Another solar study: this one suggests no significant solar influence

On Saturday I posted about this study from Pierre Gosselin at No Tricks Zone:

New Study Shows A Clear Millennial Solar Impact Throughout Holocene

Now we have another that suggests little effect. and shows a business as usual projected warming trend.

From the:

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 117, D05103, 13 PP., 2012
doi:10.1029/2011JD017013

What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near-surface temperature changes?

Key Points

  • Past solar activity is used to estimate future changes in total solar irradiance
  • The impact on future global temperatures is estimated with a climate model
  • The Sun’s influence is much smaller than future anthropogenic warming

Gareth S. Jones

Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK

Mike Lockwood

Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, UK

Peter A. Stott

Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK

During the 20th century, solar activity increased in magnitude to a so-called grand maximum. It is probable that this high level of solar activity is at or near its end. It is of great interest whether any future reduction in solar activity could have a significant impact on climate that could partially offset the projected anthropogenic warming. Observations and reconstructions of solar activity over the last 9000 years are used as a constraint on possible future variations to produce probability distributions of total solar irradiance over the next 100 years. Using this information, with a simple climate model, we present results of the potential implications for future projections of climate on decadal to multidecadal timescales. Using one of the most recent reconstructions of historic total solar irradiance, the likely reduction in the warming by 2100 is found to be between 0.06 and 0.1 K, a very small fraction of the projected anthropogenic warming. However, if past total solar irradiance variations are larger and climate models substantially underestimate the response to solar variations, then there is a potential for a reduction in solar activity to mitigate a small proportion of the future warming, a scenario we cannot totally rule out. While the Sun is not expected to provide substantial delays in the time to reach critical temperature thresholds, any small delays it might provide are likely to be greater for lower anthropogenic emissions scenarios than for higher-emissions scenarios.

Figure 1. Total solar irradiance (TSI) reconstructions and projections used in this study. In each of the three TSI historic reconstructions used (L00, K07, and L09) the data in the 1979–2009 period have been replaced by the Physikalisch- Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos satellite TSI reconstruction (http://www.pmodwrc.ch/). Each data set has been offset such that the mean of 1700–2003 is equal to 1365Wm^2. The values adjacent to the arrow are the increase from the Maunder Minimum to present day, with TSI in black and an estimate of the radiative forcing in red. From 2009 to 2100 the mean, +/- 1 standard deviation (dark gray shading), and absolute limits (light gray shading) of the range of TSI projections estimated from past f variations are shown. The lack of an 11 year cycle in the lower limits of the projected TSI is a consequence of using the relationship between the amplitude of the 11 year cycle and the 25 year mean of the TSI reconstructions. During low TSI the 11 year cycle amplitude is also small, as seen in the TSI reconstructions during the 17th century. The estimate of the radiative forcing (axis on the right) is with respect to the TSI value of 1365Wm^2. The radiative forcings are estimated by multiplying the change in TSI by 0.25 and 0.7 to account for the sphericity and albedo of the Earth, respectively, following Lean and Rind (1998) and Forster et al. (2007).

Dr. Leif Svalgaard comments to me via email:

Whatever one’s take, it is an item in the debate. There are some
problems with the TSI series they use, e.g. the PMOD series which we now know has a problem with non-compensated degradation. This has been admitted by the experimenters, see Slide 29 of
http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf

There is also a problem with the long-term slope, but none of these are serious, the fact remains that TSI has not varied enough. The argument that there are other solar variables that are responsible falls flat, because they all in the end correlate strongly with the variation of TSI. That the effect is man-made is also on shaky ground because there are longer term climate variations long before CO2 increases.

I don’t disagree with Dr. Svalgaard that variance of direct forcing on Earth’s climate via TSI has been small, but that’s why many are looking in other places, such as UV effects and GCR modulation of cloud cover for example. TSI really isn’t the “total” solar irradiance in the truest sense, there are other effects from the sun that are just now being researched and are beginning to be understood. My view is that there is an amplification effect going on related to one or more solar effects. GCR cloud modulation theory might just be one of those amplifications.

The full paper is here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011JD017013.pdf

Let’s have at it then.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Cosmic rays, Modeling, Solar and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

185 Responses to Another solar study: this one suggests no significant solar influence

  1. I never cease to marvel at how well climate models back-cast (see Figure 4), always oscillating perfectly through the centre of decades of ‘weather noise’ – yet as soon as they forecast anything, there is almost immediate divergence.

  2. MAVukcevic says:

    Drs. Jones & Lockwood
    Future solar activity for the TSI projections:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm
    It worked fine in the past and much better for the present (then some signed by the well known names).

  3. jim says:

    You get the same effect by fitting a n order polynomial to a historic data set. You can make it fit past data to any desired degree.

    Its ability to forecast is zero. Accurate back casting is NO indication of forecasting ability.

    Thanks
    JK

  4. Bertram Felden says:

    It’s from the Hadley Centre. So it is a rat dressed in a duck suit.

    I require proof beyond reasonable doubt that changes in the main source of energy for the earth’s system have no effect. It’s completely counter intuitive and requires significant automatic negative/positive balances to be in effect to nullify solar variations. It just doesn’t wash.

    Or as believe some colonials say ‘that dog don’t hunt’ :)

  5. 30characters says:

    It’s called data mining.

  6. Carrie says:

    Met Office Hadley Centre propaganda; nothing to see move on folks!

  7. Juraj V. says:

    The model replicates the 20th century very poorly. How come they believe it will continue up, when it is already heading down? This is not even funny.

  8. mike about town says:

    does anyone know how high in the atmosphere CO2 is “well-mixed?” in other words…where is the “atmospheric ceiling” in terms of mixing of CO2?

  9. Ken Hall says:

    I wonder if there is an email in the still encrypted climategate set which has someone saying, “We must get rid of solar variation” too?

    These non-man-made variabilities are very inconvenient for the alarmist crowd. They need papers that they can point to which allow them to deny reality. It does not mean that these papers are accurate or truthful. We know that the alarmist crowd are willing to sink to criminal deception to prove their case. What does this say for their ‘science’?

  10. MAVukcevic says:

    jim says: March 5, 2012 at 12:25 am
    You get the same effect by fitting a n order polynomial to a historic data set. You can make it fit past data to any desired degree. Its ability to forecast is zero. Accurate back casting is NO indication of forecasting ability.

    Absolutely. Any projection has to be based on some physical mechanism which is relative to the sun and the solar system. In here:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm
    to extrapolate future solar magnetic activity orbital properties of the two gas giants with strongest ‘inert’ magnetic field are used.

  11. Ronaldo says:

    There seems to be some circularity here. I thought that the IPCC in its wisdom had decreed that the late 20th C warming was caused by the impact of IR absorption by CO2 on radiatitive heat transfer, ignoring the quantised nature of this phenomenon and other contributory mechanisms such as forced convection . From then on the modellers have struggled mightily to justify this assumption, by relying on the assumed amplification effect of atmospheric water . As the models have been tuned to effectively rule out any other mechanism and specifically the impact of the sun’s behaviour on temperature rise (which is likely to involve more than simply TSI) , it is little wonder that the authors achieve that which they sought to prove,

  12. Katherine says:

    Using this information, with a simple climate model

    I stopped reading right there. A simple climate model? Like a linear equation? If a single climate model had already been validated, climate scientists wouldn’t be talking about missing heat.

  13. “The Sun’s influence is much smaller than future anthropogenic warming.” The Hadley Centre have slipped up badly. That statement is a prediction, not a projection, and they can be held to account. If it was possible to conduct an experiment by which one first switched off AGW, then switched off the Sun to ascertain influence, I know where my money would be.

  14. Alan the Brit says:

    Why do I always get the impression that these people are coming from the line, “we know it isn’t the Sun, it can’t possibly be, so we’ll prove it!”? Remember folks, Lockwood is the one who claimed that a quiet Sun won’t affect the Earth’s temperature, because we would see it by now, back in 08/09.

  15. Gator says:

    To quote Monty Python, “It’s only a model”.

  16. Laws of Nature says:

    Hi there,
    I think the key pharse in this discussion is the sentence from
    Leif Svalgaard:
    “The argument that there are other solar variables that are responsible falls flat, because they all in the end correlate strongly with the variation of TSI.”

    And I confess, that I don’t understand what he means..
    I don’t have a problem with “they all in the end correlate strongly with the variation of TSI”,
    but why would they fall flat?
    Just because we can measure a direct and fast response of a solar activity in form of the TSI, this does not tell us anything about a possible indirect or delayed response (for example the often mentioned cloud cover variation)
    I ma quite sure Dr Svalgaard or other discussed this before, could someone point me the the relevant article?

    Thx,
    LoN

  17. Kasuha says:

    I always thought usage of simple models was disqualified by warmists ever since Dr. Spencer used them.

  18. John Marshall says:

    This research comes from the Hadley Centre, proponents of CAGW so I would expect their findings to follow their models that the sun is an innocent bystander with little input.

    A case of research results following prejudices rather than observation.

  19. GingerZilla says:

    I like the thinking behind this, ‘My god AGW is more powerful than the sun[god]‘ nations will bow down before him and the naughty nation of the maple lead shall feel it’s wrath. Our god is so powerful the sun could shut down and we’d still warm up. Do not question me-these beliefs are settled /Sarc

  20. m seward says:

    I just think that given the state of the debate this seems a silly, self serving paper that explores unprsopective ground. I do not think anyone seriously puts it that the TSI varaiation might be a significant or dominant natural factor in the 20th century warming or previous temperature fluctuations. I have always taken it that there is some construct arising from cosmic rays being influenced by the sun’s activity, zodiacal dust, cloud formation as well as water vapour content at various critical parts of the atmoshphere ( in both vertical and in geographic position ).

    That this comes from Hadley makes it look like another chair or table pulled down in desperation to frustrate the reality in hot pursuit of this AGW nonsense.

  21. cui bono says:

    Look at the authors – they’ve been saying this for years, they’re saying it now, and they’d still be saying it if hell (or at least the N. Hemisphere) freezes over.

    It’s “Hide the sunshine”.

  22. thingadonta says:

    We already know that TSI solar effects are amplified because that is what happened in the past. Period. Even the early AGW crowd, like Lamb recognise this. Its only a matter of time before this is appreciated, as the sun now wanes, so will the T.

  23. David Cage says:

    Why do they show a linear trend to a clearly sinusoidal trend? Have climate scientists not progressed to these more complex functions yet?

  24. pat says:

    andrew bolt has an excellent thread up in regard to the wonderful rains falling over most of australia, filling our dams and rivers, as they have done for millennia…
    pity about the billions that have been wasted believing in (or pretending to believe in) the alarmist predictions…

    The warmists’ straw man: “We never said it wouldn’t rain”
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_warmists_straw_man_we_never_said_it_wouldnt_rain/

  25. bubbagyro says:

    Where is the UV, high energy and intermediate? Where is the proton and other high speed particle flux? Where is the radiofrequency and X-Ray and gamma ray fluxes?

    TSI, of course it does not vary much, that’s why it is picked. Every other wave and particle and plasma is ignored, because these vary up to 15% on cycle. That’s why these are ignored. How much energy is supplied to earth by one single CME? How many CMEs per cycle?

  26. As Anthony rightly said, Jones et al. (2012) do not allow any solar amplifiers such as UV or cosmic rays/clouds in their models. So the result of their study is already included in their basic assumptions with which they started their study. It is clear that the weak solar radiative forcing that they use in their model cannot explain the strong millennial-scale cycles of the past 10,000 years which run parallel to solar activity, mostly the 1000 years Eddy cycle and the 2300 years Hallstatt cycle. The current models are not able to reproduce these pre-industrial temperature changes. So why do Jones et al. (2012) think they can model the future when they cannot even model the past?

    After the hockey stick attempt failed and the temperature amplitude of the last 1000 years can no longer be ignored, IPCC now tries to interpret the Little Ice Age mostly by volcanoes. I would call this “hockey stick 2″ because the only objective is to reduce the climate significance of solar activity changes. Let’s face it: In oder to explain the solar-synchronous temperature roller coaster of the past 10,000 years one needs to assume solar amplifiers.

  27. DirkH says:

    “For the purposes of this study as it is not
    imperative to be able to tune all the EBM’s parameters
    simultaneously the default model parameters are as
    described by Rowntree [1998] apart from two parameters;
    the climate sensitivity parameter (l) and ocean vertical heat
    diffusivity (kd).”

    Oh goody ! They did not need to “tune all the EBM’s parameters simultaneously”!!!!! Only two of them! Lordy mine, I could write them a simple learning algorithm that automatically tunes their model for an optimal hindcast, probably even under the constraint that it should predict catastrophic warming at the same time… and we could fire them all and still enjoy all the doom-mongering we get now.

  28. Rhys Jaggar says:

    Let’s hypothesise that it is only a fraction of the TSI which interacts with earth to create climate effects. Let’s say it has a percentage of TSI of, say 1%.

    Let’s say you vary that key variable by 50% through some sort of cycle.

    The overall TSI changes by 0.5%, but the key variable changes by 50%.

    That’s one way to explain the issue.

    Another explanation:

    The earth responds only to critical thresholds of key radiation emissions, typically only found during CMEs or Flares. Because these happen rarely, the overall effect on TSI may be small, but the short-term timescale variability may be very high.

    It doesn’t matter if the population of Europe stays the same: if the population of the world grows by 50%, there are implications for all.

    Equally, just because the world’s population might stay stable, if China’s grew by 50%, they’d have domestic issues to contend with.

    What I think needs to be examined is whether scientists have yet found the key inputs which trigger changes.

    Because if they haven’t, the discussion of causality may be being blurred.

    Has anyone presented a yearlong variability index for various emissions from the sun and if so, where can we read about it????

  29. Ian W says:

    As bubbagyro says TSI is picked as it is an average that doesn’t change much and all the other aspects of output from the Sun are ignored. So that makes a nice steady background for the simple CO2 climate model. It is very apparent that the authors appear to have stopped observations before 2000 – one wonders why this is, surely they would not wish to hide the decline of the last few years compared to their models monatonic rise?

    It would appear from a simple check that the hypothesis that is embedded in their model has already been falsified.

    They should really read some observational science such as Nir Shaviv’s ‘Using the Oceans as a Calorimeter’.

  30. CO2friend says:

    Id like then to argue with Piers Corbyn about it!!! Theyd loose. Imperical evidence PROVES them totally wrong!
    They’re charletons who no nothing of physics. Paper returned to be reassessed -rejected return to author (sarc)

  31. Richdo says:

    “During the 20th century, solar activity increased in magnitude to a so-called grand maximum. It is probable that this high level of solar activity is at or near its end.”

    Well despite all the other obvious shortcomings of this Sims play at least we can put Jones, Lockwood and Stott down in the 20th century solar grand max camp. I’m somewhat surprised that Dr. S didn’t comment on that aspect of the report.

  32. 1DandyTroll says:

    So, essentially, the study might be a waste of both money and energy due to the assumption that the warming is anthropogenic and that the anthropogenic part is of note.

    What’s with the 9000 years of observations and reconstructions. Shouldn’t it be like 50 years of observations and 8950 years of reconstructions?

    And yesterday we got a good probable explanation for why high precision, of the likes of 0.06K, in climate statistcs are more like the oozing from a dung heap.

    Would many professors allow for an assumption and nullifying of the line between observational data and reconstructed data too begin with?

  33. Olavi says:

    Leif Svalgaard:
    “The argument that there are other solar variables that are responsible falls flat, because they all in the end correlate strongly with the variation of TSI.”

    EUV and UV variation is larger than variation in visible light.
    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2010JA015431.pdf
    N. A. Krivova,1 L. E. A. Vieira,1,2 and S. K. Solanki1,3

    If this is the case, it can be major factor in climate. And what about cosmic rays? Solar wind can be the other major driver to earth’s cilmate.
    CO2 effect is 0,000014C :)

  34. Jimbo says:

    I thought the science was settled. Why do we keep funding climate scientists I ask?

    At the end of the day all that matters for me are OBSERVATIONS V projections etc. and I observe no global warming for over a decade and I continue to observe.

  35. Eyes Wide Open says:

    For Gator:

  36. MAVukcevic says:

    Dr. S.
    If I got this correct, the Aa spectrum is utterly uninteresting
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AaSpec.gif

  37. Myrrh says:

    mike about town says:
    March 5, 2012 at 1:05 am
    does anyone know how high in the atmosphere CO2 is “well-mixed?” in other words…where is the “atmospheric ceiling” in terms of mixing of CO2?

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

    They say it’s thoroughly mixed all the way through.

    They say that because they have no atmosphere. They have “empty space” created on an ideal gas fiction; their molecules are not subject to gravity, have no weight, no volume, no attractions. Instead they zip through the empty space at great speeds bouncing off each other to mix thoroughly. That’s why they have no water cycle, they have no atmosphere for water to evaporate into. They have no real molecules, so they don’t know the difference between real and the imaginary construct ideal gas. They say “gases have no buoyancy” because it doesn’t apply to their fictional empty space ‘atmosphere’ where only radiation exists.

    As I’ve just posted elsewhere: Their ideal gas molecules zip through their empty space atmosphere at vast speeds thoroughly mixing by ideal gas diffusion or, they mix by Brownian motion! They don’t have a fluid gas medium for Brownian motion! Do they care? They don’t even understand it to care. So they extrapolate from nanometre scale Brownian motion in a fluid to the whole of their empty vacuum space ideal gas gravity less atmosphere! Stupid isn’t a strong enough word for this.

  38. Richard M says:

    mike about town says:
    March 5, 2012 at 1:05 am

    does anyone know how high in the atmosphere CO2 is “well-mixed?” in other words…where is the “atmospheric ceiling” in terms of mixing of CO2?

    It’s well mixed up to the tropopause, then it drops off quickly due to it being heavier than most other gases.

  39. Richard M says:

    I suspect long term temperature trends is primarily related to albedo. How the sun influences albedo through mechanisms like GCRs, electroscavening, etc. is what needs to be better understood.

  40. Jason Joice M.D. says:

    @Olavi,
    Lief says “it’s not the sun” and he knows EVERYTHING about the sun, so don’t question him. Mmmkay??

    Seriously though, how can someone just say that oh, all those other factors fall flat without showing studies and some sort of “proof” that they “fall flat”. I’ve seen several studies and reports that show T does correlate with GCR’S very well. To take the attitude that TSI doesn’t vary enough and all the other solar factors are closely tied to TSI therefore it can’t be any of them, is quite foolish.

  41. Richard says:

    Below a few salient comments from 300 years ago regarding “projections”…..

    http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/jswift/bl-jswift-gull-3-5.htm

  42. Bill Illis says:

    If you want to see just how “unreal” this is, here is the HadCM3 model hindcast submitted to the IPCC AR4 versus Hadcrut3 observations from 1900 to Jan 2012.

    I don’t see how the nearly random HadCM3 results would change depending on differing solar cycles. Obviously, the results presented in the paper have some very long smoothing routine.

    http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/9600/hadcm3hindcast.png

  43. Jim Crews says:

    It is becoming clear solar activity is a primary variable in natural climate temperature variations. To say it is not, and state that the trace gas CO2 is still the main contributor is restating the science is still settled. In which it is not. Papers like this continue to waste our intellectual and monetary resources.

  44. Mardler says:

    Gareth S. Jones

    Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK

    Mike Lockwood

    Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, UK

    Peter A. Stott

    Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK

    Enough said.

  45. R Barker says:

    “While the Sun is not expected to provide substantial delays in the time to reach critical temperature thresholds……..”

    What critical temperature thresholds? Where? When? Can anyone tell me what is going to happen when we reach the “critical temperature thresholds”? Why so much certainty about CAGW is going to happen but so vague about the consequences?

  46. matt v. says:

    The Met Office past predictions have been biased high and wrong for 11 years out of 12 because they over factor the CO2 and under estimate the solar impact. They are again predicting a rise in global temperatures for 2012 when all signs point to further dcline . Until they begin to produce credible forcasts , one doubts the science behind their forecats

  47. hunter says:

    It all comes down to answering the question:
    Are we measuring accurately what we think we are, and are we measuring the full output and influence of the sun?
    Since we do not actually understand much about the dynamics of the sun, and it is well demonstrated that we have no meaningful predicting ability irt to even sunspots, and we are not even certain what sunspots do, if anything to climate, perhaps it is a bit of hubris to dismiss the sun so readily.
    As to the ever lengthening list of earnest papers predicting that the AGW signal will finally overwhelm natural variability, does anyone else notice that this clear signal is nearly always predicted to be years and years from now? And when papers do claim that the clear signal of CO2 wickedness is present now, a reasonable review of the claim shows it be based on data that is indistinguishable from the historical record?

  48. bubbagyro says:
    March 5, 2012 at 2:50 am
    How much energy is supplied to earth by one single CME? How many CMEs per cycle?
    About 1/2000 of that supplied by TSI during the largest events, a 1/10,000 for an average one. About 2 hits per month on average, each lasting a few hours. Only 2% of that energy is absorbed by the Earth’s magnetosphere, so we are talking about less than a millionth of the TSI input over a cycle, comparable to the energy consumption of mankind..

  49. MAVukcevic says:
    March 5, 2012 at 4:52 am
    If I got this correct, the Aa spectrum is utterly uninteresting
    depends on what you want to see in it. By definition, anything that does not confirm a pet theory is uninteresting :-)

  50. hunter says:
    March 5, 2012 at 5:50 am
    Are we measuring accurately what we think we are, and are we measuring the full output [and influence?] of the sun?
    Yes we are.

  51. Mickey Reno says:

    Here’s the salient point I see: “solar activity could have a significant impact on climate … if past total solar irradiance variations are larger and climate models substantially underestimate the response to solar variations” ;-)

  52. Ohhh Noooo not Total Solar Irradience again! Nooo!

    While TSI varies only perhaps 1%, cycles of the solar magnetosphere can cause a variance in strength of 50% or more. When are these solar denialists going to … err, ahh … see the light?

  53. beng says:

    If one wants to postulate that UV, cosmic rays, etc, have any appreciable effect on climate (taking into account Dr Svalgaard’s simple quantitative numbers above), then they hold a two-edge sword. Fairly simple calculations show a non-feedback CO2-doubling effect of around 1C. The IPCC multiplies that 2-4 times to get their “numbers”. Most here agree (including myself) that this is unreasonable. Yet taking direct/indirect solar effects, you’d have to multiply many, many times more than the IPCC does w/their CO2 calcs to get any significant effect!

    Please don’t fall into intellectual hypocrisy.

  54. John F. Hultquist says:

    Jason Joice M.D. says:
    March 5, 2012 at 5:07 am
    @Olavi,
    Lief says “it’s not the sun” and he knows EVERYTHING about the sun, so don’t question him. Mmmkay??
    Seriously though, how can someone just say that oh, all those other factors fall flat without showing studies and some sort of “proof” that they “fall flat”.

    Seriously though, how can someone write the things y’all do without having read all the papers on the subject. Why not start at the link below, then check out the many WUWT comments on such topics, and then follow up on all the embedded links. Some of it is pretty tough slogging but multiple side trips out to other web resources helps. Six to 8 weeks of steady study can do a lot for your understanding of the issues:
    http://www.leif.org/research/

  55. Charles.U.Farley says:

    Well if the suns influence is so miniscule as these idiots seem to suggest, maybe they can tell me why it gets so bloody cold, dropping several degrees more than their predicted “catastrophic rise” after nightfall?

  56. Craig Goodrich says:
    March 5, 2012 at 6:11 am
    While TSI varies only perhaps 1%, cycles of the solar magnetosphere can cause a variance in strength of 50% or more. When are these solar denialists going to … err, ahh … see the light?
    And how much does the temperature vary during a cycle? How many percent?

  57. John says:

    No different reaction than to the previous paper. In terms of long term effects, we can’t yet say we have anything close to a definitive answer regarding how powerful the sun’s influence may be. Anywhere between this paper and the previous one.

    If Svensmark is correct — not yet demonstrated — then longer term solar variation could be much more important than most people think.

    Again, let’s let the scientists battle this out without interference from spinners, in particular from the climate model community who think that they know enough to say that the sun doesn’t have much of a long term effect. On what grounds? In the end, they could be right, but it won’t be because they know the science — nobody does just yet. If the solar skeptics (I want to use the word deniers, because that is what some of them are, but we have to all get away from that word) end up being right, it is simply because their guess turned out to be correct. We certainly aren’t there yet, and may find that the solar skeptics are quite wrong.

  58. MAVukcevic says:

    As the AGW lot is running out of options with CO2 and have no slightest idea how sun does it, here is graphic preview
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP-SSN.htm
    It is the sun (but not through TSI), there is the power, mechanism and the raw data. With the global trends on turn, time is rapidly approaching for the classic physics, forget about namby-pamby, not to say pathetic effect of CO2, UVs, TSIs, SS cycle lengths, Ap index and other minor distractions.

  59. The energy balance model (EBM) used by Jones, Lockwood and Stott has the same problem of all GCM models used by the IPCC which have all been rebutted in my latest publications, for example

    Nicola Scafetta, “Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation climate models.” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, (2012). DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2011.12.005

    Discussed here

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/09/scaffeta-on-his-latest-paper-harmonic-climate-model-versus-the-ipcc-general-circulation-climate-models/

    Note that their EBM also present quite large volcano spikes not really see in the temperature and does not reproduce any of the detectable climate cycles with periods at about 9.1, 10-11, 20 and 60 years. And there is no reason that theis EBM is capable to reproduce the longer cycles such as the millennial cycle that also explains the medieval warm period.

    In particular note that from the figure above showing the EBM performance not only reconstruct a steady warming from 1940 to 1960, when there wa a cooling, but it reconstructs a steady warming from 2000 to now at a rate of about 2.3 C/century, like the IPCC models. However during this 2000-2012 period no warming has been observed. See the widget temperature on WUWT here

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/scafettas-solar-lunar-cycle-forecast-vs-global-temperature/

    So Jones, Lockwood and Stott model has already failed the hindcast test, and for no reasons it is possible to believe in there model for the future.

    A new updated widget temperature has been sent to Anthony showing an even additional cooling in Jan/2012. Hopefully Anthony will put it on line soon.

    (Still hoping that Svalgaard starts to address these issues with fairness)

  60. JJ says:

    Using this information, with a simple climate model, we present results of the potential implications for future projections of climate on decadal to multidecadal timescales.

    Exactly!

    That statement is precisely correct, and the truth of it is why this “study” is:

    a) not what it appears to be and

    b) useless.

    As they state, what they are presenting are “… implications for future projections of climate…” They are not presenting any implications of projected solar activity for the future climate only on their future projections of climate. All they are doing is showing you the properties they have programmed into their models. Their models are not programmed to recognize anything other than tiny effects from changes in solar activity, and they aren’t going to be changing that. Their thought processes don’t even consider the possibility that they could have a reason to change that – look:

    However, if past total solar irradiance variations are larger and climate models substantially underestimate the response to solar variations, then there is a potential for a reduction in solar activity to mitigate a small proportion of the future warming, a scenario we cannot totally rule out.

    If their models substantially underestimate the response to solar variations, then a drop in solar activity might result in a small drop in future warming? Hello!

    Hey numbnuts, if your models substantially underestimate the response to solar variations, that might result in a substantial drop in future warming, vs your current projections! But you are not even considering that possibility, let alone permitting the obvious to be spoken in your papers.

    This is not a study. It is an exposition of the assumptions of their models, masquerading as a study.

  61. Pamela Gray says:

    One, TSI is a good proxy for the other solar variations being considered. So if you can’t find correlation with TSI (and you can’t), you won’t find it with the other measures. Two, furthermore the total affective energy in these other solar measures is so small that we must find an Earth bound amplification device to talk beyond snake oil affects. And three, all this solar discussion appears to hinge on a very small affect, one that sits besides the intrinsic and far more powerful drivers and oscillations right here on tera firma.

    I just don’t buy the goods from either camp.

  62. Nicola Scafetta says:
    March 5, 2012 at 6:32 am
    (Still hoping that Svalgaard starts to address these issues with fairness)
    Fairness is the the issue. One should not give equal time and consideration to any and all points of view. One must weed out the ones that are not viable.

  63. Nicola Scafetta says:
    March 5, 2012 at 6:32 am
    A new updated widget temperature has been sent to Anthony showing an even additional cooling in Jan/2012.
    contradicting your model that predicts increasing temperatures…

  64. MAVukcevic says:

    bubbagyro says:March 5, 2012 at 2:50 am
    ……………..
    There’s one on the way, give it a day or two.
    http://www.spaceweather.com/images2012/05mar12/cme_c2.gif?PHPSESSID=d0o4p8prbfrgopi2923bf0jcu3

  65. Nicola Scafetta says:
    March 5, 2012 at 6:32 am
    (Still hoping that Svalgaard starts to address these issues with fairness)
    Fairness is NOT the issue. One should not give equal time and consideration to any and all points of view. One must weed out the ones that are not viable.

  66. @ Leif “contradicting your model that predicts increasing temperatures…”

    Leif needs to visit an oculist and/or he needs new glasses.

    My model (black curve, cyan area) predicts an approximate steady temperature trend until 2030, which is modulated by the decadal cycles. The model may also predict a small cooling if the anthropogenic component has been overestimated (yellow curve). As it is evident from my figure

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/scafetta_model_updated-fig-02_02_2012.png

    Leif, a question for you. How many people reading your unfair responses do you belive are thinking that you are an honest guy?

  67. Mike Mangan says:

    I’m sorry, I just can’t stop laughing at the juxtaposition of the last few comments. “Hey, numbnuts! Fairness is not the issue!”

  68. Peter Pan says:

    Just ask a question:

    Is sunspot 1429 has been changed its polarity?

    An X1.1 flare was erupted and a CME occurred simultaneously. Is this connected with SF Bay area ‘s Mw 4.0 earthquake?

  69. David_Jay says:

    I for one am glad that WUWT is big enough for both Svalgaard and Scarfetta.

  70. MarkW says:

    Just an idle thought here. Apologies for the lack of appropriate scientific terminology.
    Given:
    UV changes about 10 to 15% over the course of a solar cycle. As compared to TSI changing about 1%.
    UV both heats the stratosphere and creates ozone.
    The stratosphere has less CO2 and H2O compared to the lower levels of the atmosphere.
    Ozone is also a greenhouse gas in that it can absorb energy in the IR band.

    Implications:
    The at the height of a solar cycle, the stratosphere is both warmer (due to direct affects of UV) and has a higher loading of greenhouse gasses, compared to the low points of the solar cycle.

    Because of both of these affects, the upper layers of the troposphere are going to be warmer at the height of a solar cycle compared to the low points.

    Because of this, convection will be depressed at the height of the solar cycle.

    Convection is one of the two main mechanisms that trasport heat from the lower troposphere to the upper.

  71. Nicola Scafetta says:
    March 5, 2012 at 7:03 am
    My model (black curve, cyan area) predicts an approximate steady temperature trend until 2030, which is modulated by the decadal cycles.
    With a magnifying glass it is easy to see that the black curve is trending upwards [especially the decadal cycle].

  72. Bruce Cobb says:

    “It is of great interest whether any future reduction in solar activity could have a significant impact on climate that could partially offset the projected anthropogenic warming.”
    This is the tail wagging the dog, since the “projected anthropogenic warming” is merely an assumption based on very little evidence. Their entire argument is flawed from the get-go. No surprise there, though.

  73. Joe says:

    Well, that’s interesting. Note that the graph shows a huge jump in global climate in 2020 or so erasing the current cooling trend and returning to IPCC agreeable warming in the process.

    Also note that they don’t EBM model projections until the year 2022 or so. That’s a novel way to avoid having to hide the decline.

  74. TheGoodLocust says:

    I must confess that I think I’ve been wrong all along.

    Obviously the climate scientists could take all the data for the lottery, create a backcast and then forecast future results to make themselves millions.

    The fact that they are not doing this shows they are doing this work for the good of mankind.

  75. matt v. says:

    Nicola Scafetta
    Your predictions are more realistic than IPCC
    Your predictions[black and yellow lines] show global warming to 2015/2016. What factors would cause this rise . The anthropogenic component has been overestimated now for 10 years , so why would you not use the yellow line only . I think we are in for more cooling than warming between now and 2030 because the ocean cycles are trending cooling from the lagged effects of the last solar cycle .

  76. commieBob says:

    Some scientists think we are in for a period of severe cooling. There’s a bet on that the average global temperature will be lower between 2012 and 2017 than it was between 1998 and 2003.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/aug/19/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment

    Someone will win the bet but I’m not sure anyone will admit that the argument is over.

  77. @ Leif Svalgaard says”:With a magnifying glass it is easy to see that the black curve is trending upwards [especially the decadal cycle].”

    Leif, as I have already explained to you the black curves represent a decadal smooth.

    The model I proposed is not supposed to reproduce the fast ElNino-LaNina oscillations that have a scale of a few years. You are confusing the decadal and multi-decadal component with the faster fluctuations. Wait a few months and the monthly temperature curve will start again to warm as ElNino comes back and then it will cool again as LaNina comes back and so on.

    So, please, stop to mislead people with your inappropriate comments. Look at the figures here with an open mind, (it is not enougth to have a magnified glass, you also need an open mind)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/scafettas-solar-lunar-cycle-forecast-vs-global-temperature/

    In any case, try to use your magnified glass to note that the energy balance model (EBM) used by Jones, Lockwood and Stott has predicted a steady warming of about 2.3 C/century from 2000 to 2012 which is similar to the IPCC projections (green area in my figure) which is already strongly contraddicted by the temperature data. So, Jones, Lockwood and Stott is already proved to be useless because based on a wrong climate model.

  78. This whole thing is based on two assumptions which are clearly false. 1. The models used accurately represent reality in some reasonable fashion. 2. The suns activity, i.e. the energy delivered is either static or of not consequence. This is not science it is black box (not black body) sophistry.

  79. bacullen says:

    Time will tell! I suspect they’ll be wrong, but again no one will remember.
    It doesn’t appear to be just the TSI anyway but some combination of the spectral distribution and magnetic strength. How about a solar p^+ wind contribution?

    This is a classic!! : Dec. 21, 2006:Solar cycle 24, due to peak in 2010 or 2011 “looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago, “says solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. – from: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm

    Reminds me of charlatans Paul/Anne Ehrlich, darlings of the non-linear thinkers (I was one) in the ’60/’70′s… (and she’s on the PI Board – perfect fit!)

  80. Nicola Scafetta says:
    March 5, 2012 at 8:19 am
    Look at the figures here with an open mind, (it is not enougth to have a magnified glass, you also need an open mind)
    But not so open that your brain has fallen out. In essence you are just ‘predicting’ status quo, which would be the null-hypothesis for a model with no predictive power. A WUWT thread is meant to be a discussion of the specific paper or topic of the thread, not a latitude to just push your own ideas. You could also benefit from reading http://www.michaelshermer.com/weird-things/

    Lockwood and Stott has predicted a steady warming of about 2.3 C/century from
    No, they have not. They have shown [or suggested, if one thinks that 'show' is too strong] the tiny influence of solar activity on whatever other projections give. If these other projection as wrong [as they well might be], the influence of the Sun that is inferred is still going to be very small. THAT is what the paper is about.

  81. Birdieshooter says:

    With equal respect and admiration for both Leif and Nicola, I wonder how many years into the future before one of you will call out “Uncle”?

  82. Olavi says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:

    March 5, 2012 at 6:26 am

    Craig Goodrich says:
    March 5, 2012 at 6:11 am
    While TSI varies only perhaps 1%, cycles of the solar magnetosphere can cause a variance in strength of 50% or more. When are these solar denialists going to … err, ahh … see the light?
    And how much does the temperature vary during a cycle? How many percent?

    Olavi says:

    March 5, 2012 at 4:09 am

    Leif Svalgaard:
    “The argument that there are other solar variables that are responsible falls flat, because they all in the end correlate strongly with the variation of TSI.”

    EUV and UV variation is larger than variation in visible light.
    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2010JA015431.pdf
    N. A. Krivova,1 L. E. A. Vieira,1,2 and S. K. Solanki1,3

    If this is the case, it can be major factor in climate. And what about cosmic rays? Solar wind can be the other major driver to earth’s cilmate.
    CO2 effect is 0,000014C :)
    ———————————————————————————————————-

    Tell me Leif, if warming has taken century, how fast it has to cool down that you take serious taught that there is possibility that sun affects climate much more than you believe.

  83. Joachim Seifert says:

    To Nick and Leif:
    It is indeed that the pure TSI -value does not produce large enough temperature swings…
    neither today nor in the paleo-past…..
    ….This is, what we know already, nothing new. We therefore have to focus on the AMPLIFIERS
    of solar effects, because only with amplification (increasing/decreasing) you will get large
    temp swings such as the Dansgaard-Oeschger event temp swings of up to 5 C GMT……
    …The real amplifier is the Earth’s orbit, transparently calculated for time spans longer
    than 20,000 years…see my booklet ISBN 978-3-86805-604-4 on the German Amazon.de.
    No IPCC, no GCM, no Metoffice, no wizard simulations were able to do these calculations
    because their heads are all dimmed with CO2…..
    Leif thinks, he got the answers, but he fails, because his JPL DE 405 data OMITS that
    the AMPLIFYING effect of the Sun is found in the SPIRAL shaped Earth’s orbit, which
    did NOT enter JPL tables and graphs, still missing! And this is the smelling dog: JPL
    straightened the spiral shape of the Earth’s flight into a line flight…. which is just fine
    and sufficient for ephemeris uses but NOT for climate analysis and studies of amplifier effects…..
    JS

  84. Alec Rawls says:

    Leif is talking total nonsense again. He is pretending that Lockwood failed to find a correlation between TSI and temperature:

    The argument that there are other solar variables that are responsible falls flat, because they all in the end correlate strongly with the variation of TSI.

    Pamela Gray states this even more explicitly:

    TSI is a good proxy for the other solar variations being considered. So if you can’t find correlation with TSI (and you can’t), you won’t find it with the other measures.

    But Lockwood’s paper doesn’t include any correlation findings, at least not according to the abstract, which offers a perfectly clear description of what was done:

    Observations and reconstructions of solar activity over the last 9000 years are used as a constraint on possible future variations to produce probability distributions of total solar irradiance over the next 100 years.

    Lockwood is simply putting constraints on how much total insolation is likely to vary. This says absolutely nothing about the strength of GCR-cloud effects or the strength of any other mechanism besides TSI by which solar activity may affect climate. We’re used to this kind of thing from Leif in the comment threads, but it’s an awfully blatant misrepresentation to be putting right in the main post!

    Of course many other studies HAVE found strong correlations between solar activity and various proxies for temperature. I listed two dozen in the second section of my review of AR5. One of the great climate-science scandals is the omission of this evidence from the IPCC reports. They studiously avoid consideration of any solar variables other than TSI. Instead of addressing the evidence and telling us why they are unmoved by it, they just OMIT THE EVIDENCE.

    What Leif is doing here is very similar. In a blatant non sequitur, he pretends that constraints on TSI imply constraints on other solar variables. Why? Because they are correlated? When the correlation between solar activity and climate remains uncontested? That is evidence FOR solar effects other than TSI. If TSI effects are too small to account for the observed solar-climate correlations, then any solar influence must be working through OTHER solar variables, right Leif?

  85. Olavi says:
    March 5, 2012 at 9:28 am
    Tell me Leif, if warming has taken century, how fast it has to cool down that you take serious taught that there is possibility that sun affects climate much more than you believe.
    If warming takes centuries, cooling will too

    Joachim Seifert says:
    March 5, 2012 at 9:43 am
    JPL straightened the spiral shape of the Earth’s flight into a line flight…. which is just fine
    and sufficient for ephemeris uses but NOT for climate analysis and studies of amplifier effects…..

    Whatever path the sun follows in the Galaxy and its path in turn in the Local Group, and its path etc do not have any influence on the climate or anything else on time scales of centuries or shorter. Already Galileo knew this:
    “Shut yourself up with some friend in the main cabin below decks on some large ship, and have with you there some flies, butterflies, and other small flying animals. Have a large bowl of water with some fish in it; hang up a bottle that empties drop by drop into a wide vessel beneath it. With the ship standing still, observe carefully how the little animals fly with equal speed to all sides of the cabin. The fish swim indifferently in all directions; the drops fall into the vessel beneath; and, in throwing something to your friend, you need throw it no more strongly in one direction than another, the distances being equal; jumping with your feet together, you pass equal spaces in every direction. When you have observed all these things carefully (though there is no doubt that when the ship is standing still everything must happen in this way), have the ship proceed with any speed you like, so long as the motion is uniform and not fluctuating this way and that. You will discover not the least change in all the effects named, nor could you tell from any of them whether the ship was moving or standing still. In jumping, you will pass on the floor the same spaces as before, nor will you make larger jumps toward the stern than toward the prow even though the ship is moving quite rapidly, despite the fact that during the time that you are in the air the floor under you will be going in a direction opposite to your jump. In throwing something to your companion, you will need no more force to get it to him whether he is in the direction of the bow or the stern, with yourself situated opposite. The droplets will fall as before into the vessel beneath without dropping toward the stern, although while the drops are in the air the ship runs many spans. The fish in their water will swim toward the front of their bowl with no more effort than toward the back, and will go with equal ease to bait placed anywhere around the edges of the bowl. Finally the butterflies and flies will continue their flights indifferently toward every side, nor will it ever happen that they are concentrated toward the stern, as if tired out from keeping up with the course of the ship, from which they will have been separated during long intervals by keeping themselves in the air. And if smoke is made by burning some incense, it will be seen going up in the form of a little cloud, remaining still and moving no more toward one side than the other. The cause of all these correspondences of effects is the fact that the ship’s motion is common to all the things contained in it and to the air also. That is why I said you should be below decks; for if this took place above in the open air, which would not follow the course of the ship, more or less noticeable differences would be seen in some of the effects noted.”

  86. PaulsNZ says:

    On a rolling sea counting the bubbles in your wine glass as a measure of the swell.

  87. @ Leif “A WUWT thread is meant to be a discussion of the specific paper or topic of the thread, not a latitude to just push your own ideas.”

    Leif, in science competing ideas need to be compared. If not science never progresses. This is the purpose of the scientific method, that apparently you do not understand.

    As I have extensively proven in my papers, the IPCC models do not reproduce clear temperature cycles. The EBM adopted by the authors of this new paper has exactly the same problems. Thus, like the IPCC models, also this EBM is missing important physical mechanisms which likely refer to missing astronomical forcings.

    So, nothing referring to the real climate can be deduced from their model.

    Is this simple concept too difficult for you to understand?

  88. Nicola Scafetta says:
    March 5, 2012 at 10:24 am
    Leif, in science competing ideas need to be compared.
    Only if they are viable. And ” missing astronomical forcings” are not.

    So, nothing referring to the real climate can be deduced from their model.
    Since your model does not predict any changes within your error bar, its goes for yours as well.

  89. Alec Rawls says:
    March 5, 2012 at 10:04 am
    If TSI effects are too small to account for the observed solar-climate correlations, then any solar influence must be working through OTHER solar variables, right Leif?
    Only if there is a strong correlation. which there is not. Perhaps you are advocating the ‘missing astrological forcings’ that scafetta appeals to? It would be interesting to see if you buy those musings.

  90. Alec Rawls says:
    March 5, 2012 at 10:04 am
    If TSI effects are too small to account for the observed solar-climate correlations, then any solar influence must be working through OTHER solar variables, right Leif?
    Only if there is a strong correlation. which there is not. Perhaps you are advocating the ‘missing astrological forcings’ that Scafetta appeals to? It would be interesting to see if you buy those musings. You can answer right here.

  91. @Leif,
    “Since your model does not predict any changes within your error bar, its goes for yours as well.”

    When will you stop to mislead people?

    How many times I need to correct you by telling you that my model is not supposed to reproduuce the fast and larte ElNino/LaNina fluctuations? I wrote this many times here and in my paper as well.
    Why don’t you try to be honest for one time at least?

    My model needs to be compared with the 4-year smooth which in the figure is in grey, see here
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/scafetta_figure-original1.png

    And read my paper
    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta_models_comparison_ATP.pdf

    look at figure 6 for the proper statistical test.

  92. MAVukcevic says:

    Dr.S versus Dr.S, two docs fighting
    I was advised by Steven Mosher not to mix humour with science.

  93. @ Leif “Only if they are viable. And ” missing astronomical forcings” are not.”

    No Leif, we have the cycles in the data, that is what we need to do the calculations in the same way people in the past have developed calendards without knowing thermodynamics, or tidal predictions without known Newtonian gravity.

  94. Joachim Seifert says:

    To Alec:
    You are right: There are other solar variables or solar amplifyers which have
    to be studied…..The solar TSI-value itself does not show the power for the huge
    temp swings in the past….Only problem: Leif is unwilling to learn, simply obstinate
    instead of being happy to receive new hints and directions to look at…..such as to
    the Earth’s orbit, which amplifies or decreases incoming solar radiation…..
    … JS

  95. Nicola Scafetta says:
    March 5, 2012 at 10:42 am
    When will you stop to mislead people?
    I think people can make up their own minds, don’t you?

  96. Joachim Seifert says:

    To Leif:
    I explained to you (1) the EARTH’s orbit around the SUN, (2) and not your SUN’s
    orbit around Earth in the Galaxy… and the “fishes in the bowl” have nothing to do
    with the Earth’s orbit….
    (3) your NASA JPL data shows the long stretched out spiral flight as a line flight…..
    …..taking out the spiral character of the real trajectory…
    (4) any real astronomer would know
    the spiral advance of planets/ as well as the Moon —->see wikipedia “Libration”:
    which is the spiral advance movement of the Moon…..
    ……You are fighting against reality and against the study of solar amplifiers…..
    … a paid Warmist position….too bad…
    JS

  97. Joachim Seifert says:

    To Leif:
    With your present level of astronomical knowledge you can’t really contribute to
    the truth in solar forcing amplification….
    Please get my booklet…where the climate amplifying effects are all calculated in
    detail…and you will recognize, you are completely outed and behind in our times…..
    JS

  98. Joachim Seifert says:
    March 5, 2012 at 10:49 am
    the Earth’s orbit, which amplifies or decreases incoming solar radiation…..
    And changes in the orbit does indeed change the insolation dramatically, but those happen on time scales of many thousands of years, not centuries or decades, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Insolation-65-N.png that shows the solar insolation in early summer at 65 degrees North, which is thought to be important for controlling glaciations. Because the Earth’s orbit in the coming millennia will become almost circular, there is no impending glaciation. BTW, it is Jupiter that moslty control the shape of the orbit, so planets are indeed the ultimate climate regulators.
    And these changes are fully taken into account in JPL’s calculations.

  99. TomRude says:

    Looks like Lockwood is ensuring funding keeps coming…

  100. Snowlover123 says:

    Got to love it how the warmists, incuding warmist papers like this one always stop the temperature data in 2000, which is now 12 years old.

    The reason being is that the observed temperatures are already cooler than their projected forecasts, as we have flatlined over the past decade or so.

    There is no excuse for leaving out data from 2000-2012, since this is a 2012 paper, and the only reason why they left it out is to fit their predetermined conclusions for their predetermined agendas.

    It’s pretty sad, really.

  101. Joachim Seifert says:
    March 5, 2012 at 11:23 am
    Please get my booklet…where the climate amplifying effects are all calculated in
    detail…and you will recognize, you are completely outed and behind in our times…..

    Perhaps our self-proclaimed resident expert in astronomical cycles should get your booklet too and let us all know what he thinks.

  102. The paper by Jones,Lockwood,and Stott totally misses the most important point by assuming that TSI is the causal forcing, rather than a symptom of the underlying solar cause (perhaps the Svensmark effect). All of the arguments above, however valid or invalid, serve to obscure this essential point. The correlations between TSI and global climate, TSI and 10Be and 14C production rates, are so good over the past millenium that they are beyond probable coincidence. Correlation doesn’t prove causal mechanism, it merely suggests that it could be causal or related to a secondary causal mechanism. TSI appears to be SYMPTOM, rather than a CAUSAL MECHANISM. Thus, to argue whether or not TSI variation is adequate to explain past climate changes is missing the point.
    Each of the past 5 low TSI periods corresponds almost exactly to periods of global cooling. That doen’t necessarily mean that TSI is the cause, it simply means that TSI is an index to something that is happening with the sun. That something could likely be changes in the sun’s magnetic field, which produces the Svensmark effect in the Earth’s atmosphere and induces global cooling. The problem is not whether or not TSI causes climatic forcing, it is understanding the cause of the sun’s variation and how this is translated into climate change.

  103. Joachim Seifert says:
    March 5, 2012 at 11:07 am
    I explained to you (1) the EARTH’s orbit around the SUN, (2) and not your SUN’s
    orbit around Earth in the Galaxy… and the “fishes in the bowl” have nothing to do
    with the Earth’s orbit….

    Forgive me my confusion. The Earth’s orbit though the Galaxy is indeed a spiral, but around the sun it is NOT, hence my misinterpretation since you talk about SPIRALS all the time. To good approximation the orbit is an ellipse with a major axis that turns about the Sun on a time scale of many thousands of years, and thus has nothing to due with modern climate.

  104. @ Leif “I think people can make up their own minds, don’t you?”

    Yes, Leif.
    The problem is that some people may need to be warned about the misleading tactics of some university scholar (LS, for example) as well. So, by clarifing your misleading statements, my invitation to them is that they check the issues for themselves by reading the proper papers and make up their own mind.

    I just wonder if you will have the courage to repeat again and again your misleading statements in a conference at the presence of me and of other scientists who can easily understand the issues.

  105. Alec Rawls says:

    Leif wrote: “Only if there is a strong correlation. which there is not.”

    Glad to see Leif admit that his dismissal of solar effects other than TSI is conditional on there not being a correlation between solar activity and climate, something that the paper in question did not address.

    Of course Leif is also wrong about there not being a strong correlation between solar activity and climate. Bond didn’t find a strong correlation?

    “Over the last 12,000 years virtually every centennial time scale increase in drift ice documented in our North Atlantic records was tied to a distinct interval of variable and, overall, reduced solar output.”

    Neff’s observed correlations of .55 and .60 are not strong?

    There are dozens of such findings, but Leif is acting exactly like the IPCC. He just pretends that these findings do not exist. Bad behavior in my opinion.

  106. Edim says:

    There’s definitely evidence for correlation between solar activity and global climate change on decadal and up to multi-centennial time-scales. There are many options for the physical mechanism/explanation (direct or indirect) and probably a black swan or two.

    Atmospheric CO2 is completely irrelevant and is mostly a slave to climatic factors. Even if it wasn’t it’s very unlikely that it has any warming effect, since the Earth’s surface is cooled predominantly by non-radiative processes (evaporation + convection = 7% + 23% = 30% of the incoming solar energy) and only secondarily by surface radiation (21% of the incoming solar energy). So:

    Non-radiative cooling = 59% of the absorbed energy by surface.
    Radiative cooling = 41% of the absorbed energy by surface

    From the outgoing surface radiation, only ~29% of the energy (absorbed by the Earth’s surface) is absorbed by the atmosphere, the rest of the surface radiation (~12%) is radiated directly to space. The rest is non-radiative (59%). If the increased CO2 reduces the radiative cooling of the surface, the non-radiative cooling will compensate to some extent.

    The atmosphere, on the other hand is cooled exclusively by radiation and increased CO2 should enlarge this flux (64% of the incoming solar).

    Furthermore, the atmosphere absorbes more from the sun than from the surface (16% compared to 15% of the incoming solar)!

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/57911main_Earth_Energy_Budget.jpg

    CO2, warming or cooling? Probably nothing – vater vapor rules the radiation.

  107. Edim says:

    “water vapor”!

  108. Nicola Scafetta says:
    March 5, 2012 at 11:45 am
    my invitation to them is that they check the issues for themselves by reading the proper papers and make up their own mind.
    This is what we all want them to do.

    I just wonder if you will have the courage to repeat again and again your misleading statements in a conference at the presence of me and of other scientists who can easily understand the issues.
    I do this all the time, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/GC31B-0351-F2007.pdf
    http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20From%20McCracken%20HMF.pdf
    http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
    http://www.leif.org/research/Eddy-Symp-Poster-2.pdf
    http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202011%20SH34B-08.pdf
    http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
    You have attended some of those, without comment, and not been invited to others.

  109. Alec Rawls says:
    March 5, 2012 at 11:47 am
    Bond didn’t find a strong correlation?
    No, he assumed they must be a correlation. I have discussed this with him several times, e.g. page 4 of http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/sns/2003/sns_dec_2003.pdf
    The Bond period 1470 yrs is not in the power spectrum of TSI

    Neff’s observed correlations of .55 and .60 are not strong?
    The square of the correlation coefficient is about 1/3 [meaning 2/3s are not 'explained' or related] which is normally not considered worth writing home about.

  110. MAVukcevic says:

    Don Easterbrook says:
    …………
    Professor Easterbrook
    You may or may not know that the link with your name doesn’t work, but are you aware that all your reference papers on Wikipedia
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Easterbrook
    links are inoperative or have been disabled.
    Is your old wwu.edu writing you out of history ?
    (well known syndrome of dogma known as Stalinism)

  111. JJ says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:

    But not so open that your brain has fallen out. In essence you are just ‘predicting’ status quo, which would be the null-hypothesis for a model with no predictive power.

    Status quo would be the null hypothesis for any model that predicted a change. Predictive power has nothing to do with it. Your comment is abusive.

    A WUWT thread is meant to be a discussion of the specific paper or topic of the thread, not a latitude to just push your own ideas. You could also benefit from reading http://www.michaelshermer.com/weird-things/

    You mean like you pushing your own personal vendetta against Nicola?

    “Lockwood and Stott has predicted a steady warming of about 2.3 C/century from ”

    No, they have not.

    Yes, they have. They have predicted it by the odd method of using a model that models a model to model a model that models climate. Then they skip over the multiple intervening layers of models and make conclusory statements that are syntactically about the climate, not the model of the climate or the model of the model of the climate..

    They have shown [or suggested, if one thinks that 'show' is too strong] the tiny influence of solar activity on whatever other projections give.

    Neither “suggested” nor “shown” is appropriate – the former being [as you point out] nothing more than a degree of the latter. Rather, they have asserted the tiny influence of solar activity on the output of coupled GC models, based on their model that models those models. That is an assertion. If you want to show what the coupled GC models do, you run the coupled GC models, and observe the results.

    Aside: Proof of the fact that “climate science” makes no distinction between models and reality is found in the fact that they no longer feel the need to observe their models. They just model the models. I’m rapt with anticipation of the next feedback on this loop, when they publish something called a “study” that is a model of a model that models a model.

    If these other projection as wrong [as they well might be], the influence of the Sun that is inferred is still going to be very small.

    Absolute nonsense. Stated correctly ==> If these other projection are wrong to a small degree[as they well might be], the influence of the Sun that is inferred is still going to be very small.

    That is what this paper says. They start with models that assume very, very tiny sensitivity to TSI, and then they only look at small adjustments to that senistivity (~3X). Very, very tiny times three is still tiny? No kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars of public money were spent running a model of a model to reassert that assumption?

    What they didn’t do – and what would likely not have been published if they had – was run their model of a model sensitivity analysis with some real changes – one order of magnitude at minimum. Some of the proposed amplifiers, including those specifically called out in this paper “for completeness”, operate in that range individually. Let alone what the aggregate of the still being discovered amplifiers might be.

    If they are getting 31 years of “global warming delay” for a 3X TSI sensitivity, what would a 10X TSI sensitivity look like? 100 years “delay”? 300 years? 1,000 years?

    They are just toeing the company line, looking only for those conclusions that support the politics (love the way they emphasize the “delay” benefit of the “low emissions” scenarios) and preserve their seats on the gravy train.

  112. MAVukcevic says:

    Hi doc Svalgaard
    Just looked at your paper
    http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202011%20SH34B-08.pdf
    Number of ‘bewildering’ spectra graphs but you ‘accidentally’ omitted the most important one:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-Vfspec.gif
    Since it appears that you are not familiar with it, you may find more details here:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm
    (half down the web-page). As a pedantic historian of these matters I am sure you are aware of the importance of including all good and bad, just to teach younger generations not to fall into similar trap and waste time reinventing square wheel.

  113. Bart says:

    Nicola Scafetta says:
    March 5, 2012 at 10:45 am

    @’ Leif “Only if they are viable. And ” missing astronomical forcings” are not.”

    No Leif, we have the cycles in the data, that is what we need to do the calculations in the same way people in the past have developed calendards without knowing thermodynamics, or tidal predictions without known Newtonian gravity.’

    There is nothing wrong with looking at a set of train tracks, seeing a light in the distance, and surmising that a train is on its way. So, you are right in part: there is no justification for ignoring persistent cyclic behavior in data simply because one is not sure what caused it.

    However, I do not agree that you must have cyclical forcing to produce a quasi-cyclical effect. Actually, it is not a matter of agreement. It is a simple fact: you do not have to have cyclical forcing to produce a quasi-cyclical effect.

    If you carry a bowl of jello across the kitchen, it will predominantly wobble at a characteristic frequency regardless of your step size. A bowl of water will also slosh at a characteristic frequency, as long as it does not slosh over the rim (motion exceeding its boundary)

    The tidal forces of the outer planets are very, very, very small at the Earth. Attributing the cyclic climate behavior to them is, IMHO, grasping at straws.

    On the other hand, almost every bounded PDE problem has characteristic natural frequencies associated with it. The Earth and its oceans and atmosphere are bounded against one another. There will be characteristic frequencies in its physical responses. Examples are known, and some can be shown to have characteristic frequencies in the range of 60 years.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    March 5, 2012 at 10:37 am

    Alec Rawls says:
    March 5, 2012 at 10:04 am

    “Only if there is a strong correlation. which there is not.”

    Alec’s sources contradict you.

  114. JJ says:
    March 5, 2012 at 1:05 pm
    Yes, they have. They have predicted it by the odd method of using a model
    I’ll leave the rest of your emotions aside as just ask you to read their title:
    “What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near-surface temperature changes?”
    Or even better their paper. Their paper explains their stand and that is that.

    MAVukcevic says:
    March 5, 2012 at 1:08 pm
    Number of ‘bewildering’ spectra graphs but you ‘accidentally’ omitted the most important one
    There are just so many all claiming that theirs is the most important one, so one has to a weed a bit.

  115. MAVukcevic says:
    March 5, 2012 at 1:08 pm
    but you ‘accidentally’ omitted the most important one
    which just shows that you match neither of the two time periods.

  116. Joachim Seifert says:

    Leif:
    You still did not understand: It is the following, and has nothing to to with
    the Galaxis:
    The planet Earth itself does not fly a straight path but describes a SPIRAL
    shape flight line — flying like a screwdriver around its mean flying line…..
    therefore, due to this flying-ligating spirally wound trajectory shape results
    a substantial high centennial/decadal distance change which
    amplifies/decreases solar irradiation….
    ……I presented the calculations for the Dansgaard-Oeschger events….
    (D-O-events) in my booklet
    and you can see the strong solar amplification effect of the orbit ["orbital forcing"]
    …..NOT by (1) eccentricity changes or (2) Milankovitch calculations with JPL
    osculating elements which keep the Earth’s flight in a line, as you do.
    As long as the IPCC keeps
    the spiral flight hidden, [this is what the IPCC does] AND THE SPIRAL FORCING
    as well, they are able to credit the amplifyer effect of the Earth’s orbit to CO2….
    …….Please spend 15 bucks on my book, you will recognize the solar amplification in an
    instant…. and if you are really working on uncovering the astronomical truth
    as you claim, then accustom yourself to the job of investigating
    the spiral flight in detail….otherwise you keep repeating Warmist nonsense….
    JS

  117. Bart says:
    March 5, 2012 at 1:34 pm
    “Only if there is a strong correlation. which there is not.”
    Alec’s sources contradict you.

    He cites two sources that contradict each other about the 1470 yr cycle. One says it is there, the other one not.

  118. Bart says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    March 5, 2012 at 12:42 pm

    “The Bond period 1470 yrs is not in the power spectrum of TSI “

    The Bond period 1470 yrs is not in Leif’s simulacrum of a power spectrum of TSI. Leif doesn’t do actual PSDs. He simply does an FFT of data, plots the magnitude squared, and calls it a PSD. Any analyst with even a minor familiarity with the theory knows that is a very poor method.

  119. Jim G says:

    I’m always amused that all frequencies of EM are considered to have equal effect.
    In a strict radiative heat transfer problem it is true.
    However, once you get in to UV and X-ray bands the energy becomes ionizing and will affect atmospheric chemistry.

    To suggest that our knowledge of the subject is both necessary and sufficient is hyperbole at best.

  120. Joachim Seifert says:

    Don Easterbrook:
    The solar amplifier effect arises from the Earth’s orbit, but not from “Eccentricity” and
    not from “Milankovitch calculations” which are based on “JPL Horizons ephemerides”….
    .. Both calculations of this type keep the fact hidden that the Earth moves in a ligating
    SPIRAL movement [like a screw] around its flight trajectory line….which all capable
    astronomers are aware of …..
    …… The distance changes of Earth to the Sun, caused by this 3-D-spiral movement,
    is the great climate change cause ….. my booklet demonstrates this in exact detail,
    over time spans of more than 30,000 paleo-years…..explaining/calculating global
    temperature swings of more than 5 C…..
    The Warmist -CO2 paradigm came up, as NASA JPL J. Hansen found out [I strongly
    assume this] at his NASA post back in the ’80, that he was able to hide the orbital forcing
    from the public and redirect this orbital forcing and funds onto the account of the
    CO2 and Warmism……
    JS

  121. Joachim Seifert says:
    March 5, 2012 at 1:39 pm
    The planet Earth itself does not fly a straight path but describes a SPIRAL
    shape flight line — flying like a screwdriver around its mean flying line…..
    therefore, due to this flying-ligating spirally wound trajectory shape results
    a substantial high centennial/decadal distance change which
    amplifies/decreases solar irradiation….

    There is no such change in solar distance. The easiest way to see this is simply to look at the observed TSI which is actually a very sensitive measurement of the distance [actually of the distance 8 minutes earlier when the photons left the Sun - our measurements are so precise that those 8 minutes must be taken into account]. http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-through-a-year.png shows the variation of TSI through the year for a decade with all the years superposed starting with January 1st. Each year tracks very closely all the other ones showing that the variation of distance is every year the same. The solar modulation are the small wiggles you can occasionally see.
    Another way is to measure the Sun’s diameter as a function of time through the year. Astronomers have done this for centuries and always found that the annual variation does not have ‘substantial centennial/decadal change’. See e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/1112-5878-Solar-Diameter-Measurements.pdf
    Totality of solar eclipses depends strongly on the distance. Our calculations of eclipses are always correct to the second and would not be if we had the distance wrong, and so on and on.

  122. common sense says:

    TSI is not valid to use as an actcurate measure of all the different solar outputs, magnetic, Ap, Kp, proton, electron, X ray, !0,7 etc.. They all vary diffetrently as can be seen by a few plotted om Leifs pages historically. To me it is like using total air to measure CO2, and using total air to find the effects of CO2. It has never j”jelled” with me, all effects solar have different effects on the various earth fields, so why use TSI at all. Only because that is the only solar reconstruction available I supposes, back then. But lets research the different solar outputs and see what they individually do in the modern period. Then we will make much more sense of it all re solar-weather-climate connections.,

  123. Joachim Seifert says:

    To Leif:
    Here you are right once: Yes, everybody should get it and try to find “mistakes”….
    This would be the greatest honor for the author…..
    Go ahead and we could also Email, I gave you my address….I wait for
    your qualified reply….
    One point: 95% of the booklet is originaery work, no repeats/plagiarism from
    other sources…
    This constitutes the great difference of the booklet compared to all Warmist
    CO2- alarmist repetitions.
    JS

  124. Matt G says:

    This paper avoids the real issues regarding the sun and on purpose ignores the solar influence by changing cloud albedo. It is mostly the sun indirectly and partly the oceans that was responsible for most of the previous warming. When global cloud levels decline roughly one percent this warms 3.4m/w2 by increased radiation reaching the surface of the ocean/land. This occurs even if TSI stays the same over the period and the sun warming the surface indirectly this way is still a solar influence.

    Global cloud levels had declined about 4/5 percent over a 17-year period. The reason for this not equalling 4/5 times this value above is dependant on two parameters. Longitude positioning and how depth/height dependant the cloud was compared to becoming clear. When this is taken into account the claim that solar influence is less significant than AGW becomes false. Satellite data confirms this by changes in global cloud levels with trend with global temperatures. The only real debate regarding this is what caused the global cloud levels to decline? The only claim that AGW is more influenced that solar is if it was supported to cause the decline in global cloud levels. This is not supported by any scientific evidence and almost certainly caused by something else.

    Below, graph of the sunspot number, CO2 and global temperature trends.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1998/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1980/to:1998/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1980/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1934/to:1980/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1934/to:1980/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1955/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1934/normalise

    Key Points
    § Past solar activity is used to estimate future changes in total solar irradiance
    § The impact on future global temperatures is estimated with a climate model
    § The Sun’s influence is much smaller than future anthropogenic warming

    Therefore regarding the key points, solar activity is no use in estimating future changes in global cloud albedo. (at least with this papers claim of what solar activity is) If don’t know what future global cloud levels could be, therefore can’t claim an impact on future global temperatures. The sun’s influence smaller than AGW is an assumption ignoring the solar influence from indirect warming of the ocean/land surface. It also ignores the recent decline in solar activity that despite with successive El Nino’s still failed to warm because the paper only went to the year 2000.

  125. common sense says:

    Please excuse spelling errors, it seems there is no way to edit a post to correct them, nor even to go back to an earlier part of the post to correct before sending without going wiping the whole text after the mistake…on my computer anyway. Could be looked at to fix moderators please!
    Unless I am doing something wrong when I post?

  126. JJ says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:

    “Yes, they have. They have predicted it by the odd method of using a model ”

    I’ll leave the rest of your emotions aside as just ask you to read their title:

    If you will refrain from willfully ignoring the balance of my post, you will see that I have read the title, and the paper, and that there is substance to my comments. In fact, if you merely finish the sentence that you half-quoted, you will find what I was talking about.

    The manner in which you comport yourself here is often not commensurate with your standing.

  127. Bart says:
    March 5, 2012 at 1:46 pm
    The Bond period 1470 yrs is not in Leif’s simulacrum of a power spectrum of TSI.
    nor in anybody else’s, e.g. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008PhDT……..39O and
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007CliPD…3..679D
    ” These results reveal that the mysteriously regular 1,500-year climate cycles are linked with the oceanic circulation and not with variations in solar output as previously argued (Bond et al., 2001).”

  128. Doug Cotton says:

    This study is, of course, covering a far shorter time period than the previous one. The effect of the Sun takes a few years, maybe decades, to show up in climate. This is because of the stabilizing effect of the massive energy stores under the surface, down through the inner crust, mantle and core. We know the total thermal energy changes very slowly by the fact that the terrestrial flow is so low.

    I predict, however, that in due course scientists will be able to detect upswings and downswings in long-term climate by monitoring that low heat flow and analysing variations in the rate. There is some indication that this rate has increased in recent years, meaning the surface would be cooling slightly because the underground gradient from the core is getting steeper. So this is in keeping with the reduction in the rate of increase in the trend for the ~1000 year climate cycle, this rate having decreased from about 0.06 deg.C / decade early last century, to about 0.05 deg.C / decade now.

    There will be more on this in my paper now due to be published about March 8th.

  129. common sense says:
    March 5, 2012 at 2:13 pm
    TSI is not valid to use as an actcurate measure of all the different solar outputs, magnetic, Ap, Kp, proton, electron, X ray, !0,7 etc.. They all vary differently as can be seen by a few plotted on Leifs pages historically.
    On a short time scale [days or weeks] they do behave differently, but since the source of variations of TSI is solar magnetism which is also the source of all the other things you mention, they do vary closely the same on long time scales.

  130. common sense says:
    March 5, 2012 at 2:13 pm
    But lets research the different solar outputs and see what they individually do in the modern period.
    What is the ‘modern period’? Here is how Ap have varied since 1844: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png and here is F10.7 slides 30-32 in http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf

  131. Matt G says:

    Please replace Longitude with “Latitude” in previous post.

    REPLY: that’s twice today, sorry to say that we aren’t your editor, please live with your mistakes – Anthony

  132. MAVukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    which just shows that you match neither of the two time periods.

    Excuses of a junior ‘dog ate my homework’.
    Here are spectra in question:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-Vfspec.gif

    There are 24 cycles, no two have exactly same period. In the 19th century average period was 11.05 years, in the 20th century average period was 10.43 years.
    Q. Young Svalgaard what is average for both centuries?
    A. It is (11.05 +10.43)/2 =10.74 years, sir.
    Q. Tell us master Svalgaard, what is period of the Vukcevic formula?
    A. It is 10.73 years, sir.
    Q. What is deviation between two in the % terms ?
    A. It is 10.74-10.73=0.01years or 100* 0.01/10.73 =1/10.73 or approximately 0.1%
    Q. Do you actually mean that Vukcevic period is accurate to 1/1000 of the average solar period during the last 200 years?
    A. It seems so, sir.
    Q. How is that possible?
    A. Planetary orbits are calculated to the highest accuracy.
    Q. Well done. Can we then conclude that planetary formula devised by Vukcevic, which is accurate to 1/1000 of the average solar cycle period, is an excellent work?
    A. Yes, sir. Definitely an excellent work!

  133. Joachim Seifert says:

    My last comment to Leif: [snip]
    I wonder what blog readers make out of it:
    Leif quote: There is no millenial/centennial/decadal changes in the SUN-Earth-
    distance” , therefore No AMPLIFYING EFFECT of the ORBIT…..
    …. and he quotes “as proof” the TSI radiation measurements, provided on the
    LISIRD-LASP page and taken with the TIM V7-0702 satellite within the past
    decade…..
    …..So Leif reckons that based on one decade of measurements (those from
    the 1990′ ACRIM and VIRGO values are considered unreliable), he can make
    valid comments for the shape of the spiral flight of the Earth on a
    decadal/centennial/milleniums scale and that there are
    no medium and long term distance changes between Sun and Earth….
    Short time observations of 10 years as proof for long term glacial changes….
    AT the time of Galileo, the astronomer J. Kepler already discovered that
    planetary orbits are never the same and an planet never passes twice the
    same spot…. but Leif knows everything much better, even the spiral flight
    which he never heard of before…..
    Folks, skip the replies the next time…
    JS

    ….

  134. Bart says: March 5, 2012 at 1:34 pm
    “However, I do not agree that you must have cyclical forcing to produce a quasi-cyclical effect. Actually, it is not a matter of agreement. It is a simple fact: you do not have to have cyclical forcing to produce a quasi-cyclical effect. ”

    Bart, what you say is correct in theory. In general you may have a system that responds to random inputs by generating cycles thanks to its internal resonances.

    However, in the case of the climate system it is highly unlikely that there are no astronomical forcings involved in the process because we find that the climate system presents several frequencies which are found in astronomical cycles. Even the phases coincided sufficiently well. Moreover, long correlated records between solar and climate records are found.

    Just be patient with the physical mechanisms.

  135. Ulric Lyons says:

    “The argument that there are other solar variables that are responsible falls flat, because they all in the end correlate strongly with the variation of TSI.”

    “IDV is strongly correlated with HMF B, but is blind to solar wind speed V” :
    http://st4a.stelab.nagoya-u.ac.jp/nagoya_workshop_2/pdf/2-1_Svalgaard.pdf (slide 39)

  136. JJ says:
    March 5, 2012 at 2:25 pm
    If you will refrain from willfully ignoring the balance of my post,
    I respond to what I find worth responding to.

    Joachim Seifert says:
    March 5, 2012 at 2:44 pm
    …..So Leif reckons that based on one decade of measurements (those from
    the 1990′ ACRIM and VIRGO values are considered unreliable),

    These are no changes detected to one part in a quarter million over the SORCE data. The other observations I mentioned also precludes large changes. Quite from your book how large a change you calculate since 2003.

    MAVukcevic says:
    March 5, 2012 at 2:44 pm
    self-congratulatory nonsense omitted
    which just shows that you match neither of the two time periods.

  137. Bart says:

    Nicola Scafetta says:
    March 5, 2012 at 2:54 pm

    Nicola – I have tried very hard to suspend disbelief, and think of some sort of cosmic synchronicity which could link these things. I just cannot see it. It does not disprove it, but I am certainly not the only one who finds the connection dubious.

    Fundamentally, I do not think the question must be answered at this time. You have strong correlations in the data which indicate cyclical behavior, from whatever source. You may think that you have to be specific about the source, because your opponents are continually demanding that you provide one. I think that, rather than satisfying their curiosity, you are playing into their hands by focusing on one remote possibility which they can easily dismiss in many, if not most, minds.

    That is their purpose in demanding a causative explanation. Not to prove your hypothesis – they are far less circumspect in promoting their latest dubious excuse for the last decade’s lack of warming, e.g., “How does the heat get to the deep oceans? It just does.” No, their purpose is to goad you into proffering something they can easily dismiss.

    I think you are hurting your cause by being overly specific. Just provide the facts, which are unimpeachable: there is a readily apparent ~60 year cyclical component to the global average temperature metric. It has completed two whole cycles within the modern measurement era, which is enough to establish that it is highly likely to be a persistent characteristic. It shows up in reconstructions reaching back millennia. In particular, the run up in temperature from 1910 to 1940 is almost identical in magnitude and duration to the run up from 1970 to 2000, in accordance with the cyclical nature of the phenomenon. Furthermore, the peak has arrived right on time to produce the current hiatus in warming. If, as expected the next several years show a decline, that will not only tend to verify the model, but it will further discredit the CO2 warming conjecture. The likelihood of that happening is high. If I were a betting man, I would bet my entire pot on it.

  138. bubbagyro says:

    TSI does not begin to show a fraction of the picture of the sun’s effect on earth. Correlation is not causation. No one can predict the lag times for each variable. In a complex system, lag times for each energy added to the system vary. For example, if I apply a laser to a corner of a tank of water, because of the heat capacity of water, the heat applied takes a long while to equilibrate. If I apply the same exact energy amount, but as a heat lamp to the whole container, the heating and equilibration are much faster.

    Each manner of solar energy input has different lag times, and also these inputs may be focused or diffuse, particulate, ionic, or electromagnetic wave, or combinations. That produces lag times that express themselves in cycles that are not necessarily regular. So how do you fit a model to that? Tell me so I know. Some particles, or waves, or ions do chemistry first, and the energy stored for later release.

    Most are stored in water reservoirs at different rates, subject to Fickian diffusion mechanisms.

  139. Jeef says:

    @leif. Surely you mean astronomical forcings? Or is there a preponderance of earth and water signs in the star charts of climate scientists?

  140. bubbagyro says:
    March 5, 2012 at 3:56 pm
    TSI does not begin to show a fraction of the picture of the sun’s effect on earth. Correlation is not causation.
    In case of TSI, it is not correlation, but causation that is a work. In fact it has been VERY hard to establish any correlation, but there is a straightforward causation of about 0.1C.

  141. Jeef says:
    March 5, 2012 at 4:00 pm
    @leif. Surely you mean astronomical forcings? Or is there a preponderance of earth and water signs in the star charts of climate scientists?
    It becomes astrology when people begin to believe that the cycles themselves must have some effect.

  142. John F. Hultquist says:

    common sense says:
    March 5, 2012 at 2:17 pm
    “. . . it seems there is no way to edit a post . . . ”

    I have an idea! Why not compose in a text document/editor such as MS-Word, then do a spell check, and so on. You do say “on my computer anyway.” I’ve reduced my errors by doing so but still sometimes don’t close the italics. That is easily fixed by first putting both the open and the close on a line and then adding text in between. Thus, one does not forget to end the string because of being overly excited about the stimulating discussion you are about to trounce.

  143. common sense says:

    Thanks for the data links Leif, which are useful, even more useful in a table file link.
    But what I was really suggesting is that each of the solar variables be studied individually as to their effects on the earth’s ionosphere, ozone, magnetic field variations, alteration of jetstream position around the globe, temperature alterations, chemical processes at work…and in turn what effects these have on weather in the shorter term….weather eventually becomes climate in time…
    and TSI itself will not show these short term processes on weather…so it will not do so on climate…apart from in a very general sense as you suggest as it does indeed of course show all variable type changes in the longer term. However I believe that the shorter days and weeks where single variables alter say ozone amounts significantly will not be picked up in the broader TSI, and hence may well not reflect weather changes resulting from that in the week to say 5 or 10 year period ahead where the broad TSI may well not freflect the real situation.

  144. Ulric Lyons says:

    This is so impressive: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png it really deserves having the Y-axis stretched so one can appreciate the huge difference between the decades more. Just look at how low 1900-1910 is compared to say 1940/50 and 1980/90, there must be around a 66% increase ! The answer is blowing in the solar wind for sure, but what`s it doing ? dumping more heat in the system or modulating cloud cover ?

  145. common sense says:
    March 5, 2012 at 4:29 pm
    and in turn what effects these have on weather in the shorter term….weather eventually becomes climate in time…
    Many researchers have done/are doing this, with very little progress in spite of 150 years of trying. Even I have wasted time on this, e.g. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/180/4082/185.short
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974JAtS…31..581W
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v255/n5509/abs/255539a0.html
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/204/4388/60.short
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0021916979900631
    etc

  146. Bart says: March 5, 2012 at 3:48 pm

    Bart, be patient! In my papers I am providing the facts.
    But science progesses by steps: some are small others are large. Just, be patient!

    Do not let you to be conditioned by the criticism of people full of one’s self like Leif.

  147. F. Ross says:

    JJ says:
    March 5, 2012 at 1:05 pm

    Good post!

    Bart says:
    March 5, 2012 at 3:48 pm

    Good advice!

  148. Geoff Sharp says:

    John F. Hultquist says:
    March 5, 2012 at 4:07 pm

    I have an idea! Why not compose in a text document/editor such as MS-Word,

    Or if you use modzilla use the Rick Werne link near the top of this page and look for the climate audit assistant at the end of the page. This will give you italics without tags along with spell checker (modzilla) and preview before post.

    Joachim Seifert says:
    March 5, 2012 at 2:44 pm

    Short time observations of 10 years as proof for long term glacial changes….
    AT the time of Galileo, the astronomer J. Kepler already discovered that
    planetary orbits are never the same and an planet never passes twice the
    same spot…

    Your statements on short term climate effects re Earth orbit variances are incorrect and follows the same debunked type of claim proposed by Fred Bailey (solarchord theory). There is no short term climate effect because the Sun/Earth distance varies very little when comparing like seasons.

    http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/200

    The UV variances already stated in previous posts are somewhat understated. NASA states EUV varies over the cycle in the 100% range with FUV at 30%. Both spectrums have an impact on ozone production.

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/science/Solar%20Irradiance.html
    http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/236

  149. bubbagyro says:

    Leif:
    If you want to be taken seriously, please don’t cite small components and imagine that they are representative of all. Of course there is a causation of 0.1° from the TSI that is measured. This is a monolithic parameter. That is one of the commonest fallacies in logic, the argument from the specific to the general. “All criminals commit crimes—All criminals are men—therefore, all men commit crimes.”

    It would be a simple experiment, straightforward and definitive, to measure all energies emitted by the sun at a point intermediate between sun and earth. By all, I mean plasmas, particles, and waves.

    Then, a simple mathematical extrapolation will enable the total earth energy bombardment to be assessed.

    From the much high energy of short-wave UV alone compared to the visible light component of solar irradiance, I would be underestimating the total UV contribution at 10 times TSI from short wave UV energies alone.

    Now lets go to solar wind protonic energy. I hypothesize that this component is also an order of magnitude or more greater than long-wave light energy.

    Radio, X-Ray? C’mon people!

    There is a tendency always to simplify models by artificially, like proxies, or out-of-hand elimination of those nasty, dirty variables. More variables than equations to put them in is a sticky wicket, indeed. So let’s just throw a handful or two of them out of the mix until the equations are manageable. Then, voilá, problem solved!

  150. Ulric Lyons says:
    March 5, 2012 at 4:38 pm
    This is so impressive: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png it really deserves having the Y-axis stretched so one can appreciate the huge difference between the decades more. Just look at how low 1900-1910 is compared to say 1940/50 and 1980/90, there must be around a 66% increase
    Compare with 1860-1870, it is no different from 1980-1990, or the minima 1880, 1900, 2009, no difference either. That is the message: no trend at all.

    bubbagyro says:
    March 5, 2012 at 6:01 pm
    It would be a simple experiment, straightforward and definitive, to measure all energies emitted by the sun at a point intermediate between sun and earth. By all, I mean plasmas, particles, and waves.
    that is what TSI means TOTAL Solar Irradiance. The plasma, particle, and wave part are only a millionth of the total. The energy in the radio flux is incredibly small: the energy in all the radio waves collected by all radio telescopes since radio astronomy began many decades ago added together is less than the kinetic energy of a single snowflake falling to the ground.

  151. AJB says:

    Leif Svalgaard says March 5, 2012 at 4:05 pm

    Some of us are trying to prove that they don’t. Please explain what causes the strange inflections and hemispherical dominance inversions we see in the solar polar field strength data. Random variation? Slipping clutch? Water infested brake fluid?

    http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/8569/filtered2.png
    http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/7227/compositet.png

  152. E. J. Mohr says:

    I think Leif has answered the above question many times …

    Meanwhile, I was looking at the AMSU channel 5 temp and thinking that the approximately 2C degree difference, between January and July, is due to the elliptical path of the earths orbit. So at 14,000 feet elevation the ~80 watt difference in in TSI at the top of the atmosphere, between January and July, is equal to around 2 degrees in temperature, or around 0.025 C per watt of TSI hitting the earths atmosphere. Meanwhile, where I reside, in western Canada this difference is amplified by latitude and the July to January difference is about 29C, or around 0.3625C per watt of TSI hitting the top of the atmosphere.

    This makes me wonder about the sudden onset of cold during the Ice Ages where we have no instrumental record. If memory serves, the Greenland icecap record shows a 10C drop in a matter of a few decades. So, extrapolating, that would mean a TSI drop of only around 27 to 30 watts TSI at the top of the atmosphere. No too much, but more than we have ever measured in the instrumental record. Is this correct? I’m just wondering of Leif or Nicola have any comments.

    Best regards to all.

  153. Bart says:

    bubbagyro says:
    March 5, 2012 at 6:01 pm

    “By all, I mean plasmas, particles, and waves.”

    And, all frequencies. The Earth’s climate assuredly acts as a low pass filter. Therefore, a lower gain for highly variable inputs compared to longer term inputs is expected.

  154. Bart says:
    March 5, 2012 at 6:41 pm
    “By all, I mean plasmas, particles, and waves.”
    And, all frequencies. The Earth’s climate assuredly acts as a low pass filter

    TSI is the TOTAL energy flux at all wavelengths for all the stuff and is measured outside the Earth’s atmosphere.

    AJB says:
    March 5, 2012 at 6:39 pm
    Please explain what causes the strange inflections and hemispherical dominance inversions we see in the solar polar field strength data. Random variation?
    Look at this plot of the magnetic flux moving across the solar surface: http://obs.astro.ucla.edu/torsional.html
    The polar magnetic field is determined by about 5 episodes of flux [red and blue] moving to the poles by a circulation in the Sun’s atmosphere [the Earth's atmosphere also has such circulations]. Less than 1/100 of the sunspot flux makes it to the poles as a kind of random process. The flux moving up to the poles first neutralizes the old flux, then builds up the new flux of opposite polarity [color].

  155. E. J. Mohr says:
    March 5, 2012 at 6:41 pm
    the Greenland icecap record shows a 10C drop in a matter of a few decades. So, extrapolating, that would mean a TSI drop of only around 27 to 30 watts TSI at the top of the atmosphere.
    A global drop of 10C corresponds to a change in TSI of 19 Watt/m2 which is, indeed, excessive. But the glaciations are not the result of a global drop, rather a change of insolation at high solar latitudes, which allows ice sheets to form.

  156. AJB says:
    March 5, 2012 at 6:39 pm
    Please explain what causes the strange inflections and hemispherical dominance inversions we see in the solar polar field strength data. Random variation?
    If you throw in the other planets, Venus, Earth, and Mercury [after all their tidal effects are on par with those of the outer planets], then you have many more alignments to choose from and you can get an almost perfect fit by selecting just the right ones that [as some say] ‘make the grade’ and improve the fit.

  157. Leif Svalgaard says:
    March 5, 2012 at 7:05 pm
    rather a change of insolation at high solar latitudes
    rather a change of insolation at high terrestrial polar latitudes, of course.

  158. bubbagyro says:

    Particles are not TSI, Leif. The solar wind, composed partly of proton and neutron streams is not electromagnetic. These and associated hIgher particles, like alpha particles, have varying energy depending on velocity. In the last weak solar cycle, very low proton fluxes have been the norm. Millions of tons of protons and neutrons in various momentum states strike the atmosphere every year. Most of that energy is captured.

    I will give you a choice of a minute of 10 micron UV or a minute of alpha particle beam on your hand. Which would you choose?

  159. bubbagyro says:
    March 5, 2012 at 8:23 pm
    Particles are not TSI, Leif. The solar wind, composed partly of proton and neutron streams is not electromagnetic
    It doesn’t matter, bubba. TSI does not measure electromagnetic energy alone, it measures ALL the energy in all its various forms, by simply measuring how much the instrument heats up by whatever is hitting it.
    Most of that energy is captured.
    Energy that is captured [absorbed] heats the absorbing medium, no matter what form it is in. Rub your hands together vigorously and feel the heat.

    I will give you a choice of a minute of 10 micron UV or a minute of alpha particle beam on your hand. Which would you choose?
    If the beam is as weak as the solar wind, that would be anybody’s choice. The total mass of the solar wind hitting the entire magnetosphere of the Earth per second is about that of a turkey. UV is not in the micron range. Look it up.

  160. E. J. Mohr says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    March 5, 2012 at 7:05 pm

    Don’t worry Leif I knew what you meant. I was doing the back of the napkin 2 minute calculation. With all due respect, I know that you are the Viking of solar science.

    I mean that as a compliment, since I know from reading your papers, that you leave no stone unturned. You have everything calculated and you have detailed proof for your calculations. You are a force of nature in your convictions and your devotion to science. I am happy we have you here to make us think about everything we say. That’s great, reminds me of my finest professors, who would never let any of us speculate without data, or a great theory to back it up.

    Having said that I also enjoy Nicola Scafetta’s theories and ideas. Somewhere out there we will have an answer to the great climate conundrum which was nicely summarized in Hoyt and Schatten’s book which bowed to Eddy’s idea that the climate system is deviously complex.

    Cheers and keep up the good work…

  161. E. J. Mohr says:
    March 5, 2012 at 9:16 pm
    Having said that I also enjoy Nicola Scafetta’s theories and ideas.
    Yes, they make for great entertainment, don’t they? as do his comments :-)

  162. chuck in st paul says:

    ■The impact on future global temperatures is estimated with a climate model

    There’s the magic words again – climate model. The minute you hear them you know you’re getting scammed. I’ve been building analytical software for decades (off and on). I do not know of one software model of a chaotic system that can accurately predict the future. Otherwise some math majors would have taken all the money from the stock and futures markets off the table years ago. And… the planet’s climate is about as chaotic as it gets.

  163. R. de Haan says:

    Here you have three other reports claiming the opposite
    New maine 6800 year peat bo core shows climate correlate with solar activity, expect more frequent New England flooding ahead
    http://notrickszone.com/2012/03/06/new-maine-6800-year-peat-bo-core-shows-climate-correlated-with-solar-activity-expect-more-frequent-new-england-flooding-ahead/

    Yet two more studies show significant part of warming since 180 is caused by the sun
    http://notrickszone.com/2012/03/05/sorry-yet-more-2-studies-show-significant-part-of-warming-since-1850-is-caused-by-the-sun/

  164. Ulric Lyons says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    March 5, 2012 at 6:31 pm
    “Compare with 1860-1870, it is no different from 1980-1990, or the minima 1880, 1900, 2009, no difference either. That is the message: no trend at all.”

    There is a very strong trend from 1900 to 1960, you should stretch the Y-axis so it can be appreciated. Clearly, all the colder episodes are at lower Ap. Comparing 1860 to 1980 is pretty meaningless as the oceans were bound to be cooler previous to 1860 than before 1980.

  165. fadingfool says:

    Correct me if I wrong but in this paper Leif has smoothed the TSI, back plotted and then shown that the “smoothed” TSI is not varied enough to account for short term variations in Climate? Is this not akin to taking the mean depth of a vinyl LP track, determining there is no music – so the climate must be dancing to a different tune? . Concluding the deterministic variability of TSI as being too small therefore it won’t offset the anthropogenic variability in the future is to ignore (perhaps deliberately) any stochastic resonance to actual TSI changes (not mean TSI) .

  166. Joachim Seifert says:

    To Bart:
    to the explanation of the astronomic cycles (61 years) and the multicentennial cycle (554-790 years, Bond cycles with increasing periods): Please wait a couple of months, it has all been
    identified, just the English write-up takes some time….
    JS

  167. matt v. says:

    To me there is no simple explanation for the sun /solar/ atmosphere realtionship. I like to think of the sun as a dc generator [ not really DC but a source of relatively constant or energy over long periods via a 11 year cycle ] feeding an immense ocean which over a lagged period of about 9-12 months converts this to a 60 year climate [ AC type of a signal ] cyle which in turn feeds the energy to the atmosphere which takes 4-6 months to spread the signal around the globe . Volcanic activity , UHI , and land usage can alter this . Co2 generated by man can change things as well but its influence is minor in my opinion compared to the other factors . When the out put of the generator gradually changes, depending on the magnitude of the change and the duration , it ultimately works its way through the system and the change will be felt at the atmosphere level but the change may not exactly match the original change as the oceans have some reserve[cooling or warming] capacities until this is used up . Over the last decade we have had cooling weather because the oceans are in the early stages of their 30 cool phase driven by the past sun variations . We will have to wait and see what the sun will do over the next 1-2cycles .

  168. Joachim Seifert says:

    To Leif:
    This post enjoys continuing interest…. but the problem is (see number of comments)
    that YOU are trying to dominate and overwhelm comments …..
    But ….. astronomical (natural) forcings are huge (everybody please look under
    “Dansgaard -Oeschger events”, where you clearly can see huge astronomical/natural
    forcings in 1,470 year cycles and no Warmist-CO2 involved)….
    ….what you do is trying to midgetize astronomical forcings…..and this is CLEARLY BS
    - I have to say so, sorry folks- because….because he does not even know that the Earth’s
    flight around the Sun is a SPIRAL, ligating around the elliptical flight line…..which is
    elementary astronomical basic knowledge which he obviously lacks…as well as his
    diagrams and suggested wegsite calculations…….and therefore he
    should be eliminated from astronomical comments and discussions…. trying dominate and overwhelm comments with BS should not be encouraged……a most unfair blog behaviour…
    Anthony, please help honest bloggers against overwhelmer blogging trolls of this kind…..
    JS

  169. Joachim Seifert says:

    To the Mohr:
    Fact is that Leif is trying to overwhelm and dominate the blog, which is unfair discussion….
    Further, he knows solar details but is lacking completly an astronomical understanding
    of the particularities of the real Earth’s orbit trajectory, shown in his misunderstood TIM
    SORCE satellite and JPL Horizon data, please refrain from laudations to the wrong
    person….
    JS

  170. beng says:

    ****
    E. J. Mohr says:
    March 5, 2012 at 6:41 pm

    Meanwhile, I was looking at the AMSU channel 5 temp and thinking that the approximately 2C degree difference, between January and July, is due to the elliptical path of the earths orbit. So at 14,000 feet elevation the ~80 watt difference in in TSI at the top of the atmosphere, between January and July, is equal to around 2 degrees in temperature, or around 0.025 C per watt of TSI hitting the earths atmosphere. Meanwhile, where I reside, in western Canada this difference is amplified by latitude and the July to January difference is about 29C, or around 0.3625C per watt of TSI hitting the top of the atmosphere.

    This makes me wonder about the sudden onset of cold during the Ice Ages where we have no instrumental record. If memory serves, the Greenland icecap record shows a 10C drop in a matter of a few decades. So, extrapolating, that would mean a TSI drop of only around 27 to 30 watts TSI at the top of the atmosphere.
    ****

    Unless there’s something very unexpected about the sun, TSI changes can’t be the reason Greenland drops 10C. It’s got to be ocean current changes (and resultant atmospheric changes), like failure or redirection of the Gulf Stream/N Atlantic drift.

    Leif, if you read this, I’m curious about the proposed ~1500 yr climate cycle. IF it is present, do you think there could be some intrinsic solar 1500 yr cycle? Intuitively, I would think definitely not. Internal cycles of the earth would be my guess, IF it’s real.

  171. Joachim Seifert says:

    Leif: There is a saying “The critic of the jester (entertainment) amount to a laudatio
    of a professor….”… and this is fact….
    JS

  172. Joachim Seifert says:

    To beng:
    Please check Wikipedia “Dansgaard-Oeschger event” and you see the 1470 year cycle
    which is astronomic and not CO2-related (check the CO2-data for this time)…..
    This astronomic cycle CANNOT be found by Mr. Leif, because he is behind in science
    (see my previous comments) ….to bad, he is wasting his capacities by stubbornly
    clinging to his nonsense instead of climbing the learning curve….and this at his age….

    These natural cycles do not stay constant, they get wider and narrower over time:
    in the Holocene (Bond events, they are very short, 554 years and increasing by
    about 25 years for each new period until the present….) they are longer within
    glacial times….
    Do not ask Leif, he is behind, knows nothing about paleocycles, their periods
    and the development of the ACTUAL cycle (790 years) in which we are now….
    He is just guessing around, likes Warmist – CO2- nonsense, does not see
    any cycles, pity the poor blind…
    JS

  173. Bart says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    March 5, 2012 at 6:54 pm

    “TSI is the TOTAL energy flux at all wavelengths for all the stuff and is measured outside the Earth’s atmosphere.”

    I do not know why you insist on continually broadcasting your lack of expertise in frequency domain methods, Leif. If I give you a figure for ambient radio frequency energy, can you tell me what movie is playing on channel 4?

    Joachim Seifert says:
    March 6, 2012 at 8:21 am

    “… it has all been identified…”

    Chance correlations will not carry much weight if you cannot specify a mechanism. And, the doubt engendered by your specific mechanism will dilute the message about what is known, i.e., that climate cycles exist.

    Joachim Seifert says:
    March 6, 2012 at 8:52 am

    “…because he does not even know that the Earth’s flight around the Sun is a SPIRAL…”

    I assume you are talking about precession of the ecliptic plane? Or, a link to what you are talking about might help.

  174. MAVukcevic says:

    As BBC is broadcasting program on solar flares and CME’s, the X-class flare of two days ago is arriving.
    http://flux.phys.uit.no/cgi-bin/plotgeodata.cgi?Last24&site=tro2a&

  175. Myrrh says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    March 5, 2012 at 5:56 am
    hunter says:
    March 5, 2012 at 5:50 am
    Are we measuring accurately what we think we are, and are we measuring the full output [and influence?] of the sun?
    Yes we are.

    ===========

    No you’re not! You’re excluding the real heat direct from the Sun! Your AGW claim is that shortwave heats land and oceans, impossible anyway, and you say the real beam heat from the Sun which is the invisible thermal infrared, doesn’t reach the surface! You claim it plays no part in heating land and oceans.

    None working to the cartoon energy budget has the faintest idea what is being measured.

    You’re not measuring anything from the Sun.

  176. Bart says:

    I know I’m going to regret this, but…

    “You’re excluding the real heat direct from the Sun! Your AGW claim is that shortwave heats land and oceans, impossible anyway, and you say the real beam heat from the Sun which is the invisible thermal infrared, doesn’t reach the surface!”

    Which planet in which universe are you talking about today, Myrrh?

  177. markx says:

    NASA seem to have changed their tune on solar forcing :

    R.F. Hirsch :March 5, 2012 at 6:24 pm (in Tips and Notes)
    quoted NASA http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/

    “…. because the combined effect of all forcings is less than that of greenhouse gases alone, and much of the greenhouse gas forcing has been “used up” in causing the warming of the past century. It is apparent that the solar forcing is not negligible in comparison with the net climate forcing.….”

  178. ejmohr says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    March 5, 2012 at 7:05 pm
    rather a change of insolation at high solar latitudes
    rather a change of insolation at high terrestrial polar latitudes, of course.

    Speaking of insolation. Hoyt and Schatten mention that the Ca II Index is related to TSI and that the Ca II line strength for the sun varies from 0.17A (Angstrom) to slightly over 0.20A – this is what has been measured in modern times. Sun like stars show Ca II indices from 0.13A to 0.21A. If the sun’s Ca II index would drop to 0.13A how would that translate to TSI and insolation?? Has the sun’s Ca II index ever dropped into this range, and are the solar like variable stars Hoyt and Schatten mentioned still considered to be solar like enough to be worthy of study? Inquiring minds want to know.

  179. ejmohr says:

    OK … so if ACRIM is correct and the difference between high and low TSI is around 3 watts, then, if Ca II index is linearly correlated with TSI the lower level of 0.13A would be around a 6 watt drop in TSI according my back of the napkin calculation.

  180. Myrrh says:

    Bart says:
    March 6, 2012 at 4:19 pm
    I know I’m going to regret this, but…

    “You’re excluding the real heat direct from the Sun! Your AGW claim is that shortwave heats land and oceans, impossible anyway, and you say the real beam heat from the Sun which is the invisible thermal infrared, doesn’t reach the surface!”

    Which planet in which universe are you talking about today, Myrrh?
    ——————————-
    I was responding to this question by hunter and reply by Leif –

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    March 5, 2012 at 5:56 am
    hunter says:
    March 5, 2012 at 5:50 am
    Are we measuring accurately what we think we are, and are we measuring the full output [and influence?] of the sun?
    Yes we are.

    ———————-
    So which planet and which universe am I referring to?

    To the fictional one Leif is replying from – the impossible one the Warmists inhabit through the looking glass with Alice, where the atmosphere is empty space and the molecules are ideal gas without weight (gravity) or volume or attraction and zip at vast speeds in ideal gas diffusion thoroughly mixing… Where all kinds of impossible things happen, like carbon dioxide defying gravity and accumulating in the atmosphere for hundreds and thousands of year, where gases aren’t buoyant in air and clouds magically appear in the sky but there is no water cycle, where shortwave Light heats the land and ocean and the Sun’s actual heat, thermal infrared, can’t make it through the glass ceiling of their greenhouse surrounding their empty space atmosphere. You know the one… the pretend one y’all say is the real world we see around us, the one y’all accept as real, the one you’re in.

    The fantasy world you’re in where visible light does impossible things and heats water and land, the shortwave in longwave out one – look around you, you keep arguing from it.. the one y’all keep telling me is real, where visible light heats the oceans (in my world water is a transparent medium for visible light and it is transmitted through, transparent means it is not absorbed) –

    ..here:

    All climate models take account of incoming energy from the sun as short wave electromagnetic radiation, chiefly visible and short-wave (near) infrared, as well as outgoing energy as long wave (far) infrared electromagnetic radiation from the earth. Any imbalance results in a change in temperature.” wiki

    My bold.

    The impossible fisics of the warmists world has Light heating matter! Ridiculous. What’s even sillier, you’all accept it as real and have such oh such serious arguments about the energy balance of this impossible fisics where the only thermal infrared you have is from that upwelling from the Earth and getting trapped and backradiating from colder to hotter…

    “Absorbed by land, oceans, and vegetation at the surface, the visible light is transformed into heat and re-radiates in the form of invisible infrared radiation.” http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm

    That you teach in all your schools and universities – http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1.htm

    Don’t you know where you are?

    You’re in the imaginary world created to support AGW.

    Try answering my questions about it:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/#comment-914539

  181. Bart says:

    Myrrh says:
    March 7, 2012 at 2:43 am

    I knew I would regret it, but in for a penny, in for a pound.

    “This thermal energy of the real Sun on the move to us is thermal infrared…”

    In my world and universe, “infrared” is how we refer to electromagnetic radiation which is less energetic than that which we call “red light”, which is the lowest energy band which our eyes will register.

    In this universe, any electromagnetic radiation can heat an object if it is absorbed by the object’s constituent components. So, it makes little technical sense to designate a particular band of electromagnetic energy as “thermal” and others as not. They all produce heat if they are absorbed.

    “The fantasy world you’re in where visible light does impossible things and heats water and land, the shortwave in longwave out one…”

    In my world and universe, we can easily tell if an object absorbs visible light because that light does not get reflected back to our eyes.

    In my world, the oceans are generally blue, and the land masses vary mostly in shades of green and brown. The former absorb yellowish hues, and the latter reddish and bluish hues, respectively. This can be inferred by mere visual inspection.

    I really wish you would not pollute the threads with your alternative reality. I doubt there is much interest in your universe here. Speaking for myself, none at all. I think we are generally more concerned with practical matters relating to our universe.

  182. Myrrh says:

    Bart says:
    March 7, 2012 at 10:19 am
    Myrrh says:
    March 7, 2012 at 2:43 am

    I knew I would regret it, but in for a penny, in for a pound.

    “This thermal energy of the real Sun on the move to us is thermal infrared…”

    In my world and universe, “infrared” is how we refer to electromagnetic radiation which is less energetic than that which we call “red light”, which is the lowest energy band which our eyes will register.

    In this universe, any electromagnetic radiation can heat an object if it is absorbed by the object’s constituent components. So, it makes little technical sense to designate a particular band of electromagnetic energy as “thermal” and others as not. They all produce heat if they are absorbed.

    In real world physics, Light wavelengths are not thermal. The Sun’s thermal energy, heat, on the move to us, is the invisible thermal infrared. That’s why it’s called thermal..

    We feel it as heat, because it is heat. It warms us up. It moves our molecules of water into vibrational resonance and that is how something is heated up, just as it heats the oceans and land.

    Of course, your fantasy fisics energy budget says the Sun’s heat, thermal infrared, doesn’t reach the surface.. But we can feel it, so we know it does. We can’t feel visible light.

    “The fantasy world you’re in where visible light does impossible things and heats water and land, the shortwave in longwave out one…”

    In my world and universe, we can easily tell if an object absorbs visible light because that light does not get reflected back to our eyes.

    In my world, the oceans are generally blue, and the land masses vary mostly in shades of green and brown. The former absorb yellowish hues, and the latter reddish and bluish hues, respectively. This can be inferred by mere visual inspection.

    You’ve completely avoided my point, typical from warmists regurgitating this junk fiction passing itself off a real world physics.

    You claim that visible light heats the land and oceans. In the real world visible light can’t do this. For a start, water is transparent to visible light, it gets transmitted through without being absorbed, refraction.

    I really wish you would not pollute the threads with your alternative reality. I doubt there is much interest in your universe here. Speaking for myself, none at all. I think we are generally more concerned with practical matters relating to our universe.

    You’re the ones living in an alternative reality. Your atmosphere empty space of ideal gases zipping through at vast speeds, gases not buoyant air and much more comic through the looking glass with Alice impossible physics in the real world – you have no sound and your clouds appear magically because your gas molecules have no volume or weight (gravity) or attraction and no buoyancy…

    Hunter asked a very good question. I’ve given a very good answer. You have zilch idea of what the Sun in the real world is doing, because you’re stuck in fantasy fisics deliberately created to push the AGW agenda.

    You not only have not, I’m assuming, checked real word physics before making such claims as you make in the AGWSF energy budget, but you haven’t taken any notice of the industries in the world around you. Now, that’s a big assumption here, I’m assuming that you’re in the real world, you could actually be in this fantasy world without gravity and where visible light heats oceans.. But, for the moment, assuming you’re actually still in the real world and are merely brainwashed by this fiction, how have you managed not to notice the industries around you which don’t work to your fisics?

  183. Smokey says:

    Myrrh,

    I’m not going to get dragged into this particular debate. But I should point out that Bart is not pushing the AGW agenda as you stated, and is certainly not a “warmist”. That wasn’t fair.

  184. Myrrh says:

    March 7, 2012 at 1:28 pm
    Myrrh,

    I’m not going to get dragged into this particular debate. But I should point out that Bart is not pushing the AGW agenda as you stated, and is certainly not a “warmist
    ======================================

    I thought he argued for carbon dioxide being a greenhouse gas warming thing – just degree of in question?

    If I’m wrong there, sorry.

    But, y’all generic using the same junk fisics anyway, produced by the warmists. That’s why your arguments just make no sense at all.

    You’ve taken out the direct heat from the Sun, the invisible infrared which actually does do what it says it does, heats land and oceans – instead – you have shortwave light from the Sun heating these which is impossible..

Comments are closed.