Are secular correlations between sunspots, geomagnetic activity, and global temperature significant?

New paper by Love et al suggests no prominent role for solar‐terrestrial interaction in global climate change. I’m providing it here for discussion.

We are not convinced that the combination of sunspot‐number,
geomagnetic‐activity, and global‐temperature data can, with
a purely phenomenological correlational analysis, be used to
identify an anthropogenic affect on climate.

Abstract

Recent studies have led to speculation that solar‐terrestrial interaction, measured by sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, has played an important role in global temperature change over the past century or so. We treat this possibility as an hypothesis for testing. We examine the statistical significance of cross‐correlations between sunspot number, geomagnetic activity, and global surface temperature for the years 1868–2008, solar cycles 11–23. The data contain substantial autocorrelation and non-stationarity, properties that are incompatible with standard measures of cross-correlational significance, but which can be largely removed by averaging over solar cycles and first‐difference detrending. Treated data show an expected statistically significant correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, Pearson ρ < 10^−4, but correlations between global temperature and sunspot number (geomagnetic activity) are not significant, ρ = 0.9954, (ρ = 0.8171). In other words, straightforward analysis does not support widely‐cited suggestions that these data record a prominent role for solar‐terrestrial interaction in global climate change.

With respect to the sunspot‐number, geomagnetic‐activity, and global‐temperature data, three alternative hypotheses remain difficult to reject: (1) the role of solar‐terrestrial interaction in recent climate change is contained wholly in long‐term trends and not in any shorter‐term secular variation, or, (2) an anthropogenic signal is hiding correlation between solar‐terrestrial variables and global temperature, or, (3) the null hypothesis, recent climate change has not been influenced by solar‐terrestrial interaction.

Citation: Love, J. J., K. Mursula, V. C. Tsai, and D. M. Perkins (2011), Are secular correlations between sunspots, geomagnetic activity, and global temperature significant?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L21703, doi:10.1029/2011GL049380.

Conclusions

One of the merits of using three separate data sets in a correlational analysis is that intercomparisons can be made. After treatment for removal of autocorrelation and nonstationarity through simple averaging and differencing, we find statistically‐significant secular correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity. This is expected,
and it serves as important support for our analysis method. On the other hand, after making the same treatment to the global surface temperature, correlations between temperature and either sunspot number or geomagnetic activity are not significant.

We have not, in this study, considered derived proxy metrics of relevance to climate change, such as reconstructed total‐solar irradiance [e.g., Fröhlich and Lean, 2004] or
interplanetary magnetic field [e.g., Lockwood et al., 1999]. Still, we believe that our methods are general, that they could be used for other data sets, even though our analysis, here, is tightly focused on specific data sets. [15] From analysis of sunspot‐number, geomagneticactivity, and global‐temperature data, three hypotheses remain difficult to reject; we list them.

(1) The role of solarterrestrial interaction in recent climate change is wholly contained in the long‐term trends we removed in order to reduce autocorrelation and nonstationarity. This possibility seems artificial, but we acknowledge that our method requires a nontrivial time‐dependence in the data that is different from a simple trend. Still needed is a method for measuring the significance of correlation between data sets with trends.

(2) An anthropogenic signal is hiding correlation between solar‐terrestrial variables and global temperature. A phenomenological correlational analysis, such as that used here, is not effective for testing hypotheses when the data record a superposition of different signals. Physics is required to separate their sum.

(3) Recent climate change has not been influenced by solar‐terrestrial interaction. If this null hypothesis is to be confidently rejected, it will require data and/or methods that are different from those used here.

Paper: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049380.pdf

h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard

About these ads

273 thoughts on “Are secular correlations between sunspots, geomagnetic activity, and global temperature significant?

  1. recent climate change is wholly contained in the long‐term trends we removed in order to

    “We lost our watch in the dark over there, but we are looking for it under the lamp post here because the light is so much better.”

    What is it with people throwing away the low frequency signal and analyzing the noise?

  2. What about clouds? Aren’t clouds correlated to both long term temperature trends and sun spot cycles?

    What about removing UHI?

    Are they saying the sun does not effect climate? I’d like to see the proof of that, it could make me a warmer, or at least a luke warmer.

  3. A phenomenological correlational analysis, such as that used here, is not effective for testing hypotheses when the data record a superposition of different signals. Physics is required to separate their sum.
    I think this is an important assertion that many commenters here should heed.

  4. “A phenomenological correlational analysis, such as that used here, is not effective for testing hypotheses when the data record a superposition of different signals. Physics is required to separate their sum”

    Leif says:
    “I think this is an important assertion that many commenters here should heed”

    That statement is false imo. A hypothesis can be tested by using it to make predictions, and when(if) the predictions are observed as true, then the hypothesis is validated. For example, I can accept that gravity as defined in a testable hypothesis can be shown to exist and follow mathmatically defined laws(be true), even though no one has the physics to explain how it works.

  5. “I think this is an important assertion that many commenters here should heed.’

    Not only commenters here, but all who would seek to interpret this research as dismissing solar influence on climate.

    They need to consider system heat vs surface temperature, and also system lag. It is nice to hear someone talking about stationarity and its relevance to statistical analysis. Where were these guys when statistical analysis of surface temp trends is being bandied about, in the same breath as increases in extreme events is being alleged?

  6. Stephen Rasey says:
    November 15, 2011 at 10:57 am
    What is it with people throwing away the low frequency signal and analyzing the noise?
    From the paper [14] “After treatment for removal of autocorrelation and nonstationarity through simple averaging and differencing”…
    Differencing is an effective method of removing trend from a time series. This provides a clearer view of the true underlying behaviour of the series. More here:

    http://www.duke.edu/~rnau/411diff.htm

  7. I think that this paper is quite naive.

    1) It starts assuming that there exists a simple linear relation between sunspot number, geomagnetic activity and climate. So, they assume that no physics at all exists linking these heterogeneous variables: interesting.

    2) When they remove the smooth trending they claim that the correlation becomes less significant. Of course, there are the ocean oscillations, volcano signature etc, non linear responses to the solar cycles such as a frequency response and a frequency dependent time lag response that partially hide the true signal.

    3)They do find that a smooth common treding exists among the records,: this is nothing really new and extremely well known in numerous works.

    4) They ignore all litterature that attempts to address seriously the problem. and just calculate linear cross-correlation function between non-linearly linked raw variables.

    PS: who knows why people try to reconstruct the total solar irradiance index (instead of just using sunspot numbers), use filters to isolate the components and use heat capacity models to obtain temperature signals instead of just using linear cross correlations!

    By the way, a much better analysis of the data is here and in related references

    N. Scafetta, “Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change,” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 71 1916–1923 (2009), doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2009.07.007.

    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/ATP2998.pdf

    N. Scafetta, “Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications”. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 72, 951–970 (2010), doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2010.04.015

    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf

    N. Scafetta, “A shared frequency set between the historical mid-latitude aurora records and the global surface temperature” Journal of Atmospheric
    and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, in press. DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2011.10.013.

    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta-auroras.pdf

    In the last two papers the climate is actually accurately reconstructed using astronomical cycles

  8. Ed_B says:
    November 15, 2011 at 11:16 am
    “A phenomenological correlational analysis, such as that used here, is not effective for testing hypotheses when the data record a superposition of different signals. Physics is required to separate their sum”
    Leif says:
    “I think this is an important assertion that many commenters here should heed”

    That statement is false imo. A hypothesis can be tested by using it to make predictions, and when(if) the predictions are observed as true, then the hypothesis is validated. For example, I can accept that gravity as defined in a testable hypothesis

    The issue is not whether a given hypothesis is true of false, but has to do with a situation where many different signals are present at the same time. To separate them from each other, physics is required, because if you make a prediction based on curve-fitting of just one of those inputs and it fails, it could be that it was cancelled by the influence of one of the others.

  9. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 15, 2011 at 11:21 am
    In the last two papers the climate is actually accurately reconstructed using astronomical cycles
    It is precisely that sort of papers the article warns about.

  10. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 15, 2011 at 11:00 am

    A phenomenological correlational analysis, such as that used here, is not effective for testing hypotheses when the data record a superposition of different signals. Physics is required to separate their sum.
    I think this is an important assertion that many commenters here should heed.

    Indeed. You’re not going to get a particularly high correlation coefficient between ‘global temperature’ and any one factor (well, not one that could plausibly relate to climate anyway…). Combining and applying weighting to numerous factors (using physics and indeed chemistry and biology) might get you a lot closer to a high r-value.

  11. Leif Svaalgard.

    “A phenomenological correlational analysis, such as that used here, is not effective for testing hypotheses when the data record a superposition of different signals. Physics is required to separate their sum. ”

    Something I have taken to heart since the first time I read your comments on Climate Audit a few years ago. One of the major issues is the assumption that the magnitude of CO2 forcing is a high as estimated and as uniformly distributed as estimate. That does not appear to the the case, specifically in the Southern Extent, which means that smaller variation may have larger impacts. Something I have been looking into, the matters of scale.

    http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2011/11/thermodynamic-layer-convergence-and.html

    This is just one of the odd thermodynamic relationships that makes some solar mechanisms more plausible. Still not enough for proving any of the cyclomainia, but it does make things more interesting.

  12. This site is always interesting to read and informative about the variables you never hear about elsewhere. So may and interactions so varied that I am in awe of the persistence of those trying to do good science to figure it out.

  13. I need to respectfully disagree with Ed_B’s statement:

    A hypothesis can be tested by using it to make predictions, and when(if) the predictions are observed as true, then the hypothesis is validated.

    Actually such an event simply means that the hypothesis has not been disproven. Some other factor completely outside the model may be the actual driver of events. Given enough time, and thousands of comfirmed predictions I may begin to accept the hypothesis as true, but that’s just me.

  14. @Leif,

    “The issue is not whether a given hypothesis is true of false, but has to do with a situation where many different signals are present at the same time. To separate them from each other, physics is required, because if you make a prediction based on curve-fitting of just one of those inputs and it fails, it could be that it was cancelled by the influence of one of the others.”

    I don’t think that is correct. Separating out contributing signals from a complex waveform is standard practice in many fields, such as NMR, and antenna technology we all use. Each contributing wave does not need to have some separate physics behind it to explain its contribution, especially when all componants are subject to the same physical underpinnings (thus averaging out), like with Wifi signals, or atomic spins under an external magnetic field in response to a radio frequency pulse. Thousands of waves can make up the total wave form, but some Fourier transform can break them all into separate, determinable, peaks carrying data. This, for instance, is how we can solve the atomic scale three dimensional structure of a protein.

    I see no reason why that can’t be done with records here, and why there must be some separate physics for each data set to “determine its contribution”. It’s contribution is already determined in the data itself.

    Now, that in no way says that there IS a signal to be found in these particular data sets, just that the logical argument you state there, in the way you stated it, is demonstrably flawed if not outright false.

  15. The issue is the timeframe, you need to go back much further to the Maunder to realy see the forest for the trees. Of course, the problem is there was more volcanism then so the correlation may never be proven.

    Questions: Did they correct for volcanism? Atmospheric aerosols?

  16. Isn’t this a straw man? Svensmark’s claim is that solar cycle length, not sunspot number, is linked with climatic changes.

  17. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 15, 2011 at 11:00 am
    A phenomenological correlational analysis, such as that used here, is not effective for testing hypotheses when the data record a superposition of different signals. Physics is required to separate their sum.
    I think this is an important assertion that many commenters here should heed.

    _____

    Exactly! And certainly the climate data record is a superposition of different signals, and as such an analysis such as the one used here is completely ineffective and so it does come back to the basic physics and detailed analysis to disentangle and accurately attribute the individual factors involved. And furthermore, what is “noise” in the signal, depends on what signal you’re looking for, as indeed, all factors are superimposed on any given slice in time, but shorter term signals will appear as noise superimposed on longer term signals, and there are many of each type existing at any moment in time.

  18. One must understand the mechanisms by which solar changes modulate planetary cloud cover. The authors of the above paper quoted appear to have not done a research search into this subject.

    Solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions. That mechanism is called electroscavenging. The solar wind burst have during the last two solar cycles of the twentieth century occurred during solar minimums. Normally during solar minimums planetary cloud cover increases which causes the planet to cool. Enric Palle published papers that measured the change in planetary cloud cover. Prior to roughly 1998 planetary cloud cover closed tracked GCR. Post 1998 it did not and there was a net reduction in planetary cloud cover.

    sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MmSAI/76/PDF/969.pdf

    Once again about global warming and solar activity

    Solar activity, together with human activity, is considered a possible factor for the global warming observed in the last century. However, in the last decades solar activity has remained more or less constant while surface air temperature has continued to increase, which is interpreted as an evidence that in this period human activity is the main factor for
    global warming. We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.

    It has been noted that in the last century the correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity has been steadily decreasing from – 0.76 in the period 1868-1890, to 0.35 in the period 1960-1982, while the lag has increased from 0 to 3 years (Vieira et al. 2001). According to Echer et al. (2004), the probable cause seems to be related to the double peak structure of geomagnetic activity. The second peak, related to high speed solar wind from coronal holes, seems to have increased relative to the first one, related to sunspots (CMEs) but, as already mentioned, this type of solar activity is not accounted for by the sunspot number. In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied.It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic
    activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.

  19. Leif says “The issue is not whether a given hypothesis is true of false, but has to do with a situation where many different signals are present at the same time”

    I disagree. It seems you are unable to accept that Scafettas work is proving to be true, and are looking for ways to hand wave it away. Like I said, no one has an explaination for gravity, yet I accept that the mathmatics are proven to be valid. Following your logic, should I not reject Newtons or Einsteins work on gravity?

  20. So all of the figures and arguments presented here:

    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part6_SolarEvidence.htm

    are what, incorrect? Irrelevant? Lies? Myths? Fake?

    I mean seriously, why screw around looking for second order correlations in detrended data, effectively looking to see if FLUCTUATIONS in solar activity are drivers of temperature. The FIRST ORDER correlation is already overwhelmingly convincing, especially when compared to the monotonic, boring, trivially fluctuating CO_2 concentration.

    Here’s a good one. Apply precisely — and I do mean precisely — the same method of detrending to CO_2 concentration vs global temperature and look for a signal. The CO_2 is a monotonic, approximately exponential curve and by the time you remove this trend there isn’t anything left but a tiny annual fourier component.

    On the other hand, there is significant direct correlation between both the length and the strength of the solar cycles and global temperature, one that stretches all the way back to the LIA. Even the primary local/chaotic climate drivers, e.g. ENSO, appear to be more or less slaved to the solar cycle.

    rgb

    rgb

  21. Leif Svalgaard says:
    ………………
    This may be relevant to the thread. Have you had a chance to look into two variables (re the email) the way it should be done. For the moment I am looking at 1840-1960 only, leaving out disagreeable 1960-2010, or do we have to attribute it to all the coincidence?

  22. “”Leif Svalgaard says:November 15, 2011 at 11:29 am
    “Nicola Scafetta says: November 15, 2011 at 11:21 am
    In the last two papers the climate is actually accurately reconstructed using astronomical cycles”
    It is precisely that sort of papers the article warns about.””

    Not really Leif, not really. Time series analysis and data mining are serious disciplines in all scientific fields. That paper trivializes the issue.

    In my papers I decompose all natural signals (Solar, anthropogenic, volcano, ENSO, lunar) as it should be done and my models are tested on forecasting capabilities backward and forward for decades and up to centuries. Of course not all issues are fully understood yet, that is why it is called “scientific research”.

    Dear Leif, I have a proposal given the fact that you are so smart. Why don’t you propose your own model and show us your performances in interpreting climate change?

  23. Ged says:
    November 15, 2011 at 11:36 am
    “The issue is not whether a given hypothesis is true of false, but has to do with a situation where many different signals are present at the same time. To separate them from each other, physics is required.”

    I don’t think that is correct. Separating out contributing signals from a complex waveform is standard practice in many fields, such as NMR, and antenna technology we all use.

    This works only when the waves are non-interacting.

    Ed_B says:
    November 15, 2011 at 11:46 am
    I disagree. It seems you are unable to accept that Scafettas work is proving to be true, and are looking for ways to hand wave it away.
    The demerit or merit of Scafetta’s papers spring from the papers themselves [and your notion of 'proof' seems a bit lax], not from my or anybody else’s critique of them, nor from any sycophants’ applause. The point of the Love et al. paper is that phenomenological correlations won’t work. I may add that they should not be a base for policy decisions. Would you accept a hike of your gasoline tax because Jupiter is in the sign of Aquarius?

    Like I said, no one has an explaination for gravity, yet I accept that the mathmatics are proven to be valid.
    The mathematics is the explanation. And you lost the point which was separation of many different and interacting signals.

  24. William,

    There are plenty of mechanisms without having to resort of Stieging new ones. Changes in wind velocity at the ocean surface improve conductive heat loss. The Solar UV change both reduces Ozone production and reduces short wave absorption below 10 meters. In conjunction with the UV change greater than expected, the near infrared change was a little bit smaller surprise, but interesting. Why, a change in the ratio of the atmospheric absorption and the deeper ocean absorption has a greater cooling impact than either by itself. So solar variation doesn’t have the butt to warm much, but it has nearly twice the capacity to cool. Timing though is everything. The ocean tends to buffer shorter time period solar variation. A longer minimum should allow sufficient cooling to be noticeable. We haven’t been through an extended minimum, so we don’t know if or how much it may impact. One thing though is obvious to me, global temperature averages for only a hundred years are not enough to draw conclusions.

  25. Yeah, or like N. Scafetta’s papers. Speaking of which, we should have lunch sometime, Nicola (since we are probably a few hundred meters apart as I’m typing this, if you’re in your office:-). I have an intriguing alternative hypothesis that may or may not be able to explain why the sun’s activity appears to be significant predictor of multicentury heating and cooling trends; one of these days I’ll sit down to work out the numbers to see if it works…

    rgb

  26. I always thought that the clear correlation was not between temperature and sunspot number, but temperature and sunspot cycle length.

    And dIdn’t Richard Tol go ballistic last week over a paper for comparing trends using “detrended” data?

  27. I said: no one has an explaination for gravity, yet I accept that the mathmatics are proven to be valid.

    Leif says:
    The mathematics is the explanation. And you lost the point which was separation of many different and interacting signals.

    Say what?? Please let know where I can find the physics behind gravity. We all accept that it exists, and that the mathmatics describe it, but how is the attraction between two bodies carried out? (invisible pieces of string? Sub atomic particles pulling with ??).

  28. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 15, 2011 at 12:05 pm
    Time series analysis and data mining are serious disciplines in all scientific fields. That paper trivializes the issue.
    No, just advocates using proper techniques, good data, and valid physics.

    my models are tested on forecasting capabilities backward and forward for decades and up to centuries.
    Wow, successful climate predictions centuries ahead. There are also people on this blog who claim they can predict the climate in Timbuktu ['anywhere' is the exact claim] in a given month a century from now. They, too, consider their work to be ‘scientific research’. Are you better than they?

    interpreting climate change?
    The climate changes all the time for many reasons. Beware of prophets pretending to know the truth. Climate research may be having a hard time right now [for various well-known reasons] and that opens the door for pseudo-science and ill-founded speculation labeled as ‘scientific research’. Now, you have in the past advocated having an ‘open mind’. Here are some open-minders for you: http://tamino.wordpress.com/

  29. Well what is left if you take out the long term trend of global CO2 atmospheric abundance, and global surface Temperature, and then look for secular correlations between the noise that remains.

    Seems to me that “detrending” or “differencing”, amount to taking derivatives of a sort, and that should lead to an increase in the noise level.

    It is amazing to me, that the sun has absolutely no role ion the earth’s climate. So why not subtract out the mean TSI and then do secular correlations on the residue.

    Maybe if the models showed SOME SORT of feedback to the original “forcing” namely the TSI, particularly in the case of cloud cover variations, somebody might actually find some small solar influence on earth climate.

  30. Leif says:”Wow, successful climate predictions centuries ahead. There are also people on this blog who claim they can predict the climate in Timbuktu ['anywhere' is the exact claim] in a given month a century from now. They, too, consider their work to be ‘scientific research’. Are you better than they?”

    I can’t believe what I am reading on WUWT today. First Leif sounded like he defends M Mann’s methods, and now he slags Scafetta with troll like comments(and refers to Tamino??? yikes).

    Is this the real Leif or has someone stolen his name?

  31. Leif Svalgaard
    November 15, 2011 at 11:00 am
    A phenomenological correlational analysis, such as that used here, is not effective for testing hypotheses when the data record a superposition of different signals. Physics is required to separate their sum.
    I think this is an important assertion that many commenters here should heed.
    ###

    Most truely, olong with the other caveats.

    Removal of autocorrelations can be tricky buisness.

  32. Ed_B says:
    November 15, 2011 at 12:21 pm
    but how is the attraction between two bodies carried out? (invisible pieces of string? Sub atomic particles pulling with ??).
    Although OT, suffice it to note that there is no ‘attraction’ between two bodies. Imagine two airplanes flying straight on from different points on the equator towards the North pole. A naive observer would see the airplanes as if attracted to each other until they collide at the pole. Don’t hijack the blog any further for your education about gravity.

  33. Robert Brown says:
    I have an intriguing alternative hypothesis that may or may not be able to explain why the sun’s activity appears to be significant predictor of multicentury heating and cooling trends; one of these days I’ll sit down to work out the numbers to see if it works…

    I have done it already, and numbers do work

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm

    compare orange, red and dark blue curves.

  34. George E. Smith; says:
    November 15, 2011 at 12:28 pm
    somebody might actually find some small solar influence on earth climate.
    There is, there is, to a tune of less that 0.1 degrees. The issue is whether there is a major influence, and the analysis finds that there is no significant evidence in the data: “we find statistically‐significant secular correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity. This is expected, and it serves as important support for our analysis method. On the other hand, after making the same treatment to the global surface temperature, correlations between temperature and either sunspot number or geomagnetic activity are not significant”.

  35. Leif Svalgaard has got it right. We are dealing with a series of interconnected hypothesis i.e. not unlike the multiple working hypothesis we are so fond of in geology. We geologists use this method due to two major and a host of minor factors. We never have all the data and we can never see the whole picture in its three dimensional existence. We these authors and many of us too, from time to time, are trying to do is examine a modeled resulting collection by looking at some empirical data that is interpenetrated with inadequate models. This is further complicated by the need to compare dynamic models and interpretative results with point source static empirical data resulting from some only partly understood dynamic process.

    To put is short a unified numerical value, average annual global temperature, is insufficient to understand let alone comprehend what any set of dynamic processes or up to let alone how they influence or interact.

  36. William says:
    …………………
    William may be talking sense.
    If temperature natural variability linked to the geomagnetic activity was a living thing, there is an indicator which would suggest that its DNA was damaged in 1970s-90s.

  37. I’m significantly under-qualified to understand the statistics in use here, but I have two questions.

    If you have to understand the physics in order to separate sums of contributions, then haven’t you already solved the problem? It strikes me that the entire climate debate centres on how much various inputs contribute to the temperature record. If you understand the physics – ALL the physics – then why do you need to look for correlations?

    Does the paper in question factor in any time lag (sorry, I don’t know a more succinct phrase) between inputs and measurable outputs? e.g. Imagine if, when the sunspot count shoots up, surface temperatures always follow upwards but 321 months later. Would the paper’s analysis method detect a correlation?

  38. Ed_B says:
    November 15, 2011 at 12:31 pm
    First Leif sounded like he defends M Mann’s methods
    Ah, that shows your bias. What has anything I said hinted at that?

    and now he slags Scafetta with troll like comments
    Anybody who claims to successfully predict climate centuries on and past and pretends it is science, deserves this. You disagree with that?

    Is this the real Leif or has someone stolen his name
    “you know the lion by his claw”.

  39. Leif says: “Don’t hijack the blog any further for your education about gravity.”

    I simply do not accept your assertion that phenomenological correlational analysis must be rejected as evidence of sun/planetary influences upon the earths climate, without first having the physics fully explained.

    As for gravity, it is my example. No one has explained how gravity works, and your little illustration does not do it for me. Thus I am becoming very skeptical of what you say about Scafettas work.

  40. Leif; If you have a sine curve, and a cosine curve, with the same amplitude.

    What would the correlation be? Could one of them cause the other?

  41. Leif Svalgaard says: November 15, 2011 at 12:23 pm says
    “No, just advocates using proper techniques, good data, and valid physics.”

    Let me know if I understood well your reasoning. One writes a paper using by purpose improper techniques, improper data and no physics at all, and conclude that that is not the way to study climate changes. Is that a great scientific/phylosophical discovery, Leif? What does that paper adds to the science, Leif? Disprove something? No, it doesn’t because nobody uses the same extremely naive methodologies, but you perhaps. Proves something new or propose new revolutionary thecniques? nope! Everybody understands that there is the need to look for “proper techniques, good data, and valid physics”. That is what “scientific research” is all about.

    About the other points, Leif, read my papers better. Some tests for forecasting capabilities (within certain limits, of course) have been made. The future will tell, and the models can be improved, of course.

    Again, I invite you to tell us your interpretation of climate change. Is “The climate changes all the time for many reasons” all what you know or are able to do? Does that means that people should not study the issue because you have no clue about how to try to address it? Should that mean that if somebody does not come out with a “full” and “complete” theory of climate change, what he does is not science?

    See, Leif, scientific research is a dynamic and always evolving discipline, Science is not just about reading accepted results on textbooks alone.

  42. While I would agree with Leif and the authors that studies such as this that seek to identify correlation without a proposed underlying physical mechanism may not achieve much with noisy data, I would not totally dismiss such studies.

    Where I would dismiss such studies is if they have been conducted using data collected post 1980 and have been adjusted post 1980 or reconstructions created post 1980. Sadly little relating to climate can be taken on trust past this date. While I am sure much quality work with surface temperatures and solar data has occurred after 1980, the difficulty of sorting the wheat from the chaff is too great. Scientists working on solar climate connections need to acknowledge the lack of trust that has developed. Using data sets published pre 1980 is an easy way around this problem, especially as the 1950 to 1980 period of increased CO2 emissions is covered.

  43. Leif,

    Where is Mars in all of this. It would be useful to correlate Martian temperatures with terrestrial temperatures. Has this been undertaken?

  44. Ed_B says:
    November 15, 2011 at 12:47 pm
    Leif says: “Don’t hijack the blog any further for your education about gravity.”
    I simply do not accept your assertion that phenomenological correlational analysis must be rejected as evidence of sun/planetary influences upon the earths climate, without first having the physics fully explained.
    The paper shows that there is no statistically significant evidence for this in the data we have. That is all. If there is a real connection, as between sunspot and geomagnetic activity, then phenomenological correlational analysis might be a guide to the physics, as it was, because the signal is large enough, although it is still only when we understand the physics that we can be sure [as we are now, because we know the physical causes].

    As for gravity, it is my example. No one has explained how gravity works, and your little illustration does not do it for me.
    Perhaps more study of this will help you.

    Thus I am becoming very skeptical of what you say about Scafettas work.
    Your lack of understanding might well drive you such skepticism. Such is life.

  45. Leif:

    Are secular correlations between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature statistically significant?

    [Moderator's Note: Site policy requires a valid e-mail address. Please comply. -REP]

  46. “that its DNA was damaged in 1970s-90s.” I thought was due to Peyote? :)

    Dennis Nickols. That brings us around to small changes and Chaos theory, which Tsonis has had some marginal success. My biggest issue is that from a thermodynamic perspective, the multiple thermodynamic layers with varying time constants are not something that can be well understood using a TOA radiant perspective. Chandler in 1934 seems to have had a better grasp on things.

    To put things in perspective, a 1 degree change in surface temperature would change the TOA emissivity from ~0.609 to ~0.602. You can follow the change in the emissivity down through the atmosphere and see that the temperature of the effective radiant layer of the average change has a major impact on the effect at the surface. In the Antarctic, the temperature of the effective radiant layer is never above ~-50C and there would be no appreciable water vapor feedback. It is pretty obvious that was not considered in the models and that the Antarctic is not impressed with the model projections. Conversely, the Arctic has water vapor feedback. So attempting to compare global average temperature time series is a bit of an exercise in futility.

    I personally think it is time for a do over, scientific Mulligan if you will, from a more solid thermodynamic perspective.

  47. I agree Leif…not much use trying to find a connection between a variable that is composed of many variables, as they will often cancel each other out, and a real variable connection can be easily lost in the bulk variable signal

  48. Leif says: “As for gravity, it is my example. No one has explained how gravity works, and your little illustration does not do it for me.
    Perhaps more study of this will help you.”

    Perhaps you are used to insulting people rather than admitting you do not know either. Sad to be you.

  49. I hope the authors are not assuming that solar signals are coherent with surface temperature signals. The oceans have heat capacity. There is a 33 month time lag between the signal and the response (1/4 or the 11 year cycle). If they are not considering this then the analysis is vacuous.

  50. Ged says:
    November 15, 2011 at 11:36 am

    Thousands of waves can make up the total wave form, but some Fourier transform can break them all into separate, determinable, peaks carrying data.

    The trouble with Fourier Analysis is that you need a certain number of samples per cycle of whatever frequencies you want to find. For a continuous sine wave, two samples per cycle are the theoretical minimum. In practice, you need more. That sets a limit on the highest frequencies you can see. Also you need a certain number of cycles in the window you are looking at. That sets a limit on the lowest frequencies you can see. Spectral leakage is almost guaranteed for a signal like the climate. That means you will get lots of bogus frequencies. Other than the fact that it gets warm in the summer and cold in winter (ditto day and night), no other climate signals look much like continuous waveforms.

    The bottom line is that naively throwing an FFT at data is a recipe for disaster. A good, practical guide to the topic is The Scientist and Engineer’s Guide to
    Digital Signal Processing
    I like it a lot because it assumes that you might actually want to do some signal analysis, and warns you of the pitfalls.

    If you want an article that shows how you might analyze climate data Evidence of a Lunisolar Influence on Decadal and Bidecadal Oscillations In Globally Averaged Temperature Trends. There are lots of references and many good comments.

  51. Slight correction for those people who mentioned solar cycle length. The temperature record correlates with previous solar cycle length not current solar cycle length – where there isn’t a correlation.

    With a bit of spreadsheeting anyone can see the relationship. Here is a graph for the CET and HadCRUT v3 since 1854.

    Filtering the data and correcting for volcanic eruptions will give a tighter correlation (eg see David Archibald’s website), but even a raw graph like this, done in a couple of hours, shows it.

    I find it interesting that Love et al have ignored this well known correlation when they are obviously aware of the work of Dr Friis-Christensen, who they cite.

  52. “I simply do not accept your assertion that phenomenological correlational analysis must be rejected as evidence of sun/planetary influences upon the earths climate, without first having the physics fully explained.”

    Perhaps I’m biased from just having finished teaching this to kiddy-physics students, but I’m afraid I have to agree. Kepler’s observations (from Brahe’s data) of not only precise correlations but precise correlations with clear geometric rules preceded Newton, and without them could Newton have possibly accomplished what he accomplished? Ditto Galileo’s invention of kinematics pre-dynamics. Without the experiments/observations (Brahe), the systematic data analysis and discovery of structure and correlation in the data, the reduction of parts of that data to a simple mathematical model, Newton COULD NOT HAVE INVENTED the law of gravitation and an associated dynamical principle as the “explanation”.

    And yeah, his explanation left a great deal to be desired, such as an explanation for action at a distance. A problem that persists to this day. What DOES cause gravity? Curvature of space-time? Exchange of gravitons? Tugs of invisible fairies? I have no idea, but I do know that GMm/r^2 mostly works, except where it doesn’t or requires modification in equally mysterious (but functional) ways.

    The basic point is that from the beginning, AGW enthusiasts have based most of their argument on “It’s getting warmer! CO_2 is increasing! Therefore the latter causes the former.” This truly is absurd. Correlation is not causality, as you (Lief) seem to be implying with your airplane example and of course I agree.

    However, often correlation is >>all we have<< until causal models consistent with our general body of knowledge can be unravelled, is it not? And sometimes, you know? Correlation does turn out to be causally linked. Sometimes there is physics that people left out of the model that turns out to be important. Sometimes people make sign errors that don't get caught for years, or write code that turns what should be noise in the data and ignored into dominant hockey-stick-shaped signal. This is a hard problem. Hard enough that we may be stuck being Kepler or Galileo, not Newton, for quite some time. While trying to fend of the religious nuts like Bellarmine who want to burn people at the stake for offending their dogma in the meantime.

    After all, the world IS flat and it DOESN'T move. Look out the window!

    rgb

  53. Dr. Scafetta
    The problem with your hypothesis is that you used data based on the casual visual observations, are not type of data accepted by today’s science. This is in a way should be applicable to the sunspot count, where the errors are by two or more magnitudes smaller.
    I managed to dig out an acceptable data – set showing reasonable 60 year periodicity:
    I was looking for periodicity in 105 year region, and didn’t pay much attention to the 60 year bit.

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

    That is on heliosphere side, on the other side of the equation, I also found 60 year clear periodicity in the climate data sets (not temperatures) but I do not think that annual compilations are long enough to be valid (IMO you need at least 3 full cycles).

  54. Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 15, 2011 at 1:03 pm
    Leif Svalgaard says: November 15, 2011 at 12:23 pm says
    One writes a paper using by purpose improper techniques, improper data and no physics at all, and conclude that that is not the way to study climate changes.
    Which of your papers are you describing? Or was it not ‘on purpose’? Or are you accusing Love et al. of this. Who are you talking about?

    Again, I invite you to tell us your interpretation of climate change. Is “The climate changes all the time for many reasons” all what you know or are able to do?
    I have no dog in this race. My role is mainly to supply, evaluate, and vet the solar input part and how it changes over time.

    what he does is not science?
    It stops being science when he overplays his hand.

    Science is not just about reading accepted results on textbooks alone.
    Sometimes it is adding stuff to those textbooks as I have done in a small way.

    Konrad says:
    November 15, 2011 at 1:03 pm
    I would not totally dismiss such studies.
    Neither would I, the paper just shows that existing data does not support such studies. Perhaps with more [and better?] data in future the issues will be resolved, but we are not there yet.

    Paul Westhaver says:
    November 15, 2011 at 1:04 pm
    Where is Mars in all of this. It would be useful to correlate Martian temperatures with terrestrial temperatures. Has this been undertaken?
    We don’t have enough data for that. An ice core from one of the polar caps would be a wonderful thing to have for this.

    Ed_B says:
    November 15, 2011 at 1:20 pm
    Perhaps you are used to insulting people rather than admitting you do not know either. Sad to be you.
    We could hold on forever on this, but I’m sure that this is not what people are here for. Reading up on this stuff might actually help your understanding. I read up on stuff I don’t understand all the time.

    pochas says:
    November 15, 2011 at 1:23 pm
    There is a 33 month time lag between the signal and the response (1/4 or the 11 year cycle). If they are not considering this then the analysis is vacuous.
    As would the multitudes of other studies that are not considering this. One could disagree with your assessment that 33 months is enough to change the heat content of the ocean enough, but that is not the issue here.

  55. Robert Brown says:
    November 15, 2011 at 1:42 pm
    “I simply do not accept your assertion that phenomenological correlational analysis must be rejected as evidence of sun/planetary influences upon the earths climate, without first having the physics fully explained.”
    Perhaps I’m biased from just having finished teaching this to kiddy-physics students, but I’m afraid I have to agree.

    Like several other commenters you are missing the point of the interactions between the many inputs to the climate system. To separate those is not possible without the physics. That is the point of the paper [and my comment].

  56. M.A.Vukcevic says:

    Robert Brown says:
    I have an intriguing alternative hypothesis that may or may not be able to explain why the sun’s activity appears to be significant predictor of multicentury heating and cooling trends; one of these days I’ll sit down to work out the numbers to see if it works…

    “I have done it already, and numbers do work

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm

    compare orange, red and dark blue curves.”

    Only two remarks. First, I complement you on your clearly demonstrated ability to read my mind. Indeed, I almost didn’t type this reply because I am so certain you already know what I’m thinking.

    Second, my intriguing hypothesis actually includes using some “physics” — you know, things like maxwell’s equations, mechanics, stuff like that. It strikes me that there may be an additional source of actual heating that has been neglected so far (as far as I’ve been able to tell) that was once upon a time considered to be a cosmologically important heating process in the early solar system. I do not know, however, if the current orders of magnitude support the hypothesis. It would explain a whole lot of the anomaly (if true/reasonable) without recourse to indirect e.g. feedback modulation or trying to squeeze more energy out of direct insolation than is there to be squeezed.

    To be honest, I couldn’t tell what you were demonstrating with your orange, red, and blue curves, or where the polynomial functions you wrote down came from. If you are asserting that you can fit the smoothed data with a nonlinear curve, well, that is hardly a surprise — so can I, hand me a pencil. If the curve has some physics behind it, well, hard to tell, isn’t it?

    rgb

  57. I’ve learned a little since checking WUWT regularly. I know a little knowledge can be a dangerous acquisision ha ha. Anyway, I thought that sunspots had to do with determining the happenings in the solar cycle and the solar cycle overall was what has an effect on the climate. And you guys hardly even mentioned CO2. So has co2 finally been thrown out the window as the driver to climate change? And it seems to me like discussing angels on pinheads with all the educated guessing going on. As far as I can see all you guys are discussing theories and bashing each other over guesses. I guess that’s how it works, huh? Gotta get the ego pricked once in a while to keep the juice flowing. Keep it up , I’m enjoying the education and I don’t even have to pay tuition other than a hit to the tip jar once in a while.

  58. As I mentioned at the Santa Fe meeting – comparing solar proxies and global temperature may not be the best thing to do. Since some solar forcings appear to have stronger effects restricted to certain areas… E.g. the UV effect on the climate in N- Europa, GCR over certain part of the ocean etc. etc.. Some people find a better correlation of one look at more local temperature records. I think this need to be look at at in more detail… in a more systematic way

  59. The above is cleverly written and interestingly worded and means what? if nothing at all, when did people begin to write about scientific issues so confusingly as to almost completely hide a point about an issue, I read a lot of science and some of the literature can be compared to trying to understanding my local GP’s hand writing, (which is another mystery for another-day).
    I’ve seen and read about some very interesting charts of a correlation of temperature change to sunspot activity cycle length, and there are lots of charts on sunspot number and Solar Activity Proxies are these charts meaningless?
    I’m probably reading these charts the wrong way, but it seems to me when there are multiple waves of high solar maximum activity or an exceptionally high solar maximum of activity then usually, there is more energy around on the earth as the suns next cycle begins to ramp up, and it looks as if it is true for the opposite part of the solar cycle in that prolonged low solar activity or waves of exceptionally low solar activity between cycles that would usually allow for less energy around on earth as the next cycle ramps up.
    Do CME’s cause cloud cover on the northern hemisphere? I’m 98% convinced that they do or play some part in cloud formation, and if the clouds form or move in an area at night then that would usually cause waves of temperatures to rise and fall, surly these ripples can be worked out and even sequenced! If AGW Climate enthusiasts cant do this, then maybe they should be seeking the expertise (help) of other fields such as physicists, astronomers and engineers, I read somewhere that most anthropogenic global warming sceptics have a good grasp of engineering, physics and astronomy, math and programing so there maybe a self-serving interest to why AGW Climate enthusiasts are all biased to their own special form of science of pseudo-authoritative consensus and exclusion.

  60. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 15, 2011 at 1:51 pm
    I was looking for periodicity in 105 year region, and didn’t pay much attention to the 60 year bit.
    the 60-yr peak comes from the 18th century and is not persistent, and is not present during the 19th and 20th centuries [as I have pointed out]. So fails this important test: persistence.
    Now, we should discuss the Love et al. paper here, so let’s get back to that.

  61. Robert Brown Said, “It strikes me that there may be an additional source of actual heating that has been neglected so far (as far as I’ve been able to tell) that was once upon a time considered to be a cosmologically important heating process in the early solar system.”

    That is interesting. Space does have a temperature and the energy of photons are unique to the temperature to the source.

  62. Ed_B

    “That statement is false imo. A hypothesis can be tested by using it to make predictions, and when(if) the predictions are observed as true, then the hypothesis is validated. ”

    No. hypothesis are never validated. . Evidence comes in to either confirm the hypothesis or disconfirm the hypothesis. Repeated failed efforts to disconfirm a hypothesis and repeated efforts that support it will over time lead people to stop testing. At this point they refer to the hypothesis as a “law” although it’s tenuous truth status ( all science is contingent) has not changed. What changes is people’s willingness to ‘test’ a ‘known” “law”

  63. Sparks says:
    November 15, 2011 at 2:15 pm
    Do CME’s cause cloud cover on the northern hemisphere? I’m 98% convinced that they do
    The oft assumed theory says that many cosmic rays cause clouds. CMEs screen out cosmic rays, so should result in fewer clouds.

  64. As a child in these matters, it seems to me that any correlation with sunspot numbers, etc. (or Malenkovich-influenced insolation changes) might be with CHANGE in Global temperature rather than actual global temperature (which to my simple mind represent an accumulation of historic heat inputs or losses). Apologies if someone has already made such a comment, and I have failed to understand the terminology.

  65. Nicola.

    I read your papers. I looked for the data, you didnt supply it. I asked for the code. No joy.
    There is not much else to say since your papers are merely an advertisement. merely words on paper and totally insufficient in the reproducibility department. worse than Mann or Jones ever were.

    Willis agrees as well, readers of WUWT.

  66. A phenomenological correlational analysis, such as that used here, is not effective for testing hypotheses when the data record a superposition of different signals. Physics is required to separate their sum.

    Well, then, that’s the problem with this analysis. There are lots of different signals/forcings (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-5.html), each with it’s own time history (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/), and as the article says, you need to go to the physics and measurements (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf) to separate them.

    However, Anthony’s statement that this “New paper by Love et al suggests no prominent role for solar‐terrestrial interaction in global climate change” doesn’t match up. The only thing the paper is saying is that a “phenomenological correlational analysis” is the wrong tool.

  67. “Are secular correlations between sunspots, geomagnetic activity, and global temperature significant?”

    When do we see the follow-up paper about the relgious correlations?

  68. Robert Brown says:
    November 15, 2011 at 1:42 pm

    The basic point is that from the beginning, AGW enthusiasts have based most of their argument on “It’s getting warmer! CO_2 is increasing! Therefore the latter causes the former.” This truly is absurd. Correlation is not causality, as you (Lief) seem to be implying with your airplane example and of course I agree.

    —————————–

    Not so! The AGW argument is “CO2 causes warming (as per physics from Tyndall and Arrhenius onwards)! CO2 is increasing! It’s getting warmer! Therefore the correlation of the second and third confirm that the first and second are the cause of the third.” Or something like that.

  69. Why are so many scientists afraid to analyze the obvious link between celestial mechanics and the Earth’s climate?

    Ben Franklin was a paleoclimatologist with little technology yet did a lot better job foreacsting long range weather than any Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, Kevin Trenberth, or Phil Jones with their billion dollar bloated budgets.

    The late Dr. Theordore Landscheidt routinely forecasted El Ninos using celestial mechanics in the 1990’s.

    Piers Corbin at WeatherAction continues to run circles around the inept Met Office forecasting weather events months in advance with 85% accuracy using only his laptop computer and his Solar Lunar Action Technique.

  70. Professor Brown
    ( that takes me back centuries, I had professor Brown at the Imperial, his boss Dr. Leventhall use to say: always remember the science is advanced by reasoning of an individual, or something like that)
    Orange line is of course sunspot record (which we know, judging by the geomagnetic activity is not as accurate as we would like it to be; Dr. L.S’s field of expertise).
    Red line is a unique data set I personally compiled from available records, related to the North Atlantic and not considered by any of the climate models.
    Polynomial line is directly and simply derived from the climate data, with the added CET’s 350 year trend of 0.25C/century, just finishing an article with definitions of all components.
    I take data and see what possible patterns may be in there, and than think about the cuause.
    Only today I placed at the HAL pre-print archives another article considering relationship of the two major North Atlantic Oscillations. It appears I committed cardinal error by calculating correlations on the moving averages, but following clear guidance from Dr. Svalgaard, I did redo one or two, resulting in reductions for R^2=0.5558 down to 0.43 and from R^2=0.7404 to 0.557, disappointing but not a totally embarrassing debacle. My newly baked article, short intro with the link to archive:

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

    it might be a bit dull (very dull actualy), but lot of stuff in there that even Michael Mann of the Penn, the AMO virtuoso, isn’t aware off.
    Re your remark about CO2: here is my reply:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CO2-Arc.htm

  71. O.K., techies. Help out the insufficiently geeky here. The message of this paper is that recent global warming is not a result of changes in solar activity, right?

    Or a couple of other incomprehensible possibilities.

    So we’re doomed.

    And will be until Antony takes up the proposal that technical papers be accompanied by an abstract in sim-ple words for the sci-en-tif-i-cal-ly il-lit-er-ate. (Also known as me.)

  72. To Robert Brown.

    One very different explanation for Gravity complete with mathematics can be found at http://www.milesmathis.com

    In short when you let go of an apple and it drops to the ground, it didn’t drop to the ground. It in fact stayed exactly where it was when you let go and it didn’t move, instead, the Earth and everything on it moved / expanded at sufficient rate to make it seem as if the apple was attracted to the Earth.

    An uncomfortable theory, I grant you, though some of his other stuff eg. the obliquity of different planets in our solar system and orbits get him a closer match to the observed situation than conventional physics.

    It’s certainly mind opening stuff.

    Way beyond the comprehension of people who think that all of climate history started in 1975.

  73. So where does CERN’s CLOUD project and it’s preliminary results stand w.r.t. this report? CLOUD seemed to have found correlation between solar activity and cloud cover, and herefore albedo and therefore surface temperatures.

  74. The use of second moment statistics on processes that do not have second moments is a fools errand. If there are to be any statistics done, they should be done using non-parametric measures. I reject any analysis done using parametric statistics as rubbish given that the series in question have not been shown to live in L2.

  75. KR says:
    November 15, 2011 at 2:49 pm
    However, Anthony’s statement that this “New paper by Love et al suggests no prominent role for solar‐terrestrial interaction in global climate change” doesn’t match up. The only thing the paper is saying is that a “phenomenological correlational analysis” is the wrong tool.

    The conclusion reads:
    “[14] One of the merits of using three separate data sets in a correlational analysis is that intercomparisons can be made. After treatment for removal of autocorrelation and nonstationarity through simple averaging and differencing, we find statistically‐significant secular correlation between
    sunspot number and geomagnetic activity. This is expected, and it serves as important support for our analysis method. On the other hand, after making the same treatment to the global surface temperature, correlations between temperature and either sunspot number or geomagnetic activity are not significant.”

  76. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 15, 2011 at 2:37 pm

    “The oft assumed theory says that many cosmic rays cause clouds. CMEs screen out cosmic rays, so should result in fewer clouds.”

    I agree with this, tho the frequency and intensity between both CMEs and cosmic ray influence on cloud formation seems important, Is the underlining process the same? I under stand that CMEs form aurora over the polar regions, caused by the collision of charged particles with the atmosphere, and obviously this effects ozone etc.. Gravity is stronger over the poles than it is over the equator therefor the poles will attract (build up) more charged particles, this should form a protective membrane (a kind of bottle neck for high energies), possibly reflecting excess charged particles, and given X amount of time the energy will begin to dissipate where the influence of CMEs decline then the influence of cosmic ray energies begin. There certainly is lot of physics involved, to try and explain or even disprove what goes on with the atmosphere relating to temperature, it’s complex, but all these complexities add up and I don’t think that it is 100% impossible to define or even artificially re/sequence, but spending huge amounts of time isolating minor anthropological effects on atmospheric temperature seems bizarre to me when there are bigger fish in the sea.

  77. Agree with Nicholas Scafetta that the paper is very simplistic ….. its like like testing a hypothesis that the reason I get fat is because I eat too much, while ignoring other factors like my lifestyle, diet, excersise routine, genetics etc etc. The truth is in the middle.

    What is encouraging though is that it is abundantly clear that the ‘science’ is very far from settled and that all these ideas are now being tested and discussed, whether simplisticaly or not. Only this way will the scientifioc truth be found and like almost everything, its bound to be somewhere in the middle.

  78. Anthony,
    I was thinking maybe you could lease Madison Square Gardens. “And in this corner….”. “Lets get ready to RUUMMBLE!”

  79. Thank youi Dr. Svalgaard for putting this in the public domain. It will take more than one read to digest. I appreciate your sharing of your knowledge and research.

  80. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 15, 2011 at 1:52 pm

    An ice core from one of the polar caps would be a wonderful thing to have for this

    No probs Doc. I’ll toss one in the trunk the next time I’m out that way. You may have to pitch in for the gas though…

  81. So there is a not significant correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature and a not significant temperature increase, when we take UHI out of it very little, if any, indeed. So it is possibly very much related after all.

  82. Dennis Nikol got to the key point: the Global Temperature…
    From the abstract:
    “Treated data show an expected statistically significant correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, Pearson ρ < 10^−4, but correlations between global temperature and sunspot number (geomagnetic activity) are not significant, ρ = 0.9954, (ρ = 0.8171). In other words, straightforward analysis does not support widely‐cited suggestions that these data record a prominent role for solar‐terrestrial interaction in global climate change."

    To think that the global temperature value -obtained by what means, meaning what exactly?- represents the climate is simply naive at best. This is the trick here. Noise indeed!

  83. Just a layman, but I can’t look at this:

    http://www.phrenopolis.com/perspective/solarsystem/

    and then not think that any temperature fluctuations on earth are ultimately caused by the sun, as we orbit it, and the sun orbits the milky way.

    We don’t even know why the corona of the sun is millions of K, whereas the suns surface is cooler.
    Yet we seem to believe our earth climate models have some sort of statistical validity and predictive power of the future or that we can tease some trend out of data containing alot of noise by applying multiple iterations of mathematical adjustments to the raw data, many of which are debated as to even being appropriate.

    Excuse me for being sceptical, I’ll be sticking with Occam’s razor approach.

  84. I just wonder what would happen if the same technique is used to test whether the IPCC climate models agree with the temperature. Do they agree with the data? That would be the real test because the IPCC GCMs are supposed to reproduce the temperature

    A far better test comparing the astronomical harmonic model vs. the GISS ModelE is done in Figure 9 in

    N. Scafetta, “Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications”. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 72, 951–970 (2010), doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2010.04.015

    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf

    If Leif likes this Love et al.’s paper where the Staw Man Fallacy is so evident, it is clear that he does not understand time series analysis and data mining thecniques.

    From

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

    A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions.[1] To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2] Generally, the straw man is a highly exaggerated[citation needed] or over-simplified version of the opponent’s original statement, which has been distorted to the point of absurdity. This exaggerated or distorted statement is thus easily argued against, but is a misrepresentation of the opponent’s actual statement.

  85. Of course solar activity – or more precisely solar-magnetic effects modulated by lunar factors – DRIVE world weather systems (and hence world temperatures for whatever they are worth). We are able using these factors to PREDICT with independently confirmed significant skill extreme events and general weather in USA and Europe months ahead – including for example the formation and track of Hurricane Irene from 85days ahead
    Please see skill reports and news links on:-

    http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=392&c=5

    Thank, Piers Corbyn, astrophysicist, WeatherAction.com

  86. Sparks says:
    November 15, 2011 at 4:00 pm
    I understand that CMEs form aurora over the polar regions, caused by the collision of charged particles with the atmosphere
    Not really. Aurora are always present at high latitudes. CMEs helps move those aurorae to lower latitudes where we then [rarely] can observe them. The process is well-understood. And has been for 40+ years. Although that old, my review of 1973 still describes the basic process: http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf

    MrV says:
    November 15, 2011 at 5:39 pm
    We don’t even know why the corona of the sun is millions of K
    We sort of do know, the problem is that we have too many explanations and we don’t know which one is correct. Perhaps more than one.

    Nicola Scafetta says:
    November 15, 2011 at 5:41 pm
    If Leif likes this Love et al.’s paper where the Staw Man Fallacy is so evident, it is clear that he does not understand time series analysis and data mining techniques.
    Always going after the person, eh… [again]

  87. The paper shows that there is no statistically significant evidence for this in the data we have.

    Simply put, the problem is “the data we have”. In the data that they were using, there is not significant solar change. By significant, I mean Dalton or Maunder minimum sized changes. The moderating influence of the oceans stored heat means that any smaller and shorter solar change is going to be overwhelmed by that stored heat (or cold), thus, any small change will be invisible. What we need to really tell if the sun causes climate changes is a period of quiet sun similar to at least a Dalton Minimum. There is a prediction that we are in the first solar cycle of just such a change. If so, we will know for certain by say, 2035.

    Simply put, this paper is irrelevant to tell us if the sun can cause significant change since during it’s time frame there was no significant solar change that is large enough or long enough to overcome the moderating influence of the oceans so that we can see it. All this paper can say is that small and short solar changes cause no significant climate change in the short term. The claim of this paper is far larger than it’s actual science can show.

    For this paper to really be able to make it’s claim, that solar variance causes climate variance, it needs to include a longer period of time, one that includes the Dalton Minimum at the least. If adequate records exist of solar variability and climate before their cut off date, and they did not use them, than I must assume that the whole purpose of this paper is to disprove the idea that anything except CO2 causes climate change, by deliberately excluding the data they know will show that their main premise is false. Does such data exist?

    Since the data period this paper is limiting itself to does not include a period of solar change great enough to cause a climate change big enough to be certain of, I can only say that the conclusion this paper gives is .not proven (“.no prominent role for solar-terrestrial interaction”). Without prominent solar changes, we are not going to get prominent “solar-terrestrial interaction”.

  88. My response to this paper: Right, and Microwave ovens dont cook things either.

    I hereby propose the Broken Paper Fallacy: The idea that just because a politically correct in-crowd of scientists with agendas say a theory is wrong, and doesnt understand why such a theory would be so, doesnt make it true.

  89. Rob Boyd says:
    November 15, 2011 at 11:35 am
    I need to respectfully disagree with Ed_B’s statement:
    Actually such an event simply means that the hypothesis has not been disproven.

    Agreed. No observation that matches prediction proves the hypothesis correct. However, any single observation that does not match prediction proves the hypothesis false (assuming the observation is correct).

    The prediction for AGW was for accelerating temperatures with accelerating anthropogenic CO2. We have accelerating increase in anthropogenic CO2. We do not have the predicted accelerating increase in temperatures.

    Thus, the AGW hypothis has been shown to be false.

  90. Piers Corbyn (@Piers_Corbyn) says:
    November 15, 2011 at 6:17 pm
    Of course solar activity – or more precisely solar-magnetic effects modulated by lunar factors – DRIVE world weather systems

    The well documented drought cycle worldwide follows the lunar orbital cycle. Hydrologists and the Farmer’s Almanac have known this for years. Locust have known it much longer. Climate science is still working on the concept of tail pipe emissions.

  91. Trying to show that solar output is not related to global temperature without including ocean oscillations like the PDO is a standard AGW strawman trick.

    Anyone that subscribes to this trick is not trustworthy and is most likely pushing the AGW barrow.

  92. MrV says:
    November 15, 2011 at 5:39 pm
    We don’t even know why the corona of the sun is millions of K
    We sort of do know, the problem is that we have too many explanations and we don’t know which one is correct. Perhaps more than one.

    We see the same phenonemum on earth (Thermosphere). But of course this is impossible as solar radiation at TOA is 1367 w/m2, which is a blackbody temperature of 121 C.

    (Thermosphere) Temperatures are highly dependent on solar activity, and can rise to 1,500 °C.

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

    Imagine that. 1500C at the top of earth’s atmosphere. Nothing to see, move along.

  93. Nearing the end of this day, and longing for a tad more comity, I am left with the continuing impression that employing either mathematics or mathemannics one may come of one predictive complex or another.

  94. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 15, 2011 at 7:37 pm
    Trying to show that solar output is not related to global temperature without including ocean oscillations like the PDO is a standard AGW strawman trick.
    So you are saying that since the ocean PDO is the dominant determinant of global temperatures, solar output can only be related to the residual variation after PDO has been removed. Does make some sense.

  95. “”””” dallas says:

    November 15, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    Robert Brown Said, “It strikes me that there may be an additional source of actual heating that has been neglected so far (as far as I’ve been able to tell) that was once upon a time considered to be a cosmologically important heating process in the early solar system.”

    That is interesting. Space does have a temperature and the energy of photons are unique to the temperature to the sourc. “””””

    Not so: The energy of photons has nothing to do with the Temperature of the source. The spectral distribution (as a function of the wavelength or frequency, or energy if you prefer) may depend on the source Temperature, but the energy does not (first order). So there might be secondary effects, such as Temperature broadening of spectral lines due to the Doppler effect. but , primarily the Temperature can determine the number of photons having some specific energy, but the energy of the photons themselves is not Temperature dependent.

  96. “”””” After all, the world IS flat and it DOESN’T move. Look out the window! “””””

    Well actually, the mean earth is curved, and no matter how small a segment of that mean earth you look at, the curvature is exactly the same.

    That’s one of the basic properties of a circle or a sphere; the curvature is constant: everywhere.

  97. Nicola Scafetta (November 15, 2011 at 5:41 pm) wrote:

    “If Leif likes this Love et al.’s paper where the Staw Man Fallacy is so evident, it is clear that he does not understand time series analysis and data mining thecniques.

    From

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

    A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions.[1] To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2] Generally, the straw man is a highly exaggerated[citation needed] or over-simplified version of the opponent’s original statement, which has been distorted to the point of absurdity. This exaggerated or distorted statement is thus easily argued against, but is a misrepresentation of the opponent’s actual statement.”

    —————————
    Concur.

  98. ferd berple says:
    November 15, 2011 at 7:43 pm
    We see the same phenonemum on earth (Thermosphere). But of course this is impossible as solar radiation at TOA is 1367 w/m2, which is a blackbody temperature of 121 C. [...]
    Imagine that. 1500C at the top of earth’s atmosphere. Nothing to see, move along.

    Now, don’t embarrass yourself too much. The thermosphere is not in thermal equilibrium and will not behave as a blackbody. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body and your ‘nothing to see’ is actually pretty close to the truth, as the air pressure up there is less than a trillionth of that at the surface, so there is really next to nothing there.

  99. “”””” Leif Svalgaard says:

    November 15, 2011 at 12:39 pm

    George E. Smith; says:
    November 15, 2011 at 12:28 pm
    somebody might actually find some small solar influence on earth climate.
    There is, there is, to a tune of less that 0.1 degrees. “””””

    If the only influence of the sun (TSI) is to change earth’s Temperature by less than 0.1 deg C; then why do people waste their time trying to collect solar energy ?

    So it is just CO2 (and other minor GHGs) that raise the earth Temperature from near zero Kelvins up to 255 K or 288 or whatever one’s favorite mean global Temperature is supposed to be.

    I could have sworn that it was the sun that was responsible for doing that; but if Leif says the sun only heats us by 0.1 deg, then I guess I must be wrong about that.

  100. I continue to ponder what all of this means relative to the apparent possible longevity of the Holocene. Chronis Tzedakis (2009 and 2010) (http://www.clim-past.net/6/131/2010/cp-6-131-2010.pdf) states in his conclusion:

    “A comparison of the vegetation trends in MIS 1 and MIS 11 favours a precessional alignment of the two interglacials. This would support the notion that in the absence of anthropogenic interference, the Holocene should be nearing its natural completion.

    “However, examination of MIS 19 as an alternative (and arguable closer) astronomical analogue for MIS 1 leads to different conclusions. The alignment of the two interglacials suggests that the Holocene has another quarter of an obliquity cycle to run its natural course.”

    With the sun gone all quiet on us this is the” forest” as viewed from the “trees” in this thread. I would very much appreciate a considered response.

  101. Love, J.J.; Mursula, K.; Tsai, V.C.; & Perkins, D.M. (2011) Are secular correlations between sunspots, geomagnetic activity, and global temperature significant? Geophysical Research Letters 38, L21703. doi:10.1029/2011GL049380.

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049380.pdf

    This analysis would be acceptable from someone with less than 1 year of experience exploring climate data. Also, there are catastrophic reference omissions.

  102. George E. Smith; says:
    November 15, 2011 at 8:20 pm
    the sun only heats us by 0.1 deg, then I guess I must be wrong about that.
    just silly.

    William McClenney says:
    November 15, 2011 at 8:21 pm

    Paul Vaughan says:
    November 15, 2011 at 8:22 pm
    This analysis would be acceptable from someone with less than 1 year of experience exploring climate data. Also, there are catastrophic reference omissions.
    Yeah, we know you are the expert and the rest of the world are morons.

  103. George E. Smith, No actually. The lower temperature reduces the size and intensity of the spectrum. The average energy of a spectrum at T/2 is fraction of T, T=288K yields F~390Wm-2, T=144K yields F~25Wm-2. This is one of the main reasons that the Antarctic did not read the IPCC reports. With an average surface temperature of -49C and an average radiant layer of -59C or 214K, F=118Wm-2 or roughly 1/3 the outrageously high Trenberth estimate of 330 Wm-2. It would appear, some climate scientists never bother reading the Arrhenius paper. If they had Chandler on their reading list, things might be different.

    But then what would I know, I just fish for a living.

  104. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 15, 2011 at 6:33 pm

    I’m sorry, Leif Svalgaard. When you reply to me in a negative way and out of context, I know YOU are wrong, You have interested your self with various comments within this discussion (as described above) It’s a discussion!
    Answer with substance please :) , I don’t mind starting from scratch, which every scientist should be doing every second squared, I will NOT tolerate your insolence, err, either! You left me hanging instead of discussing what we are genuinely interested in, it deprived me of an intellectual insight, FOR SHAME!! :)

  105. Sparks says:
    November 15, 2011 at 9:06 pm
    When you reply to me in a negative way and out of context [...] You left me hanging instead of discussing what we are genuinely interested in, it deprived me of an intellectual insight
    What? I pointed out that your ideas about CMEs etc were not correct and provided you with a link to a detailed description of the modern paradigm of what causes the aurora. Do you expect to sit here and type that 66 page paper into a WUWT reply box?

  106. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 15, 2011 at 7:56 pm

    Geoff Sharp says:
    November 15, 2011 at 7:37 pm
    Trying to show that solar output is not related to global temperature without including ocean oscillations like the PDO is a standard AGW strawman trick.
    ———————————————-
    So you are saying that since the ocean PDO is the dominant determinant of global temperatures, solar output can only be related to the residual variation after PDO has been removed. Does make some sense.

    It is just a matter of working out the residual. During times of grand minima extra solar factors responsible for jet stream changes could increase that residual.

  107. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 15, 2011 at 9:11 pm

    Please continue your picking and choosing from comments out of context, it’s not a good strategy to win any argument. You said: “What? I pointed out that your ideas about CMEs etc were not correct”.
    I’m sometimes wrong or misinformed or rushed maybe, I’m never ever ‘not correct’ What was correct about my contribution to the subject and discussion? you neglect the affirmative and exaggerate the negative for your own gain, without implied intellectual substance.

  108. It seems to me, if the data is being analyzed by day, month, or year, and, if the data correlation is not aligned, for example, sunspot-data, geomagnetic-data, or global-temperature data if offset due to the chenical or physics processes, then, this type of analysis is worthless and misses the mark.

  109. Sparks says:
    November 15, 2011 at 9:39 pm
    I’m sometimes wrong or misinformed or rushed maybe, I’m never ever ‘not correct’
    ‘not correct’ = ‘wrong’

    I was referring to this
    “Gravity is stronger over the poles than it is over the equator therefor the poles will attract (build up) more charged particles, this should form a protective membrane (a kind of bottle neck for high energies), possibly reflecting excess charged particles, and given X amount of time the energy will begin to dissipate where the influence of CMEs decline then the influence of cosmic ray energies begin.”

    And pointed out that this was not correct, i.e. wrong. That is not the way it works. I gave you then a 66-page paper with lots of substance to help you out. What more can I do? Did you read it? I guess not. Perhaps Paul Vaughan could explain it better. It is my wont to try to help, but if you don’t want it…

    Did I use the words ‘not correct’ incorrectly [err... wrongly] or was I wrong [umm... not correct] to use those words in the wrong sense, or was it not correct of me to assume wrongly that not correct is not the same as wrong? Perhaps I should have said ‘not even wrong’ [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong ], but that might not have been correct.

  110. Leif Svalgaard says:
    Always going after the person, eh… [again]
    ———-
    Oh my. Having read thru all of the comments, the richness of the irony in Mr. Svalgaard’s attempted criticism here is almost too much to bear. To see someone who’s repeatedly gone “after the person” as much as Mr. Svalgaard has done here, then trying to chastise others for simply replying-in-kind, immediately makes one think of a comedy skit on Saturday Night Live.

  111. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 15, 2011 at 8:53 pm

    George E. Smith; says:
    November 15, 2011 at 8:20 pm
    the sun only heats us by 0.1 deg, then I guess I must be wrong about that.
    just silly.

    William McClenney says:
    November 15, 2011 at 8:21 pm

    Paul Vaughan says:
    November 15, 2011 at 8:22 pm
    This analysis would be acceptable from someone with less than 1 year of experience exploring climate data. Also, there are catastrophic reference omissions.
    Yeah, we know you are the expert and the rest of the world are morons.

    I’m sorry, very sorry, Dr. Svalgaard, I meant no disrespect, I simply posed a reasonable question: “What does all this mean relative to the big picture?” Moronic? One might suppose. But if your analyses are to you so acute, what do they intimate relative to what might be about to occur or not within the possible grand scheme of things climate?

    Is this an unreasonable question? I think not.

  112. William McClenney says:
    November 15, 2011 at 10:30 pm
    what do they intimate relative to what might be about to occur or not within the possible grand scheme of things climate?
    Is this an unreasonable question? I think not.

    That is a very reasonable question. In the long run [tens and hundreds of thousands of years] the climate undergoes large swings – not because of the Sun, but because of the changes in Earth’s orbit and axial tilt [caused by the planets, of course, mostly Jupiter]. This is separate from the century-scale where the orbit does not change enough to produce measurable changes in the climate. At the other end of the scale – billions of years – the Sun is getting hotter as a natural consequence of stellar evolution, so the climate will change – catastrophically – the oceans will boil away. But those are very grand schemes of things. What concerns us at this time is whether the small changes we have observed in the climate are caused by the Sun. The paper in question finds that the data does not support this hypothesis in a significant way, which properly means that the Sun is not a major player in climate change at the moment. Whether one believes that depends, it seems, on personal biases, agendas, etc, but then we have left science behind.

  113. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 15, 2011 at 10:13 pm

    Gravity is stronger over the poles than it is over the equator. FACT !!
    therefor…
    Any discussion, elaboration would be appropriate, considering the magnitude of this implied fact and our hosts implied topic.

    My creative imagination, thought or not for lack of ability in trying to communicate with planet Leif Svalgaard from planet earth for acknowledgment of even one fact before we move forward seems to be what I was expecting. or not…

  114. Sparks says:
    November 15, 2011 at 11:10 pm
    Gravity is stronger over the poles than it is over the equator. FACT !!
    therefore…the poles will attract (build up) more charged particles, this should form a protective membrane

    The clause after the ‘therefore’ is the part that is not correct [wrong] and the rest thereafter also not. It doesn’t work that way.

    My creative imagination, thought or not for lack of ability in trying to communicate with planet Leif Svalgaard from planet earth for acknowledgment of even one fact before we move forward seems to be what I was expecting. or not…

    Communication is a two way street and I have given you a link to a very detailed explanation. Perhaps it was too detailed. Perhaps you wanted a three-line explanation. There is no such. It takes an effort sometimes to understand things.

  115. Sparks says:
    November 15, 2011 at 11:10 pm
    My creative imagination, thought or not for lack of ability in trying to communicate …
    Perhaps this from another sorry thread might help:
    The solar wind pushes part of the Earth’s magnetic field back into a long tail. This stores energy in the tail. There is a boundary between field lines that are swept into the tail [we say they are 'open'] and those that are not [we say they are closed]. Once in the tail the open field lines can reconnect and become closed again. This accelerates particles towards the Earth along the boundary between open and closed field lines. The particles collide with Nitrogen and Oxygen in the upper atmosphere which make those atoms glow and we observe aurorae. Under normal circumstances aurorae occur all the time at this boundary and we get what is called the ‘auroral oval’ situation near 67 degrees [magnetic] latitude. Once in a while, the solar wind is strongly enhanced by coronal mass ejections. The wind is compressed and the push on the magnetosphere is much stronger and the tail thickens as more and more field is pushed into it. This causes much more energy to stored, and the boundary, the currents, and the auroral oval move equatorward. If the push on the magnetosphere and the energy stored in the field is large enough, the auroral oval can move to mid-latitudes [and in extreme case even to near the equator] and then we record aurorae at mid-latitudes at the same time as strong magnetic activity is observed. The number and push of the CMEs depends on the solar cycle, being largest at solar maximum so the number of aurorae seen at mid-latitude is at a maximum when solar activity is at maximum, and at the same time great magnetic storms occur. Now, actually seeing the aurora depends on many other things than the aurora being there: weather, people’s awareness, number of observers and their motivation and interest. Observing the magnetic storms does not, as the observatories record 24/7 all the time. So if a record of aurorae does not show a strong maximum at solar maximum, it simply means that the record is faulty or unreliable. This is well-known and there is no mystery about it.

  116. My paper published in E&E shows a remarkable correlation between the drift of the magnetic poles and global temperatures over a similar period. Additionally my statistics were checked by an independent researcher. You can download the paper from my website.

    http://www.akk.me.uk/Climate_Change.htm

    I could not identify the mechanism so would appreciate any comments.

  117. This paper is flawed as it has been highlighted already.
    If specific data records are examined closely there are irrefutable links between geomagnetic and the temperature data. This can be found easily in data relating to middle and high latitudes data for the Atlantic regions of the Northern Hemisphere, which due to volatility of its magnetic field is far more sensitive to the solar disturbances, than it is case for the more stable southern hemisphere.

  118. The authors note that if other processes besides a solar-temperature driver are at work they could obscure the solar-temperature link, but then Love et al. omit the known dominant driver of surface temperature variability (ocean oscillations) and instead limit their mention of other possible drivers to “an anthropogenic signal” which could be “hiding correlation between solar‐terrestrial variables and global temperature.” That’s dishonest. They pretend not to even be aware of what EVERYBODY knows to be the primary short term temperature driver. Typical alarmist manipulation, and on such a short time series (140 years), the failure to account for ocean oscillations is bound to be fatal.

    One fix is to look at longer time series, which one of the authors, Mursula, has worked on. See “Solar activity over the last 1150 years: does it correlate with climate?” (2004), where Mursula and his co-authors found that:

    The long term trends in solar data and in northern hemisphere temperatures have a correlation coefficient of about 0.7 — .8 at a 94% — 98% confidence level.

    Numerous other studies going back much further find similar correlations.

    Can these long-period studies be trumped by a 140 year statistical study that fails to control for the other climate drivers that could be controlled for in shorter term study? Ridiculous, which would be why the longer-period studies are not even mentioned, despite one of the authors having worked on them. Like the omission of ocean oscillations, this glaring omission has to be deliberate misdirection.

    The other fix would be to try to control for ocean oscillations and volcanism. One thing to look at here is the temperature trend across PDO cycles during the 20th century’s period of high solar activity (from the 1920’s through the end of the century). Temperatures went up overall, rising relatively steeply when high solar activity was in sync with a warm PDO and falling when high solar activity was paired with a cool PDO (from the mid 40s to the mid 70s).

    It is possible–and likely–that the temperature of the planet as a whole (the heat content of the oceans) was rising during this down-jog in surface temperatures. That is what the larger picture shows (the warming trend over the century). Thus by ignoring ocean oscillations Love et al. make it look as if solar activity and planetary temperature were anti-correlated from the 40’s to the 70’s when they may well in fact have been correlated.

    Scientifically, there is no excuse for ignoring ocean oscillations when everybody knows that they account for most of the variability in the surface temperature record. So why were ocean oscillations omitted? Since the effect is to obscure the correlation between solar activity and global temperature, that is the obvious candidate for the intent as well.

  119. We are not convinced that the combination of sunspot‐number, geomagnetic‐activity, and global‐temperature data can, with a purely phenomenological correlational analysis, be used to identify an anthropogenic affect on climate.

    Surely, until you can correlate the phenomena with something – whether or not you know the physics behind the correlation yet – you are not going to be able to define where and whether any putative anthropogenic effect exists.

    As for the possibility of missing some cyclical effects because the cycles mutually cancel, Nicola Scafetta’s recent paper, for example, explicitly states (page 14, near end) that “Note that during the period 1915–1940 the decadal cycle seems to disappear because during this period the 9.1 and 10.5 year cycles interfere destructively.” It is precisely by performing the analysis of the cyclical effects that such cancellations are discovered – not just guessed at, or agonised over, but discovered. Why do so many people find it so hard to believe that our solar system, having had millions of years to settle down, exhibits internal resonances in its energetic structure which might well affect climatic conditions on our little speck of rock?

    As Axel rightly points out, (not to mention the man himself), Piers Corbyn predicts from an astrophysical base and produces excellent prognoses repeatedly; the UK Met Office predicts from trying to model the physics and, er, doesn’t. You can scathingly dismiss his forecasts as “astrology”, or whatever, but the yawning gap in predictive ability speaks for itself.

    I’m happy to take a knowledgable interpretation of cyclical variations over a hopeful extrapolation of known principles for now, and will cheerfully wait while people try to work out just how the (known, observed) cyclical variations arise out of the physics of the situation. When those who argue from a non-cyclical physical base can predict with comparable accuracy to the cycles crowd, I’ll put the same weight on their predictions. As things stand currently, the proponents of cycles predict coming conditions far better, even though we may not yet have worked out exactly why, which suggests that the secular correlations are not merely “significant”, they are the best indication we have of what might be going on “underneath”.

  120. Anybody that thinks the sun doesn’t affect climate is either a fool or a charlatan ot both !

    Anybody that thinks the “solar constant” is constant is either a fool or a charlatan ot both !

    Anybody who thinks that the solar insolation is one quarter of the “solar constant” is either a fool or a charlatan ot both – what happened to the other three quarters !

    Anybody who thinks the temperature on the Earth would be minus 18 centigrade “without greenhouse gases” while knowing the moon reaches ~120 centigrade during the lunar day (as predicted by Stefan-Boltzman for ~1368 W/sq m) is either a fool or a charlatan ot both !

    I have no doubt the sun can fry us (unlike the measly 342 w/sqm allowed in the “energy budget”) but our atmosphere and oceans moderate the power – I find it inconceivable that a trace gas has much effect. I was taught the water cycle was the most important factor and when I compare the proven physical properties of water to the proven physical properties of CO2 I bet the multiphase, latent heat energy absorbing water molecule is so much more significant than a trace gas which is 50 to 60 times less abundant than the vapour phase of water and completely insignificant compared to the liquid phase.

    What is it today that people seem to want tobelieve in doomsday – I want to get on with life not worry over some completely unlikely scenario.

    Did the dinosaurs suffer from hotter temperatures and “climate change” or disruption or whatever sill new name they come up with next ? I think they lasted millions of years without succumbing to increased temperature induced climate catastrophes.

  121. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 15, 2011 at 11:52 pm

    Would it be fair that your argument is summed up by saying:
    a) The sun during prolonged activity has no extra influence on the earth or it’s climatic state, nor does prolonged inactivity through it’s cycles.
    b) Aurora, through heightened solar activity, is unaffected by frequency, intensity, lunar or seasonal position of earth and is the result of solar wind reaching earth caused by CMEs and there are no climatic observations to be made here relating to temperature anomalies or earths climatic state.
    c) During solar activity as the sun ascends to a much quieter state, no effect can be observed in relation to earths climatic state.
    d) Astronomers and Physicists have been collecting and studying centuries of useless data in relation to solar cycles and Earths climatic state.

    Good luck trying to find that mysterious and illusive insignificant anthropogenic signal related to earths climatic state!
    :)

  122. Well.. if this has not turned into the most entertaining dog-fight that I have ever spent my lunch time on (in Hout Bay, Cape Town)…
    I have absolutely no dog in this fight, but come on guys.. give Leif a break. He is only human (although he may dispute that statement) and from what I can see, loving this rather lightweight paper merely constitutes indulging in a little confirmation bias. In all the many moons I have spent lurking on these threads I have never NOT known Leif to come out with guns blazing at the mere mention of more solar influence than the 0.1 degree (or whatever) so frequently quoted. Personally I love and appreciate deeply having my humble mind opened to the more interesting and promising lines of reasoning and research relating to the possible (probable?) influences of the solar system and cosmos on the conditions of our existence. Thanks to all…

  123. Sparks says:
    November 16, 2011 at 2:55 am
    Would it be fair that your argument is summed up by saying:
    No, you are too simplistic.
    a) The sun during prolonged activity has no extra influence on the earth or it’s climatic state, nor does prolonged inactivity through it’s cycles.
    There is a small 0.1 degree change related to solar activity.
    b) Aurora, through heightened solar activity, is unaffected by frequency, intensity, lunar or seasonal position of earth and is the result of solar wind reaching earth caused by CMEs and there are no climatic observations to be made here relating to temperature anomalies or earths climatic state.
    No, there are fewer aurorae near the solstices, because the interaction between the solar wind and the Earth has a component depending on the angle between the Earth’s magnetic field and the direction of the solar wind flow.
    c) During solar activity as the sun ascends to a much quieter state, no effect can be observed in relation to earths climatic state.
    See a)
    d) Astronomers and Physicists have been collecting and studying centuries of useless data in relation to solar cycles and Earths climatic state.
    No, both data sets are useful for other things.

    Good luck trying to find that mysterious and illusive insignificant anthropogenic signal related to earths climatic state!
    I think such a small [but not mysterious] signal will eventually be found lurking behind the large natural variability of the climate. Luck has little to do with it.

  124. The is usual CAGW meme, after all it is on the roundup to Durban.
    By coincident I have started to build a computer model describing the climate using similar possible climate forcing signals. The purpose I have is to identify possible forcing agents and their magnitudes. I like building computer models BTW.
    Of course if I get any meaningful results I will publish it together with a description and with the computer code. This of course is not a standard practice used by today’s climate scientists.

  125. ===
    Warning to the online climate discussion community:

    Leif Svalgaard’s uniform 0.1K theory-based ABSTRACTION of solar-climate relations is RAZED by OBSERVATIONAL data.
    ===

  126. William says:
    November 15, 2011 at 11:46 am

    “Solar activity, together with human activity, is considered a possible factor for the global warming observed in the last century. However, in the last decades solar activity has remained more or less constant while surface air temperature has continued to increase, which is interpreted as an evidence that in this period human activity is the main factor for
    global warming.”

    A pot of water on a stove continues to rise in temperature even if the flame is held constant. I’m not saying that the sun is a flame or the ocean a vessel of water. Do I really need to?

    Solar activity rose to a sustained high level in the latter half of the twentieth century. This period of solar activity is called “The Modern Maximum”.

    Obviously Leif’s detrending removed the signal of interest. His analysis wouldn’t find the flame under a pot of warming water either because both the flame and temperature rise are trends and detrending removes them.

    Leif did a bang up job of showing how not to do something. Sort of like showing that using a flyswatter is not the way to pound nails into wood. I fail to see how this “paper” increases our knowledge of the world just as pointing out that a flyswatter won’t work as a hammer doesn’t increase our knowledge of carpentry.

  127. If this study is robust statistically (looks at all the data and includes error bands), the results will leave the null hypothesis in place (Judith, take note). If another researcher objects and says this, “But during this or that particular decade it IS significant!”, it cannot be taken as an equal opposing argument. The null hypothesis still must stand.

  128. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 16, 2011 at 12:24 am

    “If specific data records are examined closely there are irrefutable links between geomagnetic and the temperature data. This can be found easily in data relating to middle and high latitudes data for the Atlantic regions of the Northern Hemisphere, which due to volatility of its magnetic field is far more sensitive to the solar disturbances, than it is case for the more stable southern hemisphere.”

    Per my usual when I see something I wasn’t aware of [my emphasis] I check it out. The act of so doing led to this web page produced by The British Geological Survey:

    http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/education/earthmag.html

    The Earth’s Magnetic Field: An Overview

    I must say my knowledge of the earth’s magnetic field was quite deficient in detail. I mean I knew the magnetic pole wandered and there were periodic reversals but other than that I though it was a featureless thing with smooth consistent field lines from north to south pole like the classic lines in iron filings on a sheet of paper with a bar magnet on it.

    Thanks for inspiring me to learn more. I was particularly intrigued by figure 7 which is a graph of the rate of change of declination from 1900 to 2010 and how this bears an eerie resemblance to the AMDO. Methinks there might be more here related to climate variation than is commonly thought.

    I must say that was quite educational.

  129. The Sun’s output is constant. It has no influence on climate. Forget that pesky UV….

    But most important, the Earth is the center of the Universe!!

  130. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 16, 2011 at 5:20 am

    There is a small 0.1 degree change related to solar activity.

    This statement really doesn’t look good and severely exposes you to questioning. You are very aware of other solar influences that are currently being evaluated that provide a far greater range than the TSI only variant you peddle relentlessly (TSI also being subject to inconsistencies). You should recognize the science is not settled in this area and not make such grand statements that look to support the AGW crowd..

  131. Dave Springer says:
    November 16, 2011 at 5:57 am
    Solar activity rose to a sustained high level in the latter half of the twentieth century. This period of solar activity is called “The Modern Maximum”.
    There most likely was no Modern Maximum as the sunspot numbers are artificially inflated after 1945. See http://www.leif.org/research/IAUS286-Mendoza-Svalgaard.pdf and the assessment at the end of the Meeting: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Discussion_20111007_Schrijver.pdf slide 10

    Obviously Leif’s detrending …
    Not my paper. And the conclusion of the authors is that their analysis cannot reject that “(1) The role of solar‐terrestrial interaction in recent climate change is wholly contained in the long‐term trends we removed in order to reduce autocorrelation and nonstationarity.”

    Pamela Gray says:
    November 16, 2011 at 6:12 am
    The null hypothesis still must stand.
    The conclusion of the paper was basically that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected with present data.

  132. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 16, 2011 at 6:43 am
    You are very aware of other solar influences that are currently being evaluated that provide a far greater range than the TSI only variant you peddle relentlessly (TSI also being subject to inconsistencies). You should recognize the science is not settled in this area and not make such grand statements that look to support the AGW crowd..
    Science is never settled. The current evaluations of spectral irradiance variation show a 0.05K effect, e.g. http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/6b_Cahalan_Sedona_9-15-2011.pdf

  133. Sparks says:
    November 15, 2011 at 4:00 pm

    Gravity is stronger over the poles than it is over the equator therefor the poles will attract (build up) more charged particles,”

    This [my emphasis] is not correct (by which I mean it is wrong). Centrifugal force increases with decreasing latitude so the closer you are to the equator the less you will weigh because centrifugal force is countering the force of gravity. The difference is about 0.3%

    The force of gravity itself is actually slightly weaker at the pole because the earth is slightly flattened there. Imagine an exaggerated earth where it is a completely flattened into a disk. The pole would be at the center and the equator at the perimeter. If you were at the center you’d be weightless because gravitational attraction would be pulling you equally in every direction towards the equator.

  134. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 16, 2011 at 6:43 am
    not make such grand statements that look to support the AGW crowd..
    Since when should science be directed such as not to support any particular view? Your comment shows your bias and agenda. These have no place in science, neither pro nor con.

  135. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 16, 2011 at 6:52 am

    “There most likely was no Modern Maximum ”

    “Most likely”? Spare me the weasel words.

  136. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 16, 2011 at 6:43 am
    not make such grand statements that look to support the AGW crowd..
    Since when should science be directed such as not to support any particular view? Your comment shows your bias and agenda. They have no place in science, neither pro nor con.

  137. Hi Leif,

    Congratulations for your patience and willingness to engage in debate with scholars and laymen alike.

    The other day I was speaking to an astronomer about the recent flatness in global temperatures and she thought that the cause may be the sun’s decreased activity (I don’t think she’s particularly interested in climate issues but the sun still seems to be an important climate driver in her community). Also I often debate with people in blogs who are totally unaware of the recent trend among solar specialists that you keep warning us about that diminish the TSI variations in past decades and centuries. They stick to data such as that presented by Solanski.

    I’d like to ask a little favor please. Can you give me some credible reference on the current status of the TSI reconstruction debate that I can point people to?

    Thanks,

    Mikel

  138. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGHP_en___US455&ie=UTF-8&q=%22modern+maximum%22+solar

    The only one questioning the modern maximum appears to be Leif and his questioning evidently hasn’t risen above the bar of passing peer review.

    Naturally he must attempt to discredit the observations. This is typical of those who find their pet computer models to be more compelling than reality thus when reality disagrees with the model then there must be something wrong with the observations of the real world because the fantasy world just can’t be incorrect.

    Pfffffffffffffffffffft!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111

    FAIL

  139. Some here are quick to dismiss this paper presumably because they don’t much like their own pet solar-climate theories being challenged. (A tad hypocritical, no?)
    But there’s much of interest in the paper. For example, I’ve heard it said that in recent years the correlation between Temp and SSN has broken and that this is evidence of an anthropogenic signal. The authors, however, state that this conclusion cannot be drawn (see section 7 of the paper), mainly because the correlation wasn’t much cop before then!

  140. Dave Springer says:
    November 16, 2011 at 7:36 am
    The only one questioning the modern maximum appears to be Leif and his questioning evidently hasn’t risen above the bar of passing peer review.
    The normal procedure is the talk about research at conferences and seminars to get a feeling for how solid a finding is. If the feedback is positive one then proceeds with a formal paper for the record. My research on this has now reached such a point. If you want to get a preview, consult the references I gave you. And perhaps this one too: http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home

    Mikel Mariñelarena says:
    November 16, 2011 at 7:30 am
    Can you give me some credible reference on the current status of the TSI reconstruction debate that I can point people to?
    A good one is this by Schrijver et al. http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf

  141. Dr. Lurtz says:
    November 16, 2011 at 6:43 am

    But most important, the Earth is the center of the Universe!!

    I have seen this line popping up in various places. Other than the fact that the universe appears to extend 15 billion light years to all sides, has there been new science which indicates more? If I am I behind the 8 ball on this, a reference would be nice? GK

  142. @ Leif 11/15 10:57am
    Differencing is an effective method of removing trend from a time series.
    Yes it does. Differencing is a High-Pass, Low-Cut Filter. It preserves high frequency (short period) and attenuates (to disregard and discard) low frequency (long period) signal.

    This provides a clearer view of the true underlying behavior of the series.
    Is that your view? It is clearly false if the true underlying behavior includes low frequency processes that slowly vary over long-periods, like climate or solar signals.

    Differencing is a kin to listening to music with the treble maxed the mid range off and the woofer unplugged. Discard the baseline, smother the melody and bring out the hiss of the recording.

    It is also possible to filter a series such that the low-frequency variations are reduced and the high-frequency variations unaffected. This type of filter is called a high-pass filter. Detrending is a form of high-pass filtering: the fitted trend line tracks the lowest frequencies, and the residuals from the trend line have had those low frequencies removed. – David M. Meko

    Good reference: Dr. Meko has an excellent set of notes on line for his class:
    GEOS 585A, Applied Time Series Analysis, with a main page at http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/~dmeko/geos585a.html

  143. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 16, 2011 at 8:14 am

    Dave Springer says:
    November 16, 2011 at 7:36 am
    The only one questioning the modern maximum appears to be Leif and his questioning evidently hasn’t risen above the bar of passing peer review.

    The normal procedure is the talk about research at conferences and seminars to get a feeling for how solid a finding is.
    ——–

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 16, 2011 at 7:18 am
    Your comment shows your bias and agenda. These have no place in science, neither pro nor con.
    ——–

    Pardon me, but… Something is now to be considered a “scientific fact” because someone got “a feeling for how solid” their own preferred personal point-of-view is during casual conversations at a conference??… LOL!… One wonders if it’s occured to Dr. Svalgaard that his comment at 7:18 am above, attempting to dismissivly wave-away others’ positions out-of-hand, would seem to apply just as equally to his own subsequent position as expressed by him at 8:14 am. :)

  144. If Dr. Love (of Geomagnetism Program, USGS, Denver, Colorado, USA) would like to get in touch, I shall clearly demonstrate to him that there is a direct relationship between temperature and the heliospheric magnetic field. The extent of the temperature variation is about 2 degree C between the solar max and solar min (for this specific case – not the global temperature), as shown here:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HMF-T.htm

    Notice that both the peaks and troughs of the temperature follow the peaks and troughs of the HMF rather than those of the corresponding solar cycles.
    There is some interference from the oceans. If anyone is interested in the two discontinuities, look up my recent article : http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/theAMO.htm you will find explanation on pages 10 &11.
    Article with all details will be on line in a week or two.

    Dave Springer says:
    November 16, 2011 at 6:37 am
    There is more to it than it is obvious to a casual observer:

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

  145. Stephen Rasey says:
    November 16, 2011 at 9:36 am
    “This provides a clearer view of the true underlying behavior of the series.”
    Is that your view? It is clearly false if the true underlying behavior includes low frequency processes that slowly vary over long-periods, like climate or solar signals.

    That was the view of the authors of the paper in question, and they note: “[15] From analysis of sunspot‐number, geomagnetic‐activity, and global‐temperature data, three hypotheses remain difficult to reject; we list them. (1) The role of solar‐terrestrial interaction in recent climate change is wholly contained in the long‐term trends we removed in order to reduce autocorrelation and nonstationarity.”

    2CentsWorth says:
    November 16, 2011 at 9:46 am
    Pardon me, but… Something is now to be considered a “scientific fact” because someone got “a feeling for how solid” their own preferred personal point-of-view is during casual conversations at a conference??
    Not casual conversations, but formal presentations and subsequent peer-review before inclusion in the conference proceedings, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/SOHO23.pdf and http://www.leif.org/research/IAUS286-Mendoza-Svalgaard.pdf (under review)
    The preliminary conclusion is considered so important that the National Solar Observatory (NSO), the Royal Observatory of Belgium (ROB), and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) are sponsoring a series of workshops [with participation of all stakeholders, such as SIDC, NOAA, NASA, etc] on this problem in order to provided the community with a vetted and agreed-upon new series of sunspot numbers. See http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home
    So, this has moved past my ‘personal point of view’. We realize it may take another decade or more to reduce reactions like yours to a suitably low level of just noise.

  146. Geoff Sharp says: November 16, 2011 at 6:43 am
    “Leif Svalgaard says:November 16, 2011 at 5:20 am

    There is a small 0.1 degree change related to solar activity.

    This statement really doesn’t look good and severely exposes you to questioning. You are very aware of other solar influences that are currently being evaluated that provide a far greater range than the TSI only variant you peddle relentlessly (TSI also being subject to inconsistencies).”
    ======
    TSI (TOTAL solar irradiance = ALL the “wavy energy” from the sun that can be absorbed by the satellite i.e. from 0.001nm to 1 mm wavelength) changes insignificantly to give less than 0.1C variation in the global temp.

    http://www.scostep.ucar.edu/archives/scostep11_lectures/Woods.pdf

    Are you postulating that there is some other energy that emanates from the sun? Please tell me what it is!
    Do you believe that there is a magic effect of very small magnetic variations? (what on earth could this affect to cause a greater change than TSI). Please describe the influence.
    Is it clouds? But there is no proof that cosmic rays can affect cloud cover. Why do the satellites not detect the significantly increased short wave radiation from the earth due to increased clouds?
    The CLOUD experiment proved that proto CCN were formed but not they grew big enough to create a water droplet. Or do you know different and can therefore point me to an intelligent paper?

    Even a massive CME that wipes out power grids, satellites, etc. has miniscule energy compared to TSI and even minisculer when integrated over a year.

    Is it water sloshing about in ocean basins = energy==heat.?
    Is it deep water overturning due to gravitation?
    Then where is the evidence?

    Is it wind patterns being nudged by the merest whiff of solar aether? But then this would not give 40 years of increase. No energy is entering the system so temperatures will rise and fall-back to the same level.

    You are obviosly convinced that the sun is changing more that what is indicated by TSI. Please tell me what that change is and why it affects temperature

  147. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 16, 2011 at 8:14 am

    “The normal procedure is the talk about research at conferences and seminars to get a feeling for how solid a finding is.”

    I’ve been to a million of them. Except for the few most interesting presentations which are the main draw for the whole dog & pony show it’s a real snooze fest. Literally a snooze fest because most people are recovering from the free food and booze in the nightly after-parties. You’d pick up a stack of papers for each presentation that might possibly be of interest and plan on looking it over when you got back home. Invariably you never looked at the crap again with the sure knowledge that you’d miss nothing important because the important stuff graduates from the conference circuit. As usual I’ll hold off until your criticism of the inconvenient sunspot data that appears in every introduction to solar physics in the world is embraced by a larger audience. You’re an outlier in no man’s land as far as I’m concerned trying to win hearts and minds on a goofy blog of all places. This isn’t really the place for it unless you’re an amateur and have no other outlet or what you’re peddling is crap that your peers in more professional venues won’t waste their time on. Given you’re not an amateur that leaves a pretty short list of reasons why you’re pushing it on blogs.

  148. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 16, 2011 at 9:50 am

    “There is more to it than it is obvious to a casual observer:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm

    Indeed. That would be a real rib tickler if the vagaries of the earth’s magnetic field was playing a major role in climate trends. I mean I could scarcely believe my eyes when I looked at a graph of the rate of drift of the north magnetic pole and it struck me it bore more than a passing resemblance to the AMDO. Who’da thunk? I wasn’t looking for that. All I was doing was verifying your claim that NH geomagnetic field varies a lot more than SH and that declination rate of change resembling the AMDO jumped right off the page at me.

  149. “”””” Leif Svalgaard says:

    November 15, 2011 at 8:53 pm

    George E. Smith; says:
    November 15, 2011 at 8:20 pm
    the sun only heats us by 0.1 deg, then I guess I must be wrong about that.
    just silly. “””””

    NO Dr Svalgaard; NOT silly at all; simply making a point.

    It WAS you who said that the sun’s influence on earth climate was less than 0.1 deg C, NOT me.

    I’m well aware that during a typical solar sunspot cycle, or half cycle depending on how you want to characterize it, the observed value of the TSI changes by about 0.1% peak to peak. If one simply calculates the change in the mean “black body” Temperature of earth, that should result from a 0.1% change in TSI, the result would be 0.025%. Transposing that to the supposed mean global surface Temperature of 288 K, would yield a 72 mdeg C change in Temperature; which is certainly less than your 0.1 deg C.
    Now I am NOT claiming that such a simple calculation gives a correct result of a 0.1% change in TSI; it simply ignores ALL of the possible climate system feedbacks that might accompany a change in TSI; such as a change in cloud cover or a change in atmospheric water vapor, or any other change such as a CO2 change due to an ocean Temperature change..

    You have stated many times; and I totally believe your assertion, that nobody has ever detected such a 70 millidegree global Temperature cycle that accompanies the 11 year or 22 year solar cycles; so I have never asserted that changes in TSI materially affect global climate CHANGES.

    But I DO assert that the entire earth climate system IS driven, and powered by a nearly constant input of radiant energy from the sun, at a rate of about 1362 Watts per square meter; based on a recently published NASA revised value. Now I don’t really care whether TSI is 1368 or 1366, or 1362, or even my old history book value of 1353 Wm^-2 for the solar power input rate; but it certainly is NOT 342 or thereabouts Wm^-2 as is claimed by Trenberth et all and the whole climate science community.

    And yes I do know that the area of a circle is pi R^2 while that of a sphere is 4pi R^2. The point is that energy input to a portion of the earth surface at a rate of 1362 Wm^-2 for a portion of the 24 hour day, WILL NOT produce the same local result, as a continuous 24 hour input of energy at a 342 Wm^-2 rate.

    For a start, an input power of 1362 Wm^-2 to an icy surface could melt that ice even if the local air Temperature is less than zero deg C; whereas a power of 342 Wm^-2 will not, so the climatic result is quite different.

    Also during the day, land Temperatures in some tropical regions such as equatorial deserts, can be as high as +60 deg C (even +90) and that will result in almost twice the power density of the LWIR emittance from such surfaces during the day; resulting in much greater cooling rates that would result from a constant 342 Wm^-2 and a resultant 288 K or thereabouts surface Temperature.

    So my point is that solar TSI DOES drive the earth climate system (entirely); and I have NEVER said or implied, that small changes in TSI are or have caused CHANGES IN EARTH CLIMATE.

    Such changes might, just as Svensmark’s cosmic or solar charged particle changes might affect cloud formation (to some extent); but I’ve never asserted that such changes are significant; just interesting; but maybe not observable in the data.

    Well I also don’t believe that “the data” properly represents the true picture of such climate variables as the true mean global surface Temperature; the sampling regimen is laughable.

    If so-called “climate scientists” actually observed the changes that occur in the ground (ocean) level solar incident power density(or irradiance), that result form changes in the system, such as CO2 abundance, H2O atmospheric content, cloud cover percentage, and geographical distribution, they might actually be able to construct some believable model for the system. But starting from the point that the sun plays no role in earth climate; well that is “just silly”.

  150. Dave Springer says:
    November 16, 2011 at 10:52 am
    Given you’re not an amateur that leaves a pretty short list of reasons why you’re pushing it on blogs.
    Giving you a heads-up what you’ll see in a “special Topical Issue of Solar Physics [Journal] for the eventual joint publication of the SSN series and the accompanying historical, procedural, and scientific papers” http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home
    But stick you head in the sand if you must.

  151. “”””” George E. Smith; says:

    November 15, 2011 at 8:02 pm

    “”””” dallas says:

    November 15, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    Robert Brown Said, “It strikes me that there may be an additional source of actual heating that has been neglected so far (as far as I’ve been able to tell) that was once upon a time considered to be a cosmologically important heating process in the early solar system.”

    That is interesting. Space does have a temperature and the energy of photons are unique to the temperature to the sourc. “”””” “””””

    dallas says:

    November 15, 2011 at 8:55 pm

    George E. Smith, No actually. The lower temperature reduces the size and intensity of the spectrum.

    “”””” Space does have a temperature and the energy of photons are unique to the temperature to the sourc. “””””

    “”””” energy of photons “””””

    Well from Max Planck’s relation; photon energy = h (Planck’s constant) x (nu (Greek letter for ferquency)), or you can use E = hc/(lambda (another Greek letter for wavelength)).

    Neither Planck’s constant (h) nor photon wavelength or frequency is a function ot Temperature (of anything) let alone Temperature of the source (or sourc).

    Also photon energy is not synonymous with the spectrum of some (presumably) thermal source of radiant energy.

    WORDS HAVE MEANING; specially in science; so use the correct words, and you’ll get the correct meaning.

  152. Their conclusion states
    (2) An anthropogenic signal is hiding correlation between
    solar‐terrestrial variables and global temperature.

    What anthropogenic signal??

  153. Leif Svalgaard says: November 16, 2011 at 10:16 am
    …………..
    That’s all right then.
    (HMF B sits on a LF on top of a DC, all together about 100% of the amplitude’s pp, the SSN’s troughs LF and DC are negligible compared to the amplitude’s pp (but the SSN’s peaks LF is high) , hence T is more like the HMF B than the SSN).
    Any other comments on the AMO/NAO article except erroneous ma correlation.

  154. George E. Smith; says:
    November 16, 2011 at 11:23 am
    the sun only heats us by 0.1 deg, then I guess I must be wrong about that.
    just silly.
    NO Dr Svalgaard; NOT silly at all; simply making a point.

    YES, silly as you and most people would know that was meant was the effect of the variation of solar output over a cycle.

    would yield a 72 mdeg C change in Temperature; which is certainly less than your 0.1 deg C.
    My number [as you should also know] was clearly an order of magnitude estimate. To think otherwise is the silly part. It is usual practice to give values with the number of decimals saying something about the uncertainty. If I had believe the number were 100 milliK with only a few milliK uncertainty, then I would have said 0.100K, and not 0.1K

    So my point is that solar TSI DOES drive the earth climate system (entirely); and I have NEVER said or implied, that small changes in TSI are or have caused CHANGES IN EARTH CLIMATE.
    If TSI drives the climate [entirely], then [I'll tell you] changes of TSI will also change the climate.

    But starting from the point that the sun plays no role in earth climate; well that is “just silly”.
    It was clearly meant that the small variations in TSI play a small role [0.1K] in the Earth’s climate. So, your whole missive here is “just silly”. Of the same nature as “yeah, if we turn off the Sun, it would have no effect?”

  155. A. C. Osborn says:
    November 16, 2011 at 11:49 am
    Their conclusion states
    (2) An anthropogenic signal is hiding correlation between
    solar‐terrestrial variables and global temperature.
    What anthropogenic signal??

    They didn’t say that. They said that they cannot reject the hypothesis an anthropogenic signal is hiding correlation between solar‐terrestrial variables and global temperature. So, neither can you if you otherwise accept their analysis.

    M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 16, 2011 at 11:59 am
    That’s all right then.
    (HMF B sits on a LF on top of a DC, all together about 100% of the amplitude’s pp, the SSN’s troughs LF and DC are negligible compared to the amplitude’s pp (but the SSN’s peaks LF is high) , hence T is more like the HMF B than the SSN).

    No that is nonsense as the SSN is just an index with no direct physical meaning. If you measure solar activity by a real physical index like F10.7, you’ll find that the solar cycle variation is much like that of B. And T should be measured in Kelvin, so since B varies by a factor of two, T should also [according to your 'logic']

    Any other comments on the AMO/NAO article
    No, as it is not clear what the goal is [and here is not the place].

  156. JJThoms says:
    November 16, 2011 at 10:43 am

    You are obviosly convinced that the sun is changing more that what is indicated by TSI. Please tell me what that change is and why it affects temperature

    You obviously are not aware of the parts of the spectrum that vary by more than 0.1%. Have a read of these links for a beginning to your education.

    http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/128

    http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/189

    http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/224

  157. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 16, 2011 at 1:33 pm
    You obviously are not aware of the parts of the spectrum that vary by more than 0.1%.
    The total energy in these parts is small, so their larger variation does not have much effect. You are advocating judging changes in Bill Gates’s wealth by the variation of the number of coins in his pockets. Learn from this: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/6b_Cahalan_Sedona_9-15-2011.pdf
    These variations have almost no effect [0.05K].

  158. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 16, 2011 at 12:31 pm
    If you measure solar activity by a real physical index like F10.7, you’ll find that the solar cycle variation is much like that of B.

    Well, that’s all right then, thanks god for that the world isn’t a linear place.

  159. I apologyse, but… Too poor paper – no principally new results and even more – new ideas The study is correct, but only as technical proceeding. Such results by such methodology could be predicted in advance! The comparison between SUNSPOTS and global climatic parameter like the global temperature is too trivial and there are great many similar papers no only in the recent years, but even during the last 3-4 decades.
    To make a good study for the Sun- climate relationship especially for the last centuries it need /and it is possible!/ to taken into account that the different types of solar activity events are forcing the Earth climate by different physical channels- for TSI and electromagnetic indexes at all – the corellation is positive, but for flares – negative, while for north-south assymetry / important factor too!/ depend by sign. There is also a possible solar-geomagnetic forcing over the Earth dynamo and by this way – over the Earth rotation , tektonics and inertial forces effects over atmosphere and oceanic flows. By this one there are also many regional effects over climate. All this could not correctly described only of the base only of such simple , very integral
    and less -representative by physical point of view isunspot indexes like Ri or GSN . Itshould be taken into account such events like for example the middle latitude aurora activity, whicha are indicaator for important for the low atmosphere events like solar energetic paarticles penetration or ground level enhancements. The overall “Sun- climate” relationship is very strong, but too complicate and strongly nonlinear in mid and short timescales It stay more linear iif it is consider n long time scales. ! It is certain.

  160. In addition it should be also note, that there is an essential decreasing of solar flare activity, since the middle of 1970s , i.e after the end of solar cycle 20th. It could be clear follow no only by GOES satellite data , but also in solar radiobursts in whole MHz and GHz range between 30- 15000 MHz. On the other hand after 1975 the sunspot activity is predominly in the south solar hemisphere, while during the period 1940-1975/86 it is predominanntly in the northern one. The south assymetry has remain at least up to 1994 and ,may be,, during the whole solar cycle 23. Both these circumstances are related to warming periods in the past. So, it seems by this one that the recent warming after the mid of 1970s is related rather to the conditions on the Sun during the last decades of 20th century as to an additional terestrial sorce oof warming.

  161. We are not convinced that the combination of sunspot‐number,
    geomagnetic‐activity, and global‐temperature data can, with
    a purely phenomenological correlational analysis, be used to
    identify an anthropogenic affect on climate.

    This satire .. right ? “anthropogenic” and “sun spots” ? Unless we give the Sun a childish name like “Bob” and treat it like a human, I doubt it will ever have an “anthropogenic affect on climate.”

  162. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 16, 2011 at 6:34 pm
    “Slow solar wind in 1998 caused the great El-Nino?”

    There is mostly an excellent correlation between falling or rising SW speed and ENSO phase through the record.

  163. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 16, 2011 at 6:34 pm
    “Slow solar wind in 1998 caused the great El-Nino?”

    It was May 1997 to May 1998.

  164. “”””” Leif Svalgaard says:

    November 16, 2011 at 12:19 pm

    George E. Smith; says:
    November 16, 2011 at 11:23 am
    the sun only heats us by 0.1 deg, then I guess I must be wrong about that.
    just silly.
    NO Dr Svalgaard; NOT silly at all; simply making a point.
    YES, silly as you and most people would know that was meant was the effect of the variation of solar output over a cycle.

    would yield a 72 mdeg C change in Temperature; which is certainly less than your 0.1 deg C.
    My number [as you should also know] was clearly an order of magnitude estimate. “””””

    Well Dr Svalgaard, I’m not trying to raise a donnybrook with you, over some semantics.

    For starters, my citation of the 72 mK change in BB Temperature for a 0.1% p-p cycle in TSI, was not haggling over your figure (0.1 deg). On the contrary, I was entirely agreeing with your 0.1 deg estimate. You have in the past cited the very same 72 mK number, and it’s close enough to 0.1 deg given that there is no real reason to suppose that, the calculated BB Temperature change would persist in the climate Temperature; because of all the feedbacks that would pile on and smother that effect..

    Where I disagree with the story, is that changes in the surface collected fraction of the TSI (mostly stored in the ocean); due to changes in atmospheric water vapor and cloud cover and distribution certainly do have a noticeable change in the climate, whereas the normal sunspot cycle change in TSI of 0.1% would not. And that change in solar energy gathered seems to be totally ignored by the climate crowd, who simply can’t think of applying the feedback to the actual (solar) driving source.

    But I regard you as the expert (and I DO mean that); so I’m not quibling about minuiae.

  165. George E. Smith; says:
    November 16, 2011 at 7:33 pm
    Well Dr Svalgaard, I’m not trying to raise a donnybrook with you, over some semantics.
    Well, you certainly fooled me into thinking so :-)

    Where I disagree with the story, is that changes in the surface collected fraction of the TSI (mostly stored in the ocean); due to changes in atmospheric water vapor and cloud cover and distribution certainly do have a noticeable change in the climate, whereas the normal sunspot cycle change in TSI of 0.1% would not. And that change in solar energy gathered seems to be totally ignored by the climate crowd, who simply can’t think of applying the feedback to the actual (solar) driving source.

    I think they do take these effects into account, but shall not try to sway you. Over long periods of time [pick a number: 10 years, 100?, 1000?] what goes in must come out, so a 0.1% change in TSI must result in a temperature change of 0.1K over that time frame. That is the order of magnitude of the effect of solar variability. How that is distributed, how that varies on short time scales, etc, was not my point. Observations show that the change cannot be more than 0.15-0.2K, otherwise it would be too obvious [which it isn't].

  166. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 16, 2011 at 8:12 pm
    Over long periods of time [pick a number: 10 years, 100?, 1000?] what goes in must come out, so a 0.1% change in TSI must result in a temperature change of 0.1K over that time frame.
    In order to forestall semantic quibble, this change is in addition to whatever changes are due to other causes.

  167. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 16, 2011 at 1:53 pm

    The total energy in these parts is small, so their larger variation does not have much effect. You are advocating judging changes in Bill Gates’s wealth by the

    Same old lame argument. The 16% EUV variance that has substantial influence on the outer atmosphere and ozone is a chemical reaction and not requiring any energy input which you well know but continue to push your barrow.

  168. Dr. Svalgaard (as far as I understand it) is correct, large swings in temperatures are not caused by any of the parameters measured in the TSI; solar wind might, but I put it to the Arctic’s solar geomagnetic link. There are numerous indication of this, the most convincing I came across is the AMO link to the Arctic circle’s summer atmospheric pressure anomaly
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NA-SST.htm directly leads to

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HMF-T.htm

    see pages 11 + of http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/theAMO.htm

  169. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 17, 2011 at 12:05 am

    In the end it is the energy after all, because you cannot increase the energy [i.e. temperature] somewhere without providing that energy somehow.

    Rubbish, it comes down to how the energy is used in the system. How much is reflected, retained, released and zonal redistribution, all can be controlled by chemical reactions. Add some smaller movements in TSI and you have a system capable of larger movements.

  170. Geoff Sharp says: November 16, 2011 at 11:09 pm
    “Leif Svalgaard says:November 16, 2011 at 1:53 pm
    Same old lame argument. The 16% EUV variance that has substantial influence on the outer atmosphere and ozone is a chemical reaction and not requiring any energy input which you well know but continue to push your barrow”.
    =============================
    Carbon dioxide (CO2) 390 ppmv (0.039%)
    Ozone (O3) 0.0 to 0.07 ppmv (0 to 7×10−6%)

    to use the standard wuwt phrase
    Wow, Just Wow!
    Are you daring to suggest that O3 at concentrations ~10^4 less than CO2 (which according to many here has no effect) is modifying the climate. Wow!

    Or are you again suggesting another mystic effect of O3? Please describe why CO2 has no effect and O3 has massive effect.

    to help you here is wiki:
    The annual global warming potential of tropospheric ozone is between 918-1022 tons carbon dioxide equivalent/tons tropospheric ozone. This means on a per-molecule basis, ozone in the troposphere has a radiative forcing effect roughly 1,000 times as strong as carbon dioxide. However, tropospheric ozone is a short-lived greenhouse gas, which decays in the atmosphere much more quickly than carbon dioxide. This means that over a 20 year horizon, the global warming potential of tropospheric ozone is much less, roughly 62 to 69 tons carbon dioxide equivalent / tons tropospheric ozone.[24]

    BUT do you beleive in the “green house” effect of gasses in the atmosphere.

  171. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 16, 2011 at 11:09 pm
    The 16% EUV variance that has substantial influence on the outer atmosphere and ozone is a chemical reaction and not requiring any energy input
    Formation of ozone: O2 + photon energy -> 2 O; O + O2 + catalyst-> O3 + catalyst

  172. Leif said, “In the end it is the energy after all, because you cannot increase the energy [i.e. temperature] somewhere without providing that energy somehow.”

    While that is true, where the energy impacts may need some consideration. It the ratio of atmospheric to surface absorption changes, that would have an impact. It the time constant of the release of the absorbed energy does not remain constant, that would have an impact.

    It is a much more interesting puzzle when viewed from the surface rather than space. :)

  173. Leif, I should have added that it is easier to supply less energy to the surface, since clouds reflect and absorb. An increase in cloud cover would have a greater impact than a decrease in cloud cover. One extra Watt absorbed by clouds would be one less Watt absorbed by the surface which would have a 2W impact on the surface. Water vapor also influences the amount of atmospheric absorption in the near infrared. A 0.5W increase would have a 1W increase at the surface. Once allowing for the time constants of the absorbing media, the impact of 0.1K plus the 0.05K can have a 0.3 surface temperature impact on cooling and only a 0.15K impact on warming. Don’t cha just hate nonlinear relationships :)

  174. dallas says:
    November 17, 2011 at 7:45 am
    Leif, I should have added that it is easier to supply less energy to the surface, since clouds reflect and absorb.
    The EUV in question does not reach the surface or even the troposphere.

  175. dallas says:
    November 17, 2011 at 7:45 am

    “Leif, I should have added that it is easier to supply less energy to the surface, since clouds reflect and absorb. An increase in cloud cover would have a greater impact than a decrease in cloud cover. One extra Watt absorbed by clouds would be one less Watt absorbed by the surface which would have a 2W impact on the surface.”

    WTF?

    First of all clouds don’t absorb they reflect. Second of all it’s not two Watts it’s less than one Watt.

    If there are 200 Watts hitting the cloud and it reflects one Watt the ground receives 199W. If the cloud goes away the ground receives 200W. That’s a difference of one Watt to the surface, not two.

    But it’s actually worse than that the ground albedo is more that 0%, sometimes far more, so the extra Watt that the surface receives is partially reflected anyhow so the full extra Watt doesn’t get fully absorbed in any case.

  176. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 17, 2011 at 12:05 am

    “In the end it is the energy after all, because you cannot increase the energy [i.e. temperature] somewhere without providing that energy somehow.”

    That’s naive even for you. The distribution of the energy can vary a great deal and the controlling factors need not be energetic. The best way to envisage this is how little energy it takes to close a furnace vent in one room and open a vent in another room. This makes a dramatic difference in the temperature of those two rooms even though it neither adds nor subtracts from the total energy entering both rooms.

  177. Dave Springer says:
    November 17, 2011 at 8:32 am
    That’s naive even for you. The distribution of the energy can vary a great deal and the controlling factors need not be energetic.
    Please, that is the lame argument that the energy required to push a button to explode a nuclear bomb is minute. Does not apply to the climate.

  178. Dr. S.
    Reduce speed of the North Atlantic drift current, and see the reaction of your Nordic cousins. Tropics wouldn’t get any hotter, but the old Danes would be shaking ice out of their beards.

  179. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 17, 2011 at 9:33 am
    Reduce speed of the North Atlantic drift current, and see the reaction of your Nordic cousins. Tropics wouldn’t get any hotter, but the old Danes would be shaking ice out of their beards.
    We would then have to find a nice warm place elsewhere to pillage and plunder.

  180. Svempa says:
    November 17, 2011 at 9:47 am
    So it is pure coincidence that the historic turning points in the global temperature curve perfectly coincide with every third solar cycle minimum?
    If the PDO has a sequence of 30-yr interval alternating between warm and cold, and the sunspot cycle is close to 10 years, then three cycles would fit in each interval, so no surprise that they do.

  181. M.A.Vukcevic says: November 17, 2011 at 6:38 am
    ……
    You might find this useful starting point

    =======

    Heated water from the tropics is circulated northwards and provides a “good” climate for N. Europe.

    But only X (TSI) amount of energy heats this whole earth thing. So if there were no N. Atlantic THC current then the energy would be less well distributed. But in total it is still only X. so the warm places get warmer and the cool places get cooler. The difference in energy distribution without the THC would be lessened by the increased evaporation from the tropic seas when at a warmer temp. (keeping the nights warmer and the days cooler – which wins? increased albedo or increase water vapour feeback?)

    The N.Atlantic current does not horizontally circulate. It is vertical. Cold water at the pole causes the denser water to sink and from there flow south. But why is is more dense?

    1 it is cooler
    2 it is more salty (evaporation and sea ice concentrating the salt) (hence the Themo-Haline circulation )

    GW may decrease the polar salinity (more freshwater from ice) which in turn may affect the THC. We are currently embarking on a global experiment to prove this theory. But is this a good idea?

  182. Leif, you say:
    “If the PDO has a sequence of 30-yr interval alternating between warm and cold, and the sunspot cycle is close to 10 years, then three cycles would fit in each interval, so no surprise that they do.”
    Sure thing. But what are the odds that the temperature turning points come exactly at solar minimums? After all, there are thirty years to choose from, so I would put the odds at 1:30 myself. Isn’t that at least a tiny bit significant :-)?

  183. Svempa says:
    November 17, 2011 at 10:33 am
    Sure thing. But what are the odds that the temperature turning points come exactly at solar minimums? After all, there are thirty years to choose from, so I would put the odds at 1:30 myself. Isn’t that at least a tiny bit significant :-)?
    The key word is exactly. Both measures have uncertainties, and solar cycles overlap, each being perhaps 17 years long http://www.leif.org/research/SHINE-2011-The-Forgotten-Sun.pdf . We have sunspot data 400 years back. Try to see how they fit.

  184. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “Please, that is the lame argument that the energy required to push a button to explode a nuclear bomb is minute. Does not apply to the climate.”

    I’m so relieved that positive feedbacks ‘ don’t apply to the climate’

  185. Ockham says:
    November 17, 2011 at 10:54 am
    I’m so relieved that positive feedbacks ‘ don’t apply to the climate’
    You are welcome. Glad to have helped in this regard.

  186. JJThoms says:
    November 17, 2011 at 10:15 am
    …………
    These are all minor drivers. Major ones are the subtropical and subpolar gyres. For the North Atlantic climate it is the subpolar gyre that does the pumping work. It looks like that the summer months’ deep water convection in the Nordic Seas drives changes in the N.A. SST, or at least that is what data shows:

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

    Solar heating input for all practical purposes (MWP, LIA and the current warming) is more or less constant. The AMO, PDO and ENSO are not due to the solar variation but to the heat distribution via oceans’ currents (south to north, east to west) and there are solid reasons why the ‘oscillations’ are happening:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/A&P.htm

    You may know differently, but on the other hand I may know of the reasons you do not.

  187. Yes Sir. It is physical process which is foundation of science, not the minutiae of a statistical enumeration even when applied correctly, let alone erroneously.

  188. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 17, 2011 at 1:14 pm
    It is physical process which is foundation of science, not the minutiae of a statistical enumeration even when applied correctly, let alone erroneously.
    Regression on moving averages may mislead you into believing there is a physical process where there is none.

  189. “”””” Leif Svalgaard says:

    November 16, 2011 at 8:12 pm

    George E. Smith; says:
    November 16, 2011 at 7:33 pm
    Well Dr Svalgaard, I’m not trying to raise a donnybrook with you, over some semantics.
    Well, you certainly fooled me into thinking so :-) “””””

    Well the 0.1 deg (or 72mK) I was thinking of (and which I thought YOU were referring to) was the 11 or twice in 22 year cycles of the TSI by about 0.1% p-p which you have explained to us several times, is due to sunspots (including the rim) being slightly higher output than the rest of the solar surface.
    I would not expect that to have much influence on earth climate if it can’t be detected as an 11 year Temperature cycle on earth; BUT !! if you are suggesting a 0.1 % or 0.1 Deg C earth Temperature change over a ;longer time scale (100 or 1000 yrs); then of course I would agree that such a long term shift might eventually show up, in the climate.
    I wasn’t aware that longer term TSI shifts of that order were occurring. (not talking geologic time scales).
    Sorry for the confusion.

    PS I believe that water vapor and cloud cover changes affect INCOMING SOLAR ENERGY capture and storage (in the oceans) to a considerably greater extent than any 0.1% ; and in that endeavor, H2O even gets assistance from O3 and CO2, which also absorb solar spectrum energy.

    I wish people would stop saying that clouds REFLECT either solar energy or LWIR.

    A water droplet takes a near colimated (0.5 degree angle) sunbeam, and converts it into a highly divergent (hemispherical) refracted distribution, which quickly becomes a completely isotropic scattered beam; that isn’t reflection. And the LWIR is totally absorbed by cloud droplets, so any LWIR coming back from the cloud is simply re-emission; so it is an inelastic scattering process; also NOT reflection.

  190. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 17, 2011 at 1:59 pm
    ……….
    In this case it started with physical process, the North Pacific Gateways were plotted some months before it was realised that they correlate with the PDO or SOI.

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

    As you can see only two are critical, while the other two are not, or at least I am not yet aware of it.

  191. With Leif there so often seems to be a low signal-to-squawk ratio, it’s like a Punch and Judy show and it’s difficult to gauge the signal. I discern three interesting comments which I hope I’ve understood aright.

    Alec Rawls explains how the omitted ocean currents make the paper useless

    Boris Komitov [bad English, but I hear Russian expertise - solar/climate link well known, mid-latitude aurora significant, too simplistic...]

    Piers Corbyn – page 37 tabulates with stunning clarity “what does and doesn’t drive climate” and AFAIK he does better-than-Met-Office forecasts based on correlations with solar activity, magnetic modulations, and lunar amplification, that have no need to understand the physics to help the farmers.

    This seems to be an important point that Leif seems unable to grasp. I keep on seeing Leif make rude remarks about the work of Holle and Corbyn although I get the impression that they can both do better forecasts than the Met Office which surely deserves recognition.

  192. “WTF?

    First of all clouds don’t absorb they reflect. Second of all it’s not two Watts it’s less than one Watt.”

    My! My! I must revise my notes then :) It would seem by the NASA data though that the atmosphere, which I think includes clouds, absorbs ~61Wm-2 versus the surface at 174Wm-2. The clouds reflect ~26% of the SW solar and the Surface ~4% of the SW solar. If the ratio of either absorption or reflection changes, surface temperature changes. There is considerable more than CO2 to consider.

    Since I used round numbers that must have thrown you off. The solar was 0.1 TSI impact on surface temperature and 0.05 was the potential surface temperature impact due to UV and near infrared variation that was a little more than expected. The 1 W was at the TOA which is the gross change in solar TSI, from ~1366 to 1367 or there about for solar minimum to maximum TSI change. Only about 0.2 to 0.25 might be felt at the surface, which I believe are the numbers Judith Lean used to estimate the climate impact due to TSI change.

    If you compare Dr. Lean’s 2000 reconstruction with Dr. Svaalgard’s TSI reconstruction, Dr. Lean originally thought Solar produced more climate impact than is estimated now. Without some mechanism, it is unlikely her 2000 reconstruction is plausible. Variation in the ratio of surface to atmospheric absorption with prolonged minima, to allow Ocean buffering of higher frequency variation to subside, is somewhat plausible. Proven? Of course not. If a Doubling of CO2 could cause 3 to 5 degrees warming it would be impossible. That degree of warming due to CO2 is looking less likely every day. That makes smaller impacts more significant. :)

  193. dallas says:
    November 17, 2011 at 4:28 pm
    “If you compare Dr. Lean’s 2000 reconstruction with Dr. Svaalgard’s TSI reconstruction, Dr. Lean originally thought Solar produced more climate impact than is estimated now. Without some mechanism, it is unlikely her 2000 reconstruction is plausible.
    She has given up on the 2000 reconstruction long ago. Now she is much closer to mine. The old one was based on stars that were thought to be sun-like, but turned out not to be.

  194. Leif, I know she gave up on it. Trying to make direct relationships to climate over the past couple hundred years is not something that I would expect to be successful. What she expected from the sun and stars she tried to relate to past climate. To me, it looks like she was close to what the climate impact was, just not the mechanisms that caused the impacts. There have been several examples in science where the right results came from the wrong relationships.

    While the theory of the atmosphere/surface ratio impact, both from solar and radiant impacts of OLR may sound a little bizarre, the increase of vertical convection with CO2 increase isn’t in the models. We have not been through a prolonged solar minimum. but the impact are in the same order of magnitude as the change in vertical convection due to CO2.

    It is not a huge impact, just a decent nudge, which has potential feed backs for a little more push.

  195. dallas says:
    November 17, 2011 at 6:25 pm
    To me, it looks like she was close to what the climate impact was, just not the mechanisms that caused the impacts.
    Yes, there may be some circular logic in her reconstruction, namely that a large variation is expected, so the data from the stars is accepted because it fits…. But if that makes it right, I’m not so sure about. In my book that rather goes against her..

  196. What Love, et al., should have discovered. Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) accurately predicts Earth’s Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) by a simple transfer function. See SGW here . GAST is the HadCRUT3 algorithm, annual from 1850 to 2006. TSI is the Wang (2005) model. The transfer function in two stages has six parameters (in one stage, four parameters), a linear combination of two lagged trend lines. The major trend is a 134 year running average, and the minor a 46 year running average, and the lag 6 years. The data sources are IPCC’s preferred choices in AR4, and the trend lines use IPCC’s method in AR4.

    This result has a number of implications, none so important as the fact that AGW is invalid: neither man nor CO2 is the cause of observed GAST variations. Because of the independence of the data records, the result validates both the global temperature reduction by Hadley/CRU and the TSI reconstruction by Wang, et al. as major accomplishments in the field of climate. The result predicts the end of warming circa 2000, confirmed by a best estimate of 2004 in the latest HadCRUT3 data. The sensitivity of GAST to TSI suggests that Earth’s has no radiative equilibrium point in its warm state, but is slaved to the Sun. The lagging response is likely due to the high absorptivity of the ocean and its mechanisms of surface mixing and currents. Governments can restore CO2 at atmospheric concentrations to its proper place as a benign, beneficial greening agent, an optimal effluent in energy usage.

    The transfer function amplifies TSI, tending to validate the independent results of Stott, P. A., G. S. Jones, & J. F. B. Mitchell, Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?, J.Clim., v. 16, 4079-4093, 12/15/03. and Tung, K. K., J. Zhou, & C. D. Camp, Constraining model transient climate response using independent observations of solar-cycle forcing and response, Geoph.Res.Lett., v. 35, L17707, 5 pp., 9/12/08. This amplification is likely the effects of cloud cover burn-off, a fast, positive feedback.

    To be continued.

  197. Continuing, Why Love, et al., Misfired.

    A seeming decrease, over the past few decades, in the correlation between solar‐terrestrial data and global temperature [Solanki and Krivova, 2003; Le Mouël et al., 2005; Lockwood and Fröhlich, 2007] might be interpreted as being anthropogenic. Id.,, p. 4 of 6. Conversely, the close relationship between solar-terrestrial data and global temperature indicates the absence of any anthropogenic signal.

    The Wang, et al., (2005) model emulates the Sun’s surface phenomena. Those authors tuned their model to reproduce the records of sunspot and the geomagnetic aa index observations, the two solar parameters Love, et al., relied on for their analysis in comparison to the same HadCRUT3 record. So why didn’t they discover the underlying dependence of temperature on the Sun? There are several reasons.

    Love, et al., examined cross- and auto-correlations between the records, between their binned averages, and between first differences between the binned averages. The latter two frequently applied steps, binning and differencing, employ notoriously poor analytical techniques, certain to reduce measured correlations, and to lessen signal to noise ratios. They should be avoided.

    Love, et al., mention causal relationships more than several times, but they never reported the lead or lag between temperature and either solar signal essential to causality. The zero lag correlation between these pairs of parameters is irrelevant, especially considering the dominant role of the high capacitance ocean is capturing, storing, and distributing solar energy over the globe. Temperature lags the Sun by as much as several times the length of the Mauna Loa CO2 record, about a dozen 11-year solar cycles.

    Analyzing signals in noise is a delicate task, one in which IPCC demonstrates no skill. Cross- and auto-correlations are important tools, but they are not determinative. Ham-handed processing like binning and differencing above can strip natural correlations from signals. Conversely, processes like filtering and smoothing, as practiced by IPCC, can introduce false correlations. Correlations comprising parallel or patterned graphs are visuals that feed a scientists intuition, but they are not science. A correlation function has all the properties of a mathematical function, and at every lag, its value is a correlation number. It is a statistic, a mathematical thing, and at that, not yet science. Modern science requires cause and effect, with causality, and always objectivity.

    Characteristics of, and relationships between, parameters need to be reduced by parameterization. See Love, et al. ¶6, p. 4 of 6. The job only begins with correlation studies. And if the correlations turn out to be significantly small, the job is not done; the rest of the job is just that much more difficult. Science calls for transfer functions, probability distributions, and functional equations, well fit to the data and complying with appropriate physical laws.

  198. Leif, said “In my book that rather goes against her..”

    I think I would hold it against cyclomania and time series analysis. Seems to be plenty of rabbit holes in statistics. Tsnonis et al, seem to be closer with the chaos approach until they moved into moving averages. I don’t think non-ergodic systems think much of averages. At least with fluid dynamic you can get a rough idea of time delays and scale. Anywho, if the AMO shift does happen, the non-linear relationships with make for interesting conversation. There is even a small CO2 non-linear conductivity relationship at -20C. Totally negligible of course :)

    http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2011/11/radiantion-versus-conductivity.html

    That is just speculation on my part, no fishing that day.

  199. Vukcevic (2011) wrote:
    “The most likely scenario is the existence of a common driver, whereby the atmospheric pressure responds rapidly whilst the ocean’s temperature responds some years later (see addendum).”

    http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/64/12/35/PDF/NorthAtlanticOscillations-I.pdf

    Thanks for giving us something to think about Vukcevic.

    You’re looking not at a lag but rather the time integral of spatial pattern. I’ve outlined this here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/vaughn-sun-earth-moon-harmonies-beats-biases.pdf

    I can suggest taking a look at the following expositions if you’re unfamiliar with pressure gradient force & thermal wind:
    a. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/15/shifting-sun-earth-moon-harmonies-beats-biases/#comment-769231
    b. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/10/aurora-borealis-and-surface-temperature-cycles-linked/#comment-794233
    c. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/10/aurora-borealis-and-surface-temperature-cycles-linked/#comment-795243

    Caution: At centennial timescales the asymmetries in the geomagnetic field are spatially nonstationary relative to ocean-continent heat-capacity asymmetries (since the continents aren’t moving very fast). (I’m left wondering if you’ve overlooked this when interpreting some of your graphs.)

    Have you ever made chocolate chip cookies? The chips remain hot enough to burn your tongue after the cookie dough part has cooled. If the chips are clustered on one side, the cookie is spinning, you’re blindfolded, and you take a bite…

    Best Regards.

  200. @Boris Komitov

    здрасти.
    да, планина и море.

    And thank you very much for stopping by. Please join our discussions again when you can.

  201. Jeff Glassman says:
    November 17, 2011 at 8:06 pm
    Love, et al., examined cross- and auto-correlations between the records, between their binned averages, and between first differences between the binned averages. The latter two frequently applied steps, binning and differencing, employ notoriously poor analytical techniques, certain to reduce measured correlations, and to lessen signal to noise ratios. They should be avoided.

    As support for their methods, Love et al. points out the they do find a significant correlation between solar activity and geomagnetic activity. A correlation we know shows a real physical cause-effect situation. So, their method works for that case.

  202. Paul Vaughan says:
    November 17, 2011 at 9:31 pm
    ………………..
    The article you refer to attempts to ‘demystify’ the AMO and show it as an integral part of the events, and not some mysterious natural driver without cause but with a large consequence. Your comment regarding integration is indeed on the right lines, but for time being it was far simpler to dispense with it and just refer to it as a delay.
    The article is only one of three or more, the next one (very soon) relates to CET with detailed explanation of
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm and

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HMF-T.htm

    then the following one will explain the NAP, its origins and its overriding role in the most of the North Atlantic’s events, and how it is inextricably linked with the geomagnetism .

    Dr. Komitov makes lot of important points: there is indeed large N/S asymmetry in many respects, geomagnetic has been totally ignored, and the same is with the GMF – solar activity negative correlation, where the CMEs have a critical role:

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

    I hope my efforts in that respect are of some use to anyone interested.

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

  203. Leif Svalgaard, 11/17/11, 10: 58 pm,

    As support for their methods, Love et al. points out the they do find a significant correlation between solar activity and geomagnetic activity. A correlation we know shows a real physical cause-effect situation. So, their method works for that case.

    What they actually showed was that two modes of solar activity, sunspots and geomagnetic activity, were significantly correlated, and that that correlation survived their binning and differencing. In fact, applying the teaching of Wang, et al., (2005), binning would have caused a correlation. They attribute geomagnetic activity to the Sun’s open magnetic flux and sunspots to the closed magnetic flux, and say,

    At least on timescales on the order of or less than a solar cycle, the open flux is rather poorly correlated with sunspot activity, unlike the closed flux that controls the solar irradiance. These differences need to be taken into account when using cosmogenic isotope or geomagnetic activity records to infer changes in solar irradiance. Id., p. 522.

    Love, et al., binned into full solar cycles, from minimum to minimum. Their analysis needs to be reworked to determine the effects of their binning, and whether their significant correlation is an artifact or real, as Wang, et al., leave open as a possibility.

    The apparent correlation between sunspots and the aa index is almost a text book example of the error in your statement that correlation we know shows a real physical cause-effect situation. Two independent phenomena with a common cause may be correlated, or not, without a cause and effect relationship between them. Where, as here, the processes tend to be cyclic, an effect may be uncorrelated with its cause with a quarter cycle lag. Correlation raises a suspicion that a physics-based, C&E model might have predictive power, but the statistic needs the full treatment of the cross correlation function, which neither Love, et al., nor IPCC appear to do.

  204. Jeff Glassman says:
    November 18, 2011 at 5:29 am
    ……………..
    Two independent phenomena with a common cause may be correlated, or not, without a cause and effect relationship between them.
    Absolutely agree.
    Here is a good example of two independent phenomena with a common cause strongly correlated

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

    but there is no direct cause – effect relationship.

  205. Jeff Glassman says:
    November 18, 2011 at 5:29 am
    The apparent correlation between sunspots and the aa index is almost a text book example of the error in your statement that correlation we know shows a real physical cause-effect situation. Two independent phenomena with a common cause may be correlated, or not, without a cause and effect relationship between them.
    In this case, there is a strict causal relationship between the two. The aa index directly related to the Sun’s magnetic field which the sunspots are but a visible proxy of.

  206. @Jeff Glassman (November 18, 2011 at 5:29 am)

    Simple cross-correlation analysis (including the multiscale time-integrated variety) has a role during preliminary exploration, but it should then be immediately & patently obvious to any sufficiently cognizant explorer that it alone canNOT finish the job because of the nonstationarity.

  207. @M.A.Vukcevic (November 18, 2011 at 12:51 am)

    average ≠ gradient
    blend ≠ contrast

    Looking forward to your articles Vukcevic. With your web links you succeed at stimulating appreciation of nature where mainstreamers fail. A sterilized medium can’t grow ideas. Extension of trust to the audience to judiciously interpret uncensored raw material is one of few means available to overcome the gravity, friction, & activation energy needed to lift our collective desire for awareness over the mountains into the neighboring basin of superior conception. Refinement will be a breeze for mainstreamers in the valleys & sea of fertility. Guiding flow from the desert demands sacrifice.

    a + b ≠ a – b
    They’re different variables.

  208. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 18, 2011 at 6:34 am In this case, there is a strict causal relationship between the two.

    Are you sure?

    Leif Svalgaard, Edward W. Cliver :
    The IHV index is used to successfully reconstruct yearly-averages of the range indices AM, AP, and AA from 1959 through 2000.
    Hathaway:
    These indices are derived from magnetometer data recorded at two points on opposite sides of Earth: one in England and another in Australia. IHV data have been taken every day since 1868.
    The amount of geomagnetic activity now tells us what the solar cycle is going to be like 6 to 8 years in the future. We don’t know why this works. The underlying physics is a mystery. But it does work.

    As we are currently witnessing it does NOT.
    The obvious lack of correlation cost the top NASA’s solar scientist his reputation.

  209. @Jeff Glassman (November 17, 2011 at 8:06 pm)

    Your comments about differencing, binning, & filtering are neither sensible nor well-founded. Your suggestion about PDFs is blindly naive (the kind of ignorance-based uncertainty promotion one expects from Climate Etc.). The climate pie is big enough that we can each have a piece of it. I can suggest that you focus on gradients rather than averages when brainstorming physical models. EOP (Earth Orientation Parameters) inform us clearly about SIMPLE climate asymmetries. Leave the data exploration to capable parties.

    Regards.

  210. @dallas

    As Tomas Milanovic has patiently explained at Climate Etc., Tsonis, Swanson, & Kravtsov (2007) were NOT doing chaos theory. They were doing statistics. The online climate discussion has become polluted with gross misinterpretations of that timely, stimulating paper. It appears that it will take years – perhaps decades – to straighten out the misinterpretations.

  211. Leif Svalgaard, 11/18/11, 6:34 am

    You say, In this case, there is a strict causal relationship between the two. The aa index directly related to the Sun’s magnetic field which the sunspots are but a visible proxy of.

    First, I don’t know what might mean by a strict causal relationship, but it seems to contradict your claim that the relationship is a proxy.

    The next problem is your second sentence is not a strict sentence because it lacks a predicate.

    Thirdly, you have lost the thread of the discussion. As I pointed out at 5:29 am, you incorrectly replaced Love’s correlation between sunspots and the aa index with two different variables, correlation between solar activity and geomagnetic activity. Now you have replaced it with yet another pair, the Sun’s magnetic field and sunspots.

    Wang, et al., decompose say the Sun’s (external) magnetic field into two components, one of being large dipoles of two varieties: open and closed. They claim the open large dipoles control the aa index and the closed large dipoles give rise to sunspots, and that on short time scales the two are rather poorly correlated.

    As you correctly repeat, The aa index is directly related to the Sun’s magnetic field. But you weakly claim that sunspots are only a proxy of the Sun’s magnetic field when you could have asserted strongly that they are also directly related to the same magnetic field. But if the Wang, et al., model is correct, then the Sun’s magnetic field is not as you claim a common cause. That follows because that field comprises poorly correlated components that separately cause the aa index and sunspots.

  212. Correction:
    The obvious lack of correlation cost the top NASA’s solar scientist his reputation.
    should be:
    The obvious lack of causation cost the top NASA’s solar scientist his reputation.

  213. Vukcevic, can you share a direct link to the plain-text raw (not anomaly) Iceland SLP data you’re using? If so, thanks.

  214. Hi Paul
    activation energy needed to lift our collective desire for awareness over the mountains into the neighboring basin of superior conception
    That sounds almost poetic; you weren’t trekking across Montenegro, were you?

    re: gradient
    Often it tells story far better, here is a good example:

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

    Integration will come into its own too, all in good time.
    I only got anomalies data, but if you enter Reykjavik ( 64°10’N, 21°57’W ) in

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl

    you can get absolute values but only since 1950; then from the known anomalies and the recent absolute values you should be able to backtrack back to 1860s.
    If interested, I will email the anomaly data file (I personally got from Dr. J. Hurrell, UCAR), I am sure he will not mind.

  215. “”””” Paul Vaughan says:

    November 18, 2011 at 6:54 am

    @Jeff Glassman (November 18, 2011 at 5:29 am)

    Simple cross-correlation analysis (including the multiscale time-integrated variety) has a role during preliminary exploration, but it should then be immediately & patently obvious to any sufficiently cognizant explorer that it alone canNOT finish the job because of the nonstationarity. “””””

    Well I’m a believer that statistics is important; maybe even central to Quantum Mechanics.

    Werner Heisenberg freed us all from the dogma of a pre-ordained future.

    But no matter how fancy one wants to get with one’s statistical mathematics, it is all for naught, unless it is applied to valid data. Applying statistical mathematics to even a random set of numbers, is perfectly valid mathematically. It just that the results are quite useless; with no validity for any purpose (in the real universe).

    So why is it that the disciples of climatism, seem to be woefully ignorant of the rules of sampled data systems.

    Long before you get around to statisticating, you have to gather a valid data set to apply that to.

    No Central Limit Theorem or othe statistical wizardry, can buy you a reprieve from a violation of the Nyquist Sampling Theorem.

    So please; let’s gather valid data, before playing statistical mathematics games. A simple 2x violation of the Nyquist Theorem, renders even the data average invalid, because of aliassing noise folded back to zero frequency (another name for the average).

    Pushing a button, and dropping an atom bomb on a city; even doing it twice; is an example of perfectly valid single point observations. But unless you do it in compliance with the Nyquist Criterion for SDS, you can make no future projections or intelligent statements about trends or standard deviations or any other statisticsl witchcraft.

  216. @George E. Smith (November 18, 2011 at 10:46 am)

    Aliased data is particularly informative if the nature of the aliasing is understood.

  217. @M.A.Vukcevic (November 18, 2011 at 10:12 am)

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/nao/

    NAO

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/nao/nao.dat

    Azores

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/nao/nao_azo.dat

    Gibraltar

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/nao/nao_gib.dat

    Iceland

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/nao/nao_ice.dat

    MSLP (mean sea level pressure) Climatology (average annual cycle) Animation: http://i54.tinypic.com/swg11c.png

    Don’t forget about NPI (North Pacific Index), AAM (Atmospheric Angular Momentum), & their integrals (see the link I provided above [ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/15/are-secular-correlations-between-sunspots-geomagnetic-activity-and-global-temperature-significant/#comment-800503 ]).

    Regards.

  218. @ Paul VAughan,

    You are correct. I tend to incorrectly use Chaos theory since they appeared to be setting up for one approach then fell back into time series statistics. The network portion did look to me to be a valid start to estimating probability states/relationships regionally, but Chaos is not my strong suit by any stretch.

  219. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 18, 2011 at 8:18 am
    “In this case, there is a strict causal relationship between the two.”
    Are you sure?

    Yes, see below

    The obvious lack of correlation cost the top NASA’s solar scientist his reputation.
    Completely different thing. Hathaway was assuming that the amount of geomagnetic activity some time before minimum would be an indicator of the strength of the coming cycle. This may still be the case, but the problem occurs when there are several peaks, which one to select. And he went for the wrong one [in 2003]. Had he picked the one in 2008, he would have been right on the mark.

    Jeff Glassman says:
    November 18, 2011 at 8:56 am
    First, I don’t know what might mean by a strict causal relationship, but it seems to contradict your claim that the relationship is a proxy.
    Strict casual in this case means the following: we see a big sunspot on the sun, we observe that it flares or triggers a CME [coronal mass ejection] that we can directly observe. We follow the CME as it travels through space, we observe it go by our spacecraft. We observe it hitting the Earth’s magnetosphere [by its effect on the magnetic field on the ground as well as directly by other spacecraft. We observe with spacecraft the compression and perturbation of the magnetosphere and observe the particles accelerated towards the Earth, where finally we measure the magnetic effects of the electric current induced and the aurorae that result from it. As every step on the way we have direct observation and quantitative measurements. This is the strict causal relationship in every single individual case. It works in reverse too, there are no magnetic storms without a solar event causing it.

    The next problem is your second sentence is not a strict sentence because it lacks a predicate. Not worth responding to.
    You are not understanding what a proxy is. Let me explain: you take your temperature with an old-fashioned thermometer. What you see and measure is a length of a mercury string. That length is a proxy for the temperature. One can calibrate the proxy [the length] in terms of degrees.

    Thirdly, you have lost the thread of the discussion. As I pointed out at 5:29 am, you incorrectly replaced Love’s correlation between sunspots and the aa index with two different variables, correlation between solar activity and geomagnetic activity. Now you have replaced it with yet another pair, the Sun’s magnetic field and sunspots.
    Solar activity is measured by the number of sunspots, the number of sunspots is a measure of the sun’s magnetic field, and the aa-index is a measure of geomagnetic activity. All of these things are proxies of something, but as with the thermometer, every proxy can be calibrated to something physical [the length of the mercury string to temperature in degrees].

    Wang, et al., decompose say the Sun’s (external) magnetic field into two components, one of being large dipoles of two varieties: open and closed. They claim the open large dipoles control the aa index and the closed large dipoles give rise to sunspots
    This is a much too simplistic point of view and has to be properly understood. It is must more complicated than that. Not that I shall invoke authority here, but I am one of the foremost researchers in this field. To the next level of complexity, what happens is that the closed fields in sunspots can become ejected into the open field from the large dipole [called a CME]. The CME in turn hits the Earth and induced electric currents whose magnetic effect we measure and call ‘aa’.
    All of these things are directly and causually connected.

    M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 18, 2011 at 9:01 am
    Correction: The obvious lack of causation cost the top NASA’s solar scientist his reputation.
    There very likely is a causation, it was the correlation that failed [Hathaway picked the wrong peak]. And he has not lost his reputation at all. Making a mistake and acknowledging it is quite OK and does not ruin your reputation. Clinging to a theory long after it has been shown to be a failure and especially if based on shaky physics, is the reputation-killer.

  220. Leif Svalgaard says: November 18, 2011 at 8:06 pm
    ……………..
    Svalgaard:
    These indices are derived from magnetometer data recorded at two points on opposite sides of Earth: one in England and another in Australia. IHV data have been taken every day since 1868.
    Hathaway:
    The amount of geomagnetic activity now tells us what the solar cycle is going to be like 6 to 8 years in the future. We don’t know why this works. The underlying physics is a mystery. But it does work.

    Svalgaard:
    This may still be the case, but the problem occurs when there are several peaks, which one to select. There very likely is a causation, it was the correlation that failed.
    Since Hathaway does not know why this occurs, do you?
    There is a further problem:
    Assuming the solar origin only, then perhaps it should correlate better to the previous cycle then the next. I have read (red) (Svalgaard, & Cliver) paper couple of times, to make sure I understand what this is about. Care is taken to eliminate any changes caused by the Earth’s field itself, so any leftovers are assumed to be solar. In which case no geo-event should be preceding and correlating (conditional) with the long term IHV, but that is not the case (remember the ‘cringe’ post), there is also:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HMF-T.htm

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm

    In the above NAP signal (my data is by no means perfect, but it is good for start) is delayed along time axis by number of years, in which case makes good match with both the SSN (since 1870’s, and may even agrees with your hypothesis that last few cycles may be a bit overrated, SC19 is a problem as usual) and the derivative of the CET (blue line), all the way back to start of the data. I think, there are good reasons why it is so, and the article http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/theAMO.htm
    you dismissed as irrelevant, presents a very important link in the chain.
    (Why the ‘average bin’ correlation isn’t representative for these types of data is clearly demonstrated by the illustration at the top of page 4, since no common size of ‘bin’ is suitable for both).

  221. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 19, 2011 at 2:37 am
    Since Hathaway does not know why this occurs, do you?
    Geomagnetic activity depends on the magnetic field and solar wind speed in space, which in turn are a reflection of the open magnetic flux which depends on the strength of the solar polar fields, which is thought to be a good precursor of the next cycle. The reason one should look a bit before minimum is that at that time the influence of CMEs and low-latitude solar activity is becoming smaller.

  222. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 19, 2011 at 7:02 am
    ………………
    Agree with all that, but there are some exceptions (on occasions delay I found is larger then implied by PF-SSN relationship), so I shall leave it to that for time being.
    Thanks for the help; it is appreciated despite appearances, which of course are often misleading. See you at the next solar thread.

    Paul Vaughan says:
    November 19, 2011 at 7:18 am
    Vukcevic, can you share a direct link to the plain-text raw (not anomaly) “Temperature” data you’re using here [ http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HMF-T.htm ]? If so, thanks.
    Sorry, but I have to say no, anyone interested has to wait for my article to appear on-line. I have emailed data to Dr. Svalgaard (in confidence) since the HMF data (green line) is Svalgaard-Cliver property (available also in their paper).

  223. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 19, 2011 at 7:50 am
    since the HMF data (green line) is Svalgaard-Cliver property (available also in their paper).
    There should be no such ‘property’ claim. Everything we do is visible and up-front and belongs to the world. Sharing data and views with colleagues and critics is the best way to pursue science (and have them help to pinpoint flaws and errors before publication).

  224. Re Paul Vaughan, or throwing cold water on flaming.

    Simple cross-correlation analysis (including the multiscale time-integrated variety) has a role during preliminary exploration, but it should then be immediately & patently obvious to any sufficiently cognizant explorer that it alone canNOT finish the job because of the nonstationarity. Italics and caps in original, Paul Vaughan, 11/18/11, 6:54 am.

    But Vaughan contradicts himself in the first sentence next:

    Multiscale complex correlation (for example using adjacent derivative based complex empirical wavelet embeddings) can measure complex nonstationary relations where simple linear correlation fails catastrophically. Naïve investigators unknowingly encounter Simpson’s Paradox by falsely assuming independence and blindly running linear factor analyses (such as PCA, EOF, & SSA) without performing the right diagnostics. Bold added, Paul Vaughan, WUWT, 5/15/11, here.

    In a couple of his guest posts and a big bunch of his comments here and on other blogs, Vaughan uses Simpson’s Paradox, (above) and especially the phrase the spatiotemporal version of Simpson’s Paradox, repeatedly. In not one case did he attempt to justify his application of this rudimentary statistical error of mixing things that shouldn’t be mixed. It’s cook-book statistics, and not worth calling a paradox.

    Simpson’s Paradox has captured Vaughan’s imagination, so he uses it to salt through his writings as if it lent weight and merit to them. It does not. Everything is not a nail. He is a techno-name dropper. He thinks he is elevating himself by liberally accusing others of being naïve, not understanding his buzz words like spatiotemporal harmonics and integration across harmonics, or his wallpaper of pointless graphs. For a nice summary of Vaughan’s graphic arts, be sure to read the post by oldgamer56, 5/15/11, 8:18 pm, here.

    What Vaughan knows is patently true, patently observable, or patently obvious. But what others write is patently false, patently untrue, patently unrelated, patently untenable, patently absurd. Others suffer from blind failures, blindly running, prejudices [that] blind, too blind to judge, and Blind innocents, including experienced & well educated ones, can easily fall into such traps unknowingly.

    To the last, Vaughan he appends his only online credentials: Paul Vaughan, B.Sc. (biology/math-stats), M.Sc. (applied stats); Ecologist, Former Stats Instructor. 12/30/10, 12:51 pm, WUWT, here, and Perhaps I should clarify that my perspective is that of an ecologist. Paul Vaughan, 5/5/10, 3:40 pm, here.

    Neither a statistician nor a physicist, he claims to be an ecologist, one with no training in the field, much less any kind of science. He’s an ecologist in the sense that everyone’s a philosopher, everyone in here with a crayon is a writer.

    In his citation at 6:54 am, above, he twice exposes his lack of science literacy. He proclaims, italicized for emphasis, that cross correlation must come first in the scientific method. Even the bogus versions of the scientific method aren’t step-by-step recipes.

    Secondly, in his contradiction about the application of correlation to nonstationary processes, he talks about the nonstationarity (bold added) as if it were a real world constraint instead of a matter of investigator’s choice in what he can fit to real world data. To be fair, he confesses his disconnect to the real world: As a contribution to this multidisciplinary discussion, I explore data, leaving physics to physicists & other qualified parties. Paul Vaughan, 4/11/11, 8:10 am, here.

    And on this thread Mr. Vaughan appears in full flower. Imagine diagramming this sentence:

    Multimoment multiscale spatiotemporal integration reveals nonrandom harmonic pattern-summary discontinuities, exposing the comedy tragically advocated by deceitful &/or naïve theoreticians who are in part constrained by a dominant culture that clings seemingly religiously to maladaptive traditions such as unjustifiable assumptions of randomness, independence, uniformity, linearity, etc. that are routinely misapplied (for example to conveniently render abstract conceptions mathematically tractable). Paul Vaughan, WUWT, 4/10/11, id.

    On Tallbloke’s blog, Vaughan says,

    The physics is known, but almost no one in the climate discussion has a clue about the topology of the sampling framework and its conceptual implications. The spatiotemporal version of Simpson’s Paradox is effectively holding the discussion hostage. As Judith Curry pointed out in one of her best pieces to date, such ignorance plays into the hands of those who need the perception & persuasion of so-called (but fundamentally mislabeled) “uncertainty”:

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/22/can-we-make-good-decisions-under-ignorance/

    With Absolute Sincerity,
    Paul L. Vaughan, M.Sc.
    . Bold in original, 9/10/11, 7:47 pm, here.

    Vaughan’s citation to Climate Etc. supports ignorance alright, but nothing about the spatiotemporal version of Simpson’s Paradox, or ignorance holding [anything] hostage.

    Like Capt. (“just ask me specific questions”) Queeg, it’s all too much for Mr. Vaughan to explain:

    In a nutshell, complex correlation involves matrices of correlations of multiscale adjacent derivatives of series (with each cell having both real & complex parts). Elaboration would be grossly impractical via this forum & medium. Most of the climate literature only subtly touches on the tip of the iceberg of what is possible — not entirely sure why, but it’s plain to see that the result has been catastrophic derailment by [the spatiotemporal version of] Simpson’s Paradox. Paul Vaughan, 3/13/11, 3:02 am, here.

    I literally don’t have time to dig through the long, messy WUWT & Climate Audit threads on this subject… . Paul Vaughan, 9/11/11, 10:27 pm, here.

    This is a misinterpretation. (Sorry, I haven’t time to elaborate … ). Paul Vaughan, 8/11/11, 2:00 pm, here.

    Then there’s this:

    Those of you talking about null hypotheses & randomness have to realize that statistical inference is MEANINGLESS prior to working out the nature of the complex conditioning (due to Simpson’s Paradox). Caps in original, Paul Vaughan, 2/5/11, 10:55 pm, here.

    Does any of Paul L. Vaughan’s writings have substance?

    Your comments about differencing, binning, & filtering are neither sensible nor well-founded. Your suggestion about PDFs is blindly naive (the kind of ignorance-based uncertainty promotion one expects from Climate Etc.). The climate pie is big enough that we can each have a piece of it. I can suggest that you focus on gradients rather than averages when brainstorming physical models. EOP (Earth Orientation Parameters) inform us clearly about SIMPLE climate asymmetries. Leave the data exploration to capable parties. Paul Vaughan, 11/11/18, 8:34 pm.

    Paul, for failing to provide anything material to this vacant, self-aggrandizing diatribe, go to your room. Bad Paul; no pie.

  225. Additional note:
    It is highly unlikely that the temperature oscillations as shown here:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HMF-T.htm

    are caused by the change in the HMF-B, which I think is too weak to have such large effect.
    Dr. Svalgaard may explain if he likes why HMF-B shows no Hale cycle, but it can be discerned from the
    S-C paper.
    That the particular temperature data set shows strong 22 year period, is not that odd if you are follower either of the Cosmic Rays, or even my hypothesis which has strong elements of the Solar- Earth magnetic field interactions since both have distinct magnetic polarity.

  226. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 19, 2011 at 8:09 am
    Dr. Svalgaard may explain if he likes why HMF-B shows no Hale cycle
    It does not, because the power spectrum says it does not: http://www.leif.org/FFT-HMF-B.png for the years where we have good data [1835-present]
    but it can be discerned from the S-C paper.
    The discerning eye sees what it want to see [e.g. canals on Mars, 22-yr cycle in HMF B] something being there or not.

    follower either of the Cosmic Rays, or even my hypothesis which has strong elements of the Solar- Earth magnetic field interactions since both have distinct magnetic polarity
    The cosmic ray 22-yr cycle is extremely weak and does not really show a 22-yr signal of intensity, but just of the shape of the 11-yr cycle. There is a weak 22-yr cycle in geomagnetic activity, that goes from sunspot maximum to maximum [every 2nd solar minimum has slightly higher geomagnetic activity], but this is also 2nd order effect.

  227. Leif Svalgaard says: November 19, 2011 at 8:45 am
    ……..
    You are not ready to let go, so here it is what one can discern from your paper
    Leif Svalgaard, ETK, Inc., Houston, Texas, USA
    &
    Edward W. Cliver, Space Vehicles Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory, Hanscom Air Force Base, Bedford, Massachusetts, USA
    The IHV-index springs from the same source as the classical u-measure [Bartels, 1932], building on concepts by Broun [1861] and Moos [1910] who defined the interdiurnal variability U of the horizontal component at a given station as the difference between the mean values for that day and for the preceding day taken without regard to sign.
    Your FFT analyser isn’t much good compared to the one I have, do compare resolutions of two (e.g. number of points between 20 and 40 years).

    I have work to do now.

  228. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 19, 2011 at 9:36 am
    The IHV-index springs from the same source as the classical u-measure
    You are confusing the IHV index with the IDV index [the latter is the one that we use to infer HMF B]. As I pointed out, there is a weak 22-yr variation in IHV [and aa, ap, etc], because of the interplay between two effects [Russell-McPherron effect and Rosenberg-Coleman effect]. This have nothing to do with the Sun, but with the position of the Earth. The theory can be seen here: http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf section 9.

    Your FFT analyser isn’t much good compared to the one I have, do compare resolutions of two (e.g. number of points between 20 and 40 years).

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

    They look pretty much alike to me, including not showing any significant 22-year cycle.

  229. I might read the article, there is always something new to learn or to use ‘in a way not known’.
    You need to take a good close look at the two spectra.
    Your shows 8 or 9 year component (due to the lack of resolution) while on mine (if you magnify x 2) there are spikes at 8, 9 and strong 10 &12, which is more in line with the various SSN lengths, while the rest is mostly noise. Also power at and above twice the fundamental is exaggerated in your spectrum, I assume a consequence of much wider bandwidth. Better accuracy does matter.

  230. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 19, 2011 at 11:50 am
    I might read the article, there is always something new to learn or to use ‘in a way not known’.
    Without reading the article you are sticking your head in the sand.

    You need to take a good close look at the two spectra.
    (due to the lack of resolution) while on mine)

    You cannot improve the resolution beyond what the data provides.

  231. Information is there but your program is too poor to capture it, and one questions the accuracy e.g. 14 &17 year periods.

    You need better and more accurate analyser.

  232. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 19, 2011 at 2:24 pm
    and one questions the accuracy e.g. 14 &17 year periods.
    They and almost all the peaks are noise anyway, so no need to worry about them.

    You need better and more accurate analyser.
    You cannot go beyond what the data has. Torturing the data more, does not lead to better insight. Only better data. If the data really has a significant signal it will be in the simple FFT.

    Example:
    Here I show the FFT of HMF measured by spacecraft [left] and inferred from IDV: http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-HMF-B-Monthly.png

    There is a true peak at 11 year [black oval) in both plots. Almost all the other ones are ‘noise’ in the sense that there is that variation in the messy data, but they are not true periods that will repeat ‘forever’. There is, however, a true period hiding in the noise, at exactly 1 year (red oval). This one is stationary and is guaranteed to be there 1000 years from now. Why? because it is caused by the varying distance to the Sun that makes B 5% larger at perihelion. Note that the FFT is good enough to pick up this very narrow peak. On the right, you can also see the red and black oval peaks, and many of the ‘noise’ peaks are also present in both (After all, it is the same reality we are looking at). However, there is a strong and narrow peak (blue oval) that is only seen in the IDV-derived HMF. This is a ‘true’ peak and the FFT is perfectly suited for picking it up [and it will also be there a 1000 years from now]. Why? because it is caused by the varying angle between the Earth’s dipole axis and the solar wind direction [the equinoctial semiannual variation of geomagnetic activity [see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Semiannual-Comment.pdf ]. It is an artifact in the sense that HMF B will not have it as the HMF does not know what the Earth is doing [and sure enough, there is no blue oval peak on the left plot]. We publish yearly values for IDV partly to remove this artifact. But the point is that ‘my’ FFT program [DPLOT] can see it. So, real, true, stationary periods come through just fine, and those are the only ones of interest. Noise that comes and goes might peak here and there, but who cares?

  233. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 19, 2011 at 2:24 pm
    You need better and more accurate analyser.
    Here is a file for you to play with: http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-B.xls
    It is slightly different [on purpose to show that the result is not sensitive to the exact interval] from my monthly file. It gives B for 27-day Bartels rotations for the years 1883-2010 derived from IDV, So its power spectrum should have the 11-year peak, the 1-yr peak, and the semi-annual peak. See if you can find them.

  234. Paul Vaughan says:
    November 19, 2011 at 7:20 pm
    @Jeff Glassman (November 19, 2011 at 8:07 am)
    I suggest redirecting your focus & energy towards understanding nature.

    Jeff is quite correct in his assessment. Your statement is not a valid or substantive response to Jeff’s comment.

  235. Doc
    Don’t know what your game is, but I may have good idea.
    There is 6 months sharp peak as expected, and not much else until you aproach 11 years, except small bumb at 72 bartels.

    If your ‘machine’ can’t get to speed you need a better one.

  236. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 20, 2011 at 1:48 am
    There is 6 months sharp peak as expected, and not much else until you aproach 11 years, except small bumb at 72 bartels.
    Why start in 1900 and not 1883? Or is the graph just mislabeled?

  237. Data file may be too long, prog got stuck.
    If the above results are of interest (i.e. an improvement on what you got, else there is no point) I can try again or do 1835-1900, but if your data is Ok it shouldn’t matter, unless you expect that the sun has change rot rate.

  238. ‘Not so fast my friend….!’
    It was your ‘silly’ data file which had two sets of data on top of each other.
    Of course it worked OK when I separated them.

    It barely shows 1 year period. It appears 1 year was prominent in the pre 1900 section, but disappeared into noise after 1900.
    I am expecting an explanation, since I went into lot of trouble to show you what superior spectrum analyser comes up with.

  239. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 20, 2011 at 10:25 am
    I am expecting an explanation, since I went into lot of trouble to show you what superior spectrum analyser comes up with.
    Since there is only data on a 27-day resolution from 1883 on, and the data before 1883 was yearly means you cannot look for a 1-yr period during 1835-1883.

  240. “”””” Paul Vaughan says:

    November 18, 2011 at 11:22 am

    @George E. Smith (November 18, 2011 at 10:46 am)

    Aliased data is particularly informative if the nature of the aliasing is understood. “””””

    I’m even prepared to take your word for that statement Paul. Now it remains for you to explain just HOW one is to understand the “nature of the aliassing”.

    Given that ALL you have is the aliassed data; from whence comes the extra information; since it ISN’T in the data record ?

  241. Leif Svalgaard says:
    ………………
    So for all purposes 1900-2011 is OK, or do you want 1883-2011 tested?

    George E. Smith; says:
    ………………
    Since I spent many years working on TV studio productions, I can only say that ‘aliasing’ is an absolute pain in the backside.

  242. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    November 20, 2011 at 12:18 pm
    So for all purposes 1900-2011 is OK, or do you want 1883-2011 tested?
    I expect both to be OK. Although the noise level is expected to higher for the pre-1900 data [fewer stations contribute]

  243. Leif Svalgaard

    Scafetta’s New Paper Linking Mid-Latitude Aurora to the 60 Year Temperature Cycle.

    “We argue that the aurora records reveal
    a physical link between climate change and astronomical oscillations.”

    “In particular, a quasi-60-year large cycle is quite evident since 1650 in all climate and
    astronomical records herein studied, which also include a historical record
    of meteorite fall in China from 619 to 1943. These findings support the
    thesis that climate oscillations have an astronomical origin.”

    “The existence of a natural 60-year cyclical modulation of the global surface temperature
    induced by astronomical mechanisms, by alone, would imply that at least
    60–70% of the warming observed since 1970 has been naturally induced.
    Moreover, the climate may stay approximately stable during the next decades
    because the 60-year cycle has entered in its cooling phase.”

    Dr. Scafetta Says: “In the paper I argue that the record of this kind of aurora can be considered a proxy for the electric properties of the atmosphere which then influence the cloud cover and the albedo and, consequently, causes similar cycles in the surface temperature.”

    http://landscheidt.wordpress.com/2011/11/10/scafettas-new-paper-linking-mid-latitude-aurora-to-the-60-year-temperature-cycle/

Comments are closed.