From the The Washington Times – By Willie Soon and William M. Briggs
Scientists have been studying solar influences on the climate for more than 5,000 years.
Chinese imperial astronomers kept detailed sunspot records. They noticed that more sunspots meant warmer weather. In 1801, the celebrated astronomer William Herschel (discoverer of the planet Uranus) observed that when there were fewer spots, the price of wheat soared. He surmised that less light and heat from the sun resulted in reduced harvests.
Earlier last month, professor Richard Muller of the University of California-Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project announced that in the project’s newly constructed global land temperature record, “no component that matches solar activity” was related to temperature. Instead, Mr. Muller said carbon dioxide controlled temperature.
Could it really be true that solar radiation — which supplies Earth with the energy that drives our climate and which, when it has varied, has caused the climate to shift over the ages — is no longer the principal influence on climate change?
Consider the accompanying chart. It shows some rather surprising relationships between solar radiation and daytime high temperatures taken directly from Berkeley’s BEST project. The remarkable nature of these series is that these tight relationships can be shown to hold from areas as large as the United States.
This new sun-climate relationship picture may be telling us that the way our sun cools and warms the Earth is largely through the penetration of incoming solar radiation in regions with cloudless skies. Recent work by National Center for Atmospheric Research senior scientists Harry van Loon and Gerald Meehl place strong emphasis on this physical point and argue that the use of daytime high temperatures is the most appropriate test of the solar-radiation-surface-temperature connection hypothesis. All previous sun-climate studies have included the complicated nighttime temperature records while the sun is not shining.
Read more: SOON AND BRIGGS: Global-warming fanatics take note – Washington Times
Sunspots impact climate! Wow! I thought they might affect it, but it seems they impact it as well.
“This new sun-climate relationship picture may be telling us that the way our sun cools and warms the Earth is largely through the penetration of incoming solar radiation in regions with cloudless skies.”
Heat from the sun warms the earth? Who’d have thought it?
I got a chuckle out of the lead sentence “Scientists have been studying solar influences on the climate for more than 5,000 years..” Somebody needs to go back and re-write it. I know what he means, but what he says is that for more than five thousand years scientists have been studying solar influences on the climate.
The classic line ” It’s the sun stupid ” seems to fit best.
“All previous sun-climate studies have included the complicated nighttime temperature records while the sun is not shining.”
Wait wut? That this surprised me at all means only that I’m not yet jaded enough.
“The sun has no impact on the climate.”
“The big ball of fire in the sky? How did you possibly show that it has nothing to do with it?”
“We only looked for it when the planet was facing the wrong way.”
I see a serious problem here:
First, BEST tracks only land surface temperatures, thus this chart ignores 71% of the earths surface.
Second, it tracks only US temperatures, which pretty much ignores most of the land surface of the earth asd well.
Thus this graph to “proove” this idea ignores most of the surface of the earht, and “prooves” it with only a fraction of the data available.
All it “prooves” is that solar irradianece, in the BEST graphs only (which have problems with UHI effects) seem to track with max land surface temperatures only over the continental US.
Come back when you add the rest of the planet.
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html
Figure 3 b says the same thing going back 150 years. Why is this never discussed?
Steve M. from TN says:”Why is this never discussed?”
Well, if the link you provide didn’t devolve into “Did sunspots sink the Titanic?” it would probably be an easier sell.
in which they reported on the most comprehensive model simulations to date of the climate of the 20th century. Their study looked at both “natural forcing agents” (solar variations and volcanic emissions) as well as “anthropogenic forcing” (greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols). They found that “solar effects may have contributed significantly to the warming in the first half of the century although this result is dependent on the reconstruction of total solar irradiance that is used. In the latter half of the century, we find that anthropogenic increases in greenhouses gases are largely responsible for the observed warming, balanced by some cooling due to anthropogenic sulphate aerosols, with no evidence for significant solar effects.” Stott’s team found that combining all of these factors enabled them to closely simulate global temperature changes throughout the 20th century. They predicted that continued greenhouse gas emissions would cause additional future temperature increases “at a rate similar to that observed in recent decades”. It should be noted that their solar forcing included “spectrally resolved changes in solar irradiance” but not indirect effects mediated through cosmic rays (discussed above and in the following section); these ideas are still being fleshed out.
As usual, the curve showing ‘solar radiation’ is wrong. Here is what it should look like [the red curve]: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.png with justification here: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.png
This means that there is no justification for the sunspot-climate relation claimed.
WOW! I guess that the Sun needs money, but only when it is shinning on the Earth. The rest of the time, it wants the “global warming people to worship it”…
/sever sarcasm
Legatus, if you checked the linked article, you’ll find that it’s not only the contiguous 48 states that have this behaviour. They report they also found it in China and the Arctic, to name two other locations. Yes, it’s only the land, but the BEST data is only available for the land – it’s not available for the oceans yet.
Yet another nothing story.
Nobody in the climate science fraternity said solar output and sunspots do not impact or affect the climate. What they sad was that CO2,now it is so high again, impacts it more. Something which was quite clearly proven in the last sunspot/flux low.
But let’s not let a little truth or reality spoil a good story… Where’s the fun in that?
Legatus says:
September 6, 2012 at 8:12 pm
“I see a serious problem here:
First, BEST tracks only land surface temperatures, thus this chart ignores 71% of the earths surface.”
When my doctor takes my temperature he looks in my ear with a heat sensing device and ignores the rest of me. According to you, he hasn’t learned anything about my temperature.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 6, 2012 at 8:51 pm
As usual, the curve showing ‘solar radiation’ is wrong. Here is what it should look like [the red curve]: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.png with justification here: http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
The data and the chart appear to be derived from Friis‐Christensen and Lassen, 1991. This particular work has issues noted in multiple publications:
Laut & Gundermann (2000) (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2000ESASP.463..189L): “Our conclusion is that the impression, created by the articles of Friss-Christensen and Lassen, that the recent global warming has been caused predominantly by changes in solar activity, is not supported by the physical data they have used.”
Damon & Laut (2004) (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1999/1999GL900578.shtml): “Using the pre‐industrial record as a boundary condition, the SCL (solar cycle length) temperature correlation corresponds to an estimated 25% of global warming to 1980 and 15% to 1997.”
Laut (2003) (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004EO390005.shtml): “Analysis of a number of published graphs that have played a major role in these debates and that have been claimed to support solar hypotheses […] shows that the apparent strong correlations displayed on these graphs have been obtained by incorrect handling of the physical data.”
Soon and Briggs should be aware of these works, which really invalidate Friss-Christensen 1991 – and the article they have just published. They have certainly not addressed the criticisms of the FC&L data handling.
How about looking at the entire sunspot as a whole. It has been increasing at one percent per year for the last 300 years.
Jim Goodridge says:
September 6, 2012 at 9:09 pm
How about looking at the entire sunspot as a whole. It has been increasing at one percent per year for the last 300 years.
No, it has not. See slide 31 of http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction%20of%20Sunspot%20Number.pdf
Steve M. from TN says:
September 6, 2012 at 8:16 pm
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html
Figure 3 b says the same thing going back 150 years. Why is this never discussed?
==========================
Steve, the link you provided is to an article that had a published date (?) of March 2001. That was a time when real science was conducted. Now post-normal science is the buzz, except in a few cases. Soon and Briggs are rattling the cages of the post-normal club and Anthony Watts brings it to us “live”.
Why is Leif quoting himself?
“All previous sun-climate studies have included the complicated nighttime temperature records while the sun is not shining”.
pochas said:
September 6, 2012 at 9:01 pm
When my doctor takes my temperature he looks in my ear with a heat sensing device and ignores the rest of me. According to [Legatus], he hasn’t learned anything about my temperature.
——————————
Your doctor obviously needs to take your temperature by shoving a heat sensing device where the sun don’t shine 😉
KR says:
September 6, 2012 at 9:06 pm
===================
I noticed the referenced articles in your comment were dated 2000, 2003, and 2004.
These were critical of a publication dated 1991. Interesting that it took 9 to 13 years to respond. Could that be that a gravy train started rolling and the Friss-Christensen 1991 publication would derail it?
Reblogged this on Is it 2012 in Nevada County Yet? and commented:
It is the sun stupid! Even the simplest animals know that the sun warms and the shade cools. Shady days are cooler than sunny days, an one does not have to be climatologist to figure that out.
RockyRoad said:
September 6, 2012 at 9:24 pm
Why is Leif quoting himself?
————————————-
Because he likes redundant tautologisms.
Legatus says:
September 6, 2012 at 8:12 pm
==========
Come back when you master the English language and read the article.
NeilT says:
September 6, 2012 at 9:01 pm
“Nobody in the climate science fraternity said solar output and sunspots do not impact or affect the climate. What they sad was that CO2,now it is so high again, impacts it more. Something which was quite clearly proven in the last sunspot/flux low.”
If rising CO2 would have an added impact we should see that in temperatures rising more quickly now than during the rise from 1910 to 1940, as CO2 emissions by human civilisation only started to rise significantly after 1950.
BUT the slope from 1910 to 1940 was the same as during the 1980ies and 1990ies, and way higher than now (it is zero now). This means that CO2’s influence must be insifnificant compared to the sun.
(I’m ignoring James Hansen’s revisionist data treatment here. Exploring his fantasy version of Earth would take a whole bunch of fantasy writers.)
Whale oil, beef hooked.
/sarc
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 6, 2012 at 8:51 pm
As usual, the curve showing ‘solar radiation’ is wrong. Here is what it should look like [the red curve]: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.png
>>>>>>>>>>
Leif,
The article talks about a correlation with insolation coming through cloud free skies. I read the linked article, but it doesn’t actually say if the graph is of insolation in general, or specific to the area in question, or specific to the area in question during periods of cloud free skies.
I’m assuming the first option as any measurement of peak insolation would have resulted in far lower numbers due to albedo. Still, I thought it odd that they would talk about insolation coupled with cloud free skies and then show a value for insolation that is global and a temperature trend for the US as a whole which obviously cannot be cloud free over either the entire area or the entire timeline.
Does the full paper explain any of these issues? Based on what is in the linked article, I’m more confused that anything else.
Legatus says:
September 6, 2012 at 8:12 pm
Perhaps you should direct your questions to the BEST team themselves?
Richard Patton says:
I got a chuckle out of the lead sentence “Scientists have been studying solar influences on the climate for more than 5,000 years..” Somebody needs to go back and re-write it.
Rather, somebody needs to go back and re-read it.
I know what he means, but what he says is that for more than five thousand years scientists have been studying solar influences on the climate.
He meant what he said. Hence the reference to Chinese astronomers. The earliest surviving record of sunspot activity is from the Chinese Book of Changes, ca 3,000 years ago.
Interesting chart, but because it does not fit their computer model, the data must be rejected. :-))
Mark and two Cats says:
September 6, 2012 at 9:42 pm
“Why is Leif quoting himself”
Because he likes redundant tautologisms.
Nonsense, because he corrected an earlier comment.
davidmhoffer says:
September 6, 2012 at 9:48 pm
The article talks about a correlation with insolation coming through cloud free skies.
The graph shows the radiation from the sun above the atmosphere, reduced to a constant distance to the sun.
Temp seems low compared to relative spots at the start of the graph but high at the end. Does anyone have any idea why that might be?
/sarc
Leif Svalgaard: “The graph shows the radiation from the sun above the atmosphere, reduced to a constant distance to the sun.”
Why adjust the graph to make the earth’s distance from the sun a constant, when the earth’s orbit is elliptical, thus having an impact on the level of radiation reaching the earth?
Legatus says:
I see a serious problem here:
First, BEST tracks only land surface temperatures, thus this chart ignores 71% of the earths surface.
Well, that is a fine complaint against BEST, which made all sorts of alarmist pronouncements based only on the land component of its surface temperature reconstruction.
It is also an excellent critique of ‘global warming science’ which promotes itself based not on the increase global heat content which is the basis of global warming theory, but instead on surface temperature increase. This metric ignores 99.9% of the heat capacity of the Earth’s climate system, and the 0.01% that they use is disproportionately driven by land surface temp.
Given that this is the metric chosen to push ‘global warming’, it is legitimate to use that same metric to push back.
@NeilT
“Nobody in the climate science fraternity said solar output and sunspots do not impact or affect the climate. What they sad [sic] was that CO2,now it is so high again, impacts it more. Something which was quite clearly proven in the last sunspot/flux low.”
+++++++
That CO2 dominance explains why the temperature has been continuing to increase at the same rate from 1995-2012 as it did from 1976-1995, even though the sun has gone quiet now. The continuing temperature increase with CO2 increase should be very convincing.
/credulous
eyesonu – ” Interesting that it took 9 to 13 years to respond.”
Friis-Christensen & Lassen published a related work in 1995, as well as a comment on Laut and Gundermann in 2000 (asserting a solar correlation up till 1970). They did not really address the Laut and Gundermann points regarding late 20th century correlation, and the two later papers presented additional criticisms. 4-5 years is not an unusual interval for responses.
In Lassen et al 1999 (http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/sr99-9.pdf), Lassen himself acknowledged some errors in FC&L 1991/1995 and presented a corrected chart – which (in Fig. 3) shows a divergence between solar cycle length and temperature from roughly 1970.
Soon and Briggs are using old, invalid data.
Putting it all together, we are eerily close to a half-precessional cycle old interglacial. Pegging the Holocene start at the end of the Younger Dryas cold interval, the Holocene is 11,715 years old this year. We are also at the long end of the precession cycle (19-23kyrs) making 11,500 half. Five of the last six interglacials have each lasted about half a precession cycle.
And the sun has gone all quiet on us………………..
Maunder class minimum? The most recent end extreme interglacial typical thermal peak? They normally end with from 1 to 3 thermal maxima right at their ends……..at least over the past nearly million years and all Supposedly we just went through a grand solar maximum, so who is really to say if the Holocene will “go long”, like MIS-11 did (that pesky 6th said interglacial), or if it just wound up to wind down? Let’s review, MIS-19 scored 3 thermal maxima right at it’s very end, MIS–11 one broad one, MIS-5e two sharp ones, right at its very end.
The certifiably greenest amongst us are necessarily left with the queerest of quandaries. Will the Holocene “go long”, like MIS-11 did? I mean it too occurred at an eccentricity minimum….. But MIS-19, two eccentricity minima back, didn’t. And that’s all of the post-MPT eccentricity-minima interglacials that ever have been.
Enter the vaunted Precautionary Principle.
You get to choose. Listen up, passengers on ye old spaceship earth!
1) Strip, quicksmart, to some esteemed concentration (350.org), the “climate security blanket” requisite to assure that the Holocene follows whatever Mother Nature has in store this eccentricity minima (odds are 50/50 on this simplistic anthropogenic slot machine), or
2) Go risque. Betting CO2 is the heathen devil gas it is made out to be, such that you/we might,:in some greenhouse way, be commensurate with:
“The onset of the LEAP occurred within less than two decades, demonstrating the existence of a sharp threshold, which must be near 416Wm22, which is the 65N July insolation for 118 kyr BP. This value is only slightly below today’s value of 428Wm22. Insolation will remain at this level slightly above the inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again.” (2005, Sorocko et al, “A late Eemian aridity pulse in central Europe during the last glacial inception”, http://www.particle-analysis.info/LEAP_Nature__Sirocko+Seelos.pdf )
Decisions…..decisions………………………………
Darren Potter says:
September 6, 2012 at 10:12 pm
Why adjust the graph to make the earth’s distance from the sun a constant, when the earth’s orbit is elliptical, thus having an impact on the level of radiation reaching the earth?
If you plot the yearly average the, large, effect due to the elliptical orbit averages out. This variation is some 70 times larger than the solar cycle variation, but washes out when averaged over a year. My main point was not the distance [I was just being overly precise], but the fact that the solar radiation shown is not what the variation has been. Here is our best estimate [blue and pink, from two different reconstructions] overlaid the temperature curve: http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-Not.png
Soon and Briggs should be ashamed of themselves.
I was looking at some local temperatures the other day and noticed that here, near the US Pacific coast: Night temperatures are very closely tied to the offshore ocean temperature; day time highs to the sunshine. Clouds moderate both ( less heat loss at night, less gain in the daytime) but with more impact on the heat gain.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/09/01/september-swing/
Dominant controls on the climate / temperatures are the oceans, clouds, and sun modulation. CO2 not so much (i.e. essentially nil). When every night you return to roughly “local sea temp plus a degree” there isn’t any heat being ‘retained’ in the air or land system… Going further inland we get some cooling (via mountain uplift) and in the desert the total temps are higher (being well away from the oceans); so an added factor is “distance to water”. Still, things are pretty much all controlled by the water cycle (including clouds), not the CO2 cycle.
Leif s forgot?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/new-solar-reconstruction-paper-suggests-6x-tsi-change-than-cited-by-the-ipcc/
And figure 3b:
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html
E.M.Smith says:
September 6, 2012 at 11:03 pm
things are pretty much all controlled by the water cycle (including clouds), not the CO2 cycle.
Nor the solar cycle: http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-Not.png
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 6, 2012 at 9:58 pm
The graph shows the radiation from the sun above the atmosphere, reduced to a constant distance to the sun.
_________________________________
How do you know? I don’t see it mentioned in the article anywhere.
1. they used out of date solar data.
2. the US is 2% of the globe.
3. If they used the BEST data I think they used, they probably forgot a critical step.
In any case, as always, folks should practice good skepticism and have a look at their code before having kittens.
Temperatures track very accurately interaction between the solar and the Earth’s magnetic fields
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
data here is up to date
pochas said:
When my doctor takes my temperature he looks in my ear with a heat sensing device and ignores the rest of me. According to [Legatus], he hasn’t learned anything about my temperature.
That is not an appropriate analogy to the Earth’s climate.
Your body is a living system that expends energy to maintain homeostasis. In particular, the human body works very hard to maintain a constant temperature of the brain, and it does that very well when it is healthy. And proximity to the brain is why aural, oral, and anal thermometers give valid measurements.
🙂
Science by press release.
Steven Mosher says:
3. If they used the BEST data I think they used, they probably forgot a critical step.
Staring earnestly into the camera and claiming to have been a sceptic?
This study is consistent with other studies. There is doctoral research archived at the University of Southampton which shows a clear connection between the sunspot cycle and the production of tin in the Cornish mines stretching back to the 10th century. When agricultural yields are high tin production slows and vice versa. Neither the student nor I as her supervisor saw the significance of this discovery at the time it was made but if anyone is interested in pursuing it they can contact me for the reference through your website.
Air temperature is not a measure of the heat content of Earth’s air.
All previous sun-climate studies have included the complicated nighttime temperature records while the sun is not shining.
They use minimum temperature which generally occurs in the daytime shortly after dawn when the sun is shining. The minimum temperature occurs when solar radiation exceeds outgoing LWR.
Small changes in solar irradiance won’t affect minimum temperatures, but people who claim to be climate scientists should get this basic fact right.
For those curious about the use of daily Tmax, John Christy discusses it here:
Steven Mosher says:
September 6, 2012 at 11:08 pm
“2. the US is 2% of the globe.”
With the most extensive and reliable set of measurements to be found, n’est-ce pas?
The sun is a variable star and satellites have demonstrated short term cycles in its energy output. However the magnitude of these cycles is very small and not enough to explain climate change in recent years.
We obviously have no records of the sun’s output prior to the 1990s, so we can only speculate about whether or not there are much bigger cycles which were responsible for the MWP and LIA.
The eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit around the sun is undoubtedly a big factor affecting climate in the long term, likewise the small changes in its angle of tilt.
At the end of the day, I suspect most readers believe in a small amount of AGW, which has been largely beneficial, and are fervent opponents of CAGW, which has no scientific basis. The global warming industry is totally dependent on promoting the hoax of CAGW by linking it to the mild amounts of AGW we have seen over the last half century.
There is a clear lag in the graph of at least a year, which IMO makes temperature changes from solar irradiance changes very unlikely even with oceanic effects. Rather it indicates some third factor at work (assuming it isn’t chance, faulty data, etc)
Slabadang says:
September 6, 2012 at 11:04 pm
Leif s forgot?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/new-solar-reconstruction-paper-suggests-6x-tsi-change-than-cited-by-the-ipcc/
And you forgot to check my comments to that post.
Kasuha says:
September 6, 2012 at 11:07 pm
“The graph shows the radiation from the sun above the atmosphere, reduced to a constant distance to the sun.”
How do you know? I don’t see it mentioned in the article anywhere.
Because the numbers on the Y-axis are what that radiation is. So now you know it too.
Occam’s razor strikes again!
Wow, total peak-to-trough TSI varied by an amazing 4.5 W/m² between 1890 and 2000? According to whom? And the Wolf Cycle peaks seem very odd — is there some odd form of smoothing being used?
I guess it’s just too obvious to point out that if Soon & Briggs had anything useful to say, they could have, would have, and should have, passed peer review; then maybe simple questions like this could have been answered. But the Washington Times? C’mon.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 6, 2012 at 9:05 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 6, 2012 at 8:51 pm
As usual, the curve showing ‘solar radiation’ is wrong. Here is what it should look like [the red curve]: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.png with justification here: http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
Been ironing the data a bit more Leif? Not got all those nasty creases out yet? Never mind the trousers, the sun has a big hat on today to draw attention away from them.
Until you manage to iron the data completely flat, a suitable scaling of the data will always reveal that pesky sun-climate relationship which you yourself say is a problem for the IPCC because they can’t manage without it for explaining climate variation prior to co2 rise, and so can’t really dismiss it as they have after the co2 rise either. All very inconsistent.
Don’t forget Prof Shaviv found an amplification of solar variation in the Earth’s climate systems by using the oceans as a calorimeter.
http://sciencebits.com/calorimeter
Slabadang says:
September 6, 2012 at 11:04 pm
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html
states that “It is well documented that the early part of the 20th century was much colder than it is today.”
It is also well documented that solar activity today is back to what it was in the early part of the 20th century, but apparently temperatures are not…
Legatus says:
September 6, 2012 at 8:12 pm
this idea ignores most of the surface of the earht, and “prooves” it with only a fraction of the data available.
An older graph by Soon from the other side of the Pacific:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/willie-soon-brings-sunshine-to-the-debate-on-solar-climate-link/
A UK sunshine hours study with global extrapolation from Doug Proctor:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/doug-proctor-climate-change-is-caused-by-clouds-and-sunshine/
There is one underlying truth to the whole debate. The sun heats the earth. Something modulates temperatures and produces observable cycles. Tilt, Cosmic Rays, Moon, ENSO, and the list goes on.
The one thing that does not is CO2……
I would love to know the answer but until real science is restored and something other than single sided research can be performed we are lost in political limbo.
yeah,yeah I know heat is a generalized term but if the big bright thing in the sky turns off my bet is it gets cold real freaking fast.
JJ says;
Steve is doubting the paper. Seems like a basic skeptical stance. Is your definition of a skeptic “one who is against the AGW alarmism”?
BEST got rejected didn’t it? Why is anyone suggesting it any correlation or lack of it with a flawed study.
Muller did not make the same media blitz when his papers got rejected (twice IIRC) , are we supposed to carry on refering to the BEST reconstruction despite it not being accepted because … well Muller is a future genius?
Washington Times? National Enquirer didn’t want to bite?
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 7, 2012 at 12:03 am
Because the numbers on the Y-axis are what that radiation is. So now you know it too.
__________________________________________
So it’s just your guess from values on the scale. You don’t have any other evidence for that.
But what I notice is, even the worst of reconstructions you have on your graphs is always over 1363 while values in this graph are all below 1362. So I guess your guess is wrong.
But it’s not just sunspots it is the whole panoply of radiation, UV visible IR microwave radio, and magnetic that varies and affects temperature. But sunspots are a good start.
Legatus wrote:
“Come back when you add the rest of the planet.”
You do realize that Michael Mann’s hockey sticks, so often portrayed in the media as representing “global” warming, only apply to the northern hemisphere.
Hmm, looking at the discontinuities in the graph I would say that it tends to indicate that solar radiation FOLLOWS Earth temperatures! That doesn’t really seem likely if we are talking about sunspots, although it could be possible if we were talking about clouds.
I wouldn’t have used BEST data at all as it involved the contributions of those unqualified to contribute aka Mosher and Muller.
Mosher has worthless statistical qualifications – BA’s in both English Literature and Philosophy and a career history that includes bringing MP3 players to market for Creative Labs.
http://berkeleyearth.org/steven-mosher/
While William Briggs has a Ph.D. in Statistics,
http://wmbriggs.com/public/briggs_cv_new.pdf
Leif can make the solar charts as flat as he likes, there are still too many real world correlations to observed solar behaviour to ignore.
I like the ‘ironing the creases out’ analogy from tallbloke.
The image of Leif standing over an ironing board scrubbing furiously is so very apt.
Curious: Do periods of lower sun spots coincide with lower nighttime temperature, regionally?
Lief Svalgaard, I have a problem, you stated that there is no connection between sun spots and climate. You may discount the long observations of the chinese and their connection between sunspots and climate.
I would however find it difficult to forget the lack of sunspots over a long period and the L.I.A. and the ice fairs on the Thames. You may be right it is not the lack of sunspots that causes cooling, maybe it is what is causing the lack of sunspots that causes the cooling.
Whatever it is that causes the climate to change the lack of sunspots is a reliable indicator of cool, the lag in the system to remove excess heat is just about over and the future looks cool.
There are many solar outputs all have differnt effects on weather and climate
TSI is too broad brushed to really show the many real relationships that occur.
Crispin in Waterloo says:
September 6, 2012 at 10:28 pm
“That CO2 dominance explains why the temperature has been continuing to increase at the same rate from 1995-2012 as it did from 1976-1995, even though the sun has gone quiet now. The continuing temperature increase with CO2 increase should be very convincing.”
How can anyone claim that temperature increased at all from 1995-2012, let alone that the increase was similar as in the period 1976-1995?? Just have one look at the Hadcrut3 data:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1975/to:2012
Interesting observations in these comments. There was the warming period from 1900-1940 that requires explanation. Leif Svalgaard insists this warming period cannot be explained by increased solar activity. The IPCC rules out CO2. So what caused it?
We seem to understand depressingly little about the drivers of the climate system.
@ Leif Svalgaard
I respect you.
However, the insolation graph you show still reminds me of a central heating system. (A sqaure metre is a very small area though). You come home at 6pm, it’s freezing cold outside your house is around 1°C. You turn your central heating system on, depending upon its efficiency, boiler/pump/thermostat/valves/insulation/size of house (there are always losses in any system), etc, it could take anything up to an hour or more to raise the internal temperature to a comfortable 18-20°C. The graph fits the analogy. Besides, until somebody can announce a genuinely complete assessment of how the Sun actually works, it’s effects upon the Solar System, the planets, & the Earth in particular, in a way that can make accurate predicitions of Solar behavoiur (always the fly in the ointment), to dismiss it as an insignificant contributer to the Earth’s Climate, apart from in the ancient past, is serious folly. It simply cannot be ruled out which is what some people at NASA & those at the UNIPCC have done! The Sun & Moon affect the global tides, the Sun gives us heat & light , around 99.99% of it, it possess 99.9% of the mass of the Solar System, its Solar flares can take out power grids on Earth & damage orbiting satellelites, it affects radio & tv communications when highly active, the BBC used to make announcements about it to allay peoples concerns about poor reception, etc. To say it doesn’t significantly affect the Climate is foolhardy! I recall the BBC 2 Horizon programme about the Sun, a wonderful tv documentary that was perfect right up until the last 5 minutes, when the narrator said at the end “No one can explain exactly how the Sun effects the Earth & its Climate, but whatever it is, it’s already been overtaken by manmade global warming!” accompanied by a clever cut from an image of the firey Sun, to a calving of an iceberg in Antarctica! Deja vu translation,…..”We don’t know exactly how Element ‘A’, affects Element ‘B’, but we know for certain that it is overpowered by Element ‘C’! Scientific nonsense. I suspect there will be an awful lot of scientists who will be remembered for their folly, leaving them exposed to challenges about their technical competence, which is sad for them, their families, & sad for science, leaving them with the lamest of excuses of “we based our statements on the best available science at the time!”
The classic “correlation does not prove causation.” The graphs that I have seen between solar and temperature are quite different. I’d like to see a resolution of those differences. Perhaps it’s because other studies used global rather than US temperatures. Probably there will be a discussion of the scientific literature on this topic at Skeptical Science. In the meantime, I am looking for a citation to a scientific paper. Did this study and its graph actually get published or it just a press release?
Peter Miller, adjust your last paragraph a bit to couple what you said with what Bart highlighted of John Christy’s explanation of GW being mostly night time Tmin increase, that is UHI, and Tmax being a better metric of any co2 influence and that pretty much sums it up, and right there I agree with all three of you and the best I can tell of the science involved.
The only thing I will leave in question is whether there has actually been a larger secular variance in TSI during the pre-satellite era. With all of the evidence I have read of says yes except those few with a belief in a completely static sun which flies in the face of all ancient observations.
She got lazy recently, but…..
http://www.carolmoore.net/articles/sunspot-cycle.html
😉
tallbloke says:
September 7, 2012 at 12:30 am
Until you manage to iron the data completely flat, a suitable scaling of the data will always reveal that pesky sun-climate relationship which you yourself say is a problem for the IPCC because they can’t manage without it for explaining climate variation prior to co2 rise, and so can’t really dismiss it as they have after the co2 rise either. All very inconsistent.
Forget about the climate. The issue is whether the ‘solar radiation’ curve on S&B’s graph is correct, and it isn’t. That IPPC is also wrong does not make everybody else right.
Kasuha says:
September 7, 2012 at 1:35 am
But what I notice is, even the worst of reconstructions you have on your graphs is always over 1363 while values in this graph are all below 1362. So I guess your guess is wrong.
Perhaps look again before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
John Marshall says:
September 7, 2012 at 2:21 am
But it’s not just sunspots it is the whole panoply of radiation
The graph shows the total energy output of the Sun [the heavy black curve] except that that curve is not what the variation of the output has been.
Kasuha says:
September 7, 2012 at 1:35 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 7, 2012 at 12:03 am
Because the numbers on the Y-axis are what that radiation is. So now you know it too.
__________________________________________
So it’s just your guess from values on the scale. You don’t have any other evidence for that.
No – it’s not a guess. The mean amount of solar radiation which reaches the “top of the earths atmosphere” is around 1360 w/m2. It’s a well accepted figure.
I had to google Dr. Willie Soon, I am very impressed by his credentials, but not so much by the evidence presented in the article. I do not know if Dr. Soon has looked at the thread or at any of the responses, but if he does I would suggest a closer look at
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
my email is on the graph if may wish to know more.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 7, 2012 at 12:30 am
Slabadang says:
September 6, 2012 at 11:04 pm
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html
states that “It is well documented that the early part of the 20th century was much colder than it is today.”
It is also well documented that solar activity today is back to what it was in the early part of the 20th century, but apparently temperatures are not…
Solar derived heat accumulated in the ocean during the long run of more active cycles in the later C20th. How long it will keep us warm now solar activity is slumping remains to be seen. The ‘rule of thumb’ is around a decade. The Sun dropped below the heuristically determined ocean equilibrium value of ~40SSN in 2004 so perhaps we’ll see the effects in one to two years.
@Leif,
“Leif Svalgaard on September 6, 2012 at 9:58 pm
The graph shows the radiation from the sun above the atmosphere, reduced to a constant distance to the sun.”
Accurately measured all the way back in 1600. LOL!!
“In 1801, the celebrated astronomer William Herschel (discoverer of the planet Uranus) observed that when there were fewer spots, the price of wheat soared.”
Interesting. Does this relationship hold up over time? Has anyone plotted wheat prices against sunspot number from 1801 to 2012?
Mr. Miller.
We most certainly do have records of the sun’s output, tho not in as great a detail, Some records mentioned in the earlier posts going back 5000 years, not just decades. And modern scientists have been looking at the sun for a couple of centuries. Sheesh!
Peter Miller says:
September 6, 2012 at 11:59 pm
…We obviously have no records of the sun’s output prior to the 1990s, ….
Peter Miller says:
September 6, 2012 at 11:59 pm
“At the end of the day, I suspect most readers believe in a small amount of AGW, which has been largely beneficial, and are fervent opponents of CAGW, which has no scientific basis. The global warming industry is totally dependent on promoting the hoax of CAGW by linking it to the mild amounts of AGW we have seen over the last half century.”
Well said.
If only CO2 controlled the temperature then why have there been ice ages and interglacial warm periods over the past 400000 years with only small increases to CO2 ie 280 to 300 ppm over the same period?
So, after a little investigation, I learned that this graph comes from unpublished work on the Berkeley/Muller web site. Remember that unpublished papers by Muller et al. support the notion that CO2 is largely responsible for recent warming. It used to be that scientists had to pay attention to “press releases” because they announced the work of soon to appear studies “in press.” There are too many real scientific studies being published to pay attention to premature announcements about unpublished data. In this case, the purported results are contrary to conclusions of Muller et al. who concluded that variation in solar radiation does not explain recent global warming. Has anyone studied the unpublished papers by Muller et al enough to understand why their conclusions are contrary to message of this press release?
But, this is a Chinese investigation that has gone back to the mid 1800’s. So why does it come out now? Is it because China’s levels of emitting co2 GHG! This is an obvious propaganda scam. A fail in my opinion!
Alan the Brit says:
September 7, 2012 at 3:51 am
However, the insolation graph you show still reminds me of a central heating
This reply also goes to all the other ones who are barking up the wrong tree. Regardless of what you may think about cause and effect, CO2 or central heating, IPPC and climate, etc. What I pointed out was that the graph shown by S&B of ‘solar radiation’ is wrong [looks like the discarded 20-yr old Hoyt & Schatten data, which today is not generally accepted].
It is amusing to see people on the one hand accepting the graph as correct and then saying that TSI is not the real cause and there are many other things involved etc. Most commenters here [as usual] suffer from a severe case of confirmation bias.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 7, 2012 at 4:31 am
tallbloke says:
September 7, 2012 at 12:30 am
Until you manage to iron the data completely flat, a suitable scaling of the data will always reveal that pesky sun-climate relationship which you yourself say is a problem for the IPCC because they can’t manage without it for explaining climate variation prior to co2 rise, and so can’t really dismiss it as they have after the co2 rise either. All very inconsistent.
Forget about the climate. The issue is whether the ‘solar radiation’ curve on S&B’s graph is correct, and it isn’t. That IPPC is also wrong does not make everybody else right.
Do we know how they calculated it yet? IS the SI for the paper available? Arguing over sciene by press release probably isn’t worth the effort. But just to point out an inconsistency in your comment. How can we ‘forget about the climate’, when the two curves compared are ‘Solar total Irradiance’ and temperature data?
Soon multiplied recent TSI values with with the GHCN adjustments inherited by the BEST data for all we know…
JJ says
“And proximity to the brain is why aural, oral, and anal thermometers give valid measurements.”
Aural and oral yes but I do not see the connection with anal unless he has included some well-known climate scientists in his study. Kidding apart, I agree with his comments.
We are in a period of minimal sunspot activity, and yet the earth isn’t cooling. Temperatures have been pretty flat for the last 10 years. So something is keeping us warm despite the lower level of solar radiation. Greenhouse gasses?
Atlantic current therefor sea ice correlate with solar activity?
tallbloke says:
September 7, 2012 at 12:30 am
Until you manage to iron the data completely flat,
Here is what Schrijver et al. suggest the solar magnetic flux [which generally is accepted as the cause of the variation of TSI] looks like: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Magn-Flux-Schrijver.png [red dots] from http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf with their conclusion: “drivers other than TSI dominate Earth’s long‐term climate change”. Bottom line: the S&B graph is wrong [on solar radiation] and their article misleading in the extreme.
****
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 6, 2012 at 8:51 pm
****
Thanks. It must seem like an endless struggle….
Just look at these two Met Office maps, for max and min temperature anomalies, and see what a difference there is.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/anomacts/2012/14/2012_14_MaxTemp_Anomaly_1981-2010.gif
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/anomacts/2012/14/2012_14_MinTemp_Anomaly_1981-2010.gif
Leif once again appears to be up sh*t creek without a paddle. The evidence continues to build.
Another death blow to his Sun doesn’t do it propaganda is the solid data that refutes any L&P type effect that so many of the skeptics tend to believe in blindly.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/darkness1.png
Poptech says:
I wouldn’t have used BEST data at all as it involved the contributions of those unqualified to contribute aka Mosher and Muller.
Mosher has worthless statistical qualifications – BA’s in both English Literature and Philosophy and a career history that includes bringing MP3 players to market for Creative Labs.
Ad hominem is not scientific reasoning. Your use of it would render you “unqualified to contribute to discussions about scientific practice”, if it were to be similarly applied to you.
If Mosher’s stats are wrong, it is because his stats are wrong, not because his CV doesn’t have particular entries. If his stats are correct, then his stats are correct. “Qualifications” or the asserted lack thereof are not valid scientific concepts.
The graph shows a variation of 1 ° C per 1 W / m ^ 2.
hypersensitivity climate
beng says:
September 7, 2012 at 6:59 am
Thanks. It must seem like an endless struggle….
Science always is. The struggle against pseudo-science and the post-normal science practiced by most people here pushing their politically motivated agenda is ever-lasting. In the end, science will prevail. I just added the Schrijver et al. graph to the my graph: http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-Not.png It just overlays my plot and Preminger et al.’s plot.
My only question is how did all those anthropogenic green house gasses get all the way to the sun? Pretty amazing.
tallbloke says:
September 7, 2012 at 6:21 am
How can we ‘forget about the climate’, when the two curves compared are ‘Solar total Irradiance’ and temperature data?
I was not commenting on the temperature curve, simply pointing out that the ‘solar radiation’ curve is wrong. Trying to compare two curves when one is wrong only makes sense if you want to mislead people [or are misled yourself]
Soon multiplied recent TSI values with with the GHCN adjustments inherited by the BEST data for all we know…
Apart from this being nonsense you are accusing Soon of circular reasoning, that he used temperature adjustments on the solar curve and you seem to accept that that is reasonable practice, rather than criticizing S&B for it. The solar curve looks much like the old Hoyt & Schatten curve.
Leif your resilience amazes me. With every solar posting here all the back room experts drop in with exactly the same arguments. Most time the amount of abuse you receive is unbelievable.
I tried to post this at TB blog
sergeiMK says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
September 7, 2012 at 12:53 pm
TB I find it a trifle strange that you know more about solar physics than Leif who has been researching for decades!
It all boils down to a plot of solar radiation made by one person (lean) years ago. Leif says it is wrong and Lean now says it is wrong.
So why do you, Soon etc say it is right. Can you show the proof please.
steveta_uk says:
September 7, 2012 at 1:51 pm
It never made it of course.
So I would like to ask TB, and others, the question I posed. Where are they getting the TSI data from?
Also TB now says the solar heating and cooling is delayed by 10 years by the oceans. If this were the case then TSI should be put through a trailing 10 year average (which will remove some of the cycle peaks. PLUS the plot in the article clearly shows no such 10 year delay!!
Perhaps its a special delay that only appears at millenia+10?!
Rick Lynch says:
September 7, 2012 at 6:25 am
We are in a period of minimal sunspot activity, and yet the earth isn’t cooling. Temperatures have been pretty flat for the last 10 years. So something is keeping us warm despite the lower level of solar radiation. Greenhouse gasses?
This heavy cast iron frying pan burnt my hand when i picked it up, even though the flame was turned off 3 minutes ago. Something was keeping it warm despite the stiching off of the hob. Specific heat capacity?
So the basic hypothesis is that radiation from the sun warms the earth? Whodda thunk?
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 7, 2012 at 7:18 am
Apart from this being nonsense you are accusing Soon of circular reasoning, that he used temperature adjustments on the solar curve and you seem to accept that that is reasonable practice, rather than criticizing S&B for it.
Easy Leif, you were up too early this morning. Get some bread and milk.
The solar curve looks much like the old Hoyt & Schatten curve.
Did they use ACRIM data for that?
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 7, 2012 at 4:31 am
Perhaps look again before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
_________________________________
Maybe you could take another look too?
I have rescaled the two graphs to match (more or less) in both time and energy scales and put them together.
http://imageshack.us/f/707/leiff.png/
Despite common scales, these curves don’t overlap. And that’s what I’m asking about.
There’s also pretty deep valley between 1950 and 2000 in their graph which is nowhere to be found in either of your three graphs.
So if you are so perfectly sure how they created the curve, maybe you could share a more detailed explanation? Or maybe a reconstruction?
Leif, what is the history; why are the low, early 20th century curves wrong? How were they created?
thanks in advance
Rick Lynch says:
September 7, 2012 at 6:25 am
and have you considered the time lag factors? How long does it take for the earth to heat up and/or cool down? It sure isn’t instant ! In the same way as temps don’t instantly cool as soon as the sun goes down at sunset, a warmed/cooled earth will take time to react to such changes – giving the ‘illusion’ of the currently observed solar effects being insignificant…….and given the heat stored in the oceans, we can probably expect such time lags to be quite large (decades?)……….
“Scientists have been studying solar influences on the climate for more than 5,000 years.”
Ah yes, climatology is the oldest science in the world.
I like Leif`s graph, Sunspot number (traditional view) and Sunspot number (corrected for weighting), everything’s corrected in one direction. Its not the sun stupid.
Leif, please.
This reconstruction can be considered correct? (doubt sincere. Sorry for the bad english)
Observed solar constant reconstructed from satellite observations., Please cite C.Fr\”ohlich, 2000, “Observations of Irradiance Variations, Space Science Rev., 94, pp. 15-24., source,
Steven Mosher says: Sept. 6 at 11:08 pm
…3. If they used the BEST data I think they used, they probably forgot a critical step.
With this statement, Steven Mosher achieves maximum vagueness. Contact the Guinness Book of World Records.
IF (no ElseIF or Else)
I think they used… (well you are intimate with BEST, what dataset do you think it was???? Pray tell. )
probably …. ( p = what?)
a critical step. (Finally, some precision! “a” meaning one! But which critical step?)
Steven, you do your reputation no good with such statements. Be more specific or don’t say anything at all. We can read your written words, not read your mind.
It is getting to the point where “Steven Mosher says” translates to
“You will learn nothing useful in the following comment.
Save yourself and skip to the next posting.”
You mean the biggest source of energy in our solar system has something to do with the temperature?! When will these people learn to think for themselves?
excuse me, i’m getting an error whenever I load up or post in the following thread;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/04/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-12-has-arctic-sea-ice-started-to-turn-the-corner/
A login po-up keeps appearing
“Enter user name and password for ftp://sidads.colorado.edu”
I know the site, so I went to retrieve NSIDC (NOAA) sea ice data from here;
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/
and got the same message.
I’ve frequently accessed these sites of late and never had issues. Is there a bug on this page or maybe my computer?
I posted in the sea ice thread, but don’t know if my posts made it owing to the pop-up login appearing there.
From a history/philosophy of science perspective, it probably doesn’t make sense to talk in terms of what “science” was going on 5000 years ago.
With respect to the perennial Leif contra al. spectacle, a recurring motif in the comment sections of any entry on the sun, I don’t want to enter the fray, but notice that Leif at least has a communication problem. I don’t mean that as an ad hominem–it frustrating even just to read the comments because there is no real dialogue and instead just talking across each other.
Reliable sources report that NASA GISS is working on a manned mission to the Sun to prove once and for all that the sun has no effect on climate. When questioned on the possible hazards of solar radiation, GISS scientist’s were quick to point out they had solved the problem. They were going to fly at night.
Leif, could you average three groups of numbers from slide 31 for me?
Group 1: 1700 – 1812
Group 2: 1812 – 1905
Group 3: 1905 – Present
It seems to me that Group 3’s average is higher than Groups 1 and 2.
Steven Mosher says: Sept. 6 at 11:08 pm
…3. If they used the BEST data I think they used, they probably forgot a critical step.
======
The adjustments
Leif Svalgaard says:
“Most commenters here [as usual] suffer from a severe case of confirmation bias.”
That’s what makes the study interesting. From the mouth of babes comes the truth. People who elevate themselves to be experts are usally the most closed minded in their thinking… or should I say suffer confirmation bias (which works both ways?)?
Being a simpleton, I muse over the battle of climate science, as generally speaking we see the notion of CAGW has fallen on its face, leaving the study of long forecasting of earth climate very arguable. A coin has three sides, how many people consider the coin’s edge as a possible outcome?
I suppose calculating any single element of influence earth / sun / climate relationship can predict some degrees of climate change, all others being consant; however, I believe there is too much chaos and science yet to be discovered. The battle is not the obvious (even though there are some folks living in denial).
Dr. S.
Did you get as far as the sunny island of Hvar ?
I’m not going to pretend to “get it” on all things discussed here, but this scenario seems reasonable to me:
Energy Source (Sun) “heats up” foreign body (Earth). The Earth also has its own ecosystem, independent of the sun, still totally dependent on the sun (duh), but only within certain ranges. IOW, the Sun *could* vary from X to Y in total energy output, and the Earth could “modulate” accordingly within those limits (I think Leif says 0.1C). Put another way, the variation of the sun may NOT cause much variation in the Earth, even though the Earth is dependent on it. If the sun falls below X or goes above Y, we might have something to talk about. Establishing X and Y should be our focus.
No its carbon dioxide that heats the earth by causing the sun to shine brighter.
My reading of the paper was they were using the same data as Muller. What solar insolation did Muller consider when he claimed the warming was due to CO2? I would suspect this article is using the same data to show a different conclusion based on the wording they used.
Does anyone know this level of detail or shall we all just keep speculating?
Leif Svalgaard (September 6, 2012 at 10:47 pm) wrote:
“If you plot the yearly average the, large, effect due to the elliptical orbit averages out. This variation is some 70 times larger than the solar cycle variation, but washes out when averaged over a year.”
Moderators / barry @ September 7, 2012 at 8:55 am – Re: Login request when viewing a thread…
I’ve seen that on other blogs – that password query is due to the inclusion of some graphics from a site that requires a log-in. The best approach is probably to get a copy of the graphic of interest and host it on the WP site, rather than referring to the original.
“All previous sun-climate studies have included the complicated nighttime temperature records while the sun is not shining.” Doesn’t the nighttime low have a higher rate of temperature increase than the daytime high? How do sunspots explain this since the “sun is not shining”? Then there’s the limited scope of just using the lower 48 states and as Leif points out repeatedly use invalid sunspot data. Yep, I agree with Leif – pseudo-science. How could anyone take this article seriously?
Antartic seasonal temperatures have ranged from no daytime low at Vostok of −89.2 °C (−128.6 °F) to most northern point summer day high of 15°C (59°F).(look it up) Additionally, Antartica has coal and oil (look that up too); I wonder what that says about climate and the sun relationship for Antartica and how did small percentages of solar radiance do that? Maybe the sun has more long term cummulative effect than some like to admit or have an understanding of.
Add the unknown object or event that alters the current earth sun variables… ouch.
Leif Svalgaard said:
September 6, 2012 at 9:55 pm
Mark and two Cats says:
September 6, 2012 at 9:42 pm
“Why is Leif quoting himself”
Because he likes redundant tautologisms.
Nonsense, because he corrected an earlier comment.
—————————-
Leif – I was just kidding because of your “solar insolation” comments in another post.
Don’t take it personal – just teasing 🙂
Reading the information presented by Soon and Briggs always causes a certain cartoon picture to be seen in my mind’s eye: A woman, representing CAGW, is standing on a chair exhibiting total fright caused by a mouse, representing CO2, in her kitchen.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 7, 2012 at 7:11 am
beng says:
September 7, 2012 at 6:59 am
Thanks. It must seem like an endless struggle….
Science always is. The struggle against pseudo-science and the post-normal science practiced by most people here pushing their politically motivated agenda is ever-lasting. In the end, science will prevail.
————–
Leif, I have followed this website for about 5 years now. I always take you at your word on the science along with everyone else. And I try to read between the tea leaves.
If what you say is true in the above statement, then why do you bother to post comments here?
Just being curious on my part. I do enjoy the back in forth as long as no one is insulting each other!
Rick Lynch says:
September 7, 2012 at 6:25 am
We are in a period of minimal sunspot activity, and yet the earth isn’t cooling. Temperatures have been pretty flat for the last 10 years. So something is keeping us warm despite the lower level of solar radiation. Greenhouse gasses?
While many argue not to rely on Wikipedia – because I remain confused when reading such statements as quoted, I looked there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#Sunspots
Sunspots are relatively dark areas on the radiating ‘surface’ (photosphere) of the Sun where intense magnetic activity inhibits convection and cools the photosphere. Faculae are slightly brighter areas that form around sunspot groups as the flow of energy to the photosphere is re-established and both the normal flow and the sunspot-blocked energy elevate the radiating ‘surface’ temperature. Scientists have speculated on possible relationships between sunspots and solar luminosity since the historical sunspot area record began in the 17th century.[21][22] Correlations are now known to exist with decreases in luminosity caused by sunspots (generally < – 0.3 %) and increases (generally < + 0.05 %) caused both by faculae that are associated with active regions as well as the magnetically active 'bright network'.[23]
So Rick Lynch (and many others) appear to equate “minimal sunspot activity” with a “lower level of solar radiation” and then I note the last three years of measured output from our Sun
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
and l look in vain for a downward slope. Not there! What’s going on?
Leif’s chart – with the red line – labeled LEIF2007 shows a downslope but seems not to have been updated to the current month and year.
———————-
An aside: pochas says @ 9:01 pm “When my doctor takes my temperature”
They used to do this at the clinic I go to but stopped about 3 or 4 years ago as it was found to be unreliable. We are back to the under-the-tongue routine. But take a dog or cat to the Vet and they stick the thermometer in the other end. This temperature business is hard whether it is of the Sun or where the sun don’t shine.
barry says: September 7, 2012 at 8:55 am
National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) – click to view at source[/caption]
excuse me, i’m getting an error whenever I load up or post in the following thread;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/04/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-12-has-arctic-sea-ice-started-to-turn-the-corner/
A login po-up keeps appearing
“Enter user name and password for ftp://sidads.colorado.edu”
I know the site, so I went to retrieve NSIDC (NOAA) sea ice data from here;
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/
and got the same message.
I’ve frequently accessed these sites of late and never had issues. Is there a bug on this page or maybe my computer?
I posted in the sea ice thread, but don’t know if my posts made it owing to the pop-up login appearing there.
My bad, I hotlinked, instead of saving, this image previously:
Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent Anomalies for March:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="640"]
Since corrected. Apologies.
And something nobody has mentioned here…
The TSI stays remarkably stable around the 1360 mark. Thus the temperature variability must be regulated by something other than TSI. I would suggest that magnetic variability has the greater effect, but you need to find the mechanism for this.
Big prises for anyone that does. I would suggest that Svenmark is closest to the prize.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 7, 2012 at 12:30 am
“It is also well documented that solar activity today is back to what it was in the early part of the 20th century, but apparently temperatures are not…”
As others have mentioned, there is a time lag in these things. Accumulation of heat depends on both magnitude of incoming energy as well as duration. And, it is all limited in bandwidth by the rate at which the body can gain or lose heat.
It drives me crazy seeing people think that responses should be instantaneous. They never are, often by a wide margin, when you are talking about systems as expansive as the Earth.
Credentials matter and I see no reason to begin to consider statistical arguments from someone who does not even have the basic qualifications to be making these arguments. Too many people are unaware of his completely worthless qualifications and it does matter with how much weight his opinion is incorrectly given. When a discussion involves English, Philosophy or bringing MP3 players to market I would give equal weight to his opinion otherwise I would not waste my time.
Silver Ralph says: September 7, 2012 at 12:15 pm
I would suggest that magnetic variability has the greater effect, but you need to find the mechanism for this.
Yes, you may have a point, but it is not the way you would expect it. If you look here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
you can see that that TSI (derived from sunspot magnetic activity) changed puny 0.1% since the Maunder minimum, while the Antarctic magnetic field percentage change was 40- 50 times greater (about 4-5%), and it closely follows the TSI.
Q: why is this not mentioned anywhere?
A: Simple, I discovered it some 6 months ago. Response from science: this can’t happen, so it must be a coincidence.
Q: What is mechanism?
A: Work in progress.
Global temperatures from hadcrut3 are matching up closely with the AMO. The up and down trend in global temperatures are also matching the sun cycle with PMOD TSI monthly data.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1978.83/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1978.83/trend/plot/pmod/normalise/offset:-0.4/plot/esrl-amo/from:1978.83/offset:0.2
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 6, 2012 at 9:55 pm
Mark and two Cats says:
September 6, 2012 at 9:42 pm
“Why is Leif quoting himself”
Because he likes redundant tautologisms.
Nonsense, because he corrected an earlier comment.
———————–
Leif adding two words like “ups, corrected link” (well three) helps a lot the communication.
Thanks Mark for the good laugh!
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 6, 2012 at 8:51 pm
As usual, the curve showing ‘solar radiation’ is wrong.
______________________________________________
Okay.
I actually went ahead, digitized the graph, and fixed it to “Leif 2007” assuming that they used “Lean 2000” (worst case scenario) as basis.
Thick black line – original TSI assumed to use “Lean 2000”
Thin orange line – recalculated TSI using “Leif 2007” (original values from the graph divided by appropriate “Lean 2000” values and multiplied by appropriate “Leif 2007” values)
http://i45.tinypic.com/8wxt1e.png
You may disagree but it doesn’t look all that different to me.
Nobody has commented on the post by William McClenney [September 6, 2012 at 10:40 pm].
Quote: Putting it all together, we are eerily close to a half-precessional cycle old interglacial. Pegging the Holocene start at the end of the Younger Dryas cold interval, the Holocene is 11,715 years old this year. We are also at the long end of the precession cycle (19-23kyrs) making 11,500 half. Five of the last six interglacials have each lasted about half a precession cycle.
My comment: Possibly this is why so many geologists are either skeptics or lukewarmists. The Quaternary and Holocene specialists will know about the work of A. Berger who calculated from celestial mechanics that the Holocene is analogous to MIS-11, the interglacial that lasted about 50,000 years with sea-level about 20 meters high than the present. It seems that it takes time for ice to melt and 11,700 years was not long enough to do the trick. Nor does 20,000 years seem long enough.
You would never guess from the biography in Wikipedia that H.H. Lamb, founder of the UEA Climate Research Centre concluded in the second edition of his Climate, History, and the Modern World, concluded with the view that too little was known to predict changes in climate regimes. He did say that he expected the present interglacial has only 2000 years left. So William and Hubert Lamb may both have been too conservative because the low stand (-120 m) was probably 22,000 years ago. [Google: Hanebuth Curve] The party may be nearly over.
Unless A. Berger was correct. If so, even without greenhouse gases and whatever else humans
do, the ice will melt if low eccentricity extends this interglacial.
Or unless, humans can keep the party going like horticulturalists do in the Autumn by keeping the greenhouse warm and feeding the plants elevate CO2. We may even be able to feed the world’s growing population by keeping the CO2 level high and avoiding the next downturn in global temperature.
Will Nitzschke says
Interesting observations in these comments. There was the warming period from 1900-1940 that requires explanation. Leif Svalgaard insists this warming period cannot be explained by increased solar activity. The IPCC rules out CO2. So what caused it?
We seem to understand depressingly little about the drivers of the climate system.
Henry says
it is relatively simple to understand
study the max. temps. as the authors here (correctly) suggest
and you get the whole story.
from my sample of 47 weather stations I was able to figure out that global warming stopped in 1995 and has turned to cooling since then. It further looks like that it follows on a sine wave with wavelength of 88 years, meaning 44 years warming followed by 44 years of cooling.
The correlation with ozone going up in 1996 and down in 1950 is stunning. Clearly, the sun’s change in the distribution of energy changes ozone production and this allows (some) more energy in when ozone is less and (some) less when ozone is high. I am saying that that is one of the major drivers that actually causes what has been termed “global warming” (from 1950-2000) that few people have even recognised.
Matt G says: September 7, 2012 at 12:55 pm
…………….
Only sometime
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-SSN.htm
and that isn’t good enough.
Poptech says:
Credentials matter …
No, they don’t. Not to science. Or other rational thought.
Credentials are the stuff from which ad hominem and ad verecundium fallacies are constructed. Those are called fallacies for a reason.
… and I see no reason to begin to consider statistical arguments from someone who does not even have the basic qualifications to be making these arguments.
Compare to “You’re not a climate scientist !!!”, and consider where it is you are posting that nonsense.
Too many people are unaware of his completely worthless qualifications and it does matter with how much weight his opinion is incorrectly given.
Statistics are not opinions. They are calculations. They are either correct, or they are not. Science does not weight opinions based on the mouth from which they are spoken, it verifies facts and reasoning and tests hypotheses. If you are not capable of verifying or impeaching the facts and reasoning presented by someone else, then you are not capbable of forming an informed assessment, and frankly you should stfu. Scientifically speaking, of course.
If you truly are interested in impugning someone’s scientific assertions by making personal attacks against what you define as their “qualifications”, then science is not for you. Perhaps what you are looking for is “Post-normal Science”. PNS is a POS faux-science that does provide explicit cover to people who like to puff their chests and argue “expertise”. There are plenty of venues that offer up that crap, and they tend to be chock full of people who are Verified (TM) REAL (TM) Climate Scientists (TM).
When a discussion involves English, Philosophy or bringing MP3 players to market I would give equal weight to his opinion otherwise I would not waste my time.
Who? Einstein? On theoretical physics? Please! Call me when you need a patent application processed for an electric razor, otherwise I wouldn’t waste my time.
Uh-huh.
vukcevic says:
September 7, 2012 at 1:10 pm
Matt G says: September 7, 2012 at 12:55 pm
…………….
Only sometime
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-SSN.htm
and that isn’t good enough.
______________________
Only proxy data though, not instrumental as in the above.
Matt G
Only proxy data though, not instrumental as in the above.
Instrumental TSI (a hoch poch filled sausage)
ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/data/irradiance/composite/DataPlots/org_comp2_d41_62_1206_vg.pdf
is no more reliable than sunspot count.
Jason Miller says:
September 7, 2012 at 10:38 am
“All previous sun-climate studies have included the complicated nighttime temperature records while the sun is not shining.” Doesn’t the nighttime low have a higher rate of temperature increase than the daytime high? How do sunspots explain this since the “sun is not shining”?
The assumption is that different factors affect nighttime temperatures. AGWists would argue GHGs. Many sceptics would argue UHI, I’d argue decreased aerosols and aerosol seeded clouds causing increased early morning solar insolation, increasing the minimum temperature.
Take your pick.
Just The Facts says: September 7, 2012 at 12:00 pm
Odd thing was I couildn’t access a bunch of pages beyond that WUWT page. Thanks for fixing that. All clear now. Have a fine day.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 7, 2012 at 6:36 am
“Here is what Schrijver et al. suggest the solar magnetic flux [which generally is accepted as the cause of the variation of TSI] looks like: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Magn-Flux-Schrijver.png [red dots]”
Nice graph. Looks like we just dropped down to levels not seen since the last Dalton, though that was preceded by two high peaks, but this one is preceded by a lower peak. We wait.
vukcevic says:
September 7, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Sunspot Numbers didn’t detect the bigger drop more recently in solar activity around the last minimum.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/normalise/offset:-0.4/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1978.83/normalise/offset:-0.2
I find it obvious that changes in the energy supply should be changing temperatures.
Delays and temporary climate changes should be the role of the oceans (ENSO et al).
Kasuha says:
September 7, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Okay.
I actually went ahead, digitized the graph, and fixed it to “Leif 2007″ assuming that they used “Lean 2000″ (worst case scenario) as basis.
Thick black line – original TSI assumed to use “Lean 2000″
Thin orange line – recalculated TSI using “Leif 2007″ (original values from the graph divided by appropriate “Lean 2000″ values and multiplied by appropriate “Leif 2007″ values)
http://i45.tinypic.com/8wxt1e.png
You may disagree but it doesn’t look all that different to me.
=========================
Leif would you please respond to this post.
tallbloke says:
September 7, 2012 at 7:35 am
Easy Leif, you were up too early this morning. Get some bread and milk.
If you would stick to science and not hide behind meaningless chat, it would be refreshing
“The solar curve looks much like the old Hoyt & Schatten curve.”
Did they use ACRIM data for that?
For a self-proclaimed ‘historian’ of science your ignorance of the basics should be an embarrassment to you. H&S did this: http://www.leif.org/EOS/93JA01844.pdf
‘We used (1) the equatorial rotation rate, (2) the sunspot structure and decay rate, and (3) the length and decay rate of the sunspot cycle as proxies’
Kasuha says:
September 7, 2012 at 7:42 am
So if you are so perfectly sure how they created the curve, maybe you could share a more detailed explanation? Or maybe a reconstruction?
Some time ago it was discovered that earlier measurements of TSI had a systematic error [a bit of extra light was leaking into the instrument] of about 4 to 5 W/m2. Newer instruments do not have that error. For convenience in comparison the newer values were often [and in my case for TSI-LEIF] increased by 4.5 W/m2. Lately, it has been more convenient to lower the old values [S&B did that], so my comparison plot http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-Not.png have used the newer convention. As you can see S&B matches my curves for the last few cycles.
aaron says:
September 7, 2012 at 7:48 am
Leif, what is the history; why are the low, early 20th century curves wrong? How were they created?
Several dubious methods [see the H&S referred to above], typically by using the now discredited Group Sunspot Number.
Kev-in-Uk says:
September 7, 2012 at 7:52 am
we can probably expect such time lags to be quite large (decades?)
The S&B plot does not show any lags
Robuk says:
September 7, 2012 at 8:10 am
I like Leif`s graph, Sunspot number (traditional view) and Sunspot number (corrected for weighting), everything’s corrected in one direction. Its not the sun stupid.
Only ONE correction is needed, around 1945.
Fernando(in Brazil) says:
September 7, 2012 at 8:11 am
This reconstruction can be considered correct? Observed solar constant reconstructed from satellite observations., Please cite C.Fr\”ohlich, 2000, “Observations of Irradiance Variations, Space Science Rev., 94, pp. 15-24., source,
Unfortunately not, as Froehlich mesaurements suffer from uncorrected degradation.
wobble says:
September 7, 2012 at 9:06 am
It seems to me that Group 3′s average is higher than Groups 1 and 2.
Yes it is about 12% higher, which is insignificant compared to the very large change in solar radiation postulated by S&B’s Figure.
highflight56433 says:
September 7, 2012 at 9:18 am
From the mouth of babes comes the truth.
Having brought up four of themn, I can tell you what that truth sounds like: “ga-ga-blu-blu-gg-gg”
vukcevic says:
September 7, 2012 at 9:47 am
Did you get as far as the sunny island of Hvar ?
I’m too busy right now, so Ed Cliver is giving the talk.
Mark and two Cats says:
September 7, 2012 at 10:52 am
Don’t take it personal – just teasing 🙂
In such cases, you append a smiley.
John W says:
September 7, 2012 at 11:50 am
If what you say is true in the above statement, then why do you bother to post comments here?
Because as a tax-payer funded scientist I feel I have an obligation to give back something, and what better than correct science and patient education of the sheep that have lost their way.
John F. Hultquist says:
September 7, 2012 at 11:51 am
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
and l look in vain for a downward slope. Not there! What’s going on?
We are stedily climbing into the maximum of solar cycle 24.
Silver Ralph says:
September 7, 2012 at 12:15 pm
Thus the temperature variability must be regulated by something other than TSI. I would suggest that magnetic variability has the greater effect, but you need to find the mechanism for this.
The variation in TSI is caused by variations in magnetic activity, so no change in TSI means no change in magnetic activity.
I would suggest that Svenmark is closest to the prize.
His theory is already falsified.
Bart says:
September 7, 2012 at 12:24 pm
It drives me crazy seeing people think that responses should be instantaneous. They never are, often by a wide margin, when you are talking about systems as expansive as the Earth.
The S&B graph does not show any lags, so if there must be a lag, the absence of one falsifies the premise that the sun did it.
vukcevic says:
September 7, 2012 at 12:51 pm
you can see that that TSI (derived from sunspot magnetic activity) changed puny 0.1% since the Maunder minimum, while the Antarctic magnetic field percentage change was 40-50 times greater (about 4-5%), and it closely follows the TSI.
It seems to follow the TSI derived from the idscredited Group Sunspot Number, so just a coincidence.
Kasuha says:
September 7, 2012 at 1:01 pm
You may disagree but it doesn’t look all that different to me.
What you have just shown is that S&B probably used Lean 2000 [and not Hoyt & Schatten]. But Lean 2000 is still wrong, even Lean acknowledges that. She is a co-author of the other curve marked ‘Wang 2005’.
HenryP says:
September 7, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Will Nitzschke says
Leif Svalgaard insists this warming period cannot be explained by increased solar activity.
Regardless of the temperature curve, what I’m saying is that the ‘solar radiation’ curve is wrong.
J Martin says:
September 7, 2012 at 2:42 pm
Nice graph. Looks like we just dropped down to levels not seen since the last Dalton
The point is that at every solar minimum we drop to level close to Dalton or even Maunder. The variation at the bottom is much smaller than at the top of the curve. That is the important insight.
James Allison says:
September 7, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Leif would you please respond to this post.
I just did.
Bart says:
September 7, 2012 at 12:24 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 7, 2012 at 12:30 am
“It is also well documented that solar activity today is back to what it was in the early part of the 20th century, but apparently temperatures are not…”
As others have mentioned, there is a time lag in these things.
Not according to Soon & Briggs there isn’t. Actually that’s also true of most of the “solar-climate correlations”.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 7, 2012 at 7:07 am
solid data that refutes any L&P type effect that so many of the skeptics tend to believe in blindly. http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/darkness1.png
Matches quite nicely the L&P solid data over the same period: http://www.leif.org/research/Liv-Penn-Latest.png
Thanks for the confirmation.
The level of scientific hubris on this subject is amazing. One hundred years ago X-rays were unknown as were Gravity waves; both sources of energy transfer between the Sun and the Earth. One hundred years from now new sources of energy transfer will have been discovered; perhaps explaining the curious correlation between Solar output and earthly temperature fluctuations.
Katana says:
September 7, 2012 at 8:52 pm
explaining the curious correlation between Solar output and earthly temperature fluctuations.
No explanation is needed because there is no correlation: http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-Not.png
Why the focus on the contiguous US?
Last I checked scientific positions had educational and experience requirements. You of course can argue with them that credentials don’t matter and try to get hired. I don’t consider statistical arguments from people who lack the very basic credentials to make these arguments, least of all over someone who is actually qualified to make these arguments (Briggs).
The “You’re not a climate scientist” argument is completely different because those in the field have such varied educational (all scientific however) and experience backgrounds. They do not all have degrees in climatology or atmospheric science. I do not believe there is an objective criteria to determine who is a “climate scientist” by credentials. Though you would find general agreement that they need to have to have a scientific education and have published in the peer-reviewed literature. Briggs and Soon both have extensive scientific credentials.
FYI, Einstein had a BS in Mathematics & Physics and a PhD in Physics.
Oh and you are talking to the wrong person if you think I am ever going to STFU.
Poptech says:
“…you are talking to the wrong person if you think I am ever going to STFU.”
Good for you Poptech! [Not that I disagree with JJ. I don’t.]
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 7, 2012 at 7:06 pm
Matches quite nicely the L&P solid data over the same period: http://www.leif.org/research/Liv-Penn-Latest.png
Thanks for the confirmation.
Nice try, but way off base. My data shows the darkness or magnetic strength fluctuates with sunspot activity. The L&P data does not show this during Nov 2011. I also measure the entire solar disk every day which shows a similar trend.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/darkness2.png
If we take the same data back further we see a rise in magnetic strength from 2008.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/sunspot_darkness.png
The L&P data does not show this trend but instead a steady decline since 2003. This is because they are measuring more smaller spots as the speck ratio increases during this period. Smaller spots by nature measure a lower magnetic strength. I measure the speck ratio every day which is clearly increasing.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/lsc_sidc.png
With some added notes:
A quick but striking illustration of adding to this article’s plot also the temperature history for the Arctic and for the entire Northern Hemisphere average (very importantly not using the versions of such flattened in the pre-1980s by dishonest CAGW-movement revisionism):
Preferred link:
http://s18.postimage.org/3z3ytbrav/gw_illustration_1.jpg
Backup version of the same:
http://postimage.org/image/5e5ji1sdx/full/
The following are text versions of the source links in the image, placing them here as well so they are easier to copy and paste:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif
http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2012/09/06/radiation_s640x466.jpg?4180073ee5adc95ed997f421cfad488a40196023
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/part4-the-perplexing-temperature-data-published-1974-84-and-recent-temperature-data-185.php
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/PERPLEX/fig71.jpg
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/albedo.png
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/further-attempt-to-falsify-the-svensmark-hypothesis/
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/2005A%26G….46d..31H/D000031.000.html
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/20689/1/98-1743.pdf
Leif said:
Because as a tax-payer funded scientist I feel I have an obligation to give back something, and what better than correct science and patient education of the sheep that have lost their way.
A very laudable motivation. And I am sure you aware the people who read your comments with interest and accept what you say, far out number those who dispute them.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 7, 2012 at 4:34 pm
“The S&B graph does not show any lags, so if there must be a lag, the absence of one falsifies the premise that the sun did it.”
Does it not? Looks to me that there’s a good decade or so, especially the later you go in the series, as the quality of the data improves.
John Finn says:
September 7, 2012 at 4:52 pm
Ditto the above.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 6, 2012 at 10:47 pm
Darren Potter says:
September 6, 2012 at 10:12 pm
“If you plot the yearly average the, large, effect due to the elliptical orbit averages out.”
I don’t see that you’ve really resolved Darren’s query. The variation in insolation may average out over a year, but within that year, it can have dramatically different climatic effects, depending on where the Earth’s axis is pointing over the year.
Starting in about 1900, the North Pole has been tilted almost directly toward the Sun during aphelion, and conversely the South Pole has been tilted toward the Sun at perihelion, and we are only slowly moving away from that configuration in the present day.
JJ, Poptech,
In Mosh’s case these do matter as he goes around describing himself as ” As an engineer “. He did so last month at JC’s blog. He’s not an engineer. He’ an english major. He misrepresented as if he was an engineer. And this was when no one even asked him what his qualifications were. He also ridicules other people about their qualifications, like he did it here about Stephen Wilde just a few days ago, implying that a lawyer running a blog should not talk about climate.
His stats for the BEST paper were torn apart by Ross Mc.Kitrick and the crap BEST paper got rejected. Yet he goes around literally proclaiming that paper as infallible.People like Mc.Kitrick, Briggs, etc., are well qualified, known, respected and published statisticians. They have also exhibited integrity. Mosher has neither exhibited such qualifications, has no publication record in statistics and has not exhibited the kind of attitude which experts in statistics like McKitrick, Briggs and Steve McIntyre have displayed.
I do agree with the fundamental statement that it does not matter who you are, it’s your work that matters and should stand up to scrutiny. Willis Eschenbach is one who always states that he pounds nails for a living and also has interest in climate and does work on climate issues on the side. He does not come out with holier than thou attitude like Mosher as if he’s the smartest and the rest are idiots. And Willis doesn’t misrepresent who he is and what he does. And he has also had peer reviewed published stuff about climate.
Mosher as none of those and yet the way he goes around nowadays with his BS one would think that he was some all round expert in every area imaginable. And he has been going around at JC’s blog, discussing with pathetic trolls like Robert, Lolwot and others of that ilk, moaning about WUWT and stating that one can’t hold a discussion a WUWT. Yet, in the literal sense, have you seen him even attempting to hold any discussions here? People like Dr.Robert Brown, Dr.Leif Svaalgaard, Walt Meier, Bob Tisdale and a host of others come here, post articles, discuss, argue knowledgeably, elucidate their points and there is a robust debate. Does Mosher do any of that? No, he does only high handed cryptic ” know better than you, I’m smarter than you, go figure ” kind of drive by drivel. So personally and professionally I have not seen any integrity or straightforwardness in such behaviour.
So in his case, I believe that Poptech’s comments are well justified.
Bart says:
September 7, 2012 at 11:43 pm
“Starting in about 1900, the North Pole has been tilted almost directly toward the Sun during aphelion, and conversely the South Pole has been tilted toward the Sun at perihelion, and we are only slowly moving away from that configuration in the present day.”
When I wrote this, I was thinking in terms of the fact that, though the illumination is weaker at aphelion, the planet hangs around there longer, and so the NH might absorb more energy overall. However, it turns out that, with irradiance falling off as the square of distance, coupled with the tilt and the rate of revolution, the total insolation of the North Pole, neglecting any shading from the horizon or clouds at least, is zero mean annually. I have a funny sense of deja vu that we may have argued these points and come to the same conclusion at some time in the past on these boards.
Now, the fact that there is shadowing may still offset things a bit – quite a bit, I think, in some regions. And, differing cloud cover in the winter versus summer might have an effect as well. I do not know how large these effects might be, and working it out for myself takes time and collection of data I currently lack, so I’ll just throw it out as a question for all to ponder and comment upon: can these asymmetries, or any others anyone can think of, appreciably affect the climate of the Northern Hemisphere, where most of the warming has been observed?
There could also be some effects of orbital perturbations, but I suspect these are small, or at least, pace Nicola Scafetta, I am not convinced they are large.
Matt G
Sunspot number calculation provides daily number with long term continuity across centuries. But none of that is crucial to the point you are making. Global temperatures and the AMO oscillate with period of about 9 years, while the solar cycle (sunspot or TSI) is near 11 years, the oscillations drift in and out of phase and are not directly comparable, or correlated.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-SSN.htm
Minor differences between the instrumental TSI and SSN cann’t account for that.
Sorry if above wasn’t of any help, but of course, you are entitled to your opinion,
Leif Svalgaard says: September 7, 2012 at 4:34 pm
….
Appreciate your effort and task to explain and educate. I, of having no desire to drive the highway of science, but wander trough a rocky wilderness of coincidences (btw, the area I spent my formative years), still find it curious that if the Antarctica field change is de-trended it gives a reasonably good match to the Svalgaard’s TSI
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LS-TSI.htm
which ‘resonates’ with the statement by Jean Dickey from NASA/JPL in
‘NASA Study Goes to Earth’s Core for Climate Insights’
I still have to do some work on this one. I looked at residuals between geo-solar and temp oscillations (iterations driven by excel) and frequencies come within fraction of what was initially found. Coincidences may be, but it is what I waste my time on.
Do suggest to Dr. Cliver to sail down along to cast into bay of Kotor
http://www.flickriver.com/places/Montenegro/Kotor/Perast/
That should be :Do suggest to Dr. Cliver to sail down along to coast into bay of Kotor
http://www.flickriver.com/places/Montenegro/Kotor/Perast/
for which poet Lord Byron said: “When Pearls of Nature were sown, it was with a full hand that they were cast on this soil”
Geoff Sharp says:
September 7, 2012 at 9:26 pm
This is because they are measuring more smaller spots
As you throw away small spots, you introduce a selection effect which invalidates your data, as simple as that. As Richard Feynman used to say: ‘the easiest one to fool is yourself’.
Bart says:
September 7, 2012 at 10:51 pm
Does it not? Looks to me that there’s a good decade or so, especially the later you go in the series, as the quality of the data improves.
Very shaky. If any lag overall, it is negative. But I have forgotten what the original point was about the lag, so perhaps help me out on that.
but within that year, it can have dramatically different climatic effects, depending on where the Earth’s axis is pointing over the year.
Sure, as everybody knows that is the cause of glaciations. But changes too slowly to have any effect on the time scale of the graph.
Venter says:
September 7, 2012 at 11:44 pm
Briggs, etc., are well qualified, known, respected and published statisticians. They have also exhibited integrity.
Their integrity has taken a nose dive with using an obsolete solar radiation curve. Briggs might be excused as not knowing anything about the sun, but Soon should know that the solar curve is not valid, so where does that leave him on the competence scale or integrity scale?
Bart says:
September 8, 2012 at 12:56 am
anyone can think of, appreciably affect the climate of the Northern Hemisphere, where most of the warming has been observed?
Over the time scale of a few centuries there is no observable changes to due to changes in tilt or orbit.
vukcevic says:
September 8, 2012 at 2:15 am
Coincidences may be, but it is what I waste my time on.
No need to waste ours as well.
Bart says:
September 7, 2012 at 11:43 pm
“Starting in about 1900, the North Pole has been tilted almost directly toward the Sun during aphelion, and conversely the South Pole has been tilted toward the Sun at perihelion, and we are only slowly moving away from that configuration in the present day.”
Could you elaborate on that. It is my understanding that present tilt is 23.5 degrees which is hardly “tilted almost directly” toward the Sun. Also, the current tilt is moving to 22.5 degrees as it has been since maximum obliquity of 24.5 degrees about 10,000 years ago.
The way the lags look, it is a tougher sell for solar radiation case in early 1900s, but easier in late 1900s. Which of course seem to me to be heretical for the AGWers. Also goes to show that any one factor only goes so far to ‘splain things
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 8, 2012 at 4:12 am
Very shaky. If any lag overall, it is negative. But I have forgotten what the original point was about the lag, so perhaps help me out on that.
Leif
The point is, as always, an attempt to explain the lack of cooling in response to the recent weaker activity. The fact that some of the mean high temperature peaks and troughs appear to precede the changes in TSI (e.g. the small uptick in ~2010) is not considered a problem. Actually it probably isn’t – not compared to some of the issues with the TSI reconstruction itself. For example, how come the mid-20th century TSI peak appears to occur before 1950 when the highest activity was recorded in ~1958. Admittedly, that would show it to have occurred around 2 decades after the peak in temperatures. Also there is an apparent trend in activity from about 1960 onwards- how come??
Dr. S. : No need to waste ours (time) as well.
Many people come here not just for the dry science, to be educated or to meet old acquaintances, but for occasional odd and unusual coincidence, otherwise why they should look at my graphs over and over again, as the stat-counter I put 2 ½ years ago shows (147,615 hits).
P.S. It looks as I am forgiven for my past indiscretions by Dr.Gavin Schmidt my erstwhile old university alumni (different generation, different degree) . My RC posts are not currently automatically demoted to the ‘Bore Hole’; perhaps Anthony should introduce one too, some of endless ‘sunspot count encounters’ would be, along my graphs of course, good candidates.
See you.
Leif “Having brought up four of them, I can tell you what that truth sounds like: “ga-ga-blu-blu-gg-gg””
Funny… at the other end are the delightful intellectual elitists and their hockey stick collective…Which sounds about the same.
Having brought up four of them, I can tell you what that truth sounds like: “ga-ga-blu-blu-gg-gg”
AGW –Skeptic “ga-ga-blu-blu-gg-gg” dialogue mums adore and some dads go nuts.
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQbYc7qLgBc& ]
vukcevic says:
September 8, 2012 at 1:17 am
Only the peak and troughs were matching between solar and global temperature/AMO since 1978. Only meant to show that when solar peak occurs temperature/AMO peak around this and when solar troughs, global temperature/AMO also trough around this. For these details covering each cycle proxy data is no good, not accurate enough. For this reason I would believe it was the solar cycle that caused these temperature and AMO peaks and troughs, but because the overall trend shown below is in opposite directions this is only the foundation in temperature/AMO larger trends. The main difference between the solar ranges and the global temperature and AMO are feedbacks particularly with ENSO/cloud albedo. Take these into account and the short-term solar trends would match much more closer. A 0.5-1.0 percent decline per decade in global albedo during the last 3 cycles can easily support the difference.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1978.83/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1978.83/trend/plot/pmod/normalise/offset:-0.4/plot/esrl-amo/from:1978.83/offset:0.2/plot/pmod/normalise/trend/offset:-0.3
I did some testing awhile back on low solar activity and the minimum temperatures recorded at individual weather stations, the idea I had was to test for spikes in minimum temperature due to site relocation or upgrades, using sunspot number as an indicator of solar activity (less sun spots equate to lower activity) I used two winter months back to back January and February of Greenwich sunspot data and Armagh minimum temperature for march.
In the example chart, winter months of low solar activity are clearly represented in the Armagh minimum temperature record as lower temperatures, when there is higher solar activity over the winter months it is also reflected in the temperature data. I believe It is reasonable to assume that all nearby weather stations would exhibit the same over all trend linked to solar activity, I know of some issues, but for the moment it is just an idea.
The interesting thing is, If this trend is found in all land surface weather station data on the planet, then it is inherent of the global temperature anomaly including the BEST. And as Solar activity precedes temperature there is no doubt about this, therefor it is the driver of the trend plus UHI.
The example chart.
The Greenwich Monthly SSN for January and February with Armagh minimum temperature for march.
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ssn-vs-min-tmp.gif
“pochas says:
When my doctor takes my temperature he looks in my ear with a heat sensing device and ignores the rest of me. According to you, he hasn’t learned anything about my temperature.”
The earth is not a human body.
The human body is heated internally, and has a thermostat.
If the human body were like the earth, the head and feet would be like ice, lterally, and the temperature over that body would be constantly varying, making the doctors job of measuring that temperature vastly harder.
Yes, your doctor HAS not learned anything about measuring temperature…of the earth.
My critisism here was that I was able to spot two glaring errors on the graph that “prooved” the point with one single glance, which shows that this article is suspect if an error can be spotted so very quickly. The graph appears to be simply cherry picking, showing whatever graphs the author happened to find that matched each other as closly as possible. If you have enough graphs by different, disagreeing people, and enough graphs of also disagreeing temperature,of enough different areas where temeprature varies compared to other areas, making a chart showing correlation is easy, just find two that look sorta alike and say “see!”, ignore the others.
Even if the premise is true, that land temperature is following solar isolation, it has little to do with global temperature. Since the oceans are where most of the solar energy falls, is absorbed, stored, and transported around the earth, ignoring it is essentially ignoring global temperature. It is as if that doctor measured your temperature at the tips of your hair. Thus even if true this idea will have little impact on global temperature. At best, this idea will only have a minor effect on your local temperature (on clear days, during daylight).
NOTE: The reason for choosing March minimum temperature is to view solar activity from the the two preceding winter months.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 8, 2012 at 4:12 am
Geoff Sharp says:
September 7, 2012 at 9:26 pm
This is because they are measuring more smaller spots
—————————————————
As you throw away small spots, you introduce a selection effect which invalidates your data, as simple as that. As Richard Feynman used to say: ‘the easiest one to fool is yourself’.
You are not concentrating, I also showed you a graph of the total solar disk darkness which has no thresholds applied.
My data stands in direct contradiction to the L&P data. I am surprised you attach yourself to this weak science, who could believe the solar magnetic strength does not follow the cycle?
Dar Dr.Svalgaard,
I respect your knowledge and capability as a solar physicist and will not argue the science with you as I lack the qualifications and knowledge to so. But I can’t accept you selectively quoting and effectively misrepresenting what I wrote. I specifically made reference to Mc.Kitrick, McIntyre and Briggs, as statisticians with qualification, experience and publication record. I made that comment with reference to discussion about Steven Mosher, in response to Poptech’s and JJ’s coments.
I did not talk about Soon or this article on solar curve.
So would you kindly acknowledge that you have made an error here in selectively quoting me out of context?
Henry@Bart & others
I think you guys are looking in the wrong corners and tilts, etc
I quote from something I picked up now:
“Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ∼12,000years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes
Alexei N. Peristykh
Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
Paul E. Damon
Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
Among other longer-than-22-year periods in Fourierspectra of various solar–terrestrial records, the 88-year cycle is unique,because it can be directly linked to the cyclic activity of sunspot formation.Variations of amplitude as well as of period of the Schwabe 11-year cycleof sunspot activity have actually been known for a long time and a ca. 80-yearcycle was detected in those variations. Manifestations of such secular periodic processes were reported in a broad variety of solar, solar–terrestrial,and terrestrial climatic phenomena. Confirmation of the existence of the Gleissbergcycle in long solar–terrestrial records as well as the question of itsstability is of great significance for solar dynamo theories. For that perspective,we examined the longest detailed cosmogenic isotope record—INTCAL98calibration record of atmospheric 14C abundance. The mostdetailed precisely dated part of the record extends back to ∼11,854 yearsB.P. During this whole period, the Gleissberg cycle in 14Cconcentration has a period of 87.8 years and an average amplitude of ∼1‰(in Δ14C units). Spectral analysis indicates in frequencydomain by sidebands of the combination tones at periods of ≈91.5 ±0.1 and ≈84.6 ± 0.1 years that the amplitude of the Gleissberg cycleappears to be modulated by other long-term quasiperiodic process of timescale∼2000 years. This is confirmed directly in time domain by bandpass filteringand time–frequency analysis of the record. Also, there is additionalevidence in the frequency domain for the modulation of the Gleissberg cycleby other millennial scale processes. Attempts have been made to explain 20thcentury global warming exclusively by the component of irradiance variationassociated with the Gleissberg cycle. These attempts fail, because they require unacceptably great solar forcing and are incompatible with the paleoclimaticrecords” end quote
It is of course in this last sentence here where the authors of that paper go off the rail because they do not understand what happens in the upper atmosphere where ozone is made with high energy coming from the sun: UV +O2 => O3. Ozone re-radiates in the 0-0.5 um range meaning more ozone means less energy coming through. So if more ozone is manufactured by some minute change in the dsitribution of the sun you get less energy and if less is made you get more energy coming through, mostly in the SH oceans (this is also where we have the ozone hole – it is then taken by currents and weather and weather systems, mostly to the NH)
This is what explains my results for maxima that I summarised from 47 weather stations all over the world. It shows that we just finished a warmer period in 1995. I can estimate this very accurately from a binominal plot, giving a correlation coefficient of 0.998. The binominal character of this plot for maxima suggests a natural warming and cooling cycle.
I have further been able to put this plot now in a sine wave and: you guessed it – the best fit is a 88 year wavelength. We are now cooling again, until about 2039, looking at energy-in cycles, not energy output, which may lag and differ a bit.
John Finn says:
September 8, 2012 at 5:36 am
Also there is an apparent trend in activity from about 1960 onwards- how come??
You should not look at the solar curve given by S&B, it is wrong. Look at the read curve I show.
vukcevic says:
September 8, 2012 at 5:41 am
but for occasional odd and unusual coincidence,
There is a certain entertainment value in your stuff [and there are also people who still go to psychic readers and soothsayers], and perhaps real science is at times too dry and prosaic.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 8, 2012 at 8:10 am
I also showed you a graph of the total solar disk darkness
It was not clear what ‘total solar disk darkness’ meant. I always thought the solar disk was rather bright, but looking at your graph, it seems clear that the sun is getting darker.
My data stands in direct contradiction to the L&P data.
Considering the fact that the L&P comes the most experienced solar observer alive [active since 1950s] with no preconceived unscientific notion to support, it should be clear which data to believe.
I am surprised you attach yourself to this weak science
I have evaluated their method, have participated in some of the measurements, know what they are doing and found other evidence [f10.7 and MPSI] that support their strong science [that you always have called it ‘weak science’ just shows your bias], so this is an easy one. There is general agreement in the SSN community that the L&P effect is real [with a healthy minority that are still holding out], see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Hudson.pdf
who could believe the solar magnetic strength does not follow the cycle?
What follows the solar cycle is the number of spots.
Venter says:
September 8, 2012 at 8:24 am
I did not talk about Soon or this article on solar curve.
So would you kindly acknowledge that you have made an error here in selectively quoting me out of context?
I thought you were on topic – the article – [but will acknowledge the possibility that perhaps you were not].
I take offense to ‘selectively’. The context was whether Briggs was competent and had integrity. As I said he can be excused because he does not know anything about the sun, but he should have done due diligence before putting his name to the use of faulty and obsolete data, and that was his sin. At least Mosher knew the solar data was no good.
HenryP says:
September 8, 2012 at 8:57 am
So if more ozone is manufactured by some minute change in the dsitribution of the sun you get less energy and if less is made you get more energy coming through
You didn’t learn anything from our discussions of this. As solar activity was high 1975 – 1995 it should produce more ozone, which according to you should prevent ‘energy coming through’, yet temperatures rose.
Dear Dr.Svalgaard,
One read through my post is enough to see that clearly it is not of this topic. It is pretty clear.
If you read my post you could clearly see that my comments about Mosher in response to JJ and Poptech were not about this article or solar data. So you did quote me selectively and that assertion of mine is correct. I beg of you to first read what I wrote and assimilate it if you want to comment on it. That’s the only way you can quote anything in full context.
Leif says
You didn’t learn anything from our discussions of this. As solar activity was high 1975 – 1995 it should produce more ozone, which according to you should prevent ‘energy coming through’, yet temperatures rose.
Henry says
It is not I that did not learn from those discussions. My results are what they are (and what they show me)
From around 1950 ozone started going down until 1995. Exactly 44 years. From 1996 ozone levels started increasing again. If more solar activity causes less ozone than so be it. That means lower solar activity causes better ozone manufacturing… Thanks for helping me out on that one, so I will remember the correct sequence solar activity /versus ozone.
I saw an interesting paper being debated at the resilient earth about sun’s influence even in the small 11 years cycle – result achieved through modelling:
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/atmospheric-solar-heat-amplifier-discovered
referring to the paper here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5944/1114.full
Amplifying the Pacific Climate System Response to a Small 11-Year Solar Cycle Forcing
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 8, 2012 at 4:12 am
“Very shaky. If any lag overall, it is negative. “
The light line of daytime highs generally lags the dark line of solar radiation, as e.g., when the downturn occurs in about 1950 in the latter, and follows in about 1960 in the former. Or, upturn occurs in the latter in about 1970 and follows in about 1980 in the former.
But, if the chart is of faulty data, the question is moot. That is your position, isn’t it? That this chart is of dubious validity in the first place? I hasten to say, I am not making a judgement myself, as I do not have any background info on the methodlogy or why it has been deemed invalid, just trying to clear the air a little. If you reject the graph in the first place, you should not be arguing over its details, as that suggests you might actually find it credible, and opens the floor for negotiations.
John Finn says:
September 8, 2012 at 5:36 am
“e.g. the small uptick in ~2010”
There is also a question as to how the data are smoothed. E.g., a running average is generally plotted in time against the midpoint, to take out phase lag and line things up in time, which is effectively a non-causal filtering operation, and spurious artifacts from the future can appear non-contemporaneously. Surely, these data must have been smoothed. Dealing with the end points, to fill out the data all the way to the present, is rather dicey.
In any case, the tiny blip near the end is an awfully slender reed upon which to hang one’s hat. And, of course, there are other processes affecting the outcome, and you can only make general conclusions about what appears to be the dominant input/output relationship. Focusing too tightly on individual blips and bobbles quickly leads you into the path of diminishing returns. IOW, the trees can vary, you have to step back and take a look at the forest.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 8, 2012 at 4:46 am
“Over the time scale of a few centuries there is no observable changes to due to changes in tilt or orbit.”
Given how widely temperatures can vary between Summer and Winter, I think such a statement requires analytical evidence. Twentieth century Global Warming, after all, is just a few tenths of a degree.
Tom in Florida says:
September 8, 2012 at 4:49 am
” It is my understanding that present tilt is 23.5 degrees which is hardly “tilted almost directly” toward the Sun.”
Sorry that my language was imprecise. What I meant was that the axis has the maximum projection along the Sun line of sight at aphelion, i.e., Summer in the NH is at aphelion.
Legatus says:
September 8, 2012 at 7:35 am
“The earth is not a human body. The human body is heated internally, and has a thermostat.”
Does not the Earth have an internal heat source? And, are temperatures not regulated by various means, including radiation to space, greenhouse gases, and cloud cover?
HenryP says:
September 8, 2012 at 8:57 am
Interesting. I am uncertain as to the provenance of the Loehle data – Leif put me onto it a while back.
Venter says:
September 8, 2012 at 9:46 am
One read through my post is enough to see that clearly it is not of this topic. It is pretty clear.
What may be clear to the author may not be clear to the reader.
So you did quote me selectively and that assertion of mine is correct.
‘Selectively’ is a negative word, I would rather say that my comment was ‘focused on the esssential point as I read it’
Let me say it again, regardless of past expertise, Briggs suffered a severe lapse of integrity by lending his name to an analysis of faulty or out-of-date solar data. At least Mosher got that right.
HenryP says:
September 8, 2012 at 10:00 am
My results are what they are (and what they show me)
“The easiest one to fool is oneself”
I suggest you do an excellent job at that.
Bart says:
September 8, 2012 at 10:54 am
But, if the chart is of faulty data, the question is moot.
Yes, it is moot of course
you should not be arguing over its details, as that suggests you might actually find it credible, and opens the floor for negotiations.
Even if faulty, correcting false impressions may help in the future for people just eyeballing curves.
John Finn says:
September 8, 2012 at 5:36 am
Given how widely temperatures can vary between Summer and Winter, I think such a statement requires analytical evidence. Twentieth century Global Warming, after all, is just a few tenths of a degree.
The effect of orbital changes has been analyzed in many places. Google will help you find some. They are very small on a century basis. It takes ~10,000 years to get into a glaciation with, say, a 5 degree drop in temperature, yielding an order of magnitude of the gradient of 5/10,000*100 = 0.05 degree per century [and we are actually now dropping]
Leif says
“The easiest one to fool is oneself”
Henry says
The easiest one (you) is to fool oneself (yourself)
You continue to deny/ignore my results. 47 weatherstations’ daily data analysed, balanced by 70/30 sea-inland and by latitude +/-
My results for the maxima for the speed of warming/cooling in degrees K per annum versus time now is 0.036 from 1974 (38 yrs), 0.029 from 1980 (32 yrs), 0.014 from 1990 (22 years) and -0.016 from 2000 (12 years)
You should be able to figure it out what they mean. I think you do know what they mean because the last time we quibled, I asked you why the learned gentlemen studying climate science never even looked at maxima? If you want to know what energy is coming in you must study maxima, not means or minima.
At least in this post the guys knew where to look to find the answers. You still have not figured that one out. Or you don’t want it figured out. I fear it could be the latter.
HenryP says:
September 8, 2012 at 1:23 pm
You continue to deny/ignore my results.
Let us say your ‘results’ are not convincing [to be kind].
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 8, 2012 at 12:20 pm
“It takes ~10,000 years to get into a glaciation with, say, a 5 degree drop in temperature, yielding an order of magnitude of the gradient of 5/10,000*100 = 0.05 degree per century [and we are actually now dropping]”
My impression is that the function is not at all linear, so could not the instantaneous slope at a particular point be significantly higher than the average? And, again, if the incident irradiance is now decreasing, there is a lag time associated with the Earth’s response.
Bart says:
September 8, 2012 at 2:30 pm
My impression is that the function is not at all linear, so could not the instantaneous slope at a particular point be significantly higher than the average?
It could be, but actually isn’t as the decent into a glaciation is slow and gradual.
And, again, if the incident irradiance is now decreasing, there is a lag time associated with the Earth’s response.
Sure, but the forcing is tiny and in the opposite direction of the increase since the LIA.
“””””…..This new sun-climate relationship picture may be telling us that the way our sun cools and warms the Earth is largely through the penetration of incoming solar radiation in regions with cloudless skies. …..”””””
I believe I have lost count of how many times I have posted here at WUWT that radiatively active atmospheric gases (GHGs) that can absorb incoming solar spectrum EM radiation from the sun, and stop it from reaching the main solar energy storage system (the oceans); such as for example H2O which does so in all of its phases, alter the planet’s energy budget, and it is simply unthinkable that changing the intensity of that solar driving signal, would not also change the outcome. I have ALSO made the point many times, that Kevin Trenberth et al’s “earth energy budget” that foolishly places the value of the TSI at 342 W/m^2, instead of its real value of 1362 W/m^2, simply avoids the obvious that 342 W/m^2 can’t even heat, (for an instant), any point on earth to its 288 K mean Temperature, whereas the real value of 1362 W/m^2 clearly can.
Dr Soon and Briggs have (apparently) documented from BEST’s own data, that 1362 W/m^2 really does heat the surface more than does 342 W/m^2, even if the 342 operates 24/7 and at places like the south pole in the dead of winter midnight.
Why is this so hard to grasp.
If you drop a 20 kton bomb on UC-Berkeley say once ever 30 years (standard climate time unit), on average, the damage is not really all that great. But neither bombs, nor weather/climate are average responding; they both integrate the instantaneous values.
Another excellent post from george e smith. Here is an extended chart of TSI, which clearly shows the LIA and subsequent recovery.
Not to mess with your discussion, but I am very curious about the Svensmark Galactic Cosmic Radiation affecting cloud cover between Gleissberg cycles? Has that been partly added to your thinking? There are so many earth bound sources and non-earth bound variables that affect climate that it seems implausible to make but a very general prediction when arguing the merits of just solar affect. Obviously, IF the sun is going to take a couple of solar cycles nap as one might put it, then some other variables also change because they are driven by the same common source of energy; the sun. The problem seems to be putting a weight to the numerous changes just the sun can have. Its like a pin ball machine, we know we can release the ball and predict an initial outcome, then it is how long to the final outcome – if that is the ultimate question here (climate, not the pinball) :).
Smokey says:
September 8, 2012 at 6:40 pm
Another excellent post from george e smith. Here is an extended chart of TSI, which clearly shows the LIA and subsequent recovery.
No, that is not what we think TSI has been doing. The curve should look more like the red one in
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.png
OK, Leif, thanks for the update. Your chart also shows the LIA, which is why I posted the other one.
Smokey says:
September 8, 2012 at 7:41 pm
Your chart also shows the LIA, which is why I posted the other one.
TSI during the LIA was comparable to what it was at the 2008 minimum. The temperature difference is then estimated to be 0.04 degrees.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 8, 2012 at 7:23 pm
Could you give us a brief description of the differences between the curves in the plot to cite, and why any one is to be preferred over the other?
Bart says:
September 8, 2012 at 7:47 pm
Could you give us a brief description of the differences between the curves in the plot to cite, and why any one is to be preferred over the other?
The biggest difference is that the older curves are based on a fit to the Group sunspot number which has been shown to be faulty. The best estimates of TSI are mine, Preminger et al., and Schrijver et al.’s as shown here: http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-Not.png If you want a paper to cite Schrijver’s is good: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf Various papers give various proxies but they are all equivalent as TSI depends on magnetic activity, so any proxy of that will be a proxy for TSI.
Dear Dr.Svalgaard,
Unfortunately it doesn’t seem that you can’t make a simple admission that you did not seem to have read my post and understood it’s context. It was in plain and simple english and I can’t believe that you couldn’t have understood the context, judging from your other posts here on other complex topics.
it looks like your ind goes int a negative overdrive moment ” solar ” is mentioned by anybody else except you and you just take off blindly.
That does not show much integrity.
My discussions with Poptech and JJ on this thread have nothing to with this thread’s topic or solar or Mosher’s comment on solar. It was about Mosher’s issues related to the BEST paper and ho he represented himself at JC’s thread.
But you took off unrelatedly on something else based on your rage against Soon and Brigg. You don’t have to read and respond to every thread. If you don’t read or understand a thread, please refrain from commenting instead of making bloomers like you’ve done.
Leif says
TSI during the LIA was comparable to what it was at the 2008 minimum. The temperature difference is then estimated to be 0.04 degrees.
Henry says
I don’t think the TSI is the factor to look at, it is the distribution of the solar constant over the wavelengths that might differ leading to a different interaction of high energy wavelengths photons in the top of the atmosphere.
Otherwise, I also agree with george smith’s post. Add ozone to your list. It “absorbs” (re-radiates) about 25% of all that is being back radiated by GHG’s
Smokey:
I’m too busy this weekend in real life to really get involved in this thread for long, but, just as some quick notes, including explaining how the following relates to looking up solar activity history:
You may happen to recall the recent sea ice thread we both were in at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/04/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-12-has-arctic-sea-ice-started-to-turn-the-corner/
Normally not meaning to inappropriately boast but just as such a perfect illustration in this case, observe the webcitation record and graph of http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo posted first by me as comment #3 in the thread which you used later too. As the webcitation archive proves, I guessed *in advance* on August 31st that something so politically inconvenient would be deleted from the U.K. scientific website (even though I didn’t know it would be deleted quite so soon as to be within several days later); my superficial paranoia works because it is based on experience.
I know from your posts that you are a true skeptic too and often far from naive either, so that’s good.
However, now to give an example demonstration of certain cross-checking methods and then how similar can be applied to solar activity history:
As was implied in that thread, the increasingly accepted (in the recent political climate) reconstruction of the most widely publicized source (Cryosphere Today) utterly flattened pre-1950s arctic sea ice history as in
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2010.png , but one could cross-check versus a combination of:
(1) Russian sources — without the same Western environmental movement’s increasingly high dominance in recent years — such as http://nwpi.krc.karelia.ru/e/climas/Ice/Ice_no_sat/fig2.gif and others described more at http://nwpi.krc.karelia.ru/e/climas/Ice/Ice_no_sat/XX_Arctic.htm
(2) Anything published anywhere prior to the rise of the CAGW movement, back when accidental errors could occur but not the huge intentional errors systematically each in the same direction afterwards
For example, the Cryosphere Today dishonest pre-1950s trend line absurdly contrasts to what is seen in:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/02/cache-of-historical-arctic-sea-ice-maps-discovered/
and
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif
(3) Cross-checking versus other data for what is most plausible:
For instance, while the Cryosphere Today graph would indirectly encourage a CAGW-convenient narrative of implying pre-1950s temperatures were flat, that overall false picture is hardly encouraged by how global sea level rise was slower in the latter half of the 20th century than the first half: “1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003″ versus “2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953″ ( http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml ).
Considering experience elsewhere like Hansen and Mann on flattening pre-late-20th-century temperature reconstructions, I wouldn’t be surprised if they had a superficial qualitative scientific excuse for error correction or adjustments, “coincidentally” happening to only attack errors inconvenient to CAGW rather than ever any others, yet snuck in fudging more subtly on the magnitude of the specific quantitative numerical adjustments. Whatever the method, the net result utterly and drastically failed the #1, #2, #3 cross-verification there as can be seen by comparing the prior graphs.
With that example in mind, for determining solar activity history (or the history of any major quantity of billion-dollar-significance in the global warming political war), a semi-similar approach may be followed:
For solar activity history:
(1) Even simply google such as: solar reconstruction LIA site:.ru while not forgetting the site:.ru … which will still find results in English, and look at result after result including the most recently published ones.
(2) Among other examples, look under appropriate sections at http://www.co2science.org/subject/s/subject_s.php where part of a paper’s title can be placed in quotes and searched for with the word PDF added to often find online. Look at what Carbon-14 as well as Be-10 reconstructions show — such as the discussion of solar activity and cosmic ray history in http://rjes.wdcb.ru/v06/tje04163/tje04163.htm
(3) Cross-compare versus other data including the trend in recorded auroras and where they occur in latitude now versus during the Maunder minimum, demonstrative of solar activity increase over the past couple centuries since the LIA and the effect on GCRs and clouds.
See http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/20689/1/98-1743.pdf by Dr. Feynman et al. of JPL (possibly a recognizable name), http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005A&G….46d..31H (alternate backup version of link: http://tinyurl.com/9pu6946 ) — and really other sources too, but I’m aiming to rapidly finish up this already-lengthy post.
You’ve probably encountered before the propaganda being pushed by CAGW proponents everywhere of claiming cloud cover trends in the past several years went the opposite direction of what cosmic ray theory would imply, but always look at the source of any cloud cover trend chart, as even those on climate4you.com are based on inaccurate data from the ISCCP headquartered at Hansen’s GISS. Like the Cryosphere Today “data”, the situation is not that such data is well-funded and widely distributed in “public education” *despite* its falseness but rather *because* of its very convenient falseness. Read http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/further-attempt-to-falsify-the-svensmark-hypothesis/ on the “accidentally” uncorrected error from change in ISCCP satellite viewing angle occuring then, including the graph showing other cloud cover trend datasets going the opposite direction then. The latter are what do not blatantly contradict the picture suggested by albedo trends ( http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/albedo.png ). Hansen’s GISS (and the ISCCP headquartered at it) is a compromised untrustworthy source in general; a quick smoking gun illustration with temperatures is http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/fig1x.gif versus http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.gif where the former shows shows the 5-year mean of U.S. temperature in the high point of the 1980s was 0.4 degrees Celsius cooler than such in the 1930s but the latter is fudged to make the same less than 0.1 degrees Celsius apart. When people happily flock to employment at such an institution’s climate departments even now and rise to the top in the current political climate, fitting in, to expect them to be unbiased would be like expecting Greenpeace leadership to be unbiased.
Such is part of a series of orchestrated dishonest tricks trying to publicly discredit any effect of cosmic rays on clouds at all cost:
http://www.sciencebits.com/RealClimateSlurs
http://www.sciencebits.com/HUdebate
and so on
I did a simple quick illustration myself of solar/GCR activity versus high-altitude specific humidity illustrating the matching four corresponding peaks each in data over the 1960s through now:
http://img218.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=27173_globalwarmingGCRsvshumidity_122_1193lo.jpg
The top is from:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericSpecificHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
The bottom is from:
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=01&startyear=1964&starttime=00%3A00&endday=30&endmonth=08&endyear=2012&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
Someone could rather claim there is nil solar/GCR effect and just strange coincidences with volcanoes every last single time in a row or other BS, but it is beautiful how much more relatively consistent data gets (particularly for effects of solar-GCR variation on top of ocean cycles, with some effects rapid and some with a longer tail of time lag with regard to the depths of the oceans) once one realizes when to discard false propaganda from untrustworthy sources.
As illustrated at http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend , global temperatures have been relatively flat to declining overall since the 1998 El Nino, which followed the rise in solar activity in relative inverted average cosmic ray counts from solar cycle 20 -> 21 -> 22 of 1.00 -> 1.032 -> 1.032 before solar activity decline after the cycle ending in 1996 (even though this is meanwhile near the peak of the 60-year ocean cycle as could be guessed even from http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif although a lengthy FAO report was exceptionally illustrative).
Broken link fix for my previous comment:
What does not work actually:
http://img218.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=27173_globalwarmingGCRsvshumidity_122_1193lo.jpg
What does work:
http://s18.postimage.org/n9nm5glc7/solar_GCRvswatervapor.jpg
(backup version: http://postimage.org/image/bkjmhhudh/ )
Source data and description = in prior comment
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 8, 2012 at 7:43 pm
So do you mean that if the minimum around 2008 occurred for 50+ years with no change at all, there would only be a 0.04c temperature change on Earth?
Venter says:
September 8, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Unfortunately it doesn’t seem that you can’t make a simple admission that you did not seem to have read my post and understood it’s context.
I did read the comments you mention and while I have no issue with Mosher or your characterization of him, my comment was directed at your assertion that Briggs has integrity. In plain English I remarked that the fact that he lend his name to a press release [or paper] using outdated solar data shows that he did not do the due diligence a co-author should do [and that that IMHO is a problem in the integrity department], while Mosher did. There is nothing complex to understand here. But, in truth, I do not understand what you are so worked up over.
Matt G says:
September 9, 2012 at 2:21 am
So do you mean that if the minimum around 2008 occurred for 50+ years with no change at all, there would only be a 0.04c temperature change on Earth?
Yes, even it occurred for 5000+ years. The normal solar cycle variation of the total energy output of the Sun is of the order of 0.1%, so the average over a cycle is half that, or 0.05%. The change in temperature as a result of a change in energy is 1/4 of the change in energy, or 0.05%/4 = 0.0125%. That percentage of the average temperature of 289K is 0.036K
Matt G says:
September 9, 2012 at 2:21 am
So do you mean that if the minimum around 2008 occurred for 50+ years with no change at all, there would only be a 0.04c temperature change on Earth?
Good to see some are seeing through the rhetoric.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 9, 2012 at 3:16 am
I did read the comments you mention and while I have no issue with Mosher or your characterization of him, my comment was directed at your assertion that Briggs has integrity. In plain English I remarked that the fact that he lend his name to a press release [or paper] using outdated solar data shows that he did not do the due diligence a co-author should do [and that that IMHO is a problem in the integrity department], while Mosher did. There is nothing complex to understand here. But, in truth, I do not understand what you are so worked up over.
I suppose Briggs does have some sort of an excuse since he doesn’t (AFAIK) profess to have any expertise in solar matters. Willie Soon, though, has no excuse whatsoever. He must know that the solar reconstruction is invalid. Briggs could perhaps be given the benefit of the doubt since it’s conceivable he wouldn’t necessarily question the validity of solar data if it had been provided by his co-author who just happened to be “an astrophysicist and geoscientist at the Solar and Stellar Physics (SSP) Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics”.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 9, 2012 at 3:35 am
Good to see some are seeing through the rhetoric.
My interpretation of Leif’s comment is that he is referring to the changes due to variations in solar activity. Since most of the solarphiles on this blog seem to be having trouble explaining how the sun is responsible for any more than a fraction of one tenth of a degree temperature change I’m inclined to agree with his assessment.
The botttom line is the earth (as a whole) can only warm if it receives more energy from the sun than it emits to space. So over to you…..
John Finn says:
September 9, 2012 at 6:01 am
My interpretation of Leif’s comment is that he is referring to the changes due to variations in solar activity. Since most of the solarphiles on this blog seem to be having trouble explaining how the sun is responsible for any more than a fraction of one tenth of a degree temperature change I’m inclined to agree with his assessment.
The botttom line is the earth (as a whole) can only warm if it receives more energy from the sun than it emits to space. So over to you…..
And herein lies yours and Leif’s greatest conundrums. The empirical evidence tells us the earths temperature through the ages has aligned with solar output. The many warming and cooling periods going back thousands of years corresponding with the high and low outputs of the Sun.
Leif very skillfully will quote dubious TSI variances measured over very short time frames to support is claim that the Sun is only capable of minute climate changes due to TSI variances.
The TSI variances he claims are still open for discussion, along with his condemnation of the H&S group sunspot record that aligns with the earlier Lean TSI reconstructions that have many unanswered questions. The last time I endeavored to disclose the truth he said ” I was full of shit”
The Soon example is still unclear, but looking outside the TSI record there is ample evidence from a multitude of respected researchers that other solar factors are very capable of varying our climate. TSI is still a player but other components such as UV, solar wind and magnetic changes may prove to be more important. Once again John its time to take in multiple drivers and not isolate an individual.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 9, 2012 at 7:35 am
The empirical evidence tells us the earths temperature through the ages has aligned with solar output. The many warming and cooling periods going back thousands of years corresponding with the high and low outputs of the Sun.
There are no such evidence, mostly because we don’t have a good temperature record.
Leif very skillfully will quote dubious TSI variances measured over very short time frames to support is claim that the Sun is only capable of minute climate changes due to TSI variances.
Several things wrong with this. First ‘skillfully’ should be ‘carefully’. ‘Dubious’ should be ‘High Precision’. And TSI is a measure of the total energy radiated by the Sun [in our direction].
condemnation of the H&S group sunspot record that aligns with the earlier Lean TSI reconstructions
Lean’s reconstruction does not ‘align’ [as if two independent measures] with the Group Number, but is simply derived from it.
The last time I endeavored to disclose the truth he said ” I was full of shit”
Last time you endeavored to smear me, I told you the truth, and if you persist, that truth becomes even more evident, for all to see.
TSI is still a player but other components such as UV, solar wind and magnetic changes may prove to be more important.
All these other components vary with TSI. Solar wind, UV, and magnetism can be independently reconstructed back to the 1830s and do not show the variation Soon [and Lean] claim for TSI.
Once again John its time to take in multiple drivers and not isolate an individual.
It is time to realize that all these drivers do not add up to anything significant.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 9, 2012 at 3:16 am
Thank you for the explanation, the only thing I disagree about is the thinking that this very short change can’t have a longer period affect before the cycle ramps up again. Only reason why this small amount is currently detected is because the cycle ramps up before it gets any possible longer term affect going. Therefore I am not convinced if the cycle didn’t ramp back up this small change just over a year or two normally, won’t have a bigger affect over a much longer period. To believe that this short term affect occurs immediately doesn’t back up climate history.
John Finn says
My interpretation of Leif’s comment is that he is referring to the changes due to variations in solar activity. Since most of the solarphiles on this blog seem to be having trouble explaining how the sun is responsible for any more than a fraction of one tenth of a degree temperature change I’m inclined to agree with his assessment.
The botttom line is the earth (as a whole) can only warm if it receives more energy from the sun than it emits to space. So over to you…..
Henry@John
I am not sure what yours and Leif’s agenda’s are, (I suspect inome might be in jeopardy?) ,
I notice that he has not reacted to me thinking that he is not honest in the interpretation of all results. Either way, I told him, as I am telling you now: After analysing the daily data from 47 weather stations, balanced by latitude and sea-inland 70-30, my results for the speed of warming/cooling in degrees K / annum for maxima versus time now stands at 0.036 from 1974 (38 yrs), 0.029 from 1980 (32 yrs), 0.014 from 1990 (22 years) and -0.016 from 2000 (12 years). Clearly, if you take the trouble to do the plot, you will note that the deceleration of warming in degrees K/tsquare where t= years, follows on a binominal plot, as if somebody threw a ball at you! Further to this, I was able to fit it also into a sine wave, giving me the best fit at a wavelength of 88 years – the exact length of the Gleissberg cycle…
So clearly, the best variable to look at, giving you the least noise, is maximum temperatures.
Noting my last quoted result, I count a drop of 12 x -0.016= -0.2 degrees K in maximum temperatures, global average, since 2000. That is quite a bit more then the fraction of one tenth that you and Leif want it to be. What I find sad, is that in places where the cooling is the worst, like in Anchorage, Alaska, farmers are not getting warnings that it is going to get a lot colder still. They think that they can still carry on planting whereas by now you all and everyone who has brains should know that cooling is not going to stop until about 2038 or 2039. If you do not believe my results, why don’t you check it out for yourself? (Anchorage has two big weatherstations, and temperatures have fallen there by the largest margin, more than 1.5 degrees K since 2000).
Matt G says:
September 9, 2012 at 8:21 am
I disagree about is the thinking that this very short change can’t have a longer period affect before the cycle ramps up again.
I don’t know what you mean by ‘the cycle ramping up’. There are longer period effects [but tiny]. If the cycle was at Maunder Minimum value for 5000 years and then ‘ramped up’ [?] to today’s value and stayed there for the next 5000 years, there will certainly be an increase of temperature of 0.07 C
this small change just over a year or two
It is not about one or two years. You asked about 50+ years and I explained what would happen, even extended that to 5000 years for good measure. What the Schrijver paper was about, was that the level of TSI [and solar activity in general] during 2008-2009 was the same as that during the Maunder Minimum.
HenryP says:
September 9, 2012 at 8:46 am
I notice that he has not reacted to me thinking that he is not honest in the interpretation of all results.
There are things beneath contempt.
Henry@Leif
I am still looking for the distribution of the solar constant, the cumulative % energy for each wavelength,
ur last quote (after several mishaps) was
http://www.leif.org/research/Integrated-Flux.pdf
That is also not it. I am also looking for a date of the table.
(the last table I have is that technical paper from NASA from 40 odd years ago)
I would very much appreciate if you could help me with that?
HenryP says:
September 9, 2012 at 9:31 am
I am still looking for the distribution of the solar constant, the cumulative % energy for each wavelength, ur last quote (after several mishaps) was http://www.leif.org/research/Integrated-Flux.pdf
That is also not it. I am also looking for a date of the table.
The third column [as I have already explained] is the cumulative energy in W/m2 from zero wave length up the wave length in the first column. If you want %, divide the Wattage by 1367 then multiply by 100. The date doesn’t matter much as this distribution has been well-determined for decades, but it is 1986. There is more of the table for the infrared, but since you are interested in short wavelengths I didn’t scan in the infrared [I could if you need it]. As you can see the % for less than 0.3 um is about 1%.
Oh good another solar article and one that uses an old TSI graph. Predictably, Leif is going to point out the error, and then everyone attacks Leif. I suggest reading Leif’s papers and website articles and you will see he is doing good science. He has good data to show that TSI may not vary much. If you consider the Holocene has been a 10,000 year period of remarkably stable climate compared to what preceded it, this makes sense. Perhaps the sun has long periods of stability.
We only have 30 or so years of satellite data, so based on data we have this looks to be the case. If we can get Be10 to give us more data regarding TSI we may be able to push far back in time, but for now we have to go with what we have. The geologist in me says episodes like the Little Dryas and other extreme and fast onset climate changes happened too fast for ocean currents or other suspected causes to operate. In other words, although the present data show little TSI variation, perhaps the sun has a more variable ice age phase that lasts 100 ky before it changes to the present stable low variance mode of operating, or there are amplifications we do not not know about in an unknown non linear process right hear on earth. Only time will tell, but it sure is interesting.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 8, 2012 at 7:23 pm
Smokey says:
September 8, 2012 at 6:40 pm
Another excellent post from george e smith. Here is an extended chart of TSI, which clearly shows the LIA and subsequent recovery.
No, that is not what we think TSI has been doing. The curve should look more like the red one in
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.png
———————————————————-
Leif something is wrong, TSI are being shown to be 3-5 W less:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png
will the charts be corrected down with this value?
Also I understand UV varies much more. Are there any proxy showing UV variances?
Henry Clark says:
September 9, 2012 at 12:30 am
Henry – re your conversation with Smokey – I found this paper by Mahoney et al 2008 about the russian sea ice extend 1933-2006 – possible could help to give an overview:
http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/publications/mahoney/Mahoney_2008_JGR_20thC_RSI.pdf
Poptech says:
Last I checked scientific positions had educational and experience requirements.
Surely, even an uncredentialed person such as yourself understands the difference between scientific reasoning and personnel management. Hiring decisions are not epistimilogic. Science is. Hiring decisions are not made with a methodology that holds to logical consistency. Science must. With respect to the hiring of scientists, that disconnect is responsible for much of the bad science that we have to wade thru.
You of course can argue with them that credentials don’t matter and try to get hired.
Been there, done that successfully. Perhaps more relevantly, my position reqires that I hire other scientists for my projects. Frequently, they will disagree on some point or another. Sorting out who is correct does not involve counting the number of certificates on the wall behind the desk. To the contrary, the most credentialed of the scientists that work for me is the one most often found to be incorrect. This is demonstrated when junior scientists with fewer credentials – often in unrelated fields – point out and correct his errors. Relying on ad hominem to make scientific decisions is always incorrect, and that is but one example of how the problem manifests.
I don’t consider statistical arguments from people who lack the very basic credentials to make these arguments, least of all over someone who is actually qualified to make these arguments (Briggs).
Then you demonstrate that you are unqualified to undertake such considerations, and are hoist by your own fallacious petard.
In addition to being wrong in the base formation of your argument, you are also being willfully biased in how you apply your fallacious reasoning. Mosher is not BEST’s statistician. David Brillinger is. Whatever statistical duties BEST may assign to Mosher, his work is vetted by Brillinger (and by Brillinger’s PhD assistant on the project), and it is Brillinger who is ultimately the statistician of record for whatever is published, should they ever manage to actually publish anything. Brillinger’s credentials make Briggs look like an ambitious third grader.
Also in the gross inconsistency department is the silliness with which you opened this discussion:
I wouldn’t have used BEST data at all as it involved the contributions of those unqualified to contribute aka Mosher and Muller.
You challenge Briggs’ decision to use BEST, based on a concern about its statistics. Briggs has a PhD in statistics. You are an anonymous poster on a blog. A rabbit couldn’t follow that.
The “You’re not a climate scientist” argument is completely different because those in the field have such varied educational (all scientific however) and experience backgrounds.
No, it is exactly the same. Ad hominem and ad vericundium are fallacies in formal logic, and the status of such arguments does not depend on the particulars.
Oh and you are talking to the wrong person if you think I am ever going to STFU.
Yes, ignorance is often persistent.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 9, 2012 at 8:56 am
Sorry, the cycle ramping up here means the increase in activity again after it has reached the minimum towards it’s next peak. The MM if it lasted for 5000 years would reach equilibrium well before then, but only 2 years I doubt very much? You don’t have instrumental data with one cycle for longer periods with a minimum of 2 years. The 0.07c value is only based on these 2 years over very recent cycles.
I know I mentioned 50 years+ and you explained even for 5000 years, but this small change over a year or two refers to the minimum period of the cycle during 2008 and 2009. The rest of the cycle has higher activity of course. Therefore it is about 2 years around the minimum period, but extended to 5000 years in your example.
“Thank you for the explanation, the only thing I disagree about is the thinking that this very short change can’t have a longer period affect before the cycle ramps up again. Only reason why this small amount is currently detected is because the cycle ramps up before it gets any possible longer term affect going. Therefore I am not convinced if the cycle didn’t ramp back up this small change just over a year or two normally, won’t have a bigger affect over a much longer period. To believe that this short term affect occurs immediately doesn’t back up climate history.”
Hence, you think equilibrium of the planet Earth will occur from the sun’s minimum period of the cycle in just 2 years that it occurs. I don’t see any evidence to suggest this would only occur and therefore I disagree.
Dear Dr.Svalgaard,
If not doing due diligence before penning an article is a sign of lack of integrity as per your interpretation for Briggs, would that apply to you in respect to the fact that you did not do due diligence and understand my post before hastily penning your first few replies?
Lars P. says:
September 9, 2012 at 9:59 am
Leif something is wrong, TSI are being shown to be 3-5 W less
Yes, the earlier measurements had a systematic error of that [small] size because some extra light leaked into the instruments.
will the charts be corrected down with this value?
The early data will eventually be adjusted down, but the variation from cycle to cycle is not affected by the systematic error, so it really doesn’t matter much if we adjust the new data up to the old, or the old down to the new.
Also I understand UV varies much more. Are there any proxy showing UV variances?
Since the UV is such a small part of the total energy, its larger [percentage] variation doesn’t matter much, just like the large variation of the amount of loose change in Bill Gates’ pockets does not impact his total wealth much. UV creates and maintains the ionosphere and the electric currents flowing up there thus measures the UV flux. We can measure the electric currents by their magnetic effect at the ground, and so know what the UV flux was doing. See e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic%20Calibration%20of%20Sunspot%20Numbers.pdf
Matt G says:
September 9, 2012 at 10:26 am
Sorry, the cycle ramping up here means the increase in activity again after it has reached the minimum towards it’s next peak. The MM if it lasted for 5000 years would reach equilibrium well before then, but only 2 years I doubt very much? You don’t have instrumental data with one cycle for longer periods with a minimum of 2 years. The 0.07c value is only based on these 2 years over very recent cycles.
No, that is not what I said. The issue is: what was solar activity durig the Maunder Minimum? Schrijver et al. suggest it was on the level of what we have seen in 2008-2009. If so, the difference in the total solar energy we would observe during a ‘Maunder Minimum’ of any duration [50+ years, 500 years, 5000 etc] would be 0.05% of the average over the past 40 years. Such a deficit would lower the temperature 0.04C.
Venter says:
September 9, 2012 at 10:56 am
If not doing due diligence before penning an article is a sign of lack of integrity as per your interpretation for Briggs, would that apply to you in respect to the fact that you did not do due diligence and understand my post before hastily penning your first few replies?
It certainly would, if I were commenting on your views, which I was not. I was simply stating that [at least in my book] it is a deficit of integrity in general when a co-author [such as Briggs] puts his name on a paper using faulty data. Briggs might be excused on account of ignorance [but his sin remains]. Soon on the other hand should know better and his sin is much worse.
Henry@Leif
Ok! Thanks. I got it now. I have to calculate % here. I do need the whole thing because I want to compare all wavelengths with the earliest table.
However, now you say:
The date doesn’t matter much as this distribution has been well-determined for decades,
Henry says
There is the thing that I wanted to check. How do you know that that distribution of energy of the solar constant is “well – determined” (i.e. unchanged) if it was only measured once, more than 4 decades ago?
Venter says:
I do agree with the fundamental statement that it does not matter who you are, it’s your work that matters and should stand up to scrutiny.
Then don’t support acts to the contrary.
Willis Eschenbach is one who always states that he pounds nails for a living and also has interest in climate and does work on climate issues on the side.
Willis is a fine example. He is often gratuitously wrong about things that a person with a basic formal education in the field he is expounding upon would likely get right. For the same reason, he may see truths that such a person has been educated to look past. If he is wrong about something, one must demonstrate what that is. One does not do that by talking about who he is. Regardles of who he is, he may be right.
He does not come out with holier than thou attitude like Mosher as if he’s the smartest and the rest are idiots.
Please. The ruler does not exist that could decide the outcome of a “who
hascan be the biggest dick” contest between those two. They are both condescending BS artists when they choose to be. It detracts from the utility of the correct points that they both raise, but it doesn’t make them wrong about anything in particular, let alone about everything they touch.Mosher as none of those and yet the way he goes around nowadays with his BS one would think that he was some all round expert in every area imaginable. And he has been going around at JC’s blog, discussing with pathetic trolls like Robert, Lolwot and others of that ilk, moaning about WUWT and stating that one can’t hold a discussion a WUWT.
Absolutely.
Does Mosher do any of that? No, he does only high handed cryptic ” know better than you, I’m smarter than you, go figure ” kind of drive by drivel.
Without question.
So in his case, I believe that Poptech’s comments are well justified
Nope. Poptech intended to attack Mosher. He did so by employing illegitimate methods. Then he defended those methods in the general case. Repeatedly. That is exactly how science fails.
The important thing about BEST and Mosher is not their results vs the credentials he doesn’t have. It is the credential he does have, that they hired him for, and that they put at the top of the list of his credentials presented in their promotional materials:
Steven Mosher is co-author of “Climategate: The Crutape Letters” and works as an independent consultant in the San Francisco area.
Steven Mosher’s primary role at BEST is as “sceptic” window dressing. That is something that, unlike his abilities at statistical analysis, can’t be got better at half the price from the Berkely grad slave pool. They attempted to coopt Anthony’s reputation with similar flatteries, and more or less succeeded for a while. Ditto Judy ‘Judith Goat’ Curry. Thankfully, Anthony saw the writing on the wall.
Leif says
Since the UV is such a small part of the total energy, its larger [percentage] variation doesn’t matter much
Henry says
This is where you err. You cannot make such a statement unless you know all the interactions that happen in the upper atmosphere.
HenryP says:
September 9, 2012 at 11:46 am
How do you know that that distribution of energy of the solar constant is “well – determined” (i.e. unchanged) if it was only measured once, more than 4 decades ago?
Because it is well-determined and 1986 is not ‘more than 4 decades ago’.
I’ll scan the rest later today.
This is where you err. You cannot make such a statement unless you know all the interactions that happen in the upper atmosphere.
Similarly, you cannot make the opposite statement [that I err] unless you know all the interactions that happen in the upper atmosphere. Do you?
And the one statement one can make is that UV cannot take a bigger bite out of the energy than there is [which is not much].
Steven Mosher says:
September 6, 2012 at 11:08 pm
1. they used out of date solar data.
2. the US is 2% of the globe.
3. If they used the BEST data I think they used, they probably forgot a critical step.
In any case, as always, folks should practice good skepticism and have a look at their code before having kittens.
I’ll pass on that advice to the next pregnant cat I meet.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 9, 2012 at 11:03 am
Lars P. says:
September 9, 2012 at 9:59 am
Leif something is wrong, TSI are being shown to be 3-5 W less
Yes, the earlier measurements had a systematic error of that [small] size because some extra light leaked into the instruments.
will the charts be corrected down with this value?
The early data will eventually be adjusted down, but the variation from cycle to cycle is not affected by the systematic error, so it really doesn’t matter much if we adjust the new data up to the old, or the old down to the new.
Also I understand UV varies much more. Are there any proxy showing UV variances?
Since the UV is such a small part of the total energy, its larger [percentage] variation doesn’t matter much, just like the large variation of the amount of loose change in Bill Gates’ pockets does not impact his total wealth much.
————————————–
Leif I am no specialist in the area but I fear you over simplify.
The suns radiation is not just simply a 1361 W/m2 radiation – and any such radiation would do the same.
When checking what lack of sunlight can cause to human beings it becomes more clear that one cannot replace sunlight with “any light”.
In the UV case, lack of UV cause lack of Vitamin D – as we humans have some primitive receptors which do photosynthesis of UV lights.
Btw. is UV not responsible for instance for ozone generation? And fluctuation in UV would not influence the rate of ozone generation? Just asking.
Leif says
1) Similarly, you cannot make the opposite statement [that I err] unless you know all the interactions that happen in the upper atmosphere. Do you?
2) And the one statement one can make is that UV cannot take a bigger bite out of the energy than there is [which is not much].
Henry says
1) No, but I carry on with my puzzle to find out….there are several pieces making a picture…
2) actually it can; my results suggest that that is exactly what is happening. Some small solar fvariation in the UV causes interaction in the top of the atmosphere which in turn causes more back radiation in the 0-400 nm range (< 400 nm = 9%)
However, seeing that you don't want to accept my results, I fear we are going around in circles, or is that cycles….
LarsP
Btw. is UV not responsible for instance for ozone generation? And fluctuation in UV would not influence the rate of ozone generation? Just asking
Henry@Larry Plume
You are so right. That’s what I have been telling Leif. Glad to find there are a few people on this blog who can see what is happening.
Lars P. says:
September 9, 2012 at 1:35 pm
The suns radiation is not just simply a 1361 W/m2 radiation – and any such radiation would do the same.
Outside of the atmosphere [and that was what S&B said they were plotting] the sun radiates pretty much as any blac-body 1361 W/m2 radiator would do.
In the UV case, lack of UV cause lack of Vitamin D – as we humans have some primitive receptors which do photosynthesis of UV lights.
Nevertheless UV is but a tiny fraction of the whole.
And fluctuation in UV would not influence the rate of ozone generation? Just asking.
The fluctuations in UV [and in ozone] are tiny, and ozone does not have much influence on the climate. There are even indications that the UV varies opposite to the solar cycle.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 9, 2012 at 11:03 am
“Since the UV is such a small part of the total energy, its larger [percentage] variation doesn’t matter much…”
I don’t follow that. Firstly, the deviation from “normal” inputs is what drives things away from “normal” conditions. Secondly, each UV photon carries orders of magnitude more energy than an IR photon, or even a visible light photon. They can initiate processes and reactions the others cannot.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 9, 2012 at 7:35 am
John Finn says:
September 9, 2012 at 6:01 am
Geoff, I wrote
You responded with
Geoff, thank you for illustrating my point so perfectly.
Mr. Muller may not have seen this documentary or read the peer reviewed work done by Henrik Svensmark and published in the Royal Society.
The Cloud Mystery
53 minute video
Poor JJ, Mosher still has worthless science and statistical credentials and I am going to make sure everyone knows about it. Your persistence on this means this information is clearly not widely known, I will make sure to change that. Thank you for the inspiration. What exactly are my credentials? I have never published them online for privacy reasons but I can assure you I have never pretended to be a climate scientist or a statistician only what I actually am a computer analyst.
Why would you hire other scientists when you can hire those who have scientifically worthless credentials like Mosher? FYI, junior scientists have better scientific credentials than Mosher.
I find it interesting that the one thing Mosher was right about required knowledge of English (Gleick’s fake memo).
I find this statement to be based on pure idiocy and see nothing to support it.
Again thanks for the inspiration about Mosher. I will be sure to post it for you when I am done. We will then find out how much of an effect people actually knowing his scientifically and statistically worthless credentials has on how people take his “arguments”.
HenryP says:
September 9, 2012 at 8:46 am
HenryP says:
I admit to having a slightly mixed reaction to this comment. On the one hand I appear to be iassociated with one of the foremost solar scientists over the past 40 years. On the other hand, however, I seem to be accused of having a financial interest in promoting the lack of solar influence on variations in the earth’s global energy balance.
Henry, I think there are a few things you should be aware of:
1. I don’t know Leif and I’ve never met him but, as an interested ‘amateur’ I have read much of what he’s written. His research and conclusions are, by far, more convincing than any others I’ve read.
2. I am not a proponent of CAGW and have challenged both Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt numerous times on the RC blog. I took Michael Mann to task on the ‘hide the decline’ issue several years before the ‘climategate’ revelations.
3. Leif Svalgaard is a solar scientist. If the sun really was as influential as some people suggest then Leif’s subject of interest would gain a level of importance far greater than it currently has. Why on earth would he wish to play down the role of the sun?
4. I’ve looked at your global temperature analysis (the one you keep pushing) – and it’s totally flawed. You use just 47 stations but don’t explain why, i.e. why not use 60, 70, ..or 100. Of those 47 stations – 6 are in South Africa. I’ll leave you to work out what percentage of the world’s surface area contains ~12% of your station sample.
Poptech says:
September 9, 2012 at 4:25 pm
You appear to have a problem with a particular poster on this blog, i.e. Steve Mosher. The central point of your argument appears to be that Briggs is a super-duper, top drawer, 24-carat statistician while Mosher is a total duffer. This may well be true. However, reading back, it looks as though Steve Mosher simply stated that Briggs (& Soon) had used “obsolete data”.
The fact is that Briggs (& Soon) used obsolete data., so Mosher was right.
Have you anything relevant to contribute to this ongoing discussion?
”Sunspots” is a bigger con than tree-rings (Fake Skeptic’s con).
Sun-flares were discovered over 100y ago; by blocking the sun with cardboard – then monitoring the flares in the crown. Unfortunately, the flares noticed in the crown affect the area where the earth would be in 6 months, minus 8minutes. The flares that come in 8 minutes to the earth were impossible to observe, because of the glare.
For the first time was powerful enough filter made; to ”discover for the first time that there are SUNSPOTS” … was about 2005-6. Then, by using the misleading GLOBAL temperature charts – the swindlers filled up for when they think was sunspots; for the last 500years – to support the misleading temp charts – then they made it to became official. If anybody believes that: there was so stupid people then; to look at the sun and get blind in minutes – just to collect data for the contemporary shonky climatologist from both camps – you better visit a shrink. Sunspots CON is used by the Fake Skeptics – it suits the Warmist (they will not expose the con) but is good enough for the Warmist; to know that they are in a company of bigger liars than themselves.
The function of UV has nothing to do with heat. Leif will always point towards the small part UV plays in TSI but is less eager to discuss the chemical interactions in the atmosphere that are a direct result of UV variation. The lower parts of the UV spectrum have a 100% variation over the cycle.
The are many accredited scientist’s working on the ozone/climate link and they all recognize the role of UV. The UV graph for SC24 shows the dire position of UV compared with previous cycles.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/EUV.png
http://www.usc.edu/dept/space_science/sem_data/SEM%20Data%20Graphs/SEM_1996-2010.jpg
The TSI issue looks to be based on the discrediting the GSN record. The current attack is based on the improper group conversion factor of Wolf’s sunspot record. Wolf used a threshold which meant many of the smaller groups were not counted, the assumption is that H&S did not allow for this, but if we look at the H&S data they are very much aware of Wolf’s counting practice which is stated. I think there is more to come in this area.
Poptech says:
Poor JJ, Mosher still has worthless science and statistical credentials …
With respect to questions of scientific knowledge, all credentials are worthless.
Your persistence on this means this information is clearly not widely known, …
No it doesn’t. There is no logical connection between the two. Your ability to reason is very limited.
What exactly are my credentials?
Meaningless to this discussion.
I have never published them online for privacy reasons but I can assure you I have never pretended to be a climate scientist or a statistician only what I actually am a computer analyst.
LOL. A computer analyst that cannot reason. Thank you for providing such a stunning example of the utter irrelevance of “credentials”.
“Brillinger’s credentials make Briggs look like an ambitious third grader.”
I find this statement to be based on pure idiocy and see nothing to support it.
I bow to this overwhelming demonstration of your superior qualifications vis a vis the subject of “pure idiocy”.
We will then find out how much of an effect people actually knowing his scientifically and statistically worthless credentials has on how people take his “arguments”.
If the people are like you, it may have quite an effect. Simple minds are easily led around by ad hominem, ad vericundium, and other fallacious arguements. That is the primary reason why ‘global warming’ is as accepted as it is, both among the general population as well as the “credentialed scientists”. Guys like Stephan Lewandowsky make entire careers out of figuring out how to manipulate such sloppy thinking to achieve political ends. Perhaps you missed your calling. He is currently working on a system that works at the intersection of ad hominem, ad vericundiam, and ad populum. He may need a couple of lab rats to test it on …
Geoff Sharp says:
September 9, 2012 at 7:45 pm
Beyond even that, how about even more energetic photons, e.g., solar X-rays? These appear to vary quite a bit, and we can’t have been measuring them for very long. And, then what about gamma rays?
And, of course, all this ties in with the Svensmark hypothesis which, last I heard, was holding up well. Some researchers have claimed that consideration of this effect allows reconstruction of the Earth’s climate over the past 1,000,000 years. The authors tantalizingly assert that:
BTW, with due respect to JJ, whose inputs I often value, and Poptech, your argument has run its course. To put it as delicately as possible, I think the rest of us have already decided how much weight to put on Mosher, Briggs, et al. for ourselves, and do not really care about your personal grudge match.
John Finn says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/06/soon-and-briggs-global-warming-fanatics-take-note-sunspots-do-impact-climate/#comment-1074671
Henry says
John,I am sorry, it appeared to me that you were challenging the crititcs/sceptics by siding with Leif. I followed the discussions with Geof and Leif, also on another blog , which you may have missed.
As to my sample being biased, I can say that I actually put a lot of thought into getting it representative.
1) longitude is not important, as earth turns every 24 hours.So that argument of yours falls away.
2) latitude is very important to get a global representative sample. I had to get a fair balance of NH and SH samples
3) seeing that 70% of earth is water, I also considered that 70% of my sample should be at sea or in sea and 30% inland.
4) Unlike most other datasets that only look at means (average surface temps), I included maxima and minima. In the end that was a wise deicision because had I relied on means only, I would have been none the wiser.
The only bias I will admit to is that I chose my samples of surface weather stations based on whether or not a (more or less) complete daily record was present, of automatic temperature recording since 1973 or 1974.
Either way, if you look at other datasets, even UAH, and try to put the data into some kind of fit, you get no correlation. Which is why we always see a “trendline” being shown as creative. With correlation coefficients of less than 0.4, you cannot decide on that, which way it will go.
You can imagine how stunned I looked at my graph for the decelaration of maximum temperatures, finding a parabolic fit (binominal) with a correlation coefficient of 0.998.
No doubt, you can carry on and do more stations, but I do not need to that anymore. I know what I needed to know.
I am not “pushing” my results. I am a hobbyist with no financial interests. I am just curious to find the right explanation for my results. Like right now, I think there is an ozone connection, as a few others here apparently have also realised.
Bart says:
September 9, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Secondly, each UV photon carries orders of magnitude more energy than an IR photon, or even a visible light photon.
No, not ‘orders’ of magnitudes, only about one order of magnitude, and there are orders of magnitudes fewer of them.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 9, 2012 at 7:45 pm
The lower parts of the UV spectrum have a 100% variation over the cycle.
But since there are so few of those photons, they don’t matter much
the assumption is that H&S did not allow for this
Not the assumption, but careful analysis which even Schatten acknowledges is correct.
Bart says:
September 9, 2012 at 9:28 pm
solar X-rays? These appear to vary quite a bit… then what about gamma rays?
As you go to so short wavelengths there are so few photons that they don’t matter.
And, of course, all this ties in with the Svensmark hypothesis which, last I heard, was holding up well.
Actually not: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cloud%20Cover%20and%Cosmic%Rays.pdf
Actually not: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cloud%20Cover%20and%20Cosmic%20Rays.pdf
JJ, you have yet to demonstrate you have the ability to reason and certainly not the intellect to comprehend an argument. If credentials have no effect on scientific arguments then we shall find out. Credentials are highly valued in society for many legitimate reasons and ignoring this with hand waving techniques only shows you really do not comprehend why certain people’s arguments are not taken seriously. You can keep fighting this futility while no one listens to you, certainly not the general public. Like I said I will make sure everyone knows of his scientific and statistically worthless credentials.
Bart:
Good links.
Although Dr. Svensmark is in Denmark, I’m not surprised to see those 2010 cosmic ray papers were by authors mostly Ukrainian for the institutions employing them and presumably essentially funding the research, a little like what my last post was remarking on with regard to Russian (and other non-Western) sources versus Western environmental research institutions in recent years.
—————————————
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 9, 2012 at 10:38 pm
Actually not: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cloud%20Cover%20and%20Cosmic%20Rays.pdf
That is based on inaccurate average cloud cover trends over the final years claimed by the ISCCP at Hansen’s GISS, including the graph in figure 2 (and for practical purposes the one in figure 1 too) being exactly that debunked in http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/further-attempt-to-falsify-the-svensmark-hypothesis/
As was said to someone else in my previous post at September 9, 2012 12:30am earlier in this thread:
You’ve probably encountered before the propaganda being pushed by CAGW proponents everywhere of claiming cloud cover trends in the past several years went the opposite direction of what cosmic ray theory would imply, but always look at the source of any cloud cover trend chart, as even those on climate4you.com are based on inaccurate data from the ISCCP headquartered at Hansen’s GISS. Like the Cryosphere Today “data”, the situation is not that such data is well-funded and widely distributed in “public education” *despite* its falseness but rather *because* of its very convenient falseness. Read http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/further-attempt-to-falsify-the-svensmark-hypothesis/ on the “accidentally” uncorrected error from change in ISCCP satellite viewing angle occuring then, including the graph showing other cloud cover trend datasets going the opposite direction then. The latter [are less divergent from] the picture suggested by albedo trends ( http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/albedo.png ).
Hansen’s GISS (and the ISCCP headquartered at it) is a compromised untrustworthy source in general; a quick smoking gun illustration with temperatures is http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/fig1x.gif versus http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.gif where the former shows shows the 5-year mean of U.S. temperature in the high point of the 1980s was 0.4 degrees Celsius cooler than such in the 1930s but the latter is fudged to make the same less than 0.1 degrees Celsius apart. When people happily flock to employment at such an institution’s climate departments even now and rise to the top in the current political climate, fitting in, to expect them to be unbiased would be like expecting Greenpeace leadership to be unbiased.
Such is part of a series of orchestrated dishonest tricks trying to publicly discredit any effect of cosmic rays on clouds at all cost:
http://www.sciencebits.com/RealClimateSlurs
http://www.sciencebits.com/HUdebate
[ http://www.sciencebits.com/SloanAndWolfendale ]
and so on
… plus more but keeping the requoting here more concise than would be the case if requoting the whole post.
EDIT to my prior comment of a moment ago:
Where this was written:
the graph in figure 2 (and for practical purposes the one in figure 1 too) being exactly that debunked in http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/further-attempt-to-falsify-the-svensmark-hypothesis/”
actually should just read:
the graph in figure 2 being exactly that debunked in http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/further-attempt-to-falsify-the-svensmark-hypothesis/
since the graph in figure 1 is a different less relevant topic.
This small edit does not matter for the overall point but still needed to be fixed to nitpick-proof this.
Henry@Henry Clark
I don’t have the time now to go through all ur references in your post
but do you think that Svensmark’s theory can explain my results?http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/06/soon-and-briggs-global-warming-fanatics-take-note-sunspots-do-impact-climate/#comment-1074407
if so, how? (remember that I have noted that warming and cooling periods follow each other on an ac-wave, most probably with a wavelength of ca. 88 years)
@Poptech
“Credentials matter and I see no reason to begin to consider statistical arguments from someone who does not even have the basic qualifications to be making these arguments.”
This is not an ad hom, it is a fact: you are lost in the Kingdom of Names.
Did you know that ALL fields of scientific endeavour were started and expanded by people with NO qualification whatsoever in that field?
The worst, the lowest value criticism of an argument is that ‘that speaker has no standing to make any comments – ignore him because he does not have the necessary paper qualification to open his mouth.’ What utter rubbish.
It is the argument of the self-appointed elite. Note the difference between a helpful professor and a pitiless Pharisee as you read these pages from around the planet.
Praised be to WUWT for providing the un-annointed masses with the links, the logical explanations, the sources, the charts, the encouragement and the platform to turn anyone who truly perseveres into a Climate Scholar.
I know virtually nothing about statistics other than the basic things I need to process my lab data and show it is acceptably precise. But I know that principle component analysis is not to be used the way it was in MBH98, and why, and why the hockey stick chart is false.
If you cannot liberate yourself from an affection for the Kingom of Names, you are in danger of being trapped forever in the Prison of Self. Never turn aside a willing seeker. If the discussion turns pedantic because people ‘need to catch up’ either help or seek additional enlightenment elsewhere.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 9, 2012 at 10:37 pm
“No, not ‘orders’ of magnitudes, only about one order of magnitude, and there are orders of magnitudes fewer of them.”
Orders of magnitude with IR, greater than an order of magnitude average for visible.
“As you go to so short wavelengths there are so few photons that they don’t matter.”
It does not necessarily follow. And, there is a thresholding phenomenon – UV and higher can initiate reactions the others cannot, no matter their number.
“Actually not”
Henry Clark @ September 9, 2012 at 11:46 pm has good input on this. Be wary of discounting Russian mathematicians. They were forced to keep up with Western computer-aided research during the Cold War through shear application of intellect, and accomplished incredible feats of the mind.
Bart says:
September 10, 2012 at 9:36 am
Orders of magnitude with IR, greater than an order of magnitude average for visible.
The energy is inversely proportional to the wave length, so the typical UV that is involved in the production of ozone with a wave length of 200 nm has energy which is 550 nm [peak of visible]/200 nm = a bit over 2 larger, which is not ‘order’ of magnitude. Typical IR is 2000 nm, so 2000/200 is not ‘orders’ of magnitude. Below 200 nm and above 2000 nm the number of photons decreases strongly. Advice: when in a hole, stop digging.
It does not necessarily follow. And, there is a thresholding phenomenon – UV and higher can initiate reactions the others cannot, no matter their number.
The reactions don’t matter if the intensity is low as the result of any reaction depends on the concentration. Same advice as above.
Be wary of discounting Russian mathematicians. They were forced to keep up with Western computer-aided research during the Cold War through shear application of intellect, and accomplished incredible feats of the mind.
They are also more prone to flights of fancy. [I have lived and worked for a time in the Soviet Union during the Cold War].
Zee Henrich’g g’h’g’has found you out heir Leif. Un zee Bart.
For the benefit of some: /sarc off
Bart says: “The variation in insolation may average out over a year, but within that year, it can have dramatically different climatic effects,”
You hit upon something that I have been pondering, since I read tallbloke’s “Been ironing the data a bit more Leif?” comment.
Given, the complexity of the Earth’s climate – the smoothing of data (ironing out of wrinkles) could mask the effects that varying data does have have on some other factor that effects the Earth’s climate. Like say, ignoring the difference between night and day, ironing the data to where there is no warming and cooling effect – ultimately eliminating air convection currents. Similarly, imagine trying to model the effects of the Ocean on coral, coral inhabitants (fish), and beach areas if one were to measure water currents (flow and direction), then smooth out the surging of water currents, or model the effects of ocean waves, but do so as a consistent flow.
With climatologists AGW models already simplified when compared to the complexity of Mother nature; the smoothing of input data as a part of processing results in further overt simplification in the models. The end result being bad modeling of the real world.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 10, 2012 at 9:53 am
“…typical UV that is involved in the production of ozone …”
Why constrain it so? Typical UV is 10 PHz. Typical visible, less than 1 PHz. Infra-rad, just over 1 THz. What was that you said about digging?
“The reactions don’t matter if the intensity is low as the result of any reaction depends on the concentration.”
“Low” is a relative term. Without a standard against which to compare, it is virtually meaningless. Again, there is a threshold phenomenon at play. Reactions go from off to on. A small percentage change can result in huge increases in activity.
I’m not opposing you so much as demanding that you provide objective standards of evidence. Breezy dismissals of a subjective nature are not persuasive.
“They are also more prone to flights of fancy.”
And, just plain flights. Who ferries astronauts to the ISS these days? It is not merely churlish to deny a group of people recognition for their accomplishments, it is also foolhardy when they may one day once again assume an adversarial role.
Darren Potter says:
September 10, 2012 at 10:32 am
“The end result being bad modeling of the real world.”
But, the mathematics work out so beautifully.
That is how you end up with a theory that is not even wrong.
Poptech: “Credentials matter and I see no reason …”
Perhaps, if you are seeking paper potential versus requiring proven ability.
Bart says:
September 10, 2012 at 10:48 am
Why constrain it so? Typical UV is 10 PHz. Typical visible, less than 1 PHz. Infra-rad, just over 1 THz.
The constraints are given by Nature. Here is the solar spectrum: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Radiation-Spectrum.png
The UV involved in any quantity is between 200 and 300 nm. I was generous using 200 nm. The IR at 2000 nm is where CO2 is strongly absorbed. Below 200 nm and above 2000 nm there is very little incoming energy. If you look at the heating caused by absorption and reactions you see clearly where the action is http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Heating-UV.png
What was that you said about digging?
It seems you did not follow my advice.
“Low” is a relative term. Without a standard against which to compare, it is virtually meaningless.
The objective standard is the amount of energy involved which is weel-researched and known.
I’m not opposing you so much as demanding that you provide objective standards of evidence. Breezy dismissals of a subjective nature are not persuasive.
As you can see there are no ‘breezy dismissals’, and that you are not persuaded is your loss.
It is not merely churlish to deny a group of people recognition for their accomplishments
The Russians’ research is ‘broader’ than ours. The top is higher and the bottom is [much] lower. Picking something from the bottom and saying it is good because the top is better, is typical of polemics but not conducive to understanding and progress.
“from areas as large as the United States.” But, not larger? So, the way I read this is if I cherry pick some data of certain areas I produce the graph as above but if I take the global land mass it does not.
We correctly agrue that warming in only the artic or England or Timbuktu does not mean the earth is warming. Why does a correlation in the US equate to proof.
Since when does correlation equal causation. I expect better from articles on WUWT.
Forgot to mention, finding zero component/correlation in temperatures to that big ball of fire in the sky by BEST, is to me a prima faciae evidence that you screwed up your temp measurements, statistics, adjustments or all of the above. Logic would seem to dictate that changes in energy reaching the surface would have some effect on the energy at the surface. But, then again as I’ve said before temperature is NOT a unit of energy nor a measurement of energy, it does even correlate to energy. Heat of a block of ice for proof around 0C energy and temperature don’t correlate.
A new graph adjusting Hadcrut3 global temperatures to ones expected if the global low level clouds had remained the same. So basically global temperatures that have had the change in effect of low level clouds removed. Makes a very interesting visual and still not sure what to make of it yet.
http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/8922/had3vlowcloudvsolar.png
One noticeable feature seems global temperatures now match the sun much closer than ever before, over a period that was believed the link no longer existed.
leif says
If you look at the heating caused by absorption and reactions you see clearly where the action is http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Heating-UV.png
Henry says
it appears that you still do not understand what “absorption” means;
it does not mean “heating” (unless there was mass like water or solids);
if radiation hits a gas, and there is absorption, you get re-radiation,mostly, which, in the case of ozone, ultimately results in more back radiation i.e. more energy lost to space
If you look carefully at the graph you quoted, you should understand where most or at least a lot of the action is: more short wavelength radiation lost to space due to more ozone being present (since 1995 )
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 10, 2012 at 11:15 am
“The IR at 2000 nm is where CO2 is strongly absorbed.”
So what? It’s not incident IR upon which everyone is focused.
“If you look at the heating caused by absorption and reactions you see clearly where the action is.”
This is a circular argument. The action is there because our models say it is there, therefore our models are correct and comprehensive.
“The objective standard is the amount of energy involved which is weel-researched and known”
Again, UV and higher frequency inputs cause reactions the others cannot, no matter how much there is of the other. So, this is not a particularly good standard.
“Picking something from the bottom and saying it is good because the top is better…”
What is your evidence that this paper is “from the bottom?”
Matt G says:
September 10, 2012 at 11:34 am
One noticeable feature seems global temperatures now match the sun much closer than ever before, over a period that was believed the link no longer existed.
You use PMOD. It is now recognized that PMOD suffers from uncompensated degradation and that the decrease the past decade is not real. As far as we can tell there is no observational evidence for TSI being lower this past minimum that at previous minima.
HenryP says:
September 10, 2012 at 11:40 am
If you look at the heating caused by absorption and reactions you see clearly where …
What you say is ‘not even wrong’. No need to argue this anymore as you seem impervious to learning. I have tried, but, alas, failed.
ironargonaut says:
September 10, 2012 at 11:33 am
as I’ve said before temperature is NOT a unit of energy nor a measurement of energy, it does even correlate to energy.
Temperature is a measure 1) of the kinetic energy of the random thermal motions of the atoms and molecules of matter or a 2) measure of the energy of radiation.
Mind you, note that ozone absorbs (and subsequently re-radiates/ back radiates) in the region of 0.2 to 0.8 um. This is why I was saying that it is possible that an interaction on the top of the atmosphere involving a small amount of energy causing a reaction (e.g. formation of ozone from oxygen) can ultimately lead to the loss of a lot more energy (more light 0.2 -0.8 being back radiated)
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 10, 2012 at 11:43 am
Thanks for advice, do you recommend one without degradation?
Leif says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/06/soon-and-briggs-global-warming-fanatics-take-note-sunspots-do-impact-climate/#comment-1075290
Henry says
Can you be clear as to whom you were quoting. You were quoting yourself.
Bart says:
September 10, 2012 at 11:42 am
It seems that your hole is getting deeper
So what? It’s not incident IR upon which everyone is focused.
True, it is UV and its variation, but who was saying something about ‘orders of magnitudes’ for IR?
The action is there because our models say it is there, therefore our models are correct and comprehensive.
Our understanding of the physics involved is very good [based on laboratory work] and yes, our understanding of the laboratory physics is correct.
Again, UV and higher frequency inputs cause reactions the others cannot, no matter how much there is of the other. So, this is not a particularly good standard.
Higher frequencies are absorbed up in the thermosphere and have nothing to do with ozone or climate. And energy deposition is the appropriate standard. We get [rare] gamma ray bursts from outer space, causing things that others cannot and ultra-high energy cosmic ray particles doing the same, yet the total energy input is negligible.
What is your evidence that this paper is “from the bottom?”
What is your evidence that it is not? Except to praise the top. I have read [and reviewed] many Russian papers on this and they consistently are at the bottom. Perhaps you could point out where the particular paper you have in mind shines?
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 10, 2012 at 12:02 pm
“True, it is UV and its variation, but who was saying something about ‘orders of magnitudes’ for IR?”
The question was whether IR energy associated with a particular CO2 vibration state was in any way significant, or worthy of being made the reference for overall IR. It isn’t. The statement that the average IR photon is several orders of magnitude less energetic than an average UV photon remains valid.
“Our understanding of the physics involved is very good [based on laboratory work] and yes, our understanding of the laboratory physics is correct.”
Therefore, we must avoid looking any further to see if there is anything else to be learned.
“Higher frequencies are absorbed up in the thermosphere and have nothing to do with ozone or climate.”
They are absorbed, but have no effect. Amazing…
“What is your evidence that it is not?”
I’d prefer something better than a coin toss in deciding. If you have any actual critique, rather than innuendo, it would help move the conversation forward.
Matt G says:
September 10, 2012 at 11:56 am
Thanks for advice, do you recommend one without degradation?
This one http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt
but it only goes back to 2003.
Bart says:
September 10, 2012 at 12:40 pm
The question was whether IR energy associated with a particular CO2 vibration state was in any way significant, or worthy of being made the reference for overall IR. It isn’t. The statement that the average IR photon is several orders of magnitude less energetic than an average UV photon remains valid.
But irrelevant, the average F10.7 photon is 15 orders of magnitude less energetic. We were discussing UV and the UV photons of relevance are only 2-3 times more energetic
“Our understanding of the physics involved is very good [based on laboratory work] and yes, our understanding of the laboratory physics is correct.”
Therefore, we must avoid looking any further to see if there is anything else to be learned.
There is no other better place to look than direct measurements in the laboratory combined with precise calculations from well-understood theory.
“Higher frequencies are absorbed up in the thermosphere and have nothing to do with ozone or climate.” They are absorbed, but have no effect. Amazing…
Yes, see, you learn something new every day. The reasons they have no measurable effect on climate at the surface is that the air density up there is a billion times smaller than at the surface and the number of high-frequency photons falls of exponentially, so there is no real energy involved.
I’d prefer something better than a coin toss in deciding. If you have any actual critique, rather than innuendo, it would help move the conversation forward.
The shoe is on the other foot. Again: Perhaps you could point out where the particular paper you have in mind shines? You made general statements about the superiority of Russian science and I made a general statement about my [intimate] knowledge of the Russian scientific literature on Sun-Climate relationships. If you want to be particular, please be so.
Keep up the good work, Anthony! You’re credibility remains.
Leif Svalgaard: “Here is our best estimate [blue and pink, from two different reconstructions] overlaid the temperature curve: http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-Not.png”
Leif, I do not agree with your chart/statement premise. In part because your premise goes against what we so easily observe with day vs. night and with the seasons. The being the changes in levels of solar radiation has a substantial effect on earth’s temperature. Then there is the whole matter of varying temperatures on planets where man (anthropological) ain’t.
I propose if you applied the same kind of smoothing/averaging to the temperature data as you have applied to solar radiation data, compensated for how solar radiation and temperatures were measured in the past, recent past, vs. currently, and removed the bias from NOAA’s weather station temperature data, I think you would see a trend or Temp-Track-Sun.
You can be entirely correct that a mistake was made in between Wolf and Wolfer’s counting methods. However, that does not mean that when the measurements are done correctly there won’t be a correlation between solar radiation and earth temperatures.
Perhaps I misunderstanding your chart on page 36, but it appears there is correlation between solar radiation and the very slight increase in global temperatures (as claimed to be caused by AGW) up until 2000. After 2000 we know steps were taken by Mann, Hansen, Jones, etc. to hide the declining global temperatures.
What would the chart on page 36 look like if it was plotted to the present (2012)?
Can you overlay HadCrut and satellite measured temperatures (at least for the years available) on to your chart on page 36?
Darren Potter says:
September 10, 2012 at 3:30 pm
I propose if you applied the same kind of smoothing/averaging to the temperature data as you have applied to solar radiation data, compensated for how solar radiation and temperatures were measured in the past, recent past, vs. currently, and removed the bias from NOAA’s weather station temperature data, I think you would see a trend or Temp-Track-Sun.
There has been no smoothing of the solar data. What is plotted is the average for each year. The measurements are made in space outside of the earth and do not know about day/night/sommer/winter and there are no weather station bias.
However, that does not mean that when the measurements are done correctly there won’t be a correlation between solar radiation and earth temperatures.
I believe that the people measuring TSI are doing it correctly, I also believe that myself, Preminger et al., and Schrijver et al. are correctly reconstructing the past TSI. I base this on the fact that TSI depends on the sun’s magnetic field, which in turn influences special effects on the Earth’s field, which in turn has been monitored accurately for almost two centuries. I’m not sure about the temperature, but Soon and Briggs seem to be.
Perhaps I misunderstanding your chart on page 36
which reference do you mean? I have many papers and talks with a page 36.
HenryP says:
September 10, 2012 at 11:58 am
Can you be clear as to whom you were quoting. You were quoting yourself.
The quote was just to refer back to one of your posts quoting me. I don’t think anybody would be in doubt as to whom the ‘not even wrong’ remark referred to.
Fellas, your ignorance is impeccable; brilliant ignorance… the gold medal for ignorance is yours.
If ”THE SUN” was controlling the climate on the planet – Sahara and Brazil would have had SAME climate…!!! Anthony is keeping you in a perfect darkness… The truth: H2O regulates the climate, on many different ways (apart of altitude + latitude) b] there is NO such a thing as GLOBAL warming! oxygen & nitrogen regulate the overall temp in the troposphere to be always the same!
It’s the SAME sun for Florida and west of Texas – but different climates. Vietnam, Burma rain-forests have SAME sun as Arizona. On SAME latitude in Australia, the rivers are dry for 4-5 months in the year – but NOT the tributaries that fill up with water in the Amazon river. THOSE PROOFS ARE NOT MICROSCOPIC. Get the wool off your eyes, guys… start using your own brains! Sunspots have being discovered for the first time after year 2005, and the first filter made to see the sunspots was made then; but to see them clear filter was made 2008-9.
”Chinese imperial astronomers kept detailed sunspot records”’ WOW, WOW!!! Chinese imperial astronomers had brains, not to look at the sun. Contemporary Urban Sheep can look directly at the sun; because on them, ALL the wool is over their eyes…?! Shame, shame…
Bart.
Lief is peddling propaganda when it comes to UV variation and atmospheric impacts. He has been shown the wide knowledge on this topic and anyone with some basic research under their belt knows mesospheric/stratospheric ozone is influenced by both EUV and FUV that vary greatly over the solar cycle. I also had this confirmed with private correspondence with Joanna Haige.
There are some interesting links contained in an article I did some time back.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/236
HenryP:
As you noted:
“After analysing the daily data from 47 weather stations, balanced by latitude and sea-inland 70-30, my results for the speed of warming/cooling in degrees K / annum for maxima versus time now stands at 0.036 from 1974 (38 yrs), 0.029 from 1980 (32 yrs), 0.014 from 1990 (22 years) and -0.016 from 2000 (12 years).”
Assuming I didn’t make any careless mistakes here, your compiled temperature change figures for maxima look like they correspond to:
1) 1974 to 1980 = warming by 0.44 K, +0.073 K/yr within that period
2) 1980 to 1990 = warming by 0.62 K, +0.062 K/yr within that period
3) 1990 to 2000 = warming by 0.50 K, +0.05 K/yr within that period
4) 2000 to 2012 = cooling by 0.192 K, -0.016 K/yr within that period
The deceleration in the rate of warming followed by transition to cooling is apparent.
For instance, periods 1 to 4 as marked above amount if combined to 0.44 + 0.62 + 0.50 – 0.192 =~ +1.368 K over 38 years for around +0.036 K/yr over the past 38 years since 1974 as you noted.
Overall there was a temperature peak in the late 1990s, as I recall you have often mentioned too.
I would be cautious about extrapolating from 4 data points for assuming just a long-period sine wave, though. While you can fit such mathematically to those 4 points in particular, there is also variation from short-term El Ninos to the grand picture in http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/Gisp-ice-10000-r..png (backup version if the prior link doesn’t work: http://tinyurl.com/8rxo3m5 ). The latter ends 95 years ago, but the graphs in my September 7, 2012 at 10:02 pm post in this thread covered the past century. I know you are focusing on maxima and not the mean temperatures more commonly plotted, but even so…
However, anyway, a temperature peak in the late 1990s followed by the start of cooling is what we both see. Solar cycles 20->21->22 over the 1964->1996 period rose from 1.00 -> 1.032 -> 1.032 in relative inverted cosmic ray counts, followed by temperatures and solar activity overall declining afterward. I can’t very readily use the prior 4 discrete text-based datapoints as a much more specific illustration, though, for what you were asking. To do a decent job, I’d need to add in other influences superimposed on top, including the AMO and PDO ocean oscillations. All combined could most readily be shown graphically but would take quite a while. So if I spent tens of hours eventually, I’d try submitting an entire article to WUWT as opposed to a comment. Short of that, there are the links in my prior comments if helpful.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 10, 2012 at 6:12 pm
knows mesospheric/stratospheric ozone is influenced by both EUV and FUV that vary greatly over the solar cycle.
This is where you are wrong. EUV and FUV are mainly absorbed in the ionosphere and thermosphere and do not play any significant role in stratospheric ozone [in the mesosphere the density is 1000 times smaller than in the stratosphere, so the amounts created there are negligible]. The important wavelength range for ozone is 200-300 nm, and as you can see here the solar cycle variation in that range is tiny [0-3%]: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Cycle-Variation-UV.png
The myths you people believe in are amazing, people who drive those myths are doing a great disservice to the debate.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 10, 2012 at 6:12 pm
Lief is peddling propaganda
That is slander, which should be beneath the dignity of a gentleman, but then perhaps you have no aspiration to be one.
Dear Dr.Svalgaard
This whole thread has been a revelation to me and has been a great learning experience. I apologise for any offence caused to you due to my spat with you and unreservedly withdraw any negative comments I made about you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_comment
In the United States, the traditional privilege of “fair comment” is seen as a protection for robust, even outrageous published or spoken opinions about public officials and public figures.
Henry Clark says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/06/soon-and-briggs-global-warming-fanatics-take-note-sunspots-do-impact-climate/#comment-1075570
Henry@Henry Clark
Thanks! But I am not not yet convinced that it is in the clouds. But I donot count it out yet. Whatever the case, it is clear from my results that there is a timescale of some sort, affecting maximum temperatures. Applying a binominal curve with rsquare=0.998,
I think it is fair to calculate with high accuracy that a turning point was reached sometime in 1995, as far as energy-in is concerned. Energy output by earth might be different, because earth stores energy and lags behind by what comes in on top. Looking at that curve (by FW and BW estimation) it becomes apparent that the (warming) cycle previously changed sign (from cooling to warming) some 40 or 50 years ago. There is little doubt about that aspect. I understand why you you say I must be careful here; I know that but I think the deviations you mention follow the energy-in cycle, rather than affect it. So, if I now try to put the results into a sine wave I get my best fit with a wavelength of 88 years. That would mean that the maxima follow on an a-c wave with a warming period of 44 years and a cooling period of 44 years. Following this, we cannot expect the end of declining maxima before 1995+44=2039, at best. It also means that what the proponents of AGW have termed “global warming” started in or around 1951 and it is clearly part of a natural cycle that ended in 1995.
I just looked at some ozone data again, and found a bending point of ozone going down as from 1950, if I put that data from 1940-1995 in a binominal as well. Then, if I look at same data from 1980-2007, I find another bending point, this time ozone going up from 1995…
Too many coincidences here. I am not one of those who believe that our life on earth is part of a cosmic lottery.
Leif says
The myths you people believe in are amazing, people who drive those myths are doing a great disservice to the debate.
Henry says
I would say that this blog is our “lab” and our “kitchen”.Nobody is less or more important here than another as long as we work together to find out what the truth is. Here we debate and discuss the scientific issues based on actual tests and observations. As I have said before, we all appreciate your input. But if you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Venter says:
September 10, 2012 at 9:57 pm
This whole thread has been a revelation to me and has been a great learning experience.
WUWT can at times be that. The blog is also a micro cosmos of human foibles.
ferdberple says:
September 10, 2012 at 9:57 pm
In the United States, the traditional privilege of “fair comment” is seen as a protection …
Only as long as the comment is not made with ill will.
Thanks for your reply, but I’m a bit confused. It seems as if the S&B chart shows less than a 1% change in solar radiation over their period so how can you imply that the sustained increase of 12% (in your Slide 31) over recent periods is insignificant?
It seems as if a 12% increase in solar radiation could contribute to warming.
wobble says:
September 11, 2012 at 8:15 am
It seems as if a 12% increase in solar radiation could contribute to warming.
Indeed, it would fry us.
however, the 12% was an increase of the number of sunspots, not of solar radiation. A 100% increase in sunspot numbers would only increase solar radiation by 0.1% as the 99.9% of the rest comes from the part of the sun that is not magnetic. And 12% of 0.1% = 0.012% isn’t much and will give a increase of the temperature of the Earth of 0.01 degrees.
We know the solar intensity varies little. However, the solar magnetic field is not nearly so constant. The solar wind hitting the earth is like a drunk with a fire hose.
ferdberple says:
September 11, 2012 at 8:51 am
We know the solar intensity varies little. However, the solar magnetic field is not nearly so constant. The solar wind hitting the earth is like a drunk with a fire hose.
The energy in the solar wind is less than a millionth of that of solar radiation, so don’t do much for climate. On the other hand, the solar wind magnetic field reflects the solar magnetic field at the sun which gives rise to the variations of TSI. Since we have a good record of solar wind conditions [either directly observed or easily and accurately calculated from its geomagnetic response] for almost the past 200 years we can tell what TSI was doing over that time, and that is what shows us that S&B’s solar radiation curve is wrong.
The earth sits in the beam of a massive particle accelerator. The scale of the accelerator defies imagination. Everyone is fascinated looking at the exciter. See how steady it glows. Meanwhile they ignore the sweep of the beam in the magnetic field.
Consider an old style CRT tube. The filament glow is steady, never changes. However it the magnetic field collapses and the beam comes to rest for an instant it will burn a hole in the phosphor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional — the last period of similar magnitude occurred around 9,000 years ago (during the warm Boreal period).[27][28] The Sun was at a similarly high level of magnetic activity for only ~10% of the past 11,400 years, and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.[28]
ferdberple says:
September 11, 2012 at 9:05 am
Meanwhile they ignore the sweep of the beam in the magnetic field.
As I pointed out, we monitor the beam and it shows no increase in TSI or solar magnetism over the past 200 years.
The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional
So some people believe. However, recent research shows it is not, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Reconciliation%20of%20Group%20&%20International%20SSNs%20-%20Croatia.pdf [conclusion on slide 22].
Leif Svalgaard: “There has been no smoothing of the solar data. What is plotted is the average for each year. The measurements are made in space outside of the earth and do not know about day/night/sommer/winter and there are no weather station bias.”
Leif you are all over the place with your arguments. Averaging for each year results in smoothing. Using measurements taken in space where there is no difference between day & night and the seasons results in smoothing. And makes for a bad model of Earth’s complex climate. As for the weather stations bias, that has to do with looking at the Global temperatures in relation to your premise that solar radiation is not related.
Leif Svalgaard: “I believe that the people measuring TSI are doing it correctly, I also believe that myself,”
I point you to your own page 10, where you argue there was a change made in counting of Sunspots that caused a discontinuity. From there you try to extrapolate TSI based on your own idea of what the correction should have been. That becomes an opinion, not science.
Leif Svalgaard: “which reference do you mean? I have many papers and talks with a page 36.”
The pdf paper you pointed to near the top of this WUWT entry. “The long-term variation of solar activity”. On page 36 it is clear there is an increase in solar activity. Which appears to correlate with the increase in Global Temperatures up until 2000. So again, what would the chart look like from 2000 through 2012, plotted with Global Temperature data?
Leif Svalgaard (page 14): “My modest proposal was met with fierce resistance from everybody,
but since I persisted in being a pest,”
After reading your paper and your numerous posts here, I think I am getting a good idea as to why there was “fierce resistance” and why they finally agreed. They got tired of your all over the place arguments and decided it was easier to appease you. Something that is not going to happen with all those here at WUWT. Understand, some here may agree with you, some may disagree, and some are just not going to give you the time of day. May not be fair, but that is the nature of the beast.
I do not accept your premise based upon your paper and comments. What I see is you are attempting to drive multiple round pegs in a square hole, and shaving off the edges in attempt to make them fit. The best explanation for the changes in global temperatures we have seen comes from concept of Grand Harmonic: http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/236. In that the various cycles either cancel each other or reinforce each other causing periods of warming, mild warming, stability, mild cooling, or cooling of Earth’s temperatures.
Darren Potter says:
September 11, 2012 at 10:21 am
…..The best explanation for the changes in global temperatures we have seen comes from concept of Grand Harmonic: http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/236….
oh dear!
Darren Potter says:
September 11, 2012 at 10:21 am
Averaging for each year results in smoothing. Using measurements taken in space where there is no difference between day & night and the seasons results in smoothing.
No, it shows the average for that year. Measuremets are taken every few minutes. Furthemore, the data plotted by Soon&Briggs are yearly averages. Take your problem to them.
And makes for a bad model of Earth’s complex climate. As for the weather stations bias, that has to do with looking at the Global temperatures in relation to your premise that solar radiation is not related.
There is no bias in the spacecraft data and according to Soon&Briggs not in the temperature data as they claim the two curves track each other.
From there you try to extrapolate TSI based on your own idea of what the correction should have been. That becomes an opinion, not science.
The correction is determined by comparison with simultaneous data from the solar observers and is accepted as correct. Good science and not opinion
On page 36 it is clear there is an increase in solar activity.
The correct slide to look at is the next one, slide 37.
So again, what would the chart look like from 2000 through 2012, plotted with Global Temperature data?
somewhat silly as no matter what it looks like people would claim there are lags in the system so the two curves cannot be compared on such a short time scale, but if you do it you get http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-Satellite-Temps-2000-2012.png
They got tired of your all over the place arguments and decided it was easier to appease you.
They did it, because it is good science and the result is, of course, convincing to all: http://www.leif.org/research/Comparison-Locarno-Svalgaard-Cagnotti-png
May not be fair, but that is the nature of the beast.
People will get out of this what they deserve to get out of it.
I do not accept your premise based upon your paper and comments….The best explanation for the changes in global temperatures we have seen comes from concept of Grand Harmonic: http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/236.
As I said, it is your loss, and BTW you just showed your bias and adherence to the cyclomania cult. In face of such faith, no amount of real science will have any impact at all, I fully understand and appreciate that.
John Finn says
oh dear
Henry says
quote from what John Finn regards “oh dear”:
Solar UV ranges from 10-400nm on the spectral scale and is broken up into 3 basic categories. EUV is at the extreme end of the spectrum (10-125.6nm) which includes the important Lyman alpha portion which resides at the high end of the EUV scale. EUV values vary by 30-100% across the range over the solar cycle, and have the most potential to modulate atmospheric chemistry, size and temperature. FUV (126-200nm) also shows big variations in the 10-30% range and is a very important player along with EUV for ozone formation in the stratosphere and mesosphere. MUV (200-300nm) is a solid ozone backstop but only varies 1% over the solar cycle but still relevant when comparing overall TSI (total solar irradiance) variance of 0.1%.
Those that subscribe to AGW science will only push TSI when it comes to solar influence on climate. The records gathered from somewhat dubious satellites during the space age display a small 0.1% change in solar HEAT output over a few solar cycles. To really appreciate the true solar effect on climate it is necessary to include chemical changes and total solar influenced cloud cover to see the real picture.
end quote
well, yes, ehh,
isn’t that exactly what I have been trying to say in laymens terms (as I am not an expert in solar)
now if the persons who wrote this (Geoff Sharp?) can just report to me if they might be able to correlate my results of an apparent a-c wave evident in the record for maxima
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/06/soon-and-briggs-global-warming-fanatics-take-note-sunspots-do-impact-climate/#comment-1074407
….with the right cycles
that would make my day….
They did it, because it is good science and the result is, of course, convincing to all: http://www.leif.org/research/Comparison-Locarno-Svalgaard-Cagnotti.png
The counting without weighting will be continued indefinitely.
I now understand your point. Thank you for patiently explaining it to me.
HenryP says:
September 11, 2012 at 11:29 am
“FUV (126-200nm) also shows big variations in the 10-30% range and is a very important player along with EUV for ozone formation in the stratosphere”
if they might be able to correlate my results
Except what they wrote is not the way it is. EUV does not penetrate in enough amounts to play a significant role in ozone formation in the stratosphere, as these rays are predominantly absorbed much higher up, in the thermosphere and ionosphere.
Henry@Leif
I have been looking at studies on ozone formation but I gather these chemical reactions are complex and the points in the atmosphere to measure limited. Yet, somehow, as I have found, there must be a (natural) reason as to why ozone started decreasing in 1950 and increasing again in 1996, seemingly in tandem with respectively the rise and fall in maximum temperatures.
(I very much doubt now the ozone scare noises made in the eighties, its fall being blamed on CFC’s)
HenryP says:
September 11, 2012 at 12:43 pm
there must be a (natural) reason as to why ozone started decreasing in 1950 and increasing again in 1996
Signe, my daughter-in-law is the family expert on ozone, here is her take on it: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/nature04746-Ozone-Recovery-Signe.pdf
Leif Svalgaard: “BTW you just showed your bias and adherence to the cyclomania cult. In face of such faith, no amount of real science will have any impact at all,”
This coming from a person who’s premise is the Sun’s Solar Radiation is consistent, does not have an effect on Earth’s temperatures as original posted here, and offers no explanation as to why Earth’s temperatures have changed over the millennial. While ignoring what humans witness everyday, the Sun’s Solar Radiation effecting the Earth’s temperatures. There is a cult here alright, but it is your own.
BTW: Insistent of a premise, being all over the place with your arguments, and countering your own statements is NOT real science. But you go right ahead, keep ironing that Solar Radiation data, in fact steam press it, and you may eventually come up with a premise to deny why Mercury is hotter than Neptune.
Darren Potter says:
September 11, 2012 at 4:05 pm
This coming from a person who’s premise is the Sun’s Solar Radiation is consistent, does not have an effect on Earth’s temperatures as original posted here
You are catching on to the fact that the solar curve ‘as original posted here’ is invalid just as the data shows, and that THAT was the issue, not what causes climate change.
offers no explanation as to why Earth’s temperatures have changed over the millennial.
I could [e.g. changes in ocean circulation, orbital elements, etc] but no explanation is better than ten false ones. As I said, many people are happy with false explanations and it might be cruel to remove that sense of happiness [if it can even be done for die-hard believers], so go on and be happy.
While ignoring what humans witness everyday, the Sun’s Solar Radiation effecting the Earth’s temperatures
At this point people like you usually turn to the argument that it is colder at night when the Sun doesn’t shine, so I’m waiting for it.
HenryP says:
September 11, 2012 at 11:29 am
now if the persons who wrote this (Geoff Sharp?) can just report to me if they might be able to correlate my results of an apparent a-c wave evident in the record for maxima
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/06/soon-and-briggs-global-warming-fanatics-take-note-sunspots-do-impact-climate/#comment-1074407
….with the right cycles
that would make my day….
Henry, what you see in your research is the repeating solar powerwave. I have a small article that tries to make it understandable.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/218
You will get no joy out of discussing issues with Leif as he never accepts science that goes against his ideas. He will use incorrect statements and throw away lines and then attack the person if that fails. His statement on UV is one example where he tells part of the truth to confuse, this is the behavior of a sophist.
He wrote:
Except what they wrote is not the way it is. EUV does not penetrate in enough amounts to play a significant role in ozone formation in the stratosphere, as these rays are predominantly absorbed much higher up, in the thermosphere and ionosphere.
Both EUV and FUV are ozone modulators, the following graph excepted by NASA and the majority of the world’s experts in this field shows the atmospheric penetration of the different wavelengths of UV.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/atmos.png
EUV is capable of penetrating into the Mesosphere which has a much lower ozone content but still none the less is thought to influence gravity waves and the northern polar vortex (AO index). Apart from that it is widely understood that chemicals created by EUV in the higher atmosphere make their way down via eddy diffusion and influence ozone production/destruction at lower levels. FUV which also varies 10-30% over its spectrum over the solar cycle then takes over and is a large player in Stratospheric ozone. Some of the ozone changes during low solar activity show a decrease of ozone under 45km and an increase above as shown via Joanna Haig’s work. I think this is all connected to the jet stream and pressure pattern changes we are seeing now, which obviously are having an impact. You may also be interested to read some of Stephen Wilde’s articles who is also a keen advocate in this area.
There are many advanced papers requiring hours of reading at the previous link I provided, but for anyone wishing to know more on the solar/climate link I can highly recommend the time required.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/236
Darren Potter says:September 11, 2012 at 4:05 pm: ”and offers no explanation as to why Earth’s temperatures have changed over the millennial”
Darren, localized temperatures change every 10 minutes – but the GLOBAL temp overall is always the same! Stating that 1000y ago was colder. or warmer than today; it doesn’t say anything about the temperature, but about the person’s honesty / ignorance. 1000y ago people were scared to sail west of Portugal, not to fall off the planet – therefore: nobody was monitoring temp in both Americas, Oceania, Australia, Antarctic ocean and Terra Firma. Are they part of your ”globe”?!
People that concocted for the past 150 years ”LOCALIZED’ climatic changes as phony GLOBAL warmings; are the precursor of today’s evil. They were not scrutinized = they were inventing bigger lies than contemporary con, just to get the attention and funds. Here it’s for both camps to see: . http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/skeptics-stinky-skeletons-from-their-closet/
Leif Svalgaard + HenryP say:September 11, 2012 at 12:43 pm ”there must be a (natural) reason as to why ozone started decreasing in 1950 and increasing again in 1996”
HenryP, some people say that: the moon is made from mozzarella cheese – reason is melting every month, from the imaginary extra GLOBAL heat. Believing everything ”they” say, is not very clever / prudent.
Regarding real reasons about ‘ozone increase / decrease::: 1] nobody was monitoring increase / decrease of ozone in the 50’s, to be able to compare – that was added in 1980’s. People realized that: burning different synthetics – the smog is not as CO2 – goes into the lungs, then out with your own again. The smoke from those synthetics was coating your lungs and was staying there -> they invented ”the ozone story” Little white lie, to do good.
Unfortunately, by succeeding with that noble lie; some opportunist realized that: they can manipulate the society easy and make themselves lots and lots of money = that’s how the GLOBAL warming crap was born. So, 1996 the ”ozone trick” was removed from the debate, NOT TO UPSTAGE THE CO2. Because the money is in CO2, ozone isn’t good enough for loot money.
By the way: until 82, they were about ”Nuclear Winter by year 2000; because of CO2 dimming effect” Before we even defrosted from their Nuclear Winter – they had to turn into GLOBAL warming; because the countdown for year 2000 was supposed to start.
Henry, the building in East Anglia university, where the shonky climatologist are, is called ”Hubert Lamb, Building” Prof Hubert Lamb was promoting Nuclear Winter for year 2000. Now in the ”Building of English Shame” the idiots he created are promoting the phony GLOBAL warming, which is as real as their nuclear winter – only difference; they learned from Nostradamus – not to put a date – before they spend the loot money. Taking for granted what those Swindlers are telling / informing / misleading; created lots of nutters in the global warming blogosphere. Cheers.
Leif Svalgaard says:September 11, 2012 at 4:24 pm: ”solar curve”
Leif, the ”solar curve” has being made for misleading / confusing…. and they are succeeding.
BUT, if you learn about the: ”SELF ADJUSTING MECHANISM” the troposphere has – would realize that: everything else is bulldung:
1]-When is a solar eclipse – the moon is reflecting lots of sunlight, not to come to the earth. Same as when Mercury is in-between. But the earth doesn’t accumulate enough EXTRA coldness, to cool one beer!!! Because during the eclipse, gets colder for a millionth of a second -> oxygen & nitrogen shrink accordingly / decrease the volume of the troposphere for the duration of the eclipse and waste LESS heat – same as when you are cold in bed – you get in a feathus position – to minimize exposure- then when you get warm = spread arms and legs.
Earth’s troposphere can shrink / DOUBLE in size, in seconds. Imagine if your car radiator was doubling in volume when the engine warms up – like piano accordion. Here is some for you; if you have a stomach for the truth: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/q-a/
Geoff Sharp says:
September 11, 2012 at 4:54 pm
He will use incorrect statements and throw away lines and then attack the person if that fails.
Still pursuing the slander angle, I see. Whatever the influences you may think there are, they have almost no effect on climate [less that 0.1 C], and some of the newest data indicate that the UV photons that influence the stratosphere actually vary in antiphase with the solar cycle: less solar activity, more UV. But, as usual, you are of topic. The issue is what TSI is doing as per Soon&Briggs.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 11, 2012 at 4:54 pm
influence ozone production/destruction at lower levels. FUV which also varies 10-30% over its spectrum over the solar cycle then takes over and is a large player in Stratospheric ozone.
You are trying to create the illusion that the solar cycle variation of ozone is large. In reality it is tiny. Quoting Haigh: http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2007-2/fulltext.html
“Observational records (Figure 29a) suggest a peak in ozone response of about 2% over the solar cycle in the upper stratosphere, with a secondary maximum in the lower stratosphere, although the restricted length of the data series means that these results are not yet statistically robust. Ozone column (Figure 29b) shows 0.5 – 4% higher values in ozone columns at 11-year cycle maximum relative to minimum.”
You see that we are talking about a few percent only. That is the bottom line. Forget the 100%, the 30%, etc. If you were honest you should add to your discussion on your website that the effect is only of the order of 2%. I’ll be watching for signs of honesty.
HenryP says:September 11, 2012 at 12:43 pm
there must be a (natural) reason as to why ozone started decreasing in 1950 and increasing again in 1996
Leif Svalgaard says: September 11, 2012 at 1:17 pm
Signe, my daughter-in-law is the family expert on ozone, here is her take on it: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/nature04746-Ozone-Recovery-Signe.pdf
Hello Leif
Within the paper noted, it states that:
My understanding of the dynamical effects of a Polar Vortex are that;
and that
Given the existence of a water vapor hole, a nitrogen oxide hole, an ozone hole and a methane hole within the vortex, wouldn’t the simplest explanation for these occurrences be the dynamical effects of the polar vortex on atmospheric pressure and circulation, as well as that within the Polar Vortex,
Further supporting this hypothesis is the apparent existence of an Ozone Surplus around the Ozone Hole, i.e.;
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/
indicating that much of the ozone might not be destroyed, but rather displaced.
Additionally, if the above understanding of the dynamical effects of a polar vortex are reasonably accurate, then the reason for decreases in ozone concentrations during the 80s and 90s might be associated with the finding in;
Does this make reasonable sense? If so, then why the apparent attributions to anthropogenic influences (climate change and CFCs) when natural dynamical effects of polar vorticity might offer a suitable explanation for the atmospheric dynamics and existence of the ozone hole?
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 11, 2012 at 7:43 pm
I’ll be watching for signs of honesty.
At no point I did state that ozone values varied by 100% or 30% etc. But I am very glad you now recognize the significant variance in the ozone column experienced since the decline of SC23. Haig goes on to say.
Daily measurements of the solar spectrum between 0.2 mm
and 2.4 mm, made by the Spectral Irradiance Monitor (SIM) instru-ment on the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite since April 2004, have revealed that over this declining
phase of the solar cycle there was a four to six times larger decline in
ultraviolet than would have been predicted on the basis of our
previous understanding. This reduction was partially compensated
in the total solar output by an increase in radiation at visible wave-lengths. Here we show that these spectral changes appear to have
led to a significant decline from 2004 to 2007 in stratospheric
ozone below an altitude of 45 km, with an increase above this
altitude.
I have no wish to engage in meaningless discussion with you. My comments were directed at Henry.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 11, 2012 at 9:51 pm
At no point I did state that ozone values varied by 100% or 30% etc.
No, you did worse than that. You quoted these large percentage changes with the apparent purpose to create the illusion that there were large resulting variations in ozone.
But I am very glad you now recognize the significant variance in the ozone column experienced since the decline of SC23.
Again you choose ambiguous phrasing, suggesting something I never maintained. The truth is that Harder et al. (2009) suggested that the magnitude of the solar cycle variation in the ultraviolet (UV), from 200 to 400 nm [note MUV and not FUV], is several times larger than previously thought. Further, that the SORCE variation in the visible and near-infrared (NIR) is out of phase with the UV and total solar irradiance (TSI), i.e., that the visible and NIR flux actually increased approaching the last solar minimum. Lean and DeLand (2012) argue that the unexpected solar cycle variations inferred from the SORCE SIM instrument are the result of undetected instrument sensitivity drifts and therefore caution against using the SIM-derived 11-yr solar cycle variation until further validation and uncertainty estimation are available. In any event, the changes in the ozone column is stil only of the order of a few percent, and the inferred changes in temperature of the order of 0.05 degrees.
I have no wish to engage in meaningless discussion with you.
Yet you come back for more punishment, again and again, continuing this meaningless discussion across threads, without learning anything.
Just The Facts says:
September 11, 2012 at 9:40 pm
Does this make reasonable sense? If so, then why the apparent attributions to anthropogenic influences (climate change and CFCs) when natural dynamical effects of polar vorticity might offer a suitable explanation for the atmospheric dynamics and existence of the ozone hole?
The whole issue is too complex to deal with in a comment, but from past discussions with Signe my understanding is that both natural dynamics and anthropogenic influence play a role. The situation is like with climate change: each camp claims that their mechanism is the only [or at least dominant] cause, and the discussion quickly degrades into polarized name-calling. The timing of the beginning of the long, slow recovery suggests to me that the ban on some man-made halocarbon refrigerants has been working.
Henry@Geoff, just the facts, stefan
Thanks so much for your contributions here, I do appreciate. I do find my bending point of 1995 when we know warming stopped and cooling started in the two waves (blue and purple) shown by you, Geoff. Apparently we are all agreed on that – except Leif, apparently – I fear we cannot help him right with that. I think he does not even believe yet it has started cooling.( I am holiday here on the north coast in South Africa and I would say it is at least 10 degrees colder here as last year. The water is a lot colder too.)
As to the length of the cycle, I think we are a bit out but I think Scafetta is looking at average temps. (of the seas?) which is like energy out and may differ from the energy-in. So it seems to me now that it is entirely possible that my curve of the acceleration/deceleration of maxima follows on its own path, on an apparent 88 year cycle, ca. 44 years of warming followed by ca. 44 years of cooling.
But the ozone connection seems strong, seeing that it follows my maxima cycle. My data are from a station in the Swiss alps and they have records from the 19twenties. There is a lot of variation in that data but you would expect this from just one random place on earth. Yet the bending points of 1951 and 1996 are unmistakenly recognisable.
Many people (including Leif, apparently) still seem to think that what is “absorbed” is not lost to space but transferred to heat.
I did explain the principle of re-radiation here.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011/
Because there is almost no mass in the upper atmospheres it seems likely to me that it acts and reacts on variations in high energy coming from the sun subsequently causing more or less back radiation. At this moment that seems to be the most likely explanation for what I observed.
HenryP says:
September 12, 2012 at 12:09 am
Henry@Geoff, just the facts, stefan
Thanks so much for your contributions here, I do appreciate. I do find my bending point of 1995 when we know warming stopped and cooling started in the two waves (blue and purple) shown by you, Geoff. Apparently we are all agreed on that – except Leif, apparently – I fear we cannot help him right with that. I think he does not even believe yet it has started cooling.
That’s because it hasn’t. UAH satellites provide even spaced, widespread sampling of temperatures across the globe. The results show no cooling.
( I am holiday here on the north coast in South Africa and I would say it is at least 10 degrees colder here as last year. The water is a lot colder too.)
I’m beginning to see why South Africa provides such a massively disproportionate number of stations in your ‘sample’. You clever, little ‘scientist’, you!
John Finn says
That’s because it hasn’t. UAH satellites provide even spaced, widespread sampling of temperatures across the globe. The results show no cooling.
( I am holiday here on the north coast in South Africa and I would say it is at least 10 degrees colder here as last year. The water is a lot colder too.)
I’m beginning to see why South Africa provides such a massively disproportionate number of stations in your ‘sample’. You clever, little ‘scientist’, you!
Henry@John
You are funny. But I wonder if you understand why I said that longitude in my sample does not matter? I wonder also if you understand why I think that adding another 40 stations is not going to change much to my reported result on the deceleration of maxima?
In my dataset we can see that all three: means, maxima and minima turned negative from warming to cooling somewhere between 12 and 20 years ago. On means, we dropped about 0.2 degrees C globally, since 2000, according to my dataset.
Hadcrut3 now reports a drop of ca. 0.1 degree C since 2000.
I have questioned the UAH results (on a previous thread about UAH results) basiccally because they show no correlation whatsoever. On short term, like month to month, I dont expect that but over a longer term you are supposed to see some kind of pattern emerging, with a correlation coefficient at least higher than 0.5
I think that they understood my questions about their calibration (especially their reference zero point) and later came back admitting that it could be reading too high.
I hope they will come with a correction soon.
Why do I trust my own dataset better than any other? In my dataset I used a different method, assessing the average change from the average measured over a certain period of time which is a lot less dependant on calibration. And I would never report a graph as being correct unless I found rsquare is at least 0.995.(I believe in getting a 100% score)
stefanthedenier: “Darren, localized temperatures change every 10 minutes – but the GLOBAL temp overall is always the same!”
stefanthedenier, first off, I don’t believe in AGW. But Global temperatures have and do change.
There is ample scientific evidence to show that Earth’s temperatures have varied (as in Ice Age) over Earth’s history. That includes variations in recent history. My own analysis of the biased GHCN weather station temperature held by NOAA shows Global temperatures do vary. At the same time, that data fails to show AGW as claimed by alarmists.
AGW is Fraud.
HenryP says:
September 10, 2012 at 11:53 am
Mind you, note that ozone absorbs (and subsequently re-radiates/ back radiates) in the region of 0.2 to 0.8 um. This is why I was saying that it is possible that an interaction on the top of the atmosphere involving a small amount of energy causing a reaction (e.g. formation of ozone from oxygen) can ultimately lead to the loss of a lot more energy (more light 0.2 -0.8 being back radiated)
As you have been told before this is impossible! When an O3 molecule absorbs a photon of UV light (peak absorption at 0.25μm) it photodissociates i.e. it falls apart into an O2 molecule and an oxygen atom, there is no O3 molecule to re-radiate!
Henry@Phil.
Hi Phil. ! Where did you come from? It seems to me you were ordered here? Last time we discussed things we agreed to disagree as it appeared not possible for you to agree with me
on what I wrote here,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011/
which, according to me, is entirely true.
If you want to start discussing this again, you are so welcome, but shall we do that on my own blog?
Leif says:
The timing of the beginning of the long, slow recovery (of ozone levels) suggests to me that the ban on some man-made halocarbon refrigerants has been working.
Henry says
You are suggesting that finding that maxima started increasing around 1950 with ozone going down from that time and that finding (now) that maxima are decreasing from 1995 with ozone increasing from that time is pure co-incidence.
Such incidents where we know that they could be related (seeing that ozone back radiates 25% of all that is being back radiated) are rare. It is the same with the CO2. We know that there are giga tons of bi-carbonate in the oceans. So the chemical reaction:
heat+ HCO3- => H2O + CO2 is what caused most of the increase CO2 since 1951.
The records from Hawaii only started around the 19fifties. More heat drove up CO2. Heat is leading the CO2.
Always think about cause and effect, first, before making conclusions.I very much doubt now if the CFC’s had anything to do with the ozone levels.
HenryP says:
September 12, 2012 at 1:20 pm
You are suggesting that finding that maxima started increasing around 1950 with ozone going down from that time and that finding (now) that maxima are decreasing from 1995 with ozone increasing from that time is pure co-incidence.
It is simpler than that, there was no maximum in 1995, the Earth has not cooled since 1995 [on the contrary, it has been warmer since 1995 than before 1995]. Here is what signe has to say about ozone recovery: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/nature04746-Ozone-Recovery-Signe.pdf
I guess you ignored her paper the first time around [and may again].
HenryP says:
September 12, 2012 at 1:20 pm
caused most of the increase CO2 since 1951. The records from Hawaii only started around the 19fifties.
Just when the Earth started to cool as per the Figure heading this post.
HenryP says:September 12, 2012 at 1:20 pm
Mate, you are using all the Warmist theology – then inserting your hypothesis. 1] CO2 absorbs sunlight and after 8AM is lifted up, same as fog. 2] intercepting part of the sunlight high up = less comes to the ground. 3] high up cooling is much more efficient. 4] heat is NOT re-radiated down at all – because from up there to the ground is kilometers of oxygen& nitrogen as perfect insulators. 5] CO2 can absorb more heat than O&N – BUT, CO2 absorbs much more coldness at night also – those two factors cancel each other!!! Unless you believe in ”flat earth” sunshine 24h on every spot on the planet. Everything they use is made for deceiving and confusion – you are falling for their trick. Go to my blog and read every page – everything is original, everything can be proven, replicate in controlled environment. Read all 11 pages; don’t let them deceive you. Many in the blogosphere are paid to promote the misleading data and their mythology – they are not interested in the truth – if the truth is known, they will not be paid taxpayer’s money. be fair to yourself, because I can see that you are barking up their wrong tree. They are arguing with you, because unintentionally you are promoting what suits them: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/climate/ Cheers!
stefanthedenier,
Nothing ‘absorbs coldness’.
Darren Potter says:September 12, 2012 at 8:39 am said: ”There is ample scientific evidence to show that Earth’s temperatures have varied (as in Ice Age) over Earth’s history”
Darren, what you know I now also; but what I know, you don’t know – therefore i have unfair advantage on you… ”Ice Age” was on the northern hemisphere at that time – S/H was hotter than now. The laws of physics don’t permit warmer, or colder the WHOLE PLANET.
1] when the WHOLE troposphere warms up – O&N expand instantly upwards -> release extra heat and swap for extra coldness and equalize in a jiffy.
2] when the WHOLE troposphere get colder -> shrink for few minutes / release less heat and. equalizes in a jiffy.
3] the only way part of the planet can get warmer for prolong period is: if other part / parts get colder – to accommodate the extra volume of air from the part that is gone warmer. Do you believe in the laws of physics, or in the shonks / ”scientists” that for 150years have being accumulating crap; without being scrutinized. People like you are giving oxygen to the Warmist – otherwise, by now the leading Warmist would have being in jail. If you have stomach for real proofs, facts and formulas – proven beyond any reasonable doubt – go to my blog and read all 11 pages. Too complicated to explain in a comment.
D Boehm says: ”stefanthedenier, Nothing ‘absorbs coldness’.’
Mate, I have being through that few times – people on the street are interested in simple talk. They don’t say oxygen two, nitrogen two – they don’t use Calvin – they go close to the fen, to get colder.
People that are obsessed in manipulation; use empty talk. Simplify, cut the rot, cut the rot – on the end it depends if the 99% of the people on the street know the truth. People that occasionally visit websites. Thew ”regular bingo players” are into ideology, not in reality. If you learn what I have, it will be new for you… I know about the ultimate zero, as much as you; nothing new
Nothing personal, but words matter, especially in science.
It’s absolute zero, not ultimate zero. Kelvin, not Calvin, etc.
Leif Svalgaard says: ”The records from Hawaii only started around the 19fifties. Just when the Earth started to cool as per the Figure heading this post”
Leif , the earth didn’t started to cool – they were misleading that was cooling; because originally their lies were that: CO2 intercepts the sunlight high up ”DIMMING EFFECT” where cooling is much more efficient =will cool the planet as ”nuclear winter for year 2000” Because they were correct that CO2 intercepts sunlight – but didn’t take into account the second factor, that: CO2 slows down cooling (at night) (second factor is used now, to con about ”greenhouse effect)
Then they disregarded the second factor – now they / you are disregarding the first factor. THOSE TWO FACTORS CANCEL EACH OTHER!!! You don’t have a case.
Phil. says: ”As you have been told before this is impossible! When an O3 molecule absorbs a photon of UV light (peak absorption at 0.25μm) it photodissociates i.e. it falls apart into an O2 molecule and an oxygen atom, there is no O3 molecule to re-radiate!”
Phil, ozone doesn’t ”absorb” sunlight – ozone is opaque, same as oxygen. 2] ozone (O3) is not a molecule, but an isotope.
As oxygen (O2) by convection is cooling the planet. When turned into ozone -makes larger volume than independent oxygen atoms -> goes above the troposphere, into the stratosphere and just spins there; without any contribution. They were misleading about ozone, for good reason.
hypothetical: even if the ”ozone hole” was ”letting” extra radiation on Antarctic – don’t you think that for the local inhabitants would have being better on the coldest place on the planet? Because of the curvature of the planet; sunlight is dispersed on much larger area – those critters need some warmth
Contemporary, ozone is used only when the Warmist run out of lies; or occasionally when proven on some subject wrong – to change the subject and avoid ridicule. Ozone has NOTHING to do with the global temperature – oxygen & nitrogen are regulating the global temp; by expanding / shrinking in change of temperature
.
Ozone is a molecule. Its constituent atoms may be different atomic weights, but it is a molecule, not an isotope.
Ozone, def: a colorless unstable toxic gas with a pungent odor and powerful oxidizing properties, formed from oxygen by electrical discharges or ultraviolet light. It differs from normal oxygen (O 2) in having three atoms in its molecule (O 3).
Leif Svalgaard says: September 11, 2012 at 10:57 pm
The whole issue is too complex to deal with in a comment, but from past discussions with Signe my understanding is that both natural dynamics and anthropogenic influence play a role.
That seems like a reasonable possibility to me.
The situation is like with climate change: each camp claims that their mechanism is the only [or at least dominant] cause, and the discussion quickly degrades into polarized name-calling.
Strange how “science” works these days…
The timing of the beginning of the long, slow recovery suggests to me that the ban on some man-made halocarbon refrigerants has been working.
I am skeptical of the evidence of “recovery” as I have limited confidence in the atmospheric ozone content measurements/calculations, e.g.;
So “long after all other on-board experiments had failed” it produced suspect data, which was then put through “a lengthly evolutionary process” that includes “revised instrument calibration”, “including a correction for a 0.2 nm wavelength error”, “as well as an improved algorithm” that included “a more accurate model for partially-clouded scenes” and “to calculate ozone hole area and mass deficit” they “fill in missing areas (bad orbits and polar night) from an atmospheric model.” It seems that the TOMS instrument has a long history of issues and required “corrections”, thus the resultant Ozone content measurements/calculations should be viewed with a skeptical eye.
Prior to the TOMS measurements, the accuracy of ground based measurements was likely significantly worse, e.g.;
Measurement of ozone content within a swirling Polar Vortex;
http://www.jhu.edu/~dwaugh1/gallery_stratosphere.html
from a few ground stations, that were not far from the coast of Antarctica, does not provide confidence in the measurement accuracy.
It thus perplexing that this questionable evidence was sufficient to support attribution to and action against anthropogenic CFC emissions, i.e.:
No significant conclusions, just a bunch of data and various reasons for healthy skepticism.
Henry@Leif
Noticing your last comments here directed at me,-or not- I considered that you might suffer from schizophrenia. Pity. Multiple characters I am afraid. I hope you have a good psychiatrist. In the olden days we would call that disease: posessed by demons (devils). Going to church and learning about Jesus might also help. He can cast out any demon.
Just The Facts says:
September 12, 2012 at 9:17 pm
No significant conclusions, just a bunch of data and various reasons for healthy skepticism.
Science is always imbued with healthy skepticism. The trick is to avoid being paralyzed by said skepticism.
HenryP says:
September 12, 2012 at 10:23 pm
Multiple characters I am afraid
The character dealing with you is one of the kind ones, always helpful and willing to educate.
stefanthedenier: “… therefore i have unfair advantage on you …” “‘Ice Age’ was on the northern hemisphere at that time – S/H was hotter than now.”
No advantage. Start checking what you think you know. The Ice Age was a global event, recent work has reaffirmed that. Granted, S/H was warmer than N/H, but both where colder during the Ice Age.
stefanthedenier: “The laws of physics don’t permit warmer, or colder the WHOLE PLANET.”
Which laws of physics say a “WHOLE PLANET” can not be warmer or colder?
(Neptune vs. Earth vs. Mercury beg to differ)
Perhaps ya forgot /sarc? If so, I’ll play along for benefit of Lewandowsky.
We got all our recent technical advancements from reverse engineering a crashed craft, found near Roswell. Oh, and the future Janeway wants here shuttle back…
justthefacts said
Estimates of trends in the vertical distribution of ozone, using ground-based data, suggest that ozone decreased in the middle and upper stratosphere by 23 per cent in the period 1970 to 1980
Henry says
This was the right in the middle of the warming period 1950-1995 (looking at energy-in: maxima). My ozone data suggest a total drop of ca. 10% over the whole of the period 1950-1995. On average over that period it is a lot lower than that, of course. Trenberth thinks that ozone absorbs (back radiates, mostly) about 25% of all that is being absorbed (back radiated).
Assuming all this figures are correct, more or less, then it looks to me that ozone could be a factor, but probably, like you suggest in your post, not the only factor.There might be a few other chemical reactions going on up there on top that also cause more re-radiation.
Leif Svalgaard says
The character dealing with you is one of the kind ones, always helpful and willing to educate.
Henry says
Yes, true, that is the character we all love and appreciate. The others, not so much, especially the ones that come here to hi-jack this thread.
HenryP says:
September 12, 2012 at 12:33 pm
Henry@Phil.
Hi Phil. ! Where did you come from?
Same place as always. When I see such bad errors in science (particularly Phys Chem) I post corrections in case someone might actually think it’s true.
It seems to me you were ordered here?
As can be seen in your blog you think lots of things that aren’t true.
Last time we discussed things we agreed to disagree as it appeared not possible for you to agree with me
on what I wrote here,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011/
which, according to me, is entirely true.
It certainly isn’t possible for me (or anyone else with an education in chemistry) to agree with what you wrote there as it’s completely wrong. Read a basic undergraduate text on Physical Chemistry or Molecular Spectroscopy to confirm that. (Barrow is a good one)
If you want to start discussing this again, you are so welcome, but shall we do that on my own blog?
No since you raised it here I’ll discuss it here. Your ideas about how molecules interact with molecules is completely wrong, they don’t behave like ‘little mirrors’, in the specific case of ozone they’re even worse because the ozone molecule ceases to exist once it absorbs the UV photon.
stefanthedenier says:
September 12, 2012 at 6:12 pm
Phil. says: ”As you have been told before this is impossible! When an O3 molecule absorbs a photon of UV light (peak absorption at 0.25μm) it photodissociates i.e. it falls apart into an O2 molecule and an oxygen atom, there is no O3 molecule to re-radiate!”
Phil, ozone doesn’t ”absorb” sunlight – ozone is opaque, same as oxygen. 2] ozone (O3) is not a molecule, but an isotope.
Three mistakes in one line! Ozone and Oxygen both absorb UV from the sun. Ozone is a molecule consisting of three oxygen atoms. Isotopes of Oxygen are O16, O17 & O18, all have 8 protons and 8, 9 & 10 neutrons respectively. You may be confusing isotope with the term allotrope which refers to the different molecular configurations of the element, namely: dioxygen, O2 and ozone, O3.
As oxygen (O2) by convection is cooling the planet. When turned into ozone -makes larger volume than independent oxygen atoms -> goes above the troposphere, into the stratosphere and just spins there; without any contribution. They were misleading about ozone, for good reason.
This and what follows it is such nonsense that it’s impossible to correct! To coin a phrase, “It’s not even wrong”.
HenryP says:
September 13, 2012 at 9:30 am
“The character dealing with you is one of the kind ones, always helpful and willing to educate.”
Yes, true, that is the character we all love and appreciate.
Since you agree that you love the one that deals with you, you should be content.
Phil. says:
September 13, 2012 at 9:43 am
No since you raised it here I’ll discuss it here. Your ideas about how molecules interact with molecules is completely wrong,
Typo Correction: Should be “molecules interact with light”.
😉
CHALLENGE TO ALL COMMENTERS, TO FIND BETTER ANSWERS
Lets give your best shot; see if you can give better answers to those questions, it’s an official challenge:
Q: do you know that: oxygen + nitrogen are 998999ppm in the troposphere, CO2 only 260-400ppm? Q: do you know that O+N expand /shrink INSTANTLY in change of temperature? Q: do you know that: where they expand upwards; on the edge of the troposphere is minus – 90⁰C? Q: why O+N expand more, when warmed by 5⁰C, than when warmed by 2⁰C? A: when warmed by 5⁰C, they need to go further up (increase the volume of troposphere) to intercept more extra coldness, to equalize. Q: if O+N are cooled after 10minutes to the previous temperature, why they don’t stay expanded another 5 minutes extra? A: not to intercept too much extra coldness, to prevent too much cooling. A2: they stay expanded precisely as long as they are warmer – not one second more or less – that’s how they regulate to be same warmth units overall in the troposphere, every hour of every year and millenia!
Q: do you know that: if troposphere warms up by 2⁰C extra – troposphere expands up into the stratosphere by 1km, how much extra coldness is there to intercept, and swap it for the extra heat? A: expansion is INSTANT – intercepts extra appropriate coldness to counteract the extra heat in 3,5 seconds -> that extra coldness falls to the ground in minutes Q: if O+N are warmed extra for 30minutes, WHY they don’t shrink after 15minutes, or after one day? A: if O+N after cooled to previous temperature; stayed expanded for a whole day extra -> they would have redirected enough extra coldness, to freeze all the tropical rivers / lakes.
Q: can CO2 of 260-400ppm prevent oxygen + nitrogen of 998999ppm of expanding when they warm up? A: O+N when warmed extra – they expand through the walls of a hi-tensile hand-grenade. Q: do you believe in the laws of physics, or in IPCC and the Warmist cult? The laws of physics say: part of the troposphere can get colder than normal – only when other part gets warmer than normal. B] if the WHOLE troposphere gets colder -> air shrinks -> releases LESS heat – > retains more heat, and equalizes in a jiffy. C] both hemispheres cannot get warmer simultaneously for more than few minutes – if they doo -> troposphere expands extra -> intercepts extra coldness and equalizes in a jiffy. Q: do the O+N wait to warm up by 2-3⁰C, before they start expanding; or expand INSTANTLY, when they warm up by 0,000001⁰C? My formula: EH>AE>EHR (Extra Heat >Atmosphere Expands >Extra Heat Releases) Tons of extra CORRECT proofs, why I am a GLOBAL warming Infidel. I believe in climatic changes; big and small – I know that human can improve the climate /to a degree; because water controls climate = human can control water, to a degree. All the lunacy about confusing climatic changes with the PHONT GLOBAL warmings, is lunacy; waste of time and billions of $$$
Phil. September 13, 2012 at 9:59 am
Phil, I pointed out that: ozone is irrelevant for climate and global temp, so you don’t waste time on empty talk. I’ve just posted a comment here (recorded as 5:10pm, (not local time) as a challenge about the most important matters in the whole agenda. Take the challenge and make things more interesting – instead of childish irrelevant. Be a good sport.
P.s. if you read the few treads of different posts I provided on this post – you will start using the most important: ”common sense” which is missing in the whole debate. I.e. small example: you wouldn’t brag about oxygen / ozone absorption of UV / sunlight. UV goes trough 11km thickness of oxygen and burns on the ground (I leave close to the equator) but I just put a few microns thick black plastic, to protect my bike from the UV and it works, what 11km of oxygen can’t do.
2] molecule for me is compound of different elements. 3] what sunlight / heat molecules intercept high up; NEVER is re-radiated down! between the dirty cloud (CO2) + H2O cloud and the ground is kilometers of oxygen & nitrogen, as perfect insulators. I’m pointing the empty / destructive talk. They slow down warming on the ground during the day -”slow cooling” at night. That is NOT a greenhouse effect, but shade-clot affect. If you people stop picking on my misspellings and limited English – read my posts and we can have interesting arguments about things that matter.
Darren Potter says: ”Start checking what you think you know. The Ice Age was a global event, recent work has reaffirmed that. Granted, S/H was warmer than N/H, but both where colder during the Ice Age”
Hi Darren, you must belong to Ian Plimer’s Zombies. Darren, ”recent work” you are referring is: ”hiding the Skeptic’s skeletons in their closed” – it suits the Warmist -> they don’t complain. That’s how the ”Fake Skeptics” are doing the Warmist’ dirty job. b] that’s why I’ve written that post. Not because I’m bad person – but because: ‘Skeptics cannot win against one Warmist lie, by using 100 of their lies; even though Skeptics are on the positive side. It’s the Skeptic’s ego, that makes the Warmist to flourish and rob billions of $$. Warmist cannot have one single honest proof, because is NO such a thing as a ”GLOBAL” warming. Please read about the ”challenge comment” i posted here as on 5:10pm” to see ”the common sense LAWS OF PHYSICS” you will see that I have the most solid proofs – not the Pagan childish fairy-tales you Fakes use.
If somebody has being teaching / brainwashing you that: if is colder imprint from the past in Europe, they know that was same in Oceania… is the precursor of all evil. In Europe can be warmer by 10C – needs to be colder by 0,5C in Oceania, to be equal – because Oceania is 20 time larger. Darren, if I didn’t have real / solid proofs; with my limited English vocabulary, I would have never got involved in the debate, trust me. I’m on your side – you are shooting yourself in the foot with a machine-gun, by using / comparing real facts, with your outdated Pagan beliefs
Please read my posts I left treads on this post – it will be like turning the lights on for you. Unless your ego is more important to you than the outcome. I had discussions on numerous occasions with ”phony Skeptics” b] I know the Pagan version. Be fair to yourself; read my real proofs; see them as ”soft target” But have in mind that: closed mind is as closed parashoot… b]The more you know, the more you are worth, don’t be scared. c] people are reading my book, and the pressure will come from the street. d] You cannot grasp on the fairy-tales for long, people on the street are getting impassioned – they see that is no GLOBAL warming = the Fakes will become a jock.
It’s also ”documented” that: storks are bringing the babies; but cannot control human overpopulation, by killing the storks. That makes the gullible Skeptics more guilty than the real offenders, the Warmist. Challenge is in front of you; unless you Fake Skeptics can abolish the laws of physics = you are WRONG and blinded by your ego. Asking: ”what kind of laws of physics” when is presented to you, doesn’t change the truth and reality. Skeptic’s skeletons in their closed are starting to stink more and more – Warmist know that Skeptic’s fairy-tales are wrong – they have built their castle on the top of the Pagan outdated childish beliefs; and are exploiting it skilfully. Are you scared from a challenge?! Don’t say that I haven’t presented the ”real proofs, facts and formulas” If you run-away; will give you bigger and bigger insomnia. Darren, face the reality, or leave in shame!!! Warmist named you ”Skeptics” because it suits them; even though truckloads of phony GLOBAL warmings are pouring out of your ears. Do you really think that Hansen doesn’t know about the Fake’s ”PHONY” proofs? That’s why they declared that ”science is settled” GET THE REAL PROOFS, DARREN !!!
Leif Svalgaard says: September 13, 2012 at 1:08 am
Science is always imbued with healthy skepticism. The trick is to avoid being paralyzed by said skepticism.
Well is seems that in the cases of CFCs and CO2, there were no problems in performing that trick. Mitigation efforts appear to have begun before the causes of the Antarctic ozone hole and Global Warming were well established.
Just The Facts says:
September 13, 2012 at 9:16 pm
Well it seems that in the cases of CFCs and CO2, there were no problems in performing that trick. Mitigation efforts appear to have begun before the causes of the Antarctic ozone hole and Global Warming were well established.
Well it seems that in the case of CFCs those efforts have payed off.
Leif Svalgaard says: September 11, 2012 at 10:57 pm
The timing of the beginning of the long, slow recovery suggests to me that the ban on some man-made halocarbon refrigerants has been working.
Do you have any sense of what the ozone hole might recover to, e.g. what the natural ozone hole size and ozone content might be?
Polar Vortices have been documented on Venus;
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/09/venus-polar-vortex/
Mars;
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/sixthmars2003/pdf/3248.pdf
Jupiter
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/12mar_darkspot/
Saturn;
http://www.windows2universe.org/saturn/atmosphere/south_polar_vortex.html
and Saturn’s Moon Titan;
http://www.space.com/16520-saturn-s-moon-titan-sports-polar-vortex-video.html
and Neptune:
http://www.space.com/8104-odd-cloud-neptune-splitting.html
Further background on early ozone measurements:
Just The Facts says:
September 13, 2012 at 9:30 pm
Do you have any sense of what the ozone hole might recover to, e.g. what the natural ozone hole size and ozone content might be?
I must defer to Signe’s article in Nature: “Expectations for ozone levels near the end of this century: A question often asked is ‘will ozone return to pre-1980 levels, and if so, when?’ Because many of the factors influencing ozone levels are also changing, even if all anthropogenic ozone-depleting substances were removed from the atmosphere, ozone levels might not stabilize at pre-1980 levels. Total column ozone, carbon dioxide emissions, stratospheric temperatures and circulation patterns are closely linked, and changes in one of these variables can affect the others. By the end of the century, provided the concentrations of ozone-depleting substances decrease, ozone levels are expected to be dominated by temperature, atmospheric dynamics and the abundances of trace gases, including water vapour, methane and N2O. For example, future growth in N2O, due in part to increased fertilizer production, could lead to decreases in ozone.”
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/nature04746-Ozone-Recovery-Signe.pdf
Just The Facts says:
September 13, 2012 at 9:41 pm
Polar Vortices have been documented on Venus, etc
The polar vortices [and their spring breakdown] on Earth are probably driving some of the shorter-term changes in ozone, rather than the other way around.
Just The Facts says:
September 13, 2012 at 9:43 pm
Further background on early ozone measurements
Signe’s paper has lots of good background references too. Worth a look.
Déjà vu
Time
Feb 17, 1992
Henry@justthefacts
I have noted from my own results that maxima rose much stronger in the SH than the NH during the warming period 1950-1995 (energy-in) but this did not translate into any appreciable increase in means in the SH. From that, I concluded that most of the (extra) heat went into the SH oceans and is then taken by currents and weather systems to the NH where it warmed a lot more. What you are suggesting in your last posts is that ozone loss was a lot stronger in the SH, which would explain my results of much higher rising maxima in the SH. That means that my ozone results from the Swiss alps would probably be the wrong ones to quote.
It explains very neatly what I have been saying all along: the lack of ozone allows more high energy from the sun in, which is easily absorbed by the water (because it absorbs in the UV) and converted to heat (because there is a lot of mass).
All this being true and verifiable, we should shortly see a strong recovery in ozone over the SH and a decrease in the ozone hole. In fact, a noticable decrease in the ozone hole should already be evident since the start of the cooling period (1995-2039)
http://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=first%20signs%20of%20ozone-hole%20recovery%20spotted%20&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Fnews%2F2011%2F110516%2Ffull%2Fnews.2011.293.html&ei=UtBSUNeoCouFhQfnqoCQDw&usg=AFQjCNFugVYkaC6RIjaZGUxmhcs9mvG8JQ
here comes ths big freeze….
Just The Facts says:
September 13, 2012 at 9:43 pm
“Further background on early ozone measurements:”
JTF, at JunkScience I found these posts:
http://junksciencearchive.com/Ozone/ozone_seasonal.html
http://junkscience.com/2012/04/08/exclusive-british-polar-research-in-crisis/
“In a paper titled “Forty Years’ Research on Atmospheric Ozone at Oxford: A History” (Applied Optics, March 1968), Dobson described an ozone monitoring program that began at Halley Bay in 1956.
When the data began to arrive, “the values in September and October 1956 were about 150 [Dobson] units lower than expected. … In November the ozone values suddenly jumped up to those expected. …”
These seem to be in contradiction with your post above?
Phil. says:September 13, 2012 at 9:59 am
Com on Phil, you are ducking for cover… Did you realize that: the ”self adjusting mechanism” by O&N; to be overall SAME temp in the troposphere, every day of every day and millenia?! Therefore, you guys don’t have a case. My challenge above on (sept.13 at 5:10pm) separates men from the toddlers. that self adjusting is trillion times more powerful, than your ozone influence. They give you the superficial ozone influence, as to children; to play on the sandpit. What ozone & oxygen ”absorb” sunlight – is not worth writing home about.
2] CO2 in the atmosphere, ABSORBS 1000times more sunlight than your ozone, not to come to the ground – what sunlight is absorbed high up (where cooling is much more efficient)- never comes to the ground. 3] how come less ozone is bad, but less CO2 is good? Which clown told you that: 150y ago was the best amount of CO2 for trees and crops?! 4] Sincere person wouldn’t be scared / ashamed from real proofs! If you panicked from my first challenge – so does everybody that believes in the misleading, outdated mythology. I have 100 challenges – broaden your knowledge and make the debate interesting; instead of constantly parroting what IPCC says, Phil. Are you really scared from the correct knowledge of an illiterate person? Phil, be fair to yourself, and learn the CORRECT versions. So you can learn to separate facts from fiction. Your empty talk on superficial things, will not change the relevant, the truth, the real facts. You can run away from the truth / reality; but the truth is just a little bit faster than you. Cheers!
Lars P.September 14, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Lars, ozone has as much influence on the GLOBAL temperature; as much as the amount of Paris Hilton’s pubic hair – zero, zilch! Only, talking about ozone, is more boring. My ”open challenge comment” above, proves what regulates the OVERALL temp in the atmosphere; to be always the same. There are 1000 more genuine proofs, on my blog. Running away from a challenge is; ”admission” that: you don’t trust in what you preach.
Leif Svalgaard says: September 13, 2012 at 9:54 pm
I must defer to Signe’s article in Nature: “Expectations for ozone levels near the end of this century: A question often asked is ‘will ozone return to pre-1980 levels, and if so, when?’ Because many of the factors influencing ozone levels are also changing, even if all anthropogenic ozone-depleting substances were removed from the atmosphere, ozone levels might not stabilize at pre-1980 levels. Total column ozone, carbon dioxide emissions, stratospheric temperatures and circulation patterns are closely linked, and changes in one of these variables can affect the others. By the end of the century, provided the concentrations of ozone-depleting substances decrease, ozone levels are expected to be dominated by temperature, atmospheric dynamics and the abundances of trace gases, including water vapour, methane and N2O. For example, future growth in N2O, due in part to increased fertilizer production, could lead to decreases in ozone.”
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/nature04746-Ozone-Recovery-Signe.pdf
I am not clear on what these “pre-1980 levels” are. Do you think that they referring to the TOMS data from 1979? i.e. “Total column ozone from 1979 through the end of 2005 from a merged TOMS/SBUV(/2) satellite data set (version 8).”
The polar vortices [and their spring breakdown] on Earth are probably driving some of the shorter-term changes in ozone, rather than the other way around.
I think this is a reasonable likelihood, i.e. per Signe;
I think the question is what is “shorter-term” when you have 33 years of data? Wouldn’t the fact that;
indicate that later vortex breakdown may have had a significant influence on ozone levels during the 1980s and 1990s?
Leif Svalgaard says: September 13, 2012 at 9:57 pm
Signe’s paper has lots of good background references too. Worth a look.
Yes, they seem to indicate that there is still a tremendous amount of uncertainty in this area, e.g.:
It is thus confusing, given the tremendous uncertainty, that the first sentence of Signe’s paper begins with;
It appears that the only evidence presented to support this assertion is;
The three references cited within are;
Here is the abstract for Farman, J., Gardiner, B. & Shanklin, J. Large losses of total ozone in Antarctica reveal seasonal ClOx/NOx interaction;
Here is the abstract for Solomon, S., Garcia, R. R., Rowland, F. S. & Wuebbles, D. J. On the depletion of Antarctic ozone;
Here is the abstract for Staehelin, J., Harris, N. R. P., Appenzeller, C. & Eberhard, J. Ozone trends: A review;
Is the “proof that the Antarctic ozone hole was caused by humans” asserted within Signe’s paper based upon Staehelin’s assertion that “The most severe consequence of the anthropogenic release of ozone-depleting substances is the ‘Antarctic ozone hole.'”?
henry@larsp
….skeptics primarily published in non-peer-reviewed newspapers, magazines, books, and think tank publications. Publications that do not undergo peer-review are frequently filled with factual errors, distortions, and opinionated statements that greatly confuse the public on issues where there is no scientific uncertainty. For example, numerous critics of the ozone hole discovery (e.g., Singer, 1989, Bailey, 1993; Bast et. al., 1994) claimed that Professor G.M.B. Dobson had measured an ozone hole in 1956 in the Antarctic, and thus an Antarctic ozone hole was a normal natural occurrence. This myth arose from a misinterpretation of an out-of-context quotation from a review article (Dobson, 1968), where he mentioned that when springtime ozone levels over Halley Bay were first measured, he was surprised to find that they were about 150 Dobson Units below springtime levels in the Arctic. The skeptics repeatedly refer to “an ozone hole 150 Dobson Units below normal” that was discovered in 1957, when in fact the levels discovered in 1957 were normal for Antarctica. A trip to the British Antarctic Survey’s web site will confirm that no such ozone hole was measured in the 1950s. Another myth the skeptics repeat states that a French scientist found an Antarctic ozone hole in 1958 (Bailey, 1993). There were measurements in 1958 that found large ozone loss in the Antarctic, but these measurement have been found to be false, due to instrument error. A study in Science magazine (Newman, 1994) concluded, “There is no credible evidence for an ozone hole in 1958.”
To be fair, environmentalists were also guilty of using discredited myths to support their positions. For example, in 1992, The New York Times reported ozone depletion over southern Chile had caused “an increase in Twilight Zone-type reports of sheep and rabbits with cataracts” (Nash, 1992). The story was repeated in many places, including the July 1, 1993 showing of ABC’s Prime Time Live. Al Gore’s book, Earth in the Balance, repeated the myth, stating: “In Patagonia, hunters now report finding blind rabbits; fishermen catch blind salmon” (Gore, 1992). A group at Johns Hopkins has investigated the evidence and attributed the cases of sheep blindness to a local infection (“pink eye”) (Pearce, 1993).
….
and the controversy still rages on……
I have found two points now, one in the NH and one in the SH where a turrning point was reached in 1996 for ozone recovery. This corresponds with my time of the start of the cooling cycle looking at the energy in. My results also show that from 1950-1995 maxima rose much sharper in the SH than the NH whereas means rose much sharper in the NH and almost nothing in the SH.
Ozone loss in the period 1950-1995 was much larger in the SH than the NH.
We know that the Ozone Layer stops UV radiation from entering our atmosphere. Less ozone means more radiation of high energy <0.5 um into the oceans – the heat in the oceans largely determines the temps. on earth, as any climate scientist knows.
These observations generally all support my argument that there is a strong relationship with (natural) warming and cooling periods periods with (natural) declining and increasing ozone levels, respectively.
It looks to me that the influence of the CFC's was also a red herring, just like the CO2, mostly because of the co-incidences with my date : change from 1995. There are of course, still people who believe that cooling did not start yet. We will have to leave those behind. They will find out soon enough. (I am having a terrible holiday here, with my weather records showing every day at least 10 degrees C cooler than last year)
HenryP says:
September 15, 2012 at 1:16 am
“henry@larsp
….skeptics primarily published in non-peer-reviewed newspapers, magazines, books, and think tank publications. Publications that do not undergo peer-review are frequently filled with factual errors, distortions, and opinionated statements that greatly confuse the public on issues where there is no scientific uncertainty. ”
Henry, first I asked a question referring to the article and what about it honestly to become feedback.
Your skeptics bashing from the start of your post proves only your bias and instead of convincing me forces me to read very carefully your other arguments, my bs-ometer showing “high”.
Second, since redefinition of peer-review by some climate-zealots to pal-review peer-review has lost much of its trust. Look at all the garbage that comes from pal-review.
I trust much of the blog review more to the peer-review one when it is open to feedback.
Of course one can post “anything” on a blog review, but it does not require big skills to see who is using the scientific method and who not, where the discussion is open and frank and where it is guided to achieve one wished results, this is why some blogs gain traction and some remain empty of readers covering only a small zealot community even pumped up with high PR costs.
You say there was no ozone hole before in Antarctica – but misinterpretation of quotation and errors of measurement. Have there been good measurements to contradict the “errors”? Or is it a wishfull interpretation? As cold is one of the pre-requisites of creation of ozone hole – and we know there is plenty of it above Antarctica – could it be that there is a natural mechanism that depletes ozone up there? Yes. Question is how much.
Do we yet know well the natural clorine cycles to be able to make a good approximation? No.
Where was it proven that 1958 measurement were instrument errors? I don’t know.
Is the natural ozone circle well understood? No.
In winter there is lack of UV above Antarctica, so it is clear there is a depletion and no production -> it is natural to result an ozone-hole.
How much does UV suns radiation vary from decades to decades and thus ozone production? We don’t know.
I haven’t researched in the ozone question to have a qualified understanding, but from what I see in the climate discussion I fear it might have been another environmentalist blunder as we see it now happening.
Environmentalists have taken over the asylum doing pal-review, politics, energy-companies, transforming science to “pal-approved-science” all in the name of Gaia which is one of the western societies problems, weakening the society as a result.
Where is the pioneer spirit of the past, the wish to discover, to research, to learn more, to explore? All gone to the environmentalists black hole?
Environmentalist should take care of environment and leave the other areas to the specialists, else they achieve much more harm than good. This is in my view the problematic.
Now to our ozone loss. Maybe yes, maybe not. With all the pal-review, all the post modern science, politicisation of the science the trust to the peer-review is at its lowest since many decades.
The longer the hole stays the same, the longer we study, the less convincing is the anthropogenic cause theory.
For science to regain the trust it lost, politics should disappear from it. For environmentalists to regain public support they should retire back to their roots.
For Gaia-zealots to try to capitalise on the ozone hole question and resolution – what we see right now happening – might be a double-edged sword as dirty laundry from the past might come up to view.
Henry@LarsP
I merely quoted a piece from a site somewhere that discussed your problem of Dobson measurements in 1956.
After that I published my own opinion just before you posted yours.
I said
Ozone loss in the period 1950-1995 was much larger in the SH than the NH
Over at Sceptical Science (who are not sceptical) they show an ozone graph from the SH.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ozone-layer-global-warming.htm
it shows that ozone fell by more than 100% from 1980 to 1995.
Now there is your reason as to why it kept on warming until 1995.