A note of sincere thanks

I’m on my way back to the USA from my Australian speaking tour.  I’ll be offline a couple of days. There are many, many, people who I owe a debt of gratitude to, for kindnesses big and small, but, there is one person to who I owe a debt that is much more prominent.

That person is Mr. David Archibald of Perth.

David has been my constant companion throughout the grueling continent crisscrossing pace of the tour, sorting out and correcting details, making sure I was where I needed to be when I needed to be, fighting some idiotic travel battles we faced, and most importantly, helping me hear. This was critical in Q&A after the lectures.

Without him, I would have been lost. He’s a gentleman, a scholar, and I count him as a friend. David, I cannot thank you enough.

That said, there’s something WUWT readers can do that can show gratitude on my behalf, while learning something in the process.

David spoke right along side me at each stop, and created an excellent presentation from the work he has done on his just printed book The Past and Future of Climate.

I’ll review this book in a future post, I’ve read a personal copy he gave me and it reads very well. Like WUWT, this book is heavy on illustrations. There’s not only some very interesting solar research, but some points on climate as well.

For example this illustration (from his slide show) is very interesting:

On my recommendation, if you wish, you can download an order form here:

The Past and Future of Climate – order form

He offers the book for $30AU post paid, and advises that he’ll also ship internationally as well. You can also visit his website at http://davidarchibald.info/

When I do my review, he’ll have an order form that can be used via PayPal, until then, direct by postal mail or PayPal via email contact are the only options.

Again my sincere thanks to David for his unfailing help, good cheer, and pathfinding. I hope WUWT readers can express thanks also.

About these ads

209 thoughts on “A note of sincere thanks

  1. Anthony – I had this dreadful dream that you and David were shacked up in that tiny double bed in that run down hotel in Brisbane.

    It’s nice to know it was yet another climate change nightmare :)

    Thank you for your tour and your contribution to the sceptical cause here in Australia. – I thoroughly enjoyed your talk at surfers paradise and the opportunity to meet you face to face.

  2. Unfortunately for some good o’l DA has been the only one that got nearly all the predictions right (except the 0.4c temp drop ). The solar SSN is on course to max ~40. The temps anomaly will likely fall more than 0.4C in coming months see R spencer SST

  3. The above Armagh graph may look conclusive, the Armagh’s temperatures (same as the CETs) are substantially result of the Gulf current’s strength.
    Investigating month by month CETs no definitive conclusion can be made.
    Here is 300 year CET monthly record overlaid with the sunspot cycle.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETm.htm

  4. Was at the Newcastle presentation. Enlightening but also a confirmation that Anthony and co are real people not just a name on a blog. I was fortunate enough to win a copy of David’s book.

    Tallbloke There is a shorter e-version which I found here http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf
    the book is two years more up to date. I’ve sent it to a number of friends who found the explanations and graphs convincing.

  5. Molon labe – now that’s an intriguing name – a reference to Leonidas and the 300 Spartans defending the pass at Thermopylae. Translates roughly as ‘Come and get it’ and in modern Greek pronounced approximately as Molon Lahve. What’s more, Australians have a direct connection with Thermopylae – they fought at Thermopylae as part of the British fighting retreat from the German advance through Greece in April 1941. Off topic, I realise, but thems fighting words and I can’t resist being just a little curious.

  6. David, UK says:
    Pingo said

    UK next Anthony!

    I second that.

    Easy go there fellas. Anthony has just finished a bruising schedule flying back and forth and up and down a country the size of the continental U.S. He will need at least a weeks worth possibly more to catch up on rest. Probably wont be able to do the U.K. / Europe until next year.

    Well done Anthony and D.A. plus his extra helpers in having a very successful foray into the Antipodes. Next time Anthony heads this way I hope he has a more relaxing time.

  7. vukcevic says:
    July 3, 2010 at 1:04 am

    The above Armagh graph may look conclusive, the Armagh’s temperatures (same as the CETs) are substantially result of the Gulf current’s strength.
    Investigating month by month CETs no definitive conclusion can be made.
    Here is 300 year CET monthly record overlaid with the sunspot cycle.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETm.htm

    ___________________________________________________
    Yes but is there a lag? Looking at your graph there seems to be a lag.

    stevengoddard asked Dr Roy Spencer:
    Why is there lag between SST and TLT temperatures?

    His response was enlightening:

    “Steven:

    1) sun warms ocean, then
    2) ocean warms atmosphere

    Actually, you would not see a time lag between ocean and tropospheric temperatures if this process was at a constant rate at all times. But there are episodic variations in the process, driven mostly by tropical intraseasonal oscillations. The oceans get unusually warm, then the troposphere starts overturning a little faster, evaporating more water from the ocean and dumping the extra latent heat in the troposphere.”

    Since the air temperature is driven by the oceans and the oceans act as a giant “capacitor” absorbing heat, redistributing it and then discharging it to the troposphere in El Nino events there is no direct and distinct sun – temperature correlations.

    That does not take into account the confounding effects of clouds not to mention your information about the effects of changes in the earth’s magnetic field. I am sure there are a lot of other variables like volcanoes and plankton

    If some one showed me a graph where solar activity exactly matched the global temperature I would be highly suspicious. The confounding effects of other dependent and independent variables guarantee there will not be a 100% correlation and that is why CO2, which is also dependent on ocean temperature, can be made a scapegoat so easily.

  8. Lawrie — I realize a rose by any other name is just as sweet — Lawrie \la(w)-rie\ is a variant of Lawrence (Latin), and the meaning of Lawrie is “from Laurentum”. Lawrie is an uncommon first name for men but a very common last name for both men and women.

    Off topic, I realiZe, but them names have a long history and I can’t resist being just a little smartalecky.

    Anyway, I’m just teasing. I didn’t know that the Australians and British fought at Thermopylae too. That is fascinating.

    Lucky them!

  9. In the latest magazine published by the Norwegian Astronomy Association there are several plots showing the same thing: The longer the sunspot cycle, the colder it is in the next cycle. There were plots for locations all over Norway, all of the showing the same trend. The conclusion: The next decade will be cold in Norway. The first half of 2010 may already show what to come; it was colder than the relatively cold 1961-90 normal. Even if this is a local phenomenon for the North Atlantic such a strong relationship would be interesting. On the other hand, the temperature records in Norway are pretty short, there exists very few 19th century records and stations have moved, so the evidence is somewhat weak. And no physical explanation was proposed. I would love to see a similar study for stations with a long record, such as in the UK and Sweden. Then the claim could get some substance (or not).

  10. Anthony,
    Don’t forget you have friends to the north of you as well.

    I wish to thank you for your work in keeping science honest. Without you and others, government policies would go through on bogus science and we ALL would be paying the price.
    Going through the effort to be informative rather than make a buck.
    Al Gore and others are in it for the buck and charge accordingly and it is not even their science fields.

  11. ……….fighting some idiotic travel battles we faced, and most importantly, helping me hear.,,,,,,,,,,

    Until last year, the Warmistas were screaming. The histrionic incidents from Hansen, Romm, Algore told us they had no intention of hearing, listening or learning.

  12. Once again, thanks for your great presentations Down Under. It was an absolute pleasure to meet you in Perth, Western Australia. I agree with you re David Archibald. He stayed at the marina I manage (Port Bouvard Marina – Western Australia) and gave me a copy of his first book, “Solar Cycle 24″. It opened my eyes to alternatives regarding climate change. I went searching and discovered WUWT, Climate Audit, Jo Nova and many others. I’ve never looked back. Never have so many owed so much to so few! Cheers, Kim.

  13. Gail Combs says: July 3, 2010 at 4:24 am
    Since the air temperature is driven by the oceans and the oceans act as a giant “capacitor” absorbing heat….

    In my view the UK summer months are more likely to respond directly to the solar activity then the rest of the year when the Gulf Stream is predominant. http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETm.htm
    In tropics response to the sun is probably more or less constant throughout the year, the higher latitudes would depend on the rate the Gulf Stream is pumping warm water.
    One could also speculate that the saline warm waters are likely to be impeded by the magnetic field; since the GMF is variable than the CETs would respond appropriately.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETlmt.htm (with reversed scale for GMF )

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC10.htm

    Cumulative effect of rising solar activity (rising temperature in the Equatorial Atlantic) and dramatic fall in strength of the Earth’s magnetic field may have caused sudden uplift in temperatures in early 1700’s.
    Next rapid decline in GMF was 1910-1950 and then from 1975 – present.

  14. Roger Carr says:
    July 3, 2010 at 2:14 am

    David’s best quote, to me, is:

    Our generation has known a warm, giving Sun, but the next generation will suffer a Sun that is less giving, and the Earth will be less fruitful.

    Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the United States
    David Archibald — International Conference on Climate Change — March, 2008
    _________________________________________________________________
    This and the take over of our food supply by the international cartels has been giving me nightmares for half a decade.

    It is why the wealthy have taken his advice to heart and are buying up farmland. I first saw this advice in 2008, here it is again:
    “Morgan Stanley research guru turned hedge fund manager Barton Biggs… advises that you buy a farm a good distance away from a city and, he advises, make sure that your doomsday safe-haven:

    * Be self-sufficient and capable of growing some kind of food
    * Be well-stocked with seed, fertilizer, canned food, wine, medicine, clothes, etc

    And get a gun, he says, because “a few rounds over the approaching brigands’ heads would probably be a compelling persuader that there are easier farms to pillage.”

    The problem is compounded by a few cartels intent on grabbing control of the world’s food supply and making home gardening illegal… For your own good of course.

    Food Security, Farming, CAFTA and the WTO

    HR 2749: WELCOME TO THE GLOBAL PLANTATION

    OFFICIAL UN/WTO information supporting above article:
    UN/WTO Guide to Good Farming Practices

    Patenting of seed: FAO is supporting harmonization of seed rules and regulations in Africa and Central Asia

    Nicole Johnson’s well researched pieces on the threat to our food supply:
    Food ‘Safety’ Reform and the Enclosure Movement

    “History, HACCP and the Food Safety Con Job”

    The Festering Fraud Behind Food Safety Reform

    Other Articles from my collection:
    Small Farmers Hold Key to Feeding the World

    Undermining Abundance: The Big Business of Creating Scarcity

    Stolen harvest: the hijacking of the global food supply
    By Vandana Shiva

  15. I haven’t had an opportunity to read David Archibald’s book yet, but can attest to the fact that it is a stunningly beautiful volume. Colour illustrations of high print quality, visually pleasing layout, text that is focused and to-the-point.

    Rather than burying us in dump trucks of data, Archibald appears to have selected his arguments carefully for maximum impact.

  16. Loco says:
    July 3, 2010 at 5:30 am

    Once again, thanks for your great presentations Down Under…. It opened my eyes to alternatives regarding climate change. I went searching and discovered WUWT, Climate Audit, Jo Nova and many others. I’ve never looked back. Never have so many owed so much to so few! Cheers, Kim.
    ____________________________________________
    I second that. Thank you Anthony, David, and the rest for your dedication to science and the truth. History, if written by honest people, will remember you as heroes.

  17. Molon Labe was also used as the title of a novel by “Boston T. Party” (Javelin Press, 2004), about a state standing up against an overbearing, stifling Federal government – another tyrannical “consensus”. Ripping yarn – great read. Appropriate reference. Not OT, in my view, but subject to the moderator’s ruling.

    Regarding hearing, many years ago I was involved in a project where our Australian outpost of a big US company was making the parent company nervous about what we had bitten off, and they sent a very eminent and experienced engineer out to do an engineering audit. Five minutes into the discussion, he halted proceedings to say “I want you to understand that if I ask you to repeat what you said, it is because I listen with a strong North Dakota accent”. In Sydney on the tour, given the usual difficulties with an audience microphone for questions from the floor, Anthony did not let his Californian accent get in the way of attentive listening and responsive answers.

  18. For example this illustration (from his slide show) is very interesting
    You can always count on D.A. to do sloppy, misleading work. Figure 5 strongly suggest that during SC22 the temperature was 9.6C and during SC23 it was 8.2. In actual fact the numbers were: SC22: 9.50, SC23: 9.97.

  19. Steinar Midtskogen says:
    July 3, 2010 at 4:36 am

    In the latest magazine published by the Norwegian Astronomy Association there are several plots showing the same thing: The longer the sunspot cycle, the colder it is in the next cycle. There were plots for locations all over Norway, all of the showing the same trend. The conclusion: The next decade will be cold in Norway. The first half of 2010 may already show what to come; it was colder than the relatively cold 1961-90 normal. Even if this is a local phenomenon for the North Atlantic such a strong relationship would be interesting. On the other hand, the temperature records in Norway are pretty short, there exists very few 19th century records and stations have moved, so the evidence is somewhat weak. And no physical explanation was proposed. I would love to see a similar study for stations with a long record, such as in the UK and Sweden. Then the claim could get some substance (or not).

    In the link given above,

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf

    Archibald has compiled a number of such plots from Europe and the US.

    They are intriguing. There is strong opposition by Leif that this is a phenomenon that can predict the next cycle’s temperature. I expect he will come in strongly with a link to his global plot that even shows the opposite effect.

    On the other hand, miners with a canary in a cage note that it is suffocating and run away, because it means there is monoxide and worse on the the floor. This does not mean that the average global canaries on the floor will be suffocating: it has to be a mine and a particular mine at that.

    It might be that regions that display this statistically significant behavior are like canaries, and their message is lost in averaging over the globe.

    On a more serious note, one should try and see what is common to stations that show this behavior, with respect to other variables, like distance from ocean and jet streams etc.

  20. anna v says:
    July 3, 2010 at 7:08 am
    I expect he will come in strongly with a link to his global plot that even shows the opposite effect.
    Even better. Simply plot 11-yr mean Armagh temps versus min-to-min solar lengths:

    SC23 is not quite complete for Armargh [so is marked by a pink square].
    Data from: [Length http://www.stat.psu.edu/reports/2005/tr0504.pdf
    Temps http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/browse/badc/armagh/data/air_temperature/mean_annual_temp/tm-an-maxmin-dtr.dat ]

  21. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 3, 2010 at 7:00 am

    For example this illustration (from his slide show) is very interesting
    You can always count on D.A. to do sloppy, misleading work. Figure 5 strongly suggest that during SC22 the temperature was 9.6C and during SC23 it was 8.2. In actual fact the numbers were: SC22: 9.50, SC23: 9.97.

    But Leif, isn’t the point that the temperature ploted for the length of 22 is the temperature of cycle 23, and the 8.2 is the prediction for the cycle 24 temperature from the length of cycle 23?

    Maybe it needs a label (22,23) (length, temperature), instead of just “22 “(23,24) instead of “23″.

  22. anna v says:
    July 3, 2010 at 7:47 am
    But Leif, isn’t the point that the temperature plotted for the length of 22 is the temperature of cycle 23, and the 8.2 is the prediction for the cycle 24 temperature from the length of cycle 23?
    That is not what the labels say [but with Archibald, you never know :-) ]. If you shift the data by one solar cycle, you get 8.97 degrees for the next 11 years, not 8.2. It just doesn’t add up [as expected]. It doesn’t matter that the book is printed on high-quality paper, when its contents is of low quality.

  23. Leif Svalgaard:

    You can always count on D.A. to do sloppy, misleading work. Figure 5 strongly suggest that during SC22 the temperature was 9.6C and during SC23 it was 8.2. In actual fact the numbers were: SC22: 9.50, SC23: 9.97.

    I think the temperature is meant to suggest what the temperature will be after the cycle, and we have to wait ten years or so to know that. If there was a correlation between SC length and the temperature during it, it would be pretty useless for making a temperature prediction, wouldn’t it, unless we can precisely predict the cycle length in advence. My understanding of the argument is that since SC22 was unusually short and SC23 was unusually long, we should be going from some unusually warm years to some unusually cold ones (during SC24).

  24. vukcevic says:
    July 3, 2010 at 5:40 am

    In my view the UK summer months are more likely to respond directly to the solar activity then the rest of the year when the Gulf Stream is predominant. http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETm.htm

    In tropics response to the sun is probably more or less constant throughout the year, the higher latitudes would depend on the rate the Gulf Stream is pumping warm water…..
    _____________________________________________________
    Thanks for the response.You seem to have the correct idea. Instead of looking at Global climate change look at regions. My state (North Carolina) is certainly dominated by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation

    North to south through the middle of the state
    North – Raleigh NC
    Middle – Fayetteville NC
    South – Lumberton NC

    Unless of course the weather station is sitting at an airport.
    href=”http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425723080040&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1″>Norfolk City and Norfolk International Airport

  25. Gail Comb says:
    July 3, 2010 at 5:43 am

    “….. This and the take over of our food supply by the international cartels has been giving me nightmares for half a decade. ……”
    ————————-
    well few days back I stumbled over a short article at website run by Credit Suisse with the title
    “The Hunt for Land Has Already Started”
    that set some red lights blinking in my brain, I do not rally know what to make of it but it appears appears to me as the big players with money surplus money on hand , be it countries or corporations , are out to use that money to grab possession of all of the worlds farmland ( arable land ) they can get their hands on either through direct buy or long term lease arrangements. (And the bankers drooling to get a part of the action as facilitators. ) . So perhaps there is good reason to have nightmares.

    Link to the page is below

    http://emagazine.credit-suisse.com/app/article/index.cfm?fuseaction=OpenArticle&aoid=284894&coid=162&lang=EN

  26. Given the “chaotic” nature of complex dynamic systems [Lorenz, 1960 - '64], juxtaposing planetary atmospheric-ocean temperatures with sunspot cycles regardless of cloud cover and other significant variables provides a valid qualitative rather than quantitative correspondence, indicative rather than definitive of future circumstance.

    Over extended time-frames, all linear and sinusoidal projections inevitably exhibit fallacies of “inferred precision” and “persistence”. In nature, crude and vulgar estimates trump 3-digit derivations every time, while the notion that “natura non saltis fecit” (Nature makes no sudden leaps) ignores “punctuated equilibrium” in terms of historically abrupt and dramatic climate shifts. Over some 2.6-million years, Pleistocene ice ages interspersed with median 12,250-year “Long Summers” such as our current Holocene Interglacial Epoch have been quite well-defined.

    Whatever drives these swings, the fact is that if not for the 1,500-year Younger Dryas “cold shock” ending c. BC 7300, Earth would likely have reverted to miles-deep continental glaciations about AD 450, coincident with the Fall of Rome.
    Given a pending 70-year “dead sun” Maunder Minimum similar to that of 1645 – 1715, odds are that Planet Earth is overdue for a cyclical chill-phase lasting some 102,000 years.

  27. Vuk, the relationship in question is cycle length vs temp, not sunspot number vs temp.
    Leif, Vuk, why has no one plotted rate of change vs temp instead of cycle length. Probably one would have to look at both ascending and descending rates of change. It seems to me that the rate of change might be a better indicator of solar activity than either cycle length or sunspot number. Murray

  28. Murray Duffin says:
    July 3, 2010 at 8:47 am
    why has no one plotted rate of change vs temp instead of cycle length.
    You mean dT/dt vs. T? And no sunspot number whatsoever?
    The game is not to keep trying this and trying that, until by chance you get something you like [you know, people trying 20 things and finding one relation that is significant at the 95% level - which is what chance would give you with 20 things].

  29. Steinar Midtskogen says:
    July 3, 2010 at 8:11 am
    My understanding of the argument is that since SC22 was unusually short and SC23 was unusually long, we should be going from some unusually warm years to some unusually cold ones (during SC24).
    See, how D.A. has misled you. What he has been saying is that since he [following what blows in the wind] predicts Sc24 to be very low [and hence longer than even SC23] that we are in for a severe cooling. This is based on a flawed Figure.

  30. Murray Duffin says: July 3, 2010 at 8:47 am
    Vuk, the relationship in question is cycle length vs temp, not sunspot number vs temp.

    I think cycle length has only meaning if you assume energy integration. A short powerful cycle like SC 19 input far more energy into the ‘climate system’ than slightly longer but much weaker once, such as SC 13 &14.
    I am sure Dr. S. could give you more scientific answer.

    Gail Combs says: July 3, 2010 at 8:12 am
    You seem to have the correct idea. Instead of looking at Global climate change look at regions.

    The graphs relate to the CET (Central England temperatures), for which accuratelog term data are available. This is the area enclosed by triangle Lancashire, London and Bristol.
    Global averaging temperatures are a bit of nonsense.

  31. The real value to Archibald’s work is his willingness to stand up against a caterwaul of catastrophism, to speak out against international hoaxes, and to engage people in debate that would otherwise be stifled.

    You can nit-pick his science, but you cannot fault his courage and dedication to the common good. When others equivocated, David Archibald shone like a lighthouse. His struggle is our struggle. He is a hero to mankind.

  32. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 3, 2010 at 7:00 am
    For example this illustration (from his slide show) is very interesting
    You can always count on D.A. to do sloppy, misleading work. Figure 5 strongly suggest that during SC22 the temperature was 9.6C and during SC23 it was 8.2. In actual fact the numbers were: SC22: 9.50, SC23: 9.97.

    You’re right, leif. But if you challenge David on this he moves the goalposts. He claims that the temperature decline will happne over then next solar cycle (SC24). However this is not the way Butler & Johnson have presented the analysis since they clearly state that the data points are the 11 year mean temperatures centred on the maximum and minimum of the solar cycle (see legend).

    In any case if David’s ‘method’ was correct we should have seen a drop in temperatures over solar cycle 21, since that followed SC20 (the ‘long’ cycle). David Archibald’s work is full of holes. I’m surprised Anthony promotes it so readily.

  33. Stephan says:
    July 3, 2010 at 12:51 am
    Unfortunately for some good o’l DA has been the only one that got nearly all the predictions right (except the 0.4c temp drop ). The solar SSN is on course to max ~40. The temps anomaly will likely fall more than 0.4C in coming months see R spencer SST

    In ~2006 David has also predicted a 2 deg decline in temperatures over “the next few years”.

  34. Björn says:
    July 3, 2010 at 8:31 am

    Gail Comb says:
    July 3, 2010 at 5:43 am

    “….. This and the take over of our food supply by the international cartels has been giving me nightmares for half a decade. ……”
    ————————-
    well few days back I stumbled over a short article at website run by Credit Suisse with the title
    “The Hunt for Land Has Already Started”
    that set some red lights blinking in my brain, I do not rally know what to make of it but it appears appears to me as the big players with money surplus money on hand , be it countries or corporations , are out to use that money to grab possession of all of the worlds farmland ( arable land ) they can get their hands on either through direct buy or long term lease arrangements. (And the bankers drooling to get a part of the action as facilitators. ) . So perhaps there is good reason to have nightmares.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Thanks for the link.

    I and a bunch of other farmers worldwide have been following this issue for several years. Believe me there is a very good reason to have nightmares. Here are a few:

    Thanks to NAFTA “According to a study by Jose Romero and Alicia Puyana carried out for the federal government of Mexico, between 1992 and 2002, the number of agricultural households fell an astounding 75% – from 2.3 million to 575, 000 click (Well that accounts for a few million illegals in the USA.)

    A Farmer is Committing Suicide Every 32 Minutes

    “Now the full toll—surely among the largest sustained waves of suicides in human history—is becoming apparent. And as Sainath emphasizes, these numbers still underestimate the disaster, since women farmers are excluded from the official statistics… It is important that the figure of 150,000 farm suicides is a bottom line estimate…. As Professor Nagaraj puts it: “There is likely to be a serious underestimation of suicides…what has driven the huge increase in farm suicides, particularly in the Big Four or ’Suicide SEZ’ States? “Overall,” says Professor Nagaraj, “there exists since the mid-90s, an acute agrarian crisis. That’s across the country. In the Big Four and some other states, specific factors compound the problem…. Cultivation costs have shot up in these high input zones, with some inputs seeing cost hikes of several hundred per cent… Meanwhile, prices have crashed, as in the case of cotton, due to massive U.S.-EU subsidies to their growers. All due to price rigging with the tightening grip of large corporations over the trade in agricultural commodities.” click

    Europe is also targeted as well as the other western countries.
    “After clearing her throat and leaning slowly forward, the chair-lady said: “I don’t think you understand what EU policy is. ….. To do this it will be necessary to shift around one million farmers off the land

    There in a nutshell you have the whole tragic story of the clinically instigated demise of European farming over the past three decades. We protested that with unemployment running at 20 percent how would one provide jobs for another million farmers dumped on the streets of Warsaw? This was greeted with a stony silence, eventually broken by a lady from Portugal, who rather quietly remarked that since Portugal joined the European Union, 60 percent of small farmers had already left the land. “The European Union is simply not interested in small farms,” she said.” click

    “Today I resigned from the staff of the International Monetary Fund after over 12 years, and after 1000 days of official fund work in the field, hawking your medicine and your bag of tricks to governments and to peoples in Latin America and the Caribbean and Africa. To me, resignation is a priceless liberation, for with it I have taken the first big step to that place where I may hope to wash my hands of what in my mind’s eye is the blood of millions of poor and starving peoples. Mr. Camdessus, the blood is so much, you know, it runs in rivers. It dries up too; it cakes all over me; sometimes I feel that there is not enough soap in the whole world to cleanse me from the things that I did do in your name and in the name of your predecessors, and under your official seal.

    With those words, Davison Budhoo, a senior economist with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for more than 12 years, publicly resigned in May, 1988….” click

    The World bank/IMF Structural Adjustment Programs are what Mr. Budhoo is talking about click

    “SAPs often result in deep cuts in programmes like education, health and social care, and the removal of subsidies designed to control the price of basics such as food and milk. So SAPs hurt the poor most, because they depend heavily on these services and subsidies.

    SAPs encourage countries to focus on the production and export of primary commodities such as cocoa and coffee to earn foreign exchange. But these commodities have notoriously erratic prices subject to the whims of global markets which can depress prices just when countries have invested in these so-called ‘cash crops’.

    By devaluing the currency and simultaneously removing price controls, the immediate effect of a SAP is generally to hike prices up three or four times, increasing poverty to such an extent that riots are a frequent result.

  35. Mike D. says:
    July 3, 2010 at 10:04 am
    You can nit-pick his science, but you cannot fault his courage and dedication to the common good. When others equivocated, David Archibald shone like a lighthouse. His struggle is our struggle. He is a hero to mankind.
    As Stephen Schneider famously said “its OK to lie a bit to get your message across”.

  36. Steinar Midtskogen says:
    July 3, 2010 at 8:11 am


    Leif Svalgaard:

    You can always count on D.A. to do sloppy, misleading work. Figure 5 strongly suggest that during SC22 the temperature was 9.6C and during SC23 it was 8.2. In actual fact the numbers were: SC22: 9.50, SC23: 9.97.

    I think the temperature is meant to suggest what the temperature will be after the cycle, and we have to wait ten years or so to know that.

    That’s not what the graph says – and it’s not the way B&J did the original regression analysis. David Archibald just makes it up as he goes along.

  37. Leif Svalgaard says:

    See, how D.A. has misled you. What he has been saying is that since he [following what blows in the wind] predicts Sc24 to be very low [and hence longer than even SC23] that we are in for a severe cooling. This is based on a flawed Figure.

    Well, my attention was on statements like “Solar Cycle 22 was 9.5 years long. On the basis that Solar Cycle 23 is thirteen years long, there will be a 2.2 degree celcius decline in temperature in Hanover, New Hampshire over the next decade”. He may be, probably is, wrong about the physics determining solar activity and climate changes, but that doesn’t prove that there can’t be some (unexplained) correlation between the length of a cycle and temperatures during the next (locally or globally). Which is what caught my attention.

  38. Steinar Midtskogen says:
    July 3, 2010 at 12:00 pm
    He may be, probably is, wrong about the physics
    He is wrong in Figure 5 as presented here. I see blue and green lines marking blue [SC22] (9.6,9.6) and green [SC23] (12.5,8.2). Neither of these values are correct (as I said). This is bad ‘science’, bad for WUWT, bad for skeptics, bad for everybody. And should be bad for D.A., too.

  39. Leif Svalgaard says:

    He is wrong in Figure 5 as presented here. [...] This is bad ‘science’

    The Y-axis simply states “mean temperature”, not for which period. I agree that it could be clearer, but I don’t think it makes it bad science (or ‘science’) for that reason, to require the reader to read the text as well (which also could be more explicit). I’d rather say it’s poorly communicated. Many years at university and exams have taught me that also real scientists may lack writing skills though their understanding of the science is impeccable.

    Anyway, even if D.A. did everything wrong, that hasn’t convinced me that there is no correlation between cycle length and temperature during the next cycle.

  40. Steinar Midtskogen says:
    July 3, 2010 at 1:04 pm
    The Y-axis simply states “mean temperature”, not for which period.
    The caption underneath the Figure states: “The mean temperature at Armagh for 11 year intervals, centred on years of sunspot maximum…”

    may lack writing skills though their understanding of the science is impeccable.
    D.A. does not lack in writing skills, but in understanding of the science

    Anyway, even if D.A. did everything wrong, that hasn’t convinced me that there is no correlation between cycle length and temperature during the next cycle.
    And what convinces you that there is?

  41. Dear Anthony, with Dr.Archibald´s constant company, check if you are not already in free fall around the barycenter. ☺

  42. Svalgaard, you may be proven correct ( I do not know enough about the subject to say one way or the other), but do you have to be such a pompous ass with a large chip on your shoulder? Your responses sound like someone who is cornered. I think people would pay more attention if you weren’t such a jerk about it. Nobody is hacking and slashing at you, merely asking questions. The internet does not make bullying OK. Have a cup of tea and chill out a bit.

  43. Leif Svalgaard says: July 3, 2010 at 1:43 pm
    Your best argument that convinced me is that TSI is 10 zillion times stronger than HMF B, so there is no reason to expect that the length of one solar cycle will affect the temperature in the next:

    http://friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Solar%20Cycle%20-%20Friis-Chr_Lassen-.pdf

    So any “relationship” remains a mystery!

    Watson: “This is indeed a mystery,” I remarked. “What do you imagine that it means?”

    Holmes: I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theories before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts…

    http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/805-agw-revisited.html

  44. Enneagram says: July 3, 2010 at 1:58 pm
    Dear Anthony, with Dr.Archibald´s constant company, check if you are not already in free fall around the barycenter.
    I am waiting for dr.bill to give a rationale.

  45. David Ball says:
    July 3, 2010 at 2:25 pm
    Have a cup of tea and chill out a bit.
    Did I hit a raw nerve there?
    OK, I’ll leave poor D.A. in peace for now. No need to grind his nose in it anymore, is there? But it would be nice if you could stick to the science rather than being personal.

  46. Invariant says:
    July 3, 2010 at 2:42 pm
    Holmes: I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theories before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts…
    Seems to describe D.A.’s work well.

  47. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 3, 2010 at 2:54 pm

    Did I hit a raw nerve there?
    OK, I’ll leave poor D.A. in peace for now. No need to grind his nose in it anymore, is there? But it would be nice if you could stick to the science rather than being personal.

    Irony – it’s what’s for dinner!

    Especially since you started with “You can always count on D.A. to do sloppy, misleading work.”

    Yeah, that’s very objective and sciencey. Nothing personal there, nooooooo.

    As someone who doesn’t even play a doctor on TV, I prescribe 250mg “chill” 3x day until the swelling goes down.

  48. My post was even tempered but sincere. Seems I am not the only one who dislikes the “blowhardedness” of your posts. Check your gigantic nordic ego at the door next time you enter. Remember that even you may be wrong.

  49. vukcevic says:
    July 3, 2010 at 5:40 am
    Gail Combs says: July 3, 2010 at 4:24 am
    Since the air temperature is driven by the oceans and the oceans act as a giant “capacitor” absorbing heat….

    In my view the UK summer months are more likely to respond directly to the solar activity then the rest of the year when the Gulf Stream is predominant. http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETm.htm
    In tropics response to the sun is probably more or less constant throughout the year, the higher latitudes would depend on the rate the Gulf Stream is pumping warm water.
    One could also speculate that the saline warm waters are likely to be impeded by the magnetic field; since the GMF is variable than the CETs would respond appropriately.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETlmt.htm (with reversed scale for GMF )

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC10.htm

    Cumulative effect of rising solar activity (rising temperature in the Equatorial Atlantic) and dramatic fall in strength of the Earth’s magnetic field may have caused sudden uplift in temperatures in early 1700’s.
    Next rapid decline in GMF was 1910-1950 and then from 1975 – present.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TGa.gif

    vukcevic,

    Aren’t you forgetting just one wee tiny detail in all of that? The Earth’s rotation, tilt, and nutation.

  50. David Ball says:
    July 3, 2010 at 3:58 pm
    My post was even tempered but sincere. Seems I am not the only one who dislikes the “blowhardedness” of your posts. Check your gigantic nordic ego at the door next time you enter. Remember that even you may be wrong.

    I don’t get this at all.

    At some time or another most of us who read this blog must have wished that someone – anyone – could come up with the absolute proof that AGW is a crock. We’d love to see the confident sneer wiped off the smug faces of the AGW crowd. We tend, therefore, to be more receptive to some of the “way out” hypotheses that are put forward. David Archibald has tapped in to this mindset. He has taken the fairly loose correlation which exists between solar cycle length (SCL) and temperature and used it to form the basis of his argument against AGW. Most of the original work was produced by other scientists.

    Unfortunately the SCL/temperature link falls apart under close analysis. That, though, hasn’t stopped David. He simply changes the rules. There are plenty of good scientists who are either sceptical or ‘agnostic’ about catastrophic AGW, e.g. Spencer, Lindzen …. Svalgaard even. The problem is none of these people can give you the absolute assurances you are looking for. David produces results which appear to satisfy our need. Doubts and uncertainties are not a problem for David. Unfortunately his analysis is badly flawed. It is, as Leif says, “sloppy”.

  51. David Ball says:
    July 3, 2010 at 2:25 pm
    Merovign says:
    July 3, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    Just MHO from a psychological viewpoint of problems of long term specialization.
    What we have here is the results of a lifetime of researching and forming opinions using new approaches to old problems, reporting what he knows, and building a body of work that reflects his knowledge base.

    There are many among us that have a wider base of viewpoints that are not what he has studied and confounds him to entertain new ideas that may be / may not be congruent with what research he has done in the past. The problem of being in the lime light and publishing so much for so many years, is there is a body of his past expressed opinions that are being, questioned by others newer to the scene and with different basic ideas on how the electromagnetics of the solar system interacts to give results he has not entertained in the past.

    At some point in the gradual transition in the understood science as new ideas enter the mainstream and modify or replace older ones, those that do not deeply consider the new approaches and incorporate them into their way of thinking get defensive in areas where yielding to a compromise is unforgiving.

    Gate keeping, stonewalling, and outright dismissal are the usual signs of a past prime scientist, too busy with maintenance of previous opinions to learn the leading edges of the area of expertise as it expands rapidly in all directions, hence the frustration well established professionals exhibit under pressure from multiple fronts, that they don’t have time enough or interest enough to study.

    That is why usually break throughs come from the sidelines where pressure and defensive actions (and impressions such as those by the two commenters above, as a result) don’t slow down the new curious seeker of the truth.

  52. Good onya David A and Anthony!

    Historical climate data compiled by many historians from daily records show that Europe had at least five cold periods since 1000 A.D. Each of these cooling periods is well documented in historical records of the day, including descriptions of crop failures and severity of winters.

    Each cooling periods coincided with increases in the Be10 and C14 production in the atmosphere that occured at:

    1010 – 1050 Oort Minimum
    1280 – 1350 Wolf Minimum (Black plague ~ 1349 A.D.)
    1460 – 1550 Sporer Minimum (double dip minima at ~1480 and ~1520)
    1645 – 1715 Maunder Minimum (coldest part of the Little Ice Age)
    1790 – 1820 Dalton Minimum

    It is generally belived that the increased Be10 and C14 production was caused by an increase in amount of cosmic rays hitting the Earth because of a weaker Solar magnetic field.

    Of course, full-time Sophist, Leif Svalgaard does not let facts get in the way of his one man mission to drag the Scientific Principle through the mud. He has a pre-determined conclusion which he believes gives him the right to ignore 95 % of the evidence and highlight the 5 % that agrees with his model.

  53. Leif, are you really saying the sun has no effect on climate, or sunspots, or what exactly?

  54. Excellent Job by the both of you Anthony. In an era when Politics thinks Science is merely a vehicle for promoting bad policy, people like you and David are important for the information exchange….. The debate that was supposed to be over, etc;-)

    Keep up the good work…. We’re all out here are reading, listening and informed because of it.

  55. David Ball says:
    July 3, 2010 at 3:58 pm
    Remember that even you may be wrong.
    I have been wrong many times and undoubtedly will be in the future. That is not the issue, which is the incredible sloppiness and outright falsehoods in D.A.’s ‘work’. Somebody once had this to say about it: http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html
    If this is your hero and this is your science, we are, indeed, all doomed. No wonder AGW has an easy time.

    cohenite says:
    July 3, 2010 at 7:08 pm
    Leif, are you really saying the sun has no effect on climate, or sunspots, or what exactly?
    Of course it has an effect: all of 0.1C.

    Ninderthana says:
    July 3, 2010 at 6:23 pm
    Each cooling periods coincided with increases in the Be10 and C14 production in the atmosphere that occurred at…
    There is mounting evidence of an inconvenient truth:

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1003/1003.4989.pdf

    “These inconsistencies all suggest that “atmospheric” or “local” effects, which may be at least as large as or larger than changes in the input production function, are apparently able to modify the ratio of production to concentration of 10Be. This result compliments recent climatic studies e.g., Field, Schmidt and Shindall, 2009, and references therein, which suggest climatic effects will produce significant modifications to the production to concentration ratio of 10Be.”

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

    In general, the issue is the poor quality-work of D.A., which assertion, I note, nobody has challenged here. David is certainly a gentleman [as per all the help provided to our host], but a scholar he ain’t.

  56. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 3, 2010 at 8:15 pm
    [--snip--]

    In general, the issue is the poor quality-work of D.A., which assertion, I note, nobody has challenged here. David is certainly a gentleman [as per all the help provided to our host], but a scholar he ain’t.
    According to whom, and with what proof of that assertion?

    Or is that merely your own opinion?

  57. 899 says:
    July 3, 2010 at 8:30 pm
    >i>”David is certainly a gentleman [as per all the help provided to our host], but a scholar he ain’t.”
    According to whom, and with what proof of that assertion?
    I assume that the Gentleman bit does not need proof, and that you are referring to his sloppy work, which speaks for itself, should you care to look closely. Even on this very blog there has several instances of this. The latest being the present topic. Perhaps you would take upon you to show that David’s analysis is not flawed? or is your faith strong enough that evidence is not needed?

    Or is that merely your own opinion?
    And, yes, that is my considered opinion.

  58. Leif says the solar effect on climate has a temperature measure of 0.1C; gosh, even TAR puts it at 0.4C; of course it was downgraded in AR4 to 0.1C; that’s over the 20thC; I guess in AR5, or what ever they’re going to call the next stupid edition, an increase in solar activity will cause cooling. Anyway, the lads at RC have a different take:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/

    The RC boys say this:

    “For instance, the GISS model equilibrium runs with 2xCO2 or a 2% increase in solar forcing both show a maximum around 20N to 20S around 300mb (10 km):” this is about the THS; gee Leif, a doubling of CO2 has as much temperature effect/forcing as a 2% increase in solar output. Isn’t life grand?!

  59. Ninderthana says:
    July 3, 2010 at 6:23 pm
    Each cooling periods coincided with increases in the Be10 and C14 production in the atmosphere that occurred at…
    More from http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.2675.pdf line 222:
    “Indeed this implies that more than 50% the 10Be flux increase around, e.g., 1700 A.D., 1810 A.D. and 1895 A.D. is due to non-production related increases!”, i.e. climate, volcanoes, local effects.
    So, the hallowed correlations may simply be correlating climate with climate.

  60. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 3, 2010 at 8:15 pm
    Of course it has an effect: all of 0.1C. That is only if one looks exclusively at TSI. There are other interactions between the earth and the sun. Some we may not even be aware of. You are being disingenuous once again.

  61. I certainly do not believe any (including Archibald) have all the answers. Truthfully we are a long, long way from that. What I find distasteful is the presentation of ones own views as being all encompassing and absolutely correct. This is hubris of the highest order. Leave the childish egos out of it. At least Willis E. is willing to admit that what we do not know, far outweighs what we do know. Including the interaction between the earth and the sun. I believe it is I who touched a nerve.

  62. John Finn says: (July 3, 2010 at 5:47 pm) David produces results which appear to satisfy our need. Doubts and uncertainties are not a problem for David. Unfortunately his analysis is badly flawed. It is, as Leif says, “sloppy”.

    Which neatly encapsulates my dislocation, John. I find David’s conclusions seductive. I find Leif’s compelling.
        David’s: “Our generation has known a warm, giving Sun, but the next generation will suffer a Sun that is less giving, and the Earth will be less fruitful.” has stayed firmly in my mind for a couple of years, and I tend to believe the conclusion of a cold time coming; but… after reading extensively here (and being heavily influenced by Leif) I do not think it is the sun — or at least what we know of the sun right now…
        …so I will just keep reading; and continue pleased that comments such as yours above are cautioning on this and other threads

  63. cohenite says:
    July 3, 2010 at 8:53 pm
    a doubling of CO2 has as much temperature effect/forcing as a 2% increase in solar output. Isn’t life grand?!
    Well, if that is what you really believe, we can put some numbers to that. A 2% increase in solar output would give you a 2%/4 = 0.5% = 288K*0.5%/100 = 1.44K temperature increase. Except that the Sun has not varied that much the past ~10,000 years, more like 10-20 times less.

    David Ball says:
    July 3, 2010 at 9:01 pm
    There are other interactions between the earth and the sun.
    None that have the energy required.

    Some we may not even be aware of.
    And that have effects that we are also not aware of?

    Roger Carr says:
    July 3, 2010 at 9:10 pm
    I find David’s conclusions seductive.
    And that why they are dangerous. D.A. is the ultimate, likable Alarmist, seducing people to drink the Koolaid.

  64. Leif Svalgaard says:

    Steinar Midtskogen says:

    Anyway, even if D.A. did everything wrong, that hasn’t convinced me that there is no correlation between cycle length and temperature during the next cycle.

    And what convinces you that there is?

    The same exercise has been done for other stations and the trend is the same, nothing more. My main concern is that there aren’t that many cycles with realible temperature records and when the parameters can be picked freely (without having to prove any physical explanations) anyone will eventually find coincidents that look like correlations. My basic view on climate is that it’s too complex to be likely driven by one main factor, so the claim doesn’t seem likely to me, but if one hypothesis allows itself to be falsified by temperature in a decade (unlike the CO2 hypothesis), I’m willing to hear it. Since SC22 was short and SC23 was long, it cannot be the most important driver unless SC24 becomes colder than SC23. Well (relatively) soon know.

  65. Goodness!! How did this thread turn into a “pile on Leif” party??

    Sorry, Leif! Some folks seem pretty new to WUWT and don’t appreciate your rapier wit AND dry Scandinavian humor! (not to mention your Encyclopedia Galactica-style of scientific knowledge!)

    Meanwhile, the minimum grinds on…. fascinating event!

  66. Enneagram says:
    July 3, 2010 at 1:58 pm

    Dear Anthony, with Dr.Archibald´s constant company, check if you are not already in free fall around the barycenter. ☺

    The presentations in Canberra by Tim Curtin, David Archibald and Anthony were linked to area the of interest of each speaker and were all individual with no overlap except a common aim to knock down some AGW false idols.

    I was aware of the controversy in David’s analysis but enjoyed each presentation, given each had strong and not so strong points, but that’s science, and at least these guys have the guts to get out there and expound their thesis in a public forum.

    But I would like to see DA to come out and vigorously defend his analysis in threads like this.

  67. David Ball says:
    July 3, 2010 at 9:09 pm
    Including the interaction between the earth and the sun. I believe it is I who touched a nerve.
    No nerve there. I have stated my view on this before.
    The point of my initial post was not about D.A. [or I] having all the answers, but simply pointing out that that one Figure was misleading and sloppy. If you have any problems with that, then explain why the Figure is not misleading. What the meaning of the green and blue lines might be?

    Steinar Midtskogen says:
    July 3, 2010 at 9:44 pm
    Leif Svalgaard says:

    Steinar Midtskogen says:
    The same exercise has been done for other stations and the trend is the same, nothing more.
    I have not been able to find any convincing analysis by D.A. [or others for that matter] that show that the length of the solar cycle predicts the temperature during the next cycle, but would be interested in what specific ‘exercises’ you refer to.

    CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
    July 3, 2010 at 9:52 pm
    Goodness!! How did this thread turn into a “pile on Leif” party??
    If people cannot bring any science to the table, they often resort to ‘piling on’. Just human nature. So far, the ‘piling on’ has been light and mediocre. I have seen much better ‘piling ons’ in other threads.

  68. Of interest is the “partyline” eg Lean 2010

    From 2014 to 2019,global annual surface temperatures are expected to
    increase only minimally (0.03◦C), as declining solar irradiance cancels much of the anthropogenic warming, analogous to the recent period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance during the descending phase of solar cycle 23 countered much of the anthropogenic warming.

    This would imply high sensitivity and hence irreducibility ( with all its random consequences) eg I. Zaliapin and M. Ghil 2010, on the other hand as JL arguments are essentially linear,it may be best to bury them at the bottom of the garden.

  69. Leif, less it be said, as has been said, that this is a pile on Leif thread, let me say that David Archibald can look after himself so I don’t want to follow that line that it is you or him, but I am nonplussed by this comment of yours:

    July 3, 2010 at 9:23 pm
    cohenite says:
    July 3, 2010 at 8:53 pm
    a doubling of CO2 has as much temperature effect/forcing as a 2% increase in solar output. Isn’t life grand?!
    Well, if that is what you really believe, we can put some numbers to that. A 2% increase in solar output would give you a 2%/4 = 0.5% = 288K*0.5%/100 = 1.44K temperature increase. Except that the Sun has not varied that much the past ~10,000 years, more like 10-20 times less.

    First of all I didn’t say it, Real Climate said it; secondly, your calculation is slightly odd. For instance for solar cycle 23 the solar output varied only 0.1%. yet RC are equating 2XCO2 = 2% variation in solar output; don’t you find that strange?

    Anyway, I thought the sun was now in its main sequence where solar output increases ~ 4% every billion years so a sudden 2% increase is unlikely. But it’s not just about increases, the sun can decrease as well. As a matter of interest how much do you think solar activity dropped during the Maunder and what effect did that have on temperature?

  70. With respect to the lecture tour, one lady drove eleven hours across South Australia, from west of Ceduna, to hear us in Adelaide. Another lady attend in Melbourne then wanted to hear us again, so she drove four hours to Hamilton to the lecture there and then four hours back to Melbourne.

    Anthony is a living saint, so I tried to get him to heal a neighbour of mine in Perth, who is in a wheelchair after ankle surgery. I said to Anthony,”Lay your healing hands on this pathetic cripple, so that he may walk again.” But nothing happened.

    REPLY: Take that last paragraph with a grain of salt – some humor there, the neighbour was not offended, he laughed. But I was beet red. – Anthony

  71. Molon Labe

    It’s you Yanks that have the funny accent. Anthony has a hearing impairment.

  72. Christoph

    I wouldn’t say “Lucky them” but it did a lot of good. The Italians invaded Greece and the Greeks belted them. Then the Germans had to do the Italians’ job for them. They finished up fighting the Greeks, the Brits and us Australians. All up it delayed Operation Barbarossa about 8 weeks, so that Father Winter caught the Germans outside Moscow instead of miles to the east. We had no hope but Churchill had promised the Greeks and we kept the promise.

  73. 899 says: July 3, 2010 at 5:21 pm
    vukcevic,
    Aren’t you forgetting just one wee tiny detail in all of that? The Earth’s rotation, tilt, and nutation.

    No, Gulf stream current is an offshoot of an interconnected complex Atlantic currents system http://www.bigmarinefish.com/map_currents_atlantic.jpg
    which regardless of time of the year (revolution, tilt or nutation) it always catches range of insulations (including maximum) from both hemispheres, which eventually averages out due to its high velocity . Its effect is felt all the way from tropics to the Arctic., there is more to it than IPCC’s CO2.

    BTW. Correlations for the AMO index and the Arctic temperatures are now calculated and are here:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMOFz.htm

  74. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 3, 2010 at 8:15 pm
    I have been wrong many times and undoubtedly will be in the future. That is not the issue, which is the incredible sloppiness and outright falsehoods in D.A.’s ‘work’. Somebody once had this to say about it: http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html

    —————————

    I followed that link right up to the last line, then for some reason burst out laughing ;-)

  75. I stand corrected but I thought RC claimed a 2x CO2 = 2DegC. Not 2% increase in TSI

  76. Roger Carr says:
    July 3, 2010 at 9:10 pm

    John Finn says: (July 3, 2010 at 5:47 pm) David produces results which appear to satisfy our need. Doubts and uncertainties are not a problem for David. Unfortunately his analysis is badly flawed. It is, as Leif says, “sloppy”.

    Which neatly encapsulates my dislocation, John. I find David’s conclusions seductive. I find Leif’s compelling.

    Roger

    When I first started looking into AGW some years ago I wanted to believe much of the anti-AGW literature (including David’s).
    I was totally cheesed of with being told how the “science was settled”. Unfortunately the ‘research’ which seemed to produce the most definite and “seductive” conclusions often turned out to be the most dubious. I’m now forced to accept that there is not going to be a ‘eureka’ moment when the truth will be revealed in a single discovery. It’s going to take decades after decade of careful observations before any sort of conclusions can be made. I’m still sceptical of catastrophic AGW. I think the feedback issue (often covered independently on WUWT by Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer) is an area of huge uncertainy. It’s also possible the sun will plays a bigger role than it appears at present. Dr Svalgaard doesn’t rule out that possibility – but he makes the point that, for that to be the case, the climate would need to be highly sensitive. It’s perhaps worth noting that the pro-AGW crowd are happy to accept a solar influence. It is the only way they can explain the early 20th century warming.

    Anyway, the main lesson I’ve learned over the past few years is that scepticism needs to be applied in all cases – not just those we don’t like.

  77. When is the DA temperature response to Solar Cycle Length

    David has clearly managed to confuse WUWT readers on this issue. Understandably so, I claim that David simply creates his own ad hoc temp/SCL relationship depending on the period under discussion.

    The following is from this paper http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Solar%20Cycles%2024%20and%2025%20and%20Predicted%20Climate%20Response.pdf (available on David’s web site). Here David is discussing THE RECENT TEMPERATURE RECORD IN NORTH AMERICA (~5th page). Th esecond paragraph reads:

    The temperature profile over the period shows three distinct trends: a relatively
    stable period from 1905 to 1953 averaging 16.3°C, a relatively steep decline of 1.4°C
    over the 15 years to 1968 due to a weak solar cycle 20
    , and then a slight rise to the
    current day with an average of 15.8°C to 2003.

    According to David the 1.4 deg decline between 1953 and 1968 was “due to a weak solar cycle 20″. But solar cycle 20 didn’t begin until 1964 (and ended in 1976). Apparently this cycle caused a temperature decline more than a decade before it started. According to David’s ‘latest rule’, the decline should be over the following cycle. In other words, temperatures should have started to fall from ~1976 onwards. In fact, the temperature decline at these US stations (and these are the ones he’s carefully selected) began just about the time the strongest cycle ever recorded (SC19) was starting.

    This is not an isolated case. David’s work is littered with contradictions – some of which, I note, he has now removed. The original Armagh research by Butler & Johnson used temperature data (11 years mean) centred on the maxima and minima of the cycle in question – not the next cycle. In the above plot, B&J have included the data points for SC21. They clearly state that the temperature data is from 1796-1992. This gives them data for 5-6 years after the SC21 minimum (in ~1986) which is enough to calculate the 11 year mean.

    The original timeframe for David’s predicted temperature decline shows his prediction to be demonstrably wrong – so he’s changed it. Easy!

  78. 899 says: July 3, 2010 at 5:21 pm
    …………..
    The CETs summer/ winter anomaly oscillates with 50-60 year cycle. http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETsw.htm
    Long term summer anomaly shows no change, which would indicate that it is related to the insolation.
    Long term winter anomaly has a rising trend and I attribute this to rise in velocity of Gulf Stream. In my view possible cause is the reduction in strength of the Earth’s magnetic field, affecting the Arctic’s currents circulation, for which there is a strong correlation.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm

  79. Re: John Finn says:
    July 4, 2010 at 4:12 am

    A slight correction to my previous post. The statement for DA’s paper is not on the 5th page – but on page 4 of David’s paper (Page 32 of E&E) .

    I’ve just noticed to-day’s date – does that mean US posters will be otherwise occupied for the rest of the day.

  80. Leif,
    I found this paper from the names on the plot above:

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/armagh_temp_history.pdf

    by C.J. Butler and D.J. Johnston

    A Provisional Long Mean Air Temperature Series
    for Armagh Observatory

    In its fig7, it has a minimum to minimum length and it does not look like your
    http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA19.png plot.

    Of course it is filtering and adding 1 to the cycle number from what I understand of the caption:
    Figure7 The Mean Temperature at Armagh for 11
    year intervals against the Sunspot Cycle Length smoothed with a 1-2-2-2-1 filter, as determined from (a):successive maxima in the sunspot number curve, and ( b)
    successive minima. The value plotted for the Sunspot Cycle Length has been shifted by one cycle to take into account the delay in the response of the temperature at Armagh discussed in Sections 3,4.

    It is a puzzling plot. It displays the temperature of the cycle against the length of the previous cycle, and I guess that is where D.A. got the idea to use it for a prediction.

    I am in no position to know if the data in the published plots are the same , the abstract is.

    And I cannot even guess what this 1-2- etc filtering does, which is what probably makes your plot different than the one in the publication.

  81. Hi Anthony & David, your travels around Australia were not particularly greulling criss crossing. Some of us kept up schedules like this for years. One day we bought a new Cessna Citation V with long range fuel tanks to fly for example from Melbourne head office to Robe River, as direct line was far shorter than via adelaide & Perth on commercial. The guys in the West called it “the flying overheads”.

    While in a jovial mode, this old joke came on the Net. I thought it worth repeating if you replace “ship” in the last line with “CAGW”…………………………………………

    A magician worked on a cruise ship. The gullible audience was different each week, so the magician did the same tricks over and over again. One problem:The captain’s parrot saw the shows each week and began to understand how the magician did every trick. Once he understood, he started shouting in
    the middle of the show:

    “Look, it’s not the same hat!”

    “Look, he’s hiding the flowers under the table.”

    “Hey, why are all the cards the ace of spades?”

    The magician was furious but couldn’t do anything. It was, after all,
    the captain’s parrot.

    The next day the ship sank. The magician found himself on a piece of wood in the
    middle of the sea with, as fate would have it, the parrot. They stared at each
    other with hatred but did not utter a word. This went on for a day and
    then another and then another.

    Finally on the fourth day, the parrot could not hold back:

    “OK, I give up. Where’s the f…..g ship?”

    REPLY: Heh. When flying your own plane you are in control. When flying Virgin Blue (aka iPod air), Rex (pray it doesn’t), or Tiger air (the baggage fee that roars) you are in control of nothing. -A

  82. anna v says:
    July 4, 2010 at 4:58 am
    Leif,
    I found this paper from the names on the plot above:

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/armagh_temp_history.pdf

    by C.J. Butler and D.J. Johnston

    David is using Fig 5 from this paper – not Fig 7. Fig 5 doesn’t mention shifting – nor does it mention the filter. The 1-2-2-2- filter was uded by F-C & Lassen. As far as I can tell this is just some arbitrary filtering to make the data fit better.

  83. cohenite says:
    July 3, 2010 at 10:49 pm
    First of all I didn’t say it, Real Climate said it;
    You seemed to go along with it, even quote it as important.

    secondly, your calculation is slightly odd. For instance for solar cycle 23 the solar output varied only 0.1%. yet RC are equating 2XCO2 = 2% variation in solar output; don’t you find that strange?
    No, 2% change in solar output would change the temperature 1.44 C, and 2XCO2 [according to RC] would also change the temperature by 1.44 C. What is so strange about that? What is strange to me is why you make an issue out of this or bring it up.

    As a matter of interest how much do you think solar activity dropped during the Maunder and what effect did that have on temperature?
    Less than 1 W/m2, corresponding to 0.05 C. http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf

  84. anna v says:
    July 4, 2010 at 4:58 am
    In its fig7, it has a minimum to minimum length and it does not look like your
    http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA19.png plot.

    I was trying to replicate Figure 5. The 1-2-2-2-1 filtering is so dubious that it is not worth wasting much time on. For example, with that filtering, the filtered lengths for cycle 22 and 23 cannot even be calculated yet, so what are SC22 and SC23 doing on the Figure?
    I don’t recall D.A. saying anything about shifting by one solar cycle. Check for yourself here: http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf
    He is saying: “what a 13 year long Solar Cycle 23 would look like. It follows that the temperature at Armagh will be 1.6 degrees lower. This effect is upon us right now.”

  85. Me thinks Svalgaard, Finn etc protesteth too much. They have worked themselves up into a lather repeating the same stuff over and over again. Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory says that the length of a solar cycle determines temperature over the following solar cycle. Solar Cycle 4, preceding the Dalton Minimum, was 13.6 years long. The cycles of the Dalton Minimum, 5 and 6, were each 12 years long.

    Solar Cycle 23, preceding the current minimum, was 12.5 years long. The important thing is that it was 3 years longer than Solar Cycle 22.

    I regard the Butler and Johnson figure as the Rosetta Stone of solar- climate studies. They applied Friis-Christensend and Lassen theory to the record of one weather station, and it worked. There is very little scatter about the line of best fit, which means it can be used as a predictive tool. So on top of their graph, I put on the lengths of Solar Cycles 22 and 23. Lo and behold, Armagh will be 1.4 degrees colder on average over Solar Cycle 24 than it was over Solar Cycle 23. Nothing is going to stop that from happening.

    The other thing that is causing the current cooling is that it is a de Vries cycle event, which has a 210 year period. The last de Vries cycle event was the Dalton Minimum, which started 210 years before the 223-24 transition. It is happening right on schedule.

    I have applied Butler and Johnson’s methodology to a number of other temperature records. Good correlations are seen in the CET, de Bilt, Archangel and four stations in the northeastern US. These latter four indicate a 2 degree C cooling for the latitude of the US-Canadian border.

    I finished my lectures on the tour by saying that Canadian agriculture will be back to trapping beavers by the end of the decade. A 2 degree fall should reduce the Canadian grain growing area to next to nothing.

  86. David Archibald says:
    July 4, 2010 at 7:12 am
    They applied Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory to the record of one weather station, and it worked. There is very little scatter about the line of best fit, which means it can be used as a predictive tool. So on top of their graph, I put on the lengths of Solar Cycles 22 and 23. Lo and behold, Armagh will be 1.4 degrees colder on average over Solar Cycle 24 than it was over Solar Cycle 23.
    The FC&L ‘theory’ works with 1-2-2-2-1 smoothing of the lengths. So to calculate the length of cycle 22 you need the lengths of 20-21-22-23-24 and for SC23 you need the lengths of 21-22-23-24-25. We don’t know all of these, so cannot apply the ‘theory’. We can make some informed guesses, e.g. that SC24 and 25 might be similar to SC23 or even a bit longer, say 12.5. SC20 was 11.21 yrs, SC21 10.34, SC22 10.04, and SC23 12.35. That means that the appropriate lengths to use on the graph would be SC22=(1*11.21+2*10.34+2*10.04+2*12.35+1*12.5)/8=11.15 and SC23=11.58 yr.
    Now, you can say that FC&L doesn’t apply strictly, etc, but that would just be excuses.

    Nothing is going to stop that from happening.
    It is this kind of unfounded Alarmism that is dangerous and should be beneath serious work.

  87. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 3, 2010 at 7:38 am


    Even better. Simply plot 11-yr mean Armagh temps versus min-to-min solar lengths:

    http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA19.png

    Leif, the value of R is quite small, but difficult to interpret without a table, so I’d suggest adding the confidence interval at 90% or 95% confidence levels. Undoubtedly in this figure zero will be included in the confidence interval and then one can safely say “there is no trend here at all, only noise.” Despite their limitations, I prefer confidence intervals to R or R-squared as indicators of significance.

  88. I would be very interested indeed to read a scientific assessment by Prof. Svalgaard Dr. Jeff Glassman’s apparent evidence for an amplified signal of the Sun’s radiance in the ‘official’ surface temperature record from 1850.

    http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/sgw.html

    Dr. Glassman’s analysis would seem to be either good evidence for some sort of amplified sensitivity or, if it were not, is just a remarkable coincidence of probabilities which, conversely, would have to cast doubt on the shape of the temperature record itself.

    In other words, it is either a genuine finding or a poisoned chalice. To me this seems far, far more interesting than David Archibald’s rather shaky stuff.

    I understand that Dr. Glassman is a respectable retired physicist (77) who, during his working career in avionics last century, was recognised as an authority on noisy signal analysis in telemetry. Although a PhD scientist myself of 30+ years experience my own field is very different (chemothermodynamics and geochemistry), therefore I have tried hard to get some careful technical reviewing from various Net-prominent AGW proponents on Dr. Glassman’s approach but have so far failed.

  89. vukcevic says:
    July 4, 2010 at 6:36 am
    If that assumption is correct then there is an alternative:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETlmt.htm

    The problem with your alternative is that the strength of the Earth’s main field has been steadily decreasing the last 2500 years, which does not match the temperature record. Starting your graph in 1600 introduces a spurious ‘dependence’.

  90. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 4, 2010 at 8:05 am
    It is this kind of unfounded Alarmism that is dangerous and should be beneath serious work.
    It is this type of hyperbole that is silly and just undermines what you say.
    David is right, you really do protest too much. I suspect it’s because you feel threatened by his work. Wonder why?

  91. For those interested in Fig. 5 (main post), Dr. Archibald’s paper “Solar Cycle 24: Expectations and Implications” (D. Archibald 2009) provides similar analyses for the following stations, with similar positive results :

    CET 1659-2004
    Portland, Maine 1835-2005
    Hanover, NH 1835-2005

    It’d be interesting to see the results for other long-term instrumental temperature records, to map the regional nature of this relationship.

  92. “Are cold winters in Europe associated with low solar activity?”, Lockwood, Harrison, Woollings and Solanki 2010

    From the conclusion: “The results presented in section 4 allow rejection of the null hypothesis, and hence colder UK winters (relative to the longer-term trend) can therefore be associated with lower open solar flux (and hence with lower solar irradiance and higher cosmic ray flux).”

    Apprently, Michael Mann supports the conclusion of the paper :
    “Michael Mann of Penn State University in the US says the research “appears to be a very solid analysis”, which “provides further support” for the idea that the Sun was behind Europe’s cold winters 300 years ago. He adds that he and other researchers have shown that fluctuations in solar activity can also explain the relatively warm winters that occurred in Europe about 1000 years ago. “

  93. ecoeng says:
    July 4, 2010 at 8:24 am
    Dr. Glassman’s analysis would seem to be either good evidence for some sort of amplified sensitivity or…
    He uses [and recognizes] rather obsolete TSI reconstructions. There is less and less credence to the idea that there is a ‘background’ on which the solar cycle variation rides.

    Bruce Cobb says:
    July 4, 2010 at 8:52 am
    I suspect it’s because you feel threatened by his work. Wonder why?
    And I wonder why you think so. There is no threat deriving from pointing out his sloppiness.

  94. People should also be aware that Svalgaard’s numbers are based on “adjusted” GISS data. The collection of which we all understand to be in question. Svalgaard is trying to direct the discussion to a narrow focus. This is misleading. Do not fall for amateur debating techniques.

  95. “I’m on my way back to the USA from my Australian speaking tour. I’ll be offline a couple of days. There are many, many, people who I owe a debt of gratitude to, for kindnesses big and small, but, there is one person to who I owe a debt that is much more prominent. That person is Mr. David Archibald of Perth.”…
    _______________________________
    Hopefully, each of us will be so fortunate as to find a ‘Good Archibald’ coming to our assistance along the byways of life should the need arise. And, hopefully, each of us will be so kind as to acknowledge that person –regardless of their unintelligible accent or any other distinguishing characteristics. A friend is a friend is a friend; and we will go through life and meet far less than we ever thought possible for such a long –or short– span of time.

  96. David Ball says:
    July 4, 2010 at 10:23 am
    People should also be aware that Svalgaard’s numbers are based on “adjusted” GISS data.
    When you complain and whine [why not chill out a bit] at least be sure your facts are correct. You clearly missed that I used official [however good they are] Armagh data:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 3, 2010 at 7:38 am
    Temps http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/browse/badc/armagh/data/air_temperature/mean_annual_temp/tm-an-maxmin-dtr.dat

  97. David Ball says:
    July 4, 2010 at 10:23 am
    People should also be aware that Svalgaard’s numbers are based on “adjusted” GISS data. The collection of which we all understand to be in question. Svalgaard is trying to direct the discussion to a narrow focus. This is misleading. Do not fall for amateur debating techniques.

    People shoud be aware that David Ball is talking out of his hat. Leif Svalgaard has been using the Armagh data set p- excatly the one used by David Archibald.

  98. I appreciate the efforts of both Drs. Archibald and Svalgaard and their contributions on these pages. I’m hoping one day to see a thread discussing what they agree on.

  99. David Archibald says:
    July 4, 2010 at 7:12 am

    Me thinks Svalgaard, Finn etc protesteth too much

    David

    Nice of you to drop by again. Is there any chance you could answer one or two quick questions about your work.

    1. David, in your post you discuss the Butler & Johnson analysis. You say “So on top of their graph, I put on the lengths of Solar Cycles 22 and 23”. Could you explain exactly how you calculated the temperature value for SC22 and SC23?

    2. David in your paper: http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Solar%20Cycles%2024%20and%2025%20and%20Predicted%20Climate%20Response.pdf You state the following

    The temperature profile over the period shows three distinct trends: a relatively stable period from 1905 to 1953 averaging 16.3°C, a relatively steep decline of 1.4°C over the 15 years to 1968 due to a weak solar cycle 20, and then a slight rise to the current day with an average of 15.8°C to 2003.

    Can you explain the highlighted statement, David. It seems that you are suggesting that a drop in temperatures which began in the early 1950s was caused by a solar cycle which didn’t start until more than a decade later. I find this particularly puzzling because SC20 was a longer than average cycle (SC19 was shorter than average) and according to your current line of thinking the temperature decline should have taken place during the following cycle (i.e. SC21) which began in ~1976.

  100. David Archibald says:
    July 4, 2010 at 7:12 am

    Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory says that the length of a solar cycle determines temperature over the following solar cycle.

    Can you please give me a link to this theory? I have looked around but have only found

    http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

    by Lassen.

    It has an interesting similar plot from chinese blossoming times, but nowhere this : the length of the previous cycle determines the temperature of the next. The plots seem to me to be straight forward correlations of each cycle’s length and temperature.

    The only place I found a displacement of 11 years was in fig7 of Butler and Johnson.

  101. I’m back in the USA now.

    You know, Leif and Finn could do well to send a note of thanks too. You might not agree on the book and slide page presented, but surely you have thanks for David assisting me?

    That was the main purpose of this post. Though, I think I could have just put up the name and you’d say the same things. I’m disappointed that Leif would use the word “lie”.

    Interpretations of data differ, while I certainly support arguments on methods, I don’t support labeling a differing interpretation with that word.

  102. Svalgaard and Finn, please show whether this is adjusted data or raw. Just for everyone’s benefit. Data is important and certainly a big part of credibility. It is also worthy of note that this is not the only data source used by Archibald. A much broader analysis than the narrow scope of some.

  103. Leif Svalgaard says: July 4, 2010 at 8:37 am
    The problem with your alternative is that the strength of the Earth’s main field has been steadily decreasing the last 2500 years, which does not match the temperature record. Starting your graph in 1600 introduces a spurious ‘dependence’.

    Yes that is correct for something you call ‘dipole’, but the Arctic Ocean has a more complex situation then just a dipole. There is a conflict between rising and falling GMF field in the Arctic area and data for that particular fascet exist only from 1600. The average just happen to match temperature anomaly.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm

    The arithmetic average of two fields is in the area of Beaufort gyre (see the GMF polar area illustration). The BG circulation is currently moving towards Alaska away from Siberia in response to (reverse) changes of the area’s GMF.
    Also you should look at correlation calculation (end of the page). BTW correlation of AMO to GMFz is actually higher then that one to the Arctic temp anomaly if 6 year delay is eliminated. You might say ‘6 year delay’ is a fiddle.
    quote:
    On the average, it takes ice more than 6 years to drift from the Beaufort Sea to the Fram Strait and one year from the North Pole. During high AO years, ice drift from the Beaufort Sea to the Fram Strait takes more than a year longer, but ice travels faster from the North Pole to the Fram Strait. Page 20.

    http://www.geus.dk/program-areas/nature-environment/international/reports/geus_special_publ_nov_2004.pdf

    quote:
    The Fram Strait represents the unique deep water connection between the Arctic Ocean and the rest of the world ocean. Its bathymetry controls the exchange of water masses between the arctic basin and the north atlantic seas. The significant heat flux through water mass exchange and sea ice transport, i.e. transport of fresh water and sea ice southwards and transport of warm saline waters northwards, influences the thermohaline circulation at a global scale.

    http://www.awi.de/en/research/research_divisions/geosciences/marine_geology_and_paleontology/research_themes/bathymetry_and_geodesy/bathymetric_chart_of_the_fram_strait_bcfs/regional_setting_and_relevance/

    I conclude that the GMFz controls the Beaufort Gyre’s circulation (largest and most powerful in the Arctic), while Fram Strait is the embryonic AMO index area.
    Your reply: you are an engineer calculate power.
    My problem is I do not entirely understand driving mechanism.
    It is possible that GMF is just a proxy for gravity anomaly, or even that there is a bidirectional feedback between GMF and the Arctic currents (as suggest elsewhere).
    Your problem is you dismiss everything you do not understand as nonsense.

  104. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 3, 2010 at 10:16 pm

    I have not been able to find any convincing analysis by D.A. [or others for that matter] that show that the length of the solar cycle predicts the temperature during the next cycle, but would be interested in what specific ‘exercises’ you refer to.

    As I mentioned somewhere above there was an article in the latest issue (4/2010) of Astronomi published by Norsk astronomisk selskap which showed a similar trend as in D.A.’s Armagh figure for stations from different parts of mainland Norway. The author is honest enough to say that the correlations may be a coincident and prove nothing.

    It should be pretty simple to check whether it seems to be a correlation (coincidental or not) and I’m a bit embarrased to have dived into this discussion without spending time to run some basic checks myself. So I just spent a few minutes at least to try the Armagh data. As a quick test I plotted the cycle length against the average temperature of the following cycle from its first year to its last inclusive (D.A. used fixed 11 year averages). This is what I got:

    I used temperatures from (the last few years of SC23 are missing):

    http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/browse/badc/armagh/data/air_temperature/mean_annual_temp/tm-an-maxmin-dtr.dat

    And cycle lengths and transition years from:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_cycles

    The plain data used for the plot:

    9.8 9.38
    12.4 9.17
    11.3 9.05
    11.8 8.54
    11.3 8.94
    11.9 9.00
    11.5 9.10
    10.0 9.12
    10.1 9.44
    10.4 9.48
    10.2 9.39
    10.5 9.26
    11.7 9.07
    10.3 9.48
    9.7 9.97

  105. Anthony Watts says:
    July 4, 2010 at 12:34 pm

    Interpretations of data differ, while I certainly support arguments on methods, I don’t support labeling a differing interpretation with that word.

    Well said. Courtesy costs nothing, and facilitates rationality in debate, unclouded by emotion.

  106. There can be no objective discussion of Archibald’s material here. After enjoying 20 talks around Australia nobody is going to dis their “mate” are they ?

    Of course they have been detailed prior reviews http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html

    I note Robert E. Phelan has conferred an honorary PhD on DA too. hmmmm

  107. David Archibald says:
    July 4, 2010 at 7:12 am (Edit)

    I finished my lectures on the tour by saying that Canadian agriculture will be back to trapping beavers by the end of the decade. A 2 degree fall should reduce the Canadian grain growing area to next to nothing.

    If governments believe in the precautionary principle so much, maybe they should be setting up transport infrastructure to get food from the more southerly latitudes to where it will be needed.

    However, I think the element missing from David’s analysis, and I’ve said this before, is the degree to which the residual energy in the ocean will cushion the Earth’s climate from a reduction in solar activity. My model says that even if we get a Dalton type minimum, temperatures are not likely to fall as deeply or quickly over the next decade as he fears.

  108. Been there done that says:
    July 4, 2010 at 2:18 pm (Edit)

    There can be no objective discussion of Archibald’s material here. After enjoying 20 talks around Australia nobody is going to dis their “mate” are they ?

    If you read what Anthony wrote, you will see he has no problem with objective discussion, just with objectionable discussion.

  109. Been there done that says: July 4, 2010 at 2:18 pm

    It was not my intention to create disinformation. I did a quick check and found no statement one way or the other, although I see that Anthony, who is usually scrupulous with noting honorifics where they are due, thanked Mr. Archibald…. Maybe I’ll be a little less harsh on my students this semester when they address me as “Dr.” when in fact I am not….. “Professor will do fine…”

  110. vukcevic says:
    July 4, 2010 at 12:54 am
    899 says: July 3, 2010 at 5:21 pm
    vukcevic,
    Aren’t you forgetting just one wee tiny detail in all of that? The Earth’s rotation, tilt, and nutation.
    No, Gulf stream current is an offshoot of an interconnected complex Atlantic currents system http://www.bigmarinefish.com/map_currents_atlantic.jpg
    which regardless of time of the year (revolution, tilt or nutation) it always catches range of insulations (including maximum) from both hemispheres, which eventually averages out due to its high velocity . Its effect is felt all the way from tropics to the Arctic., there is more to it than IPCC’s CO2.

    BTW. Correlations for the AMO index and the Arctic temperatures are now calculated and are here:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMOFz.htm

    Is that your way of saying that the Earth’s rotation, tilt, and nutation, have ~absolutely nothing~ to do with the oceanic currents as they are?

  111. Prof. Lief Svalgaard stated above:

    “ecoeng says:
    July 4, 2010 at 8:24 am
    Dr. Glassman’s analysis would seem to be either good evidence for some sort of amplified sensitivity or…
    He uses [and recognizes] rather obsolete TSI reconstructions. There is less and less credence to the idea that there is a ‘background’ on which the solar cycle variation rides.”

    yet Dr. Jeff Glassman on his blog clearly stated:

    “Wang, et al. (2005) has no references to anthropogenics of any type, and while Wang apparently has had no direct association with IPCC, his co-author on the second source was IPCC author Lean. Wang’s model did reduce Lean’s estimate of the Sun’s radiance and the solar forcing by increase by a factor of 2.4, as noted by IPCC:

    From 1750 to the present there was a net 0.05% increase in total solar irradiance, according to the 11-year smoothed total solar irradiance time series of Y. Wang et al. (2005), shown in Figure 2.17. This corresponds to an RF of +0.12 Wm-2, which is more than a factor of two less than the solar RF estimate in the TAR, also from 1750 to the present. Using the Lean (2000) reconstruction (the lower envelope in Figure 2.17) as an upper limit, there is a 0.12% irradiance increase since 1750, for which the RF is +0.3 Wm-2. IPCC, AR4 ¶2.7.1.2.2 Implications for solar radiative forcing, p. 192.

    Consequently the Wang model is substantially superior to the Lean model for demonstrating that the greenhouse effect and CO2 not only cause global warming, but that they are a threat.”

    In other words, it seems to me that Glassman has very wisely used a relatively recent and conservative authority on the apparent (likely?) variation in solar irradiance over the last 160 years in attempting to discern a signal in the ‘consensual’ global surface temperature record.

    So here we have a situation where Glassman deliberately chose the (more conservative than Lean et al. 2000) Wang et al. (2005) paper and yet Prof. Svalgaaard is still claiming that Glassman used an obsolete record!

    Obsolete? Obsolete since 2005? Come now – isn’t that stretching the bounds of credibility just a little too much?

    Are we to take on face value Prof. Svalgaard’s clear inference that in the period since 2005 only he himself has become the absolute arbiter of what is obsolete or not in respect of what we should understand is the long term variation in solar irradiance?

    I have heard a lot of claims from the so-called AGW ‘consensus’ concerning varous consensual paradigms but this is the first time I have ever heard a statement that we can actually ignore the entire pre-2005 literature on solar irradiance variation over the last 150 years (only) as being ‘obsolete’ because it was actually much more constant than even Wang et al., 2005 estimated?

    Once again I would point out that I have made many genuine attempts to get prominent AGW proponents to comment critically on Glassman’s ‘signal analysis’ work. In each case, the response has seemed to me technically unsatisfactory – reducing to little more than an insult to Dr. Glassman’s (or my own) intelligence because Glassman himself clearly stated a number of times that if his finding is true some sort of amplification mechanism must be in operation.

    A disappointingly similar response from Prof. Svalgaard which, in addition, is quite startling in its clear assertion of an ‘absolutely constant Sun’ over the last 150 years or so!

    This seems bizarre to me! In my own scientific field I know of no case whatsoever where an assertion could be sustained that such a significant new paradigm must be (or can be) accepted ‘consensually’ within a period of as little as 5 years!

  112. Anthony Watts says:
    July 4, 2010 at 12:34 pm
    I’m back in the USA now.

    You know, Leif and Finn could do well to send a note of thanks too. You might not agree on the book and slide page presented, but surely you have thanks for David assisting me?

    Anthony

    I am more than happy to acknowledge David’s help and generosity during your visit. I don’t doubt that David is an obliging and courteous host. However, you haven’t just reported on his help during your visit. You now also appear to be actively promoting his book. I admit to having concerns about some of the David’s conclusions. But I am more concerned that David Archibald may be eventually viewed as a mainstream sceptic voice – on a par with Lindzen, Pielke, Spencer etc. Take it from me – the AGWers can blow David’s arguments out of the water in the bloink of an eye and the worry is that the whole ‘sceptic’ argument will be dismissed as loony nonsense from a bunch of crackpot deniers.

    I have recommended your blog on several occasions. You may recall a Daily Mail article (by Richard Littlejohn) some time ago. It was me who sent the link to RL. I still have a copy of the email in which he thanked me. By all means continue to post the wide range of opinions as you have always done but be careful about endorsing a particular viewpoint until it’s been thoroughly scrutinised and discussed.

    Cheers.

    REPLY: Thanks for that, I’m sure people can read Archibald’s book and come to their own conclusions. – Anthony

  113. I further note that Glassman in his blog clearly stated:

    “The observation in Lean (2000) is still valid: no empirical evidence exists beyond a few decades to compare the accuracy of these models. Regardless, the modeling in Wang et al. (2005) is a substantial improvement in rigor. They divided the Sun’s surface in two: an active region comprising the sunspots and faculae, plus a separable ephemeral or background region. They represented the active region by as many as 600 large, closed loop dipoles, called Bipolar Magnetic Regions (BMRs), randomly placed over the sphere. They matched the resulting magnetic field to the annual sunspot number, the polarity switching phenomenon, and the solar wind aa index. They also adopted empirical relationships from the literature, and substantially reduced the facular background used in Lean (2000).

    Wang, et al. recognize that their secular (background) trend is substantially smaller than found in previous models. However they make no claim that their model is more accurate beyond accounting for implications from an arbitrary scaling of the aa index, recorded since 1868, and empirical relationships involving the index. While any model of sophistication would agree with modern measurements, the question is how well a model represents the evolution of the Sun’s irradiance to the present, as Wang, et al. stated at the outset was their objective. While the absolute value of the trend remains relatively uncertain, the Wang model represents the state-of-the-art in representing solar irradiance, optimum to account for the fine structure of TSI variability because it is an emulation of physical phenomena, constrained by the long records of sunspot numbers and the solar wind.

    The Total Solar Irradiance used in this paper is the Wang et al. (2005) model, digitized from the violet trace in IPCC’s Figure 2.17.”

    As I see it, Prof. Svalgaard chose to impugn Glassman’s source for the TSI over the last 280 years (1720 – 2000) being Wang et al., 2005, as being ‘obsolete’ even though he (Glassman) had reached the reasonable conclusion that the Wang et al. model:

    “…represents the state-of-the-art in representing solar irradiance, optimum to account for the fine structure of TSI variability because it is an emulation of physical phenomena, constrained by the long records of sunspot numbers and the solar wind.”

    I would therefore really appreciate an explanation from Prof. Svalgaard of just how the Wang et al. (2005) model may be reasonably judged to be “obsolete”.

    It seems to me that Prof. Svalgaard can only be implying that the Wang et al. (2005) model is dead wrong simply because the TSI was either:

    (1) remarkably constant over the last 150 years; or

    (2) any variation in TSI is purely random,

    and hence the outcome of Glassman’s analysis is purely……. fortuitous.

    Alternatively, or preferably additionally, if our understanding of TSI is non-negligible, and noting Glassman’s authority as a physicist experienced with electromagnetics, I would appreciate a technical critique from Prof. Svalgaard of Glassman’s:

    * signal analysis philosophy (relating the TSI record to IPCC’s AR4 Figure 3.6 global temperature record from HadCRUT3); and

    * his (Glassman’s) analytical methodology.

    Please.

  114. David Ball says:
    July 4, 2010 at 12:38 pm
    Svalgaard and Finn, please show whether this is adjusted data or raw. Just for everyone’s benefit. Data is important and certainly a big part of credibility. It is also worthy of note that this is not the only data source used by Archibald. A much broader analysis than the narrow scope of some.

    The key issue at this stage is not the data (raw or adjusted) but the methodology, i.e. how the data points (SCL v Temperature) are determined. It’s really up to David Archibald to make it clear what method he is using – as well as providing a reference to his data source.

    Currently there appears to be 3 possibilities, i.e.

    1. The temperatures are determined (e.g. at Armagh) by calculating the 11 year mean of temperatures centred on the maximum and minimum of the solar cycle. If you read the caption underneath the Fig 5 plot (see above) it suggests that this is, in fact, what has been done. However, if this is the case, it’s a fairly trivial exercise (as Leif has done) to show that the relationship has completely broken down.

    2. The second possible method is exactly the same as (1) but in this case the temperature values are shifted to coincide with the corresponding max/min of the next solar cycle. This is discussed by Butler and Johnson (the original researchers) but there is no indication that this method was used to produce Fig 5. Furthermore, there is nothing in any of David Archibald’s papers which indicate that he has used this method.

    3. Finally, we have the 1-2-2-2-1 filter which was employed by Friis-Christensen and Lassen in their 1991 paper. This coud be used in combination with either (1) or (2) above. Basically, this seems to assume that temperatures are influenced by future – as well as past cycles. I’ve never quite seen the justification for this but it did seem to give F-C & L a decent fit over a limited period.

    The problem is pinning down exactly which method is being used. Cynics might suggest that having 3 ‘metods’ on the go means that there is always another option if one happens to fail. Around 3 years ago (July 9th 2007) I questioned David on the warwick hughes blog about his method of calculation. His response was as follows:


    Re 6, your interpretations are correct. You can always get the original Butler and Johnson paper off the web and peruse it as well. I had a lot to cover in the alloted time and thus my description of the process wasn’t exhaustive. I hope that others, such as yourself, will be able to use what I have done to go on

    David states that his “description of the process wasn’t exhaustive” . It was actually non-existant. To this day I’m still not sure what process he uses – despite careful reading of all his literature. Perhaps my questions to David in a earlier post will provide an answer.

  115. Intuitively, if the length of a solar cycle is going to be correlated with global temp, wouldn’t it make sense to look at the peak-to-peak length rather than the min-to-min length. I know the numbering system is min-to-min but that’s not best for correlating w/ temp IMHO.

  116. John Finn says:
    July 4, 2010 at 6:36 pm

    I am just back from three weeks on the road and have a lot on my plate. But what you say above is very revealling. You are not interested in the correct science, you just don’t want me to get traction. Well, that is too late. Earlier this year a warmer listed me as one of his top four sceptic scientists. In fact, he put me as number two after Fred Singer!

    I’ll give you a bit of background to my book. In 2007, Professor David Bellamy, the world’s most eminent conservationist, came to see me in Perth because of my log CO2 graph. I thought “This is as it should be. Famour people are coming to see me now.” He urged me to write a book, and that became “Solar Cycle 24″. In April this year, I had a meeting with Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, in Prague Castle. He keeps a copy of “Solar Cycle 24″ in his office! He suggested that I update it, now that the science has progressed. It was like being in the Knights Templar – I meet my spiritual and temporal leader in his medieaval castle, and he gives me a mission to undertake. So I fulfilled the mission, and produced “The Past and Future of Climate”. So I am very susceptable to people telling me to write books, but those two gentlemen have enormous moral authority.

    Mr Finn and Dr Svalgaard find my work very upsetting and paw at it constantly. If Anthony will allow me, I might produce some more posts on this subject and torture you both further. Baiting warmers is such fun.

    Dr Svalgaard complained about my prediction re Canadian agricultural output. Well I have a major complaint about Australia’s Chief Scientist, Professor Penny Sackett, who in December 2009 said that the world has five years to avoid catastrophic global warming. Back in Perth, we have just produced a record string of low temperatures. In my book I refer to Professor Sackett as Australia’s Chief Shaman.

    Back to those temperature graphs, it does not matter what has gone before. Anyone can repeat what I have done. It is so simple that high school science students could do it. If there are any high school science teachers reading this, get your students to do it. Plot up solar cycle length against average temperature over that cycle, and also against temperature over the following solar cycle. The latter has a better correlation. As I have said above, I regard Butler and Johnson’s graph as the Rosetta Stone of solar-climate studies. Copying their methodology (don’t worry about filters or the like) is easy, it’s fun and it has major economic consequences!

    Anna
    I can’t find an online copy of Friis-Christensen and Lassen’s original paper. But as I say, it doesn’t matter what they originally said if Butler and Johnson’s methodology produces the same results on individual station records, as it does. Good correlations exist for Armagh, de Bilt, Archangel and in the northeastern US, Providence, Rhode Island, Hanover, New Hampshire, Westchester, Pennsylvania and Portland, Maine. That is why I devoted four pages to including graphs from those last four stations. There is a warning in the stars that humanity can ignore at its peril.

  117. John Finn says: (July 4, 2010 at 5:34 pm) … arguments out of the water in the bloink of an eye and the worry is that the whole ‘sceptic’ argument will be dismissed as loony nonsense from a bunch of crackpot deniers. …

    Which exemplifies the basis of my concerns expressed here (comment 2); Open thread

  118. #
    #
    David Archibald says:
    July 4, 2010 at 8:45 pm

    In the top four! No 2 after Fred Singer! Here’s the link: http://environment.change.org/blog/view/4_favorite_climate_change_deniers
    ____________________________________________________
    I read the article at that link and now I need a shower. You know the science is weak when they have to resort to ad hominem. But somehow “chili power” lacks the punch of “Crazed Sex Poodle” Especially when Skeptics can’t even be blamed for coming up with the label since the MSM spread it all by their lonesome.

  119. John Finn’s not wanting me to get traction explains a mystery. I am not on the list of deniers made up by the National Academy of Sciences. Sloppy work by the NAS? A deliberate insult, like de Smog Blog refusing to put me on their list? Suddenly it is all so clear: I am not on the list so the list is all about me. The ultimate accolade. I am the denier whose name they dare not speak.

  120. Steinar Midtskogen on July 4, 2010 at 1:26 pm

    The best fit straight line is T = 12.12 – 0.267S (S is teh previous cycle length)
    R^2 is 0.519 whcih I think is low

  121. ecoeng says:
    July 4, 2010 at 4:41 pm
    Obsolete? Obsolete since 2005?
    Yes, that seems to be the case. In the past 5 years the ‘background’ has slowly disappeared on the radar screen. Even Judith Lean doubts her early work [she was a co-author of Wang's 2005]. Slide 15 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf shows one of Lean’s slide from the SORCE 2008 presentation. Note that she says “longer-term variations not yet detectable – … do they occur?
    What has happened is that the Sun has had a very deep minimum comparable to those at the beginning of the 20th century. We would therefore expect that TSI now should also be comparable to TSI around 1900. Reconstructions such as Lean 2000, Wang 2005, and others, that show that TSI in 1900 was significantly lower than today are therefore likely in error.

  122. David Archibald says:
    July 4, 2010 at 7:56 pm
    Mr Finn and Dr Svalgaard find my work very upsetting and paw at it constantly.
    Not upsetting as such, just sloppy and misleading. It is of concern when sloppy work and bad science are promoted heavily [e.g. by Al Gore and by you - albeit with the opposite sign]. For example, if you now [in contrast to earlier] subscribe to the temperate correlation being for the next cycle, then you should have used Figure 7 and not Figure 5. And have stated that specifically. Also I note that you you the obsolete Hoyt and Schatten TSI reconstruction, again scientific sloppiness [although I can understand why: it fits better with your agenda].

  123. anna v says:
    July 4, 2010 at 10:40 pm
    One of the problems with this is that there is no agreed-upon list of solar cycle lengths [partly because it does not make much sense to express the length with any precision as solar cycles overlap].
    Here are three compilations:

    NGDC
    Rogers
    Wiki et al. Leif
    1 11.3 11.4 10.74
    2 9 9 9.11
    3 9.3 9.2 9.09
    4 13.7 13.6 14.08
    5 12.6 12.3 11.94
    6 12.4 12.7 12.28
    7 10.5 10.6 10.9
    8 9.8 9.6 9.87
    9 12.4 12.5 12.43
    10 11.3 11.2 11.12
    11 11.8 11.7 11.63
    12 11.3 10.7 10.18
    13 11.9 12.1 12.5
    14 11.5 11.9 11.38
    15 10 10 10.35
    16 10.1 10.2 10.41
    17 10.4 10.4 10.54
    18 10.2 10.1 10.05
    19 10.5 10.6 10.55
    20 11.7 11.6 11.21
    21 10.3 10.3 10.34
    22 9.7 11.1 10.04
    23 12.6 12.35

    Note, in particular the discrepant SC22.
    The smoothed sunspot number is often used to find the minimum. There are problems with that, as the minimum found may not be unique, and the averaging interval is an arbitrary [as far as the Sun is concerned] average of two yearly averages staggered one month. A potentially better way is to use the fact that a third-degree polynomial is well-suited to represent the different decay and growth rates. By finding the extremum of the function, the minimum can be located. Here is an example [blue: raw monthly data; pink: snoothed values; smooth black curve: the polynomial fit. A yellow triangle marks the minimum determined from the fit]: http://www.leif.org/research/Minimum-17-18.png

  124. John Murphy says:
    July 4, 2010 at 10:20 pm


    The best fit straight line is T = 12.12 – 0.267S (S is teh previous cycle length)

    D.A. seems to conclude that the trend is -0.47 (a 1.6 degree drop after a cycle that is 3.4 years longer), which is much steeper. I calculated the averages with overlapping years between the cycles, though, which will make the decline slightly less.

    It should be an easy task to write a script that calculates the trends for a list of temperature records. Is there a good source somewhere for worldwide temperature records that goes 150+ years back in time? In some format that can be easily read by scripting languages?

  125. Steinar,
    you can get ascii format data off http://www.woodfortrees.org (click the raw data link under the graphs), or try KNMI.nl

    I’m not sure what the fuss is about here. Leif and I discussed a possible decadal lag between solar activity and Earth temperature response on his solar threads on climate audit around two years ago. He seemed to think it was reasonable then. What changed?

  126. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 4, 2010 at 10:28 pm (Edit)
    Even Judith Lean doubts her early work [she was a co-author of Wang's 2005]. Slide 15 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf shows one of Lean’s slide from the SORCE 2008 presentation. Note that she says “longer-term variations not yet detectable – … do they occur? ”

    But then she also recently said:
    “Solar constant’ is an oxymoron…. Satellite data show that the sun’s total irradiance rises and falls with the sunspot cycle by a significant amount.”

    So it looks like you can pick a Lean quote to suit your taste.

  127. David Archibald says:
    July 4, 2010 at 10:15 pm

    I am the denier whose name they dare not speak.

    The one with tongue planted well in cheek.

  128. tallbloke says:
    July 5, 2010 at 12:52 am

    Steinar,
    you can get ascii format data off http://www.woodfortrees.org (click the raw data link under the graphs), or try KNMI.nl

    Thanks, I tried it out on the HADCRUT3 data (1850-). Here’s what I got:

    trend = -0.154087 +/- 0.06085 (39.49%)
    trend = -0.1852 +/- 0.05679 (30.67%)
    trend = -0.121519 +/- 0.06521 (53.66%)
    trend = -0.15349 +/- 0.06074 (39.57%)
    trend = -0.187626 +/- 0.05636 (30.04%)
    trend = -0.119709 +/- 0.06578 (54.95%)

    The first three are variance-adjusted global means for global, NH and SH, and the last three are the corresponding unadjusted. I also included the asymptotic standard error as reported by gnuplot. I used the same method as I did previously.

    Compared to Armagh:

    trend = -0.266741 +/- 0.07122 (26.7%)

    If there is a trend, it’s more evident in the NH.

  129. Steinar Midtskogen says:
    July 5, 2010 at 1:22 am (Edit)

    If there is a trend, it’s more evident in the NH.

    That makes sense to me. The northern hemisphere has a more immediate and direct response to solar input. The southern hemisphere is mostly ocean and the shortwave radiation from the sun is sequestered in it in ways we do not fully understand, although I think I’m getting there:

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/el-nino-and-the-solar-cycle/

  130. David hinted at other factors in play after long cycles that coincide with times of cooling. Not every long cycle has this effect, knowing these triggers and cycles is the key.

    Interesting to watch the warmists go into panic mode.

  131. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 4, 2010 at 10:36 pm
    Also I note that you use the obsolete Hoyt and Schatten TSI reconstruction, again scientific sloppiness [although I can understand why: it fits better with your agenda].

    So you think he should have used the Svalgaard/Frolich reconstruction, which you claim makes Hoyt/Schatten obsolete, and which fits better with your agenda. So what?

    Cue claims that Ken Schatten has recanted… Three, two, one.

  132. John Murphy says:
    July 4, 2010 at 10:20 pm
    Steinar Midtskogen on July 4, 2010 at 1:26 pm
    The best fit straight line is T = 12.12 – 0.267S (S is teh previous cycle length) R^2 is 0.519 whcih I think is low

    John
    Not only is it low. Any correlation that exists is probably due to coincidence. If you check the cycle lengths in Steinar’ s post here

    Steinar Midtskogen says:
    July 4, 2010 at 1:26 pm

    You may notice that there is a cluster of 11+ years followed by a cluster 0f 10+ years (beginning in August 1913). Because the 20th century was generally warmer than the 19th century some correlation is bound to show up. This is probably why F-C & Lassen got such a good fit from ~1850.

    Between August 1913 and October 1964 the solar cycle length was to, all intents and purposes, constant. It varied by only a few months which, if we use the “following solar cycle” rule should mean that the temperatures between 1933 and 1976 should have been more or less flat. They weren’t. In keeping with the rest of the NH, temperatures at Armagh rose quite sharply up until the 1940s before falling away after that.

    Even if we accept that there is a general relationship between SCL and temperature, David’s predictions (2 deg decline) assume that temeprature is dependant only on the length of solar cycle 23, i.e. there is no cumulative from a series of short/long cycles.

    Steinar
    Re: Steinar Midtskogen
    July 4, 2010 at 1:26 pm

    You say “D.A. used fixed 11 year averages “
    1. That’s not what he said in his latest post.
    2. Over what period did he use fixed 11 year averages

    Steinar, can I please ask you to read the article (A note of sincere thanks) at the head of the page. You will find his statement by Anthony

    For example this illustration (from his slide show) is very interesting:

    Underneath there is a plot showing the relationship between cycle length and temperature. This is an orignal plot by Butler and Johnson. David has added the points for SC22 and SC23. The caption below the plot read as follows:

    Figure 5: the mean temperature at Armagh for 11 year intervals, centred on years of sunspot maximum and minimum plotted against the sunspot cycle length.

    Note B&J say nothing about about the average temperature over the following cycle. In fact they don’t mention the following cycle at all. So what has David done? Has he used data centered on maxima and minima as per the B&J method? If not –why not?

  133. David Archibald says:
    July 4, 2010 at 7:56 pm


    John Finn says:
    July 4, 2010 at 6:36 pm

    Mr Finn and Dr Svalgaard find my work very upsetting and paw at it constantly. If Anthony will allow me, I might produce some more posts on this subject and torture you both further. Baiting warmers is such fun.

    David
    If there was any way I could be convinced about your methods, conclusions and predictions I would be more than happy to use them. I can point to a number of blog discussions where I have questioned mainstream AGW – including an exchange with Michael Mann where I challenged the methods he used to produce the hockey-stick. Steve McIntyre (CA) has referenced some of my blog discussions on more than one occasion. Your reference, therefore, to “baiting warmers” is not relevant in my case.

    I don’t know why you are trying to make this personal. I am simply trying to scrutinise the methods you are using. That’s sort of what science is about. In a previous post I asked you a couple of questions. You ignored one and half answered the other. You say this:

    Back to those temperature graphs, it does not matter what has gone before. Anyone can repeat what I have done. It is so simple that high school science students could do it. If there are any high school science teachers reading this, get your students to do it. Plot up solar cycle length against average temperature over that cycle, and also against temperature over the following solar cycle. The latter has a better correlation. As I have said above, I regard Butler and Johnson’s graph as the Rosetta Stone of solar-climate studies. Copying their methodology (don’t worry about filters or the like) is easy, it’s fun and it has major economic consequences!

    Let’s take this one step at a time. What makes you think you have copied Butler & Johnson’s methodology.

  134. John Finn says:
    July 5, 2010 at 3:44 am


    Note B&J say nothing about about the average temperature over the following cycle. In fact they don’t mention the following cycle at all. So what has David done? Has he used data centered on maxima and minima as per the B&J method? If not –why not?

    I find it unclear what exactly it is that he’s done, except that the only quick way to get something similar to the claimed matches is to look at the following cycle, and when he in 2008 writes “will be” I read that as 2008-whatever rather than 1996-2008. But I don’t find this very interesting. As long as the following cycle is used and any reasonable start, stop and filter the plot should suggest a downward trend using the available data. Anyone can test that. A much more interesting discussion would be whether this is a coincident (which I’m inclined to think since we have so few cycles to test against), or if it could be something to it. If 2010-2020 indeed becomes cold, it may still be a coincident but I think it deserves a second look. If 2010-2020 becomes as warm or warmer than 2000-2010 (as otherwise advertised), then we can safely say coincident.

  135. Piñatas in science, as in every other field or birthday party, usually require more than one blind swack to crack and scatter the goodies. The scientist or child who shatters the shell and releases the bounty for all to enjoy may get the Nobel Prize for his/her “achievement”, but it was truly done after seemingly endless attempts and partial cracks by many others and not the one who gets the pat on the back. Indeed, it is, as in all things in life, more than likely that the one who gets the credit may have done the least of all.

  136. Indeed, it is also, as in all things in life, more than likely the one who gets the credit may have been the very one who previously crawled, hacked, and stabbed their way to the top of ‘the heap’ or even worse imposed for some time a ‘mutual backslapping club’ false paradigm which only delayed the emergence of that ‘ bountiful truth’.

    It has taken us at least million years to evolve from being scavenging, aggressive apes to being ……….scavenging, aggressive apes.

  137. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 4, 2010 at 10:13 am
    And I wonder why you think so. There is no threat deriving from pointing out his sloppiness.

    OK, let’s review:
    You said: “It is this kind of unfounded Alarmism that is dangerous and should be beneath serious work.”

    I said: “It is this type of hyperbole that is silly and just undermines what you say.
    David is right, you really do protest too much. I suspect it’s because you feel threatened by his work. Wonder why?”

    You referred to his work as “dangerous” and as “Alarmism”, and yet you are trying to say all you were doing was “pointing out his sloppiness”?
    Nice try. Pardon me, but your agenda is showing.

  138. Steinar Midtskogen says:
    July 5, 2010 at 5:19 am


    John Finn says:
    July 5, 2010 at 3:44 am

    I find it unclear what exactly it is that he’s done, except …..

    That, Steinar, is precisely the problem- or one of them.

  139. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 4, 2010 at 11:24 pm

    This is one reason I would expect temp to be better correlated with the peak-to-peak length than with the traditional min-to-min length; the peaks are better defined. Worth a try, right?

  140. Bruce Cobb says:
    July 5, 2010 at 6:04 am

    You referred to his work as “dangerous” and as “Alarmism”, and yet you are trying to say all you were doing was “pointing out his sloppiness”?
    Nice try. Pardon me, but your agenda is showing.

    Bruce

    I can’t speak for Leif, but I’d like to see a coherent and credible argument from those who are sceptical of AGW. The most damaging thing that could happen is that a high profile study or piece of research is later shown to be amateurish nonsense. Some time ago David Bellamy (mentioned by DA on the cover of his book) engaged in a debate with George Monbiot (the environmentalist writer in the Guardian). It was embarrassing. Monbiot slaughtered Bellamy. Monbiot is not the sharpest knife in the drawer but he was well prepared while Bellamy was all at sea with his facts. David Bellamy had appeared regularly on TV in the UK so he was seen as the most high profile sceptical voice in the country. The whole episode was a disaster for the sceptic cause in the UK. We can do without a repeat.

  141. Steinar Midtskogen says:
    July 5, 2010 at 5:19 am

    A much more interesting discussion would be whether this is a coincident (which I’m inclined to think since we have so few cycles to test against), or if it could be something to it.

    Agreed but my experiences tell me to take it one step at time with David. However I have touched on the probability of a coincidence in this post.

    John Finn says:
    July 5, 2010 at 3:44 am

    It isn’t just the fact that there are only a few cycles (as you pointed out), there is also the fact that those cycles broadly fall into 2 clusters. There are the 19th century cycles which tend to be 11+ years long. The 20th century cycles (beginning in 1913) tend to be nearer 10 years long (SC 20 is the exception). The 20th century was warmer than the 19th century so you naturally see a correlation. However the Armagh temperature varies just as much over a period when cycle length is virtually constant (e.g. 1913 to 1964) as it does when there are big changes in the cycle length.

  142. tallbloke says:
    July 5, 2010 at 12:52 am
    I’m not sure what the fuss is about here.
    The fuss is not about what is, but about the misuse of Figure 5. If D.A. wanted to emphasize a lag, he should have used Figure 7.

    tallbloke says:
    July 5, 2010 at 1:01 am
    “she says “longer-term variations not yet detectable – … do they occur? ””
    But then she also recently said:
    “Satellite data show that the sun’s total irradiance rises and falls with the sunspot cycle by a significant amount.”
    So it looks like you can pick a Lean quote to suit your taste.

    Beneath even you. The solar cycle variation is not in doubt.

    tallbloke says:
    July 5, 2010 at 1:45 am
    So you think he should have used the Svalgaard/Frolich reconstruction, which you claim makes Hoyt/Schatten obsolete, and which fits better with your agenda. So what?
    Time and better data/understanding has made H&S obsolete. Happens all the time.

    Bruce Cobb says:
    July 5, 2010 at 6:04 am
    Nice try. Pardon me, but your agenda is showing.
    Since you say my agenda is showing, perhaps you could explain what it is…

  143. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 5, 2010 at 7:56 am

    tallbloke says:
    July 5, 2010 at 1:01 am
    “she says “longer-term variations not yet detectable – … do they occur? ””
    But then she also recently said:
    “Satellite data show that the sun’s total irradiance rises and falls with the sunspot cycle by a significant amount.”
    So it looks like you can pick a Lean quote to suit your taste.

    Beneath even you. The solar cycle variation is not in doubt.

    Are you implying I’m telling a lie?
    According to Schatten’s latest reconstruction, and even your own ironed out version, C20th variation in TSI averaged over the ss length exceeds that of some C20th solar cycles as I remember it.

  144. John Finn says on July 5, 2010 at 7:16 am

    Bruce Cobb says on July 5, 2010 at 6:04 am

    You referred to his work as “dangerous” and as “Alarmism”, and yet you are trying to say all you were doing was “pointing out his sloppiness”?
    Nice try. Pardon me, but your agenda is showing.

    Bruce

    I can’t speak for Leif, but I’d like to see a coherent and credible argument from those who are sceptical of AGW.

    So, which side of the argument do you incline towards? Perhaps you should take on the task. For my part AGW all looks political, and I have a gut feeling that there are strong stabilizing mechanism built into the climate … and besides, we have seen it all before.

    The most damaging thing that could happen is that a high profile study or piece of research is later shown to be amateurish nonsense. Some time ago David Bellamy (mentioned by DA on the cover of his book) engaged in a debate with George Monbiot (the environmentalist writer in the Guardian). It was embarrassing. Monbiot slaughtered Bellamy. Monbiot is not the sharpest knife in the drawer but he was well prepared while Bellamy was all at sea with his facts. David Bellamy had appeared regularly on TV in the UK so he was seen as the most high profile sceptical voice in the country. The whole episode was a disaster for the sceptic cause in the UK.

    That does not mean that AGW is correct, merely that its adherents are adept at presenting their case.

    We can do without a repeat.

    Your challenge, should you accept …

  145. tallbloke says:
    July 5, 2010 at 8:28 am
    Are you implying I’m telling a lie?
    You know best what you are telling so can best characterize it. But your insinuation should be beneath decent people [but apparently isn't].

    According to Schatten’s latest reconstruction
    Latest? He only made one. [so, yes it is the 'latest']

    C20th variation in TSI averaged over the ss length exceeds that of some C20th solar cycles as I remember it.
    Irrelevant and misleading. A very large cycle will have a high average that can easily surpass the amplitude of a very small cycle. This has nothing to do with whether there is a secular trend.

  146. David Archibald says: July 4, 2010 at 7:56 pm It is so simple that high school science students could do it

    That’s the problem! Our climate is highly non-trivial. Any correlation between quantity A and quantity B is usesless as long as you cannot point to a specific mechanism.

    What is your mechanism David?

    It is possible that we may never be able to predict or understand the climate, which is non-trivial, non-equilbrium and non-linear with non-periodic forcing?

  147. John Finn says:
    July 5, 2010 at 7:16 am


    I can’t speak for Leif, but I’d like to see a coherent and credible argument from those who are sceptical of AGW.

    The problem, I think, is that an alternative for something always appears more convincing than just saying that something is wrong or doesn’t exist. To really kill AGW find something that really explains climate variations, and AGW will appear as nothing but a splash in a turbid river. But, as I see it, one big problem for AGW proponents is their belief that there is one variable that weights more than the rest combined. I think that assumptation requires an extraordinary strong proof since we’re dealing with something chaotic as climate. Many “sceptics”, in their eager to disprove AGW, make exactly the same mistake. They come up with an alternative explanations (or several, sometimes conflicting), which depend on the same unproven assumptation.

  148. Steinar Midtskogen says:
    July 5, 2010 at 10:19 am
    But, as I see it, one big problem for AGW proponents is their belief that there is one variable that weights more than the rest combined.
    The solar enthusiasts make the same mistake.

  149. Dear David,

    The weather of one year differs from that of another year, the weather of one decade from that of another decade; why should not the climate of one century differ from that of another century?
    C. E. P. Brooks I.S.O., D.Sc., F.R.Met.Soc. Ernest, Climate Through the Ages (1950)

    Let us for a moment imagine that we will never understand our climate. That all our explanations, both for and against catastrophic manmade global warming are silly!

    I think that it is unfair that the climate of one century should not differ from that of another century when the weather for one decade varies from that of another decade. And I think it is unfair that the climate should not differ from one century to another in the period between ice ages when the climate of the ice age differs so dramatically from the climate between the ice ages. To me it seems that the proponents of catastrophic manmade global warming accepts all sorts of natural oscillations, but not the kind of oscillations that may lead to medieval warm periods and a little ice ages – that’s unfair!

    What kind of argument is this? Does it make sense to argue that something is unfair in physics? Yes, it does! In physics there are several laws and principles that imply a balance, symmetry or invariance for the world we live in. There are numerous examples like the conservation of energy, and this is something that all physicists are aware of.

    We may be sillier than you think David. Please make yourself a good cup of coffee, sit back, relax and watch this video of Rayleigh Bernhard convection. Watch it several times. You may from time to time se a pattern, and then someone will shout: “Heeeeyyyy I understand this, I have found the golden rule, the DaVinci Code!”

    But there is no golden rule. The world we live in may in places be completely dominated by reaction diffusion systems just like Rayleigh Bernhard convection. And my gut feeling is that our climate is possibly one of those places. Then the only reasonable we can conclude is that it would be unfair if natural climate variations should not be allowed cause medieval warm periods and a little ice ages.

    So please change your mind about the sun controlling the climate David!

    Best Regards,

    Invariant

  150. Invariant (9:39 am)
    Any correlation between quantity A and quantity B is usesless as long as you cannot point to a specific mechanism.

    On the contrary, dinding an unexpected, persistent correlation is useful. It can help focus the investigation, which may then discover the mechanism.

  151. oneuniverse says:
    July 5, 2010 at 11:45 am
    Invariant (9:39 am) “Any correlation between quantity A and quantity B is useless as long as you cannot point to a specific mechanism.”
    On the contrary, finding an unexpected, persistent correlation is useful.

    The key word is ‘persistent’, and supposedly ‘good’, too. The correlations expounded here are neither.

  152. (Spelling mistake in last post)

    To me it seems that the proponents of catastrophic manmade global warming accepts all sorts of natural oscillations, but not the kind of oscillations that may lead to medieval warm periods and little ice ages – that’s unfair!

  153. Excellent response from Dr. Jeff Glassman.

    One can only hope that Prof. Svalgaard is sufficiently the intelligent fellow he appears to be to do Glassman the courtesy of acknowledging (unsaid) the fact that at age 77 and retired (after an honorable career that needs no promotion), he doesn’t have the luxury of submitting his work for peer review in the ‘regular’ literature.

    In any case, IMO the ‘closed shop’ old paper-based world of the ‘peer reviewed’ literature is a dinosaur whose end is nigh in the face of the democracy and intellectual transparency which the Internet offers (and which true science should be all about).

    Personally, I regard Jeff Glassman as a genuine ‘quiet hero’ of good quality sceptical climate science. The real deal.

    That is why the AGW lobby (and curiously much of the sceptical lobby too) so very, very carefully ignores Glassman’s work. But I’ll take the words and ideas of Dr. Jeff Glassman ahead of the Archibald’s, Miskolczi’s and Courtney’s of this world any day.

  154. oneuniverse says:
    July 5, 2010 at 4:07 pm
    Leif, Jeffrey Glassman has commented on your comment on his solar climate analysis (via your conversation (blogversation?) with ecoeng).
    I have not commented on his analysis only on the TSI version he has used. The response is rambling and intermixed with lots of other stuff. Perhaps a ‘boiled down’ version with the salient point would be better.

    ecoeng says:
    July 5, 2010 at 5:53 pm
    he doesn’t have the luxury of submitting his work for peer review in the ‘regular’ literature.
    There are journals that do not require publication fees.

    In any case, IMO the ‘closed shop’ old paper-based world of the ‘peer reviewed’ literature is a dinosaur whose end is nigh in the face of the democracy and intellectual transparency which the Internet offers (and which true science should be all about).
    Yet, whenever people want to make a point they alwasys say that the papers they refer to are ‘peer-reviewed’. I have yet to see a comment that proudly proclaims that the ten papers they refer to have NOT been corrupted by being peer-reviewed.

    so very, very carefully ignores Glassman’s work. But I’ll take the words and ideas of Dr. Jeff Glassman ahead of the Archibald’s, Miskolczi’s and Courtney’s of this world any day.
    Nobody I know of very carefully ignores his work. The reason it doesn’t have more of an impact is that it does not pass reasonable smell tests. One does not just state that this and that is better than this or that, but gives a reason for that belief.

  155. ecoeng says:
    July 5, 2010 at 5:53 pm
    so very, very carefully ignores Glassman’s work. But I’ll take the words and ideas of Dr. Jeff Glassman ahead of the Archibald’s, Miskolczi’s and Courtney’s of this world any day.

    Nobody I know of very carefully ignores his work. The reason it doesn’t have more of an impact is that it does not pass reasonable smell tests. One does not just state that this and that is better than this or that, but gives a reason for that belief.

    Back in November 2007 I outlined several lines of research leading to my conclusion that there is no secular changing background in TSI. I quote [and apologize for its length even as I have shortened it a bit] from my post at ClimateAudit http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/30/svalgaard-solar-theory/ [where you also follow the comments on my posting]:

    Leif Svalgaard writes (moved from another thread for convenience)
    Line 1:
    The Total solar Irradiance (TSI) has several sources. The first and most important is simply the temperature in the photosphere. The hotter the sun, the higher the TSI. Some spectral lines are VERY sensitive to even minute changes in temperature. Livingston et al. has very carefully measured the line depth of such temperature-sensitive lines over more than 30 years spanning three solar cycles [Sun-as-a-Star Spectrum Variations 1974-2006, W. Livingston, L. Wallace, O. R. White, M. S. Giampapa, The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 657, Issue 2, pp. 1137-1149, 2007, DOI; 10.1086/511127]. They report [and I apologize for the somewhat technical turn my argument is taking, but if you really want to know, there is no avoiding this], “that both Ca II K and C I 5380A intensities are constant, indicating that the basal quiet atmosphere is unaffected by cycle magnetism within our observational error. A lower limit to the Ca II K central intensity atmosphere is 0.040. This possibly represents conditions as they were during the Maunder Minimum [their words, remember]. Within our capability to measure it using the C I 5380A line the global (Full Disk) and basal (Center Disk) photospheric temperature is constant over the activity cycles 21, 22, and 23″. I have known Bill Livingston [and White] for over 35 years and he is a very careful and competent observer.
    Line 2:
    Since the 1960 we have known that the sun’s surface oscillates up and down [with typical periods of ~5 minutes]. These oscillations are waves very much like seismic waves in the Earth [caused by earthquakes] and just as earthquake seismic waves can be used to probe the interior of the Earth, they can be used to probe the solar interior. There are millions of such solar waves at any given time and there are different kinds (called ’modes’) of waves. The solar p-modes are acoustic [sound waves] normal modes. You one can imagine a frequency increase with an increasing magnetic field, due to the increase in magnetic pressure raising the local speed of sound near the surface where it is cooler and where the p-modes spend most of their time. Of course one can also imagine higher frequencies may result from an induced shrinking of the sound cavity and/or an isobaric warming of the cavity. Another kind is the solar f-modes that are the eigenmodes of the sun having no radial null points [i.e. asymptotically surface waves; again I apologize for the technical mumbo-jumbo]. From the solar cycle variations of p- and f-modes [and we have now enough data from the SOHO spacecraft to make such a study] we now have an internally consistent picture of the origin of these frequency changes that implies a sun that is coolest at activity maximum when it is most irradiant. Now, how can that be? How can a cooler [overall, including the cooler sunspots, for instance, as the temperature of the non-magnetic areas of the sun didn’t change {see line 1 above}] sun radiate more? It can do that, if it is bigger! [...] Goode and Dziembowski (Sunshine, Earthshine and Climate Change I. Origin of, and Limits on Solar Variability, by Goode, Philip R. & Dziembowski, W. A., Journal of the Korean Astronomical Society, vol. 36, S1, pp. S75-S81, 2003) used the helioseismic data to determine the shape changes in the Sun with rising activity. They calculated the so-called shape asymmetries from the seismic data and found each coefficient was essentially zero at activity minimum and rose in precise spatial correlation with rising surface activity, as measured using Ca II K data from Big Bear Solar Observatory. From this one can conclude that there is a rising corrugation of the solar surface due to rising activity, implying a sun, whose increased irradiance is totally due to activity induced corrugation. This interpretation has been recently observationally verified by Berger et al. (Berger, T.E., van der Voort, L., Rouppe, Loefdahl, M., Contrast analysis of Solar faculae and magnetic bright points. Astrophysical Journal, vol. 661, p.1272, 2007) using the new Swedish Solar Telescope. They have directly observed these corrugations. Goode & Dziembowski conclude that the Sun cannot have been any dimmer, [except] on the time steps of solar evolution, than it is now at activity minimum.
    Line 3:
    Foukal et al. (Foukal, P., North, G., Wigley, T., A stellar view on solar variations and climate. Science, vol. 306, p. 68, 2004) point out the Sun’s web-like chromospheric magnetic network (an easily visible solar structure seen through a Ca II K filter) would have looked very different a century ago, if there had been a significant change in the magnetic field of the sun supposedly increasing TSI. However, there is a century of Mt. Wilson Solar Observatory Ca II K data which reveal that the early 20th century network is indistinguishable from that of today.
    Line 4:
    Svalgaard & Cliver have recently (A Floor in the Solar Wind Magnetic Field, by L. Svalgaard and E. W. Cliver, The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 661, L203–L206, 2007 June 1, 2007) shown that long-term (∼130 years) reconstruction of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) based on geomagnetic indices indicates that the solar wind magnetic field strength [and thus that of the sun itself, from which the IMF originates] has a “floor,” a baseline value in annual averages that it approaches at each 11 yr solar minimum. In the ecliptic plane at 1 AU [at the Earth], the IMF floor is ∼4.6 nT [later data have lowered that estimate to 4 nT], a value substantiated by direct solar wind measurements and cosmogenic nuclei data. We identify the floor with a constant (over centuries) baseline open magnetic flux [...]. Solar cycle variations of the IMF strength ride on top of the floor. They point out that such a floor has implications for (1) the solar wind during grand minima — we are given a glimpse of Maunder minimum conditions at every 11 yr minimum; (2) current models of the solar wind — both source surface and MHD models are based on the assumption, invalidated by Ulysses, that the largest scale fields determine the magnitude of the IMF; consequently, these models are unable to reproduce the high-latitude observations; and (3) the use of geomagnetic input data for precursor-type predictions of the coming sunspot maximum — this common practice is rendered doubtful by the observed disconnect between solar polar field strength and heliospheric field strength [the wrong prediction by the NASA panel for cycle 23 was based on this, and the prediction {of a high cycle} by one half of panel for cycle 24 is also partly based on this]. The constancy of the IMF also has implications for the interpretation of the Galactic cosmic ray flux.
    Line 5:
    But maybe it is the Ultraviolet flux that varies and affects the stratospheric ozone concentration and thereby influences the climate. I have earlier in (Calibrating the Sunspot Number using the “Magnetic Needle”, L. Svalgaard; CAWSES News, 4(1), 6.5, 2007] pointed out that the amplitude of the diurnal variation of the geomagnetic Y-component is an excellent proxy for the F10.7 radio flux and thus also for the EUV flux (more precisely, the FUV, as the Sq current flows in the E layer). [...] Observations since the 1740s then lead to the conclusion that (as for the IMF) there seems to be a “’floor’” in rY and hence in F10.7 and hence in the FUV flux, thus the geomagnetic evidence is that there has been no secular change in the background solar minimum EUV (FUV) flux in the past 165 years.
    Line 6:
    Careful analysis of the amplitude of the solar diurnal variation of the East-component of the geomagnetic field [we have some measurements back to the 1740s] allows us the obtain an independent measure of the FUV flux (and hence the sunspot number) back to then. The result is that the Wolf number before ~1945 should be increased by 20% and before ~1895 by another 20%. The Group Sunspot number in the 1840s is 40% too low compared to the official Wolf number. When all these adjustments are made we find that solar activity for cycles 11 and 10 were as high as for cycle 22 and 23. Thus there has been no secular increase in solar activity [...]. Of course, there has still been small and large cycles, but we are talking about the long-term trend here [or lack thereof].
    ————–
    Direct measurements (although beset by calibration problems) of the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) from satellites have only been available for 30 years and indicate that solar irradiance increases with solar activity. Correlating mean annual TSI and sunspot numbers allows one to estimate the part of TSI that varies with the sunspot number. If TSI only depends linearly on the sunspot number then irradiance levels during the Maunder Minimum would be similar to the levels of current solar minima. But TSI is a delicate balance between sunspot darkening and facular brightening, and although both of these increase (in opposite directions) with increasing solar activity, it is not a given that there could not be secular variations in the relative importance of these competing effects. Several earlier reconstructions of TSI, reviewed in Fröhlich, C. & J. Lean (Solar Radiative Output and its Variability; Evidence and Mechanisms, Astron..& Astrophys. Rev., 12(4), 273, 2004, Doi;10.1007/s00159-004-0024-1.[6] all postulate a source of long-term irradiance variability on centennial time scales. Each group of researchers have their own preferred additional source of changes of the “background” TSI, such as evidence from geomagnetic activity, open magnetic flux, ephemeral region occurrence, umbral/penumbral ratios, and the like. The existence of “floors” in IMF and FUV over ~1.6 centuries argues for a lack of secular variations of these parameters on that time scale. The six lines of evidence discussed above suggest that the lack of such secular variation undermines the circumstantial evidence for a “hidden” source of irradiance variability and that there therefore also might be a floor in TSI, such that TSI during Grand Minima would simply be that observed at current solar minima.
    ——[...] And it is perfectly true that there may be effects we don’t know about, but as Wittgenstein said “of that which we don’t know we should be silent”.
    Now, this is a BIG subject and you are in a sense watching science in the making, but the picture is becoming clearer and there is enough NEW evidence that simply quoting old papers [even rather recent ones] is old hat. If you look carefully at the various reconstructions they all rely on some combination of the [too low] Group Sunspot numbers and/or the [too low aa-index] and/or the now discredited “doubling of open magnetic flux in the last 100 years” [not even Lockwood thinks so anymore]. With these things out of the way there is little support anymore for the “all-time high solar activity”. But as I said, this whole thing will probably take some time to play out – let’’s say about a solar cycle’s worth. Each of the issues mentioned above is complicated and requires a lengthy analysis and much convincing before they sink in. But at least you are now forewarned
    All the lines are connected, you cannot easily accept some and reject the others [with possible exception of #1]. So accept all or reject all. I’m very willing to discuss any and all of them in detail, but it has to be done with civility [windandsea: nobody is ‘flinging nonsense’. People are either ignorant (which is no shame) or have other hidden motives (which is no shame either)]. I have learned that civility is a precious commodity in the GW debate, but we can all do our part.”

  156. Hhhhmmmm…

    Perhaps Prof. Svalgaard you could try to explain all that to Jeff Glassman on his blog? Bothering of course to read what he has previously written there.

    One thing is for sure – you would then at least have someone reading your own long (rambling) piece above who has had a rigorous physics training and a long career in dealing with electromagnetic radiation – somewhat of a rare commodity in the readership of WUWT where the scoring of ‘shots’ is relatively easy for one with a rigorous science education.

    FYI, I am not one of those who proudly proclaims that the ten papers they refer to have NOT been corrupted by being peer-reviewed. I have about 100 peer reviewed publications myself and am reasonably happy with most of them. So it goes as Vonnegut used to say.

    It is just that (at age 61), having spend almost approximately half my 35-year career in government research organizations doing good hard research and the other half in heavy industry, applying my technical knowledge, I developed a healthy scepticism (to use a tired old word) about the efficiency and integrity of the conventional peer-review process.

    In my view, it is actually only a deep and retrogressive conservatism in the science community which resists allowing the literature and the actions of editors and ‘peer reviewers’ to discard the paper, save numerous trees and become fully online and hence fully transparent. Secrecy serves no purpose in Science other than to cater for the baser instincts of scientists. Surprisingly perhaps to you they do have ‘em.

    It strikes me that with the Internet we have the perfect tool to fix all that.

    A very good question would by why is that paradigm shift so slow, and so resisted by scientists – ESPECIALLY in the one age where we are all being asked by those very scientists to accept (their) one giant paradigm which is supposedly global and threatening to all mankind and millions of other species.

    BTW, I very much doubt cost is the reason why Jeff Glassman doesn’t publish – I would hazard a guess it is much more likely that, being aged 77 he is sensibly trying to enjoy his retirement while keeping his mind active. Presumably you might feel the same when you have attained the same physical maturity. At least his own views are fairly presented for all to see. They mostly seem quite rigorous to me

    My career has also allowed me to get a very good look, admittedly from the perspective of an Aspie, at all the other sorts of syndromes which are relatively common in science and academia, in particular. I refer of course to such syndromes as the ‘gods in their own mind’ and/or the ‘professor as sociopath’ tendencies.

    You might say I have developed a few idiosyncratic ‘smell tests’ of my own along the way.

  157. ecoeng says:
    July 5, 2010 at 10:43 pm
    BTW, I very much doubt cost is the reason why Jeff Glassman doesn’t publish

    Yet you make the following snide comment:
    ecoeng says:
    July 5, 2010 at 5:53 pm
    “One can only hope that Prof. Svalgaard is sufficiently the intelligent fellow he appears to be to do Glassman the courtesy of acknowledging (unsaid) the fact that at age 77 and retired (after an honorable career that needs no promotion), he doesn’t have the luxury of submitting his work for peer review in the ‘regular’ literature.”
    What is ‘luxury’ then, if not cost?

    I would hazard a guess it is much more likely that, being aged 77 he is sensibly trying to enjoy his retirement while keeping his mind active.
    Publishing is and excellent way of doing this.

    Presumably you might feel the same when you have attained the same physical maturity.
    Admittedly, at 68, I still have some way to go. I know many scientists publishing vigorously in their eighties and nineties.

    They mostly seem quite rigorous to me
    Which ones are not [since they are only 'mostly' ...]

    have someone reading your own long (rambling) piece above
    implying that you did not show me the courtesy…
    And since when is a detailed argument rambling? I even warn people that it might be technical and involved.

    FYI, I am not one of those who proudly proclaims that the ten papers they refer to have NOT been corrupted by being peer-reviewed.
    And yet you say:
    “In any case, IMO the ‘closed shop’ old paper-based world of the ‘peer reviewed’ literature is a dinosaur whose end is nigh”. May I point out that I consider the Internet and blogs excellent tools for good peer-review. I advocate that the whole review process be in the open [on the internet] and have backed that up with action as well: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/29/leif-svalgaard-on-the-experience-of-peer-review/

    A very good question would by why is that paradigm shift so slow, and so resisted by scientists – ESPECIALLY in the one age where we are all being asked by those very scientists to accept (their) one giant paradigm which is supposedly global and threatening to all mankind and millions of other species.
    Paradigm shifts are not always slow. When faced with good enough data, the paradigm can change rapidly. E.g. the Big Bang, plate tectonics, accelerating expansion of the universe,

  158. Sure, this is a REALLY BIG subject (like many others in science I hasten to note) and us peasants have all been very thoroughly warned.

    However, it seems to me that the position has not really changed materially since 2006 when Foukal et al stated sensibly in their Review in Nature ‘ Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth’s climate’ that:

    Variations in the Sun’s total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century. Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun’s output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present.

    To repeat: ” …too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present”.

    What I find disturbing about the hectoring of Prof. Svalgaard is this manic urgency to proclaim a brand new orthodoxy of a utterly steady state Sun which cannot possibly have any climatic forcing effects – a package based on an unbelievably brief period of (scientific) time which stands in marked contrast even to such simple things as the millenia long human record of flows in the Nile River.

    It is trivially easy to quote a significant number of papers produced by researchers over the last decade exploring directly or by proxy possible climate forcing effects due to variations in photochemical reactions in the top of the atmosphere or indeed lower induced by absolute variations in UV or global distributions of plasma fluxes. This is not even to get into weirder Sun-related ‘action at a distance effects’ such as long term variations in the global dust accretion rate (noting we are located well up from the bottom of the gravity well) or the more commonly discussed effects of solar activity on the cosmic ray flux, and hence on aerosol and cloud nucleation (=> albedo).

    So I’m unconvinced that the recent deep solar minimum somehow means that the jury has already delivered a verdict.

  159. ecoeng says:
    July 6, 2010 at 1:16 am

    So I’m unconvinced that the recent deep solar minimum somehow means that the jury has already delivered a verdict.

    It depends on which proposition is in front of the jury. Leif is arguing that there cannot be direct effects from the sun since the latest measurements say that the sun changes less than 0.1% from cycle to cycle.

    If we accept this premise, this does not preclude amplifications and resonances, coming from the fact that climate is the prime example of dynamical chaos.

    Spend some time to contemplate this parametric pendulum in the chaotic state.

    http://brain.cc.kogakuin.ac.jp/~kanamaru/Chaos/e/PP/index-small.html

    Climate on the planet earth is a confluence of many effects and it could easily be that there exist amplification factors , as the galactic cosmic rays in tandem with the ocean currents affecting albedo, for example, and controlling climate. This has not been excluded in any way. Tsonis et al ( there is a thread here) using just oceanic currents have been predicting the observed temperature stasis and tendency to cooling in a neural net chaotic model. If GCRs enter the game stronger effects may develop. It is an open research field. Even plankton and UV may pull an oar in this melange.

  160. anna v says:
    July 6, 2010 at 3:30 am (Edit)
    Leif is arguing that there cannot be direct effects from the sun since the latest measurements say that the sun changes less than 0.1% from cycle to cycle.

    Well since the ocean has only increased in temperature by about 0.5% since global warming started, and Nir Shaviv shows us that the solar signal is amplified by about 7 times by a terrestrial effect (probably cloud modulation), we are indeed close to showing that we don’t need minor changes in trace gas levels to explain global warming.

  161. “If we accept this premise, this does not preclude amplifications and resonances, coming from the fact that climate is the prime example of dynamical chaos. ”

    True. For “dynamical chaos” (just as Judith Lean noted) read:
    non-equilibrium thermodynamics.

    For non-equilibrium thermodynamics read:
    “Non-equilibrium thermodynamics and the production of entropy” Axel Kleidon and Ralph D. Lorenz (Eds). Springer, 2005.

    So Glassman not only does not preclude, but explicitly explores (in a mathematically mature way) “amplifications and resonances”.

    I guess it is just the all out hubris and overbearing assumption that everyone else is a chump (boring, boring) which eventually tends to gall.

  162. tallbloke says:
    July 6, 2010 at 3:46 am
    Well since the ocean has only increased in temperature by about 0.5% since global warming started
    Not 0.5%, but 0.5 degrees. Facts, you know, can be important.

    tallbloke says:
    July 6, 2010 at 4:24 am
    This piece in Leif’s research repository may help shed some light on some of the issues.
    My note has become moot as McCracken no longer maintain his point of view. He is a coauthor of the Steinhilber et al. paper that shows no abrupt change around 1950. See http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric%20Magnetic%20Field%201835-2009.pdf
    especially Figure 14 [McCracken's reconstruction is the dotted red line].

  163. ecoeng says:
    July 6, 2010 at 1:16 am
    Foukal: this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century.
    That additional forcing “cannot be ruled out” also means that they have not been shown to be effective.

  164. John Finn says:
    July 5, 2010 at 7:16 am

    I can’t speak for Leif, but I’d like to see a coherent and credible argument from those who are sceptical of AGW. The most damaging thing that could happen is that a high profile study or piece of research is later shown to be amateurish nonsense.

    There are plenty of “coherent and credible” arguments made by skeptics/climate realists. I suspect it’s because you aren’t really looking. In any case, the null hypothesis is that climate is driven by natural variations involving primarily the sun, the oceans, and clouds. Volcanoes play some role, and to a minor extent, so does man.
    I fail to see how the work of Archibald’s can be “damaging” (and certainly not “dangerous”), except to those who are agenda-driven and for whom his work is seen as a threat. If his work is dis-proven later, fine, that is how science is supposed to work. Those claiming that the sun plays a minor role in climate have a tough row to hoe though, beginning with the paleoclimatic history, which they keep trying to rewrite.

  165. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 6, 2010 at 6:04 am (Edit)

    tallbloke says:
    July 6, 2010 at 3:46 am
    Well since the ocean has only increased in temperature by about 0.5% since global warming started
    Not 0.5%, but 0.5 degrees. Facts, you know, can be important.

    I said 0.5% and I meant 0.5%
    average temperature of ocean is 17C = 289K
    ~0.3C rise from 1940 to 2000 = ~0.5% of 289K

  166. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 6, 2010 at 6:04 am (Edit)

    My note has become moot as McCracken no longer maintain his point of view. He is a coauthor of the Steinhilber et al. paper that shows no abrupt change around 1950. See http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric%20Magnetic%20Field%201835-2009.pdf
    especially Figure 14 [McCracken's reconstruction is the dotted red line].

    Thanks Leif, nice to see your latest stuff. Who is currently measuring TSI with which spacecaft? And how has the data been spliced to the failing sensors Frolich was struggling with? And can we see it?

  167. tallbloke says:
    July 6, 2010 at 8:29 am
    I said 0.5% and I meant 0.5%
    average temperature of ocean is 17C = 289K
    ~0.3C rise from 1940 to 2000 = ~0.5% of 289K

    [sigh] 17C= 17+273= 290K
    1% of 290K is 3K, so 0.3C or K is 0.1%

    tallbloke says:
    July 6, 2010 at 9:06 am
    Thanks Leif, nice to see your latest stuff. Who is currently measuring TSI with which spacecaft? And how has the data been spliced to the failing sensors Frolich was struggling with? And can we see it?

    http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm

    Splicing is in disrepute, and the LASP people carefully avoid that. I do some [disreputable] splicing: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20(Reconstructions).xls but the slicing is complicated by the experimenters are more interested in proving themselves right, rather than trying to find out where they may be wrong. This is a-changing though http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session1/1g_Kopp_i.pdf
    And the sensors are not ‘faulty’ [why use such a FUD word to cast doubt on something?]. All sensors have severe degradation [much larger than the solar variation]. By having redundant sensors exposed for different amounts of time to the harsh environment of space [and by controlling or keeping track of the thermal environment the spacecraft itself contributes] one tries the damnest to correct for the degradation. This is just hard to do, hence the discrepancies. Another way to discover data problems is to look for signals that cannot be solar, e.g. an annual variation [except if Ulrich and such folks are correct :-) ]. ACRIM has such a problem. PMOD has the ‘keyhole’ problem, etc. Modeling [comparing with other indices] is also a useful technique [provided these indices are any good - and some are not, e.g. the Sunspot number lately - L&P and all that]. There is always a danger that too much homogenizing and adjusting may end up removed some real signal, but we are all away of EVERY aspect of this and you may safely assume that the people in this business are not morons.

  168. tallbloke says:
    July 6, 2010 at 10:03 am
    I said 0.5% and I meant 0.5%
    Doh! 0.05% not 0.5%
    lol, my mistake.

    ‘bow and weep’ would be more appropriate than ‘lol’

    Now, what does that mistake do to this other mistake:
    tallbloke says:
    July 6, 2010 at 3:46 am
    Well since the ocean has only increased in temperature by about 0.5% since global warming started [...] we are indeed close to showing that we don’t need minor changes in trace gas levels to explain global warming.

  169. And yet, and yet …..even people such as the Mike Lockwood who has supposedly ‘changed his mind’ are still producing papers like this, submitted as only recently as 12 March 2010 please note:

    Environ. Res. Lett. 5 (2010) 024001 (7pp)
    Are cold winters in Europe associated with
    low solar activity?
    M Lockwood1,2, R G Harrison1, T Woollings1 and S K Solanki3,4
    1 Space Environment Physics Group, Department of Meteorology, University of Reading,
    Earley Gate, PO Box 243, Reading RG6 6BB, UK
    2 Space Science and Technology Department, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory,
    Harwell Campus, Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire OX11 0QX, UK
    3 MPI f¨ur Sonnensystemforschung,Max-Planck-Straße 2, 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany
    4 School of Space Research, Kyung Hee University, Yongin, Gyeonggi 446-701, Korea
    E-mail: m.lockwood@reading.ac.uk
    Received 12 March 2010
    Accepted for publication 31 March 2010
    Published 14 April 2010
    Online at stacks.iop.org/ERL/5/024001
    Abstract
    Solar activity during the current sunspot minimum has fallen to levels unknown since the start of the 20th century. The Maunder minimum (about 1650–1700) was a prolonged episode of low solar activity which coincided with more severe winters in the United Kingdom and continental Europe. Motivated by recent relatively cold winters in the UK, we investigate the possible connection with solar activity. We identify regionally anomalous cold winters by detrending the Central England temperature (CET) record using reconstructions of the northern hemisphere
    mean temperature. We show that cold winter excursions from the hemispheric trend occur more commonly in the UK during low solar activity, consistent with the solar influence on theoccurrence of persistent blocking events in the eastern Atlantic. We stress that this is a regional and seasonal effect relating to European winters and not a global effect. Average solar activity has declined rapidly since 1985 and cosmogenic isotopes suggest an 8% chance of a return to Maunder minimum conditions within the next 50 years (Lockwood 2010 Proc. R. Soc. A 466 303–29): the results presented here indicate that, despite hemispheric warming, the UK and Europe could experience more cold winters than during recent decades.
    Keywords: regional climate, solar variability, blocking

  170. A&A 467, 335-346 (2007)
    DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066725
    Reconstruction of solar total irradiance since 1700 from the surface magnetic flux
    N. A. Krivova, L. Balmaceda, and S. K. Solanki

    Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Max-Planck-Str. 2, 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany
    e-mail: natalie@mps.mpg.de

    (Received 9 November 2006 / Accepted 23 February 2007)

    Abstract
    Context.Total solar irradiance changes by about 0.1% between solar activity maximum and minimum. Accurate measurements of this quantity are only available since 1978 and do not provide information on longer-term secular trends.
    Aims.In order to reliably evaluate the Sun’s role in recent global climate change, longer time series are, however, needed. They can only be assessed with the help of suitable models.
    Methods.The total solar irradiance is reconstructed from the end of the Maunder minimum to the present based on variations of the surface distribution of the solar magnetic field. The latter is calculated from the historical record of the sunspot number using a simple but consistent physical model.
    Results.Our model successfully reproduces three independent data sets: total solar irradiance measurements available since 1978, total photospheric magnetic flux since 1974 and the open magnetic flux since 1868 empirically reconstructed using the geomagnetic aa-index. The model predicts an increase in the solar total irradiance since the Maunder minimum of 1.3+0.2-0.4 Wm-2.

    Only 4 months in peer review too – they must have got lucky (;-)

  171. ecoeng says:
    July 6, 2010 at 1:41 pm

    Warmer Central dreamt this one up. They realise that people might associate cold with lower solar activity, so they make up a story to say that the cold is only affecting Europe and therefore there is nothing to worry about as far as the veracity of AGW is concerned.

  172. Bruce Cobb says:
    July 6, 2010 at 7:14 am

    There are plenty of “coherent and credible” arguments made by skeptics/climate realists. I suspect it’s because you aren’t really looking.

    Ok – thanks for that, Bruce. Would this be an example of me “not really looking”?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/

    Immediately below the first graph you will find the following
    Back in December 2004 John Finn asked about “the divergence” in Myth vs. Fact Regarding the “Hockey Stick” -thread of RealClimate.org.

    I am well aware of the main areas of uncertainty in the AGW argument.

  173. David Archibald says:
    July 6, 2010 at 2:21 pm

    Warmer Central dreamt this one up. They realise that people might associate cold with lower solar activity, so they make up a story to say that the cold is only affecting Europe and therefore there is nothing to worry about as far as the veracity of AGW is concerned

    What “cold” would that be, David. The “high quality satellite data” (your words) has recently recorded the warmest Sep-Mar period in the entire series.

  174. This is what Glassman says about the IPCC view (omitting his figures and math, some minor comments and in some cases splitting paras):

    As a result of its selective and incomplete modeling, IPCC determined, with an admittedly low level of scientific understanding, that solar radiation is insignificant compared to its chartered model. Using its ambiguous standard of radiative forcing (RF), IPCC calculates that the RF from the Sun is 0.12 [0.06 to 0.30] Wm-2, only 7% of the 1.66 [1.49 to 1.83] Wm-2 it attributes to CO2 (AR4, Figure TS.5, p. 32), all based on a constant Bond albedo. IPCC puts the total solar RF at a third of just the uncertainty in CO2 forcing. That figure of 0.12 Wm-2 approximates the best fit linear increase in solar radiation since 1750 using the model of Wang, et al. (2005), but after applying 11-year smoothing.

    Why did IPCC first apply 11-year smoothing, and then model the Sun by a single trend covering almost twice the span of temperature measurements? The answer to the smoothing question is that Earth does not respond to the 11-year cycle. That large component dominating the solar pattern is noise with respect to climate, and it masks underlying patterns. IPCC chose the 250 year trend to minimize any pattern in the solar output, thus reinforcing its conjecture that CO2 is the cause global warming.

    IPCC’s transcending argument is that if multiple records are similarly unprecedented, then they must have a common cause; and if any one of them is arguably manmade, then all must be. Applied to the Sun, IPCC urges that the current solar irradiance is not unprecedented, being within 0.05% of its level just 250 years ago. Therefore, IPCC concludes the Sun is not among the parameters with a common cause, and so it ruled out the Sun as a cause.

    IPCC says,

    … the solid Earth acts as a low-pass filter on downward propagating temperature signals… . AR4, ¶6.6.1.2 What Do Large-Scale Temperature Histories from Subsurface Temperature Measurements Show?, p. 474.

    and with regard to the gaseous Earth it says,

    As early as 1910, Abbot believed that he had detected a downward trend in TSI that coincided with a general cooling of climate. The solar cycle variation in irradiance corresponds to an 11-year cycle in radiative forcing which varies by about 0.2 Wm-2. There is increasingly reliable evidence of its influence on atmospheric temperatures and circulations, particularly in the higher atmosphere. Calculations with three-dimensional models suggest that the changes in solar radiation could cause surface temperature changes of the order of a few tenths of a degree Celsius. Citations deleted, AR4, ¶1.4.3 Solar Variability and the Total Solar Irradiance, p. 107.

    If the Sun had no effect on albedo, or any other amplifying process, IPCC’s calculation would put to rest any consideration that solar variability might be the cause of the modern temperature variations. IPCC’s mistake is to abandon consideration of the Sun as the instrument of climate change based on its first-order forcing calculation with everything else held constant. Albedo, for example, is not constant.

    Cloud albedo is a positive feedback that amplifies solar radiation while at the same time it is a negative feedback that mitigates warming from any cause. Increased solar activity initially causes more shortwave energy to be absorbed in the atmosphere. This warms the atmosphere, reducing cloud cover at a constant humidity, and thus increasing insolation at the surface. Only later does the resulting warming of the surface increases humidity as the ocean absorbs the higher insolation. The ocean is both the primary agent and a slow agent because of its high heat capacity. The increased humidity increases cloud cover, provided a surplus of cloud condensation nuclei is available, increasing cloud albedo, and mitigating the entire effect.

    In the proposed model, albedo is linear with ΔS (i.e. delta TSI), with a small quadratic component. Meanwhile, temperature and humidity have the complementary effect, showing the amplification of the solar output and the negative feedback of albedo. The albedo amplification of the Sun would be rapid, while its negative feedback would be slow because of the lag in the ocean to produce increased humidity.

    This model is approximately linear over a wide range of useful values for the constants, which remain to be optimized. With increasing solar output, Earth’s temperature and atmospheric humidity increase while albedo decreases. Here is a sample set:
    CLOUD COVER MODEL PARAMETERS
    # Parameter Value Comments
    1 A0 0.3 Nominal current value
    2 T0 133.4 For anomalies
    3 H0 30% Nominal current value
    4 kH 0.0001 Nominal current value
    5 kO 0.1
    6 kS 0.1
    7 kH 31 For T = 1.1ºC @ ΔS = 0.055

    Between 1862 and 1998, temperature rose 1.1ºC (Figure 5) while TSI increased 0.22 Wm-2 (Figure 9, bold). Dividing by 4 for the geometric effect on Earth, the solar input increased by 0.055 Wm-2.

    This cloud albedo model amplifies the Sun in the short term, and introduces the Earthly lags in the long term that tune the climate, making it selective to long term variations on the Sun. ……

    IPCC employs centered symmetrical filters for its data records, which are unrealizable, meaning filters that are aware of the future. IPCC’s results are thus subjectively attractive, but to the extent that it applies such filtered data to its models, its work is physically problematic and not objective.

    A prime example is IPCC’s unquantified attribution of the glacial cycles to the Milankovitch cycles (AR4 FAQ 6.1, with the humorous title “What Caused the Ice Ages and Other Important Climate Changes Before the Industrial Era”, bold added). Wikipedia falls in line, but steps over it to say, “Past and future Milankovitch cycles. VSOP [Variations Séculaires des Orbites Planétaires] allows prediction of past and future orbital parameters with great accuracy.” Bold added. Wikipedia puts the lie to its claim by saying the Milankovitch Climate model is “not perfectly worked out” (as if perfection were ever achieved in any science), listing eight named problems, which IPCC minimizes. See for example AR4 ¶6.7 Concluding Remarks on Key Uncertainties, p. 483. Among those problems are a mismatch between the magnitudes of the orbital forcings and the climate response, and a causal problem with the penultimate glacial cycle.

    IPCC tries to salvage its AGW theory by making CO2 an agent of the Milankovitch theory, amplifying the variations without triggering them. AR4 Ch. 6, Executive Summary, p. 435. When the CO2 proves insufficient as a positive feedback, IPCC adds water vapor as the next, most important, and as clouds, the least understood feedback. AR4 FAQ 1.3 What is the Greenhouse Effect?, p. 116; AR4, Ch. 8, Executive Summary, p. 593; AR4 ¶8.6.3.2 Clouds, p. 636.

    This cascade of speculation about causes and effects arises out of a lack of causality coupled into a model for Earth’s climate that is only conditionally stable, on the cusp of being triggered into a new state by an unidentified event, or crossing a model “tipping point”.

    Nature doesn’t have systems balanced on a knife edge, round boulders perched on the sides of hills, or cones standing on their tips. To be objective, investigators should model Earth as deeply stable, that is, requiring by definition cataclysmic events to dislodge it from its conditionally stable state, and instead responding gradually to causal forces.

  175. Leif Svalgaard on 7/5/10 at 11:12 pm wrote:

    In response to ecoeng claiming I was 77, and

    >>>> BTW, I very much doubt cost is the reason why Jeff Glassman doesn’t publish,

    >>What is ‘luxury’ then, if not cost?

    Of course, the “if not”, in part, is time. And, by the way, I dislike being characterized as 77 when I’m only 76 3/4.

    And of course, I do publish. And review is public, and not restricted to peers. I take on all comers, and my rule is there is no such thing as a dumb question.

    The legitimate question might be why I don’t publish in peer-reviewed climate journals. The rest of the “if not” equation is not just patience, it is the zero probability of success, and the years worth of interference that will be thrown at me to show deference to the dogma before being finally rejected. Meanwhile, the need for worthy anti-AGW publication is urgent.

    As you said,

    >>Publishing is [an] excellent way of doing this.

    And the Internet was designed specifically to share information, and to short circuit the horror of academic publishing that had frustrated, and still does frustrate, government R&D.

    I subscribe to the position of Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, who efficiently summarized the state of peer review today. In an editorial in The Medical Journal of Australia, he wrote:

    >>The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability – not the validity – of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed [jiggered, not repaired], often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong. Caps added, Horton, R, “Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion, and crack-up; The controversy over genetically modified food exposes larger ISSUES ABOUT PUBLIC TRUST IN SCIENCE AND THE ROLE OF SCIENCE IN POLICYMAKING”, eMJA, 2/21/00.

    http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/172_04_210200/horton/horton.html

    Horton’s lament is far from unique to the food industry. A widely publicized statistical study confirmed the corruption of peer review in climate journals. The study purportedly showed more than a consensus among scientists supports AGW. The sample contained no dissenters. However, the author didn’t survey scientists. Instead she surveyed published articles. She actually demonstrated instead that between 1993 and 2003, no peer-reviewed science journals published an article contesting the existence of AGW. Oreskes, N., “Undeniable Global Warming”, 12/26/04. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26065-2004Dec25.html . See also rocketscientistsjournal.com, “The Acquittal of CO2″, response to Jeff Stewart, 3/22/07, and IPCC’s Fatal Errors, response to scruffydan, 7/23/09.

    The reality of peer review is that acceptance or rejection is a pre-publication event. The test for science was under the table before Mann and Jones. But Mann and Jones were not satisfied with anything less than unanimity. They salted editorial boards with collaborators, and threatened nonconforming editors and authors with loss of status and professional isolation for their journals and articles. They worked to convert a compromised editorial process into a criminal enterprise to breach the “public trust in science” and to pervert “the role of science in policymaking.”

    I think in this we are in agreement, recognizing that you wrote,

    >>May I point out that I consider the Internet and blogs excellent tools for good peer-review. I advocate that the whole review process be in the open [on the internet] and have backed that up with action as well: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/29/leif-svalgaard-on-the-experience-of-peer-review/

    which I delight in repeating.

    You say,

    >>Nobody I know of very carefully ignores his work. The reason it doesn’t have more of an impact is that it does not pass reasonable smell tests. One does not just state that this and that is better than this or that, but gives a reason for that belief.

    On opening the Journal, the reader sees only abstracts or summaries of the six papers, so far. These are jarring, if not iconoclastic, and of course being abstracts and summaries, citations are rare to non-existent. Because each paper is a major departure from the dogma of Anthropogenic Global Warming, the abstracts out of context might give the impression or radicalism to AGW believers and proponents. Please read beyond the abstract, or delve into a subject in depth, before judging that the papers make naked claims. Feedback would be appreciated, and rewarded with a full response.

    The papers are unique in thoroughness and responsiveness to critiques. The articles address models of the IPCC using data approved by the Panel, or taken from IPCC approved, first tier authorities. The articles avoid posing alternative models or relying on alternative data records, at least without laying a thorough foundation for the departure.

    The main bodies of the papers leave nothing unsupported. Because researchers have cultivated the doctrine of AGW for most of a century, and because the professional journals and reviewers are not receptive to skepticism, the papers find negligible support in peer-reviewed climate literature. Consequently, a vast bibliography is not possible, which is certain by sheer weight alone to leave doubt in the minds of those expecting a conventional, academic paper on the subject. A positive consequence is that the papers do not suffer from the usual abundant array of pro forma or obsequious citations. As a result, the foundation for the papers must start from scratch. These are developed in the papers.

    All the papers are kept current. Revisions are marked and dated. Comments are kept indefinitely, and where appropriate additional technical discussion is supplied in response. It is all fully searchable with Google. The comments help keep the papers current and vital, though perhaps too often they have drifted into AGW the political doctrine. The responses, too, are subject to revision under the same rules. Illustrations from the main body are number consecutively, and carry into illustrations in the responses. Commenters are given credit where their posts have led to revisions or amplifications.

    The papers are rich in innovations in the field, and being published and dated, they tend to secure the work as originating with me. People are going to find the science increasingly difficult to ignore. To date, no significant challenge has been raised to any of the science in those papers.

  176. I would like to thank Jeff Glassman for his recent posts here. We need more Glassmans, and fewer Pachauris, Schmidts and Manns.

  177. Good on you Jeff – very well said. My sincere apologies for stating you were 77 rather than 76&3/4 (only) . I must have misread one of your online biographies a couple of years back.

    There have been small number of papers since Wang et al. (2005) making estimates of the variation in TSI since 1700 ~ 1750. As I perceive it, some may be said to endorse Leif Svalgaard’s view of an even smaller degree of variation (or overall increase to 2000) – some not. Personally I still don’t see what the problem is with your choice of Wang et al. (2005) because I can’t see any clear evidence in the post-2005 literature that a ‘consensus’ has yet emerged that the variation is substantially smaller i.e. that Wang et al (2005) is insufficiently conservative. Leif probably sees it differently but that is a matter of technical opinion not yet proof of a broad based ‘consensual paradigm shift’.

    In any case it may not be a case of TSI explicitly anyway but of other solar-based astronomical effect(s) which correlate or anticorrelate with TSI such as UV flux, cosmic rays or plasma magnetic fields acting on cloud behaviour etc. I understand there has been major progress in recent years on understanding the nature and extent of electrical effects in/on clouds.

  178. ecoeng says:
    July 6, 2010 at 1:41 pm
    And yet, and yet …..even people such as the Mike Lockwood who has supposedly ‘changed his mind’ are still producing papers like this, submitted as only recently as 12 March 2010 please note:
    Mike needs some funding. There is gold in them thar climate papers…

    ecoeng says:
    July 6, 2010 at 2:11 pm
    Reconstruction of solar total irradiance since 1700 from the surface magnetic flux
    N. A. Krivova, L. Balmaceda, and S. K. Solanki [submitted 2006]

    is already obsolete. They also say:
    “longer time series are, however, needed. They can only be assessed with the help of suitable models.” And their model has the non-existent ‘doubling of the solar field’ built in. See line 72ff of http://www.leif.org/research/Comment%20on%20McCracken.pdf

    Jeff Glassman says:
    July 6, 2010 at 9:06 pm
    And, by the way, I dislike being characterized as 77 when I’m only 76 3/4.
    So have not attained the physical maturity associated with 77, as ecoeng claimed. Anyway, blame the 77 on him/her.

    The rest of the “if not” equation is not just patience, it is the zero probability of success
    If your case is strong enough it will be accepted, if not…

    To date, no significant challenge has been raised to any of the science in those papers.
    I have, pointing out your mistaking assessment of our modern [post 2006] view of TSI. Granted, that I only said that to ‘ecoeng’ and not to you, but it seems to have filtered down to you anyway.
    You do not need the solar hypothesis to prove IPCC wrong. You get yourself into another box or trap, namely to ascribe everything to the Sun. Your situation is like this: the total effect is due to X% internal natural variability [as all non-equilibrium complex systems have], Y% sun, Z% man, and U% unknown, where X+Y+Z+U = 100. We do not what those percentages are [and how they change in time]. Simple minded people [and politicians that can't handle more than one concept at a time] or people that can’t be bothered by details assume that one of the four percentages is dominant and go with that. Let’s say that somebody thinks the numbers are X=80, Y=10, Z=5, and U=5, then it comes down to ascertain the uncertainties in that assessment or if another significantly different set should be used, and this is a job for science. And can be done the usual way. Such papers will not be rejected out of hand. You may be right that if you claim X=0, Y=100, Z=0, U=0, or X=0, Y=50, Z=0, U=50, that you will have struggle on your hand [as you should have].

  179. I’ve had a closer look at the solar cycle length and temperature connection using the central England record from 1766 (beginning of solar cycle 2). Then the picture changes somewhat. The trend is weakened. I let the computer try out the combinations of periods between 100 and 240 years using different start years, and I found that if you want a steep negative trend, then use data from 1885 to 2008. If you want to show the opposite, then use temperatures from 1784 to 1913 (SC4 – SC14) and you will get no trend at all. If anything, it’s rather a slight positive trend during that period. Interestingly, 1885 happens to be around the time that we begin to see temperature records for a significant number of places. So check any location and you’re likely to see the negative trend. I don’t think errors in the older part of the record can explain much. It’s highly unlikely that the degree of errors would correlate to the cycle lengths, so the errors should mainly show up as noise and not influence the trend very much.

    In my opinion, then, this is definitely no “Rosetta stone” of solar-climate studies. I think it’s a waste of time looking for such a thing, anyway. A slight correlation might be real, but it’s not convincing enough to predict an inevitable temperature drop over the next decade. If the temperature doesn’t drop within a few years, I think we must conclude that the correlation, if any, is too weak to be useful. If the temperature does drop as advertised, then I’d say that the hypothesis may have some merit, but the correlation isn’t very strong.

    My gut feeling is that this is just one of the 100 things that you need to take into account to predict future climate with some confidence.

  180. Steinar Midtskogen says:
    July 7, 2010 at 1:31 am
    I’ve had a closer look at the solar cycle length and temperature connection using the central England record from 1766 (beginning of solar cycle 2). Then the picture changes somewhat.

    Which is why DA didn’t use it – despite discussing the CET record in his literature. Remember that the CE region is only 200-300 miles from Armagh.

    In my opinion, then, this is definitely no “Rosetta stone” of solar-climate studies.

    To be fair to the original researchers (Butler & Johnson), I don’t believe they made any claims about their findings other than indicate that the regression analysis was suggestive of a link.

    I still say that, given there is a cluster of ‘long’ cycles followed by a cluster of ‘short’ cycles, any trend in the temperature data will produce a correlation which may look persuasive.

  181. For a little light relief from the current exchanges and no doubt those which are yet to come, I am very pleased indeed to report that today 7 July 2010 the town of Alice Springs located in almost the exact centre of the Australian continent experienced the (not yet massaged, not yet adjusted, i.e. strictly for real) coldest day on record since recordings commenced in 1878. The previous coldest day was in August 1966.

  182. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 6, 2010 at 10:15 am
    tallbloke says:
    July 6, 2010 at 10:03 am
    I said 0.5% and I meant 0.5%
    Doh! 0.05% not 0.5%
    lol, my mistake.
    ‘bow and weep’ would be more appropriate than ‘lol’

    Now, what does that mistake do to this other mistake:
    tallbloke says:
    July 6, 2010 at 3:46 am
    Well since the ocean has only increased in temperature by about 0.5% since global warming started [...] we are indeed close to showing that we don’t need minor changes in trace gas levels to explain global warming.

    ———————————

    Isn’t there some unfinished business here?

  183. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 7, 2010 at 7:38 am (Edit)

    Now, what does that mistake do to this other mistake:
    tallbloke says:
    July 6, 2010 at 3:46 am
    Well since the ocean has only increased in temperature by about 0.5% since global warming started [...] we are indeed close to showing that we don’t need minor changes in trace gas levels to explain global warming.

    It means my idea is an order of magnitude closer to being correct. ;-)

  184. A chime from the Bells of Bernaerts: The climate is the continuation of the ocean by other means.
    =======================

  185. Anthony

    A great pleasure meeting you at David’s home at the BBQ in Perth recently – I’ll catch up email and Facebook requests once I get back to Perth evening 11 July 2010 – and when you write a review of David’s book, do please send to me so I can publish it in AIG News. :-)

    Great you enjoyed the “Prawn” from the BBQ as well :-).

    Best

  186. tallbloke says:
    July 9, 2010 at 5:46 am
    Well since the ocean has only increased in temperature by about 0.5% since global warming started [...]
    It means my idea is an order of magnitude closer to being correct. ;-)

    The ‘since’ implies that it depends on 0.5% being correct, so, if 0.5% is not correct, then the conclusion cannot be correct either. Or is this an example where two wrongs make a right?

  187. My goodness. What a bit of bad luck for me. All the best people coming out to see Mr Watts. And David Archibald amongst them. And here I am out of the country. I would consider myself a big fan of Mr Archibald, and as long as I remember this controversy running I seemed to be on the same wave-length as Mr Watts. Just too bad I didn’t get to see both of you. But really good news to see that another of my icons (Louis Hissink) got to see you both.

    Onward.

Comments are closed.