near the center of the sun also orbits the barycentre and induces tidal flows in the sun. Sometimes it is even outside the sun. Disprove that Leif!

    Creating an unknown force of unknown strength with unknown effects can explain anything, right? Well it might be good for a research grant…

  167. AlanG
    “If there is a link between barycentre changes and the PDO and AMO then climate is much more sensitive to the sun than is implied by the 0.1% changes in TSI. The cause is unknown yet. Possible candidates are cumulative TSI, magnetic effects on the ionosphere, or increased downwelling radiation from the stratosphere driven by changes of UV. UV changes much more than TSI and the stratosphere absorbs UV.”

    —…—…—…
    OK, well then we’ve measured (maybe, if GISS/HADCRU/NOAA are measuring UHI correctly!) LESS THAN 1/2 of 1 degree change in surface temperatures since 1970. (A value that changes month-by-month by the way.)

    Then 273 + 0.5 deg C + 20 deg C (average temp) = 293.5/293 = 0.1 % chance in earth’s temperature.

    That we don’t know (yet!) the cause of the 0.1 percent increase is NOT cause for destroying the free world’s economies by “combating global warming” with tax increases and Enron’s carbon trading schemes.

  168. I would like to know, what other people think about the subject matter, not what somebody called Leif Svalgaard thinks about other people.

    This site is one of the best ever but I’ve had enough of Leif, thank you.

  169. Leif Svalgaard (16:12:55) :

    I would prefer a simplification:

    1. There is no credible evidence to support the AGW vodoo.
    2. It isn’t necessary to know what causes climate change to know that No 1 is correct.
    3. See one and two.

    I would also like to see your take on Miskolzi. It’s tempting to quote him, but It needs to be examined by folks who can understand both the math and the physics. I have no confidence in the opinions expressed by people like Gavin Schmidt.

  170. Leif Svalgaard (14:44:14) :
    As that Great Serbian pseudo-scientist put so clearly:

    “on face of it, if one was to be too pedantic, one would be obliged to ascertain that energy levels required to satisfactorily pass the test, as required by the most rigorous of scientific standards, are to a degree numerically challenged”

    Quote correct, attribution a bit of the mark. There is a subtle difference between Serb (nationality) and Serbian (origin of Serbia), in this case correct would be Serb, or more accurately Montenegrian (pronounced Crnogorski) Serb.

  171. steven mosher (00:28:19) :

    anna v (22:30:05) :

    “I just laugh when on one hand some folks decry the state of temperature data and on the other hand applaud when cycles can be found.
    Selective skepticism.”

    —…—…—

    Ah, but dear writer, there ARE cycles present in the earth’s temperature records : short ones of 66 – 75 years, added on top of longer ones of 800-900 years = which is why we are warmer now and feed more people now, and those 800 years cycles are added to even longer ones of 12,000 years, added to even longer ones of 25,000 years.

    It is the global warming alarmist who seek to ignore temperature cycles, distort them, and use them politically – but ONLY when it suits their purposes.

    It is the skeptics who APPLY cycles to the problem, and who seek to find out WHY there are cycles present, rather than ignore cycles and distort and denigrate who investigate cycles.

    It is the global warming alarmists who chose to base their “religion” (er, faith and laws) in linear extrapolations of a single 20 year period of distorted and manipulated numbers into four centuries of continued increase.

  172. Clive E Burkland (00:53:22) :

    I have nothing to retract. My evidence is Newtonian gravitation equations and a system of a sun and planets. JPL horizons was merely mentioned of a place on the web you could check positions years from now, forward or backwards if you wanted. If I offended you I didn’t mean to. Beside, this OT was for another commenter’s question and I think I have thoroughly explained what I meant to you.

  173. How was the Oregon survey “faked”?

    The survey is merely fatally flawed, however the ‘review paper’ sent out with it was tricked out in the font and format of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and was clearly meant to resemble a peer-reviewed journal paper.

    It was no such thing, of course. The lead author was Arthur Robinson, who has never worked as a climate scientist, and the paper was full of the usual cherry picks and factual errors. Interesting approach to opinion-gathering.

    As to the poll, here is a truly ‘sceptical’ assessment:

    In conclusion, through his Global Warming Petition Project, Arthur Robinson has solicited the opinions of the wrong group of people in the wrong way and drawn the wrong conclusions about any possible consensus among relevant and qualified scientists regarding the hypothesis of human-caused global warming. His petition is unqualified to deliver answers about a consensus in which the public is interested. He has a right to conduct any kind of petition drive he wishes, but he is not ethically entitled to misrepresent his petition as a fair reflection of relevant scientific opinion. He has confused his political with his scientific aims and misled the public in the process.

    http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12/#feature

  174. steven mosher: “I just laugh when on one hand some folks decry the state of temperature data and on the other hand applaud when cycles can be found.
    Selective skepticism.”

    My thoughts entirely. Natural systems with 1/f noise, tend to appear to have cycles – that’s a fact. That doesn’t mean there aren’t cycles, but it sure does mean that one ought to be particularly careful before jumping to any assertion about apparent long term trends or cycles.

    If you want to know where bad science like this gets us, read up on camp century cycles, the failure of those cycles to predict anything in the which was shown in the 1970s when the world started to warm instead of cool as predicted, and the way the same gullible idiots that believed camp century cycles, then fell for the bad science of manmade global warming.

  175. I am surprised, I agree with all 14 points Dr. Svalgaard’s points (I am decimal 16383), i.e. perfect correlation (R^2=1), but then two of us disagree 99% of the time. It just shows that not every correlation gives a solution to a problem, or more likely his test is a ‘bit imperfect’ just as one or two hypothesis of mine (I think plural is hypotheses).

  176. Phil Clarke (01:48:35) :

    As to the poll, here is a truly ’sceptical’ assessment:

    Both the Skeptics Society (publisher of this article) and CSI, publisher of Skeptical Inquirer magazine are selectively skeptical. I gave up my subscription to Skeptical Inquirer precisely for that reason.

    Information from the end of the article says it all.

    Al Gore? Give me a break.

    The Author, Gary Whittenberger, is a free-lance writer and psychologist, living in Tallahassee, Florida. He received his doctoral degree from Florida State University after which he worked for 23 years as a psychologist in prisons. He has published many articles on science, philosophy, psychology, and religion, and their intersection.
    Footnotes

    1. Robinson, Arthur. 2008. “Purpose of Petition in Global Warming Petition Project.” http://www.petitionproject.org
    2. Robinson, Arthur. 2008. “Frequently Asked Questions in Global Warming Petition Project.”
    3. American Men and Women of Science. GALE CENGAGE Learning.
    4. Robinson, A. B., Robinson, N. E., and Soon, W. “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.” Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 2007, 12, 7990.
    5. Robinson, Arthur. “Qualifications of Signers in Global Warming Petition Project.” Ibid.
    6. Solomon, Lawrence. 32,000 deniers. Posted May 16, 2008, 7:20 PM, by Jeff White in Financial Post.
    7. Robinson, Arthur. 2008. E-mail communication to Howard Kessler, June 17.
    8. Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p21.htm
    9. Gore, Al. 2006. An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It. Rondale Books.

  177. West and Scarfetta have written a book to be released 30 March –

    “DISRUPTED NETWORKS
    From Physics to Climate Change

    by Bruce J West (US Army Research Office, USA) & Nicola Scafetta (Duke University, USA)

    …………This book provides a lens through which modern society is shown to depend on complex networks for its stability. One way to achieve this understanding is through the development of a new kind of science, one that is not explicitly dependent on the traditional disciplines of biology, economics, physics, sociology and so on; a science of networks. This text reviews, in non-mathematical language, what we know about the development of science in the twenty-first century and how that knowledge influences our world. In addition, it distinguishes the two-tiered science of the twentieth century, based on experiment and theory (data and knowledge) from the three-tiered science of experiment, computation and theory (data, information and knowledge) of the twenty-first century in everything from psychophysics to climate change.

    This book is unique in that it addresses two parallel lines of argument. The first line is general and intended for a lay audience, but one that is scientifically sophisticated, explaining how the paradigm of science has been changed to accommodate the computer and large-scale computation. The second line of argument addresses what some consider the seminal scientific problem of climate change. The authors show how a misunderstanding of the change in the scientific paradigm has led to a misunderstanding of complex phenomena in general, and the causes of global warming in particular. ”

    Some book sites only show West as the author but other sites show Scarfetta as well.

  178. @ Henry (17:00:37) :

    “…How can you continue posting here?… Yet here I find that science is not what is being done. It is politics …. are you really a scientist interested in finding the truth.”

    If I were a psychotherapist I might suggest that denial and projection are items for Henry to give some thought to.

  179. Leif Svalgaard (19:30:49) :
    [...]
    BTW, I note that nobody has manned up to give their ‘Leif score/number’ :-)

    I’ve been trying to decide if I don’t know enough to have an opinion does this count as an ‘agree’ (1) or an ‘otherwise’ (0). On the one hand, I suppose it must be an ‘otherwise’ since it can’t really be an ‘agree’. On the other hand the points (9 and 10) are well understood by Leif so I’m happy to accept they are correct.

    If the former applies my Leif score is 3FCF. If the latter applies it’s 3FFF.

    Is it possible I’m perhaps taking things a little too seriously?

  180. Why is it that this sort of research, which is in very great detail, looks more scientifically sound than the works that come out of the IPCC? In fact, given the very scant information released by the IPCC, which more often than not sound like political statements than scientific ones, why would anyone with a brain larger than that of a pea would prefer to listen to crap coming out of the IPCC than to listen to such well founded real science such as that presented here? I can only come to one conclusion. The IPCC and everything it stands for is nothing more than a scam trying to push a political agenda down everyone’s throat.

  181. wayne (01:45:50) :

    Clive E Burkland (00:53:22) :

    I have nothing to retract. My evidence is Newtonian gravitation equations and a system of a sun and planets.

    No offense taken. You made a statement, I challenged you with figures which you have not disputed or proven wrong.

    End of discussion

  182. Re: RACookPE1978 (Mar 15 01:37),

    It is evident that there are cycles. Who is disputing that? It is the random correlations of cycles with other cycles that have no physical meaning that is being disputed.

    Lets put it this way: If one postulates a physical mechanism that generates cycles of climate from cycles of sunspots it is necessary that a correlation is established unequivocally. If it is not found the postulated theory falls on its face.

    Finding correlations is not sufficient to establish a connection between disparate cycles, if the physics is not there.

    Example: two same size lakes in different continents will have the same wave trains highly correlated if the wind is the same strength. Neither the winds nor the waves are causally connected between the continents.

    It is the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions that unfortunately a lot of people who dabble in scientific matters cannot incorporate in their world view.

    It is what one gets pounded on the head with when doing formal theory of mathematics, and absolutely essential for any scientific conclusions.

  183. Anu (21:31:21) :

    So yeah, if the Sun was brightening decade after decade after decade, that would certainly explain a big part of the planet warming decade after decade after decade.
    But it isn’t, so it doesn’t.

    Leif’s own research shows that solar activity increased from 1900 to 1960, with another peak in the 1980’s. This activity level has now dropped back to ~1900 levels again.

    Along with the ~60 year cycles identified by Scafeta and many others, this provides a potentially viable explaination for terrestrial temperature change in the C20th, given an amplifying effect from cloud albedo.

  184. So why are HIS (biased, propagandized and inaccurate) comments such as this

    “…The two main assertions stated on the petition card were that there is no convincing scientific evidence that the human release of carbon dioxide and other gases is causing harmful atmospheric heating and climate change and that the U.S. government should reject the Kyoto Agreement and any other similar proposals. Arthur Robinson not only requested that recipients return the signed petition card, if they agreed with its assertions, but also arranged for the recipients to distribute petition packets to their colleagues. He also enabled other persons to obtain petition packets by simply requesting them through his website, and this procedure ultimately produced five percent of the returned petition cards. Thus, signed petitions were solicited in three different ways.

    Although the website for the petition indicates that checks of credentials and identity were performed for signatories of the returned petitions, and invalid petitions were excluded, how the checks were performed is not described. Signed petition cards were accepted only if they came from persons who had “obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields”. …

    — OK, so why discard the professional opinions of 32,000 (plus!) professionals in engineering, science, weather and statistics – while blindly accepting the (biased and proven worng) opnions of less than 50 “scientists” who are getting 80 billion in public funds and research – plus many hundred thousands in personal (!) monies – to promote THEIR view of global warming on the economies of the world.

    It is THOSE 50 “scientists” who need be scrutinized, because THEY have the motives, methods, means, and determination to invoke their OPINIONS and linear forecasts on 5 billion others.

    Guilty of fraud? Circumstantial evidence says “Yes.”

    Actually guilty? Well, we (the AGW alarmists) know they have proved the degree of of their greed, pride, desire for power, and sense of “holier than thou” fervor that “excuses all crimes” – while (you!) deride 32,000 signatures because they are not “randomly selected” like a “poll” of the public masses would indicate.

  185. Re Bob Tisdale (16:02:50) :

    Thanks Mr Tisdale for the info about the 1945 discontinuity existing also on other datasets, this was new for me.

  186. Leif Svalgaard (16:12:55)

    I think my Leif number is imaginary.

    Meanwhile…

    Leif, in your 14 points, I’m not sure how you view lunar influences. Internal or external?

    I still cannot get past the fact that we have “thousands” of reports of climate variations on decadal and bidecadal time frames. It seems to me that this can easily be explained by a combination of lunar and solar influences. I.e., take your ~0.1C variation in temperature (though I recall you calculating it more precisely to be 0.07C), and combine this with the lunar nodal cycle, and we have a mechanism for these decadal and bidecadal variations.

    This may not explain the degree of temperature variation we see on centennial scales, but it may contribute to the “internal” factors that may drive temperature changes on that scale. To illustrate what I mean, the following image shows the effect of combining two cycles, one with approximately decadal frequency, and the other with bidecadal frequency, into a combined beat wave:

    I’ve arbitrarily set these up to start at 1850, to give some frame of reference to the scale of time involved. What is interesting is that there is a multidecadal pattern ~60 years in the amplitude envelop, in which at the beginning of such a period, the amplitude is at a maximum negative value, and at the end of the period it is at a maximum positive value. Moreover, there is an upward trend in the troughs of the shorter cycles through these periods.

    I note that Scafetta attempts to attribute 60 year cycles to certain “external” influences (I had to read the paper to determine what SCMSS referred to) that you consider unscientific. What I’m suggesting is that we do not have to go that far to explain ~60 year patterns in global temperatures. They can result simply from the interaction of shorter cycles that have less controversial origins.

    Finally, while the bottom pane of the image linked above is “hypothetical,” it actually happens to match up fairly well with the actual historical record of global temperature over the last 160 years. I.e., a pattern of warming in the early 20th Century, a period of cooling, or at least stasis, about mid-century, followed by more warming. If the pattern is repeating, then we may be at the end of a 60 year cycle, and entering a period of stasis, if not cooling.

    And I didn’t have to resort to SCMSS to get there.

  187. Leif Svalgaard (19:40:28) :

    the barycenter of the solar system is irrelevant because the Sun and all the stuff in the solar system are just in free fall in their combined gravitational field and feel no forces from that.

    Ah, back to a priori Newtonian thought experiments.

    You have no proof of this.

    The sun is not a rigid point object for one thing. This means it’s going to undergo differential forces from one side to the other. If the quasi regular motion causes the resulting bulges to be reinforced rather than diminished, this could produce a significant effect building up over long periods of time. Of course, the bulges are pulled back to the suns average oblatene by it’s high surface gravity, but there will be a resultant meridional flow which wil accelerate sideways around the solar equator.

    Given that the mainstream solar physicists (including Leif) still don’t know why the equatorial flow is faster than the higher latitude flow, they are in no position to make sweeping statements about the sun feeling no forces.

  188. Phenomenological Models run certain risks simply because of what they ignore.

    If one believes that the surface temperature is determined by a flux balance and that the fluxes are functions of temperature, GHG concentrations, solar irradiance, etc. and that they are locally linear functions of these known and unknown factors then you have the standard forcing/sensitivity model.

    dT = (δF/δT)*(Fghg +Ftsi +Funknown -dE/dt) {where dE/dt is the rate of increase of global enthalpy}.

    Now dE/dt is widely ignored in general, in this paper it is mentioned but does not seem to be quantified in any way.

    Once ignored we have:

    dT = (δF/δT)*(Fghg +Ftsi +Funknown)

    and here lies a potential trap.

    If we know dT and say that Ftsi (forcing due to TSI) is more significant than is indicated by the computer models that implies that (δF/δT)*Fghg is less significant implying that either (δF/δT) is smaller (the climate is less sensitive) or Fghg is smaller (GHG produce less forcing) or both.

    If it were (δF/δT) that was smaller, then the necessary increase in Ftsi must be greater by a factor of 1/(δF/δT) than would otherwise be necessary. Now the known variance in TSI is small and has to be multiplied many times to get the required effect postulated in the paper.

    Alternatively Fghg could be smaller implying that we have simply got all the radiative transfer equations wrong by a large factor/

    Much of the same is true if one postulates that their is a significant Funknown.

    Now that does not mean that (δF/δT) is not much smaller than the IPPC figures, it probably is, but if it is, there are a whole lot of things that suddenly do not seem to make a lot of sense. The prime one being how the effective forcing Ftsi is such a large multiple of the known variation in TSI. How large that multiple is would depend many further assumptions (see below).

    The paper notes this discrepancy in the standard case but I do not see that it highlights the issue that I have mentioned, in that reducing the warming contribution due to GHGs makes things much more awkward. A factor of three or five is mentioned in the statndard case (page 15) but reducing the sensitivity down to say one third would require these multipliers to be nine and fifteen.

    This is common to any model that proposes very low values for the sensitivity. The problem with low sensitiviites is the low sensitivity, it implies that it is very difficult to budge the temperature up or down. Hence the need for known fluctusations like the solar cyclce signature to be driven by large and totally unexplained variations in the effective solar forcing. If you like, a large positive TSI temperature feedback mechanism (page 16). Unfortunately that would not fit easily with the already difficult Faint Young Sun Paradox.

    Like I said a problem with such models is what they ignore. It is one thing to indicate that there are complexities that are not dealt with in the computer models but to ignore the implied ramifications of postulating that GHGs have a much smaller effect than in the standard models is, I feel, a little reckless.

    Personally I doubt that there is a lot of wiggle room in the models except on the high side (sensitivities above 3C which I find doubtful). I think that once you try and lower the sensitivity below 2C, you open up a whole can of worms and you start causing more problems than you are offering solutions. This is something that I think is ignored. The paper descirbes its approach as holistic, my point is that it is not in terms of the larger picture. It is all very well to indicate realtionships between data sets on the basis that we do not understand the science and we are still grasping for a pattern. But we do understand much of the science and we are capable of seeing the implied ramafications of notions like more than 60% of the warming since 1970 is due to a 60 year cycle.

    Lastly this statement:

    “Human emissions can have contributed at most the remaining 40%, or less, of the
    warming observed since 1970 (if no overestimation of the global warming is assumed as Section 8 would suggest), not the 100% as claimed by the IPCC.” (Page 20)

    does not sit very easily the phenomenological approach. There is an indication that there is something to be explained but that is a long way from such a categorical assertion. Particularly considering that the paper gives a completely different and more likely value for the amplitude of the 60 year cycle in Appendix U.

    It is also very different to:

    “At least 60% of the warming of the Earth observed since 1970
    appears to be induced by natural cycles which are present in the solar system.” (Abstract)

    Now I would prefer to believe that the author does realise the problems posed by the speculation of low values for climate sensitivity, so one must wonder why they do not seem to be highlighted (there is certainly nothing in the conclusions).

    Alex

  189. I think there is an error in the caption to the graph at the head of the post. The bottom figure shows the global temperature in red, not black, which is representing the solar motion relative to the barycentre.

  190. Anu (22:12:26) :

    “Sure, they “made up data for a 13 year stretch”.
    I guess the Parliament investigation forgot to bring that one up. Which high schooler MySpace page did you find this out on ? I’d like to take a look at her evidence.”

    You look foolish discussing something while being ignorant of the underlying information. Here, let me help you out.

    From the Harry_Read_Me.txt file:

    Here, the expected 1990 – 2003 period is missing so the correlations aren’t so hot!
    Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close).
    What the hell is supposed to happen here?
    Oh, yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have.

    1990 – 2003 = 13 years of fabricated CRU data.

    There’s more. Go read the file. Show us that MySpace part.

  191. Correction to mine above:

    In all cases (δF/δT) should of course read (δT/δF)

    Apologies

    Alex

  192. Smokey’s comment above at (03:56:03) is the reason why EVERY BIT of the CRU’s data, emails, papers, calculations, even napkins w/ notes should be open to the public and inspected by Scotland Yard. Let’s find out what happend once and for all.

    Then we’ll go to NASA and do the same thing. The courts will have a heyday!

  193. Leif Svalgaard (16:12:55)

    Thank you very much for making this “Leif Score” list. It provides an excellent frame work for understanding. But, I need some clarification.

    5) What is “Long Term Variation”. Do you mean “No TSI Variation other than Annual (from its elliptical orbit)”?
    10) Would you please provide a pointer to info on the Solar Polar Fields as predictor?
    11) Yes, I see that current Climate Models are not very successful. No, I don’t see how Climate Models can work even in principle due to the nature of chaotic systems.

    So, my Leif Score is 1111?1111??111 at present.

    Also, could you post this ‘Leif Score” list on your own site for constant reference? Thanks.

  194. Bob Tisdale (14:58:21) :

    Bob,

    The simple reason that your PDO proxys do not show any correlation is the fact that you have not (carefully) read how they created.

    There are two broad groups amongst the tree ring PDO proxies. One group of PDO proxies (e.g. the Biondi and MacDonald data) are based upon trees that have tree ring growth that is sensitive to precipitation. While the second group (e.g. D’Arrigo) are based upon trees that have tree ring growth that is by and large sensitive to temperature.

    Comparing temperature sensitive and preciptation senstive PDO tree-ring proxies is like comparing apples and oranges. Only one of these two factors (i.e. precipitation and temperature) correlates well with the sea surface
    temperature distribution patterns associated with the positive and negative phases of the PDO.

    The way to tell which are the correct proxies is to compare the PDO
    tree-ring reconstructions with those obtained by an independant method.
    If you compare the tree-ring PDO proxies with ionic ratios measured is South Sea corals whic are a proven indicator of sea surface temperatures, you find
    the ONLY the temperature sensitive tree-ring PDO proxies of D’Arrigo
    provide a valid PDO reconstruction.

    I respectfully ask that you look a little deeper into the use of tree-ring PDO reconstructions before you talk about your results.

  195. Here is the abstract of a paper that will be published in the next month or
    so in Russian by Prof. Klige in a compendium of papers.

    Are Changes in the Earth’s Rotation Rate Externally Driven and Do They Affect Climate?

    Ian R. G. Wilson

    ABSTRACT

    Evidence is presented to show that the phases of two of the Earth’s major climate systems, the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), are related to changes in the Earth’s rotation rate. We find that the winter NAO index depends upon the time rate of change of the Earth’s length of day (LOD). In addition, we find that there is a remarkable correlation between the years where the phase of the PDO is most positive and the years where the deviation of the Earth’s LOD from its long-term trend is greatest.

    In order to prove that the variations in the NAO and PDO indices are caused by changes in the Earth’s rotation rate, and not the other way around, we show that there is a strong correlation between the times of maximum deviation of the Earth’s LOD from its long-term trend and the times where there are abrupt asymmetries in the motion of the Sun about the CM of the Solar System.

    At first glance, there does not appear to be an obvious physical phenomenon that would link the Sun’s motion about the Solar System’s CM to the Earth’s rotation rate. However, such a link could occur if the rate of precession of the line-of-nodes of the Moon’s orbit were synchronized with orbital periods of Terrestrial planets and Jupiter, which in turn would have to be synchronized with the orbital periods of the three remaining Jovian planets. In this case, the orbital periods of the Jovian planets, which cause the asymmetries in the Sun’s motion about the CM, would be synchronized with a phenomenon that is known to cause variations in the Earth’s rotation rate, namely the long term lunar tides.

    The periodicities seen in the asymmetry of the solar motion about the CM are all submultiples of the 179 year Jose cycle, with the dominant periods being 1/5 (= 35.87 yrs), 1/9 (= 19.86 yrs) and 1/14 (12.78 yrs). In addition, the realignment time for the orbits of Venus, Earth and Jupiter is a ¼ of the 179 year Jose cycle (= 44.77 yrs).

    Through what appears to be a “Grand Cosmic Conspiracy” we find that:

    6.393 yrs = (the 179 year repetition cycle of the Solar motion about the CM) / 28

    6.396 yrs = (the 44.77 year realignment time for Venus, Earth, and Jupiter) / 7

    which just happens to be realignment time for orbits of the planets Venus, Earth and Mars (= 6.40 yrs).

    The significance of the 6.40 year repetition period is given added weight by the fact that if you use it to modulate the sidereal year of the Earth/Moon system, the side-lobe period that is produced, almost perfectly matches the 2nd harmonic time interval over which there are the greatest changes in the meridional and zonal tidal stresses acting upon the Earth (1 ¼ TD = 433.2751 days = 1.18622 years, where TD is the draconitic year).

    We know that the strongest planetary tidal forces acting on the lunar orbit come from the planets Venus, Mars and Jupiter. In addition, we known that, over the last 4.6 billion years, the Moon has slowly receded from the Earth. During the course of this lunar recession, there have been times when the orbital periods of Venus, Mars and Jupiter have been in resonance(s) with the precession rate for the line-of-nodes the lunar orbit. When these resonances have occurred, they would have greatly amplified the effects of the planetary tidal forces upon the lunar orbit. Hence, the observed synchronization between the precession rate of the line-of-nodes of the lunar orbit and the orbital periods of Venus, Earth, Mars and Jupiter, could simply be a cumulative fossil record left behind by these historical resonances.

  196. re Leif Svalgaard’s many comments on this thread:

    Most of the regular commenters on this blog are interested in understanding things, as are many times more readers who comment little or not at all. Dr. Svalgaard would be more helpful in this regard if he just explained things instead of making glib, and often derogatory, statements that need to be interpreted in “just the proper way”. This shouldn’t be a classroom test to see who the bright students might be.

    An example of unnecessary obscurity is the matter of an “effective” global temperature. As Dr. Svalgaard says, it is certainly possible to define such a quantity thermodynamically and, with an adequate system of satellites, measure it “backwards” from the radiation output of the entire planet at any moment. What isn’t possible, in any meaningful way for Planet Earth, is to “measure the average temperature” by “averaging a bunch of temperatures“, as I’m sure he well knows.

    /dr.bill

  197. Clive E Burkland (03:20:54) :

    Point taken. You’re correct, per wiki 500,000 km + 696,000 km, that’s clearly outside. And my memory was about the earth-moon com being alway within. My calculation for kim is now too low, it’s ~0.0006%, still tiny. Thanks for pointing that out.

  198. If you want to see the image associated with the following text you will have to go to:

    http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com/2010/03/synchronization-between-solar-inertial.html

    You may have to get a password to blogspot to see the plot. Go to
    the astroclimateconnection blog.

    Figure 6. The main curve shows the distance of the centre-of-mass of the Solar system from the sub-Jupiter point between 1220 and 2020 A.D. The sub-Jupiter point1 is located just above the solar surface on a line joining the centre of the Sun to Jupiter. Marked above this curve are years in which the Earth experienced exceptionally strong tidal forces over the last 800 years.

    Figure 6 shows that the times when Solar/Lunar tides had their greatest impact upon the Earth are closely synchronized with the times of greatest asymmetry in the Solar Inertial Motion (SIM). Over the last 800 years, the Earth has experience exceptionally strong tidal forces in the years 1247, 1433, 1610, 1787 and 1974 (Keeling and Whorf, 1997). A close inspection of Figure 6 shows that these exceptionally strong tidal forces closely correspond in time to the first peak in the asymmetry of the SIM that occurs just after a period low asymmetry. These first peaks in asymmetry in the SIM occur in the years 1251, 1432, 1611, 1791, and 1971, closely correspond the years of peak tidal force.

    Thus, there appear to be periodic alignments between the lunar apsides, syzygies and lunar nodes that occur at almost exactly the same times that the SIM becomes most asymmetric for the first time after a period of low asymmetry in the SIM. It means that precession and stretching of the Lunar orbit (i.e. the factors that control the long-term variation of the lunar tides that are experienced here on Earth) are almost perfectly synchronized with the SIM.

    We know that the strongest planetary tidal forces acting on the lunar orbit come from the planets Venus, Mars and Jupiter. In addition, we known that, over the last 4.6 billion years, the Moon has slowly receded from the Earth. During the course of this lunar recession, there have been times when the orbital periods of Venus, Mars and Jupiter have been in resonance(s) with the precession rate for the line-of-nodes the lunar orbit. When these resonances have occurred, they would have greatly amplified the effects of the planetary tidal forces upon the lunar orbit. Hence, the observed synchronization between the precession rate of the line-of-nodes of the lunar orbit and the orbital periods of Venus, Earth, Mars and Jupiter, could simply be a cumulative fossil record left behind by these historical resonances.

    Of course, the orbital periods of Jupiter and the other Jovian planets are responsible for the periodicities observed in the motion of the Sun about the Solar Sytem barycentre. Hence, the apparent link between the Sun’s barycentric motion and the orbit ofthe Moon may just be an artifact of the fact that both are heavily influenced by the periodicities in the motion of the Jovian planets

  199. OK, so why discard the professional opinions of 32,000 (plus!) professionals in engineering, science, weather and statistics – while blindly accepting the (biased and proven worng) opnions of less than 50 “scientists” who are getting 80 billion in public funds and research – plus many hundred thousands in personal (!) monies – to promote THEIR view of global warming on the economies of the world.

    You left out the medical doctors, chiropractors, dentists and vetinarians, some of whom also signed up. I don’t ignore them – I just note that of the available pool of such people, 32,000 (over a decade) is a tiny fraction, a lot less than 1% – so to present it as a meaningful representation of scientific/medical/engineering opinion is dishonest.

    I suspect the 80 billion split 50 ways (1.6 billion each? Really?) must include the budget for the various satellite climatology programmes, so that is hardly relevant either. And there are rather more than 50 practising climatologists – EOS magazine sampled over 700 and found that all but 2% supported the assertion that the planet is warming and manmade influences are significant.

    http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

  200. Ninderthana (05:14:51) : You wrote, “The simple reason that your PDO proxys do not show any correlation is the fact that you have not (carefully) read how they created.”

    I read the studies and understand the differences in how they were created. The primary point of the graph was to illustrate that there was no long-term 60-year cycle in any of the reconstructions.

  201. Leif. How do you falsify this

    “For
    example, it is possible to adopt a model using only the major 20 and 60 year cycles plus a quadratic trend of the temperature and the reconstruction of Figure 13 is obtained. Other natural cycles associated with the Sun are evident in Figures 6 and 7. The model reconstructs with great accuracy the temperature oscillations since 1850. It suggests that until 2030-2040 the temperature may remain stable if the upward trend in temperature observed
    from 1850 to 2009 continues in the near future21 or the global temperature cools if the trend of the secular solar activity decreases, as other independent considerations would suggest.”

    Now That’s some falsifiable science! Note how the two forecasts in figure 13 diverge, one takes the high road and the other the low road. There’s nothing like THIS kind of science. it’s never wrong!

    OH I have a refinement of his forecast model. Since HadCRu temperature has a .05C UHI warming bias from 1900 to present I removed that bias. Detrending after this correction with a quadratic I was then able to make even better forecasts that scaffetta And without that 5 year shift! So I have fit the elephant with even fewer parameters!

  202. Leif Svalgaard (19:30:49) :

    Henry (17:00:37) :
    Yet here I find that science is not what is being done.
    There is a lot of pseudo-science, but most people here are not scientists so one would not expect much science to be done here.

    Implying that only scientists are allowed to do ‘scientific’ work, and follow scientific principles? Sounds a bit too egotistical. Having a scientific education doesn’t make one intelligent.

    I was willing to give your comments due process, but when you throw out these statements, it demonstrates you aren’t actually very smart. Your ‘scientific’ statements come off as the catwailing: ‘I must be right because I am a scientist; you are wrong because you are not’.

    You do realize that we are at the point where admission of being a scientist (in climate reasearch or related capacity) means that your opinion and motives are suspect and that by definition are not to be trusted?

  203. Phil Clarke (06:19:09),

    Let’s give you the benefit of the doubt, and pretend that a thousand OISM signers slipped through the vetting process.

    A thousand is a lot of phony signatures. It is more than the total number of signers on many warmist petitions.

    In fact, for the sake of the discussion let’s pretend that five thousand OISM signatures are fake. No… let’s pretend that ten thousand were completely fabricated and slipped by without getting caught.

    That still leaves more OISM signers than all the warmist petitions, plus the IPCC, put together.

    But to give you the chance to rebut, please post all the names, right here, that you claim are phony.

    Contrast your accusation with the opinions of other scientists like these, who are not in the field of climatology, to see what they think: click1, click2, click3.

    The opinions of the relative handful of alarmist climatologists and their IPCC enablers are magnified by the mainstream media — which doesn’t sell papers or TV commercials by reporting that there is nothing out of the ordinary occurring with the global climate, which is well within its normal historical parameters.

    Sensationalism, panic and alarm sells, and the purveyors of the scare get the grant money while scientific skeptics don’t get cooperation regarding the empirical evidence they ask for, because there isn’t any verifiable, testable evidence for those scary claims. How can there be, when the raw data has been adjusted, re-adjusted, processed and mangled — after the original raw data is “lost”?

    Since climategate broke their shenanigans wide open, the political appointees at the IPCC and its academic and government apologists have forfeited the right to say, “Trust us.” We don’t trust anyone who claims weather data is a secret. Why would you?

  204. Ninderthana (05:30:35) :

    Here is the abstract of a paper that will be published in the next month or
    so in Russian by Prof. Klige in a compendium of papers.
    ….
    In order to prove that the variations in the NAO and PDO indices are caused by changes in the Earth’s rotation rate, and not the other way around, we show that there is a strong correlation between the times of maximum deviation of the Earth’s LOD from its long-term trend and the times where there are abrupt asymmetries in the motion of the Sun about the CM of the Solar System.

    I recommend Ian Wilsons paper to everybody remotely interested in solar system dynamics. Ian wrote to me last year recognizing the independence of my own research results on the links between planetary motion and changes in Earth’s length of day.

    The case is getting stronger all the time.

  205. DirkH (21:09:54) :
    “anthropogenic CO2 emissions, since another GHG, water vapor, is available in a practically infinite reservoir, in the surface of the oceans.”
    Perhaps even more in the depth of the oceans :-) , but, seriously, this is well known. Any three-atomic [or more like Methane] molecule is a greenhouse gas. In our atmosphere the major GHGs are H20, O3, and CO2.

    wayne (21:10:05) :
    Careful Leif, sometimes you jump too fast
    Have you ever written an ephemeris software system? Try it, they are challenging!
    Yes, many years ago for fun and not to any high degree of accuracy. But that aside, we had an extensive discussion of this some time ago on this very blog. I am involved with the accurate calculation of the Sun-Earth distance for the purpose of reducing TSI [from SORCE-TIM] to one AU., so do know something about this. In a paper that from time to time is dredged up, Alexander et al. had this image of the change in TSI based on the assumption that the distance to the Sun has to be corrected for the SSB distance: http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA10.png for a time in the early 1990s, and indeed the variation in distance would be significant [much larger than the solar cycle changes]. Actually plotting the observedTSI for that period produces this graph: http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA11.png
    showing that the purported effect is not there. This is, of course, also seen if you use Horizon [or just elementary physics].

    Your statement is almost like the other planets gravitation fields do not also affect the Earths orbit.
    I didn’t say that, in fact they do. Jupiter’s eccentric orbit is the main reason for one of the Milankovich cycles, but the time scale is millennia.

    But please don’t jump on my attempts to teach people here, just make a comment that its effect is so small it can be ignored. Let’s build on each other, not tear each other apart. OK?
    Goes the other way too, doesn’t it? But, the effect would not be small [it would be HUGE compared to the solar cycle effects], but it isn’t there.

    No need to go to fancy calculations. Back-of-envelope calculations work just fine. Let us assume that the mean distance is 150 [million km], and see what difference a SSB correction of 1 [million km] would give:
    1361 * 150^2 / (150+1)^2 = 1343 W/m2
    1361 * 150^2 / (150-1)^2 = 1379 W/m2
    for a difference of 36 W/m2 compared to the 1.5 W/m2 due to the solar cycle. No such difference is detected.

    You also ignored my example with a companion star say 1000 AU distanced. That would put the SSB somewhere about halfway between the two stars. Would the Earth orbit that SSB or the Sun? You see the SSB is rather arbitrary depending on what we consider to be part of the solar system.

  206. Jay (20:11:02) :
    Having found this tidbit on wikipedia, I would venture to say that ANYONE should be able to see that small TSI changes are only PART of the evidence of the large changes that the sun causes here on earth.
    There is no evidence of such large changes. If there were, this would not be so hotly debated.

    kim (21:37:47) :
    his thesis is highly controversial, embraced by skeptics and trashed by alarmists.
    Both camps would do that to ANY argument that goes against their belief, especially if the argument is beyond them.

  207. tallbloke (21:22:27) :
    “People asked for my opinion… not for ‘balanced account’.”
    you present your opinion as definite fact sufficient to diss other people with when that isn’t warranted.

    Again, this was clearly understood as ‘my opinion’ only.

    JPL Horizons presupposes that the solar system’s angular momentum sums to zero between the sun and planets, so you wouldn’t expect to find the energy of a spin-orbit coupling there.
    It is this kind of statement that brands you as a crank. JPL presupposes the known laws of physics. The non-changing angular momentum follows from those [and from the calculations based on them].

    No Leif, you insult people with discourtesy and disrespect (Astrologer, pseudoscientist), which should have no place on this (or any other) blog.
    I show you to be a pseudo-scientist [to with the JPL bit above] and people were not banned for their opinions [exception: evolution, chemtrails] but for their bad behavior.

    dr.bill (05:35:40) :
    What isn’t possible, in any meaningful way for Planet Earth, is to “measure the average temperature” by “averaging a bunch of temperatures“
    Because the variation of the absolute temperatures is slight it can be approximated by a linear function of radiation within its range. Thus averaging temperatures is meaningful. If you had a thermometer on every square km the average of that ‘bunch’ of temperatures would be meaningful. The problem with the current temperature averaging is that we do not a uniform distribution, which makes it harder to do the average. Not, that it is not possible.

    Ernest Campbell (05:14:01) :
    5) What is “Long Term Variation”. Do you mean “No TSI Variation other than Annual (from its elliptical orbit)”?
    Long-term is solar cycle and longer

    10) Would you please provide a pointer to info on the Solar Polar Fields as predictor?

    http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf

    http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle.pdf pages 34-37

    11) Yes, I see that current Climate Models are not very successful. No, I don’t see how Climate Models can work even in principle due to the nature of chaotic systems.
    The climate is not strongly chaotic as it seems to oscillation around a rather stable mean [+/-10 degrees] over billions of years. Much of the chaos is small-scale and tends to average out over long periods. So, predicting the weather next week is actually harder than predicting the climate 10 years from now.
    Don’t forget that I was asked what my personal opinion was.
    ————
    Apologies to the people I have not addressed specifically. There is just too much dumped on me to keep up with it all.

  208. AlanG (01:18:01) :
    Creating an unknown force of unknown strength with unknown effects can explain anything, right? Well it might be good for a research grant…
    Al Gore [I believe] said it best: “If you don’t know anything, everything is possible”.

  209. Dear Dr. Svalgaard, thank you for your patient & informative replies.

    You wrote :
    “14) The cosmic rays vary too little to have any effect and the mechanism proposed does not seem to work [you can always extend your belief a bit by claiming that more data is needed]”

    I thought that there is ample paleoclimatic evidence to support the notion that cosmic rays affect terrestrial climate.

    Jasper Kirkby : “Numerous palaeoclimatic observations, covering a wide range of time scales, suggest that galactic cosmic ray variability is associated with climate change. The quality and diversity of the observations make it difficult to dismiss them merely as chance associations.”

    Above quotation from “Cosmic Rays and Climate” (J.Kirkby)
    doi: 10.1007/s10712-008-9030-6 (2007)

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf

    Abstract:
    “Among the most puzzling questions in climate change is that of solar-climate variability, which has attracted the attention of scientists for more than two centuries. Until recently, even the existence of solar-climate variability has been controversial—perhaps because the observations had largely involved correlations between climate and the sunspot cycle that had persisted for only a few decades. Over the last few years, however, diverse reconstructions of past climate change have revealed clear associations with cosmic ray variations recorded in cosmogenic isotope archives, providing persuasive evidence for solar or cosmic ray forcing of the climate. However, despite the increasing evidence of its importance, solar-climate variability is likely to remain controversial until a physical mechanism is established. Although this remains a mystery, observations suggest that cloud cover may be influenced by cosmic rays, which are modulated by the solar wind and, on longer time scales, by the geomagnetic field and by the galactic environment of Earth. Two different classes of microphysical mechanisms have been proposed to connect
    cosmic rays with clouds: firstly, an influence of cosmic rays on the production of cloud condensation nuclei and, secondly, an influence of cosmic rays on the global electrical circuit in the atmosphere and, in turn, on ice nucleation and other cloud microphysical processes. Considerable progress on understanding ion-aerosol-cloud processes has been
    made in recent years, and the results are suggestive of a physically-plausible link between cosmic rays, clouds and climate. However, a concerted effort is now required to carry out definitive laboratory measurements of the fundamental physical and chemical processes involved, and to evaluate their climatic significance with dedicated field observations and modelling studies.”

  210. maksimovich (22:18:34) :
    The problem is the overall change is 0.1,however the spectral irriadiance is inverse to the solar cycle ie the absorption bands of interest in H2o an co2 are of opposite sign to the solar cycle,eo Krivova et al
    Would seem to a problem for people claiming that the Sun is responsible for climate changes…

    the UV irradiance varies by 1 to 3 orders of magnitude more
    This is brought up again and again. What people forget is that the energy involved is minute. It is like claiming that a Bill Gates’ wealth fluctuates by a large amount based on the fluctuation of the number of coins in his pockets.
    And the near UV [where most of the energy is] seems to vary opposite to the solar cycle: http://www.leif.org/research/Erl70.png [third panel, purple line]
    If you go to extreme UV [fourth panel] there is a variation in phase with the cycle, but the changes are of the order of 0.1 W/m2 or less.

  211. But to give you the chance to rebut, please post all the names, right here, that you claim are phony.

    Straw man. I am not arguing that the names are phony; my point is that the petition spreads the net so wide – including medical doctors, vetinarians and so forth that 30K is a drop in the ocean compared to the millions who could have signed and choose not to.

    Who knows how many signatories were misled by the faux PNAS paper that was sent out alongside, that ‘followed the identical style and format of a contribution to Proceedings of the National Academy of Science?’. The NAS themselves were concerned enough to issue a rebuttal: “The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal”

    No reputable polling organisation would behave this way.

    Scientific American contacted a sample of signatories who work in climate science and found that over 10% had no recollection of the petition. More than half of those who have signed in the ten years it has been running are in fact Engineers- whereas in just four days and in the UK only, over 1,700 actual scientists signed up to a statement that began ‘We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. ‘

    But no scientific issue was ever decided by who has the longest list of scientists, perhaps a better measure would the number of relevant professional organisations that have not issued statements endorsing the consensus, shouldn’t take long to count them – there aren’t any.

  212. I’m surprised that no one has pointed out that a decimal “Leif score” is nonsense. If you agree with only the first point the value will be over 16,000. If you don’t agree with the first point the value will be less by definition. A “Leif sum” would make more sense in demonstrating the number of items in agreement.

  213. Henry (17:49:05) :

    you may attack me all you want,
    but I know how to dig out dirt.
    I will find it.
    love

    Well dig away Henry. Let me know what you find especially since it will destroy your preconceived nonsense.

  214. *******
    Leif Svalgaard (16:35:08) :

    Leif Svalgaard (16:12:55) :
    For the record [...]
    Here is an interesting exercise: consider the 14 points and give yourself a score of +1 if you agree with a point, of -1 if you disagree and of 0 if you are neutral. Your ‘Leif Score’ would then be the sum of those 14 scores. Mine is obviously +14. Alternatively give a 1 if you agree or a 0 otherwise, your ‘Leif Number’ would be the decimal number that is formed by the sequence of 1s and 0s. Mine is obviously 11111111111111 = decimal 16383.

    *******

    You loaded the deck. By default, nobody can ever beat your score. :)

  215. rbateman (21:07:20) :

    If anyone knows where to find daily station data or more complete summaries of the Weather Bureau, I’m all ears.

    It may be possiblt to get some “decent” world wide data from the CRU post 2001 data dumps that Warwick Hughes has found.
    There are various datasets from 1994 to 1999.

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/crudata.htm

  216. Dr. Svalgaard: “4) There is a 0.1% change of TSI between solar min and solar max, resulting ~0.1C temperature variation”

    Tung and Camp (2008) found a ~0.2C variation over the cycle.

  217. oneuniverse (09:46:52) :
    I thought that there is ample paleoclimatic evidence to support the notion that cosmic rays affect terrestrial climate.
    Apart from the difficulties of determining the paleo-data [especially the cosmic ray intensity], there is little evidence from modern data to suggest the notion, so little reason to suspect it in the deep past. The real determinant of cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere is not anything external to the Earth, like solar activity or galactic conditions, but the Earth’s own magnetic field: http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg
    The big ‘swing’ is due to the changing magnitude of the Earth’s dipole field [shown by the other curve with the dots and crosses]. Solar modulation are the tiny wiggles. Since we don’t know how the Earth magnetic field varied hundreds of millions of years ago we can hardly say anything about the cosmic ray flux back then. On a time scale of millions of years we do have some data on the Earth’s magnetic field. We know it changes polarity every so often [we may be due for one in perhaps a thousand years], but on longer time scales we don’t know [at least I don't know].

  218. Phil Clarke:

    “whereas in just four days and in the UK only, over 1,700 actual scientists signed up to a statement that began ‘We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. ‘…”

    And all of these “climate scientists” who signed received the 80 billion in bribes (er, their OWN research money) to do that “painstaking and meticulous research” —- that gave us that very IPCC reports with grpahs from Wikipedia, the WWF, and their own favorite hockey stick fraud……

  219. Richard M (10:06:53) :
    I’m surprised that no one has pointed out that a decimal “Leif score” is nonsense. If you agree with only the first point the value will be over 16,000. If you don’t agree with the first point the value will be less by definition. A “Leif sum” would make more sense in demonstrating the number of items in agreement.
    Read it carefully [a rare thing on this blog :-) ]. The ‘score’ is indeed a ‘sum’. The 16000 etc is the ‘number’ and does not by its magnitude mean anything, but its distribution of 1s and 0s shows details of agreements/disagreements. A better way of expressing that [as I suggested] would be using the hexadecimal notion, e.g. 1FC40, not inducing people to make numerical comparisons [except when you are a computer geek - like me].

    beng (10:15:32) :
    You loaded the deck. By default, nobody can ever beat your score. :)
    See reply just above. But you are evading an issue: what is your Leif number?

    OceanTwo (06:50:16) :
    Implying that only scientists are allowed to do ’scientific’ work
    Experience shows that non-scientists don’t do much scientific work, because it is hard to do correctly.
    And, I think only engineers are allowed to build bridges, surgeons allowed to operate on you, etc.

  220. oneuniverse (10:34:24) :
    Tung and Camp (2008) found a ~0.2C variation over the cycle.
    Other people find less [than the 0.18C claimed by T&C], e.g. even Scafetta [see graph at top of page :-) ].
    The problem is one of having god temperature records [and do you advocate that the ones used are of outstanding quality] and of accounting for other phenomena that louse up the record, e.g. ENSO, volcanoes, etc]. In any event the variation is small and I could even live with it.
    Note that Tung concludes: “The finding adds to the evidence that mainstream climate models are right about the likely extent of future human-generated warming. It also effectively rules out some lower estimates in those models.”

  221. Well, before doing a “Leif score”, we need to know if question 1 is the least significant bit or most significant bit. Plus the hexadecimal equivalent of complete agreement with Leif would be 0x3FFF, and not 0x2FFF.

  222. Dr. S : “Note that Tung concludes: “The finding adds to the evidence that mainstream climate models are right about the likely extent of future human-generated warming. It also effectively rules out some lower estimates in those models.” ”

    Only if their suggested reason for the the temperature change turns out to be correct ie. that it comes from the TSI variation augmented by a “climate gain factor” of 2-3, caused by terrestrial feedbacks.

  223. As usual Leif and the other “real Scientists” are being dismissive of other Scientists work on this Post, but are at the same time quite happy to accept their own “selective” items.
    The classic example is fitting Cycles to Climate is not acceptable and then Leif goes on to quote his favourite “Milankovich cycles” as being OK and anna v States “
    It is evident that there are cycles. Who is disputing that? It is the random correlations of cycles with other cycles that have no physical meaning that is being disputed.
    Lets put it this way: If one postulates a physical mechanism that generates cycles of climate from cycles of sunspots it is necessary that a correlation is established unequivocally. If it is not found the postulated theory falls on its face.

    This is stated as a Fact, as Leif does all the time, when it is obviously not so, as an example just suppose that some other “Cycle”, Modulation, whatever, coincided with when the Sunspots “Should” have created a climate change, but stopped it from happening or reduced it’s effect. Does that then invalidate the original theory?
    Shouldn’t all the possibilities have been considered.

    The Report on this Post has proposed a lot of “coincidences”, as Lief dismissively says in his first comment “Yes, Scafetta throws in everything plus the Kitchen sink”, but has it ever occurred to the Scientists on here that just maybe it is not only the Individual Cycles that contribute to out Climate changes, but some of them do and more importantly Combinations of some of them do as well.
    It does at least show the complexity of the things that could be contributing, however small the contribution, to our climate.

  224. Ron Dean (10:54:15) :
    Well, before doing a “Leif score”, we need to know if question 1 is the least significant bit or most significant bit. Plus the hexadecimal equivalent of complete agreement with Leif would be 0×3FFF, and not 0×2FFF.
    Let’s call it the Leif Code instead of Leif Number. The Score is the sum and has a meaningful numerical interpretation, the Code is not a number, so its ‘value’ should not be compared numerically. Point 1 is the left-most bit, point 14 the right-most bit. And mine is indeed 3FFF: I have since moved my keyboard a bit to avoid that error :-)

  225. oneuniverse (11:04:25) :
    Only if their suggested reason for the the temperature change turns out to be correct ie. that it comes from the TSI variation augmented by a “climate gain factor” of 2-3, caused by terrestrial feedbacks.
    Goes to show how uncertain the various interpretations are.

  226. Leif Svalgaard (10:45:57) :
    “Experience shows that non-scientists don’t do much scientific work, because it is hard to do correctly”
    But the history of science shows that it is often an intruder’s fresh ideas that eventually trigger the biggest advances. Dr. Bernard Newgrosh calls such intruders “eminent outsiders.” His favorite example is none other than the astronomer William Herschel (1738-1822), “who was born in Hanover, joined a regimental band at 14, went to England at 21 and worked as a musician and composer. He also instructed himself in mathematics and astronomy and constructing his own reflecting telescopes.” Another was Michael Faraday (1791-1867), who “was born in Surrey, apprenticed to a book-binder and was largely self-educated.”

    http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=ah63dzac

  227. Leif Svalgaard (11:11:36) :
    oneuniverse (11:04:25) :
    me: Goes to show how uncertain the various interpretations are.
    Look at their Figure 2. Now extend the graph to today. dT is the highest since 1957 [covered by their graph] and solar activity the lowest, so their suggested correlation did not hold up. This is typical for this kind of claims.
    They end the paper: “We will argue in a separate paper that the observed warming is caused mostly by the radiative heating (TSI minus the 15% absorbed by ozone in the stratosphere), when taking into account the positive climate feedbacks (a factor of 2–3) also expected for the greenhouse warming problem.”
    They apparently did not take into account the much touted orders of magnitude changes in UV. [and they shouldn't]. There are people that put together bits and pieces from papers they don’t understand and hardly read to jump to conclusions that ‘support’ their beliefs. So, you can find people saying “T&C show solar cycle changes and UV varies 6%” or some such.
    That is why much of the stuff on some blogs does not qualify as ‘science’.

  228. Enneagram (11:18:16) :
    “Experience shows that non-scientists don’t do much scientific work, because it is hard to do correctly”
    But the history of science shows that it is often an intruder’s fresh ideas that eventually trigger the biggest advances.

    There was a time when science was simple enough that there were no scientists. And your surgeon was the barber down the street.
    The low-hanging fruit has already been plucked. It is hard to do science today because you need to know so much [because science knows so much] and by the time you have learned what it takes to practice science [or medicine, ...] you have become a scientist.

  229. A C Osborn (11:07:09) :
    and then Leif goes on to quote his favourite “Milankovich cycles” as being OK
    The Milankovich cycles were not found by correlation, but M advanced a physical reason for why there should be such cycles. Much later observational evidence was found that supported his physics-based theory. That is why it has been generally accepted.

    that a correlation is established unequivocally. If it is not found the postulated theory falls on its face.
    And that is just what is happening to the sunspot-climate theory.

    Does that then invalidate the original theory?
    Pretty much as per your own statement ["falls on its face"]

    Shouldn’t all the possibilities have been considered.
    Only if they make physically sense.

    It does at least show the complexity of the things that could be contributing, however small the contribution, to our climate.
    There are undoubtedly subtle effects that contribute, but the issue is whether they make the Sun a major driver of climate as is claimed, and there is little evidence for that when you have to scrounge around for ‘however small contributions’. Scafetta claims that up to 65% of climate variability is solar activity related, but has not presented convincing evidence that holds up to scrutiny.

  230. Leif Svalgaard (07:28:27) :
    Hey Leif. Not ignoring. Will be back to you later once I can make sure its clear and as correct as possible. Don’t want to get tangled in terms! :)

  231. Phil Clarke (06:19:09) :

    I just note that of the available pool of such people, 32,000 (over a decade) is a tiny fraction, a lot less than 1% – so to present it as a meaningful representation of scientific/medical/engineering opinion is dishonest.

    Did he represent it as “a meaningful representation” in a statistical sense? If not, he’s innocent on that score. If all he was trying to do was rebut the canard that only Neandertals are disbelievers, it is valid and useful. If there are tens of thousands of technically trained dissenters, it counts for something.

    And there are rather more than 50 practising climatologists – EOS magazine sampled over 700 and found that all but 2% supported the assertion that the planet is warming and manmade influences are significant.

    Well, I’d agree with that too. First, because “manmade influence” includes landscape changes, which as Cristy or Spencer argues are more significant than CO2; and second because “significant” equates to one degree per century, which isn’t cause enough to justify alarm.

    Heck, I’d even agree if the poll had asked if “action is justified now.” I’d agree with a “no regrets” policy of encouraging nuclear power and natural gas, encouraging better building insulation, using plasma furnaces to burn our garbage and capture power thereby, and perhaps “boron cars,” as described in the book, Prescription for the Planet.

  232. DirkH (23:01:08) :
    “Anu (22:12:26) :
    [...]
    Meanwhile, back in the real world, let’s look at that same data from NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies, since they estimate polar temperatures left out by HadCrut and the satellite datasets (UAH, RSS):

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt


    You have the “estimate” right there.
    Unfortunately we can’t say “measure” because they have nothing up there that measures anything. So much for your pompous “Meanwhile, back in the real world,”; i suggest a “Meanwhile, back in the brain of James Hansen”.
    ———
    Temperature anomalies and trends are highly correlated over substantial geographical distances. This is why all the planetary datasets on warming speak of “anomalies” wrt some baseline average, rather than average temperatures. This fact underlies the GISS estimates of polar temperatures:

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1987/Hansen_Lebedeff.html

    We analyze surface air temperature data from available meteorological stations with principal focus on the period 1880-1985. The temperature changes at mid- and high latitude stations separated by less than 1000 km are shown to be highly correlated; at low latitudes the correlation falls off more rapidly with distance for nearby stations.

    The Journal of Geophysical Research paper describing why this methodology is good enough, in the absence of very expensive additional observation stations and 90 deg inclination polar orbit satellites, is here.
    Note Fig 1 showing the dense meteorological station coverage of the Arctic.

    If you can cite any research showing high resolution measurements at the poles proving this to be in error, do so. Perhaps you are one of the few people in the world that knows more about this subject than NASA.

  233. Dave F (23:57:06) :

    Is English your first language ?
    Yes, 0.33 deg C warming of the Earth is warming of the Earth.
    If you don’t have a paper dictionary, try this:

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/warm

    Well, in reality, since warming is on a decimal level, you have to correct both sides of your equation to relate to reality. See, we are talking about the Earth, of which there is one.
    Did you take “Physics for Poets” ?

    So our dividend is more like 1 share = $.00033.
    Most stocks don’t pay dividends anymore – people look for stock prices to go up, then sell. If a stock goes up by $3.30, that is profit.

    In fact, given the fraction of a degree we can measure Earth’s temperature to on a surface basis, I find it odd that we can not simply study patterns of temperature flow to arrive at a meaningful weather prediction system. What do you think about this?
    Weather prediction is different than climate prediction, just as physics is different than chemistry. Different concepts, different scales, different “laws”.

    And please answer the important question this time instead of running off into distractions.
    “this time” ?
    Did you ask me this important question before, under a different name ?

  234. tallbloke (03:30:40) :

    Leif’s own research shows that solar activity increased from 1900 to 1960, with another peak in the 1980’s. This activity level has now dropped back to ~1900 levels again.

    Along with the ~60 year cycles identified by Scafeta and many others, this provides a potentially viable explaination for terrestrial temperature change in the C20th, given an amplifying effect from cloud albedo.
    ——————–

    http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

    Even in the satellite era, there is some controversy over the exact level of TSI, how this might be changing, and the changes to sub-spectrums of this irradiance.
    How this might affect Earth’s climate is another subject.

    Are you sure the “solar activity” (do you mean just sunspots, or other measured phenomena also) translates reliably into higher TSI ? If there is controversy over the ACRIM gap of the early 1990’s, I imagine the controversy over 1900 to 1960 indirect measurements would be even greater.

    I’d like to see some research on other G-type V-class stars like the Sun, at about 4.6 billion years of age. Does the total brightness vary much over decades and centuries ? What about the spectrum ? Looking at thousands of near-Suns could give lots of insight about what to expect from our Sun.
    Any citations out there ?

  235. Anu (12:56:00) :
    I’d like to see some research on other G-type V-class stars like the Sun, at about 4.6 billion years of age. Does the total brightness vary much over decades and centuries ? What about the spectrum ? Looking at thousands of near-Suns could give lots of insight about what to expect from our Sun.
    There are such studies [although finding good solar 'analogs' has turned out to be harder than thought]. Here is the program from a recent ‘Solar Analog’ meeting: http://www.lowell.edu/workshops/SolarAnalogsII/program.php
    ‘Solar’ type cycles indeed exist [and with periods around 10 years - these stars must have Jupiters too], but the trouble is we have not observed them for centuries, so don’t know their real long-term variations, if any.

  236. Did he represent it as “a meaningful representation” in a statistical sense? If not, he’s innocent on that score.

    Yes, according to Robinson 32,000 out of a population that numbers in the multi-millions is enough to form a concensus.

    The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it.

    The polite word for this is nonsense.

    Note also that he misrepresents his own petition. This speaks of human influences resulting in ‘catastrophic’ warming and disruption.

    Catastophic is a value judgement, and the word occurs nowhere in the IPCC reports.

    http://www.petitionproject.org/frequently_asked_questions.php

    See also http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/07/petitioning-on-climate-part-1.html

  237. Bob Tisdale (06:30:16)

    Would be curious to get your thoughts, or anyone else’s for that matter, in regards to what is responsible for the warming between 1911-1945.

    If it’s not the PDO, and it’s not TSI… then what could it be?

  238. Phil Clarke (13:17:08),

    Everything you said about the OISM Petition applies equally to the alarmist petitions.

    Further, your implication that people didn’t understand what they were signing is ridiculous. We’re not talking about Al Gore here, we’re talking about people educated in the hard sciences.

    I understand that it bothers you to lose the consensus argument, but you folks were the ones who made it an issue.

  239. Leif Svalgaard (10:45:57) :

    Richard M (10:06:53) :
    I’m surprised that no one has pointed out that a decimal “Leif score” is nonsense. If you agree with only the first point the value will be over 16,000. If you don’t agree with the first point the value will be less by definition. A “Leif sum” would make more sense in demonstrating the number of items in agreement.

    Read it carefully [a rare thing on this blog :-) ]. The ’score’ is indeed a ’sum’. The 16000 etc is the ‘number’ and does not by its magnitude mean anything, but its distribution of 1s and 0s shows details of agreements/disagreements. A better way of expressing that [as I suggested] would be using the hexadecimal notion, e.g. 1FC40, not inducing people to make numerical comparisons [except when you are a computer geek - like me].

    I did read it carefully which is why I specifically said the “decimal” was nonsense (unless you’re into obfuscation). And, yes, given my 45 years of programming I’m probably a bigger computer geek than you are, so I was simply pointing out the problems of using decimal to those who might not be geeks.

  240. Leif Svalgaard (11:23:37):
    “Look at their Figure 2. Now extend the graph to today. dT is the highest since 1957 [covered by their graph] and solar activity the lowest, so their suggested correlation did not hold up. ”

    I couldn’t extend their analysis without some preparation (if you’ve done so, please consider sharing if possible). The correlations mentioned in the paper are not suggested, as far as I can see, but rather found in existing data – if you mean to say that there is no detectable solar-attributed 11-year signal in the last 7 years or so, contrary to the preceding decades of data considered in the paper, then you may need to modify item 4 in your 14-point list. (I apologise if I’ve misunderstood your point.)

    The ~0.2C variation over the solar cycle is deduced from analysis of observation data – their concluding speculation about the mechanism is ad-hoc (given that the ‘climate gain factor’ is an ad-hoc explanation, as far as I can see).

    Leif Svalgaard: “There are people that put together bits and pieces from papers they don’t understand and hardly read to jump to conclusions that ’support’ their beliefs.”

    I’m aware that others have drawn unwarranted conclusions from T&C.

  241. anna v (04:54:10) “The Tsonis et al paper used the PDO ENSO, NAO, NPO cycles in a neural net program and came up with the fall of temperatures for the next twenty years, too, without invoking other mechanisms except chaotic beats in these currents.”

    Lovely, but it doesn’t explain anything. A defeatist “can’t do” approach plays STRAIGHT into the hands of alarmists, who seize widespread over-reliance on “chaos” as an opportunity to tangle the population’s imagination in mythical computer fantasies.

  242. Everything you said about the OISM Petition applies equally to the alarmist petitions.

    Name just one other petition that was accompanied by a bogus academic paper?

    Further, your implication that people didn’t understand what they were signing is ridiculous. We’re not talking about Al Gore here, we’re talking about people educated in the hard sciences.

    Another Straw Man, I made no such implication.

    I understand that it bothers you to lose the consensus argument, but you folks were the ones who made it an issue.

    <1% of all Engineers, Doctors, Scientists and Vetinarians does not comprise a concensus. 97% of climatologists is more like it.

    Bye for now.

  243. Leif Svalgaard (14:29:23) “You ‘cheat’ a bit.”

    I will add a clarifying note at the bottom of the page. Then you can retract your false accusation.

  244. Leif Svalgaard (08:17:07) :

    tallbloke (21:22:27) :

    JPL Horizons presupposes that the solar system’s angular momentum sums to zero between the sun and planets, so you wouldn’t expect to find the energy of a spin-orbit coupling there.

    It is this kind of statement that brands you as a crank.

    It’s that kind of statement that brands you as an ignorant person.

  245. Anu (12:56:00) :

    tallbloke (03:30:40) :
    Leif’s own research shows that solar activity increased from 1900 to 1960, with another peak in the 1980’s. This activity level has now dropped back to ~1900 levels again.

    Are you sure the “solar activity” (do you mean just sunspots, or other measured phenomena also) translates reliably into higher TSI ? If there is controversy over the ACRIM gap of the early 1990’s, I imagine the controversy over 1900 to 1960 indirect measurements would be even greater.

    Well there is a difference between Leif’s reconstruction and that of some other researchers, but the difference is more of magnitude than shape they all agre about the rise from 1900 to 1960 with the secondary peak in the ’80s. It’s a reconstruction derived from geomagnetic records which have a solar component which can be isolated. Pretty reliable.

  246. Leif Svalgaard (10:35:16):
    “Apart from the difficulties of determining the paleo-data [especially the cosmic ray intensity], there is little evidence from modern data to suggest the notion, so little reason to suspect it in the deep past.”

    The first part of this statement is in contrast to Kirkby’s, concerning the quality and diversity of the paleo-observations. You yourself kindly pointed me to a reconstruction on your site from proxy records . Not to dismiss the difficulties with proxy reconstructions, but not to dismiss the proxies altogether either.

    There is more than a little evidence in the modern instrumental data to support the GCR-climate link eg. see the discussion in section 3.2 of the Kirkby paper referenced earlier ( http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf ).

    Dr. Svalgaard: “Since we don’t know how the Earth magnetic field varied hundreds of millions of years ago we can hardly say anything about the cosmic ray flux back then.”

    Nir Shaviv used iron meteorites as proxies for GCR flux (Shaviv 2002), and compared them with striking results to a temperature reconstruction covering the same period (Shaviv & Veizer 2003) . The 2003 paper initiated some back-and-forth in the literature, best characterised by the poor scholarship of the challenges to the paper it seems (please see links at foot of post).

    Shaviv 2002, “Cosmic ray diffusion from the galactic spiral arms, iron meteorites, and a possible climatic connection”

    http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/PRLice.pdf

    Shaviv & Veizer 2003, “Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?”

    http://www.juniata.edu/projects/oceans/GL111/celestialdriverofclimate.pdf

    Responses & counter-repsonses to the ‘Celestial Driver’ paper covered below (Shaviv’s website):

    http://www.sciencebits.com/ClimateDebate

    http://www.sciencebits.com/JahnkeResponse

    http://www.sciencebits.com/nature_comment

    http://www.sciencebits.com/RealClimateSlurs

  247. tallbloke (14:50:29) :

    “JPL Horizons presupposes that the solar system’s angular momentum sums to zero between the sun and planets, so you wouldn’t expect to find the energy of a spin-orbit coupling there.”

    I believe Dr. Scafetta uses the speed (scalar) of the sun wrt the barycenter and not the angular velocity. There is a difference.

  248. tallbloke (03:51:26) :

    I think there is an error in the caption to the graph at the head of the post. The bottom figure shows the global temperature in red, not black, which is representing the solar motion relative to the barycentre.

    Your observations are correct tallbloke and perhaps what most are missing is the black line represents solar velocity. This velocity change is a result of the Sun taking a different path every 10 years approx, the inner path close to the SSB being the slower.

    The 60 year pattern that he relates to the PDO, is the smoothed modulation of the overall velocity, which is now trending downwards.

  249. Leif et al,

    I could move up from 3FB4 [16308] to 3FB6 [16310] with further understanding of Leif’s point 13.

    ””” L13. -Various ‘external’ influences [planets, galactic 'positions', interstellar clouds, electric currents from the galaxy, etc] are either not operating or their effects are negligible”””

    I have little concern with L13 that the ‘external’ influences enumerated are not operable or negligible, but I have concern that something that we think we currently can explain [current theory] later turns out to be dependent on some other factor/existent that we currently are not aware of. How does that fit into L13?

    John

  250. Paul Vaughan (14:48:50) :
    I will add a clarifying note at the bottom of the page. Then you can retract your false accusation.
    That is where the ‘cheat’ is. You make it look like the smoothed variation is as large as the raw.This is formally correct with your note, but deceptive nevertheless as people’s perception is what counts.
    It would be easy not to normalize, so produce a non-normalized plot.

    tallbloke (14:50:29) :
    JPL Horizons presupposes that the solar system’s angular momentum sums to zero…
    It’s that kind of statement that brands you as an ignorant person.

    So, mister know-it-all show me the link where JPL claim that they presuppose anything.

  251. oneuniverse (15:35:41) :
    Nir Shaviv used iron meteorites as proxies for GCR flux (Shaviv 2002)
    You miss the point completely. It doesn’t matter what the GCR flux is in space, what matters is that the GCR flux where the clouds are formed are controlled by the Earth’s [unknown at that time] magnetic field.

    Section 3.2 of Kirby notes: “Overall, therefore, the present satellite observations, while suggestive, are insufficient either to establish or to rule out an effect of cosmic rays on clouds”

  252. Ninderthana,

    Using (average) periods:

    (LNC/2)*(LAC) / (LNC/2 – LAC)
    = (9.306474)*(8.847358) / (9.306474 – 8.847358)
    = 179.3396597 years

    where:
    LNC = lunar nodal cycle
    LAC = lunar apse cycle
    (periods (not frequencies) in years)

    Interesting questions arise since the 179 year “cycle” can only repeat so many times before it falls-out seriously with the true 171.4442259 year envelope. (For readers not familiar with these cycles, think of the difference between the lunar Metonic cycle & the LNC for a loose analogy.)

    A note for other investigators:
    An alternate to the asymmetry index Ninderthana presents here …

    … is the Saturn-Neptune synodic-timescale signal in the radial acceleration of the Sun with respect to the solar system barycentre.

    Keeling, C. D.; & Whorf, T. P. (1997). Possible forcing of global temperature by the oceanic tides. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 94(16), 8321-8328.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8321.full.pdf?ijkey=YjbRA3bMQaGic

    See “Longer-Term Climate Variability” paragraph (near top of right column on p.8327 (pdf p.7 [of 8])) in conjunction with figure 8 (bottom of left column on same page).

  253. oneuniverse (14:20:55) :
    “Look at their Figure 2. Now extend the graph to today. dT is the highest since 1957 [covered by their graph] and solar activity the lowest, so their suggested correlation did not hold up. ”
    I couldn’t extend their analysis without some preparation (if you’ve done so, please consider sharing if possible). The correlations mentioned in the paper are not suggested, as far as I can see, but rather found in existing data

    As you can see, the correlation has broken down. As spurious correlations often do. Now, real enthusiasts will counter, “no not broken down, other factors that you did not consider are fooling you”. Other factors run the gamut from AGW to the influence of Neptune.

  254. ******
    Leif Svalgaard (10:45:57) :

    beng (10:15:32) :
    You loaded the deck. By default, nobody can ever beat your score. :)
    See reply just above. But you are evading an issue: what is your Leif number?

    ******

    My reply was tongue-in-cheek. I actually don’t disagree w/any of your points. You’ve helped focus my opinion on climate change — a remarkably constant sun and an earth that is fairly sensitive to conditions resulting in internal oscillations like ice-ages. Does CO2 “cause” the oscillations? Two reasons suggest to me that it doesn’t in the present era and conditions — the 600-800 yr lag of CO2 concentrations vs temp in the ice-cores, and the fact that global temps haven’t changed nearly as much as GMCs say they would from the 280 ppm to 380 ppm increase over a century.

    We’re prb’ly very fortunate to have such a constant sun.

  255. I apologize if anyone has already pointed this out. But on the very interesting CMSS graphs, the description for the bottom graph seems to have a typo.

    The graph legend states that the red line is 19-21 year band pass filter global temps, and the black rescaled SCMSS

    But the descriptions says the opposite that the Global surface temperature (black) and the SCMSS (red).

    they are so close that it’s hard to tell the differnece ;), but the black extends to 2100 which I’m sure we don’t have temp data for yet, yet would be easy to derive from orbital mechanics, and again the lengend says the inverse.

    Not a biggie, I’m sure just a transposing error, kind I make 30 times a day, just wanted to point it out.

  256. Leif Svalgaard (16:39:38) “[...] ‘cheat’ [...] deceptive [...]“

    Unacceptable false accusations.

    Scale-independent quantities:
    Correlation, phase-correlation, cross-wavelet-transform, time-integrated cross-correlation, etc.

    A useful visualization-aid is not mostly-blank. Objective normalization is prudent.

    In physics calculations, absolute quantities are used.

  257. John Whitman (16:26:59) :
    I have little concern with L13 that the ‘external’ influences enumerated are not operable or negligible, but I have concern that something that we think we currently can explain [current theory] later turns out to be dependent on some other factor/existent that we currently are not aware of. How does that fit into L13?
    First, people asked for personal opinion.
    Second, I do not entertain unknown effects from unknown causes; makes me different from many posters here :-).

  258.   Leif Svalgaard (08:17:07) :

    ::::::::::

    dr.bill (05:35:40) :
    What isn’t possible, in any meaningful way for Planet Earth, is to “measure the average temperature” by “averaging a bunch of temperatures

    Because the variation of the absolute temperatures is slight it can be approximated by a linear function of radiation within its range. Thus averaging temperatures is meaningful. If you had a thermometer on every square km the average of that ‘bunch’ of temperatures would be meaningful. The problem with the current temperature averaging is that we do not a uniform distribution, which makes it harder to do the average. Not, that it is not possible.

    ::::::::::

    Well, I’ve been to work and back, and you’re still at it. Admirable stamina.

    But back to my original point, you are suggesting that apart from a few dubious Physics and Math issues, all we need, in addition to the 1000 or so thermometers presently included in the calculations, would be another 500 million of them, nicely set up, well-maintained, faithfully logging temperatures at least 4 times per day, and not being ignored or adulterated by the people who process them. Sounds like a plan! ;~p

    My use of the phrase “in any meaningful way” was precisely directed at this issue.

    /dr.bill

  259. Explaining warming 1911-1941 in a prior comment spurred me to look at the history of ENSC Warm and Cool events back to 1868. I was very surprised to discover the frequency of warm events and what appears to be the unusual number of cool events 1960-1975. I figured I’d check to see if I could find earthquake records related to the ring of fire and ran across this article I thought you’d find interesting.

    OT
    Deep-sea volcanoes play key climate role -scientists
    Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:36am GMT

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKSGE62E03D._CH_.2420

    “The latest study shows the amount of iron from deep-sea volcanoes is relatively constant over long timescales and is responsible for between 5 and 15 percent of the total Southern Ocean carbon storage, and in some regions up to 30 percent.”

  260. Paul Vaughan (17:35:14) :
    Unacceptable false accusations.</i<
    Not 'false' accusations, REAL accusations.

    Scale-independent quantities:
    You did not plot any of those, just the amplitude, which is very much scale-dependent

    A useful visualization-aid is not mostly-blank. Objective normalization is prudent.
    ‘Useful’ for deceptive purposes ?

    ‘Mostly blank’ may show the real truth, what you are doing in akin to ‘hide the decline’ in amplitude.
    Perhaps an example might be helpful. Here http://www.leif.org/research/Erl76.png is 12 years of TSI data [a whole cycle]. Solar activity is the tiny wiggles sprouting from the smooth curve [that shows the influence of the changing distance through the year]. And here http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20at%20Earth.png is TSI as observed by SORCE for the past 6 years, placing the yearly variation in perspective. And here http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png is SORCE TSI with the variation due to distance subtracted out. This last one is for maximum visual effect, but is deceptive as an illustration of the influence of TSI on climate. For not being deceptive the plot to the same scale would be more than a thousand inches tall.

    So, plot the smoothed value to the same scale so people can at a glance see the size of the 20-year ‘signal’ that is purported to be in the original data. This would be honest.

  261. dr.bill (17:53:38) :
    Admirable stamina.
    Matched by yours it seems :-)

    My use of the phrase “in any meaningful way” was precisely directed at this issue.
    In ‘any practical way yet’ would have been a better phrase. I can see something like this happen in the future. As a not-quite-there-yet-but-getting-there example take the current measure of traffic flow on our roads: http://traffic.511.org/traffic_map.asp depending on where you are in the world this may not yet work for you, but it does for me. Lots of ‘meaning’ in that.

  262. Just for fun, compare El Nino conditions against the backdrop of Solar sunspot cycles. You will find an El Nino (little ones or big ones, and sometimes more than one) somewhere near a regular point along the SSN up and down swings. Bar mitzvahs can also be correlated to SSN and solar cycles. So can the years in which a young wife tends to start having babies if she marries at a certain point along the SSN cycle. According to some, we only have to wait to discover the hidden mechanism.

  263. I was also looking for a catalyst in the late 1800’s to early 1900’s that could explain the warming as anything other then natural.

    So, I decided to look at from an AGW point of view:
    Commercial oil drilling was on the rise from 1860 and they were burning just about anything to stay warm.

    The origin of underground CO2
    Frank E E Germann and Herbert Q Ayres
    1941
    (thermal dissociation)
    Deep drilling: volumes estimated as high as 50 million cubic feet per day have been reported from various deep oil wells in the US and Mexico….

    Ok, warming wasn’t caused by drilling rigs from 1868 – 1941 but they sure released a lot of gas ;)

  264. sorry that should have read:

    Deep drilling: CO2 volumes estimated as high as 50 million cubic feet per day have been reported from various deep oil wells in the US and Mexico….

  265. Leif Svalgaard (16:50:17): “You miss the point completely. It doesn’t matter what the GCR flux is in space, what matters is that the GCR flux where the clouds are formed are controlled by the Earth’s [unknown at that time] magnetic field.”

    It does matter what GCR flux is in space.

    The Earth’s magnetic field modulates the rate of incoming GCRs from [solar system] space, which is the environment traversed by the meteorites. A flux reduction at the boundary of the Earth’s magnetic influence will reduce GCR flux at the top of Earth’s atmosphere, for any given strength or evolution of the Earth’s magnetic field.

    With respect to Kirkby’s summary of cloud satellite data & GCR’s, it is a conservative and careful one. A look at the details, though, reveals that the 1994 breakdown or weakening of correlation coincides with instrumental issues involving recalibration & missing satellite coverage (in 1994):

    Kirkby: “After detrending the cloud data, a reasonable consistency with GCR modulation is found over the full period [July 1983 to June 2005] and, furthermore, the GCR-cloud correlation suggests an increased amplitude at higher latitudes, consistent with what may be expected from GCRs. Questions have also been raised about apparent discrepancies between the ISCCP cloud measurements and

    the independent cloud data from the SSMI (Special Sensor Microwave Imager) instruments on board the DMSP (Defence Meteorological Satellite Program) satellites. The discrepancies emerge around the end of 1994, which coincides with a period of several months during which no polar-orbiting satellite was available for inter-calibration of the ISCCP geostationary satellites.”

    Some relevant papers:

    “Evidence for a link between the flux of galactic cosmic rays and Earth’s climate during the past 200,000 years”, Christl et al 2003

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2003.12.004

    Abstract: “The possibility that galactic cosmic rays (GCR) influence the Earth’s cloud cover and therefore have an important impact on the Earth’s radiative climate forcing has become a leading candidate to explain the observed sun–climate connection. [..] In this study, a record of geomagnetic paleointensity based on 10Be from deep sea sediments is used as proxy for GCR-flux over the past 200,000 years. It is compared with climate records from marine, terrestrial and ice core archives. Our results are consistent with the GCR–climate theory and suggest the existence of a GCR–climate connection over the past 200,000 years.”

    “Cloudiness decreases associated with Forbush decreases of galactic cosmic rays.”
    Pudovkin & Veretenenko 1995

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995JATP…57.1349P

    “Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds”, Svensmark et al. 2009.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/svensmark-forebush.pdf

    Some observational findings about geophysicial conditions under which the GCRs are able to effect a radiative change:
    “Latitudinal dependence of helio/geophysical eff€ects on the solar radiation input to the lower atmosphere”, Veretenenko & Pudovkin 1999

    http://geo.phys.spbu.ru/magnetosphere/people/pudovkin/public/384.pdf

    There’s evidence for the GCR-climate link spanning hundreds of millions of years.
    There’s evidence that the link was intact for the past 200,000 years, and there’s evidence for it on the daily/hourly scale.

    Image if CO2 had such powerful evidence for being a climate driver – Al Gore would be unstoppable :-)

    Also, two proposed mechanisms are being experimentaly investigated (although the project’s funding approval was put on ice for some time when Kirkby mentioned that sun and GCRs will probably be able to account for half to all of the Earth’s warming).

    The ability of cosmic rays to form condensation nuclei (not yet cloud condensation nuclei) has already been observed in the lab.

  266. NickB. (13:19:16) : You wrote, “Would be curious to get your thoughts, or anyone else’s for that matter, in regards to what is responsible for the warming between 1911-1945.” Then asked, “If it’s not the PDO, and it’s not TSI… then what could it be?”

    If the global oceans integrate ENSO, then it would be a dominance of El Nino events. Just so happens El Nino events were dominant during that period:

    Also refer to:

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/reproducing-global-temperature.html

  267. Re: Leif Svalgaard (18:17:26)

    With all due respect Leif, you are belittling the intelligence of WUWT readers. Objective normalization is standard data-visualization practice and you are both falsely & rudely (with emphasis on the former – I can handle the latter no problem) assigning deceptive motive where none exists.

  268. Leif Svalgaard (17:00:47) :

    Impressive ! What is the updated dataset?
    You need to change your point 4, I think?

  269. Leif Svalgaard(18:26:42) :
    dr.bill (17:53:38) :
    Admirable stamina.
    Matched by yours it seems :-)

    My use of the phrase “in any meaningful way” was precisely
    directed at this issue.

    In ‘any practical way yet’ would have been a better phrase. I can see
    something like this happen in the future. As a not-quite-there-yet-but-getting-there example take the current measure of traffic flow on our roads: http://traffic.511.org/traffic_map.asp depending on where you are in the world this may not yet work for you, but it does for me. Lots of ‘meaning’ in that.

    Nice map. My own (in Montréal) is not that advanced yet, but perhaps before I follow the path of the Great Auk, we’ll have them in many more places. In the meantime, I’d have to classify it as “lovely, but limited”. On the matter of original focus, your ‘any practical way yet’ is an acceptable ‘edit’. Unfortunately, we live in the ‘now’, not in the ‘yet’. :-(

    /dr.bill

  270. oneuniverse (19:27:03) :
    A flux reduction at the boundary of the Earth’s magnetic influence will reduce GCR flux at the top of Earth’s atmosphere, for any given strength or evolution of the Earth’s magnetic field.
    The Earth’s magnetic field is the MAJOR influence. Still today [it is decreasing] it is at least ten times larger than the solar modulation and larger than any galactic variation. If the galactic variation was much larger the influence on the climate would be too great. Remember it was generally warmer in the distant past.

    The ability of cosmic rays to form condensation nuclei (not yet cloud condensation nuclei) has already been observed in the lab.
    detailed calculations show that the efficiency of this process is many orders of magnitude too small. Observations of Forbush Decreases show that GCRs have no effect.

    Paul Vaughan (19:32:13) :
    With all due respect Leif, you are belittling the intelligence of WUWT readers.
    Perhaps of WUWT writes :-)
    Objective normalization is standard data-visualization practice
    Absolutely, used to exaggerate effects. Happens all the time, even Al Gore uses that.
    Your reluctance to plot the simple graphs I’m asking for is perhaps telling.

    oneuniverse (19:39:46) :
    Impressive ! What is the updated dataset?
    simply the TSI as observed and the dT observed, both treated the same way as Tung&Camp, de-trended, etc.
    You need to change your point 4, I think?
    “4) There is a 0.1% change of TSI between solar min and solar max, resulting ~0.1C temperature variation.”
    No, if one actually calculates the regression, one finds R^2 = 0.1173 [i.e. not significant] and a slope of 0.1036, that is dT = 0.1036 * dS, so with dS = 1 W/m2, one finds dT = 0.1C.

    dr.bill (19:53:20) :
    On the matter of original focus, your ‘any practical way yet’ is an acceptable ‘edit’. Unfortunately, we live in the ‘now’, not in the ‘yet’. :-(
    The original focus was directed at people [and there are many of them] that think it is impossible in principle, not just that we have a lousy station network with unreliable processing at the moment.

  271. Smokey (03:56:03) :

    Anu (22:12:26) :
    “Sure, they “made up data for a 13 year stretch”.
    I guess the Parliament investigation forgot to bring that one up.

    You look foolish discussing something while being ignorant of the underlying information. Here, let me help you out.

    From the Harry_Read_Me.txt file:
    Here, the expected 1990 – 2003 period is missing so the correlations aren’t so hot!
    Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close).
    What the hell is supposed to happen here?
    Oh, yeah – there is no ’supposed’, I can make it up. So I have.
    1990 – 2003 = 13 years of fabricated CRU data.

    ——————–
    You look foolish discussing almost anything.

    I’ve had this file, and all the others, for months.

    First of all, Ian (Harry) Harris was working on the legacy CRU TS 2.1 database – trying to construct a single database from dozens of individual, sometimes contradictory, sometimes inconsistently formatted, datasets.
    The result of all this work can be seen here:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timm/grid/CRU_TS_2_1.html

    Notice Ian (Harry) Harris still has a job, along with Dr. Phil Jones:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/

    That shows what CRU, Parliament, and the British courts think of your accusation.

    Second, this is not the HadCRUT data used by Hadley in calculating monthly temperature anomalies : that data is here:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

    Third, the particular snippit you took out of a 701 KB txt file, which was a four year worklog of a tedious database cleanup job, was talking about a particular weather station in the ex-USSR:
    HANTY MANSIJSK EX USSR
    HANTY-MANSIJSK RUSSIAN FEDER

    Notice that Ian was working in this case with data from a Russian station over which he had no control – he was wondering how to treat the data from this one station which has a big time gap (presumably the fall of the USSR impacted their weather data sharing till they got their act together later as the Russian Federation).

    Obviously, Ian should just consult the “Weather Database Programmer Handbook” from O’Reilly to decide how to treat this data. Oh wait, there is no handbook that tells people what to do:

    Oh yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have :-)

    Now, read the rest of your “snippet” from HARRY_READ_ME.txt:

    If an update station matches a ‘master’ station by WMO code, but the data is unpalatably inconsistent, the operator is given three choices:

    BEGIN QUOTE
    You have failed a match despite the WMO codes matching.
    This must be resolved!! Please choose one:

    1. Match them after all.
    2. Leave the existing station alone, and discard the update.
    3. Give existing station a false code, and make the update the new WMO station.

    Enter 1,2 or 3:
    END QUOTE

    So, Ian (Harry) Harris decided to flag the situation, and let the operator decide how to handle stations that seemed to be redefined, or moved, or mislabeled by the World Meteorological Organization.

    You probably know as much about research, databases, and the WMO as you do about AGW.
    Which is somewhere between very little and nothing.

    I’m still waiting for all those “consequences” for the supposed “wrongdoing” at CRU you keep going on about…

  272. Re: Pamela Gray (18:45:44)

    Defeatist white-flag “can’t do” ads in full-view to the enemy might not be the most constructive response to fatigue, soldier.


    Re: Leif Svalgaard (20:28:22)

    You may as well be demanding a change of the plotting color from black to dark-blue, insisting that bacteria be viewed with the naked eye rather than a microscope, or suggesting that the details of a nebula are best-viewed without a telescope. Your attack is frivolous & without merit.

    However, your point about optics is well-taken. I agree that it becomes a problem that some are waaaaaay too eager to misunderstand. Quite funny at times, but not always a laughing matter. I assure you that I am carefully considering your comments about perception, which are clearly based in (appreciated) wisdom & experience.

  273. Paul Vaughan (19:32:13) :
    you are both falsely & rudely (with emphasis on the former – I can handle the latter no problem) assigning deceptive motive where none exists.
    Then prove to me that no such motive exists and humor me and plot what I ask. If not [and I know you well enough that you likely won't], then perhaps, I’ll have to do it myself to show where your deception lies. The deception may not be nefarious in any way, just based on ignorance about how the present scientific data [you are in good company, though].

  274. Leif Svalgaard (20:28:22): “The Earth’s magnetic field is the MAJOR influence.”

    Shaviv has calculated that the flux varied between 25% to 130% of current levels. If the ‘space’ GCR flux drops to say 50% of current levels, then the flux at TOA, as modulated by the Earth’s field, will drop correspondingly – the change will be significant.

    LS: “If the galactic variation was much larger the influence on the climate would be too great.”

    You’re possibly assuming a knowledge of the climate system that we don’t possess eg. of negative feedbacks.

    LS: “detailed calculations show that the efficiency of this process is many orders of magnitude too small.”

    Please cite if possible.

    LS: “Observations of Forbush Decreases show that GCRs have no effect.”

    I’ve cited two studies finding that they do. Please cite.

    LS: “No, if one actually calculates the regression, one finds R^2 = 0.1173 [i.e. not significant] and a slope of 0.1036, that is dT = 0.1036 * dS, so with dS = 1 W/m2, one finds dT = 0.1C.”

    No, if it’s no longer significant, then you need to change item 4.

  275. oneuniverse (20:58:42) :
    Shaviv has calculated that the flux varied between 25% to 130% of current levels. If the ’space’ GCR flux drops to say 50% of current levels, then the flux at TOA, as modulated by the Earth’s field, will drop correspondingly – the change will be significant.
    Yes, but it will not be what you think it is. If that 130% change is cut to 5% or increased to 2000% because of [unknown] changes in the Earth’s field, we will have no idea what the flux would be at cloud levels.

    You’re possibly assuming a knowledge of the climate system that we don’t possess eg. of negative feedbacks.
    It seems to me that Shaviv is assuming that things were comparable to what they are now, as he also does not posses that knowledge.

    Please cite if possible.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL037946.shtml

    That I need to underscores my experience that believers only look at papers that confirm their beliefs, but here are some recent citations:

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL041327.shtml

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040961.shtml

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0906/0906.4442v2.pdf

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/21525/2009/acpd-9-21525-2009.pdf

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/7373/2008/acp-8-7373-2008.pdf

    etc, etc, etc…

    No, if it’s no longer significant, then you need to change item 4.
    No, because item 4 does not derive from their analysis. And 0.1C is below the noise in their data and analysis. My own calculations indicate a change of 0.07C, which I round to 0.1C.

    Paul Vaughan (20:41:18) :
    I assure you that I am carefully considering your comments about perception, which are clearly based in (appreciated) wisdom & experience.
    I appreciate this welcome change of tone [from false & rude...]. Perception is king. Nothing else matters. If the graphs become too ‘white’ it simply shows that the signal has been cut down to almost nothing. In that case one can at the very least supply a numerical scale on each graph and strenuously point out that the scales are different [and yet there will be people that don't notice].

  276. Leif Svalgaard (13:15:59) :

    There are such studies [although finding good solar 'analogs' has turned out to be harder than thought]. Here is the program from a recent ‘Solar Analog’ meeting: http://www.lowell.edu/workshops/SolarAnalogsII/program.php
    ‘Solar’ type cycles indeed exist [and with periods around 10 years - these stars must have Jupiters too], but the trouble is we have not observed them for centuries, so don’t know their real long-term variations, if any.

    Here are some current thoughts on the ‘Sun in Time’:
    http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2007-3/

    —————-
    Thanks for the links, this is an area I should look into more.

    I had hoped somebody had poured over the photographic plates going back to 1879 or so, looking for Sun-like stars and seeing how often, and by how much, their brightness changed:

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2004JHA….35..447S

    http://tdc-www.harvard.edu/plates/

    The sunspot cycles correlate to about 0.1% change in TSI, but being periodic, should have no longterm affect on climate. If there were a serious secular trend to TSI, wouldn’t Milankovitch cycles get screwed up, and we wouldn’t observe the Ice Ages that we have ?
    But I suppose periodicities of 100 or 200 years would be too short term to affect the much longer term Milankovitch cycles. It shouldn’t affect the climate much on timescales of 1000 years, but could explain a significant part of current warming. Is that your contention ?

    If they can’t even predict the start time or “height” of sunspot cycle 24, would it be fair to say the Sun could jump 0.4% in TSI next year, and it wouldn’t violate anything we know about solar physics ? Or perhaps raise 0.4% in the next sunspot cycle or two…
    If CO2 is changing the radiative transfer of infrared in the upper atmosphere (climate forcing), and the Sun increases in TSI also, it would be a double forcing.

    Of course, the Sun might go down by 0.4% TSI, too.
    That’s why I had hoped looking at a few thousand Sun-like stars could give some indication of how often serious brightenings/dimmings occur.
    I guess old photographic plates have no spectroscopy, but once a star is determined to be Sun-like now, they could go back to the archives and look at it for perhaps 120 years.

  277. Paul Vaughan (20:41:18) : “Defeatist white-flag “can’t do” ads in full-view to the enemy might not be the most constructive response to fatigue, soldier.”

    Touché.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  278. Paul Vaughan (20:41:18) :
    I agree that it becomes a problem that some are waaaaaay too eager to misunderstand
    That is usually not a problem. Most people are reasonable. The real problem is the load of information. I have to read 10-20 papers every day to keep up-to-date with my field, so each paper gets only a few minutes initially, and perhaps one every other day gets a fuller study, and one a month I save, because it is potentially important. The initial screening is based on perception only. And I can tell you [no secret now, I guess] that if I came across a paper with your kind of Figure in it, it is rejected out of hand immediately, and I go on to the next.

  279. Re: A C Osborn (Mar 15 11:07),

    but has it ever occurred to the Scientists on here that just maybe it is not only the Individual Cycles that contribute to out Climate changes, but some of them do and more importantly Combinations of some of them do as well.
    It does at least show the complexity of the things that could be contributing, however small the contribution, to our climate.

    Yes, and it is called deterministic chaos. In contrast to throwing Tarot cards and hand wave about which solution’s cycles dominate, it develops tools to study the behavior of the solutions of the necessarily coupled differential equations. The chaos and complexity discipline is in the beginning and covers from biology to physics. It takes time for tools to be developed . One such is that referenced in Tsonis et al above.

    Maybe you should spend some time contemplating the cornstarch video.

    Look at the fingers at the end, and try to think how you could extract the connection from the regularities coming out chaotically to the physical mechanisms producing them.
    You would have to think out of the box of coincident cycles and harmonics.

  280. Anu (21:45:56) :
    I had hoped somebody had poured over the photographic plates going back to 1879 or so, looking for Sun-like stars and seeing how often, and by how much, their brightness changed
    If they are sun-like their TSI would change less than a percent [perhaps 0.1%], so the old plates do not have good enough calibration to detect such a small change.

    If there were a serious secular trend to TSI, wouldn’t Milankovitch cycles get screwed up, and we wouldn’t observe the Ice Ages that we have ?
    This is a good point. On the other hand our models of the Sun shows that such large changes should not occur.

    If they can’t even predict the start time or “height” of sunspot cycle 24, would it be fair to say the Sun could jump 0.4% in TSI next year
    ‘They’? My prediction of a small cycle seems to work well :-) and it would not be fair because from our understanding [and we do have some] of how this works would mean a sunspot number in excess of 400 which has never been observed and which would make the solar modulation of cosmic rays much larger than observed the past 12,000 years.

    once a star is determined to be Sun-like now, they could go back to the archives and look at it for perhaps 120 years.
    That is what our observing program is aiming for [even longer: 500 years]. Astronomy/Astrophysics has a far horizon.

  281. Leif, I have little experience dealing with physicists, but I am learning what matters to (at least one of) them.

    Part of my background is Statistics (more specifically applied data analysis). I know you realize that in that field it is the variation that is studied.

    The data-visualization paradigm to which I subscribe is based on relative variation, not absolutes, since the summaries are scale-independent. In careful applied data analysis it is of paramount importance to visualize the relative variation in the data so as to avoid falling victim to ‘black box’ algorithmic output, which so, so, SO many do, without due regard for vital diagnostics.

    I am learning from your comments that (at least some) physicists (and undoubtedly others from other fields) operate in a different paradigm. Give me a chance to adapt to the (relatively) new (to me) audience. I have studied the psychology of persuasion and understand the importance of tailoring messages according to audience. I will contemplate ways of balancing competing objectives arising from different paradigms (none of which has a monopoly in interdisciplinary science).

    You may expect an update….

  282. Leif Svalgaard (09:50:50) :

    maksimovich (22:18:34) :
    The problem is the overall change is 0.1,however the spectral irriadiance is inverse to the solar cycle ie the absorption bands of interest in H2o an co2 are of opposite sign to the solar cycle,eo Krivova et al
    Would seem to a problem for people claiming that the Sun is responsible for climate changes…

    It is also a problem when partitioning the “signal’ of agw/natural variation to ascertain the sensitivity coefficient when the signs are inverse ie the forcings are reversed.

    the UV irradiance varies by 1 to 3 orders of magnitude more
    This is brought up again and again. What people forget is that the energy involved is minute. It is like claiming that a Bill Gates’ wealth fluctuates by a large amount based on the fluctuation of the number of coins in his pockets.

    Krivova et al are quite succint in the introduction.

    The small contribution of the UV part of the spectrum is, however, compensated by the spectral dependence of the transmission of the Earth’s atmosphere. Thus solar radiation below 300 nm is almost completely absorbed in the atmosphere (see, e.g., Haigh, 2007, and references therein) and is important for the chemistry of the stratosphere and overlying layers. In particular, radiation in the Ly- line (121.6 nm) and in the oxygen continuum and bands between 180 and 240 nm controls production and destruction of ozone (e.g., Frederick, 1977; Brasseur and Simon, 1981; Haigh, 1994, 2007; Fleming et al., 1995; Egorova et al., 2004; Langematz et al., 2005). Solar UV radiation at 200–350 nm is the main heat source in the stratosphere and mesosphere (Haigh, 1999, 2007; Rozanov et al., 2006).

    Lets examine the findings of the Socal Group and SPARC

    1)SUV findings
    -Ozone increases by 3% in the upper stratosphere and 2% in the lower stratosphere.
    -Warming of 1.2 K in the stratosphere and acceleration of both polar night jets.
    -Simulated zonal wind and temperature response reproduces the observed downward and -poleward propagation.
    -Response of the surface temperature in December resembles that observed and simulated after the 1991 Pinatubo eruption.

    Lets introduce another agent into the market namely Energetic Electron Precipitation (EEP) now here the energies are even less in the 36-600ev range for example .eg Rozanov et al

    EEP findings
    -The model shows a “surprising” sensitivity to the observed increase in EEP.
    -Our preliminary results suggest that the atmosphere is more sensitive to EEP than to SUV.

    It was shown by Hood [2004], Rozanov et al. [2004],and Egorova et al. [2004] that the simulated responses of ozone and temperature to solar irradiance variation over the 11-year solar cycle do not agree with the solar signal extracted from the observational data. This discrepancy could be due to insufficient data not allowing the extraction of the solar signal with sufficient accuracy or due to physical and/or chemical mechanisms missing in the Chemistry-Climate models (CCMs). Energetic electron precipitation (EEP) events leading to enhanced NOy (NOy = NO +NO2 + NO3 + HNO3 + ClNO3 + 2*N2O5 + HNO4) is one potential candidate. These events have been shown to substantially alter stratospheric chemistry. The EEP mechanism has been proposed by Callis et al. [1998]. Electrons trapped in the outer radiation belt of the Earth’s magnetosphere,stimulated by the high-speed solar wind, are accelerated and can, after precipitation, penetrate into the atmosphere over the auroral and sub-auroral regions. They ionize neutral components providing a source of reactive nitrogen and hydrogen. During the cold season total reactive nitrogen may descend into the stratosphere destroying ozone and affecting the entire atmosphere. Measurements show that EEP events are more frequent and intense during the declining phase of solar activity, when coronal holes migrate towards the solar equator and the solar wind is more nearly directed toward Earth. This fact is supported by satellite observations [Callis et al., 1998] and by observations of precipitation events measured in the Murmansk region [Bazilevskaya et al., 2002].

    From these results we draw the following conclusions.The simulated influence of EEP on the atmosphere consists of reactive nitrogen enhancement, ozone depletion,and cooling almost in the entire stratosphere. Effects are most pronounced over high latitudes and intensify the polar vortices resulting in the SATs increasing over Europe,Russia and the U.S. by up to 2.5 K during boreal winter.

    Potentially, EEP effects on ozone and temperature are stronger than the influence of solar irradiance. The intensity of EEP is most pronounced during the declining phase of the solar activity cycle, that is, closer to solar activity minimum, therefore all effects mentioned here should be approximately reversed if we compare solar maximum relative to solar minimum. This means that EEP and UV mechanisms work in phase in the extra-polar stratosphere, but out of phase over the high latitudes and in the troposphere. The polar vortices are more intense for the solar maximum case due to the enhanced solar irradiance, but less intense due to EEP.

    The primary mechanisms are not the increase in force,but the symmetry breaking properties of the dissipative functions.

  283. maksimovich (22:49:45) :

    Good information here. UV will no doubt become more important in our understanding of the Sun/climate link.

  284. maksimovich (22:49:45) :
    It was shown by Hood [2004], etc, that the simulated responses of ozone and temperature to solar irradiance variation over the 11-year solar cycle do not agree with the solar signal extracted from the observational data.
    Says it all, doesn’t it. There are so many conflicting studies that none of them have any monopoly of explanation. This is not the signs of a mature science or well-established understanding. Which is what I was saying: “no convincing effect…”. Certainly not convincing to me, and people asked for my personal opinion.

  285. Re: Clive E Burkland (Mar 15 23:43),

    Good information here. UV will no doubt become more important in our understanding of the Sun/climate link.

    And then, nature may surprise us:

    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/0702_planktoncloud.html

    When there is too much UV:

    The plankton try to protect themselves by producing a chemical compound called DMSP, which some scientists believe helps strengthen the plankton’s cell walls. This chemical gets broken down in the water by bacteria, and changes into another substance called DMS.

    DMS then filters from the ocean into the air, where it breaks down again to form tiny dust-like particles. These tiny particles are just the right size for water to condense on, which is the beginning of how clouds are formed. So, indirectly, plankton help create more clouds, and more clouds mean that less direct light reaches the ocean surface. This relieves the stress put on plankton by the Sun’s harmful UV rays.

    And the oceans are 75% of the surface and albedo is the best candidate for climate control :).

    I can hand wave with the best of them: The sun is stronger at mid cycle: plankton raises albedo by x. UV falls 10% at minimum, plankton raises albedo by 0.1x, BUT, here come the cosmic rays at minimum raising albedo by y . That is why the correlation between cosmics and albedo is not so hot.

    Sigh, we need a chaotic model.

    /end tongue in cheek.

  286. Attention Leif Svalgaard — updated:

    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/V_Sun_SSB_60a.htm

    Now maybe you can direct some of your hostility at the convention of using ‘anomalies’ in climate science?

    Maybe you can convince them to plot absolutes – since that is what matters physically – and start the y-axis on all of their graphs at 0 Kelvin.

    I’m sure that will be a real crowd-pleaser – terribly practical & convenient.
    [ :


    Re: savethesharks (21:49:52)

    Chris, one time you asked me for some basic info on:

    “The Quasi-Biennial zonal wind Oscillation (QBO)”:

    http://ugamp.nerc.ac.uk/hot/ajh/qbo.htm

    Image-sequence:

    With alternate color-scheme to accentuate the downward propagation:

    Related note.

    Cheers,
    Paul.

  287. Leif Svalgaard:

    …cranks …pseudoscientists …so Mister Know it all, tell me….

    Why would I want to share our developing knowledge with you? It’s progressing nicely without any need for your …contribution.

    What I will point out, so that other contributors can easily see how unjustifiable and false your certainty about the sun being in freefall and not subject to any forces is this:

    The radius of the Sun’s orbit about he solar system’s centre of mass can change from less than one solar radius to several solar radii in the space of a few years. Because the Sun is not a neat rigid Newtonian billiard ball but a highly fluid plasma, liquid and solid, there is differential effect of the change in angular momentum acrosss it’s diameter during these relatively rapid alterations in orbital parameters which affects it’s surface flows. The Solar System Barycentre is not like a gravitational mass around which planets orbit, but the expression of the sum of the forces external bodies (the planets) exert on the Sun. The differential effect on these across the Sun’s diameter changes as the planets change their configurations.

    We already know about energy exchanges betwen some of the planets which have well defined cycles of several thousands of years down to a decade or so. These operate in ways which affects both the orbital velocity and spin rate of the planets involved. There is in principle no reason why the Sun may not be subject to similar effects.

    It is also known that the relative speed of belts of solar material at different latitudes speed up and slow down. Current models of the Sun do not have any very convincing explanation for these phenomena. Nor do they have any convincing explanation for the gnerally faster rotation of the Sun’s equatorial regions relative to the higher latitude regions. I asked you before for your explanaion for that and you were unable to supply one. You pointed me to a complex paper which in essence said, “we don’t know, but we’re working on it. here are the problems with the current ideas”.

    If there is a transfer of energy from the sun’s orbit to it’s spin which accounts for these differential flows, (and there is no “basic law of physics” which rules it out), the relative amount of energy compared to the total energy of the motion of the solar system is small, and JPL Horizons uses various ad hoc ‘epicycles’ in it’s calculations which could be hiding it.

    You won’t admit any of this, because you are more a propagandist for the ‘certainty’ of the correctness of current mainstream NASA backed ‘knowledge’ than you are a scientist. Instead, you attack, denigrate, ridicule and bluster, just like the AGW scientists have for years until finally caught with their pants round their ankles.

    So as well as contributing here, I shall concentrate on working towards a better understanding of solar system dynamics on my blog, where we are able to freely exchange ideas without the rudeness, discourtesy and disrespect you use as your stock in trade.

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com

  288. anna v (21:57:33) “Look at the fingers at the end, and try to think how you could extract the connection from the regularities coming out chaotically to the physical mechanisms producing them. You would have to think out of the box of coincident cycles and harmonics.”

    Are you sure you are correct in the latter assertion? If you are referring to complexities arising in multi-period envelopes due to nonlinearities – and also assuming most readers do not know the difference between randomness & chaos – then I can accept the potential educational value of your chosen emphasis. My concern is that such reasoning plays straight into the hands of dreamy alarmists attempting to pull the computer fantasy algorithmic (“Al Gore rhythmic”) wool over mainstream eyes. However poor our data collection is & however ridiculously inadequate our super-simplified systems of differential equations are at representing multi-scale phenomena, nature is just adding & subtracting frequencies – with no obligations to the untenably assumption-based chaotic Al Gore rhythm.

  289. Leif Svalgaard (00:02:33)

    Says it all, doesn’t it

    Indeed it does,that one should not use the incorrect ‘observational’ data which in reality was modeled,and uses incorrect coefficients in the extinction rates (Giss) and modeled Uv spectral irriadiances from proxy data which is illusory eg Lilensten et al 2007

    We then review present models and discuss how they
    account for the variability of the solar spectrum. We show
    why the measurement of the full spectrum is difficult, and
    why it is illusory to retrieve it from its atmospheric effects.

    Moving forward Sinnhuber et al

    Abstract. Long-term measurements of polar ozone show
    an unexpectedly large decadal scale variability in the midstratosphere
    during winter. Negative ozone anomalies are
    strongly correlated with the flux of energetic electrons in
    the radiation belt, which is modulated by the 11-year solar
    cycle. The magnitude of the observed decadal ozone
    changes (20%) is much larger than any previously reported
    solar cycle effect in the atmosphere up to this altitude. The
    early-winter ozone anomalies subsequently propagate downward
    into the lower stratosphere and may even influence total
    ozone and meteorological conditions during spring. These
    findings suggest a previously unrecognized mechanism by
    which solar variability impacts on climate through changes
    in polar ozone.

    Our finding of a large decadal scale variation in stratospheric
    ozone during winter suggests that solar variability exerts
    a larger influence on polar ozone than previously thought.
    Although we cannot give a complete explanation for theobserved decadal scale ozone changes, we propose precipitation
    of energetic electrons as a potential mechanism for
    the observed ozone changes. The close correlation of the difference
    between modeled and observed ozone with the flux
    of energetic electrons in the radiation belt supports this idea.
    However, it is currently not clear how the electron flux at
    geostationary altitude measured by the GOES satellites is related
    to the flux of energetic electrons precipitating into the
    atmosphere.

    A direct effect of solar-UV changes can almost certainly
    be rouled out as a mechanism for the observed large decadal
    scale changes of polar ozone. There is some possibility
    that the high-latitude ozone changes are caused by solar-UV
    changes in the low latitude stratosphere through changes in
    atmospheric dynamics and transport. However, we did not
    find any evidence for such a mechanism.

    Finally we note that if there is a direct link between early
    winter ozone and mid-winter EP flux, as suggested by the
    empirical correlation shown in Fig. 5, then the observed
    decadal scale changes in polar ozone could have a significant
    effect on polar stratospheric temperatures and climate.

    Dynamics now come into play.

  290. Paul Vaughan (01:02:25) :

    Attention Leif Svalgaard — updated:

    I preferred your first attempt. To appreciate a trend sometimes it needs to be teased out rather than hammered flat. Scafetta did a reasonable job displaying this trend.

    Your first graph showing raw solar velocity also picks up a trend I have seen on Geoff Sharp’s site. The velocity experiences a sever disruption around the same time as grand minima.

  291. Paul Vaughan (01:02:25) :

    Actually if I were ten years younger and still in control of some research budget I would design an analogue experiment that would show that using anomalies when there are more than one dynamical sources and sinks in the problem is nonsense.

    Instead I have a gedanken experiment:

    Take an isolated room with a varying heat source and place 10 thermometers at varying distances from the source.

    After a few days of readings compute the average for each thermometer . From then on measure the anomaly for each thermometer( its average minus that day’s reading.

    Expectation: Each thermometer will be tracking the time variations of the source.

    This is the hypothesis on which anomalies are used.

    Now take a second moving heat source and repeat the experiment. You will get an average for each thermometer again, and from then on compute the anomalies.

    Expectation: anomalies will not be tracking either the fixed or the moving source and will be positive or negative depending on the distance from moving source.

    This is the situation of the real world, where hot air moves from the tropics and ends up at the poles, heating as it comes down also and moves cold air from the poles to the lower latitudes. It is what has happened and we are getting: “hot winter” noises from anomalies, while the north hemisphere is freezing.
    A -45C air mass was displaced from the arctic towards the south. While the arctic got a 15C anomaly the northern hemisphere got maybe a -2C anomaly because of the mixing and the turbulence and the precipitation .

    In my opinion, climate science is a mess: in statistics ( no error propagation in modesl), in thermodynamics and physics in general. I have started to feel like the women weeping by the rivers of Babylon while remembering true scientific methods.

    Now using the Celsius scale or the Kelvin scale is not the same as using an anomaly. There are absolute numbers in the Celsius scale, the freezing temperature of water and the boiling point, very well defined and invariant at the same pressure. That 273 difference with Kelvin is important when calculating energy from temperatures, but not for recording variations.

  292. Paul Vaughan (01:31:35) :

    My experience with the level of knowledge of people arguing on the blogs is that they know little physics and mathematics, certainly cannot understand non-linearities. Climatologists who run climate models cannot understand non linearities or error propagation.

    Humans being pattern recognition animals latch on to cycles easily and happily find meanings and correlations given two or three disparate cycles. That is why astrology and Tarot cards and what not divinations are so popular with the hoi polloi, it is pattern recognition.

    The fact that we see the face of the Madonna on a cloud does not mean that the Madonna impressed it on the cloud.

    However poor our data collection is & however ridiculously inadequate our super-simplified systems of differential equations are at representing multi-scale phenomena, nature is just adding & subtracting frequencies – with no obligations to the untenably assumption-based chaotic Al Gore rhythm.

    Well, that is where physicists differ. Nature is not adding and subtracting frequencies. It is adding and subtracting small delta x’s in space and forces/potentials acting on the points, that end up in differential equations. It so happens that many of these differential equations give solutions that are harmonic and similar to each other. Many are not. The similarity gives the illusion of correlation is causation, which is Al Gore’s et all ignorant assumption.One should never stop saying that ” correlation is not causation” , nor that correlation can be fortuitous from the inherent similarity in differing dynamics.

  293. I once did an experiment with my middle school students. They were each given the diameter of the solar system bodies, including the Sun, and the distances, on average, they were from the Sun. They were then told to calculate how far a letter would have to travel to get from the Sun to each planet. We then proportionately reduced these measures and mailed letters to random folks around the globe with the tiny planet in the envelope and an explanation of what we were trying to demonstrate. We put the Sun in our classroom as a reference point, and we had to make it a pretty big one so that the planets were bigger than dust mites. Some of the planets were so tiny that we had to put them between layers of tape or else the receiver would not be able to find the little speck.

    From this experiment, it was easy to see just how insignificant our planets are compared to the Sun. The gravitational effects, combined, don’t have a chance in hell of pulling out spots on the Sun.

  294. People who run “climate models” are aware as anyone of the propagation of errors and the usually unpredictable effects of parameters that appear in nonlinear equations, Anna.

    That is why such techniques as “flux correlation: are employed. It is not possible to prevent small disturbances either from roundoff error or nonlinear magnification from causing “solutions” (the time evolution of the system of conservation laws) from blowing up over extended iterations – so the “models” are stopped and restarted from time to time from new initial and boundary conditions if previous iterations are not reliable as new initial conditions. These are typicall generated from other models, and conditions are matched to preserve continuity of solutions. (flux correlation.)

    The errors inherent in this were reasonably well covered in IPCC Third AR, surprisingly; but the end discussion was not consistent with what had been presented in the analysis itself.

    Such ambiguity was not highlighted at all in the Fourth AR, and for reasons that are pretty evident.

    Surprisingly, I have never seen anyone’s analysis that demonstrated that GCM modeling, taking into account greenhouse gas forcing, is probably correct – and demonstrates that greenhouse gas forcing cannot influence the natural climate in the way described by the IPCC.

    The largest discrepancy is the rainfall patterns predicted by GCM modeling, which are nearly completely off. That shows that the heat transfer in the atmosphere could not be accounted for correctly

  295. Leif Svalgaard (21:44:19): “Yes, but it will not be what you think it is. If that 130% change is cut to 5% or increased to 2000% because of [unknown] changes in the Earth’s field, we will have no idea what the flux would be at cloud levels.”

    Not so – if the ‘space’ flux is cut to 5% of what it was, we know that the upper bound of the received Earth-modulated flux is reduced to 5% of its previous value too (the upper bound corresponding to no deflection of GCRs, ignoring any hypothetical lensing effect from the magnetic field) – the modulation by the Earth’s magnetic field cannot create GCRs where none exist.


    LS: “That I need to underscores my experience that believers only look at papers that confirm their beliefs, but here are some recent citations.”There’s a simpler explanation (that has the benefit of being the correct one), but I see you’d rather assume an answer, which as you noted reinforces your own belief. Thanks for the links, though.

    You can find a set of references for evidence for the Forbush-climate link in the Kirkby paper, other than the two cited earlier.

    Your citations with negative findings don’t rule out the GCR link eg .from one of your cited papers:

    “Whether such a signal exists at all can not be ruled out on the basis of the present study, due to the small number of cases and because the strongest Forbush decrease events indicate slightly higher correlations than the average events. Even though those strong events are rare, with only 6 events over 5 years, the amplitude is similar to that occurring during the solar cycle, so from a climate perspective these strong events may deserve particular attention. Further investigations of a larger number of such events are needed before final conclusions can be drawn on the possible role of galactic cosmic rays for clouds and climate.”

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/7373/2008/acp-8-7373-2008.pdf

    Are you saying that since some studies haven’t found evidence for GCR-climate effects, and some have, one must conclude that the effect is nonexistent or negligable? The history of science shows that this would be unwise (even if it you considers it a ‘good bet’, for resource-preserving purposes or otherwise).


    LS: “It seems to me that Shaviv is assuming that things were comparable to what they are now, as he also does not posses that knowledge.”

    Shaviv’s derivation of Phanerozoic GCR levels did not rely on any knowledge of the Earth’s climate system – it was only when estimating the effect on terrrestrial temperature that he referred to it. You, however, referred to the Earth’s climate system as part of your argument to rule out the possibility of large galactic GCR flux changes.


    LS: “No, because item 4 does not derive from their analysis. And 0.1C is below the noise in their data and analysis. My own calculations indicate a change of 0.07C, which I round to 0.1C.”

    You yourself demonstrated that the solar-cycle correlation wasn’t present for the last seven years or so in an extension of T&C’s analysis. Therefore some modification of item 4 would seem sensible, unless you reject the T&C analysis altogether, and not just their conclusion.

  296. Pamela Gray (06:52:30) :

    From this experiment, it was easy to see just how insignificant our planets are compared to the Sun. The gravitational effects, combined, don’t have a chance in hell of pulling out spots on the Sun.

    The folksy down home classroom science is appealing, but misleading.

    The gravitational effect of Jupiter alone pulls the sun a couple of sun radii out of the centre of the solar system. The effect is leveraged by the fact the radius of the sun’s orbit is changed so radically by the four gas giants. It’s not the gravitational effect of a single planet which is at issue, but the way the multibody motions cause the sun to change course sufficiently for a significant differential effect to occur across it’s diameter. And these motions repeat and build amplifying and diminishing resonance effects that reverberate across large time spans.

    A small human being can bring a large flagpole crashing down by applying a small repetitive force at the right time so as to get an oscillation going. It’s all about timing, and leverage.

    But you keep teaching them how insignificant everything is, if that’s what floats your boat.

  297. Fascinating comments anna,
    The fact that the climate models are inadequate is clearly shown when their results are compared side-by-side. The results are always different. 10 climate models, 10 different results given the same problem. If they are back tested to ensure validity in relation to “what has already occurred”, how odd that the projections deviate so consistently.

    Thanks for the link to NASA’s plankton study. Its amazing to discover logical climate factors; Plankton make clouds to avoid sunburn. Who knew : )

  298. “The gravitational effect of Jupiter alone pulls the sun a couple of sun radii out of the centre of the solar system.”

    Properly speaking, the Sun and the planets revolve in elliptical orbits about their centres of mass; for the Sun/Jupiter system, that centre of mass lies about 1.8 radii from the Sun’s centre.

  299. Paul Vaughan (01:02:25) :
    Now maybe you can direct some of your hostility at the convention of using ‘anomalies’ in climate science?
    What are the units on your plot? km/s?. It is a good idea to use units such that the numbers are closer to unity, so that 0.000001 shows as 1.

    The anomalies serve a purpose: to eliminate seasonal variations. And it would, in fact, be useful to now and then plot the absolute temperatures, to remind people of how small climate change actually is.

    maksimovich (01:59:34) :
    We show why the measurement of the full spectrum is difficult, and why it is illusory to retrieve it from its atmospheric effects.
    Nobody does that. It is measured in space by observing the Sun.

    A direct effect of solar-UV changes can almost certainly
    be rouled out as a mechanism for the observed large decadal
    scale changes of polar ozone.

    Tell that to people that claim that UV is becoming more and more important.

    Many variables in the Earth’s magnetosphere vary with the solar cycle, so the electrons may just vary along with the rest, so why single those out? And electrons are charged. They can’t easily get to the ozone layer. Precipitating particles don’t get that deep into the atmosphere.

    tallbloke (01:09:25) :
    Why would I want to share our developing knowledge with you?
    So you don’t want to share substantiation of your ‘finding’ that JPL presupposes the constancy of AM. Ah well, maybe ‘Nothing there. Move on’.

    JPL Horizons uses various ad hoc ‘epicycles’ in it’s calculations which could be hiding it.
    Is not correct [as with most of your post]. JPL integrates the basic equations of planetary movements. There is nothing ad-hoc and no cycles imposed.

  300. Re: Brian G Valentine (Mar 16 07:06),

    They might be aware of error propagation, but they do not give error bars on their spaghetti projections. They just go ahead and vary according to taste the parameters and give another spaghetti for the graphs. This is documented in AR4 in chapter 8. Look for “likelihood”. Giving error bars, statistical plus systematic is what error propagation means for outputs of models. I know, I have been running models for 30 years for a different discipline ( particle physics).

    That is why such techniques as “flux correlation: are employed. It is not possible to prevent small disturbances either from roundoff error or nonlinear magnification from causing “solutions” (the time evolution of the system of conservation laws) from blowing up over extended iterations – so the “models” are stopped and restarted from time to time from new initial and boundary conditions if previous iterations are not reliable as new initial conditions. These are typicall generated from other models, and conditions are matched to preserve continuity of solutions. (flux correlation.)

    !!!!!

    According to the taste of the modeler, as chapter 8 says.

    I am sure if proper error propagation were used the error bars would be of the order of +/-2C.

    The largest discrepancy is the rainfall patterns predicted by GCM modeling, which are nearly completely off. That shows that the heat transfer in the atmosphere could not be accounted for correctly

    But is not heat what all the overheating hype is about? A 3% change in albedo gives 2C errors in simple black body models. If rain clouds are completely off, what is the error in albedo?

    The whole climate modeling is a video game played by the modelers, that unfortunately is used to panic the western world into economic immolation that will lead the third world into starvation.

  301. I agree with you completely, Anna, all I am saying, is that the rainfall patterns are way off (especially in the Tropics, where any “greenhouse” disturbance must be evident if it is present at all).

    The rain fixes how much heat is transferred from one portion of the atmosphere to another, and if that isn’t right, then the whole of the heat transfer mechanism as described must be wrong – and I don’t care what happens afterward; cloud or no cloud

  302. anna v (06:31:04) :

    Are you saying there are no “frequencies” (cycles) in nature, just, and only, delta x’s? So are tides just delta x’s? Diurnal temperature variation? Seasonal climate variation? I mean, I thought the difference between winter and summer had something to do with the earth’s transit around the sun, and that there was a predictable frequency about it. You are telling me that it is just chaos? Or what about Milankovitch cycles?

    Of course, even cycles have “delta x’s,” so I’m not sure where you are going with this. It seems, from your comment ‘”One should never stop saying that ‘correlation is not causation'” that you are almost implying that correlation is never causation. And that would repudiate the scientific endeavor entirely. Science is nothing if not a quest to say “A causes B.” Now, because of the possibility of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, such statements must be falsifiable, and we should never cease in looking for evidence that would falsify the correlation we observe between A and B.

    I do not understand why nature cannot be a bit of both — cycles and dynamical chaos. When Paul said that Tsonis et al hadn’t explained anything, I took him to be calling attention that even if you can predict temperature changes from observed patterns like the PDO, El Nino, AMO, etc., that until you can explain where those patterns come from, you haven’t really explained anything. Let’s assume that they got it right in explaining how these things can interact to create patterns of temperature change. Is the science of climate done? Are there no more questions to ask? Do we not care what is causing the delta x’s (here PDO, El Nino, etc.)?

    Then we have the issue of Occam’s razor to deal with. Your initial reference to Tsonis was in response to my suggestion that a simple combination of two cycles, one approximately a decade in length, and the other approximately two decades in length, can create a beat wave with amplitude envelopes that vary over multiple decades, similar to how global temperatures have in fact varied during the instrumental period. So now we have two explanations, both leading to a similar prediction. Which is the simpler explanation? I’m still on the fence. But I’m not ruling out a lunisolar influence, just because of Tsonis.

  303. Re: tallbloke (Mar 16 07:16),

    Have you thought what happens to the sun in the geocentric system? Running around the earth once a day? Think of the angular momentum. And the planets dancing around the ecliptic? Must get dizzy.

    All coordinate systems that can be transformed by linear transformations to each other are equivalent as far as geometry goes. It is the physical forces that can affect the motion, external and internal ( tides) of sun and planets. Everything else is no sense.

  304. oneuniverse (07:13:34) :
    if the ’space’ flux is cut to 5% of what it was
    The space flux is not cut or augmented. What we observe on the Earth is cut or augmented [relative to what we observe today] by variation of the Earth’s magnetic field. Without knowing the Earth’s magnetic field it is impossible to say what the GCR flux at cloud levels were.

    the modulation by the Earth’s magnetic field cannot create GCRs
    By decreasing the Earth’s magnetic field, the GCR flux at cloud level increases, even if it does not change in space.

    Are you saying that since some studies haven’t found evidence for GCR-climate effects, and some have, one must conclude that the effect is nonexistent or negligible?
    What I’m saying is that science relies on replication. If someone makes a claim, others seek to replicate the analysis to verify the claim, and it is that verification that is increasingly failing. Persistent failure eventually dooms the claim.

    You, however, referred to the Earth’s climate system as part of your argument to rule out the possibility of large galactic GCR flux changes.
    If the changes in GCR flux now have a strong effect on temperature, e.g. is responsible for GW, then the temperature in the past puts limits on the flux in the past.

    Therefore some modification of item 4 would seem sensible, unless you reject the T&C analysis altogether, and not just their conclusion.
    I show that the change at the level they suggested [0.2C] is not backed up by newer data. It is still possible that there is a variation at a lower level [e.g. the 0.07C that I calculate there must be simply because of the change of input from the Sun] which is too small to be visible above the noise.

  305. anna v @ 8:11:39

    Your last paragraph is critical: “used to panic the western world into economic immolation that will lead the third world into starvation”. This insight is why I was able to predict two years ago that Copenhagen would go down in flames over China’s attempt to extort the West over their ‘carbon guilt’.

    Leif, is there a contradiction in ‘measuring the full spectrum in space by observing the sun’ and ‘analyzing on earth the history of cosmic rays which have been acted upon by the earth’s magnetic field’?
    ================

  306. Basil (08:21:01) :
    Do we not care what is causing the delta x’s (here PDO, El Nino, etc.)?
    Of course we do, and that is the physics part. But we do not believe that there are cycles out there that cause the deltas. The cycles we observe are the [side-]result of physical forces, not something mythical the physics has to conform to.

  307. kim (08:39:21) :
    Leif, is there a contradiction in ‘measuring the full spectrum in space by observing the sun’ and ‘analyzing on earth the history of cosmic rays which have been acted upon by the earth’s magnetic field’?
    No, but possibly some confusion on your part. E.g. the meaning of ‘spectrum’. And confusion between rays and particles [cosmic rays are not rays].

  308. Anybody who thinks the Chinese want to play the “reduce carbon let’s go green” game is out of their mind.

    The Chinese view CO2 as a GIFT to the world to grow the food they eat (so do I in fact).

    Why they don’t come out and tell the West to go (fill in the blank) is a mystery to me – I guess they’re too polite to send people like Boxer and Pelosi back home packing when they want to come to China and mouth off about “climate negotiating”

  309. “We’re prb’ly very fortunate to have such a constant sun.”

    Along with being nearly the perfect distance from the sun, an orbit that only varies by 7%, a good magnetic field for protection from the sun, etc.

  310. Leif @ 8:48:53

    Perhaps, I’m confused. Perhaps you observe the phenomena of the sun directly from space sometimes, and sometimes from earth modified data, like our record of the effect of cosmic rays.
    ==================

  311. kim (09:11:50) :
    Perhaps, I’m confused.
    We get light and heat from the Sun [sunshine], that is the ‘spectrum’. Then we get the solar wind [particles] but with a total energy of a millionth of the sunshine. Then we get cosmic rays [particles] from the Galaxy [and VERY rarely from the Sun], but with total energy a thousandth of that of the solar wind. Curiously we also get ‘cosmic rays’ from the ground [because it is slightly radioactive]. At low altitudes the ‘ground’ rays are more intense than the ‘galactic’ rays.

  312. Phil Clarke (13:17:08) :

    RK: Did he represent it as “a meaningful representation” in a statistical sense? If not, he’s innocent on that score.

    Yes, according to Robinson 32,000 out of a population that numbers in the multi-millions is enough to form a concensus.

    The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it.

    The polite word for this is nonsense.

    I was unaware of that, as I have only vague familiarity with this petition project. It’s an amateurish blunder. A skilled propagandist, such as one hired by King Coal, would have avoided such a transparent over-reach, which hands the opposition a chance to counterpunch effectively.

    Note also that he misrepresents his own petition. This speaks of human influences resulting in ‘catastrophic’ warming and disruption.

    Catastophic is a value judgement, and the word occurs nowhere in the IPCC reports.

    Well, the Bible didn’t refer to the seven plagues as catastrophic, because it didn’t have to. The value judgment was implicit in the collective impact of the plagues it enumerated: i.e., in drought + famine + etc. Similarly, catastrophe is implicit in rising sea levels + drought + more storms, etc. listed in AR4. The only reason the IPCC avoided the word “catastrophe” is that it, unlike Robinson, was a skillful propagandist, knowing the effectiveness of understatement and the perils of overstatement. BTW, here’s a wonderful quote on that topic, from pages 19-20 of Brian Martin’s Strip the Experts:

    “In fact, the intentional avoidance of all colorful or emotional words is itself a powerful dramatic choice — one of the oldest known. It is designed both to inspire automatic trust and to lend additional, unearned weight to every word uttered. As a device, it can usually be used effectively only by those whose previous reputation, rank, office, or position projects an aura of its own before they arrive.”
    –Henry Boettinger

  313. kim (09:11:50) :

    Leif @ 8:48:53

    No wonder you are confused, Leif observes from Leif’s point of view.

  314. Leif: The space flux is not cut or augmented.

    I should have said “If the space flux falls to 5% of it’s previous value..”. A semantic quibble – the space flux varies, for whatever reasons (galactic environs, nova activity etc.).

    “Without knowing the Earth’s magnetic field it is impossible to say what the GCR flux at cloud levels were. ”

    As already mentioned, knwoing the space flux allows us to place an upper bound on the TOA or clould level flux.

    What I’m saying is that science relies on replication. If someone makes a claim, others seek to replicate the analysis to verify the claim, and it is that verification that is increasingly failing. Persistent failure eventually dooms the claim.

    There are, as far as I’m aware, more studies finding evidence for the GCR-climate link than there are against it.

    For example, you cited 3 papers looking for and not finding strong evidence for a Forbush-climate effect, while I cited 2 that did, and pointed you to the Kirkby paper which would lead to at least 3 more ‘positive’ Forbush studies. You did say “etc. etc.”, so maybe we need to review, but prima facie, I see no persistent failure. Replication is trickier in the confounded Earth ‘lab’, too.

    If the changes in GCR flux now have a strong effect on temperature, e.g. is responsible for GW, then the temperature in the past puts limits on the flux in the past.

    We don’t know the limiting terrestrial factors governing the putative GCR-effected warming or cooling, so I don’t see how you can proceed with that calculation with any confidence.

  315. So the climate models include downward long wave?

    Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008
    Received 25 January 2009; accepted 2 July 2009; published 1 October 2009.

    Citation: Wang, K., and S. Liang (2009), Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D19101, doi:10.1029/2009JD011800.

    source: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml

    “In this article, we first evaluate two widely accepted methods to estimate global atmospheric downward longwave radiation (L d ) under both clear and cloudy conditions, using meteorological observations from 1996 to 2007 at 36 globally distributed sites, operated by the Surface Radiation Budget Network (SURFRAD), AmeriFlux, and AsiaFlux Projects. The breakdown of locations is North America (20 sites), Asia (12 sites), Australia (2 sites), Africa (1 site), and Europe (1 site). Latitudes for these sites range from 0° at the equator to ±50°; elevation ranges from 98 to 4700 m, and six different land cover types are represented (deserts, semideserts, croplands, grasslands, forests, and wetlands). The evaluation shows that the instantaneous L d under all-sky conditions is estimated with an average bias of 2 W m−2 (0.6%), an average standard deviation (SD) of 20 W m−2 (6%), and an average correlation coefficient (R) of 0.86. Daily L d under all-sky conditions is estimated with a SD of 12 W m−2 (3.7%) and an average R of 0.93. These results suggest that these two methods could be applied to most of the Earth’s land surfaces. Accordingly, we applied them to globally available meteorological observations to estimate decadal variation in L d . The decadal variations in global L d under both clear and cloudy conditions at about 3200 stations from 1973 to 2008 are presented. We found that daily L d increased at an average rate of 2.2 W m−2 per decade from 1973 to 2008. The rising trend results from increases in air temperature, atmospheric water vapor, and CO2 concentration.”

  316. oneuniverse (10:41:06) :
    “Without knowing the Earth’s magnetic field it is impossible to say what the GCR flux at cloud levels were. ”
    As already mentioned, knowing the space flux allows us to place an upper bound on the TOA or clould level flux.

    That upper bound, UB, says nothing about where the flux at cloud level is between 0 and UB, so you cannot correlate meaningfully.

    There are, as far as I’m aware, more studies finding evidence for the GCR-climate link than there are against it.
    The number of studies is a function of time. I showed links to very recent studies, but counting links pro/con is silly. Only independent studies [using different e.g. newer data] should be of interest. The main reason for rejecting the GCR hypothesis is the same now as when it was first proposed, namely that apart from the solar cycle variation there has been no trend in cosmic rays [at minimum when there are the most and their effect should be the greatest] since at least the 1950s and probably longer [from the observed near constancy of the heliospheric magnetic field at minimum since at least 1835], while there has been significant changes in temperature [at least such is claimed - and if there has been no change then there is nothing to explain].

    My point is that the very existence of recent failures to confirm the correlation by independent studies shows that the cosmic ray hypothesis cannot be said to be established.

  317. John from CA (10:54:29) :
    So the climate models include downward long wave?
    Of course they do. They include every effect we know of and can be quantified [or at least parameterized].

  318. “Cosmic rays” are (extra) galactic radiation; of wavelengths below what is ordinarily classified as “gamma” rays (as a result of cascading of particles as cosmic rays traverse the atmosphere, the apparent origin in the sky of cosmic rays is extremely difficult to pinpoint)

    “Solar wind” is composed (mostly) of protons, and when their speeds exceed soundspeed in the ionosphere they are deflected from the Earth’s magnetosphere creating a (visible) bow shock, which (evidently) can influence upper atmospheric cloud formation

  319. oneuniverse (10:41:06) :
    We don’t know the limiting terrestrial factors governing the putative GCR-effected warming or cooling, so I don’t see how you can proceed with that calculation with any confidence.
    Hey, I’m not the one claiming this is all figured out and well understood. Shaviv et al. are. I’ll agree that nobody [not even them] knows this and that therefore it is hard to extrapolate our non-knowledge to conditions hundreds of millions of years ago and then turn that around to say that those unknown conditions and factors support the theory purportedly operating today.

  320. Brian G Valentine,

    China has a vested interest in the Wests economic suicide via the insane carbon dioxide witch hunt/fraud.
    Contrary to the myth that China has a symbiotic relationship with the West by way of trade markets, China relies on the West only for as long as it takes to build up its own domestic consumer base, when the transition is complete then China will happily strangle a weak and reliant West into submission.
    China only has to sit back and watch as the West implodes and then China is elevated to super power status by default. The Chinese have been engaged in the art of political machinations for thousands of years, they were experts in the art when we in the West were little more than painted savages.
    China plays the long game, they prefer to see an opponent destroy themselves rather than engage in open confrontation.
    The Chinese are laughing at our utter moronic stupidity and judging by their gigantic cash reserves and the Wests gigantic and increasing debt burden they are winning the struggle for global dominance.
    Either the political classes cannot see the dangers or they dont care or they are willing stooges, however I subscribe to the view that the political classes are more concerned with next weeks front page news and ratings while the Chinese plan for the next hundred years.
    The west destroys its own industrial base while building up the industrial base of its competitor, every time someone buys a Chinese product they are directly financing the ground up construction of a blue water fleet that will soon challange the US fleet for dominance of the trade routes and when this happens they become the new boss and when they do they will happily use it to dominate the world, watch the Chinese aquire naval bases.

  321. Clarification: When mixing suggestions about anomalies & plots starting from 0 Kelvin, it was in light humor (hence the smiley).

    Nevermind frequencies from the planets — are people convinced there’s nothing cyclical about the moon that has been overlooked?

    If so, I want to suggest that this is naive. And if there is so little as one important thing that has been overlooked – and everyone is intimidated into not looking for it: Will it ever be found?

    anna v, your comment that you perceive most of the public to have no concept of nonlinearity helps me both understand & better-appreciate your slant, but expounding the virtues of chaos might (perhaps inadvertently) support the channeling of funding to abstract-fantasy modelers who (attempt to) tie us in ever-more elaborate spaghetti that explains nothing — and on that note: good to see mention of rain & clouds & albedo.

    As for correlation & causation:
    Perhaps it is fine to hammer it repeatedly IF it comes, each time, with a cautionary note about CONFOUNDING. A careful network auditor maps details of roots & branches. An auditor’s job is to find what others have missed or hidden, without being dissuaded by assertions that “there’s nothing down there”. Nuanced statistics & data analysis paradigms differ fundamentally from physics paradigms — and no single contributing field has a monopoly on the multidisciplinary viewing lens …and I do underscore the word nuanced, as I’m not talking about wiggle-matching exercises accompanied by brain-dead interpretations. A map showing dead-end streets need not be interpreted as downplaying arteries — i.e. the branches & roots of a tree are connected to the trunk and it is not necessarily the case that only the trunk should be studied in order to understand the trunk.

  322. Leif Svalgaard (08:11:36) :
    We show why the measurement of the full spectrum is difficult, and why it is illusory to retrieve it from its atmospheric effects.

    Nobody does that. It is measured in space by observing the Sun.

    Dudok de wit et al suggests otherwise

    Solar UV emission has a profound impact on the upper terrestrial atmosphere.
    Because of instrumental constraints, however, solar proxies often need to be used as
    substitutes for the solar spectral variability. Finding proxies that properly reproduce
    specific spectral bands or lines is an ongoing problem. Using daily observations from
    2003 to 2008 and a multiscale statistical approach, we test the performances of 9
    proxies for the UV solar flux. Their relevance is evaluated at different time-scales
    and a novel representation allows all quantities to be compared simultaneously.
    This representation reveals which proxies are most appropriate for different spectral
    bands and for different time scales.

    The solar irradiance in wavelengths shortward of 300 nm is a key parameter for the specification of the upper terrestrial atmosphere [7]. Variations are observed on time-scales ranging from seconds to years and can impact radio wave propagation, satellite orbits through increased air-drag but also global Earth climate. 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. Even today, the continuous measurement of solar irradiance with sufficient temporal resolution and radiometric accuracy remains a major instrumental challenge [25]. A important issue is the identification of proper substitutes (i.e. proxies) of the solar UV flux for upper atmospheric modeling

    Hence illusory in the past.

    Many variables in the Earth’s magnetosphere vary with the solar cycle, so the electrons may just vary along with the rest, so why single those out? And electrons are charged. They can’t easily get to the ozone layer. Precipitating particles don’t get that deep into the atmosphere.

    And the effects of charged particles on say Nox are well described eg Crutzens Nobel speech .

    Away from equilibrium the effects are pronounced, eg Nicolis and Prigogine

    On the other hand, far from a local equilibrium
    regime, infinitesimal fluctuations may increase and attain
    macroscopic values. In this case the system evolves to a
    state of “generalized turbulence”, in which the distinction
    between macroscopic averages and fluctuations becomes
    meaningless.

  323. The physics (from a lay persons perspective) are pretty amazing.

    The Flux (flow rate) of cosmic particles (assuming they hit the Earth) are influenced by solar wind and the Earth’s magnetic field. Solar wind helps to further decelerate the particles and the Earth’s magnetic field helps to deflect them.

    The cosmic flux varies due to Earth’s polarity and solar wind varies with the Sun’s activity.

    So I guess the question is, so what’s the big deal?

    The entire consequence of the cosmic particle barrage appears to do little more then deliver high energy particles to the atmosphere which collide with air molecules, produce “air showers” of high energy protons and neutrons and other daughter particles (sounds scary) which end up charging water vapor and produce lightening which makes nitrogen to feed the plants?

    I’m probably missing something obvious like the solar system is speeding into a black hole but I really wouldn’t want to be someone trying to slap a saddle on this mess and claiming energy into our ecosystem is a constant.

    I completely agree with both Lief and Anna, the models and science are deeply flawed by the system as a whole seems to be doing just fine within its normal variations.

  324. Re: Basil (Mar 16 08:21),

    anna v (06:31:04) :

    Are you saying there are no “frequencies” (cycles) in nature, just, and only, delta x’s? So are tides just delta x’s? Diurnal temperature variation? Seasonal climate variation? I mean, I thought the difference between winter and summer had something to do with the earth’s transit around the sun, and that there was a predictable frequency about it. You are telling me that it is just chaos? Or what about Milankovitch cycles?

    I am trying to explain the wisdom of current physics that tries to derive descriptions of observations and to predict from minimum principles.

    1) One starts with Action, i.e. what the incremental energies are doing in the system during time, described as space time deltas
    2) One minimizes Action, and the Lagrangian of the system falls out
    3)from the Lagrangian the equations of motion fall out depending on the problem
    4) From the solution of the equations come space time functions that may have harmonic solutions.

    So, the orbits come under 4, in the order of explanations: the reason there are orbits are because of the sequence. It is not orbits that make the sequence.

    Chaos is a metalevel on this: there are many equations of motion on the same variables so the diferential equations are coupled and the solutions are not calculable, different tools are need.

    Of course, even cycles have “delta x’s,” so I’m not sure where you are going with this. It seems, from your comment ‘”One should never stop saying that ‘correlation is not causation’” that you are almost implying that correlation is never causation.

    No, the deltax;s of the cycles are not in a differential equation, they are a solution to an equation.

    I have said before that correlation may be a necessary prerequisite for causation. It is not sufficient. That is what correlations is not causation means. It is not sufficient to see a correlation to establish causality. I say “may” be necessary because in complex and chaotic systems it might not be visible, it might cancel out.

    And that would repudiate the scientific endeavor entirely. Science is nothing if not a quest to say “A causes B.”
    In physics A has to be much more basic than B. That is the sequence 1,2,3, above.

    I do not understand why nature cannot be a bit of both — cycles and dynamical chaos. When Paul said that Tsonis et al hadn’t explained anything, I took him to be calling attention that even if you can predict temperature changes from observed patterns like the PDO, El Nino, AMO, etc., that until you can explain where those patterns come from, you haven’t really explained anything.

    See above about chaos.
    We used to say “problem number A has been reduced to problem number B” when I was a student.

    One never really explains anything, just compacts it to simpler and simpler mathematical formulations that have the advantage to be highly predictive.

    Let’s assume that they got it right in explaining how these things can interact to create patterns of temperature change. Is the science of climate done? Are there no more questions to ask? Do we not care what is causing the delta x’s (here PDO, El Nino, etc.)?

    As I said PDO etc are not the originating deltas.

    Chaos and complexity is way over the delta x’s. It is a meta level that springs out of the ordering 1,2,3,4, the way the fingers in the cornstarch experiment spring out of the basic level viscosity, shaking frequency etc.
    No amount of dx-ing would describe the fingers ab initio.

    Then we have the issue of Occam’s razor to deal with. Your initial reference to Tsonis was in response to my suggestion that a simple combination of two cycles, one approximately a decade in length, and the other approximately two decades in length, can create a beat wave with amplitude envelopes that vary over multiple decades, similar to how global temperatures have in fact varied during the instrumental period. So now we have two explanations, both leading to a similar prediction. Which is the simpler explanation? I’m still on the fence. But I’m not ruling out a lunisolar influence, just because of Tsonis.

    Tsonis had 4 cycles. There is no reason to give up a luni solar influence if the energetics work. I would be in favor of it as the reason for the different cycles. All I am saying is that observing a correlation does not mean causation. If for example a lunar-solar model would be shown to create the currents and air currents, there you are, again if the energies are there.
    The necessity of chaos comes in when the complexity rises, i.e. many more interdependent through variables solutions are present in the problem, as is happening in climate, and simple models cannot be predictive.

  325. Leif Svalgaard (08:45:45) :

    Basil (08:21:01) :
    Do we not care what is causing the delta x’s (here PDO, El Nino, etc.)?
    Of course we do, and that is the physics part. But we do not believe that there are cycles out there that cause the deltas. The cycles we observe are the [side-]result of physical forces, not something mythical the physics has to conform to.

    More than anything else you’ve ever written, this helps me to better understand your take on cycles.

    However, I think it leaves unaddressed the question of whether the physical forces are entirely internal, or in part external. I addressed a question to you about this in my “Basil (03:40:07) :” post, but if you replied directly, I missed it. Certainly, I think we understand the physics of the TSI, and the cyclical “[side-]result” of this physical force. Lunar influences are a little different, in that the cycles are not really a “[side-]result,” but are a direct result of the physics. However you wish to describe these, the point of my ” Basil (03:40:07) :” post was to suggest that with just these two physical forces/cycles/whatever, they could combine to create multidecadal (~60 year) cycles of the kind that Scafetta is attributing to SCMSS.

  326. maksimovich (11:38:39) :
    “Nobody does that. It is measured in space by observing the Sun.”
    Dudok de wit et al suggests otherwise

    Whatever they suggest, it is silly to derive the solar spectrum from its atmospheric effects, when we have perfectly good direct measurements from space.

    And the effects of charged particles on say Nox are well described eg Crutzens Nobel speech .
    These charged particles are not from the radiation belts.

    In this case the system evolves to a
    state of “generalized turbulence”, in which the distinction
    between macroscopic averages and fluctuations becomes
    meaningless.

    Has little to do with anything, as space plasma are generally collisionless anyway and we don’t make that distinction in the first place.

    Brian G Valentine (11:13:40) :
    “Cosmic rays” are (extra) galactic radiation; of wavelengths below what is ordinarily classified as “gamma” rays
    No, Brian, cosmic rays are not radiation of any wavelengths but protons.

    John from CA (11:43:47) :
    The cosmic flux varies due to Earth’s magnetic field and solar wind varies with the Sun’s activity.
    So I guess the question is, so what’s the big deal?

    There is an important point that people overlook/don’t know about: the Earth’s magnetic field is the major factor controlling cosmic rays, at least ten times as important than the solar wind.

  327. Re: Cassandra King (Mar 16 11:27),

    Well, the chinese are a bit off topic, but I agree with your analysis of waiting for us to implode. Goes with their martial arts : use the strength of the opponent to destroy him.

    I do not know about world dominance though. They have been rather reluctant in their very long history to govern over “devils”, i.e. people not looking like them. One would call them insular, except they are not an island.

    The way we are going our grandchildren will live in interesting times.

  328. anna v (12:06:22) :
    All I am saying is that observing a correlation does not mean causation. If for example a lunar-solar model would be shown to create the currents and air currents, there you are, again if the energies are there.

    Basil (12:17:28) :
    suggest that with just these two physical forces/cycles/whatever, they could combine to create multidecadal (~60 year) cycles of the kind that Scafetta is attributing to SCMSS.

    It all comes down to what anna says: if the energy is there, it can happen, if not, it can’t. So ‘cyclists’ will have to show that the energy is there. That said, there are examples from science where nobody could find the energy in the beginning and yet it was there. E.g. what makes the Sun shine, what makes the sea floor spread, what makes magnetic storms, quasars, dark energy [still uncertain]. But, in general, hitching your theory to unknown forces or energy sources makes it very hard to gain acceptance.

  329. Leif Svalgaard (08:45:45) “The cycles we observe are the [side-]result of physical forces, not something mythical the physics has to conform to.”

    Basil (12:17:28) “More than anything else you’ve ever written, this helps me to better understand your take on cycles.”

    Indeed.

    Basil (03:40:07) “Leif, in your 14 points, I’m not sure how you view lunar influences. Internal or external?”

    Yes, let’s get an answer to this.


    Leif, please check the updated units (on the absolute-scale):

    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/V_Sun_SSB_60a.htm

  330.   anna v (12:06:22)    (and related…)

    FWIW, I find anna’s short “exposition” to be admirably on point in describing the underlying approach and mindset of Physics. I would recommend it to anyone.

    Many patterns, cyclic and otherwise, may arise from a “bottom up” analysis of any system, complex or not. Some of these patterns might be observable without the analysis, and if they are very persistent, they may be used by humans in an “ad hoc” manner to help with making decisions and projections, but they are not the cause of anything, as she takes pains to point out. The periodic pattern of day and night was used as a “given” long before anyone had clocks or knew that there was a Solar System, but that is an outcome, not an input, just as (in our current world), umbrellas are often the outcome of rain, but they don’t cause it.

    The following link: (here), shows a device called a Parametric Pendulum. It is not a complex system. It is just a pendulum in the form of a ball-on-a-stick, that is “driven” by another oscillator which forces the suspension point of the pendulum to move up and down at a frequency that is at your disposal. By playing with two simple parameters, and setting the initial position and velocity of the pendulum, you can create the most incredible range of behaviours. A great many of them are persistently periodic. On the other hand, small changes in the parameters can lead to effects that are just as “regular” but greatly different in form. Other small changes lead to behaviours that have no apparent periodicity at all. This particular device exhibits “deterministic chaos”, and is easy to describe using very elementary starting equations. Simply observing the device in a particular “mode of behaviour”, however, would never lead someone to the underlying Physics.

    /dr.bill

  331. Basil: You ended with, “they could combine to create multidecadal (~60 year) cycles of the kind that Scafetta is attributing to SCMSS.”

    The Big question: what ~60-year cycles?

    The AMO does not have an ~60-year cycle. It is normally accepted to vary over a 50- to 80-year term, but paleoclimatological data suggests an even wider range:

    The PDO does not have a ~60-year cycle. Looking at the ERSST.v3b version because it is longer than the JISAO version, the “cycles” vary from ~30 to ~ 50 years:

  332. Leif,
    Via mobile so briefly :
    The Earth temperature correlation found by S&V is with the space GCR flux ( = UB), not the flux at cloud level (unknown <= UB). The relevant CRs are at ~10 GeV (according to Shaviv) and are not strongly affected by the Earth's magnetic field.

    re: your main reason to reject the GCR-climate hypothesis:
    The 10 GeV CR flux has not been constant in the 20th C. , again according to Shaviv, but iirc decreased 1940-1970's and increased for 2-3 decades after (sorry to be vague, can't remember exact dates).

    BTW a contradiction in your logict:
    You said earlier that HMF has a very small modulating effect on cloud level flux compared to the Earth's MF, now you're arguing that that flux is constant because (you argue) the HMF has been constant for all the 20thC – the latter argument won't work if the HMF has little effect.

  333. re: dr.bill (16:57:41)

    Perhaps I might more accurately have said that looking at the graph of the output would not likely lead to the underlying Physics.

    /dr.bill

  334. Correction to my previous comment: “flux is constant” should read “flux has been constant in the 20th C.

  335. Bob Tisdale & Ninderthana, I put in my share of years working as an ecologist, botanist, and forest & soils technician and I have a ton of education in those fields, including enriched study of quaternary paleoecology. From that perspective I would caution you very strongly about the utility of the proxies. It’s generally not nearly the simple matter that basic overviews make it sound to be. Biological nature is extraordinarily complex. I would want years of excruciatingly-detailed, first-hand investigative experience with each species across a wide range of factors before judging what the indices are telling – and I would expect a multivariate interpretation to generally be the best for which one could (reasonably) hope. Also, it’s a rare individual who is adept at soundly interpreting messy factor analyses. The majority of analysts neither go beyond PCA nor perform diagnostics, even though there are usually nonlinearities violating assumptions and mucking up maximum likelihood estimation. A ‘black box’ approach to (mis)interpretation is common (mal)practice.

    Bob, this ( http://i41.tinypic.com/104gozo.png ) is not a sensible method of determining periods – but the plot is valuable — just don’t use it to measure frequency! Also, please don’t misunderstand that ALL so-called ‘cycle enthusiasts’ are suggesting “stationary cycles” (aside from the dominant ones like the year & day).

    Is your new article up (on so-called “60 year cycles”)? If so, please share the link.

  336. dr.bill (16:57:41) “deterministic chaos”

    To quote one of my greatest mentors, an academic statistician with a very good-humored, common-sense, down-to-earth gift for cutting a sensible path through ornately-abstract b*llsh*t:

    “Too much of this p-value stuff.”

    The issue isn’t lack of awareness of what chaos is, but rather how to curb the untenable mainstream habit of pretending chaos is randomness (“noise”) in statistical inference. Followers are blissfully unaware of their falsely assumed objectivity; the brighter folks easily remain gleeful while deceiving and denying their feigned objectivity.

  337. Another correction to 5.02pm post
    Should be “10 GeV and above” for the two occurences of “10 GeV”.

  338. Paul Vaughan (19:33:16) :

    dr.bill (16:57:41) “deterministic chaos”

    To quote one of my greatest mentors, an academic statistician with a very good-humored, common-sense, down-to-earth gift for cutting a sensible path through ornately-abstract b*llsh*t:

    “Too much of this p-value stuff.”

    Paul, I’d say that you had a great mentor!

    In my experience, very few physicists spend much time dealing with the “null hypothesis”. Whether formally or otherwise, we’re all pretty much Bayesians. We “keep what we know, and build on that”.

    /dr.bill

  339. Paul Vaughan (15:12:14) :
    Basil (03:40:07) “Leif, in your 14 points, I’m not sure how you view lunar influences. Internal or external?”
    Yes, let’s get an answer to this.

    That is indeed a tricky one. The Moon helps regulate the Milankovic cycles. The Sun warms on time scales of billions. The internal/external should be seen on a time scale of centuries. Anything that takes much longer to play out is not included [as it is not of immediate concern]. Climate itself is defined on a scale of 30 years.

    Leif, please check the updated units (on the absolute-scale):
    Thanks, you just forgot to say what the units are. km/s? AU/year? ?

    Bob Tisdale (17:00:08) :
    The Big question: what ~60-year cycles?
    There has to be 60-year cycles because of Jupiter-Saturn… :-)

    oneuniverse (17:02:47) :
    The relevant CRs are at ~10 GeV (according to Shaviv) and are not strongly affected by the Earth’s magnetic field.
    The flux of 10 Gev cosmic rays is so much lower than the typical GCR. And the solar cycle modulation of the high-energy GCRs is much weaker than of the ordinary GCRs. Svensmark’s original work compared cloud v=cover with cosmic ray intensity at the Climax Station in Colorado. 10 Gev cosmic rays can’t get to Climax which has a cut-off rigidity of 3 Gev.

    The 10 GeV CR flux has not been constant in the 20th C.
    All indicates are that it has, as the energy spectrum has not changed shape and the lower energies [which are most prone to changes] have not changed. See page 6-8 in
    http://www.leif.org/research/Historical%20Solar%20Cycle%20Context.pdf page 8

    BTW a contradiction in your logic:
    the latter argument won’t work if the HMF has little effect.
    Yes, because the Earth’s magnetic field has not changed much and in the wrong direction. It has weakened about 8%, so more cosmic rays should have been observed leading to cooling over the 20th C, except you say that the effective ones are of so high energy that they are not modulated by anything.

  340. dr.bill (20:19:43) :
    we’re all pretty much Bayesians. We “keep what we know, and build on that”.
    Agree with that. We are loath to accept unknown effects by unknown causes.

  341. Bob Tisdale (17:00:08) :

    On a multidecadal time frame, the “cycles” I’m talking about are more like long term persistence in a trend, rather than nice sinusoidal cycles. If you look at the image I posted:

    the amplitude of the cycles in the bottom pane are quite variable, but are not random. They show a tendency to move from low values to high values over long periods. But there are times along the way when the values go negative. They are just tending to get less negative over these long periods of time. Now I’m not claiming that this is a representation of PDO. It is a representation of something like what has happened to global temperatures. But there is a lesson here regarding the PDO. Do not expect, during a dominant “phase,” for it to always be positive or negative. It is rather more like during one phase, El Nino’s are more frequent than La Nina’s, and vice versa.

    And having said that, don’t presume I’m conceding that PDO is nothing more than a collection of ENSO events. The PDO is related to surface pressure and variations in zonal vs. meridional atmospheric circulation. I still think you put too much emphasis on tropical SST’s. These matter, but most poleward movement of energy is handled by the atmosphere, not ocean currents.

  342. Leif Svalgaard (20:43:55) :
    oneuniverse (17:02:47) :
    10 Gev cosmic rays can’t get to Climax which has a cut-off rigidity of 3 Gev.
    I said this wrong. It is, of course, the other way around. only GCRs with energies larger than the cut-off can get through. Right now equatorial stations [+/-30 degrees latitude] have cut-offs around 15 GeV so 10 GeV can’t get there. If you increase the Earth’s magnetic field you make it even harder for 10 GeV to reach clouds level.
    Shea and Smart: http://dpnc.unige.ch/ams/ICRC-03/FILES/PDF/1029.pdf
    calculate the Cut-offs for the past 400 years and conclude:
    The strength of the earth’s magnetic dipole has decreased significantly between 1600 and the present time. Smart and Shea (2003b) have estimated a globally averaged increase in the cosmic ray flux of 18% over this 400-year period. This should have led to significant cooling since the little ice age.

  343. Leif Svalgaard (20:43:55) “Thanks, you just forgot to say what the units are. km/s? AU/year? ?”

    You’ve missed “AU/millennium” (on the plot) (so it would take ~375 years to reach Earth).

    I’ll double-check when I have time. When I downloaded the data (months ago) I wasn’t carefully taking notes on units, since at that time I was focused on variations, not absolutes.

  344. Leif Svalgaard (20:51:59) “Very sensible if a phenomenon is only quasi-periodic. It is not sensible to assume that there is a true periodicity from the outset.

    Complex wavelet would be more sensible in this case. (It makes no assumption of “true periodicity.)

  345. http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com/2009_10_01_archive.html

    Bob Tisdale (17:00:08) :

    If you look the above reference, I think you will find that the best PDO reconstructions (i.e. those that are are taken from temperature sensitive
    proxies) do not show a 60 year pattern.

    Most people working in this field have never claimed that there is a pure 60 year pattern in the PDO. Indeed, wavelet anaysis shows a multitude of frequencies, dominated by a bi-decadal (~ 20 years) pattern mixed in with a 50 – 70 year year pattern. As soon as you start mixing more than one frequency, it starts to become meaningless to look at the temporal seperation between features in the PDO (unless of course you are trying to
    prove that there is not a pure 60 year pattern in the PDO).

    A climatic feature that could vary with a 60 year pattern is the speed of the trade wind sin the tropics. Please look at the the following enttry on my blog.

    http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com/2010/03/60-year-periodicity-in-earths-trade.html

  346. Smokey (07:10:18) :

    Phil Clarke (06:19:09),

    There are people still trying to discredit the Oregon Petition? Wow! That’s so five years ago.

  347. NickB. (13:19:16) :

    Bob Tisdale (06:30:16)

    Would be curious to get your thoughts, or anyone else’s for that matter, in regards to what is responsible for the warming between 1911-1945.

    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

    I have one—normal variation.

  348. E.M.Smith (17:43:18) :

    Does this mean we can now say “Barycenter” and not get jumped on? Just wondering….

    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    I’ll stay down in the fox hole and let you find out first…….. ;-)

  349. Paul Vaughan (02:26:33) :
    You’ve missed “AU/millennium” (on the plot) (so it would take ~375 years to reach Earth).
    Yes, I did miss it. A better measure would be one that gives a feeling for the physics by being more comparable to units we are used to. The AU/millennium is about 4.7 meter/second, so the black curve sits at about 12.7 m/s, which shows how slow the movement is [bicycle speed]. And now the variation on that becomes important, because that was the ‘signal’. It is plain that the variation is tiny. You have the numbers, but it looks like 1 m/s or less. Of interest is also to calculate the acceleration [change of speed with time]. Since the rotation and random convection are of the order of 1000 m/s, is does not seem credible that the 1 m/s can have much effect. If you calculate the acceleration of the 20-yr curve [which, after all determines the force], you’ll find that it is ridiculously small compared to the accelerations of the ordinary motions that takes place on the order of hours.

    Paul Vaughan (02:31:30) :
    Complex wavelet would be more sensible in this case. (It makes no assumption of “true periodicity.)
    And before wavelets were invented not so long ago, there would be no sensible way of doing this? The wavelets [try it] would give you the same ranges as Bob’s eyeballing. What Bob did was to determine how long the sequences of positive and negative phases were, and that is perfectly sensible.

  350. Leif Svalgaard (20:43:55): you say that the effective ones are of so high energy that they are not modulated by anything.

    Please don’t exaggerate what I said to make it cartoonishly absurd – it’s an effective but and unworthy rhetorical technique, with no logical merit. I said the (>)10GeV particles “are not strongly affected by the Earth’s magnetic field.”. And above 15GeV, the modulation effects are apparently very small for current field strengths.

    My point is that the very existence of recent failures to confirm the correlation by independent studies shows that the cosmic ray hypothesis cannot be said to be established.

    Strictly speaking, that’s not logical consequence – the studies that fail to find an effect may be flawed, for example. I agree though, that the hypothesis won’t be on sound footing unless the mechanism is determined. Atmospheric ionisation & formation of (cloud) condensation nuclei by CR’s is the main candidate under investigation at the moment.

    The striking proxy evidence for a GCR-climate link is encouragement for research into the incompletely-understood cloud-formation process. The modern satellite findings of Svensmark and others are important too – correlation across the entire multi-decadal observation period, if one undoes the questionable 1994 recalibration.

    Leif Svalgaard (20:43:55) : Svensmark’s original work compared cloud cover with cosmic ray intensity at the Climax Station in Colorado. 10 Gev cosmic rays can’t get to Climax which has a cut-off rigidity of 3 Gev.

    Leif Svalgaard (22:09:16): I said this wrong. It is, of course, the other way around. only GCRs with energies larger than the cut-off can get through.

    Therefore there’s no inconsistency with Svensmark’s original work.

    “Right now equatorial stations [+/-30 degrees latitude] have cut-offs around 15 GeV so 10 GeV can’t get there. If you increase the Earth’s magnetic field you make it even harder for 10 GeV to reach clouds level.”

    Particles at 15 GeV particles also cause ionization in the lower atmosphere.

    The strength of the earth’s magnetic dipole has decreased significantly between 1600 and the present time. Smart and Shea (2003b) have estimated a globally averaged increase in the cosmic ray flux [for Earth] of 18% over this 400-year period. This should have led to significant cooling since the little ice age.

    As mentioned already, the Earth’s magnetic field has little effect on the relevant high-energy particles capable of ionising the lower atmosphere.
    Also, Shea’s work also assumes a constant solar modulation since 1600, and the 18% figure is a global average – the regional fluxes variations range from -63% to +215%, so the 18% tells us very little, since the GCR-cloud effect is not globally uniform (or globally manifest).

    “All indicates are that it [GCR flux at Earth] has [remained constant], as the energy spectrum has not changed shape and the lower energies [which are most prone to changes] have not changed. See page 6-8 in
    http://www.leif.org/research/Historical%20Solar%20Cycle%20Context.pdf page 8

    The highest energy particles on page 8 are 9.2 GeV, below the 10 GeV threshold for lower atmospheric ionisation, and the data is only since the mid 1970’s. The following monitors cover 1951-2006, both with a 13 GeV cut-off, I believe, although I did saw a reference to the Huancayo site having a 15 GeV cut-off.

    http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/huan/main.htm (1951-1992)
    http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/hle1/main.htm (1990-2006)

    I may have misunderstood, but you seem to be determining constancy by seeing if the peak flux has remained roughly constant.

    Given that the GCR-climate hypothesis would make the GCR flux a proxy for cloud cover, and so for a cloud-induced radiative climate forcing (W/m2), what is more important than the peak flux is the time-integrated value (corresponding to J/m2) over the considered periods.
    To wheel out the old analogy, it’s not the peak intensity of the flame under the boiling pan that determines how many joules are delivered to the water, but the flame intensity over time, peak and non-peak.

  351. oneuniverse (06:47:09) :
    you say that the effective ones are of so high energy that they are not modulated by anything.
    Please don’t exaggerate what I said

    I do not. If you look at the Figures here: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/27162151/2D-stochastic-simulation-model-of-cosmic-ray-modulation-
    you’ll see that from 10 Gev and up [or the 10,000 MeV used in the Figures] there is almost no modulation by the solar cycle [and it was the cycle that was supposed to modulate the GCR at Earth to explain the changes in clouds].

    My Figure was intended to show you how the modulation gets smaller and smaller the higher the cut-off is.

    the studies that fail to find an effect may be flawed
    When several other scientists try to replicate an effect and fail to see any, it is usually a good sign that the original claim is flawed.

    Therefore there’s no inconsistency with Svensmark’s original work.
    The solar cycle variation seen at Climax is almost exclusively due to GCRs well below 10 GeV [the ones that were not supposed to have any effect]. There is very little [if any] modulation above that, so that in itself invalidates the work. The variation seen at Climax is due to GCRs from 3 GeV and up. The spectrum is very steep, and higher energies rapidly become less abundant.

    18% figure is a global average
    So is global cloud cover…

    It should be clear that the GCR hypothesis has not been established as causing the recent warming [or any other temperature changes]. The pilot-project for CLOUD didn’t find anything, except as they note: “improvements are needed in controlling the experimental variables and in the reproducibility of the experiments. Finally, concerning technical aspects, the most important lessons for the CLOUD design include the stringent requirement of internal cleanliness of the aerosol chamber”. All excuses for why the expected result didn’t materialize.

    I may have misunderstood, but you seem to be determining constancy by seeing if the peak flux has remained roughly constant.
    The peaks are near solar minimum where the solar modulation is the weakest so we are close to the galactic flux. Since the 10 GeV and higher GCRs are not modulated significantly, the peaks should scale with the 10 GeV and up. Since the peaks have not changed, the 10 GeVs have not changed, hence cannot explain climate change.

  352. Me (06:47:09): “The highest energy particles on page 8 are 9.2 GeV, below the 10 GeV threshold for lower atmospheric ionisation, and the data is only since the mid 1970’s.”

    Leif, I made the same mistake – please discard the first half of the sentence.

    Correction to my post at 17:02:47 : “[..] decreased 1940-1970’s and increased [..]“. Please swap “decreased” & “increased”.

  353. oneuniverse (07:41:32) :
    please discard the first half of the sentence.
    And what else :-)

    Svensmark and Shaviv have painted themselves into a corner:
    1) to get around the problem of the changing magnetic field of the Earth [and to get down to the low clouds], they have to postulate a very high energy of GCRs [10 GeV and up] of which there is a very low flux compared to lower energies
    2) but the solar modulation is only effective well below that high energy so recent changes in solar activity are not significant for the GCRs that should be effective

    One way out of this is by what is known as a ‘special pleading': that the energy needed is so finely tuned that it just squeaks by the contradiction of 1) and 2) by being on the tails of both.

  354. Me: Please don’t exaggerate what I said
    Leif: I do not.

    Your paraphrase of what I said: “[N]ot modulated by anything”
    What I actually said : “not strongly affected by the Earth’s magnetic field.”

    “There is very little [if any] modulation above that [10 GeV], so that in itself invalidates the work.”

    The high-energy particles, both on your chart & the higher 13 GeV cut-off ones which I linked, show swings of 10% or more over the decades of instrumental data. A 10% swing isn’t “very little if any”.

    Me: 18% figure is a global average
    You: So is global cloud cover…

    GCR-LCC correlation is not so good for global cover, which I’d mentioned earlier. I’m not quite sure what point you’re making here.

    The pilot-project for CLOUD didn’t find anything, except as they note: “improvements are needed in controlling the experimental variables and in the reproducibility of the experiments. Finally, concerning technical aspects, the most important lessons for the CLOUD design include the stringent requirement of internal cleanliness of the aerosol chamber”. All excuses for why the expected result didn’t materialize.

    Another big mischaracterisation.
    They didn’t come away empty-handed, firstly. From the same abstract, the preceding sentence to your quotation is :

    “”Overall, the exploratory measurements provide suggestive evidence for ion-induced nucleation or ion-ion recombination as sources of aerosol particles.”

    There’s more in the abstract (full PDF also availble at link) : http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/1635/2010/acp-10-1635-2010.html

    You accuse them of making excuses by mentioning the technical aspects of the experiment, but there seems to be a real explanation for their comment:

    “The experimentally-measured formation rates and H2sO4 concentrations are comparable to those found in the atmosphere, supporting the idea that sulphuric acid is involved in the nucleation of atmospheric aerosols. However, sulphuric acid alone is not able to explain the observed rapid growth rates, which suggests the presence of additional trace vapours in the aerosol chamber, whose identity is unknown.”

    The CLOUD chamber is a new design, I believe – it has to be able to act as a cloud chamber, a ‘CR chamber’, and also simultaneously as a chamber to study how the global electrical circuit might affect ionisation / cloud formation. These are not bad results for the pilot run involving new tech.


  355. 1) to get around the problem of the changing magnetic field of the Earth [and to get down to the low clouds], they have to postulate a very high energy of GCRs [10 GeV and up] of which there is a very low flux compared to lower energies
    2) but the solar modulation is only effective well below that high energy so recent changes in solar activity are not significant for the GCRs that should be effective

    We know independently that only the high-energy CR’s are capable of ionising the lower atmosphere, so it makes sense to focus on them.

    These same high-energy CR’s do vary over time (>10% on the instrumental record), whether by HMF modulation or otherwise, so your point 2 is wrong. So they’re not ‘painted into a corner’.

  356. oneuniverse (09:13:52) :
    These same high-energy CR’s do vary over time (>10% on the instrumental record), whether by HMF modulation or otherwise,

    From:

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/47/1/017/pdf/jpconf6_47_017.pdf?ejredirect=migration

    bottom of page 3:

    “Above Z·10 GeV, the modulation due to the magnetic field of the heliosphere is negligible”
    Z =1 for protons.

    From:

    http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/20689/1/98-1743.pdf

    page 4: “The solar cycle modulation decreases with energy and
    vanishes for energies as high as 10 GeV.”
    “E
    page 9: “difference between the proton flux incident on the magnetosphere at solar minimum and that incident at recent solar maxima is estimated to be a factor of 10 [for low-energy GCRs], whereas at 10 GeV no change is expected.”

  357. Leif Svalgaard (09:46:57)

    Whatever the reason, MF modulation or otherwise, the counts at the 9.3 GeV and 13 Gev cut-off monitors have variations of over 10%.

    The solar cycle does appear to still be modulating the >13 GeV flux, although not as strongly as for the 3 Gev :

  358. Re: Leif Svalgaard (06:33:07)

    Characters like Tamino might focus on the use of a 7 year filter to assess ~60ish year claims.

    I chose AU/millennium because it puts things in perspective for a lay person – i.e. it would take ~375 years for the sun to reach Earth’s orbit if it traveled straight out — other choices of units would make it easier to see other things intuitively (as you have demonstrated). But this purely-stylistic matter must not take another minute of my time.

  359. oneuniverse (11:08:56) :
    Whatever the reason, MF modulation or otherwise, the counts at the 9.3 GeV and 13 Gev cut-off monitors have variations of over 10%.
    Looks more like 5% on your plot.
    But, the real issue is that 5% variation gives a 2% [or whatever number Svensmark claims] variation of low clouds, then since the aerosol formation is proportional to the GCR flux [since one aerosol particle formed on on nucleus doesn't know about other ones formed from others], the remaining 95% of the >13 GeV must be responsible for as 95/5*5% = 38% of cloud formation, which I don’t think anybody believes.

    The GCR hypothesis makes the special pleading that the energy is just where there is yet a tiny bit of solar modulation left that just manages to avoid being modulated by the Earth. If you go too high, no solar modulation, if you go too low, the Earth modulation messes up the record.

  360. oneuniverse (11:08:56) :
    Whatever the reason, MF modulation or otherwise, the counts at the 9.3 GeV and 13 Gev cut-off monitors have variations of over 10%.

    In 29th International Cosmic Ray Conference Pune (2005) 2, 135-–138 Solar modulation of cosmic rays in the energy range from 10 to 20 GeV, I. Braun et al. looked into the modulation very carefully. Here is their Figure 1: http://www.leif.org/research/GCR-dependence-on-SSN.png
    You can see how fast the solar modulation falls to zero. Some number like 0.02 or less seems to cover the range above 10 GeV. So 2% GCR variation means 2% cloud cover, which means that the background GCR flux above 10 GeV accounts for all low clouds altogether.

    The number just don’t work out right. Now, I have not looked carefully at that number ’10 GeV’ that you quoted Shaviv on. Perhaps one should go there.

    Finally, the reduction of the Forbush Decreases by GCRs takes place overwhelmingly at energies less that 10 GeV, so using FDs may not even be a good idea in support of the notion that only high-energy GCRs have any effect.

  361. Paul Vaughan (11:34:53) :
    But this purely-stylistic matter must not take another minute of my time.
    When it comes to the physics [not the style] AU/millennium is not a very useful metric, m/s would be. And the change in v [proportional to the force] would be even more. But, as you say, the layman may not care or understand anything anyway. I just thought we help him along a bit, but I can understand your reluctance.

  362. Leif I’ve been out of town, but here’s my score:

    10

    Throughout 23 years of education, I never had an “F” ascribed to my name and refuse to begin now. ;~)

  363. lgl (09:54:17) “I could agree if not for these, which seems to indicate a shorter period at higher latitudes.”

    Can you clarify where you see a disagreement? (v. interesting paper, btw)

  364. Re: Leif Svalgaard (12:46:49)

    It seems we have different “lay people” in mind. Any major cautionary notes regarding the paper to which lgl (09:54:17) linked?

  365. Paul Vaughan (16:03:51) :
    Any major cautionary notes regarding the paper to which lgl (09:54:17) linked?
    No, this is very much the usual stuff [there must be hundreds of such papers about QB and decadal cycles].

    Tim Clark (14:10:49) :
    Throughout 23 years of education, I never had an “F” ascribed to my name and refuse to begin now. ;~)
    Is there not an ‘A’ lurking in the 14 bits :-)

  366. Amino Acids in Meteorites (06:05:15) : In response to NickB’s question to me, “Would be curious to get your thoughts, or anyone else’s for that matter, in regards to what is responsible for the warming between 1911-1945,” you repIied, “I have one—normal variation.”

    Which was precisely what the link I provided in my reply to him showed; that is, that natural variables such as ENSO can account for the majority of variations in Global Temperature if the assumption is made that the global oceans integrate the effects of El Nino and La Nina events.

    To save you some time searching for my earlier reply, here it is again:

    If the global oceans integrate ENSO, then it would be a dominance of El Nino events. Just so happens El Nino events were dominant during that period:

    Also refer to:

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/reproducing-global-temperature.html

  367. Ninderthana: You replied, “Most people working in this field have never claimed that there is a pure 60 year pattern in the PDO. ”

    Thanks for the additional input and clarification, but my comments on this thread were in response to the statements on this thread of a 60-year cycle in the PDO, AMO, etc.

  368. You can see how fast the solar modulation falls to zero. Some number like 0.02 or less seems to cover the range above 10 GeV.

    The figure is for dependance on ISSN rather than HMF, but ok: 0.02-0.03 for 10-12 GeV cut-offs, and 0.02-0.01 for 12-15 GeV.

    So 2% GCR variation means 2% cloud cover, which means that the background GCR flux above 10 GeV accounts for all low clouds altogether.

    The number just don’t work out right.

    The 2% GCR variation is the solar capacity to modulate. The observed variation is more like 10% (in the data from the three stations we discussed earlier).

    Finally, the reduction of the Forbush Decreases by GCRs takes place overwhelmingly at energies less that 10 GeV, so using FDs may not even be a good idea in support of the notion that only high-energy GCRs have any effect.

    There’s an ~8% drop in the >13 GeV flux, looking at an online plot of the period around 19.10.1991, covering a strong Forbush Decrease:

    http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/huan/main.htm

    The CRs at >10 GeV are capable of ionising particles in the [lower] troposphere. Those with lower energies can still ionise in the upper atmosphere, but whether, when and what effects might show up in the lower atmosphere is not understood, as far as I’m aware.

    That 200,000 year GCR-climate study I linked to earlier was carried out using a proxy for geomagnetic intensity (itself as a proxy for GCR flux), which might impliy that lower energy GCRs may have an effect, or it might imply that the climate system has a high sensitivity to changes in the high energy flux, or that both high & low energy CRs are effective.

    The following is another independent replication of the results of Svensmark’s original work :

    “Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds”, Harrison and Stephenson 2006

    http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/462/2068/1221.full

    “This study has found a small yet statistically significant effect of cosmic rays on daily cloudiness regionally that supports the global results from satellite data (Marsh & Svensmark 2000). The method used is independent of the satellite results, and uses data from different surface sites extending over a longer period.”

  369. oneuniverse (19:30:02) :
    The 2% GCR variation is the solar capacity to modulate. The observed variation is more like 10% (in the data from the three stations we discussed earlier).
    I read from the graph 5%, but quibbling about the small percentage distracts from the fundamental point that if the variation is n% and corresponds to 2% change in cloud cover, then the background GCR would determine 100/n*2% of the cloud cover, which for n=2 would be 100%, for n=5 would be 40%, and for n=10 [you quote a max of 8% in 1991] would be 20%. Nobody believes that the control is that strong, because if it were the correlation would be extremely strong, which it isn’t. In fact it has broken down completely with more data [often happens with spurious correlations]. Here is the visual low-cloud cover [that determines albedo]: http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zD2CLOUDTYPES/B41B46B51B56B61B66glbp.anomdevs.jpg
    and if one desperately goes to infrared:

    Any correlation there might have been before say 1995, is now completely gone. Cosmic rays this minimum has been touted as the highest in a long time [and even if just the usual minimum value as I think it is], and the cloud cover should have increased since solar max in 2000, and it has decreased significantly, as you can see. Svensmark claims that the satellite data is wrongly calibrated, you may join that excuse as well.

    “Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds”
    Non-linear? does that mean that the effect gets smaller [than linear] with increasing GCR flux? or larger? If it gets smaller, then the very large effect that Shaviv wants can’t happen. If larger, then we run up against the 100/n*2% problem.

  370. Correction:

    “There’s an ~8% drop in the >13 GeV flux, looking at an online plot of the period around 19.10.1991″

    That should’ve been 29.10.1991 .

  371. oneuniverse (19:30:02) :
    which might impliy that lower energy GCRs may have an effect, [...] both high & low energy CRs are effective.
    Then we run up against the strong control by the Earth’s field which was unknown millions of years ago, so the paleo stuff cannot be used as evidence. Also, you begin now to have too many caveats [may have effect, might imply, ...]. The ‘beauty’ of the GCR hypothesis and what have seduced most believers is its simple, direct, easy-to-understand, no-compromise mechanism. If you take that simplicity away, the the hypothesis is just another complicated, goofy ‘climate science’ WAG.

  372. oneuniverse (19:30:02) :
    That 200,000 year GCR-climate study I linked to earlier was carried out using a proxy for geomagnetic intensity (itself as a proxy for GCR flux),:
    “Evidence for a link between the flux of galactic cosmic rays and Earth’s climate during the past 200,000 years”, Christl et al 2003

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2003.12.004

    I presume that you have read the paper and can supply me with a copy [I'm not going to battle the pay-wall]. Using 10Be for climate studies is a bit dangerous as the 10Be deposition depends somewhat on the climate as well.

    We also need to track down the reference to >10 GeV.

  373. Hi Leif, I’ll have to reply tomorrow.

    Very briefly re: your last post
    No, I don’t have the Christl et al. paper either, just the abstract.
    Yes, a reference for GeV/ ionisation heights would be good – I read of the 10 GeV troposphere cut-off at Shaviv’s site.

  374. oneuniverse (21:16:13) :
    Hi Leif, I’ll have to reply tomorrow.
    Have a good rest. This is tiring business.
    One thing is important: I read carefully EVERY paper that I cite [and try to - and mostly succeed - understand the physics and the data analysis], and I carefully read, in the same way, every link you [and others] provide. [Many of them I already knew, of course]. Only that way can a meaningful discussion result.

  375. Paul Vaughan (16:01:06) :

    Not necessarily disagreement. Your data shows a 28 months cycle in the tropics. The Baldwin paper shows different periods and strengths at different latitudes, 8, 20, 24, 30 months.

  376. Leif,

    “Svensmark claims that the satellite data is wrongly calibrated, you may join that excuse as well.”

    Wrongly calibrated or not, there are obvious problems with the ISCCP data at the end of 2001. (like told you a year ago)

    “However, the sudden increase in upwelling LW flux in late 2001 may be exaggerated because it is associated with a spurious change of the atmospheric temperatures in the NOAA operational TOVS products that are used in the calculations”

    http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/projects/browse_fc.html

    These step-changes seen in many of their radiation and cloud cover graphs clearly is not real. If corrected there is a clear solar cycle signal in cloud cover

  377. lgl (11:14:55) :
    If corrected there is a clear solar cycle signal in cloud cover
    ‘Hide the decline’ :-)
    1. Adjusting data to make it fit better is somewhat dubious
    2. The important cloud cover is the visual, not the IR, or at least both [average?]
    3. Your doctored version omits the last several years where the disagreement is the largest

  378. 1. Not in this case. It is more wrong not to adjust.
    2. You can’t use visual because it is so affected by volcanoes.
    but the step is very visible there too and there is no doubt it is not real.

    3. Yes because they have not released the last years. Anyway, a few years disagreement doesn’t matter. Nobody is claiming GCR is the only factor.

  379. lgl (13:07:17) :
    1. Not in this case. It is more wrong not to adjust.
    NASA claims they have corrected their known errors. And your plot was cherry picked for just a latitude band in the SH.

    2. You can’t use visual because it is so affected by volcanoes.
    but the step is very visible there too and there is no doubt it is not real.

    You step correction looks extremely wrong. The volcano effect should be larger in infrared.

    3. Yes because they have not released the last years
    Up through half of 2008, and your doctored graph stops in 2005.

    Anyway, a few years disagreement doesn’t matter. Nobody is claiming GCR is the only factor.
    Disagreements do matter especially the ones that occur after a claim has been made – as they falsify predicted behavior], and people are claiming that GCR is the main factor [with the possible exception of AGW, which can always be invoked to explain anything – even Friis-Christensen et al. claims that AGW is the reason for breakdown of their correlation.

    Now, if you concede that GCRs are just yet another tiny second order effect together with all the dozens of other second order effects, we may have made some progress.

  380. Leif Svalgaard (19:55:43): Svensmark claims that the satellite data is wrongly calibrated, you may join that excuse as well.

    Svensmark wrote, considering alternative possibilities raised by the 1994 correlation weakening :
    “(1) there is no cosmic ray – low cloud link and the correlation between 1983–1994 is an artifact, (2) that the relationship exists only under certain climatic conditions which change in time and space, and (3) that there is a problem with the ISCCP detection of low cloud.”

    I assume (3) covers the potential calibration issue. The coincidence of the period of missing satellite coverage. the date of the recalibration and the beginning of the trend which detiorates the correlation means that such a concern shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand. If the trend is removed, the correlation is restored over the whole period, which might also mean that GCR-cloud effect is present but not dominant for the low-correlation period.

    Harrison and Stephenson’s (2006) independent study, using a longer record of insolation diffusion fraction rather than the ISCCP cloud cover dataset, found that :

    “The diffuse radiation changes are, therefore, unambiguously due to cosmic rays. Although the statistically significant nonlinear cosmic ray effect is small, it will have a considerably larger aggregate effect on longer timescale (e.g. centennial) climate variations when day-to-day variability averages out.”

    There’s also proxy evidence for a GCR-climate link for the last 1000 years (Fig. 2 of Kirkby 2008 review), over the last 2000 years (Fig. 3), the last 10,000 years (Fig. 8, and separately, Fig. 9 for ~6.5-9.5 ky ago), the last 200,000 years (Christl et al.), the last 3 million years, (Kirkby Fig. 10), and over the last 550 million years (Fig. 11).
    This list is not an exhaustive one. The probability of any of these long-term correlations being by chance is negligable. This leads one to the conclusion that probability (1) is unlikely.

  381. oneuniverse (17:05:49) :
    This list is not an exhaustive one. The probability of any of these long-term correlations being by chance is negligable.
    That would be true if we had good data which we do not. Even the Christl paper you cited and I provided you with is not so sure. Their problem is that if true it would conflict somewhat with the Milankovic cycles being important.
    I have presented my arguments for why I think the GCR hypothesis does not operate and does not work, I do not expect to convince true believers, just to explain why this skeptic does not find the evidence convincing enough to bother with.

  382. oneuniverse (17:05:49) :
    This list is not an exhaustive one.
    I also expect that long, long after the mechanism has proven itself a failure, the true believers will still cling to it. Just like there are many people [even several posters here] who believe that all the progress made in science the past 50 years is not valid and that ‘modern’ science is a fraud and cover-up and is in deep crisis.

  383. Leif Svalgaard (18:31:31)Their Figure 1 is the basic result. It does not look very convincing [as the authors themselves note] with some hits and some misses

    I’d say it’s somewhat better than you describe. The other studies show stronger correlations, though, I agree it’s the weakest one.

    Leif Svalgaard (20:23:43): “Using 10Be for climate studies is a bit dangerous as the 10Be deposition depends somewhat on the climate as well.”

    In “Information on past solar activity and geomagnetism from 10Be in the Camp Century ice core” (1988), Beer et al. find “strong evidence that the isotope variations [in the 10Be and 14C records] have a common cause, namely changes in production rate”.

    Ice-core 10Be and tree-ring 14C are closely correlated over the last 5,000 years once the low-pass filtering effect of the 14C sequestration process is accounted for, so changes in deposition rates must have been small over the period.

  384. Thank you for sharing the Christl et al. paper. I went ahead and bought it too – IP and all that.

  385. oneuniverse (21:09:20) :
    I don’t believe it can be ruled out on the current research, and there is some supporting evidence.
    My point is not to rule anything out, but to point out that the hypothesis is not so established at all, as many claim it is. To the point where it has become almost a ‘religion’ like AGW, Electric Universe, etc.

    From a 2010 paper co-authored by Beer [he has learned something since 1988]: “[20] The radionuclide concentration data contains two components: (1) a production signal induced by solar magnetic activity and long-term changes in the geomagnetic field intensity and (2) a (atmospheric) system signal related to the geochemical properties of cosmogenic radionuclides and climate effects.”

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009JA014193.pdf

    From: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004.pdf comparing different ice cores:
    “The good long-term agreement between 10Be variations in both cores reflects a regional response to production and climate changes, but the disagreements in the earlier parts of the two records suggest that 10Be should be measured in ice cores from locations with non-complex ice flow regimes.”

    So, there is a growing realization that climate has an influence as well. What bugs me a little bit is that people in such discussions dredge up old papers without checking if something has been learned in the meantime.

  386. “The observed changes in radionuclide concentrations between grand solar minima and grand solar maxima are mainly due to production rate changes as shown by McCracken [2004] and Heikkila¨ et al. [2008]. While the climate-induced system effects on the transport and the deposition of 10Be are comparatively small, they are not negligible.”

    So the main signal is from the production rate, and the climate effects are not negligable, but comparatively small, findings in support of the results from their 1988 paper.

    What Beer has reconsidered is the role of the geomagnetic field in modulating the production rate. Whatever the role, it’s just one more factor affecting the GCR flux, the relevant quantity under study.


    From: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004.pdf comparing different ice cores:
    “The good long-term agreement between 10Be variations in both cores reflects a regional response to production and climate changes, but the disagreements in the earlier parts of the two records suggest that 10Be should be measured in ice cores from locations with non-complex ice flow regimes.”

    From the same paper: “It is also clear that it is preferable to have 10Be records from sites with non-complex ice flow regimes, and no or infrequent summer melt, such as NGRIP and South Pole.”

    So let’s use South Pole ice-core 10Be data – it’s clear from Kirkby’s Fig. 2b that for the last 1000 years it closely matches different 14C records and Greenland 10Be data. Furthermore, Beer et al. 1998 find the same relationship is present for over 5,000 years (a slight divergence between 10Be and 14C is noted for >10k years).

    The ‘orthodox’ scientific understanding is that a good GCR flux signal can be extracted, carefully, from the 10Be records, particularly for the past millenia.

    You may want to challenge the 10Be data as it provides evidence against your 2007 co-proposed magnetic floor hypothesis (as noted by Steinhilber et al. 2009). I hope you’ve taken extra care that that is not clouding your objectivity.

    Steinhilber et al. : “Since the year 1700, the open solar magnetic flux has increased by about 350% (from about 1.0 x 10^14 Wb in 1700 to 4.5 x 10^14 Wb for the present). This change is much larger than the change since 1900, and is in contradiction to Svalgaard and Cliver [2007] [..]”

    “From Figure 9a it is obvious that our results do not support such a floor independent of whether we use a constant solar wind or not. Our curves show that periods with significantly lower values of BIMF than the proposed value have been rather frequent in the past. This result is corroborated by Figure 10, which shows the frequency distributions of the two IMF reconstructions from Figure 9.”

    Temperatures have globally risen since 1700 – the well-known increase since the LIA. Coincidence? Let’s investigate, not stall, misdirect and obfuscate.

  387. .. previous post is missing it’s beginning, which is :

    Leif Svalgaard: From a 2010 paper co-authored by Beer [he has learned something since 1988]: “[20] The radionuclide concentration data contains two components: (1) a production signal induced by solar magnetic activity and long-term changes in the geomagnetic field intensity and (2) a (atmospheric) system signal related to the geochemical properties of cosmogenic radionuclides and climate effects.”

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009JA014193.pdf

    If you’d bothered including the very next sentence, readers would immediately realise that the findings support Beer et al.’s 1988 results :

    “The observed changes in radionuclide concentrations between grand solar minima and grand solar maxima are mainly due to production rate changes as shown by McCracken [2004] and Heikkila¨ et al. [2008]. While the climate-induced system effects on the transport and the deposition of 10Be are comparatively small, they are not negligible.”

    So the main signal is from the production rate, and the climate effects are not negligable, but comparatively small, findings in support of the results from their 1988 paper.

    [ etc. ]

  388. Leif Svalgaard (13:51:10) :

    1. No I didn’t. I showed global and the SH band. The SH to illustrate how clear the step is, but the step is visible in other bands also.
    Which one of the errors in their listing?
    The first one mentions sept. 2001 so one candidate. Maybe they fixed a problem that wasn’t there. Or maybe it isn’t a known error.
    Or looking at this, 1998, 2001 http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zFD/an9090_TOTnet_srf.gif maybe they corrected too much.

    2. Don’t see what you mean. I’m adjusting so that the 2002 avg gets at the 2001 avg. and that’s the only way to do it when you don’t know the correct level. The adjusted will of course also be wrong but probably less wrong than the unadjusted.

    3. It stops where the availble data stopped when I made them 1-2 years ago. Not sure which one you mean but their radiation graphs still stop in 2005.

    4. “Now, if you concede that GCRs are just yet another tiny second order effect”
    No I don’t. On an annual scale the seasonal changes are of course the dominant, then ENSO type of cycles probably play a role, but on a decadal scale the GCR (or related) seem to give at least 1% variation in cloud cover. Not sure how much that is in albedo, 0.5% ? 0.5W/m2 ?

    5. Here’s another doctored graph since you like them so much http://www.virakkraft.com/Sloan%20GCR.png
    If I had the numbers I would have made a smoothed version of cloud cover too.

  389. Leif Svalgaard (13:56:30) :

    lgl (13:07:17) :
    Not in this case. It is more wrong not to adjust.
    Haven’t we heard that one before :=)

    Yes, I just heard of similar, someone wanting to adjust the 10Be record because of climate change.

  390. oneuniverse (06:58:34) :
    So the main signal is from the production rate, and the climate effects are not negligable, but comparatively small, findings in support of the results from their 1988 paper.
    I’m always amazed by people ability to quote just the things that fit and omit what doesn’t. Over short periods of time the production rate dominates. Over longer period the gromagnetic field and the climate are dominant.

    lgl (07:00:30) :
    5. Here’s another doctored graph
    As long as you don’t bother to update the graph there is not much to discuss.

    lgl (07:06:11) :
    I just heard of similar, someone wanting to adjust the 10Be record because of climate change.
    Don’t be too hard on them, they have a good physical reason for that, not just making ad-hoc adjustments to get a better fit.

    oneuniverse (06:58:34) :
    “Our curves show that periods with significantly lower values of B IMF than the proposed value have been rather frequent in the past.”
    They make an error in their calibration between HMF B and modulation parameter phi [and we are actively working with them to reconcile this]. You can see the problem in their Figure 2, where the red dots are observations. They fit power-laws to the dots which will by definition go through the origin, i.e. B = 0 for phi = 0. That does not reflect the physics of the cosmic ray modulation. Extend a line through the red dots to the left and see that is crosses the Y-xis at B = 4. The result of this error is readily seen in their Figures 6 and 7. We have good geomagnetic data back to about 1835, so can only compare with the ‘dip’ in about 1890, if we want to be on a firm footing. In Figure 6 they have a dip ~1890. We and our ‘competitors’ [Lockwood, Rouillard, et al.] agree that there is no such dip. This shows that B is greatly underestimated for low values of phi, which is indeed the reason for the sharp dips below the floor. If you look at their Figure 9 [top] you can see directly how their underestimate leads to meaningless negative values of B. Figure 10 shows the strange asymmetric distribution that result. One would expect a tail on either side of the mean.

    Temperatures have globally risen since 1700 – the well-known increase since the LIA. Coincidence? Let’s investigate, not stall, misdirect and obfuscate.
    Then look at their Figure 7 that shows that the cosmic ray modulation has stayed high since 1725 [even higher than today]. As for the two dips ~1815 and ~1890, the latter is already shown to be not valid. Both dips correspond to significant volcanic activity [Tambora, Krakatoa] that may have influence the deposition of 10Be. We do know that, regardless of that speculation, the 1890 dip does not correspond to a dip in B. On the contrary there is a peak there. You can find details here: http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric%20Magnetic%20Field%1835-2009.pdf
    which is in the final stages of peer-review [for JGR].
    See Figure 12 and its discussion.
    So, no, my view is not bias by the invalid calibration by Steinhilber et al.

  391. anna v

    I love the cornstarch fingers. They give ‘the finger’ to most attempted science on climate.

    Without deep reflection on what these fingers mean, ones chances of unravelling the complexity of climate are exactly zero.

  392. I wanted to learn more about the research of Dr. Scafetta. I turned to Wikipedia and learned they did not have an article on him, so I decided to write one. His contributions to science are quite remarkable. He has published in a wide variety of science journals and on subjects as diverse economics, sociology, climate and physics. An Italian news outlet has mentioned him as a possible future winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in about the year 2035 (when the Himalaya’s will still have glaciers).

    Unfortunately, some Wikipedia editors do not like the article. They have questioned Dr. Scafetta’s notability. Please take a look at the article. If you edit Wikipedia, please try to improve the article. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Scafetta

  393. Leif,
    No, Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize which has a very poor record. They gave the Peace Prize to Yassar Arafat, Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama and others just as undeserving.

    The Nobel Prize in Physics actually has a very strong record. Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Fermi, Feynmann etc. It is hard to find an undeserving winner of this prize.

    If the prediction Scafetta made based on his phenomenological theory of climate change comes true, I think a Nobel Prize in Physics would be deserved. So it is very unlike Al Gore’s Peace Prize.

  394. Leif Svalgaard (07:28:27) :
    Re: wayne (12:03:47) :

    No need to go to fancy calculations. Back-of-envelope calculations work just fine. Let us assume that the mean distance is 150 [million km], and see what difference a SSB correction of 1 [million km] would give:
    1361 * 150^2 / (150+1)^2 = 1343 W/m2
    1361 * 150^2 / (150-1)^2 = 1379 W/m2
    for a difference of 36 W/m2 compared to the 1.5 W/m2 due to the solar cycle. No such difference is detected.

    I said I would come back to rephrase later, I’m back. Here is an attempt to clear up some misunderstandings you and other commenters objected to. First, you calculation above is correct and mine earlier is incorrect. Your calculation gives a maximum effect of 1379/1343-1 of about ~2.7% when all planets but Earth are somewhat aligned on the same side of the sun (but that is very rare, just Jupiter and Saturn happens every ~20 years). My calculation of 0.00xx% was clearly way too low. Thanks for catching that.

    Assuming only the sun and major planets, no decrease in mass of the sun, no solar wind, and no influence from outside of the solar system here is what I see as the solar system which causes inter-season variations in the TSI whether current satellite instruments are sensitive enough to detect or not:

    (1) All planets orbits are close, but are not exact, ellipses therefore each has two focal points. The prime focus is close, but not exactly at, the solar system’s center of mass, that is, not the sun’s exact center. More exactly the prime focus is at each planet’s center of attraction computed from the gravitational field of all other bodies excluding itself.

    (2) Because of (1) the sun can be somewhat closer or further away from the Earth at a given point in the orbit. This factor has little or no effect on the total irradiation received by the Earth over one complete orbit of the Earth but can cause seasonal variances between winter & summer or spring & fall depending on which hemisphere we are talking about. These minor effects depend on where the other major planets are in their orbits. This can make the TSI amount in a given day and in a given hemisphere and in given season somewhat more or less TSI that day. For instance, if Jupiter and Saturn are close together and inline with Earth’s major axis and, let’s say, in approximate opposition, the NH winter (near apogee) will receive slightly more TSI and the NH’s summer in six months will receive slightly less than average. At the same time the SH effects mirrors the opposite of what happens in the NH. If the approximate alignment is along Earth’s minor axis the spring & fall will feel this small effect (~<2% differential). Approximately twenty years later other seasons will be affected depending on where the alignment is in relation to the Earth’s tilt of the axis.

    In other words, above I was describing some other people’s incorrect view, not my own view when speaking on whether the solar systems center of mass affects TSI, that is all, there is no secular affect across years, just across seasons and the effect is only large when at least two of the gas planets are involved. I didn’t mean to start a deep discussion on the subject but felt I must at least show you more exactly what I thought. And I understand the TSI might not show that. Seems it would be hard to isolate this small effect in the daily TSI noise.

    My experience with solar mechanics has left me with that viewpoint. Do you more or less agree with that one Leif?

  395. wayne (11:42:29) :
    My experience with solar mechanics has left me with that viewpoint. Do you more or less agree with that one Leif?
    No, not at all. Solar ‘mechanics’ has almost nothing to do with TSI. We observe TSI very precisely. And we have to correct for the actual distance to the Sun. Our measurements are so precise that we have to calculate the distance not when we receive the photons, but at the time 8 minutes earlier when they were emitted from the Sun [the distance changes in those 8 minutes].
    There is a 7% change of TSI though the year. We get the max when we are closest to the real, actual, light-emitting Solar surface in January and the least in July. This has nothing to do with summer/winter or Northern/Southern hemisphere, but only with the real distance to the Sun. The SSB location has nothing to do with this, as the Earth orbits the Sun-Earth barycenter which is about a thousand of a solar radius from the Sun’s center – on the Sun-Earth line, as the gravitational force between the Sun and the Earth is directed on the line connecting the two.
    BTW, the yearly variation in TSI is almost a hundred times larger than the tiny solar cycle variation [that so many people wrongly think exerts a strong influence on our climate]. To remind you, here is the observed variation of TSI for many years plotted as a function of day of year [thus many years overlay each other]. It traces out very precisely the same curve year after year, with tiny wiggles caused by major solar activity: http://www.leif.org/research/Erl76.png
    There is no sign that we can measure of any influence from gas giants. Over thousands of years, the eccentricity of Jupiter’s orbit will have some influence, not on distance but on when perihelion is, so the max/min of TSI will fall at other times within the year [causing a phase shift in the curve I just showed, but not in its amplitude]. This is the main cause of the longest of the Milankovic cycles.

  396. wayne (11:42:29) :
    More exactly the prime focus is at each planet’s center of attraction computed from the gravitational field of all other bodies excluding itself.
    One of the somewhat irritating things with blogging is that people often simply ignore arguments, so I’ll try again:

    Imagine the Sun had a companion star [of one solar mass] far enough away that the orbits of the inner planets are not seriously disturbed, say 1000 AU [200 times further out than Jupiter, so 200*200 = 40,000 less gravitational effect per unit of mass]. Now the SSB would be halfway to that star, and I think you can see [otherwise I give up] that that point is not the prime focus of the orbit of any planet.

  397. Leif Svalgaard (12:29:44) :

    Thanks for all of your time Leif but I feel you once again misunderstood me. I knew when you mentioned “eccentricity of Jupiter’s orbit” we were crossed again. My description has nothing to do with Jupiter’s orbit’s shape, just Jupiter’s mass. But lets don’t any further here. I do see your point on not being able to detect this effect. And this effect has nothing to do with Earth’s eccentricy, that is a separate effect.

    I tell you what, all of that rigmarole prompted me to retrieve those year or two old programs from my old machine, move them from Cpp to Csharp so I can easily do some analysis on my newer machine. If I get a readout that might clarify to you my point, I will let you know. The only thing I can say that might help you see what I am saying is to concentrate on the planet’s (Earth in this case) center of attraction, not the center of mass (SSB). The center of attraction leaves out one of the bodies (itself), depending on which you are addressing (calculating).

    Sorry, I have a harder time with perfection in words than yourself, your words are precise and flow smooth, mine do not and never will. It is due to a small vessel in my left brain decades ago that got my “thoughts to communications (words)” center so please give me little leeway if you can.

    Till then, later. :)

  398. Leif Svalgaard (13:02:04) :

    No, I don’t see it that way. Generally, the SSB would remain the SSB. There would be a new center of mass with the star and our SSB (our solar system) revolving around it. However, it seems you would also have to add that star field into your calculations so each planet’s orbit, still around the sun, would be slightly affected than if the star was no there at all. (Much as the earth-moon system around the sun).

    Does the sun’s mass affect the moon’s orbit around the earth? I don’t think I can answer that off of the top of my head, but a good question.

  399. wayne (13:26:42) :
    concentrate on the planet’s (Earth in this case) center of attraction, not the center of mass (SSB). The center of attraction leaves out one of the bodies (itself), depending on which you are addressing (calculating).
    Leaving out the Earth, hardly changes the SSB, so would make no difference. The point you have to grasp is that the prime focus is not the SSB [or some close approximation to it]. You can also see that for a satellite in an elliptical orbit bout the Earth. The mass of the satellite is so small that leaving it out makes no difference at all, and the SSB is certainly not the prime focus of the satellite’s orbit.
    The Earth orbits the Sun [VERY closely] and not the SSB so there is no influence on TSI.

    Till then, later. :)
    It is most effective that you discover this for yourself, so I’ll await next installment.

  400. Leif Svalgaard (13:02:04) :

    Leif, one more thing. Of course, all of this is, in reality and by physics, affected by relativity effects, the galaxy’s effect, local stars, and many other effects that take a toll when you get into many digits of accuracy. Those teeny affects I am totally ignoring in my statements above. Physics is never as simple as we would like it to be.

  401. wayne (13:45:26) :
    No, I don’t see it that way. Generally, the SSB would remain the SSB. There would be a new center of mass with the star and our SSB (our solar system) revolving around it. However, it seems you would also have to add that star field into your calculations so each planet’s orbit, still around the sun, would be slightly affected than if the star was no there at all. (Much as the earth-moon system around the sun).
    I put the star far enough away that the effect would be tiny. The SSB would not remain the same, but would shift halfway to the star, as the star would now be part of the solar system. You see, the SSB is an artificial concept in our mind, depending on what we consider to be part of the solar system. Now that Pluto is no longer a planet, should we exclude it in the calculation of the SSB?

    Does the sun’s mass affect the moon’s orbit around the earth? I don’t think I can answer that off of the top of my head, but a good question.
    It does [every body in the system does], but very, very, very little. The important parameter is the angular momentum, not the mass. But, let’s not complicate matters any more.

  402. wayne (14:03:33) :
    Those teeny affects I am totally ignoring in my statements above.
    I ignore them too.

    Physics is never as simple as we would like it to be.
    I would state that differently: The trick is to throw away all the fluff and focus on the essentials. This was my rationale for my simple back-of-envelope calculation. In debates, some people like to throw in all kinds of irrelevant complications as straw men to distract from the crucial point(s).

  403. Leif Svalgaard (14:07:38) :

    It does [every body in the system does], but very, very, very little. The important parameter is the angular momentum, not the mass. But, let’s not complicate matters any more.

    Now see, with that I perfectly agree (to many digits :-) ). Enough said. Later.

  404. Apologies for the delay – I was without easy access to the net over the week-end.

    Leif Svalgaard: “I’m always amazed by people ability to quote just the things that fit and omit what doesn’t.”

    Very funny. My quotation was of the following sentence to your quotation – you omitted the important second part, and so neglected to let the reader know (without checking) that the climate signal is thought to be comparatively small compared to the production signal (between grand maxima and minima).

    First part (your quotation) : “[20] The radionuclide concentration data contains two components: (1) a production signal induced by solar magnetic activity and long-term changes in the geomagnetic field intensity and (2) a (atmospheric) system signal related to the geochemical properties of cosmogenic radionuclides and climate effects.”

    The next sentence in the paper (my quotation) : “The observed changes in radionuclide concentrations between grand solar minima and grand solar maxima are mainly due to production rate changes as shown by McCracken [2004] and Heikkila¨ et al. [2008]. While the climate-induced system effects on the transport and the deposition of 10Be are comparatively small, they are not negligible.”

    Leif Svalgaard : “We have good geomagnetic data back to about 1835, so can only compare with the ‘dip’ in about 1890, if we want to be on a firm footing.

    LS: “As for the two dips ~1815 and ~1890, the latter is already shown to be not valid. Both dips correspond to significant volcanic activity [Tambora, Krakatoa] that may have influence the deposition of 10Be.”

    1815 coincides with the Dalton Minimum, so one would expect a dip. The cosmic ray flux causing 10Be production can vary for reasons other than geomagnetic variation, so you are not justified calling the 1890 dip ‘invalid’ on the basis of the geomagnetic measurements.

    Leif Svalgaard : Over short periods of time the production rate dominates. Over longer period the geomagnetic field and the climate are dominant.

    According to the Usoskin et al. 2009*, the climate is thought to be dominant only over short time-scales (which makes sense, given that we haven’t found a 10Be sink). They find that

    a) the local climate ‘signal’ dominates on short (<100 years) timescales.
    b) the solar signal dominates for longer timescales of 100-1000 years, possibly longer multimillenial ones.
    c) at longer scales, the geomagnetic field becomes increasingly important.

    "On the common solar signal in different cosmogenic isotope data sets"
    Usoskin et al. 2009

    http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/2008JA013888.pdf

    "By applying different methods of analysis, such as bivariate correlation, conventional FFT coherence, and wavelet coherence, we found the following: (1) The modeled series, on the basis of 14C data, are in good agreement with the measured 10Be data sets, on different timescales and at different locations, confirming the existence of a common solar signal in both isotope data. (2) The 10Be data are driven by the solar signal on timescales from about 100 years up to 1000 years or even to multimillennial scales (at the longer scales, paleomagnetism plays an increasingly important role). (3) The local climate dominates the 10Be data mostly on short (100 years) the solar and geomagnetic field are considered to be important. Since these affect the CR flux and so the production rate, not the deposition rate, this means that the data from the last 10k years can be used as a CR flux proxy.

    (The 10Be and 14C signals diverge somewhat for periods >10k years – Beer et al. 1998’s analysis attributed this to a difference in the production rate, not deposition rate – note 10Be production is associated predominantly with galactic CR’s).

    By the way, perhaps you could cut out the ‘true believers’ insults – your reasons for ignoring the CR paleodata appear to me to be untenable, and they’re not bolstered by your denigration of others, however wrong you may consider them to be. It looks like an attempt to shut down discussion of the topic.

    Another relevant paper by Usoskin (et al.) :
    “Millennium-Scale Sunspot Number Reconstruction: Evidence for an Unusually Active Sun since the 1940s”
    Usoskin et al. 2003

    http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/Sola2-PRL_published.pdf

    “The current high level of solar activity may also have an impact on the terrestrial climate. We note a general similarity between our long-term SN reconstruction and different reconstructions of temperature [28,29]: (1) both SN and temperature show a slow decreasing trend just prior to 1900, followed by a steep rise that is unprecedented during the last millenium; (2) great minima in the SN data are accompanied by cool periods while the generally higher levels of solar activity between about 1100 and 1300 correspond to a relatively higher temperature (the medieval warm period) [30]. To clarify whether this similarity reflects a real physical connection requires a more detailed study of the various proposed mechanisms for a solar influence on climate [31].”

  405. oneuniverse (15:03:47) :
    “While the climate-induced system effects on the transport and the deposition of 10Be are comparatively small, they are not negligible.
    And have been relatively small lately when climate has not varied much, but go back in time and much larger variations were present.

    1815 coincides with the Dalton Minimum, so one would expect a dip.
    And with significant volcanic activity causing part of the dip as in 1880s

    The cosmic ray flux causing 10Be production can vary for reasons other than geomagnetic variation, so you are not justified calling the 1890 dip ‘invalid’ on the basis of the geomagnetic measurements.
    I don’t think that you have grasped the issue. The geomagnetic variations [there wasn't any of the dipole - which changes very slowly and steadily] were not the cause of the dip. Rather, the HMF B has a strong geomagnetic signature that allows us to infer B with confidence back to 1835. So, we are talking about the Sun here, not the Earth. And there is no dip in B, and hence not in GCR modulation.

    According to Usoskin et al. 2009, the climate is thought to be dominant only over short time-scales (which makes sense, given that we haven’t found a 10Be sink).
    Imagine we have a ‘snowball’ Earth, or a glaciation. That greatly interferes with atmospheric circulation that is instrumental in transporting 10Be to the poles. And on short time-scales you quote him saying that climate is dominant, e.g. for the sharp dips…

    By the way, perhaps you could cut out the ‘true believers’ insults – your reasons for ignoring the CR paleodata appear to me to be untenable
    I take that statement as showing true believer status, as your citations are one-sided. Not one of them have expressed any doubt, although there is plenty. And many people pride themselves of being ‘believers’ of various causes, so no ‘denigration’ implied, just classification.

    It looks like an attempt to shut down discussion of the topic.
    Absolutely not. I’m known for continuing to the bitter end.

    Another relevant paper by Usoskin (et al.) :
    “Millennium-Scale Sunspot Number Reconstruction: Evidence for an Unusually Active Sun since the 1940s”

    There is considerable doubt about that claim. It is becoming less and less supported. Even the in Steinhilber paper we were discussing, I pointed out that the solar activity has been pretty constant since 1735. In the 18th century there were even a cycle higher than any seen since, e.g. their Figure 7.
    Even Usokin’s claim: “We note a general similarity between our long-term SN reconstruction and different reconstructions of temperature” doesn’t hold water. Solar activity, cosmic rays, and everything solar that might affect climate are now what they were 110 years ago, while temperatures now are the ‘highest ever recorded’ [the recent claims of fudging notwithstanding, but they would apply equally well to Usoskin's claim]

    As I said, you have a tendency to seek out papers that bolster your view. I am waiting for you to find one that does not and then inviting me to critique that one. E.g. this one: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/raimund/publications/Muscheler_et_al_Nature2005.pdf “the recent solar activity is not exceptionally high (Fig. 2).”

  406. Sorry, somehow I managed to truncate my quotation from Usoskin et al. & merge it with my follow-on comment. What I meant to write :

    “On the common solar signal in different cosmogenic isotope data sets”
    Usoskin et al. 2009

    http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/2008JA013888.pdf

    “By applying different methods of analysis, such as bivariate correlation, conventional FFT coherence, and wavelet coherence, we found the following: (1) The modeled series, on the basis of 14C data, are in good agreement with the measured 10Be data sets, on different timescales and at different locations, confirming the existence of a common solar signal in both isotope data. (2) The 10Be data are driven by the solar signal on timescales from about 100 years up to 1000 years or even to multimillennial scales (at the longer scales, paleomagnetism plays an increasingly important role). (3) The local climate dominates the 10Be data mostly on short (100 years) the solar and geomagnetic field are considered to be important. Since these affect the CR flux and so the production rate, not the deposition rate, this means that the data from the last 10k years can be used as a CR flux proxy.

  407. It’s happened again.. WordPress I think. I’ve edited the quotation to replace the ‘less than’ symbol with word, as that’s were the trunaction is happening. Hopefully this’ll work:

    “On the common solar signal in different cosmogenic isotope data sets”
    Usoskin et al. 2009

    http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/2008JA013888.pdf

    “By applying different methods of analysis, such as bivariate correlation, conventional FFT coherence, and wavelet coherence, we found the following: (1) The modeled series, on the basis of 14C data, are in good agreement with the measured 10Be data sets, on different timescales and at different locations, confirming the existence of a common solar signal in both isotope data. (2) The 10Be data are driven by the solar signal on timescales from about 100 years up to 1000 years or even to multimillennial scales (at the longer scales, paleomagnetism plays an increasingly important role). (3) The local climate dominates the 10Be data mostly on short (less than 100 years) timescales, but the solar signal becomes important even at short scales during periods of Grand minima of solar activity. (4) There is an indication of a possible systematic uncertainty in the early Holocene, likely due to a not-perfectly-stable thermohaline circulation, which requires additional studies. We have shown that both 14C- and 10Be-based records are consistent with each other over a wide range of timescales and time intervals. They form a robust basis for quantitative reconstructions of solar activity variations in the past.”

    You’ll notice that over the longer timescales (>100 years) the solar and geomagnetic field are considered to be important. Since these affect the CR flux and so the production rate, not the deposition rate, this means that the data from the last 10k years can be used as a CR flux proxy.

  408. oneuniverse (15:56:25) :
    The 10Be data are driven by the solar signal on timescales from about 100 years up to 1000 years
    and yet, it is claimed that one can see the 11-yr cycle and sharp dips in 1815 and 1885…

  409. oneuniverse (15:56:25) :
    They form a robust basis for quantitative reconstructions of solar activity variations in the past.
    Beware of people that say that their claim is ‘robust’ :-)
    Usoskin et al are also claiming that their robust reconstructions show that the recent solar activity was the highest in 8000 yrs or 12000 yrs [they vary a bit on this]. There is mounting and good evidence that this is not the case as I have pointed out, so clearly there are problems with their reconstruction. One of the problems with this kind of exchange is that cite is piled upon cite with no or little extraction or consolidation of what has been shown. In litigation there is the concept of RFA [Request for Admissions] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_admissions
    This is actually quite effective and could profitably be used here too.

  410. @ Leif Svalgaard (15:45:15) :

    I’m known for continuing to the bitter end.

    I can testify to that.

  411. Leif Svalgaard (15:45:15): “I don’t think that you have grasped the issue. [..] So, we are talking about the Sun here, not the Earth. And there is no dip in B, and hence not in GCR modulation.”

    The CR flux is not solely determined by the magnetic modulation of CRs in the solar system – there are variations in the CR rate reaching the solar system, independent of changes in B. We’ve already discussed this. We don’t have instrumental CR measurements from the 19th century, so the 1890 dip cannot be judged to be ‘invalid’ based on the geomagnetic measurements alone.

    “Imagine we have a ’snowball’ Earth, or a glaciation. That greatly interferes with atmospheric circulation that is instrumental in transporting 10Be to the poles.”

    There haven’t been any snowball Earth or glaciation episodes during the last 10,000 years, the period in which the 10Be and 14C CR-proxy data is considered to be most reliable.

    I’ll reply to the rest later today.

  412. Leif Svalgaard (13:02:04) :

    “Now the SSB would be halfway to that star, and I think you can see [otherwise I give up] that that point is not the prime focus of the orbit of any planet.”

    ??

    It would seem that a test body located between two massive bodies would be at a Lagrange point. The massive bodies would orbit the test point!

  413. pochas (07:44:15) :
    It would seem that a test body located between two massive bodies would be at a Lagrange point. The massive bodies would orbit the test point!
    The planets orbiting each of the ‘massive bodies’ in an ellipse would have the massive body they orbit at one of the foci of that ellipse, not the ‘Lagrange point’ [or the SSB], and that was the issue.

  414. oneuniverse (06:56:29) :
    The CR flux is not solely determined by the magnetic modulation of CRs in the solar system – there are variations in the CR rate reaching the solar system, independent of changes in B. We’ve already discussed this. We don’t have instrumental CR measurements from the 19th century, so the 1890 dip cannot be judged to be ‘invalid’ based on the geomagnetic measurements alone.
    Again typical of the circular/selective/ad-hoc arguments made. You say that the 1890 dip is not due to B but the 1815 dip and all the other ones in Steinhilber [that were taken as signs of the floor being broken] are due to B. So the one for which we have good data is discarded for the ones where we have no data.

    There haven’t been any snowball Earth or glaciation episodes during the last 10,000 years, the period in which the 10Be and 14C CR-proxy data is considered to be most reliable.
    Again, being selective. Your assumption is that the ‘evidence’ of paleo-stuff hundreds of million years ago is representative of today or can be used to draw conclusions about today. This assumes that the climate has not changed.

  415. Leif Svalgaard (10:09:51) :
    Again, being selective. Your assumption is that the ‘evidence’ of paleo-stuff hundreds of million years ago is representative of today or can be used to draw conclusions about today. This assumes that the climate has not changed.

    Anything more than about 9M years ago and you are talking different ocean currents and further back incomparable continent position and sizes.

    The climate will be grossly affected by these. CO2/solar etc will be a minor player

  416. tfp (10:34:47) :
    Anything more than about 9M years ago and you are talking different ocean currents and further back incomparable continent position and sizes.
    The climate will be grossly affected by these. CO2/solar etc will be a minor player

    I think that is what I’m trying to convey to oneuniverse [so far without luck].

  417. Leif Svalgaard: As I said, you have a tendency to seek out papers that bolster your view. I am waiting for you to find one that does not and then inviting me to critique that one. E.g. this one: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/raimund/publications/Muscheler_et_al_Nature2005.pdf “the recent solar activity is not exceptionally high (Fig. 2).”

    You’ve been citing papers to support your viewpoint (that GCRs have negligable effect on climate), and none that challenge it – isn’t your criticism somewhat hypocritical? And aren’t you rather missing the point of an adversarial debate?

    With respect to the Muscheler et al. paper, the same issue of Nature published the reply by the authors of the critiqued paper:

    http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/sola_nature05.pdf

    They point out that Muscheler et al.’s analysis was inappropriately based on normalized and detrended data, which, if corrected, results in an analysis much in agreement with Solanki et al.’s original paper.

    They also note: “[T]heir large values of [the cosmic ray modulation strength] contradict the integrated cosmic-ray flux measured by the abundance of 44Ti (half-life of about 60 years) in meteorites9,10 that have fallen since AD 1766. The 44Ti activity in meteorites is completely independent of transport effects and redistribution in the Earth’s atmosphere, so it provides direct measurements of past cosmic ray flux.”

    Leif: Again typical of the circular/selective/ad-hoc arguments made. You say that the 1890 dip is not due to B but the 1815 dip and all the other ones in Steinhilber [that were taken as signs of the floor being broken] are due to B. So the one for which we have good data is discarded for the ones where we have no data.

    Not at all – please read what I said again:

    “The CR flux is not solely determined by the magnetic modulation of CRs in the solar system – there are variations in the CR rate reaching the solar system, independent of changes in B. We’ve already discussed this. We don’t have instrumental CR measurements from the 19th century, so the 1890 dip cannot be judged to be ‘invalid’ based on the geomagnetic measurements alone.”

    re: the 1815 dip, I pointed out its coincidence with the Dalton Minimum should not make a dip unexpected. (Usoskin et al. 2009: “The local climate dominates the 10Be data mostly on short (<100 years) timescales, but the solar signal becomes important even at short scales during periods of Grand minima of solar activity.")

    Your assumption is that the ‘evidence’ of paleo-stuff hundreds of million years ago is representative of today or can be used to draw conclusions about today. This assumes that the climate has not changed.

    The hundreds of millions of year old data comes from meteorites, unaffected by the climate. The <10k yr statement comes from an analysis of data from the last 10k years.

    Why not look at the CR-proxy data from the last 2000 years? We know climate hasn't changed that much over the period.

    What're your thoughts on the Harrison and Stephenson 2006 paper which I cited earlier , which provides evidence for a GCR-cloud link (in the UK), based on an analysis of insolation records longer than and independent of the ISCCP satellite cloud data ?

  418. Leif Svalgaard (14:12:34) :
    wayne (14:03:33) :
    Those teeny affects I am totally ignoring in my statements above.
    I ignore them too.

    Leif, if you are still monitoring this thread (it’s been almost 2 weeks), you were correct on how tiny the TSI variance is year to year. It plots a shade under 0.2 W/m2 max to min across a span of 18-26 years with 5-6 year smaller variances and any one year much smaller. Thanks for your patience (guess I’m a hard core skeptic and sometimes when in my area of knowledge I want to actually see it since TSI has recently come onto my radar, I just didn’t know the magnitude).

    But this did force me to bite the bullet and move that old solar system software to a new language and new machine. I now have some new areas to explore, thanks to you!

  419. oneuniverse says:
    March 22, 2010 at 4:22 pm
    re: the 1815 dip, I pointed out its coincidence with the Dalton Minimum should not make a dip unexpected. (Usoskin et al. 2009: “The local climate dominates the 10Be data mostly on short (<100 years) timescales, but the solar signal becomes important even at short scales during periods of Grand minima of solar activity.")

    From a very new paper by Webber and Higbie:
    “[17] Indeed the role of climatic effects has been increasingly recognized following earlier suggestions by Raisbeck et al. [1981] and Lal [1987]. Pedro et al. [2006], Field et al. [2006], and more recently Heikkila et al. [2008] and Field et al. [2009], have evaluated these climatic effects in increasing detail with Field et al. [2009], particularly noting that the modulation estimates of McCracken et al. [2004], near the Maunder minimum would be significantly modified by climatic effects, in line with our own conclusions above.”

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009JA014532.pdf

Comments are closed.