An article in the New Scientist says:
But Dr. Leif Svalgaard, one of the worlds leading solar physicists and WUWT’s resident solar expert has this to say:
Solar max is a slippery concept. One can be more precise and *define* solar max for a given hemisphere as the time when the polar fields reverse in the hemisphere. The reversals usually differ by one or two years, so solar max will similarly differ. The North is undergoing reversal right now, so has reached maximum. The South is lagging, but already the polar field is rapidly decreasing, so reversal may be only a year away. Such asymmetry is very common.
Here is a link to the evolution of the polar fields as measured at WSO:
http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png
And here’s data all the way back to 1966, note there has not been a crossing of the polar fields yet in 2012, a typical event at solar max:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png
Here is a link to a talk on this: http://www.leif.org/research/ click
on paper 1540.
Dr. Svalgaard adds:
Solar max happens at different times for each hemisphere. In the North we are *at* max right now. For the South there is another year to go, but ‘max’ for a small cycle like 24 is a drawn out affair and will last several years. To say that max falls on a given date, e.g. Jan 3rd, 2013, at UT 04:15 is meaningless.
Fascinating! I wonder if this will lead to any cooling in a few years’ time? I know Leif doesn’t believe so (or at least his typical responses on these threads lead me to believe that), but what are some other thoughts? If so, how long will it take? Should we see cooling anyways during such a low “Max” for a cycle?
Ya must admit though, this correlation is better than ACO2:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1880/mean:12/normalise/scale:5/trend
Why would the Sun care which way is North? (Question)
I do not think there is any argument about solar influence on climate. It is the only external heat source available and heat drives climate. It is not CO2, that trace gas so valuable to plants that without it we would all die PDQ.
Solar hibernation will cause temperatures to fall here. It might kick the alarmists into reality.
I agree that solar max is a slippery and somewhat arbitrary concept. Even solar min is, albeit less so. I disagree that the center of the plateau (the peak) has been and gone. The SC 24 is a long cycle (weak) and the peak will be around 2013-15.
I use solar data, then do a bit of a ‘curve matching’ with the astronomical parameters
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
to me it looks as good as SC24max (see the inset)
September SIDC SSN count will be around 60
New Scientist has become unreadable on climate change – pure scaremongering. We had the impression that Arctic ice was lower this summer than in the last 3 million years recently! Must be some editorial pressure.
I guess the unanswered question is what do we expect for the next sun cycle? Is there a known period of solar activity that matches the last few cycles that can serve a guide?
Related to some previous postings, do CMEs increase or decrease in conjunction with the level of solar activity?
From NS….
“Such a large asymmetry between hemispheres could be a sign of big changes ahead, says Steven Tobias, a mathematician at the University of Leeds, UK, who models what drives the sun’s magnetic field. According to his models, such a situation precedes an extended quiet phase called a grand minimum. “Changes in symmetry are more indicative of going into a grand minimum than the strength of the cycle,” he says.”
I hope he’s right, it will provide a real opportunity for the experts to gain a better understanding as to the effect the sun has on the Earth’s climate.
Anthony,
Studying the suns cycle of activity is data gathering.
Any comments are just suppositions to the data gathered.
The sun’s cycle NEVER duplicates exactly to many variables that occur such as slow down and size change over the years.
I do wish people would leave out the “we”! As in
” In the North we are *at* max right now.”
“We” are not at lunar max either right now or ever. Neither are “we” located on the northern hemisphere of the sun.
Come on guys, let’s have a little more scientific rigour in the way propositions are stated.
Very interesting Leif. Thanks.
Med venlig hilsen fra Island.
Agust
Hi Leif
Are we saying it would be a New thing if there were Science in the “New Scientist” ? 🙂
That’ll teach me to buying that solar filter for my telescope.
Just to be clear, I bought it back in 2007…
Thanks Dr. S., the turning of my calendar begins my anticipation of the posting of the SSN.
Last winter was marked by little snowfall, but just previously I had to buy a roof rake to remove too much snow. What wonder will this winter bring?
Anthony,
There are many areas of science NEVER studied. But we have a consensus of the like minded to ignore anything NOT of their liking.
Compression is one area that has not been looked at which would account for the material of our sun to be able to keep producing it’s corona and spew out massive material.
Again, this is NOT data gathering and statistics.
It’s the New ‘s’cientist…what do you expect, accuracy?
omnologos wrote:
He’s talking about the Sun’s North and South poles and hemispheres — not Earth’s. The Sun’s magnetic field is a lot more dynamic than Earth’s. Earth’s field flips every 200,000 to 300,000 years, the Sun every 11 years or so.
David Ross – my question is in fact…why would the Northern and Southern hemispheres of the Sun behave differently? What tells the Northern part that it is “North”, and the Southern “South”?
AFAIK gravity doesn’t care direction…
Yo, dudes at New Scientist. You need to spend more time reading stuff here. You did say something about Livingston and Penn, right?
Doug Huffman says:
September 28, 2012 at 5:09 am
From tracking snowfall and “snow depth days” around New England, it’s very clear that snow seasons really say very little about climate and how it’s changing. See http://wermenh.com/sdd/index.html They do say something about that particular season and the similarities and differences between here (Penacook NH) and Derry NH, 40 miles south are striking. Some years I’d have the same snow as them, other years the storm track often brought them rain and me snow.
I can say with great confidence that this winter will bring weather. I feel sorry for people who “have” to make seasonal forecasts for New England. OTOH, people who do it for sport enjoy a good challenge.
Wouldn’t it be nice to have an amateur global temperature network for the next 20 years to verify the ” Real Scientists ” data? Then again I would be happy with data from NASA or NOAA that doesn’t have someones finger on the scale.
Dr. Leif thanks for providing your input here. It does give balance to the conversation even though I personally believe that the big glowing thing in the sky does have some impact on the climate.
A small occasion for some, but important one for my graphs, at 13:48:33 (Friday, UK time) my stat counter recorded 150,000th visitor, who came from Columbia, Maryland, United States.
Thanks to all who followed my graphs during last 3-4 years, and my gratitude goes to Anthony and the WUWT for the hospitality and open-mindedness.
It is tempting to assume that this ‘hibernation’ that Dr. Svalgaard alludes to will lead to global cooling , because the last hibernation (“Maunder Minimum”) occurred during a cooling of the climate.
But I don’t believe that we’ve seen any causal evidence of this link. The typical explanations run “It has to be solar! What else could it be?” So, not much different than the typical “CO2 causes global warming” rationale.
But just to be sure, Dr. Svalgaard, is there any causal evidence to back up the claim that solar hibernation caused the Maunder cooling?
Learning is a constant process…..my 2 cents
I’m usually in disbelief at people who dismiss how important our Sun is in regulating climatic conditions here on Earth and the Solar System, when the Sun is very active it can produce a lot of energy in the form of CME’s, Solar wind and geomagnetic activity, the Earth responds with storms and higher electrical activity, more Auroras and ENSO goes positive to form El Nino and temperatures have a tendency to rise, When activity is low on the Sun geomagnetic activity and Solar wind is low and there are less or no CME’s, the Earth has less energy to form large storms and there’s less electrical activity, less Auroras and ENSO goes negative to form La Nina and temperatures have a tendency to fall. There is a complex planetary relationship with the Sun and it should never be over looked or even dismissed, I think the overall activity of an 11 year cycle plays a much larger role than when solar maximum will be reached, so far this has been a weak cycle in terms of activity.
Also, just a thought! What is the current theory (if any) on the solar wind effecting comets? could a prolonged minim and low solar wind bring comets into the solar system? The C/2012 S1 comet (‘Ison’) is on it’s way in, coinciding with recent low activity, also Comet PANSTARRS will be in the sky in march 2013. It may be worth looking into.
@vuk: Congratulations! 150,000 visitors following your graphs it´s a lot.
No, this study cannot be right;
Dr. James Hansen and Dr. Mike Mann conclusively eliminated the sun as a controlling factor in climate change or as having any influence on our climate at all.
Warming will proceed as our GCMs dictate!
\sarc off
Solar cycles are long enough to encapsulate many Earth-bound natural climate oscillations, causing some excitement surrounding possible teleconnections.
Now that you have read that statement, anyone who is nodding their head enthusiastically have fallen into the trap of correlation equaling causation. And here is the caveat. In the old days windshield wipers each had their own motors. These motors where tuned to swipe as closely as possible together. But anyone who has been in old trucks and buses will remember that over time, the blades would cycle out of sync. Not to worry. If you watched long enough, they would be back in sync, though still entirely disconnected to each other.
It is likely, during a long slow solar cycle, we will enter an Earthly cold period, but not because of any physical teleconnection to solar parameters.
spangled drongo wrote in:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1092836
What correlation? The correlation between two linear trends is Zero.
And why not show both time series, only the calculated long-term trends? Because someone could notice something?
What about following graph:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1960/mean:12/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1960/mean:12/normalise/scale:5/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/normalise/plot/gistemp/from:1960/mean:12/normalise/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1960/mean:12/normalise/trend/scale:5/plot/esrl-co2/from:1950/mean:12/normalise/trend
The sunspot number has been trending down since the mid of previous century, but the global temperature anomaly has been going up. No scaling factor is going to help you there. Applying a scaling factor of 5 makes is just more obvious.
Even if the 11-year solar cycle vanishes altogether and the sun activity stays at the minimum of the solar cycle, I predict global warming due to greenhouse gases will continue over the next decades, since greenhouse gases have become the dominant climate driver in the second half of the 20th century. The warming will just be delayed by a few years (by about 10 years based on mere energy balance considerations).
Who said it doesn’t??
If I may be so bold, I believe Dr. Svaalgaard says that the variability of the sun isn’t enough to account for all the “warming” in places where it has been warming, or to account for historic warming and cooling. That’s a far cry from “The sun has no impact on climate”, which is what you’re implying as his belief.
mike about town, you write “If so, how long will it take? ”
I dont think anyone knows, since no-one seems to understand the science behind any link between climate and the sun’s magnetic effects., L&P indicate that sunspots may disappear around 2020. The last time this happened was around 1645. The center of the LIA was around 1685.
Reblogged this on Sparks ~Engineering and Science..
John Marshall says:
September 28, 2012 at 3:51 am
————————————————
I doubt it. The notion that CO2 drove temperature over any significant part of geologic time is absurd, yet very intelligent people choose to believe it. The science Ph.D.s I know who are believers already say “climate change” exclusively, a font of human superstition/judgement/sacrifice that has been flowing since the beginning of history.
Dr. Leif Svalgaard,
We often discuss the question of whether changes in the ~11 year solar cycles on a centennial scale can be shown to provide enough energy change in the earth-atmosphere system to explain the observed global temperature changes over the same centennial period.
A common argument wrt that question discussed here at WUWT and other venues is that the solar energy changes from ~11 year cycle changes on centennial scales is at least a factor of ten too small to directly cause the observed global temperature changes.
If the sun’s energy output variation is directly insufficient to cause observed earth global temp changes then that would imply it may be a necessary contributing cause but an insufficiently large enough direct one. Leif, can you comment? Thanks.
John
There is a conjecture (see for instance the book “The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change” by Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder) that low solar magnetic fields leave the earth open to the chilling effect of energetic cosmic rays, via the seeding of extra cloud cover.
Some experiments at CERN point to the viability of this conjecture, and are on-going. It would only take a 2% change in cloud cover to change the planet’s temperature by whole degrees centigrade, it seems.
Given that there are significant changes occurring at the source of Earth’s solar radiation (i.e, Sun), what does the IPCC say about it (via the FAR):
“Despite considerable effort since the TAR, uncertainties remain in the representation of solar radiation in climate models… Difficulties in simulating absorbed solar and infrared radiation at the surface leads inevitably to uncertainty in the simulation of surface sensible and latent heat fluxes,” – http://tinyurl.com/c3qox7t (link to IPCC FAR Working Group I notes).
So, then, how does the IPCC address these uncertainties in the models?
“The cosmogenic isotope records have been linearly scaled to estimate solar energy output in many climate simulations… Several new studies suggest that long-term irradiance changes were notably less than in earlier reconstructions [earlier means the TAR]… In the previous reconstructions, the 17th-century ‘Maunder Minimum’ total irradiance was 0.15 to 0.65% (irradiance change about 2.0 to 8.7 W m–2; radiative forcing about 0.36 to 1.55 W m–2) below the present-day mean… Most of the recent studies… calculate a reduction of only around 0.1% (irradiance change of the order of –1 W m–2, radiative forcing of –0.2 W m–2; section 2.7). Following these results, the magnitude of the radiative forcing… for the Maunder Minimum period is relatively small (–0.2 W m–2 relative to today),” – http://tinyurl.com/9ywez5m (link to IPCC FAR).
And in Section 9.2 of the FAR, the IPCC states, “that the amplitude of the large-scale pattern of response scales linearly with the forcing,” – http://tinyurl.com/9nd6xvj (link to IPCC FAR).
So, although the IPCC admits uncertainties abound in how to model solar radiation in the climate models, it ultimately preserves the notion of a solar constant and presumes that even if it’s not really constant, the impact from any change is too small to be relevant without invoking additional strong amplification mechanisms (e.g., aerosols). What’s troubling and often highlighted by CAGW skeptics is that this… presumption (this may be the wrong term – perhaps “fraud”) by the IPCC has been made with the full knowledge that changes in solar radiation certainly do matter and should be accounted for within the models. This has been asserted for over 15 years. But as the Climategate e-mails displayed in their open contempt for researchers linking the sun to climate change (http://tinyurl.com/bvxfcck – link to Climategate e-mail regarding the Soon and Baliunas paper), CAGW alarmists willing chose to subjectively manipulate aerosols (in defiance of Ockham’s Razor) to explain the absence of predicted warming in the solar constant models rather than address the more likely variable (solar radiation). But, mind you, they’re not the “deniers” in such an example. Yeah… right.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
September 28, 2012 at 7:02 am
“The sunspot number has been trending down since the mid of previous century, but the global temperature anomaly has been going up. No scaling factor is going to help you there
Jan, try this simple experiment at home and then get back to us.
1) Put a pot of cold water on the stove
2) Turn the burner to maximum
3) Take the temperature every 30 seconds
4) After 3 minutes,turn the burner to 3/4
5) Leave the pot on the stove for another 5 minutes taking the temperature every 30 seconds
6) Plot your results with time on the bottom axis, temperature on the left and stove setting on the right
Dr. Svalgaard:
It appears to me that your graphic “North South Solar Polar Fields [micro Tesla]” [above] is puzzling. It appears that the ghosted [South?] portion is just the mirror image of the non-ghosted [North] data. Is the South polar actually a mirror image of the North or am I just not reading the graph incorrectly?
I may be on the wrong tack here but surely the CLOUD and SKY experiments very clearly showed a link between a magnetically quiet sun and cooling (muons from space ‘seeding’ low clouds which in turn lead to cooler weather). Am I misunderstanding this?
Johanus says:
September 28, 2012 at 6:34 am
“It is tempting to assume that this ‘hibernation’ that Dr. Svalgaard alludes to will lead to global cooling , because the last hibernation (“Maunder Minimum”) occurred during a cooling of the climate.
But I don’t believe that we’ve seen any causal evidence of this link. The typical explanations run “It has to be solar! What else could it be?” So, not much different than the typical “CO2 causes global warming” rationale.
But just to be sure, Dr. Svalgaard, is there any causal evidence to back up the claim that solar hibernation caused the Maunder cooling?”
I think the Hypothesis on this topic here http://landscheidt.wordpress.com/ is too accurate to ignore. I’m not sure the cause is sorted out yet but …
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sc24_amp.png
@Jan P Perlwitz:
No, sunspot number has NOT been trending down since the middle of last century. We were at a solar grand maximum which had more sunspot activity in the 1980’s and 1990’s than any previous time in the 20th century. There was an article about this right here on WUWT not too long ago. Sunspot number has been trending down since the late 1990s, NOT the 1950s as you seem to be claiming.
Also, greenhouse gases did not become, never have been, and never will be the “dominant climate driver”.
Eyes Wide Open,
You won’t convince that jamoke of anything, since his primary motivation is to keep both front feet in the public trough, along side the mendacious self-promoter James “Coal Trains of Death” Hansen.
Perlwitz opines: “I predict… The warming will just be delayed by a few years (by about 10 years…” Perlwitz doesn’t seem to understand that there has been no global warming for the past fifteen years. He should revise his ‘prediction’ to more than 15 years, to avoid appearing even more clueless than usual.
From people like Perlwitz we get problems like this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/26/nasa-giss-caught-changing-past-data-again-violates-data-quality-act
= = = = =
Jan P Perlwitz,
Your premise is faulty if your premise is that only TSI can possibly drive energy increases in the earth-atmosphere system and SSI cannot possibly do so.
Is that your premise?
John
Bad typing skills.
Is the South polar actually a mirror image of the North or am I just not reading the graph
incorrectly?For “incorrectly” please read “correctly.”
Thanks.
I would agree with Dr. S when he states that solar TSI variability is not large enough to account for periods like Maunder or MWP.
I think the most likely reality is:
– Energy in = energy out, but integrated across very long period of time
– Energy in is nearly constant and its variability can not account for natural variability in the Northern Hemisphere’s temperature of about 0.6 degrees during the last 5-6 decades
– Ratio of energy absorbed and energy reflected by oceans is the key variable.
It can be shown, at least numerically in an elementary way, that combination of the solar and the Earth’s activity (the Earth is not a passive bystander) can approximate natural variability
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
I suggest by regulating the oceanic absorption/radiation ratios through compromising integrity of the oceanic thermo-haline layers.
The required contemporaneous regulating energy comes from both the sun and the Earth, it is minute in comparison to what is required for the temperature change (analogue to the foot pressure on the car accelerator, or more appropriately to the grid voltage or base current in electronics).
Consider the 350 year long CET record:
Mid-summer temperatures (nearly constant, up-trend about 0.1C/century) due predominantly to the direct insolation
Mid-winter temperatures (average rise of about 0.4C/century) are ameliorated by the SST of the nearby Atlantic.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MidSummer-MidWinter.htm.
Any room for CO2? Very little.
@omnologos
Because the sun has a magnetic field, and magnetic fields have a north and a south.
Eyes Wide Open:
Good analogy.
Just to add:
Also, the actual picture in solar activity is not a decrease over the past half-century as CAGW proponents claim. Rather:
Solar activity was relatively moderate during cycle 20 from 1964 to 1976 (the era of the global cooling scare in reality, although recently fudged temperature data hides the decline to make it appear to have happened for next to nil reason whatsoever). But then solar activity was substantially higher in cycles 21 and 22 which occurred from 1976 to 1996. That is seen, for example, in average inverted cosmic ray counts using data from http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi :
cycle 20: 1.000 for 1964-1976
(defining as baseline here)
->
cycle 21: 1.032 for 1976-1986
(more cosmic rays deflected by a stronger solar magnetic field, 3% less neutron count at monitors)
->
cycle 22: 1.032 for 1986-1996
Relative decline in solar activity occurred during cycle 23 onwards, of 1996 onwards:
cycle 23: 0.995 for 1996-2008
->
cycle 24 so far: 0.942 (where cycle 23’s figure would be 0.965 by this many months into it)
But, while influenced by other factors as well (such as the AMO), global temperatures have been at a plateau, flat to declining, from the 1998 El Nino through now:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend
———————————————————————
Tony McGough:
Yes, indeed.
Also, while that is a great book, to add some relevant fully online links:
http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/05_afdelinger/sun-climate/full_text_publications/svensmark_2007cosmoclimatology.pdf
and
http://rjes.wdcb.ru/v06/tje04163/tje04163.htm
and others.
There is a series of attempts by the CAGW movement to discredit cosmic rays having an influence ( http://www.sciencebits.com/RealClimateSlurs , http://www.sciencebits.com/HUdebate , etc.), and a particularly common one is to claim such is disproven by divergence between the cloud cover trends reported by the ISCCP at Hansen’s GISS in recent years (unfortunately publicized in climate4you.com graphs using them as a source) and that expected from GCR trends. However, http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/further-attempt-to-falsify-the-svensmark-hypothesis/ illustrates the “accidentally” uncorrected error from change in ISCCP satellite viewing angle occurring then, including a graph showing how other cloud cover trend datasets went in a different direction. 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.
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
EDIT:
Slight correction: The imagevenue.com link in my prior comment is broken, but this is what works instead in its place:
http://s18.postimage.org/n9nm5glc7/solar_GCRvswatervapor.jpg
D Böehm: James “Coal Trains of Death” Hansen. Now you can see and hear our JH, at the official Iranian Government´s spanish TV channel:
http://www.hispantv.com/live.aspx
Thanks for this post of the New Scientist article. A carefull reading of it and what Leif had to say and not say is very interesting. The article seems to say that the asymmetry of the solar hemispheres is possibly greater than normal for this cycle. The article specifically said, as I quote here, “Such a large asymmetry between hemishpere could be a sign of big changes ahead,” and again here, “Changes in symmetry are more indicative of going into a grand minimum than the strength of the cycle,” Leif seemed to miss that, instead he commented on the fact that cycles regularly have asymmetry.
The Doctor Leif did supply some graphs and links, unfortunately he didn’t provide a graph that showed the differences in the level of symmetry. That was unfortunate. I really hoped that he would speak to the thrust of the article. Instead he seems to have just spoken to the thrust of his own thoughts.
The writer of the article did a great job of looking at different peoples thoughts and ideas. It is a balanced article that shows interesting information and gives us some ideas of what we can look for and think about.
We do seem to be living in interesting times. I am gratefull for people like Anthony Watts and the author of this article: Stuart Clark. I look forward to whatching with others for when the other half of the solar maximum happens. I know that Anthony will keep us abreast of the news.
Chances in cloudiness is the factor, TSI wont do it, Henrik Svensmark ‘s theory is partly proven allready. So cooling happens, but it is as slow as warming 50 years.
Going back to the source of the NS article, I’d be interesting in hearing what Leif has to say about the Tobias models. Just looking at his web page suggests a fairly technical kind of guy.
Web page:
http://www1.maths.leeds.ac.uk/~smt/
Correlation does not prove causation, however it gives a good clue where to look for it.
Jeff Alberts says:
September 28, 2012 at 7:31 am
I believe Dr. Svaalgaard says that the variability of the sun isn’t enough to account for all the “warming” in places where it has been warming, or to account for historic warming and cooling.
———————————
Then where is my premise of his belief wrong? By your account the sun plays no role in any change of climate conditions. If I was politically incorrect not to use the word change when associated with climate I apologize! I am quite sure that everyone would agree if the big yellow thing in the sky turned off tomorrow there would indeed be an impact. I do respect the work that the good Dr. does and the time he gives to educate here. This however does not change my belief that there is something more going on as it pertains to the sun than we have as yet discovered. The climate system has been to stable for to long for CO2 to have any major input on the climate system. That leaves natural cycles, asteroids / comets, vulcanism, and variability of the sun as contenders. All of which I think play a role in the mess that is climate change.
Sparks says:
September 28, 2012 at 6:52 am
While a drop in the solar wind might be enough to drop the size of an orbit by a few miles, there’s no way it can change a nearly circular orbit to a highly elliptical one.
OT: Anthony, I alerted you about the attempt to have the Wikipedia page about French Climatologist Marcel Leroux deleted.
Now no other than William M. Connolley has shown up!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marcel_Leroux#Marcel_Leroux
“•delete – the article has been hijacked by global warming deniers William M. Connolley (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)”
William M. Connolley is at it again.
Peridot says:
September 28, 2012 at 8:55 am
The initial CERN tests showed that cosmic rays can create the seeds from which larger droplets could grow. The since the test was designed to test the seed creation part of the hypothesis, these seeds were swept from the test chamber by magnetic fields before they had a chance to grow.
The next round of tests will determine if these seeds are able to grow into cloud forming droplets.
We know that while TSI does not change much from min to max in a solar cycle, however UV radiation does change by as much as 10% over the same period.
We know that UV radiation creates the ozone layer.
We know that ozone is a greenhouse gas.
If a 10% decrease in UV causes a decrease in the thickness of the ozone layer, would this in turn lead to a cooling of the planet?
Just a few days ago we had an article that speculated that a Carrington event sized CME would reduce the ozone layer and result in a 3C drop in temperatures.
OT: Anthony, sorry if it is a double post, the English Wikipedia page for French Climatologist Marcel Leroux is being attacked by no other than William M. Connolley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marcel_Leroux
•delete – the article has been hijacked by global warming deniers William M. Connolley (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Ged – why would the north and south parts of the _same_ magnetic field behave differently?
I am asking questions, uh, not implying anything.
So the sun is just like the earth; when the ice is melting at its north pole it is growing at the south pole; pretty hot stuff if you ask me.
By the way, the photograph of that spectacular donnybrook on the sun the other day, had that weird lattice structure over in the left corner area, that looked absolutely impossible as a natural structure; more like a multiple exposure of shifted photos.
So Dr Sv, do you sunchaps have any ideas what could create such a regular looking structure in such an event ?
Tom Murphy in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1093144,
You don’t really know what the IPCC does, do you?
You assert,
“””””…..marchesarosa says:
September 28, 2012 at 4:41 am
I do wish people would leave out the “we”! As in
” In the North we are *at* max right now.”
“We” are not at lunar max either right now or ever. Neither are “we” located on the northern hemisphere of the sun.
Come on guys, let’s have a little more scientific rigour in the way propositions are stated……”””””
In that the SUN doesn’t give a rats about maxima or minima; doesn’t even know what the hell “WE” are talking about, and neither the Aardvarks nor the mushrooms even know what it is that “WE” call the SUN; even the sun doesn’t know it is the sun; then it stands to reason that “”””…WE…””” are the ONLY entities that do give a rats about the SUN and its maxima and minima, which are all figments of our imagination that WE made up to keep people like Dr Svalgaard gainfully employed.
Then I think it is perfectly reasonable for folks like Dr Sv, in a friendly forum like this; and even in the cloisters of his professional environment and sunfellows, to talk in such jargon. Yes I know that in peer reviewed papers, he must replace four letter words like “WE”, with multisyllabic mediaeval Roman synonyms , that suit the stuffiness of formal science; but still mean pretty much the same as “WE” .
Nothing in the universe but WE or US even knows what the hell minima and maxima are; so what else could one say ?
Jan P Perlwitz says:
The sunspot number has been trending down since the mid of previous century, but the global temperature anomaly has been going up. No scaling factor is going to help you there.
A lag might. You do understand the concept, don’t you?
The warming will just be delayed by a few years (by about 10 years based on mere energy balance considerations).
Why, look at that. You do understand that concept.
How come you only apply the concepts you understand when doing so benefits your faith commitment to ‘global warming’?
Even if the 11-year solar cycle vanishes altogether and the sun activity stays at the minimum of the solar cycle, I predict global warming due to greenhouse gases will
continueresume over the next decades, …There, fixed that for ya. What is not occurring cannot continue. Over the last decades (about 1.7 of them so far) warming has halted. The only thing that can “continue” over the next decades is lack of warming.
I don’t see any flat spots in the previous predictions made by you fellows. Funny, that.
Jeff D. says:
I am quite sure that everyone would agree if the big yellow thing in the sky turned off tomorrow there would indeed be an impact. I do respect the work that the good Dr. does and the time he gives to educate here. This however does not change my belief that there is something more going on as it pertains to the sun than we have as yet discovered. The climate system has been to stable for to long for CO2 to have any major input on the climate system. That leaves natural cycles, asteroids / comets, vulcanism, and variability of the sun as contenders. All of which I think play a role in the mess that is climate change.
Tim responds:
Looking at the climate record with an open and still inquisitive mind one does think the sun just might have some effect on change of our climate, more so to this point than the CO2 in our atmosphere.
As far as the Dr.’s time and effort to educate here. It is true he does give of his time to educate. He does provide some usefull information. The problem is he doesn’t consider what others think or have to say. Of course there are probably exceptions to that statement. The AGWs are trying to educate us all also. I would much rather have more people think, they have something to learn. Those are the ones that help us all learn best.
Ged says:
September 28, 2012 at 9:35 am
@omnologos
“because the sun has a magnetic field, and magnetic fields have a north and a south.”
umm, probably partially correct. yes, magnetic fields have a north and south, but the Sun flips it’s poles every solar cycle IIRC. Probably just us humans had to have a way to reference the top hemisphere and the bottom hemisphere of the Sun, so we kept the same naming convention as we use here.
David Ross – my question is in fact…why would the Northern and Southern hemispheres of the Sun behave differently? What tells the Northern part that it is “North”, and the Southern “South”?
….and the answer is – the Sun’s magnetic field . Also in the northern hemisphere the spots rotate in a clockwise direction and in the south in an anticlockwise direction.
I see Perlwitz is cheating the taxpayers again. I bet he posts on his blog on public time, too. And Hansen made over a thousand speeches complaining that he was being muzzled by President Bush.
Does anyone at GISS have an ounce of integrity? Judging by Perlwitz and Hansen, the answer is no.
As far as reality goes, Perlwitz makes the preposterous statement:
“…an ‘absence of predicted warming’ exists only in your imagination.”
Wrong, as usual. Just like the IPCC’s always wrong models.
Exactly why should we pay these scientific illiterates?
Vukcevic said:
“Thanks to all who followed my graphs during last 3-4 years, and my gratitude goes to Anthony and the WUWT for the hospitality and open-mindedness.”
Virtually every reader is here because we want to see the real data not computer models and political memes. Thanks for your input
Jan P Perlwitz says:
September 28, 2012 at 7:02 am
spangled drongo says:
September 28, 2012 at 3:46 am
Afraid he’s right: this “correlation” is meaningless. The trendlines are affine functions. Two affine functions can always be made scale similar because they are scale similar. One might argue, ah yes, but there is still a positive correlation. But, that is just a flip of a coin.
“The sunspot number has been trending down since the mid of previous century, but the global temperature anomaly has been going up.”
You mean, the peak SSN has been trending down. And, since the early ’90s, not mid-century. It went sharply down from the peak near 1960 to 1970, just in time for the Global Cooling scare, and trended up from that time until 2000, in tune with what has been attributed to AGW, and to the subsequent current warming hiatus.
I wrote this before reading down to see where others have made the same point, but might as well pile on to dissuade future such ludicrous commentary.
“…by about 10 years based on mere energy balance considerations…”
The Apocalypse has been delayed again, eh? Funny how that happens.
george e smith says:
September 28, 2012 at 11:05 am
……
Hi George
Thanks, I had a good laugh, (I often have a chuckle at my own posts, usually on the second reading some hours later) but that was hilarious.
Ah yes ‘omnia mutantur nihil interit’.
Jan P Perlwitz says, September 28, 2012 at 7:02 am
Yet another prat who draws straight lines on evolving time series. Did they teach you nothing in school?
Steve M. from TN says:
September 28, 2012 at 11:25 am
“Probably just us humans had to have a way to reference the top hemisphere and the bottom hemisphere of the Sun, so we kept the same naming convention as we use here.”
Indeed. A positive rotation about a given axis is, by convention, counter-clockwise. And, most of the planets revolve counter-clockwise about the North pole axis of the Sun.
In the right-hand diagram (WSO North-South) of
http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png,
a data trend fit of 2012 data plus just the last couple of months of data from 2011 currently indicates that magnetic reversal of the poles could happen late this year rather than in 2013.
Guys. It’s New Scientist.
A catastrophe here, a catastrophe there… pretty soon it adds up to Armageddon.
From D Böehm on September 28, 2012 at 11:31 am:
Ah, “communicating the science” is part of GISS’ “community outreach”. Part of “restoring public confidence” in the validity of GISS’ “work”, which is vitally necessary due to the growing and arguably overwhelming scientific evidence of GISS cooking the numbers to produce a record with an unreal amount of warming, to support the positions of the convicted activist Hansen, that human influence will cause and is causing catastrophic global climate effects (despite the predictions not coming to pass and the “work” being debunked).
And given the sterling success of GISS employee Gavin over at the ReallyRealClimate blog, it’s been proven it’s helpful to the “outreach” to have GISS people “communicating” on the clock at a blog that’s technically and legally not a part of GISS, where they can say whatever they need to towards the “restoring” without the potential legal issues arising from government accountability.
So if GISS wants to replicate a previous profitable endeavor by sending Perlwitz out into the blogosphere to fight for Climate Truth and continuing/increasing GISS funding, who are we to complain? We’re only taxpayers, it’s not like we’re allowed any say in how government runs itself. ☺
I found this article on the solar activity vs. temperature link very informative. Chew on this Jan!
Magic sunspot number is 40! Greater than that the earth system warms, less than that it cools!
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/nailing-the-solar-activity-global-temperature-divergence-lie/
John Whitman wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1093189
No, that is not a premise of mine.
Jan P Perlwitz;
The “argument” is not scientifically valid. It’s nonsense. There is a difference between statistical detectability of a physical process and presence of a physical process. Lack of statistical significance, e.g., of a trend, only allows the conclusion that the process can’t be sufficiently distinguished from noise on the given time period.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well glad to see you admitting that natural variability is so large that it makes the contribution of CO2 pretty much insignificant by comparison.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
=================================================================
“The Sun has nothing to do with global climate until we can figure out a way to tax it.”
Eyes Wide Open says:
September 28, 2012 at 12:36 pm
Wow. Nicely done. So, in the end it all boils down to, the Sun drives temperatures and temperatures drive CO2. What an unmitigated fiasco.
Jan P Perlwitz;
The IPCC doesn’t do any of these things, you claim here, because the IPCC itself doesn’t do climate research or climate modeling. The IPCC report is a review report, which compiles and synthesizes the existing research as it has been published in the peer reviewed scientific literature. The IPCC can only report what’s out there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, if the IPCC “synthesizes” a report based on other reports, and the other reports turn out to be wrong, then it means only one thing: That the IPCC “synthesis” report was wrong.
Nice try Jan P Perlwitz, but this tactic simply discredits you further. You’ve presented no argument that is 100% accurate and quite beside the point. Either defend the models, or don’t. But saying that the IPCC doesn’t actually do the modelling, they just report the results, is like a mafia don claiming he doesn’t do the killing….
These are the models and results of models as reported by the IPCC, and referring to them as “their” models is perfectly valid for the purposes of this discussion. If memory serves, 18 of the 22 models used in the IPCC AR4 ensemble had no variable for TSI at all, and the forcing assumed by them for aerosols was all over the map. The best the models could do versus actual observations was (again, going from memory) about 3 degrees and the ensemble got to within 1 degree. That leaves you relying on models that have clear errors that cancel each other out to a certain extent, but combining them in that fashion results in massive error bars, making the value of the output pretty much meaingless. Further, the real world only has ONE actual value for aerosols. If all the models used the same value, only one of them would even be close, and that one only by about 3 degrees.
From this you want us to believe that the models are capable of discerning a temperature rise of 1/100 degree per year and attribute some portion of it to CO2 in an environment which you yourself just admitted has natural variability that dwarfs the CO2 signal we’re trying to measure?
Bart,
I think this chart shows the ΔT/ΔCO2 cause and effect more clearly.
Also, GISS “adjusts” the temperature record:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/gw-us-1999-2011-hansen.gif
And Hansen is wrong again. He’s never right, is he?
Jan P Perlwitz:
At September 28, 2012 at 11:03 am you ask Tom Murphy
Oh! I want to answer that one! I will take any opportunity to tell anybody the answer to that one.
So, here is the answer again.
None of the climate models – not one of them – could match the change in mean global temperature over the past century if it did not utilise a unique value of assumed cooling from aerosols. So, inputting actual values of the cooling effect (such as the determination by Penner et al.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/07/25/1018526108.full.pdf?with-ds=yes)
would make every climate model provide a mismatch of the global warming it hindcasts and the observed global warming for the twentieth century.
This mismatch would occur because all the global climate models and energy balance models are known to provide indications which are based on
1.
the assumed degree of forcings resulting from human activity that produce warming
and
2.
the assumed degree of anthropogenic aerosol cooling input to each model as a ‘fiddle factor’ to obtain agreement between past average global temperature and the model’s indications of average global temperature.
More than a decade ago I published a peer-reviewed paper that showed the UK’s Hadley Centre general circulation model (GCM) could not model climate and only obtained agreement between past average global temperature and the model’s indications of average global temperature by forcing the agreement with an input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling.
The input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling is needed because the model ‘ran hot’; i.e. it showed an amount and a rate of global warming which was greater than was observed over the twentieth century. This failure of the model was compensated by the input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling.
And my paper demonstrated that the assumption of aerosol effects being responsible for the model’s failure was incorrect.
(ref. Courtney RS An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999).
More recently, in 2007, Kiehle published a paper that assessed 9 GCMs and two energy balance models.
(ref. Kiehl JT,Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity. GRL vol.. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007).
Kiehl found the same as my paper except that each model he assessed used a different aerosol ‘fix’ from every other model. This is because they all ‘run hot’ but they each ‘run hot’ to a different degree.
He says in his paper:
And, importantly, Kiehl’s paper says:
And the “magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing” is fixed in each model by the input value of aerosol forcing.
Thanks to Bill Illis, Kiehl’s Figure 2 can be seen at
http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/8167/kiehl2007figure2.png ]
Please note that the Figure is for 9 GCMs and 2 energy balance models, and its title is:
”Figure 2. Total anthropogenic forcing (Wm2) versus aerosol forcing (Wm2) from nine fully coupled climate models and two energy balance models used to simulate the 20th century.”
It shows that
(a) each model uses a different value for “Total anthropogenic forcing” that is in the range 0.80 W/m^-2 to 2.02 W/m^-2
but
(b) each model is forced to agree with the rate of past warming by using a different value for “Aerosol forcing” that is in the range -1.42 W/m^-2 to -0.60 W/m^-2.
In other words the models use values of “Total anthropogenic forcing” that differ by a factor of more than 2.5 and they are ‘adjusted’ by using values of assumed “Aerosol forcing” that differ by a factor of 2.4.
So, each climate model emulates a different climate system. Hence, at most only one of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth because there is only one Earth. And the fact that they each ‘run hot’ unless fiddled by use of a completely arbitrary ‘aerosol cooling’ strongly suggests that none of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth.
Richard
I think this chart shows the ΔT/ΔCO2 cause and effect more clearly.
Also, GISS “adjusts” the temperature record:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/gw-us-1999-2011-hansen.gif
##############################
That is very misleading on your part. The temperature estimated in 1999 used
1. A different dataset
2. Different averaging code.
Of course when you use more data and employ better methods you will find that the past
cools a bit. Kinda has to.
Using all the data in its rawest form publicly available and using methods that are BLUE it’s quite easy to show that GISS is more accurate now than it used to be. Sorry, its just a fact of math.
I had to google ‘Jan P. Perlwitz’ and came with :
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Affiliation: Columbia University
Very impressive, but I also came across his colleague
Dr. Jean Dickey of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena:
She said:
One possibility is the movements of Earth’s core (where Earth’s magnetic field originates) might disturb Earth’s magnetic shielding of charged-particle (i.e., cosmic ray) fluxes that have been hypothesized to affect the formation of clouds. This could affect how much of the sun’s energy is reflected back to space and how much is absorbed by our planet. Other possibilities are that some other core process could be having a more indirect effect on climate, or that an external (e.g. solar) process affects the core and climate simultaneously.
(more on the subject here: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm )
I would be interested to hear Dr. Jan P. Perlwitz’s opinion.
Dr. Perlwitz thank you for your time.
(apologies in advance to Anthony)
MarkW says:
September 28, 2012 at 10:09 am
Sparks says:
September 28, 2012 at 6:52 am
While a drop in the solar wind might be enough to drop the size of an orbit by a few miles, there’s no way it can change a nearly circular orbit to a highly elliptical one.
First it is necessary to identify what the Earth is actually orbiting. The Earth does not orbit the Sun and the Sun is not the center of the Solar System. The Sun and the Earth orbit the barycenter of the Solar System. However, the barycenter is moving due to the change in the relative position of the planets (see Rhodes Fairbridge and Landscheidt); the Earth is in an orbit around the previous position(s) of the barycenter and that orbit must alter to the new barycenter position.so the Earth’s orbit is continually altering following a modified epitrochoid pattern. Sometimes the movement pattern of the barycenter is smooth on other occasions it is rapid and changes to retrograde. These rapid changes are difficult for the Sun and the planets including Earth to follow.
What would be expected? Circulation patterns in the Sun could be disrupted as the barycenter moves through the Sun prograde or retrograde and sometimes out to more than a solar diameter away. The solar activity – including spots, CME. solar wind, magnetism may all be affected. Planetary orbits are disturbed causing changes from nearly circular (when the barycenter is relatively stable) to highly elliptical when the barycenter has moved. Chasing a moving barycenter will require velocity change, the inertia of this blob of liquid rock with a thin crust overlaid with layers of liquid and gas that we call Earth means that a velocity change may disturb or cause cracks in its thin crust – we call these earthquakes and volcanism – there will also be measurable angular momentum and length of day changes.
So back to your point. True the solar wind dropping or increasing is unlikely to change the orbit – but it may be a symptom of the orbital changes of the Sun and the planets as they orbit a moving barycenter. It may also explain why volcanism and earthquakes seem to be linked to the behavior of the Sun. This has been noted in papers from NASA and is used by Piers Corbyn of WeatherAction to forecast increased earthquake and volcanic activity.
You may not like the ideas but the hypothesis is internally consistent and fits observations.
richardscourtney;
Oh! I want to answer that one! I will take any opportunity to tell anybody the answer to that one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’d encourage anyone who thinks that the models have any validity at all (this means you JPP) to read richardscourtney’s comment above in detail. This is one of the most glaring problems with the models that I can think of. I’ve seen Richard post versions of this before, and the response from the cagw community that touts models as “proof” is the sound of crickets.
richardscourtney says:
September 28, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Oh! I want to answer that one! I will take any opportunity to tell anybody the answer to that one.
Tim Walker responds to Richard. Wow. What a great answer. I doubt if the person asking the question you answered, will look at your answer with an opening mind and willing to see the truth. Thank you for your work. Keep doing what you can.
Can we all agree to call it New Clientist in future?
Steven Mosher says:
“That is very misleading on your part.”
Steven, you are confused about who is doing the misleading.
“Dr. Leif Svalgaard, one of the worlds leading solar physicists and WUWT’s resident solar expert ” it says at the top.
And he probably is.
Except when he says that the variations in the sun’s output is not great enough to cause the variations in the climate, then nobody believes him. Odd isn’t it ?
Jan P Perlwitz says:
September 28, 2012 at 12:45 pm
No, that is not a premise of mine.
= = = = = =
Jan P Perlwitz,
Then your original statement (as follows) is self contradictory in principle:
Your statement erroneously assumes that cycles with higher sunspot counts should, per se, increase earth-atmosphere system energy (via TSI) and thus increases in global temperature relative to cycles with lower sunspot counts. That presumption does not contain the evolving knowledge that cycles with lower sunspot counts can have a spectral shift in the sun’s energy (SSI) reaching earth that may actually have a net warming effect greater than cycles with higher sunspot counts.
John
davidmhoffer wrote
(Snip. Stop referring to people who have not commented here, or future posts will go to the spam folder. ~mod)
Well glad to see you admitting that natural variability is so large that it makes the contribution of CO2 pretty much insignificant by comparison.
I don’t say anything like this about the effect of CO2 on climate in the statement that you quote here. Either you maliciously misrepresent what I say, or you have some serious problems with understanding what you read. The quote is a generally valid statement about the difference between the statistical detectability of a physical process in a data set and the presence of the process.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
September 28, 2012 at 7:02 am
Even if the 11-year solar cycle vanishes altogether and the sun activity stays at the minimum of the solar cycle, I predict global warming due to greenhouse gases will continue over the next decades, since greenhouse gases have become the dominant climate driver in the second half of the 20th century. The warming will just be delayed by a few years (by about 10 years based on mere energy balance considerations).
Thanks for posting this Jan, its much easier later when the complete opposite occurs for you (GISS) to be discredicted further than already is the case. All i see is “greenhouse gases are the dominant driver”, the CSIRO is ” virtually certain” the oceans are warming due to the CO2. But there is no proof, none whatsoever. There is no science in this, its just an assumption that these changes cannot be natural, so CO2 must be causing it.
Its getting tiresome, reading so much garbage about CO2, when there is a large disconnect between CO2 and temperatures. And your theory of a delay doesnt cut it, CO2 has increased since 1998 more than any other time, exactly the time the warming halted.
It seems obvious to anyone that solar has an influence, because if you go outside at 2am you get to see the influence in real time.
Steven Mosher;
Of course when you use more data and employ better methods you will find that the past
cools a bit. Kinda has to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why? Why does it “has to”?
Ian W says:
“Planetary orbits are disturbed causing changes from nearly circular (when the barycenter is relatively stable) to highly elliptical when the barycenter has moved.”
That is very interesting. It explains a lot, for example why the length of a year varies, and why the equinoxes are unpredictable, and also why astronomers are completely unable, because their equations do not contain this effect, to predict the occurrences of eclipses to the nearest minute. And it explains the strange lurching I sometimes feel when I come out of a pub on Saturday evening – I now realise it is due to sudden changes in the Earth’s velocity as it tries to keep up with the barycenter. Thank you for this insight.
Dr. Leif Svalgaard’s comments on an article in the New Scientist? I have often wondered who read that rag!
jimmi_the_dalek says:
September 28, 2012 at 2:59 pm
Jimmi – may I suggest you read a few very simple lectures on the search for extrasolar planets. Try this one for a start http://www2.astro.psu.edu/users/caryl/a10/lec21_2d.html
Perhaps read it before you have that ginger beer and lose your faculties.
And you can look at http://astro.unl.edu/naap/esp/detection.html showing the effect on the Sun.
“””””…..Bart says:
September 28, 2012 at 12:05 pm
Steve M. from TN says:
September 28, 2012 at 11:25 am
“Probably just us humans had to have a way to reference the top hemisphere and the bottom hemisphere of the Sun, so we kept the same naming convention as we use here.”
Indeed. A positive rotation about a given axis is, by convention, counter-clockwise. And, most of the planets revolve counter-clockwise about the North pole axis of the Sun………””””””
Where did you come up with that rule ? I believe by convention, Positive in the rotation vector sense is governed by the right hand rule. so you point your thumb in the positive angular rotation or velocity, or angular momentum direction and your fingers wrap around the vector direction in a clockwise direction, or the direction of a right handed screw.
Yes some trigonometry text books choose Counter clockwise as the positive direction. On the other hand, one of the very first things stated in the most definitive geometrical optics text book ever published (circa 1926) states that the direction of positive angles is clockwise. Of course it doesn’t matter which you choose, so long as you use it consistently. So if one points one’s thumb in the direction of earth’s axis, , pointing from south towards north, what direction does the earth rotate; well blow me down, I do believe it is from west to east, just as prescribed by the right hand vector rule.
Any fly fisherman knows that when you cast a fly line, you have to make the cast in such a way, that the linear momentum, and angular momentum, are both of the same sign, either both positive (forward cast) or negative (backward cast), and if you launch it with crossed up momentum signs, you get a tailing loop mess; every time..
jimmi_the_dalek says:
September 28, 2012 at 2:36 pm
“Odd isn’t it ?”
What a very intriguing comment. To me this implies that you, jimmi, understand something that seems to elude everyone else – that being how “the variations in the sun’s output” cause variations in Earth’s climate. A half dozen or more ideas have been floated like helium-filled balloons at a birthday party and all seem to have been burst like having been touched with the burning candles on the cake. Please take the opportunity to state which one of the ideas you think works and explain the mechanism. You could save us all a lot of further reading and better direct all future research on the subject.
From Jan P Perlwitz on September 28, 2012 at 7:02 am:
(Note: you have a goof on the CO₂ trend line, it should start at 1960 with the other plots instead of 1950.)
For one thing, be careful using SSN, as the SSN isn’t really the actual sunspot count, as groups count as ten spots no matter how many are really visible in any particular group, then individual spots are added in. So four visible spots with three in one group scores an 11.
Well then, by what you’ve presented, clearly it’s an inverse relationship.
WFT-GISTEMP LOTI-CO2-SSN*(-5)
Looks about as good a match to global temperatures as CO₂. So clearly the relationship is decreasing sunspots to increasing temperatures.
Without scaling and still using normalized data as you selected, clicking on “Raw data” shows GISTEMP LOTI has a slope of 0.0157099 per year, the SSN is -0.00236535 per year, so the real multiplier is −6.64168. To really match up the trend lines takes an offset to the SSN of -0.8181. Graph.
Voila, perfection.
Good job, Jan. By showing the importance of linear trend lines, and the inverse relationship, you now have all you need to do some real science.
Since lower sunspot numbers correspond with lower solar activity thus presumably lower amounts of particles from the Sun (less solar wind), and such particles could cause atmospheric nucleation thus clouds, I’d suggest seeing if declining solar activity corresponded with decreased cloud cover leading to increased insolation which lead to global warming. You might want to work with Dr. Roy Spencer who already showed how a mere 1-2% lessening of the cloud cover could account for all of the late 20th century “anthropogenic” global warming.
Don’t forget to mention my help in your Nobel acceptance speech. Unless it’s the Peace prize, which has been given to lots of unworthy morons lately, so you can take all the credit for that one.
richardscourtney wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1093423
What are you talking about? This paper is not about the magnitude of the whole aerosol forcing, it’s about the magnitude of the forcing due to the indirect aerosols effect. The conclusion of the paper is that satellite derived estimates of the forcing due to the indirect effect of aerosols are too low. How is this paper supposed to support anything what you assert here about sinister “manipulations”? There nothing in there that supports your assertion.
That sounds about right. Aerosol exert a real forcing on climate, which is net negative, although some aerosols also exert a positive forcing. Therefore, taking aerosols out of the equation would mean that an important factor that influences climate significantly would not be taken into consideration. Climate model simulations that don’t take this effect into consideration necessarily “run hot”. That is to be expected. But where is the supposed “manipulation” here? It is correct to include aerosol forcing. Are you advocating to ignore important climate drivers willingly and totally subjectively, because you don’t like the results, when they are included?
As for the Kiehl paper:
You assert, referencing this paper:
and
You use the Kiehl paper for your assertion that an aerosol forcing is externally prescribed subjectively to fudge the climate response of the climate models to get an agreement with the observed global temperature variability. However, your assertion is not the same what the Kiel paper says. Instead, the Kiel paper states something else:
In many models aerosol forcing is not applied as an external forcing, but is calculated as an integral component of the system. Many current models predict aerosol concentrations interactively within the climate model and this concentration is then used to predict the direct and indirect forcing effects on the climate system.
The aerosol forcing is not prescribed in climate simulations with state of the art climate models. Aerosol forcing is calculated like the forcing by greenhouse gases is calculated, or the effect of clouds on the radiation field. Aerosol concentrations are interactively calculated and the aerosol forcing is calculated by applying Mie-theory or T-Matrix. Thus, there are feedbacks between aerosol concentrations and the forcing aerosols exert on climate.
So, you wrongly reference the Kiehl paper for your assertion that there was some sinister “manipulation” of the aerosol forcing. Once more, you use scientific publications as alleged support for your assertions, but if one does some fact checking what the papers really say then they don’t support your assertions.
You have not provided any actual evidence for the alleged sinister “manipulations” in climate model simulations using aerosol forcing.
D Böehm wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1093180
Well, D Böehm, this is a common talking point used by fake skeptics, but the endless repetition still doesn’t make it scientifically valid.
If the fact that finding a time period (15 years, 10 years, 2 weeks, 2 days, whatever) for which the increase in the temperature anomaly wasn’t statistically significant was sufficient to conclude that there was no physical process of global warming ongoing, then this would lead to absurd additional conclusions with necessity. Because following is true: For any point in time over all of Earth’s history one can find a time period between another point in time and that point in time, for which the temperature increase wasn’t statistically significant. One only has to choose the time period short enough to find temperature changes that are not statistically significant. There is always a time period, without any exception, for which this is valid. So if this is valid for any point in time then there is no point in time, not a single one, at which a process of global warming could have taken place. The same is true for global cooling. There can never have been any global cooling ever, and there never can be any global cooling in the future. There can never have been any climate change in all of Earth’s history ever, and there will never be any climate change in the future. No Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum or no ice ages. And there can’t have been any Medieval Warm Period, or any Little Ice Age. Or there can’t have been any global warming due to natural causes since the Little Ice Age. And “global cooling” announced frequently here to be right around the corner, can never ever happen.
The “argument” by D Böehm is not scientifically valid. It’s nonsense. There is a difference between statistical detectability of a physical process and presence of a physical process. Lack of statistical significance, e.g., of a trend, only allows the conclusion that the process can’t be sufficiently distinguished from noise on the given time period. It does not allow the conclusion that the process behind the suspected trend is not there.
Looking at global warming through the atmospheric temperature anomaly alone is a very narrow viewpoint anyway. Only a small fraction of the additional energy available due to the perturbation in the energy balance by anthropogenic greenhouse gases goes into the troposphere and increases the tropospheric temperature and the temperature at the surface. Most of the additional energy goes into increasing the heat anomaly of the oceans. Another part goes into melting the ice in the Arctic and Antarctic, glaciers and snow. The ocean heat anomaly continues to increase (Levitus et al, GRL, 2012; doi:10.1029/2012GL051106), and the ice is melting both in the Arctic and the Antarctic. The melting of the Arctic sea ice is accelerating. If this continues like this it won’t take long anymore, and the Arctic sea will be ice free in summer.
george e smith says:
September 28, 2012 at 3:25 pm
Any fly fisherman knows that when you cast a fly line, you have to make the cast in such a way, that the linear momentum, and angular momentum, are both of the same sign, either both positive (forward cast) or negative (backward cast), and if you launch it with crossed up momentum signs, you get a tailing loop mess; every time..
= = = = = =
george e smith,
For casting a fly line, you must have a time lag after your back or forward false cast for the fly line to become approximately straight before you reverse your false cast in another direction. The key is that time lag judgment by the fisherman.
John
D Böehm wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1093317
I see, D Böehm is making libelous accusations again. Someone with integrity should be able to back up accusations of wrongdoing against another person with evidence. I suppose, this is nothing one could expect from someone like “D Böehm”, though.
What is “public time”?
D Böehm says:
using following link:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend
As I just have explained. One always can find a time period, in which a physical process, that reveals itself as a trend over a longer time period, can’t be distinguished from the noise. One only has to choose the time period short enough. So, showing this graphic is no scientifically valid evidence for the assertion that there is no global warming.
D Böehm also says:
using following link:
http://www.duke.edu/~ns2002/scafetta-forecast.png
Scafetta uses the one-sigma interval of the model simulations. That is, he rejects the Null-hypothesis that the observed temperature curve belongs to the statistical population, to which the model simulations belong, with a probability of about 32% that this rejection is erroneous, assuming normal distribution.
Using 95% of the model simulations, the observed temperature curve is well within the uncertainty range of the model simulations:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
BTW: For a proper evaluation of the model skills one also would have to account for the divergence in the forcings between real world and model simulations since the year 2000. For instance, for future projections it was assumed that the solar cycle is always the same. In reality, cycle 23 had a deeper minimum, which was also more prolonged than prescribed in the model. Aerosol concentrations haven’t been necessarily the same either, comparing real world and the scenarios.
http://cache1.intelliweather.net/imagery/IntelliWeather/sat_goes8fd_580x580_12.jpg
Pretty obvious that the ice has already arrived!!! 🙂
Jan P Perlwitz:
Your post at September 28, 2012 at 4:04 pm is plain wrong based on ignorance or – more probably – deliberate misrepresentation.
Your entire premise is based on your assertion which says to me
I did NOT “wrongly reference the Kiehl paper”. I quoted the pertinent sections of it verbatim and linked to its Figure2,. And that paper finds the same as my paper which I also referenced but my earlier paper only investigated one climate model and his investigates 9 climate models and 2 energy balance models.
I ask everybody to “do the fact checking” because – yet again – you are spouting falsehoods. Indeed, one only has to read the direct quotes in my post to see you are spouting falsehoods. Or do you wish to pretend I have misquoted? Anybody can check I have not.
Richard
Jan P;
Many current models predict aerosol concentrations interactively within the climate model and this concentration is then used to predict the direct and indirect forcing effects on the climate system.
>>>>>>>>>
You really don’t get it, do you? That this represents perfectly circular reasoning? An iterative calculation done from within the model that adjusts the aerosol parameter is called what?
Adjusting a fudge factor, that’s what.
Now, back to the original point, which you seem to have completely missed. Regardless of the method used to calculate aerosol forcing, each of the models has dramatically different values. There is only one “right” number for aerosol forcing. If one of the models has it “right”, then by default, all the other models have it wrong, and that means in turn that if they get close to emulating actual observations properly, it is only because they have OTHER things wrong that get cancelled out by the wrong aerosol forcing value.
In the best case scenario, only one model can have it right. In the worst case scenario, they all have it wrong. How to tell? Make predictions and see if they come true. No, I don’t mean load the data from 1990 and run it forward to 2012 and see if they match. Once you’ve added all your adjustments from your iteratively calculated fudge factors for aerosol forcing (and others I suppose) the only possible outcome is for ALL the models to get 2012 right. That’s what fudge factors are, they are a way of matching the data you have to the theory you have.
Now make the prediction out to 2020 based only on the data and fudge factors that you have TODAY. The ONLY model that can POSSIBLY get it right is the one that is using the proper fudge factors in the first place. Since all the models use DIFFERENT fudge factors, the only possibilities are that one is right and the others wrong, or that they are all wrong.
If you’re up to a wager, I’ll take “all wrong”.
I note that despite all the appeals to authority, and the noble cause corruption, and the argumentum ad ignorantium fallacies employed by Perlwitz, the planet has the last word. And Planet Earth — the ultimate Authority — is falsifying all of the CO2=CAGW nonsense emitted by the self-dealers at GISS.
Sea levels are not accelerating, they are decelerating. Global temperatures are on the same long term trend line that they have been on since the end of the LIA. The Antarctic has been cooling and gaining ice for decades.
Mother Earth is falsifying all the false alarms being sounded by GISS. Honest scientists would admit that, since none of their scary predictions have panned out, their CAGW conjecture is wrong.
But these self-serving bureaucrats are riding the grant and big government gravy trains, so the truth gets jettisoned. Money and position trumps honesty. Despicable.
D Böehm asserts in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1093419
1. No, it doesn’t. Correlation does not imply causality.
2. The detrended covariability between CO2 change and temperature change on an interannual time scale does not refute logically or empirically that carbon dioxide has become the dominant climate driver in the second half of the 20th century, which causes the statistically significant long-term increase in the globally averaged temperature anomaly.
John F. Hultquist, I suggest you read my comment more carefully, till you understand that what I find odd is that no-one believes Svalgaard.
D Böehm says:
September 28, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Sure, GISS is corrupted. But, all of the temperature sets show a pretty good match. So, no harm in hanging them by their own data.
On your chart, you see the 90 deg phase lag in CO2 clearly. This is indicative of an integration. Plotting the derivative of CO2 shows the correspondence even more clearly. Basically, since 1958, the relationship is
dCO2/dt = k*(T – To)
where k and To are constants* to be determined.
* probably actually time varying, but since 1958, constants are good enough to see the obvious relationship.
george e smith says:
September 28, 2012 at 3:25 pm
“…so you point your thumb in the positive angular rotation or velocity, or angular momentum direction and your fingers wrap around the vector direction in a clockwise direction…”
Use your other right hand. Or, get a new clock 😉
jimmi_the_dalek says:
September 28, 2012 at 2:36 pm
“Dr. Leif Svalgaard, one of the worlds leading solar physicists and WUWT’s resident solar expert ” it says at the top.
And he probably is.
Except when he says that the variations in the sun’s output is not great enough to cause the variations in the climate, then nobody believes him. Odd isn’t it ?
Tim says:
Whoever this jimmi_the_dalek guy is one thing for sure. He is funny. No one believes Leif? You don’t count? I suspect that you and others are happy to hear what he says about climate. Even though the good Doctor doesn’t study know all of the links of the sun to the climate. No one does. The good Doctor doesn’t even think there are links between the suns activity and the climate. Even though there are papers that have pointed out statistical evidence of links of the sun’s activity to changes in Earth’s climate. Just like Dr. Leif is when he avoids talking about glaciation that has been happening for the last few thousand years and still is. After all Antarctica is still being carved and shaped by glaciers. Just like almost all of the AGW crowd is when attempts are made at reasonable discusion. We’re told we need to be educated. I guess the good Doctor and you think you have all of the answers. I know I don’t. One thing I do know, trying to talk to (most) AGWs is a waste of time and energy. They don’t want to think.
I see we have the usual sterile debate going on between those who think all changes are due to CO2, represented by Jan P Perlwitz at the moment, and those who think it is all due to natural causes.
Why cannot it be both?
The temperature record looks very like a slow cycle of approximately 50-60 years, upon which is imposed a general upward trend. Different factors can have different causes.
“Aerosol concentrations are interactively calculated and the aerosol forcing is calculated by applying Mie-theory or T-Matrix.”
Are real world aerosols measured? Are the measurements inputted into the models like CO2 measurements? If not, you have no leg to stand on.
John Whitman is making very good points.
D Böehm says:
September 28, 2012 at 4:34 pm
I note that despite all the appeals to authority, and the noble cause corruption, and the argumentum ad ignorantium fallacies employed by Perlwitz, the planet has the last word. And Planet Earth — the ultimate Authority — is falsifying all of the CO2=CAGW nonsense emitted by the self-dealers at GISS.
Sea levels are not accelerating, they are decelerating. Global temperatures are on the same long term trend line that they have been on since the end of the LIA. The Antarctic has been cooling and gaining ice for decades.
Mother Earth is falsifying all the false alarms being sounded by GISS. Honest scientists would admit that, since none of their scary predictions have panned out, their CAGW conjecture is wrong.
But these self-serving bureaucrats are riding the grant and big government gravy trains, so the truth gets jettisoned. Money and position trumps honesty. Despicable.
Tim replies:
Good job of pointing out the truth. Too bad some people have one hand over their eyes and the other over their ears. They do not want the truth.
Bart,
Thanks for that interesting chart covering the past 54 years. I notice that no one ever posts a chart showing CO2 leading temperature. I wonder why that is, since they are so certain CO2 causes measurable global warming.
Tim Walker,
I am glad you have a sense of humour.
However, you and others appear to have an irony deficiency – I was pointing out the contrast between Dr Svalgaard being described at the top of the article as “one of the worlds leading solar physicists” and the way he is lambasted here every time he tries to tell you something. Is that not ironical?
Jan P Perlwitz says:
“The IPCC doesn’t do any of these things, you claim here, because the IPCC itself doesn’t do climate research or climate modeling.”
This is semantics in that the IPCC very much does provide guidance on modeling, review the model outputs, and then interprets/reports on the result in the ARs. Yes, the IPCC does not actually run the models, but I never claimed they did. Your assertion represents the straw man fallacy.
“You also seem to confuse two issues. The quote from the IPCC report in the second paragraph is about radiative transfer processes in the atmosphere and at the surface for a given solar radiation incoming at the top of atmosphere and uncertainties with respect to modeling those radiative transfer processes.”
I fail to see the confusion. The quote references acknowledgement by the IPCC that uncertainties remain in the representation of solar radiation in climate models (i.e., should solar radiation be modeled as a constant or a variable). Naturally, then, this leads to uncertainties in the forcing associated with solar radiation throughout the transfer process including surface flux. If a starting point is incorrect, it’s likely that dependences on it will also be incorrect – possibly by magnitudes (label it the joy of forcing). Your assertion represents the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy.
“…[T]he following paragraph you quote then has nothing to do with the issue of modeling correctly those radiative transfer processes. Instead, in the paragraph you quote, the IPCC report talks about the issue what the variability is of the amount of energy that is coming in from the sun at the top of the atmosphere. There, newer research is quoted that revises this variability down compared to previous research.”
Read the section in its entirety and it’s revealed that in spite of research which reports increased variability, the IPCC favored modeling with decreased variability (i.e., a presumed solar constant), “…Solanki et al. (2004) suggested that the current level of solar activity has been without precedent over the last 8 kyr. This is contradicted by a more recent analysis linking the isotope proxy records to instrumental data that identifies, for the last millennium, three periods (around AD 1785, 1600 and 1140) when solar activity was as high, or higher, than in the satellite era (Muscheler et al., 2006).”
No rationale is presented in this section by the IPCC as to why it asserts the decreased variability other than the studies are newer. There are newer studies that confirm the increased variability detailed in the older TAR studies/models. And how else do you calculate an input variable for model use unless you study it? Thus, the reference to the rationale (or inadequacy) of the IPCC in how it addresses these uncertainties in the models – it cherry picks its favorite. Your assertion is again the straw man fallacy.
“The previous paragraph was about what the magnitude and variability of the solar forcing is. This quote here is about what the magnitude of the response is, whatever the exact number is of the magnitude of the solar forcing… You are confusing things.”
I’ll assert a straw man argument against you. I see that you’re asserting that the solar radiation magnitude and variability are independent of any solar forcing, rendering the discussion of its magnitude irrelevant. Unless you’re actually asserting that (which I don’t believe you are), you fail to confirm that the two issues – solar radiation and solar forcing – are linked intimately. If you fail to model the former accurately, it will likely affect the latter. Your assertion reflects the fallacy of begging the question.
“The issue in the middle partial sentence, and the issues in the other two partial sentences are separate issues, which you wrongly link with each other.”
Your sentence is confusing to follow. Are you asserting that the IPCC does NOT promote (as in reviews all but highlights the more likely or accepted) models that incorporate solar forcings with sufficient variability to address the absence of predicted warming?
“And the IPCC report doesn’t ‘presume’ anything.”
Hmmm… Where only one example is needed to prove the absolute of “anything” false, please note the following statement from Section 5.4.5.1, “By contrast, models often presume larger fertilisation effects: Sohngen et al. (2001) assumed a 35% NPP increase under a 2 * CO2 scenario. Boisvenue and Running (2006) suggest increasing forest-growth rate due to increasing CO2 since the middle of the 20th century; however, some of this increase may result from other effects, such as land-use change (Caspersen et al., 2000),” – http://tinyurl.com/cbc9nek (link to IPCC FAR). The IPCC, the entity that provides guidance on modeling, reviews the model outputs, and then interprets/reports on the result in the ARs, incorporates model presumptions in its compilation. As a result, the IPCC can only make presumptions where these models have been incorporated.
“The IPCC can only report what has been published. It can’t just make up things, according how you would like to have it.”
Like any accomplished debater, though, the IPCC can emphasize or promote some models and/or studies over others. These actions are even more apparent in the “nuancing” of the condensed Summary for Policymakers. You can disagree with that statement but common sense alone dictates that the complex issues detailed in the AR will lose something in the transcription – this occurs if only for the fact that the summary is not the report.
“What changes in solar radiation’ and what physical mechanisms based on what scientific evidence published in what peer reviewed scientific literature should be taken into account by the research groups who actually do the climate modeling, which has not being taken into account so far, which are as important as you claim?”
Using the reference I made regarding the treatment of the Soon and Baliunas paper, do you see their work referenced in the FAR – http://tinyurl.com/ch3e3e6 (link to IPCC FAR – References to Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis)…?
.
“So what the ‘CAGW skeptics’ say with respect to this matter is all only assertion then?
I don’t believe I asserted this – your assertion (once again) is the straw man fallacy. My concern is the nuancing of the IPCC in the Summary.
“And on what basis should mere assertion being taken into consideration?”
I believe never, but you have certainly made a number of fallacious assertions in your response to my comment. So, I’m confused as to the reason for your asking this question.
“What do you mean with ‘willing chose subjectively manipulate aerosols’? I ask you to back up this assertion of the this (sic) allegedly sinister ‘manipulation’ by providing evidence for it.”
Please refer to NOAA’s GFDL climate models (CM3 – http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/coupled-physical-model-cm3 ) and its treatment of aerosols compared to NASA’s GISS global climate models – http://tinyurl.com/cunbszb (link to NASA GISS) and incorporations of the aerosols. The models all use different variables for aerosols – a wide range of values – to produce outputs that mimic current observations. There’s nothing sinister about the variable but it is odd that the models seeming “work” yet use a number of different values.
Furthermore, it has been noted that significant uncertainties exist (in IPCC speak this permits the use of a wide-range of values) with respect to accounting for aerosol modeling in the Lessons Learned from IPCC AR4 – http://tinyurl.com/cahay9a (link to Lessons Learned from IPCC AR4).
“explain the absence of predicted warming”
In the words of Khan Noonien Singh to Admiral Kirk in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, “He tasks me! He tasks me, and I shall have him! I’ll chase him round the Moons of Nibia, and round the Antares Maelstrom, and round Perdition’s flames before I give him up! Prepare to alter course!” Please read this regarding the absence of model predicted warming – http://tinyurl.com/c7mmbbg (link to Lindzen 2007 – Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously). And please don’t assert the ad hominem fallacy in any response to the paper, rather debate the paper’s points and conclusions.
The observed temperature record has been fully within the range of the predictions from the climate model simulations of the AR4 IPCC report.”
The “observed” temperature record – Pray tell, what actually IS the observed temperature given the frequent homogenization of temperature data? I’m genuinely curious in your response to this question.
“Your assertion that the solar irradiation has been assumed to be constant in the climate model simulations is false anyway. Instead, those model simulations used a variable solar input, based on data derived from measurements of this variability and from proxies.”
So, you’re asserting the use of a changing variable for solar radiation in the different climate models. Well, as you asked of me, please provide examples for the incorporation of a changing variable in the climate models.
Tim Walker says:
September 28, 2012 at 5:01 pm
“John Whitman is making very good points.”
I agree, and they are not being answered. Most everyone else here is making good points, too. Only one commenter is out of step.
I didn’t notice any difference between what Dr.Leif said and what NewScientist said.
And the graph upthread does look the mirror image of itself, as said already.
2pesos.
D Böehm says:
September 28, 2012 at 5:47 pm
Just wanted to point out that we are still waiting for Mosher to respond to davidmhoffer.
Ian W
Thank you for the those websites, particularly the animation in the second one. Though it is a pity they let the trajectory fade out over time, as you would see something very interesting if they had kept it so you could see the pattern over a very long time.
However I do in fact know something about how extraterrestial planets are detected, and when people go on about barycenters and how the sun wobbles, it leads me to say “So what”.
What is the affect of such a motion on a planet?
You say planetary orbits change from “nearly circular” to “highly eccentric”. Would you care to quantify that? How circular? How eccentric?
And you say ” there will also be measurable angular momentum and length of day changes.” OK so how much? Why does this not show up with atomic clocks (other than the occasional ‘leap second’)? Do you think fracitons of a second matter?
jimmi_the_dalek
Why cannot it be both?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don’t think anyone said it wasn’t. The questions are the order of magnitude of each and the sign and magnitude of feedbacks.
I get a real charge out of people like Jan P who explain how hard it is to tease the warming signal out of the noise, yet insist that it is the dominant factor. I have no problem accepting that it exists, but anytime it is hard to find the signal amongst the noise, the logical conclusion is that the signal is too weak to be significant.
Jan P Perlwitz said (September 28, 2012 at 7:02 am)
“…Even if the 11-year solar cycle vanishes altogether and the sun activity stays at the minimum of the solar cycle, I predict global warming due to greenhouse gases will continue over the next decades, since greenhouse gases have become the dominant climate driver in the second half of the 20th century. The warming will just be delayed by a few years (by about 10 years based on mere energy balance considerations)…”
The phrase I’d like to question here is this one: “…since greenhouse gases have become the dominant climate driver in the second half of the 20th century…”
Can you point to a peer-reviewed paper that gives us the day, month and year this “change-over” took place – when the climate went from natural process driven to GHG driven?
This would be helpful, for instance, if we were given a historical extreme weather event – we could attribute the cause based on that “breakpoint” date.
For example, Marble Bar Australia set a world record of most consecutive days of maximum temperatures of 37.8 degrees Celsius (100 degrees Fahrenheit) or more, during a period of 160 such days from 31 October 1923 to 7 April 1924. Since this period was BEFORE the second half of the 20th century, then it was BEFORE “greenhouse gases have become the dominant climate driver”.
Same with the most extreme tornado in recorded history (the Tri-State Tornado, which roared through parts of Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana on March 18, 1925). It holds records for longest path length (219 miles, 352 km), longest duration (about 3.5 hours), and fastest forward speed for a significant tornado (73 mph, 117 km/h) anywhere on earth. In addition it is the deadliest single tornado in United States history (695 dead).
Again, since this extreme event took place BEFORE the second half of the 20th century, then it was BEFORE “greenhouse gases have become the dominant climate driver”.
So were those events driven by CO2, or were they just weather? And if weather is supposed to get worse, why do these records still stand?
richardscourtney says:
September 28, 2012 at 1:35 pm
So, each climate model emulates a different climate system. Hence, at most only one of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth because there is only one Earth. And the fact that they each ‘run hot’ unless fiddled by use of a completely arbitrary ‘aerosol cooling’ strongly suggests that none of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth.
=============================================================
So the only “accuracy” any of the models have is in predicting what has already happened and then only after injecting various amounts of “freon” to cool them off until they match what has already happened?
So if Al Gore hadn’t gone on about CFCs and the Ozone “Hole” then Hansen might have actually been right?
Who’da thought it!
davidmhoffer wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1093616
According to your argument, Nature is fudged and based on circular reasoning. Aerosol concentrations in Nature change with the state of climate, e.g., soil dust emission from desert source region depends on surface wind and its variability (or surface friction velocity), soil moisture, vegetation. The aerosols in the atmosphere change the radiation balance and redistribute energy. Those changes, in turn, have an effect on the climate variables that influence aerosol emission, transport, and deposition, and the aerosol concentration. It’s called feedbacks. “Circular reasoning” everywhere in Nature.
This is not possible. It is principally not possible to make predictions of an individual realization beyond a certain time horizon, since the individual realizations diverge exponentially with an arbitrary small perturbation of the initial conditions. That’s the difference between weather forecast and climate projections. Weather forecast is the prediction of an individual realization of all possible realizations in the population, starting from a given initial condition. Such a prediction is not possible beyond a predictability limit. Climate projections are predictions of the change in the statistical properties of the whole population, when the boundary conditions change. We do not predict the weather of Sep 28, 2020, or Sep 28, 2100.
D Böehm says:
September 28, 2012 at 5:09 pm
“I wonder why that is, since they are so certain CO2 causes measurable global warming.”
No you don’t. But, for any who do, same reason the Wikipedia vigilantes don’t show temperature continuing to rise after 2001 in the second plot here. Because it doesn’t.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
Well, D Böehm, this is a common talking point used by fake skeptics, but the endless repetition still doesn’t make it scientifically valid.
Rather, it is the scientific validity that makes it a repeated talking point. And it is valid, your statistically and scientifically ignorant caterwauling notwithstanding.
If the fact that finding a time period (15 years, 10 years, 2 weeks, 2 days, whatever) for which the increase in the temperature anomaly wasn’t statistically significant was sufficient to conclude that there was no physical process of global warming ongoing, then this would lead to absurd additional conclusions with necessity.
To the contrary, if there is NO possible time period for which a lack of statistically significant warming would falsify the ‘global warming’ hypothesis, then the ‘global warming’ hypothesis is not a scientific proposition.
It is nice to have someone from NASA GISS finally admitting to that ‘global warming’ is not a scientific position, but instead an unfalsifiable faith commitment. It is sad that this admission comes not as the result of self reflection and honesty, but as the simple by-product of your abject ignorance of both simple statistics as well as the fundamentals of the scientific method being acted upon by your arrogant beligerence. But what they hey, we sceptics are not fussy. We’ll take it.
Thanks.
The thrust of Tappin & Altock’s paper which is the basis of the New Scientist article is that the peak in solar activity for SC24 may have passed. Currently SC24 is shaping up to look like SC5 and the possibility of the cycle following the GSN account of SC5 is interesting.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sc5_sc24.png
Ian W
I must point out your error in regard to the Earth axis point. There is no doubt the Earth is in direct orbit around the Sun and the Earth/Sun distances you mention are incorrect. The JPL data is very clear on this. Your other points may well be correct.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
September 28, 2012 at 6:42 pm
(1) Please name ANY climate Global Circulation Model runs from ANY simulation on ANY computer ANYWHERE that yield 15 years of constant temperature while CO2 increases linearly, no volcanoes erupt, and no change in dust is input.
2) Please report ANY measured soot or aerosol levels or dust valid globally for the years between 1995 and 2012. Not simulated or modeled or assumed. MEASURED values.
Bart,
I roll my eyes every time I see that lame spaghetti chart. It was fabricated to replace Michael Mann’s debunked hokey stick chart, but it is not nearly as visually alarming as Mann’s, which they can no longer use.
These climate charlatans always use a zero baseline chart, because it produces an alarming recent temperature spike. But that spike is a complete fabrication. It does not really exist. It is an artifact of a zero baseline chart. The steady long term rise in temperature since the LIA remains well within its long term parameters, and on the same trend line (the green line).
This chart shows the difference between the deceptive zero baseline chart and a trend chart:
http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/2681/temperaturewithrealbase.gif
As we see, there is no acceleration in global warming. It is the same natural warming trend from the LIA, and it has remained within the same parameters — whether CO2 was low or high. Thus, CO2 causes no measurable rise in temperature. Therefore, the CO2=CAGW conjecture is falsified. QED
Tim Walker says:
September 28, 2012 at 4:58 pm
jimmi_the_dalek says:
September 28, 2012 at 2:36 pm
“Dr. Leif Svalgaard, one of the worlds leading solar physicists and WUWT’s resident solar expert ” it says at the top.
I think this statement needs to be qualified. There are many in the field who have written papers that refute Leif’s argument that the solar indices are flat. Some have suggested with solid evidence that his data is erroneous. Google Svalgaard and IHV to find many scientists in the solar arena that do not agree with his statements and data. You will also find the L&P data suffers from the same erroneous methodology.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/280
JanP;
According to your argument, Nature is fudged and based on circular reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Really? By adusting variables in a model to match model output to Nature it proves that Nature is fudged? Wow.
JanP;
Those changes, in turn, have an effect on the climate variables that influence aerosol emission, transport, and deposition, and the aerosol concentration. It’s called feedbacks. “Circular reasoning” everywhere in Nature.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Seriously? You’re trying to justify different models having completely different values for aerosol forcing by explaining that the aerosol forcing changes over time? Duh! Of course it changes! Now, what has that got to do with different models having wildly different values for aerosol forcing?
JanP;
the only possible outcome is for ALL the models to get 2012 right.
This is not possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Really? For the record, you are stipulating that it is not possible for the models to be adjusted such that, based on input of known data, have an output that matches known data? So the darn things can’t even get it right even when they know what the answer is in advance?
JanP;
It is principally not possible to make predictions of an individual realization beyond a certain time horizon, since the individual realizations diverge exponentially with an arbitrary small perturbation of the initial conditions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I agree. I agree 100%. I assume you will make this point to your colleagues who are trying to claim that the models are not very usefull over time periods of a few decades but still try to claim that they are accurate over periods of a century?
D Böehm says:
September 28, 2012 at 7:13 pm
Yep. It’s pretty sad.
JanP;
It is principally not possible to make predictions of an individual realization beyond a certain time horizon, since the individual realizations diverge exponentially with an arbitrary small perturbation of the initial conditions.
==========================================================
So policies and regulations and taxes based on these predictions are wasted effort. Then why promote them if they aren’t going to save us from CAGW which no model could ever say will even happen? Might there be another reason they are being promoted? You’re not stupid. Think about it.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 28, 2012 at 7:21 pm
Tim Walker says:
September 28, 2012 at 4:58 pm
jimmi_the_dalek says:
September 28, 2012 at 2:36 pm
“Dr. Leif Svalgaard, one of the worlds leading solar physicists and WUWT’s resident solar expert ” it says at the top.
I think this statement needs to be qualified. There are many in the field who have written papers that refute Leif’s argument that the solar indices are flat. Some have suggested with solid evidence that his data is erroneous. Google Svalgaard and IHV to find many scientists in the solar arena that do not agree with his statements and data. You will also find the L&P data suffers from the same erroneous methodology.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/280
Tim says:
I really do not know who is right in your debate, Mr. Sharp. I do think we have a better chance of finding out what is right, if less people are concerned with educating others about the facts they know they know, as Leif does and discusss the theories of each other considering and realizing they are just theories. We don’t know and let’s learn. Good luck Geoff.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 28, 2012 at 7:05 pm
The thrust of Tapping & Altock’s paper which is the basis of the New Scientist article is that the peak in solar activity for SC24 may have passed. Currently SC24 is shaping up to look like SC5
The latest data shows that there is still a little bit left in SC24. Currently SC24 is shaping up to look like SC14. The data on SC5 is too poor for a meaningful comparison.
For the folks wondering ‘how long it will take’ for various changes of solar cycle, the charts made by Vukcevic have been remarkably good at matching:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
I’d add about a decade for “cooling” if any comes of it as there’s a time lag from first cold water to the center of the Pacific and when it reaches Alaska… but that’s just a guess on my part.
Per TSI vs UV vs GCR vs
I’ve mentioned it a few times, but not seen anyone picking up on it, so will mention again:
There is a pretty well done exposition that explains the solar correlation with temperature change but does not require solar causality. That is lunar orbital changes. The moon moves in an orbit in “orbital resonance” with us and the planets, as does the sun. The moon has a long duration cycle ( 1800 years is one, 179 is another) and that DOES change tides on Earth (including how much cold water comes up from the Abyssal zone).
So the Sun and Moon can, because “they both go together when they go” have one causal while the other is strongly correlated.
Paper here: http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.full
My comments and speculation on it here:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/lunar-resonance-and-taurid-storms/
Leif can be quite right that “the sun doesn’t do it” and yet it can also be quite right that “the planets stirring orbits do it” and that exactly correlates with solar motions.
The lunar tidal variation is large enough to change ocean flow enough to have impact.
@jimmi_the_dalek:
Many folks do believe Leif, but are still trying to deal with the “cognitive dissonance” that the “wiggle match” shows climate changes when TSI changes. I was in that camp for a while. Took me a couple of years to “work through” to where I am now (partly due to the patience with which Leif tolerated some of my questions and kept on providing data and understanding.)
I kept on believing Leif even while I kept on believing something in planetary orbits mattered. Then I ran into that paper above. The Big Lightbulb went on.
Orbital Resonance. OUR tides move in sync with the 179 (ish) year solar cycle due to the Moon being in an orbital configuration driven by the same process.
It’s call “learning” and having a “questioning mind”. I’d rather have a single student who asks “Why?” and says “But that doesn’t fit with this!!!” than a 100 sitting stone faced and dutifully being empty headed scribes taking dictation…. I’ve taught both kinds of classes, so this isn’t hypothetical…
Being able to accept and hold “cognitive dissonance” in your head is one of the best steps to discovering things… Having “pat answers” doesn’t help…
Thanks richardscourtney
That was the best info on models. Ya gotta love the people who believe in them and want to change the policies of all of civilization based on them.
**********************************************************************
@Mosher who says, “Of course when you use more data and employ better methods you will find that the past cools a bit. Kinda has to.”
I can’t speak to the “global” temps and adjustments with authority because it is not my field, but you seem to be ignoring so much information, like you have blinders on.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/01/a-comparison-of-adjusted-vs-unadjusted-surface-data/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/13/warming-in-the-ushcn-is-mainly-an-artifact-of-adjustments/
Why does it “kinda” have to cool? I understand from the statisticians around these parts that it is statistically impossible for all the past temps to go down and ones following the 60s to go up after the “experts” adjust them. That kinda hasta not be true.
******************************************************
And Jan P, who wrote, “Because following is true: For any point in time over all of Earth’s history one can find a time period between another point in time and that point in time, for which the temperature increase wasn’t statistically significant. One only has to choose the time period short enough to find temperature changes that are not statistically significant.”
This is true. So I just don’t get what you are saying. It is also true one only has to pick a time period between two points that is significant for whatever point you are trying to “prove” significant. You (we) can pick any point in time and show conclusively it is either heating or cooling depending on where we stop and start the points. We all know that. The very fact that the planet under this very thin crust is molten proves that we have been cooling for a very long time. It’s like your own argument works against you.
Johanus says:
September 28, 2012 at 6:34 am
is there any causal evidence to back up the claim that solar hibernation caused the Maunder cooling?
I don’t think so, as the solar variation is much too small.
John Whitman says:
September 28, 2012 at 8:15 am
If the sun’s energy output variation is directly insufficient to cause observed earth global temp changes then that would imply it may be a necessary contributing cause but an insufficiently large enough direct one.
See above
Tony McGough says:
September 28, 2012 at 8:23 am
It would only take a 2% change in cloud cover to change the planet’s temperature by whole degrees centigrade, it seems.
It is very hard to change the cloud cover by that much. And observations show that the low clouds have not varied opposite the solar cycle.
F. Ross says:
September 28, 2012 at 8:53 am
Is the South polar actually a mirror image of the North
It is approximately a mirror image. One is positive, the other negative, and when we see one the best, the other is hidden behind the sun.
Tim Walker says:
September 28, 2012 at 9:59 am
he didn’t provide a graph that showed the differences in the level of symmetry.
You did not take the trouble, apparently, to check slides 18 and 21 of
http://www.leif.org/research/Asymmetric-Solar-Polar-Field-Reversals-talk.pdf
Tim Walker says:
September 28, 2012 at 11:22 am
The problem is he doesn’t consider what others think or have to say.
A lot of that does not bring much worth considering to the table…
Geoff Sharp says:
September 28, 2012 at 7:21 pm
Google Svalgaard and IHV to find many scientists in the solar arena that do not agree with his statements and data.
You are behind the times [again]. It takes time to turn the scientific community around, but when it happens, conversion is swift: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010JA016220.shtml
@TomRude:
I’ve captured the text of the Leroux wiki here:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/marcel-leroux-wikipedia/
so if it does get deleted, it won’t go away…
I’ve read at least one of his papers and it was clearly written and insightful. I think “he has it right” on how air masses move from the north pole over the continents and what happens then.
Jan P Perlwitz says: (I summarize, “The atmosphere isn’t warming because the oceans are warming and melting all the ice right now”)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gymnosperm replies:
There is no mechanism for greenhouse gasses to warm the oceans. Radiation is out. Conduction is inefficient and working against the gradient. Evaporation is interesting but it is unclear whether the released energy goes to the water or the air, and since warmed things tend to rise…
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
More interestingly: What is it with geomagnetic reversals? Is there a cosmic tendency for alternating current? The sun does them regularly and often. The earth does them less often. Higher energy=shorter period? The earth does them pretty regularly too, but there have been long periods (notably in the Cretaceous} with no reversals. This was also a time of extremely fast seafloor spreading. If the earth can quit having them for a while maybe the sun can too?
Sorry for the trancendental rant, I mean free association.
Just mention it lest we get to thinking we really know what’s going on.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
daybyday says:
And Jan P, who wrote, “Because following is true: For any point in time over all of Earth’s history one can find a time period between another point in time and that point in time, for which the temperature increase wasn’t statistically significant. One only has to choose the time period short enough to find temperature changes that are not statistically significant.”
This is true. So I just don’t get what you are saying.
Because what he is saying contains not only true statements, but also false statements supported by false reasoning.
Of course it is true that one can always pick an arbitrarily short period of time in order to give a statistically insignificant result wrt warming. From that, it does not follow that Jan & Co can turn their nose up at every period of any length that shows no statistically significant warming. For their theory of catastrophic, anthropogenic, ‘global warming’ to be valid, the earth must warm by a significant amount over some period.
And it must warm more quickly over that period than simply a statistically significant amount – enough for the warming to rise above the noise of natural variation. That is not nearly enough. It has to rise a practically significant amount. It has to rise quickly enough that it not only validates their theories’ predictions, it has to rise fast enough that it actually amounts to a real problem that people give a rat’s ass about. Right now, the surface temp records aren’t even showing a warming signal at all for periods of 12-17 years (depending on the record), let alone a statistically significant warming. A practically significant warming isn’t even in the same universe.
The reason that you don’t understand what Jan Perlwitz is saying is that what he is saying is not true. And the reason he is telling lies is that the truth is very inconvenient. Their ‘theories’ don’t make testable predictions that they are willing to document and stand behind as criteria of falsifyability. They are unwilling to make such predictions, because the earth is NOT warming at all. In order for them to rescue ‘global warming’ from the relentlessly static temps, they have to claim that ever longer periods of no warming is consistent with their theories. That requires their theories to predict a tiny little level of warming that is so small that it is drowned out by natural variability and their theories’ own enormous error bands … for increasingly longer and longer periods of time.
The problem with that, for them, is that no one is afraid of a tiny little bit of warming that can’t even be differentiated from the weather and/or error (let alone from natural climate warming) over periods that are already a generation long. And while the ‘death trains’ may run on diesel, the gravy train runs on fear…
Reblogged this on Combyne's Weblog and commented:
Solar influence has always been my belief on any perceived climate change, rather than man made.
If the sun isn’t the source of the extra energy warming the globe then where is it coming from because we all know that no matter how good the insulation is it cannot increase the temperature- it can merely slow the loss of temperature ?
If GHGs trap radiation then the Earth must be radiating less to space if the sun isn’t supplying the extra energy.
Then we have the interesting paradox of global warming while radiating less to space – ie global cooling !!
I don’t buy it – nothing has ever been shown to warm and radiate less – ie cool. There has to be extra energy coming into the system to cause warming. The scenario of trapping energy with the constant of the solar constant still doesn’t explain how something which is warming is supposed to radiate less – or perhaps all radiative physics theory is simply wrong ?
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 28, 2012 at 10:29 pm
“You are behind the times [again]. It takes time to turn the scientific community around, but when it happens, conversion is swift: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010JA016220.shtml”
Nothing has changed. There is no flat solar floor, Lockwood continues to demonstrate this as he has for at least a decade. Others have used your faulty IHV data that once corrected shows the modulation of the geomagnetic data to match the corrected aa etc records…..no flat floor.
Tom Murphy wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1093684
Please elaborate what you mean with “the IPCC very much does provide guidance on modeling, review the model outputs, and then interprets/reports on the result in the ARs.”
There is no dictatorship of “the IPCC”. Who do you mean, anyway, when you say “the IPCC”?. Modeling groups all over the world coordinate the design of the climate simulations among each other, currently in CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project).
Well, you accused “the IPCC” to have “perhaps” committed “fraud” with respect to what should be taken into account when modeling climate.
In http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1093144 you said,
Somehow one has to be at least the one who has the overall responsibility in organizing the research, even if it executed by some “subordinates” to be in the position to decide what is taken into account and what is not in the research.
Whether the solar radiation, incoming at the top of atmosphere (TOA) is a constant or not, has nothing directly to do with problems regarding the proper modeling of transmission, emission, and absorption of the solar radiation in the system as physical processes. The variability of the incoming solar radiation at TOA is not part of the physical processes in the Earth system model. Instead, it is a boundary condition for the models.
If the input isn’t correct the result likely won’t be correct, either. I agree up to this point. And the likelihood that the results won’t be correct increases with the skill of the model to correctly calculate the radiative transfer processes in the system, because the likelihood of compensating errors is lower. But this is not an issue of modeling processes in the Earth system. The models take what is coming in at the model’s TOA. It would be a sun modeling issue, though. Something solar physicists have to tackle.
“In spite” of what research published by whom, where, and when, specifically?
Not just that, more important with the reasoning that “most of the recent studies (with the exception of Solanski and Krivova, 2003) come to this conclusion:
Most of the recent studies (with the exception of Solanki and Krivova, 2003) calculate a reduction of only around 0.1% (irradiance change of the order of –1 W m–2, radiative forcing of –0.2 W m–2; section 2.7). Following these results, the magnitude of the radiative forcing used in Chapter 9 for the Maunder Minimum period is relatively small (–0.2 W m–2 relative to today).
So you assert newer studies, which contradict the downward revision in the solar variability have been ignored in the IPCC report 2007. Which ones?
You see wrong. This is not what I said. But the phrasing of my statement was not precise enough either. I give you that.
Of course, they are, but you miss my point. The solar forcing is the magnitude of the change in the solar radiation, e.g., from the Little Ice Age to present day. This question concerns the input. But the question of correctly modeling the physical processes of radiative transfer in the Earth system is a different issue.
Loaded question. I am not going to answer it, since I don’t agree with what is presumed in the question.
Are you asserting, those things have been presumed, and the assumption have been made in the referenced studies, because “the IPCC” told the researchers to do that? If not, how is this quote supposed to be proof that “the IPCC” presumes something? I only see here that presumptions and assumptions in scientific studies are being described in the IPCC report.
Please elaborate what you mean with “the IPCC very much does provide guidance on modeling, review the model outputs, and then interprets/reports on the result in the ARs.”
If you have done this already above you don’t need to do it here again.
Yes, this is true. And it is done, based on expert judgement, the results of some studies are assessed as more sound and relevant than others in the report. And some scientists won’t agree with those judgements of soundness and relevance.
Yes, I do. But not in the reference list of Chapter 8. Why should it have been referenced there?
This paper is referenced in Chapter 6, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-references.html
The ‘hockey stick’ reconstruction of Mann et al. (1999) has been the subject of several critical studies. Soon and Baliunas (2003) challenged the conclusion that the 20th century was the warmest at a hemispheric average scale. They surveyed regionally diverse proxy climate data, noting evidence for relatively warm (or cold), or alternatively dry (or wet) conditions occurring at any time within pre-defined periods assumed to bracket the so-called ‘Medieval Warm Period’ (and ‘Little Ice Age’). Their qualitative approach precluded any quantitative summary of the evidence at precise times, limiting the value of their review as a basis for comparison of the relative magnitude of mean hemispheric 20th-century warmth (Mann and Jones, 2003; Osborn and Briffa, 2006). Box 6.4 provides more information on the ‘Medieval Warm Period’.
(http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html)
Any other study with, what you think are significant results from research, which was ignored in the IPCC report?
You wrote:
in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1093144
That looks very much like to me that you write about assertions made by “CAGW skeptics”. BTW: What is a “CAGW skeptic” skeptical of? I know “C” is supposed to stand for “catastrophic”. I just don’t really know what statements are being rejected by “CAGW skeptics”. What is the difference between an “AGW skeptic” and a “CAGW skeptic”?
It’s not like that they all exactly matched the observed climate variability, or exactly matched each other:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-10.html
But the spread between the models becomes wider for future projections. I don’t know why that is. One possible explanation for it I could think of is that the representations of different physical processes in the model are developed and tested for present day conditions, but internal feedbacks between the model components make the spread wider with increasing distance from present day.
There isn’t really any point in the paper. There is no original research presented in there. I also couldn’t find the evidence in the paper for the “absence of the predicted warming”, which you had asserted. What is supposed to be the evidence in there?
I do not believe you that you are “genuinely curious”. You are loading the question with ridicule toward homogenization of data. You poison the well and make clear that any argument that refers to the observation data is in vain, since you already have dismissed it. However, I wonder how you would find out then that your assertion about the alleged “absence of predicted warming” was true, if you don’t have anything to diagnose the alleged absence.
For CMIP3:
ECHO-G: “Natural (solar and volcanic) forcing is implemented through temporally varying solar constant (Crowley, 2000);”
http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/model_documentation/ECHO-G.htm
GFDL-CM2.0 and GFDL-CM2.1: “Solar irradiance variations —–> SOURCE {Lean et al., 1995; Lean, personal communication, 2003; see also IPCC, 2001}. Solar variations implemented as a function of wavelength.”
http://nomads.gfdl.noaa.gov/nomads/forms/deccen/CM2.X/faq/images/solar_constanttimeseries.png
http://nomads.gfdl.noaa.gov/nomads/forms/deccen/CM2.X/faq/question_13.html
http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/model_documentation/GFDL-cm2.htm
GISS-EH and GISS-ER: solar (spectral) (Lean 2002)
http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/model_documentation/GISS-E.htm
But this was not treated uniformly by the different modeling groups. There are also examples where the solar constant was fixed.
Jeff Alberts says:
September 28, 2012 at 7:31 am
If I may be so bold, I believe Dr. Svaalgaard says that the variability of the sun isn’t enough to account for all the “warming” in places where it has been warming, or to account for historic warming and cooling.
========
There is huge variability in the sun’s magnetic field and solar wind, which influence the earth’s climate at the magnetic poles.
Thus it should be no surprise to find that the area of greatest climate change is at the magnetic poles. While on the other hand CO2 theory predicts that the area of greatest change will be the geographic poles.
Sunspot numbers are a proxy for the sun’s magnetic activity. Solar radiation does not change much in intensity, which has mislead climate science to assume that the sun doesn’t affect climate very much. Thus CO2 must be the cause.
Yet we know from the proxy records that magnetic field changes are associated with climate change. We are in a period of rapid change to the earth’s magnetic field, faster than at any time in history. Are we to believe that CO2 is changing the earth’s magnetic field?
davidmhoffer wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1093865
I didn’t say anything about “adjusting variables in a model to match model output to Nature”. Again, you are making things up, or you just don’t understand what I say. I explained that aerosols are interactively calculated in state-of-the-art climate models, like any other of the model variables.
No, I have tried to explain, obviously in vain, why your assertion about “circular reasoning” is nonsense, or that the same would apply to Nature.
Do you understand the difference between a statistical population and the statistical properties of the population on one hand, and, on the other hand, an individual element from this population, or in our case a single realization from all possible climate realizations?
One can’t match the outcome of an individual realization with known data from Nature beyond a predictability limit. It’s in the nature of chaotic systems like the weather. But one can match the statistical properties of the model simulations with the statistical properties of data from the real world.
You do not understand what climate simulations are, which are boundary condition problems, and what the difference is between climate simulations and predictions of an individual realization as an initial value problems. I said, latter is not possible beyond a certain time horizon. And it’s not decades, it’s rather days or maybe some weeks for some subsystems. But climate simulations can be made over a period of a century. To be accurate here does not refer to an accurate prediction of the chronological succession of weather events, it refers to an accurate prediction of the change in the statistical properties of the climate variables, when the boundary conditions change.
Jan P Perlwitz:
In discussion with davidmhoffer of my post at September 28, 2012 at 1:35 pm you say at September 28, 2012 at 6:42 pm
I assume you are paid to tell such egregious lies.
It is a falsehood that “Climate projections are predictions of the change in the statistical properties of the whole population, when the boundary conditions change.” That could only be true if the boundary conditions were known and specified to defined accuracy and precision. And they are not.
Indeed, the main “boundary condition” varied in the models is the forcing from GHGs, mostly CO2. But, as my post explained, and I again quote Kiehl’s words for the explanation
Richard
JJ wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1094059
I don’t see that you quote any of the alleged “false statements supported by false reasoning”. You only assert that there were some.
Yours is a strawman argument like in your other comment in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1093780
where you said:
Your strawman arguments are based on the presumption that I would say the statement about the presence of global warming was true, even if there wasn’t any statistical significant changes in the climate variables indicative of the process of global warming. I do not say that.
The absence of statistical significance does not allow a positive statement about the absence of global warming. It doesn’t mean that the alternative hypothesis must be true.
The multi-decadal trend in more than one climate variable, indicative
for global warming, has statistically significantly risen over the
noise of natural variation of the 20th century.
This is a political argument, which has nothing to do with the science of global warming. The scientific validity of the statements about global warming as ongoing physical process in the Earth system does not depend on what people think about whether it’s a real problem or not.
You haven’t demonstrated anywhere that what I said wasn’t true. You just asserting that this was the case.
Your assertion is a falsehood. All aspects of the physical theory behind the prediction of global warming due to greenhouse gases are testable. (I do not appreciate if someone accuses me of lying, i.e., of deliberately making factually false statements, without providing evidence for such an accusation.)
Utter rubbish. There is a multi-decadal statistical significant upward trend of the surface and tropospheric temperature, ocean heat content is increasing, the ice both in the Arctic and in the Antarctic is melting, the Arctic sea ice decline is accelerating, even more than previously predicted by the climate models, sea level is rising (and lower stratospheric temperature is decreasing, which belongs also to the physics of global warming.) The assertion, Earth wasn’t warming at all, doesn’t have any scientific substance.
Leif Svalgaard says:
Tony McGough says:
September 28, 2012 at 8:23 am
It would only take a 2% change in cloud cover to change the planet’s temperature by whole degrees centigrade, it seems.
It is very hard to change the cloud cover by that much. And observations show that the low clouds have not varied opposite the solar cycle.
Recent papers from Spain and China show a decrease in cloud cover while the Sun was more than averagely active in the later C20th. So does ISCCP data from weather satellites. So does Earthshine measurements on the Lunar disc.
I’m interested to know which peer reviewed material you are relying on.
Thanks.
Jan P Perlwitz:
At September 29, 2012 at 2:04 am you say
Strewth! Having been shown to be wrong you posit a straw man!
The discussion was about the meaning of statistical significance.
The point is that there has been no discernible global warming for at least a decade. And that fact negates the AGW-hypothesis.
1.
The most recent 10-year period shows no trend in global temperature at 90% confidence.
2.
But the previous 3 periods of 10-years each did show a warming trend at 90% confidence.
3.
Therefore, the confidence with which it can be claimed there has been recent global warming has reduced.
However, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have continued to increase so if the AGW-hypothesis were true then the confidence in observed global warming should be increasing, not reducing.
As D Boehme pointed out to you, the only valid scientific conclusion from these statistical facts is that any putative AGW is so small and insignificant that it is indiscernible because natural variation is much larger.
Richard
Dr. Perlwitz
I would appreciate your comment on the 350 year long differences in the mid-summer and mid-winter trends in the CET data as shown here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MidSummer-MidWinter.htm
Thanks.
Why in heaven’s name should anyone trust anything Perlwitz writes here or give credit to any of his apocalypse cult’s tenets of faith?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/26/nasa-giss-caught-changing-past-data-again-violates-data-quality-act/
Geoff Sharp says:
September 29, 2012 at 12:25 am
Others have used your faulty IHV data that once corrected shows the modulation of the geomagnetic data to match the corrected aa etc records…..no flat floor.
It is the correct IHV that shows that aa must be corrected. Lockwood concedes that IHV is correct. As simple as that. That he cannot yet stomach the floor just shows that he does not understand how to go back before the 1830s, but Schrijver does: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf
tallbloke says:
September 29, 2012 at 2:57 am
I’m interested to know which peer reviewed material you are relying on.
e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cloud%20Cover%20and%20Cosmic%20Rays.pdf
And what does a long drawn out solar minimum imply for temps, ocean cycles, and global warming. Answer: Absolutely nothing according to the small constant factors employed in climate models. Just move along and let the money grubber faux science consensus collect their economic rent from the scarcity of truth and feast of grants.
Are there any explanations why we have now a cooler South Hemisphere with exceeding ice in Antarctica?
At first sight it would look like the oceans started already to cool in the South with a quiet sun.
If there is an imbalance between NH and SH, the NH losing (always?) more heat then the SH this would explain the current situation with the North still losing heat accumulated in the South some time ago (how long?)?
Heat is slowly transferred to the north (what it always does?) and depending on the time lag there is the difference between the hemispheres.
How fast is heat carried to the poles and is there observed heat transfer between the SH and NH?
Obviously much more heat can be transferred to the North Pole then to the South Pole as water flows up there …
From Rosco on September 29, 2012 at 12:07 am:
Start here, where it is noted:
With constant incoming energy, whether there is cooling or warming is changed by how much of the energy is allowed in, which is controlled by cloud cover. Spencer posited a mere 1-2% variation accounts for most to all of the warming blamed on “anthropogenic” causes, namely increased CO₂. At the linked piece, a peer-reviewed paper examining China reported “Significant decline in cloud cover with trend of −1.6%per decade during 1954–2005 was derived.” The authors also found the decrease wasn’t related to man-made aerosols thus likely a natural phenomenon.
Which leads to this piece: Some confirmation of Spencer’s cloud hypothesis – it is getting less cloudy and warmer at the same time:
So the amount of energy directed towards the Earth can remain the same, and small cloud cover variations can account for the warming (and cooling) that results.
So you are right, there is extra energy coming into the system to cause warming. But it does not have to be more energy coming at the Earth, merely that the Earth is rejecting less of that energy.
You might want to read this short piece by Dr. Spencer, A Primer on Our Claim that Clouds Cause Temperature Change. Very informative.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 29, 2012 at 6:30 am
tallbloke says:
September 29, 2012 at 2:57 am
Recent papers from Spain and China show a decrease in cloud cover while the Sun was more than averagely active in the later C20th. So does ISCCP data from weather satellites. So does Earthshine measurements on the Lunar disc.
I’m interested to know which peer reviewed material you are relying on.
e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cloud%20Cover%20and%20Cosmic%20Rays.pdf
From Leif’s link:
“It is noted again that the
ISCCP lower-troposphere cloud data may not be sufficiently
reliable to detect GCR–cloud correlations.”
Leif, you need to consider the full range of literature available on cloud cover, rather than cherry picking a study which suits you purpose, which in fact admits great uncertainty in its findings. ISCCP and Earthshine both show an overall increase in albedo since ~1998.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/cloud-earthshine1.png
Note the left scale is incorrect (SKS shenanigans) The W/m^2 on the inset scale is correct.
Jan Perlwitz,
Sweetie, you have said this:
“If the fact that finding a time period (15 years, 10 years, 2 weeks, 2 days, whatever) for which the increase in the temperature anomaly wasn’t statistically significant was sufficient to conclude that there was no physical process of global warming ongoing, then this would lead to absurd additional conclusions with necessity.”
And that statement is absolutely false. Earlier, I explained how. You are recalcitrant, so I shall restate:
IF the catastrophic fearmongering theory of ‘global warming’ is truly a scientific proposition, THEN there exists SOME length of time for which a lack of statistically significant warming would be sufficient to conclude that said theory is false.
Those two statements are mutually exclusive. The one in bold is true. The one in italics, quoting you, is false.
Demonstrating that your statements are false is not a “strawman” argument. You misuse that term, which you apparently do not understand any better than you do Zeno’s Paradox – which fallacy the balance of that post of yours recapitulates.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 29, 2012 at 8:23 am
A new paper just published in the Journal of Climate finds that global cloudiness has decreased over the past 39 years
During which time solar activity has decreased and cosmic rays have increased, further undermining the naive assertion that cosmic rays affect climate.
tallbloke says:
September 29, 2012 at 8:32 am
Leif, you need to consider the full range of literature available on cloud cover,
The ‘full’ literature is contradictory and is full of claims and counterclaims. In general, it is rather simple: solar activity has gone down the past several cycles, cosmic rays have gone up, and in contrast: cloud cover has gone down and temperatures have gone up.
tallbloke says:
September 29, 2012 at 8:32 am
“Leif, you need to consider the full range of literature available on cloud cover”.
The ‘full’ literature is contradictory and is full of claims and counterclaims. In general, it is rather simple: solar activity has gone down the past several cycles, cosmic rays have gone up, and in contrast: cloud cover has gone down and temperatures have gone up.
One way out of that pickle and saving the cosmic ray hypothesis is to assume that AGW has overwhelmed the GCR-effects. Is that what you advocate?
Jan Perlwitz,
Turning to the rest of your rubbish, in turn:
The multi-decadal trend in more than one climate variable, indicative or global warming, has statistically significantly risen over the noise of natural variation of the 20th century.
Well, that isn’t demonstrable. But even if it were, the salient point is that the “multi-decadal trend” in the primary indicative climate variable (spatially average surface temperature) is built upon decades that cannot possibly have been influenced by anthropogenic CO2, and that trend is not holding up for the most recent period of more than a decade – when the effects of anthropogenic CO2 should be increasing.
This is a problem, and you know it. It only remains to be seen how long the lack of warming will continue, and what ad hoc fixes to the ‘global warming’ narrative will have to be made to rescue it from the relentless pounding of the facts.
Santer attempted to stave off the obvious by putting out his “17 years to know” paper last year, but we are rapidly approaching that length of no warming. He will likely have to begin making labored reference to the fact that he said a minimum of 17 years. But that is going to get people wondering just how many decades of low or no warming we will have to experience before you guys are willing to admit that your scary stories are wrong.
JanP;
Your last reply to me was of the form of debate which I have come to call “when you don’t know what you are doing, do it in excrutiating detail”. You make assertions in excessively long paragraphs laboriously composed of words seemingly chosen to showcase your ponderous vocabulary. When called to task for false logic, your rebuttal rests upon some subset of your original assertion and ignores the valid points made against your remarks in their context as a whole. Throw in a few drive by shots about others not understanding the material, and you imagine that you have somehow scored some points in this debate.
Sadly, you’ve done the opposite. You’ve demonsrated that the only way you can debate the various assertions made in this thread is by muddying the waters, avoiding direct discussion of salient points, and shouting that others are not understanding the points you are making. The problem Janp, is that you aren’t making any. You’d rather argue tiny technicalities of the manner in which things have been phrased than engage honsetly on the matters of substance.
You are proof, JanP, of exactly what skeptics complain most about. That you and people like you don’t want to debate the science. As soon as some actual science gets on the table, out comes a 600 word paragraph that says nothing specific and can be construed later as meaning anything convenient that you need it to mean at the time. This thread is loaded with examples of same.
(I have a vision in my head now of JanP counting the words in each paragraph he wrote to see if any of them are 600 words or more, as in his mind demonstrating that none of them are defeats my argument)
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 29, 2012 at 9:07 am
tallbloke says:
September 29, 2012 at 8:32 am
“Leif, you need to consider the full range of literature available on cloud cover”.
The ‘full’ literature is contradictory and is full of claims and counterclaims. In general, it is rather simple: solar activity has gone down the past several cycles, cosmic rays have gone up, and in contrast: cloud cover has gone down and temperatures have gone up.
One way out of that pickle and saving the cosmic ray hypothesis is to assume that AGW has overwhelmed the GCR-effects. Is that what you advocate?
The literature I pointed you to doesn’t even mention GCR’s. This is something you have overlaid on the purpose of my question.
However, I note that:
1) Total albedo has increased since the turn of the millenium according to ISCCP and Earthshine data. Surface temperature has since stabilised and ocean heat content has fallen slightly. This during a period in which the airborne fraction of co2 has increased some 15%.
2) It is entirely possible that there is a GCR-cloud connection but that has been opposed by other factors which affect cloud cover, e.g. meridionality of jet streams, humidity etc.
3) Although the peak amplitudes of the solar cycles fell slightly over the 1960-2003 period, the cycles were historically high and cloud cover did diminish. Since the Sun went quiet after 2003 cloud levels have increased again. Your analysis fu is weak today. Or is it that your pro AGW propaganda fu is strong?
From Leif Svalgaard on September 29, 2012 at 8:46 am:
I was wondering if you’d pounce. I didn’t bring in Svensmark myself, just Dr. Spencer’s work on cloud variation and supporting evidence, so debate that.
I can also see the downward trend in TSI, and note how small it would appear when graphed from y=0.
With the TSI change so small, I argued from a constant solar output basis as such a small variation can be covered within the cloud variation changes.
If TSI would be the greater influence, or at least significant enough compared to the cloud cover variation to merit mention, then enlighten me.
As to Svensmark, which I didn’t mention, you appear to be jumping quickly into “Debunker in Chief” mode when it appears his work may possibly be referenced. From when you promptly made the first comment at that second WUWT piece and Anthony’s reply there, and as gathered from the comments below, you’re doing yourself no favors with out-of-hand dismissals without examining what is actually being said.
vukcevic wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1094393
What is there to comment? The positive trend, which can be calculated for the shown temperature time series, seems to be larger in winter than in summer in magnitude. There is nothing else that can be concluded from the graphics.
Dr. Svalgaard,
Do you have an opinion or conjecture about what does drive climate cycles?
Thank you
tallbloke says:
September 29, 2012 at 9:57 am
1) Total albedo has increased since the turn of the millenium according to ISCCP and Earthshine data.
It seems that when it suits your argument, ISCCP is all the sudden reliable enough. In any case, the graph you show does not exhibit any solar cycle variation as it should.
2) It is entirely possible that there is a GCR-cloud connection but that has been opposed by other factors which affect cloud cover, e.g. meridionality of jet streams, humidity etc.
Special pleading. The issue was whether the recent data support a GCR-cloud connection and they don’t.
3) Although the peak amplitudes of the solar cycles fell slightly over the 1960-2003 period, the cycles were historically high and cloud cover did diminish. Since the Sun went quiet after 2003 cloud levels have increased again.
From http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/20/spencers-cloud-hypothesis-confirmed/ we learn that “A new paper just published in the Journal of Climate finds that global cloudiness has decreased over the past 39 years”
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 29, 2012 at 9:58 am
you’re doing yourself no favors with out-of-hand dismissals without examining what is actually being said.
I’m not seeking favors, just telling how it is. I’ll repeat: During which time solar activity has decreased and cosmic rays have increased, further undermining the naive assertion that cosmic rays affect climate
Steve P says:
September 29, 2012 at 11:10 am
Do you have an opinion or conjecture about what does drive climate cycles?
On the very long time scale [which does not apply to the present situation], climate is driven by variations in solar insolation in combination with drift of the tectonic plates and volcanism.
On human time scales, I don’t think any single cause can be singled out. Any sufficiently complex system can have internal, natural cycles and climate seems to fit that bill.
ferd berple says:
September 29, 2012 at 12:58 am
I was merely stating what I believed to be Dr. Svalgaard’s position. This was in response to someone who stated a strawman “the sun has no impact on climate”.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
“That is not nearly enough. It has to rise a practically significant amount. It has to rise quickly enough that it not only validates their theories’ predictions, it has to rise fast enough that it actually amounts to a real problem that people give a rat’s ass about.”
This is a political argument, which has nothing to do with the science of global warming.
What an odd statement, coming from an author of the paper titled ” Dangerous human-made interference with climate: A GISS modelE study. “ Given that the title and content of that paper was intended to demonstrate that CAGW is a real problem that people should give a rat’s ass about, I take it that paper was “a political argument which has nothing to do with the science of global warming.”
Tell me, did you still accept your ‘scientist’ pay for that political work? Uh-huh.
‘Global warming’ is highly poiticized ‘science’. It’s ‘scientific’ claims are political from top to bottom. Your very position as a ‘scientist’ is wholly dependent on funds sourced from politicians. That funding is proportional to the scariness of the stories you tell, and the number of people you can convince to believe them. And that is why you are here. That you are present to make such assinine comments invalidates them.
The reality is that you “post normal scientists” do not even attempt to distinguish between your science and your politics except when making disingenuous arguments as you do here. You stump for IPCC. You publish political papers in scientific journals. Thus you need warming of practical significance – scientifically and politically. Specifically, you need the magnitude that your scientific theory predicts and upon which your political machinations are predicated. Of course, that makes the false assumption that there is a “the magnitude” that your theory predicts. As you say above (with an impressively straight face):
The observed temperature record has been fully within the range of the predictions from the climate model simulations of the AR4 IPCC report.
You don’t have a predicted magntude. You have a range of predicted magnitudes. And that range is wider than the range of Holocene temp variation. And even given that laughably large window, actual temps are currently slamming squarely into the sill you guys called “Year 2000 Constant Concentrations” even though atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had 12 years of unabated increase since then.
Currently, temps are skipping along the lower error band of the AR4 scenario (B1) whose total predicted warming (<2C by 2100) is typically given as the alamists' desired mitigation target. That lower bound of the B1 error band also skirts below the threshhold (<1C by 2100) of your "Dangerous" paper, and the likely path we are actually on given current info is solidly below that. It is about time you guys started dealing with that honestly.
As I showed in my post above (September 28, 2012 at 7:13 pm), there is no acceleration in the natural global warming trend since the LIA. None.
Vukcevic’s charts posted on September 29, 2012 at 4:41 am confirm the steady natural warming trend. There is no measurable effect from CO2, or from any other GHG’s, despite Perlwitz’ false assertions to the contrary. Those are merely self-serving assertions of a rent seeker, they are not empirical facts.
Vuk’s charts show what the alarmist crowd glosses over: that global warming happens in winter, and at the higher latitudes, and at night. Global warming is a desirable outcome for every thinking person. Millions of acres would be open to agriculture in places like Siberia, Canada, Alaska and Mongolia. Warmth means more evaporation, thus more precipitation to water crops. And the planet has been considerably warmer during the Holocene, with no ill effects:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
Ignore the wild-eyed arm waving by self-serving climate alarmists. The global climate right now is in one of the most stable, unchanging, beneficial centuries ever recorded. When we take a common sense look at the recent climate, we see this:
http://butnowyouknow.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/globa-mean-temp.gif?w=469&h=427
Rational people want more warmth, just as they want inexpensive energy. Warmth is good; cold kills. The trumped up catastrophic AGW scare has no empirical measurements to confirm that there is any AGW, much less CAGW. There may be some minuscule warming from CO2, but it is so small that it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes. And since any putative AGW is too small to measure, there are lots of better ways to spend our tax dollars.
D Böehm says:
September 29, 2012 at 11:43 am
And the planet has been considerably warmer during the Holocene, with no ill effects:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
And the variation seen is clearly not related to orbital changes, solar activity, or CO2.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 29, 2012 at 9:03 am
“…solar activity has gone down the past several cycles…”
Based on what? I don’t see this measure or this one having gone down until perhaps just recently in the last decade. In fact, it very much appears to me that temperatures have effectively correlated with the amplitude of the signals. Basically, temperature is the demodulated amplitude of an AM signal with an 11 year period carrier wave.
On these two:
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 29, 2012 at 9:58 am
“I can also see the downward trend in TSI…”
Jan P Perlwitz says:
September 29, 2012 at 10:37 am
“The positive trend…”
When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Trends, guys? For complex nonlinear signals? Are you serious? The EE inside of me is writhing in agony.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
September 29, 2012 at 10:37 am
What is there to comment? The positive trend, which can be calculated for the shown temperature time series, seems to be larger in winter than in summer in magnitude. There is nothing else that can be concluded from the graphics.
Dr. Perlwitz
Thank you for your prompt reply.
Perhaps I should be more explicit and rephrase the question :
1. How would the AGW theory explain the mid-summer temperatures having absolutely flat trend for 350 years of the CET records.
2. How would the AGW theory explain the mid-winter temperatures having absolutely even rising trend for 350 years of the CET records.
Dr. Perlwitz, If the AGW theory is a true theory and not just hypothesis then any exceptions needs to have an explanation.
Your colleague Dr. Schmidt also failed to explain how it is that the most important contemporary climate theory (accepted by the great majority of the world wide academia) may not be applicable to the worlds longest and the most accurate temperature records.
Dr. Perlwitz failure of one NASA expert to explain the above, could be an accident, but a failure of two NASA experts is not boding well for the AGW (I am inclined to call it) hypothesis.
Dr. Perlwitz you have to try harder, climate science you represent expects that from you and Dr. Schmidt.
An explanation does exist, but it contravenes the principles on which the AGW hypothesis is postulated.
Declining to respond publicly would be a reasonable step to take, but I would still appreciate to hear your reasoning.
Thank you for your time.
The predictions I have made here are on the table. I expect that a statistically significant global warming is going to continue over the next decades, caused by further increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from anthropogenic emissions. Global cooling is not happening, and I don’t see it to be right around the corner. If there was global cooling over the next decades instead, despite further increase in greenhouse gases, and this global cooling was in contradiction to my scientific understanding of the climate system and what the relative importance of various climate drivers (like anthropogenic greenhouse gases, natural aerosols from volcanoes, anthropogenic aerosols, solar forcing, ozone, land use …) is and what the amplitude of natural variability is on the same time scales, which is in agreement with what is currently accepted by mainstream climate science, I would have to revise my scientific understanding of the physics in the system and come to the conclusion that greenhouse gases weren’t as important as I have been thinking, after all. So far, I don’t see any indication in the empirical data at all, though, that would indicate this was the case.
And here is an additional prediction. At some point within the next 20 years, I’m going to tell you here: “I told you so!” Arctic sea ice will likely have disappeared during summer by then.
So, mark this thread.
What must be fulfilled so that the ones of you who negate that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have become the dominant climate driver on a multi-decadal and centuries time scale, or who announce that there will be global cooling instead of global warming, even with further increasing greenhouse gases, are willing to admit to have been wrong? Is there anything that you would accept as a falsification of your beliefs?
From Leif Svalgaard on September 29, 2012 at 11:24 am:
And I’ll reiterate: I didn’t mention Svensmark. I was talking about Dr. Spencer’s work, and Dr. Spencer isn’t working on a cosmic ray to climate connection. Review Dr. Spencer’s primer on his hypothesis, Svensmark only gets a one line ‘it’s also mentioned’ note as a possible cause of cloud cover variation, that’s it.
If you want to thrash out Svensmark and GCR theory with Tallbloke, fine with me. Why do you keep “debunking” me when I didn’t mention it?
Unless you’re referring to when I was playing with Jan over his playing with linear trends on graphs. No Svensmark or GCR’s there either.
Bart says:
September 29, 2012 at 12:21 pm
“…solar activity has gone down the past several cycles…”
Based on what?
On what I tell you. There are long-term variations of the order of 100 years http://www.sidc.be/html/wolfaml.html
The maxima of this variation have generally been near the mid-century, while the minima have been around the century marks.
Perhaps you should educate the EE inside of you.
vukcevic wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1094858
I am not going to reply to your ad hominem remarks.
I don’t really know what you think what the “AGW theory” is and what you think what the central statements of the theory are, but you seem to think that the CET temperature series was in contradiction to the theory, which I think is the correct scientific basis, and only explainable with an alternative hypothesis, since you write,
Please could you elaborate to what central statements of the theory, about which you think is mine, the CET temperature record is supposedly in contradiction?
Bart says:
September 29, 2012 at 12:21 pm
“Basically, temperature is the demodulated amplitude of an AM signal with an 11 year period carrier wave.”
Excuse me, the carrier wave has a period of ~22 years. It is rectified by the absorption of energy, and then low pass filtered by the Earth’s thermal time constants. Just like in a crystal radio.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 29, 2012 at 12:47 pm
It’s the same data I linked to. Perhaps you should avoid the snark, after I have humbled you so many times in the past (though, to be fair, I don’t think your massive ego allowed you to realize you had been pwned), and pay attention to what I have said.
From Bart on September 29, 2012 at 12:21 pm:
Are you fond of internecine warfare? Leif mentioned the long-term declining solar activity, there’s a long-term declining trend in TSI showing it. Mountains, molehills, etc.
Hi Anthony,
Could you make it a policy that your guest authors include a signature line at the end or their posts with their biographical information, in whatever way they choose to present it? I’m curious what Dr. Svalgaard’s training is in and while I’m sure it’s suitable and I’ll find it soon, it would save me a step.
I feel this is similar to the point you made the other day that all articles on scientific papers should cite the paper itself so people can find it easily.
Bart says:
September 29, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Cue Leif screaming “It’s an 11 year cycle!” in 3-2-1…
The 11 year cycle is the rectified energy output of the 22 year Hale cycle, which is the period required for the Sun to return to its previous state.
Oh, silly me. I just realized he didn’t write this article: you did about his work. Still, it would be helpful in general.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 29, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Why do you keep “debunking” me when I didn’t mention it?
I’m not specifically ‘debunking’ you, just making a comment on the GCR-hypothesis.
Bart says:
September 29, 2012 at 1:03 pm
It’s the same data I linked to
Then you should have no problem recognizing the long-term behavior of solar activity, but apparently you have
I have humbled you so many times in the past
Very many people take special joy of trying to [and believing in] humble me, you are no exception.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 29, 2012 at 1:05 pm
“Are you fond of internecine warfare?”
No, actually, I am trying to help you avoid fighting on a battleground of your opponent’s choosing. Trend lines work when there is a trend. This signal has to be demodulated before you can start applying trending analysis.
I must go have a life. My silence for the rest of the day should not be interpreted as concession of any kind.
JanP;
Please could you elaborate to what central statements of the theory, about which you think is mine, the CET temperature record is supposedly in contradiction?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How about you explain the CET in the context of your own wording regarding the effects of CO2?
That’s the problem with having a discussion with you. You never drive a stake in the ground as to what it is you are claiming in the first place, and then you bleat endlessly about your comments being misrepresented or taken out of context, or whatever other excuse happens to be handy.
So please state, in plain English, what you believe the effects of increasing CO2 are, and how they are commensurate with the CET temperature records.
BTW, you have still failed to provide a direct answer to the issues brought up by richardscourtney regarding the broad range of values used for aerosol forcing amongst the various models, the inability of the models to make a prediction that has been born out by future observations, you’ve not provided a cogent answer to the point that natural variability makes it so hard to isolate the warming signal from CO2 that no rational person would conclude anything other than it is so small as to be insignificant, and you cannot seem to see how your own statement that:
“It is principally not possible to make predictions of an individual realization beyond a certain time horizon, since the individual realizations diverge exponentially with an arbitrary small perturbation of the initial conditions.”
pretty much falsifies the value of the models in the first place. But I’ll put all those failures on your part aside (and yes, I know that you think you’ve answered those questions, but what you have done is just arm waving) if you’ll just explain in your own words what the effects of CO2 are and how they are part of the CET graphs Vuc has provided to you.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
September 29, 2012 at 12:51 pm
Dr. Perlwitz
I didn’t think that asking to try harder, or to say that both Dr. Schmidt and you failed to explain startling contradiction to the AGW hypothesis re the CET is as suggested ad hominem remarks but if so I do apologize.
So let us keep to the science:
Dr. Perlwitz here is graph showing the world longest and the most accurate temperature record:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MidSummer-MidWinter.htm
what is plain in the above graph is:
1. the 350 years long record of the CET the mid-summer temperatures has no rising trend, but one would be expected, at least since 1950s if ‘the GHG factor’ was active.
2. the 350 years long record of the CET the mid-winter temperatures has an even rising trend, going back to 1660s, but that would not be expected, at least not before say 1860s, some 200 years later, and continue at same rate post 1860 if ‘the GHG factor’ was active.
From the above it can be concluded that both the CET’s mid-summer temperatures and mid-winter temperatures are not subject to the ‘the GHG factor’ i.e. contravene AGW hypothesis, unless of course there is a plausible explanation.
Dr. Perlwitz , if the AGW hypothesis is NOT about ‘the GHG factor’ contributed by men since 1860s than I apologize for wasting your time.
Thanks again.
Jan P Perlwitz:
I had not thought you would manage to beat your own record for the most blatant statement of pseudoscience posted on WUWT, but I congratulate you on your breaking that record in your post at September 29, 2012 at 12:35 pm.
You write
Firstly, your unjustified and unjustifiable assertion that “that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have become the dominant climate driver on a multi-decadal and centuries time scale” needs to be substantiated by you because it is pure, superstitious belief. We scientists only need to point out that the null hypothesis applies and, therefore, we reject your superstitious assertion.
Secondly, predictive capability is a prerequisite of falsifiability in science. Therefore, those who postulate that cooling effects will overcome warming effects need to predict cooling: otherwise, it would not be possible to show whether their postulate is wrong.
Similarly, AGW-proponents predicted warming which has not happened. The “committed warming” predicted in the AR4 for the first two decades of this century has disappeared. But you and others who predicted that warming refuse to acknowledge nature has shown you were wrong.
Clearly, there is nothing you would accept as a falsification of your superstitious beliefs.
Richard
Here is one I have still wanted to address:
John Whitman wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1093498
No, it’s not. You asked me whether a certain absolute statement was my premise for a statement about energy balance changes I made. I’m open to alternative hypotheses that explain changes in the energy balance, though. Thus, it’s not my premise. It doesn’t mean those alternative hypotheses must be per se right.
Your statement erroneously assumes that cycles with higher sunspot counts should, per se, increase earth-atmosphere system energy (via TSI) and thus increases in global temperature relative to cycles with lower sunspot counts.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 29, 2012 at 12:39 pm
If you want to thrash out Svensmark and GCR theory with Tallbloke, fine with me. Why do you keep “debunking” me when I didn’t mention it?
Actually, I’m in the same boat as you. I didn’t mention it either, but Leif is determined to deflect any discussion of the EMPIRICALLY OBSERVED drop in cloud cover by dragging Svensmark’s HYPOTHESIS into the discussion. It’s obviously a tactic, because he knows the ~1.6% drop in cloud cover since 1971 fells AGW on the spot. You can be sure Perlwitz will studiously ignore it too.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00280.1
David Ball says:
September 28, 2012 at 6:01 pm
D Böehm says:
September 28, 2012 at 5:47 pm
Just wanted to point out that we are still waiting for Mosher to respond to davidmhoffer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A response from Mosher would be even more suprising than JanP having an actual logical discussion involving facts, logic, and science. But, we can be optimists…. provided that our egos can stand being repeatedly disappointed.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
September 29, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Your statement erroneously assumes that cycles with higher sunspot counts should, per se, increase earth-atmosphere system energy (via TSI) and thus increases in global temperature relative to cycles with lower sunspot counts
============
Sunspot numbers are not a proxy for TSI. They are a proxy for solar magnetism and solar wind, both of which vary greatly. .
Climate science assumes that the only solar measure to affect climate is TSI. Since TSI is relatively constant the argument is then presented that the sun doesn’t much affect climate. This is confirmation bias, readily accepted because it fits the CO2 hypothesis.
However, this ignores the large variability in the effects of the solar wind and magnetism and their role in cloud formation, atmospheric ionization and ozone production, all of which significantly affect climate.
Climate science is so caught up in radiation that they can’t see the forest for the trees. TSI at TOA is a meaningless measure – there is no energy absorbed at TOA. The measure that is important is TSI at BOA, which is controlled by the magnetic properties of the sun. BOA is where the action is, it is where the energy actually gets absorbed by the oceans.
tallbloke says:
September 29, 2012 at 2:59 pm
the EMPIRICALLY OBSERVED drop in cloud cover by dragging Svensmark’s HYPOTHESIS into the discussion. It’s obviously a tactic, because he knows the ~1.6% drop in cloud cover since 1971 fells AGW on the spot.
It also kills the GCR-hypothesis. Both GCR and AGW are dead as causes of climate change. Perhaps you still do not believe that AGW is dead and see AGW as a way of rescuing the GCR-hypothesis. I, for one, do not. Perhaps you should cut-n-paste that statement into your collection of quotes to bring out at appropriate times.
Perlwitz says:
That just pushes the prediction out by “decades”. Convenient, huh? He believes he’s right — but without any empirical evidence to support his belief, and despite Planet Earth falsifying catastrophic AGW for the past 15 years. So now he’s predicting the future decades out.
Now let’s pretend it’s fifteen years ago, and we were reading the Perlwitz prediction above. Would he admit in 2012 that he was flat wrong?
Not a chance. It’s confirmation bias all the way down.
Where do we get a refund?
D Böehm says:
September 29, 2012 at 11:43 am
Rational people want more warmth, just as they want inexpensive energy. Warmth is good; cold kills.
==============
Here is my challenge to Jan P Perlwitz:
Stand naked on any point on the globe. Unless that point happens to be a tropical jungle near the equator you will die of exposure over time, no matter how much food you eat. Almost any other place on earth is fatal to human beings without technology to keep us alive.
The nonsense that the planet is going to become too warm for humans is exactly that, nonsense. The greatest concentration of life on the planet is at the equator. This falls off towards the poles. If the planet was too warm for life, then we should see less life at the equator and more towards the poles.
We do not, which is clear evidence that the planet is a long way from being too warm. Warming is nothing to be feared. It will have a net beneficial effect, allowing life to exist further towards the poles than is now possible.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 29, 2012 at 3:38 pm
tallbloke says:
September 29, 2012 at 2:59 pm
the ~1.6% drop in cloud cover since 1971 fells AGW on the spot.
It also kills the GCR-hypothesis.
Hmm, the logic fu is still looking shaky there Leif.
You seem to think a downward trend over 39 years means cloud couldn’t have started increasing again over the last decade.
Fail.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 29, 2012 at 3:38 pm
Both GCR and AGW are dead as causes of climate change.
===============
Whether there is merit in GCR is not really very important to most people, because no one is proposing to seriously disrupt our economies based on GCR. It is simply an academic curiosity, that threatens no one outside those dependent on government funding.
AGW however is being used as a basis to support hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes, largely funneled to benefit folks that feed off the AGW tit, and thus have a conflict of interest in presenting evidence for and against.
I would have a much easier time believing GISS and Jan P Perlwitz if their incomes were not tied in any fashion to AGW research. The problem with research is that if there is no problem to be solved, there is little justification for funding.
Climate scientists would be much better employed as ditch diggers if AGW is dead, and since most would rather remain scientists than dig ditches, they have a vested interest in promoting the notion that AGW is not dead.
vukcevic wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1094944
I asked you to elaborate to what central statements of the theory the CET temperature record was in contradiction, if you make such an assertion. Just repeating the assertion that it was in contradiction isn’t really for what I asked you. How am I supposed to reply, if you don’t tell me, because I wouldn’t know what the alleged contradiction is supposed to be.
davidmhoffer says:
September 29, 2012 at 3:31 pm
I can take it. I hadn’t expected anything else. A small part of me is hoping Mosher is a mole for our side, but just a small part.
tallbloke says:
September 29, 2012 at 4:01 pm
You seem to think a downward trend over 39 years means cloud couldn’t have started increasing again over the last decade.
If you pick a time interval short enough [since yesterday, perhaps], you can find anything you like. Considering that climate is usually defined over intervals of 30 years you have a predefined choice of time span that is of interest. I see that you do not challenge my suggestion that you include AGW as a one of the excuses for the fail of the GCR-hypothesis, interesting…
richardscourtney wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1094970
Considering that the IPCC Report 2007 compiled and synthesized the state of knowledge about Earth’s climate system, including the role of greenhouse gases in it and all the scientific evidence for it, which has been accumulated over decades of scientific research, published in many hundreds peer reviewed studies, I can call your statement nothing else than a statement of extreme ignorance.
When are you going to study the scientific literature? You can start with the IPCC report, because it’s overall a very good compilation of the available scientific papers,, although only until 2007. A new report is going to be published next year. You can work through all the peer reviewed papers referenced at the end of each chapter in the report.
The truly superstitious and religious ones are the ones who reject any results from scientific research, as soon as those are in contradiction to the own preconceived political or ideological views. For instance, that would be creationists (or followers of the “intelligence design” crap) with respect to the biological sciences, or people like you with respect to climate science.
You are endlessly repeating the same falsehoods. I’m not going to reply to it anymore, because it just would be a repetition of my previous replies.
ferdberple says:
September 29, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Whether there is merit in GCR is not really very important to most people,
but seems to be very important in their fight against AGW. To wit, their belief in [or at least, lip-service to] the mechanism.
Jan P Perlwitz
Nice job in hijacking a thread on solar activity to rattle on about greenhouse gasses being the dominant driver of temperature. I’ve had a quick read through your blog and I have noticed how you have Insulted and actively encourage insults of how unscientific people who are comment on WUWT. Your behaviour can be likened to a spoiled child throwing his toys about in a tantrum because he didn’t get his own way. Grow up! The thread is about “Dr. Leif Svalgaard on the New Scientist solar max story” Not about you! You made it about you when you went off topic, being a very unpleasant and distracting character making a big scene. I don’t know you but your attitude stinks BTW Thanks for showing the world just how much of a snotty know-it-all type of bully you really are. If there’s one thing I dislike, it would be Bullies. You nasty little piece of work!! Grrrr! 🙂
davidmhoffer wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1094937
I don’t really know what you want from me. The CET time series can’t be explained solely with CO2. CO2 isn’t the only factor that determines the temperature record anywhere. This is true for the globally averaged temperature anomaly. That is even more true for individual locations like Central England, where local factors can play a role, or regional changes like changes in the circulation patterns. And I don’t know all the factors for specific locations.
But I don’t see what the alleged contradiction to the theory, which is asserted, is supposed to be.
I reject this claim. I have made many clear statements what my views are. You apparently just can’t deal with them, and you don’t know how to refute them, although you don’t like them, because they contradict your preconceived views.
So you want me to explain how the whole climate system works? In a comment here? How long is this comment supposed to be? You already complaint that I had become too wordy.
Why don’t you read the IPCC report? Then you know what my views are. Essentially. And you can criticize them using scientific arguments, if you don’t agree with the scientific arguments laid out there.
What is the question? I have addressed the aerosol issue in models in my reply to Tom Murphy. The aerosol forcing has a relatively large spread between the models because that’s the range of uncertainty regarding this forcing.
I don’t understand this statement. We don’t have observations from the future.
What are you talking about? Your statement is just not true. The signal is very clear for a multi-decadal time scale. The signal to natural variability ratio is large on such a time scale. A recent scientific reference for this is Santer et al, JGR, (2011), doi:10.1029/2011JD016263.
Why do predictions of changes in the statistical properties of climate variables, i.e., the average weather and its variability, in the future due to changing climate drivers have no value? Ask, for instance, the insurance industry what they think about your assertion.
D Böehm wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1095057
Empirical evidence is plentiful. But anyone who refuses for political or ideological reasons to make him/herself knowledgeable about the matter, e.g., by reading the scientific literature where the evidence is provided, will never know the evidence, and will continue to claim there was “no evidence”. The use of dubious, non-scientific sources to maintain the world view, which is threatened to be shattered by the results from real scientific research is complementary to the rejection of the scientific sources.
ferdberple says:
September 29, 2012 at 4:03 pm
[+emphasis]
Amen to that thought!
Re: Climate scientists as ditch diggers …
1st rule of holes and all that.
Sparks wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1095138
Why are you faulting me? You have to admit that everyone has been piling on me, after I replied to some initial comment here. Why don’t you blame them? Most of my following comments were in reply to people who piled on me. And I haven’t even been able to answer to all of them, which has been very hurtful. And now you pile on me, too, and you promptly triggered another reply by me. What can I do?
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 29, 2012 at 4:25 pm
tallbloke says:
September 29, 2012 at 4:01 pm
You seem to think a downward trend over 39 years means cloud couldn’t have started increasing again over the last decade.
If you pick a time interval short enough [since yesterday, perhaps], you can find anything you like. Considering that climate is usually defined over intervals of 30 years you have a predefined choice of time span that is of interest.
Except the decade in question is a decade not a day, and the decade happens to include the sun going quiet, and cloud increasing, consistent with the Svensmark Hypothesis.
I see that you do not challenge my suggestion that you include AGW as a one of the excuses for the fail of the GCR-hypothesis, interesting…
Heh. It was too ludicrous to reply to. And I already got you to state that the AGW hypothesis is a dead dog, remember? 😉
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 29, 2012 at 3:38 pm
Both GCR and AGW are dead as causes of climate change.
Cut’n’pasted to the file. My work here is done. 🙂
richardscourtney wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1094167
I am not telling lies. You are making a malicious accusation. Or provide the evidence for your accusation, according to which I was lying.
I think you are absolutely clueless with respect to climate simulations.
Logic fail. The question to what accuracy the boundary conditions are known doesn’t have any relevance for the question how climate simulations are conception-ally designed and set up.
There are two types of numerical integrations in the field of meteorology/climate. Initial value problems and boundary value problems. Weather forecasts with numerical weather prediction models are initial value problems. The weather forecast simulations are started from a set of initial conditions that are derived from measurements and assimilated. The data that comprise the set of initial values should be the best possible approximation of the real world. 100% accuracy is not possible here either, though. Starting from those initial conditions, the purpose is to predict the future chronological succession of weather events, i.e., one single trajectory from all possible trajectories weather can follow, as accurately as possible.
In contrast, climate simulations start from an arbitrary set of initial conditions, e.g., a standard atmosphere setup. If one wants to carry ensemble climate simulations, the initial conditions are randomly perturbed. It guarantees that each individual realizations from the ensemble takes a different path, even though the boundary conditions are exactly the same for all ensemble members.
Already by this setup, it is clear that there is no purpose here to match the exact chronological succession of weather events in the real world with climate simulations. The models are run, for instance to some equilibrium state for 1XCO2, 2XCO, 4XCO to study how the climate variables in the model statistically change for different CO2-concentrations. Or for climate simulations to reproduce the historical climate and for future predictions, state-of-the-art Earth system models, with various coupled components, are run into equilibrium for a fixed set of boundary conditions, e.g., as control simulations for pre-industrial times. Those simulations take many hundreds or thousands of model years, until the equilibrium is reached, at least approximately. It’s a pure boundary condition problem that is being numerically integrated here. The climate variables can only be statistically described for such a problem. Then, if one wants to study climate change, one branches off simulations from the control simulation. In the branched off simulations, the boundary conditions are allowed to vary with time, and it is still a pure boundary condition problem that is being numerically solved. Then the statistics of the changed climate are compared with the statistics of the control simulations. Similarly, it doesn’t make any sense to compare the exact chronological succession of events in climate simulations with the chronological succession of events in the real world. Only comparisons based on statistics between climate simulations and real world are really meaningful to evaluate the skill of a climate model to reproduce past or present climate.
And how exactly does the fact that different models have different climate sensitivities to a doubling of CO2, refute my statement that climate simulations, e.g., for CO2-doubling, are boundary value problems, which are being numerically solved? There is no logic here in your quoting of this statement from the Kiehl paper.
JJ wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1094623
No, your assertions are false.
In my statement,
If the fact that finding a time period (15 years, 10 years, 2 weeks, 2 days, whatever) for which the increase in the temperature anomaly wasn’t statistically significant was sufficient to conclude that there was no physical process of global warming ongoing, then this would lead to absurd additional conclusions with necessity.
the key word is “sufficient”. The true statement is, it is not sufficient just to find a time period for which the change in the temperature anomaly is not statistically significant to make the positive statement that there was no process of global warming ongoing. The assertion, e.g., made by “D. Boehm”, is that it was sufficient to find such a time period. I have demonstrated that the claim, it was sufficient, leads to absurd conclusions with necessity, since one can always find a time period for which this is fulfilled for any point in time. It’s reductio ad absurdum that I applied to show that “D. Boehm’s” assertions are scientifically invalid. In contrast, you applied strawman arguments to “refute” my statement, by asserting a proposition, which I allegedly made, but which I haven’t put forward.
When you say, “there exists SOME length of time for which a lack of statistically significant warming would be sufficient to conclude that said theory is false.”, then this is not the same argument as put forward by “D. Boehm”, which I have refuted by reductio ad absurdum. In your statement, an additional proposition has been included, which must be fulfilled as necessary condition. The additional, necessary condition is that the time period of no statistical significance was long enough. Not just that one could find a time period without statistical significance. But if you assert, some specific time period was long enough to conclude there wasn’t any global warming ongoing, then you would have to give a scientific reasoning why this specific time period was long enough. Just postulating a time period as long enough, out of convenience to support your preconceived beliefs, would not be a sufficient scientific reasoning.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
“And the reason he is telling lies is that the truth is very inconvenient. Their ‘theories’ don’t make testable predictions that they are willing to document and stand behind as criteria of falsifyability.”
Your assertion is a falsehood. All aspects of the physical theory behind the prediction of global warming due to greenhouse gases are testable.
My assertion is not false. I didn’t say your theories can’t make testible predictions. I said they don’t. Feel free to make some. Then stand by them . This last bit would include holding to all components of the prediction, including:
1) the limited scope of the parameters you choose to define the prediction, and
2) the breadth of the error bands you have to invoke to demonstrate “consistent with”
I shall not hold my breath awaiting the day when the above are practiced by the people who pull the “projection is not prediction” routine every time one of their predictions is shown to be untenable.
(I do not appreciate if someone accuses me of lying, i.e., of deliberately making factually false statements, without providing evidence for such an accusation.)
Yeah, but you likely don’t care for it much when you are called out for ignorantly making factually false statements, either. So, your sensibilities aren’t of much use in deciding which way to respond to your smarmily delivered factually incorrect statements.
The evidence for accusation of deliberate falsehood is the fact that you make false statements and frequently use false reasoning here, of the sort that a person who holds your position should have the knowledge and skills to avoid as mistakes. Deductive logic doesn’t demand that conclusion, but parsimony suggests it.
You could negate that circumstance, by owning up to your errors when they are pointed out to you – another event for which I will not postpone respiration in anticipation. You tend to double down with fingers firmly planted in ears, as you are doing now.
JJ wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1095214
This assertion is refuted by the fact that all the statements that build the theory of climate are tested against data from the real world.
dmh
How about you explain the CET in the context of your own wording regarding the effects of CO2?
JanP
I don’t really know what you want from me. The CET time series can’t be explained solely with CO2.
REPLY: Oh. So CO2 isn’t the dominant factor after all? Or it just isn’t the dominant factor in that region? Gee, I thought dominant meant DOMINANT!
JanP
But I don’t see what the alleged contradiction to the theory, which is asserted, is supposed to be.
REPLY: Since you won’t give us a straight answer as to what your theory is, we really have no idea what you do or don’t mean about just about anything you say. But you were pretty clear that CO2 is currently the dominant (your words, not mine) factor in climate, yet when someone produces a 350 year temperature record called CET you claim there are other factors, and that you don’t even know whaty they are. If you don’t know what the other factors are for THIS region, then you don’t know what the other factors are for ANY region, and hence, you cannot claim to know what the dominant factors globally are.
dmh
You never drive a stake in the ground as to what it is you are claiming in the first place,
JanP
I reject this claim. I have made many clear statements what my views are. You apparently just can’t deal with them, and you don’t know how to refute them, although you don’t like them, because they contradict your preconceived views.
REPLY: About the only claim that you have made is that CO2 is the dominant factor in climate…. except in the region represented by the CET, and you claim to not know why. But you claim to know it is true everywhere else.
dmh
So please state, in plain English, what you believe the effects of increasing CO2 are,
JanP
So you want me to explain how the whole climate system works? In a comment here? How long is this comment supposed to be? You already complaint that I had become too wordy.
Why don’t you read the IPCC report? Then you know what my views are. Essentially. And you can criticize them using scientific arguments, if you don’t agree with the scientific arguments laid out there.
REPLY: I have read IPCC AR4. It is what convinced me to become a skeptic in the first place. But since you have advised that this is more or less representative of your views, I would like to draw your attention to IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 2, specificaly 2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing which ranks no less than 14 factors and the LOSU (Level of Scientific Understanding) of each of them. Of the 14 factors listed, only LLGHG are credited with a “high” level of scientific understanding. Stratospheric and Tropospheric Ozone are ranked as “medium”. Direct Aerosols and Surface Albedo (land use) are ranked “medium to low”. Stratasopheric water vapour from CH4, cloud albedo (all aerosols), surface albedo (black carbon), persistant linear contrails, solar irradiance, volcanic aerosols, stratospheric water vapour from other than CH4, tropospheric water from irrigation, aviation induced cirrus, cosmic rays, and “other surface effects” are all rated either “low” or “very low”.
So I take it Dr JanP, that as you have stipulated to the IPCC reports being representative of your views, that you are stipulating to the fact that when it comes to earth’s radiative balance we actually know very little about most of the factors and so have no idea at all how CO2 stacks up against them? Sorry, but that’s what the IPCC report you claim represents your views actually says. (Ain’t it a bi*ch when it turns out that some of us great unwashed can actually read?)
dmh
BTW, you have still failed to provide a direct answer to the issues brought up by richardscourtney regarding the broad range of values used for aerosol forcing amongst the various models,
JanP
What is the question? I have addressed the aerosol issue in models in my reply to Tom Murphy. The aerosol forcing has a relatively large spread between the models because that’s the range of uncertainty regarding this forcing.
REPLY: Thanks for admitting that the range of uncertainty regarding this forcing is very large. Since we are so uncertain as to the proper value, we cannot claim that CO2 dominates it, can we? More to the point however, the range of uncertainty of the value of aerosol forcing is quite a bit larger than the range of uncertainty when model results are compared to each other. In other words, the model results having a lower range of uncertainty when compared to each other than the range of values being used for aerosol forcing is proof positive that aerosol forcing values are being used to introduce adjustments that cancel out other errors in the models. In other words, they are being used exactly as the fudge factor richardscourtney claims. Is this were not true, if the values were simply best estimates, our expectation would be that the broad range would cause the model outputs to diverge instead of converge.
dmh
the inability of the models to make a prediction that has been born out by future observations,
JanP
I don’t understand this statement. We don’t have observations from the future.
REPLY: You know very well what I mean. Model outputs that were run in 1980, when compared to today’s temps, were wrong. Model outputs from 1990 when compared to todays temps were wrong. Model outputs from 2000 when compared to today’s temps were wrong. Model ouputs from just a few years ago failed to predict the current lack of warming. At no point have any of the models made predictions a decade or two or three out and then been proven right ten or twenty or thirty years later. Yet you continue to claim there is a reason to believe that what they predict ten or twenty or thirty years out from now is accurate.
dmh
you’ve not provided a cogent answer to the point that natural variability makes it so hard to isolate the warming signal from CO2 that no rational person would conclude anything other than it is so small as to be insignificant,
JanP
What are you talking about? Your statement is just not true. The signal is very clear for a multi-decadal time scale. The signal to natural variability ratio is large on such a time scale. A recent scientific reference for this is Santer et al, JGR, (2011), doi:10.1029/2011JD016263.
REPLY: And yet, here we are, with no warming for 15 years and Santer now claiming 15 years isn’t the right time frame, it is really 17 years. Or is is 19 now? Ooops, I thought you said CO2 was dominant. Yet no warming at the highest levels of CO2 we have ever had. And we don’t understand why, because according to the IPCC (and hence by your own assertion, you) there are feedbacks and other factors that we don’t yet understand which are clearly as large or larger. Hence your claim that CO2 is dominant just doesn’t hold up.
JanP
“It is principally not possible to make predictions of an individual realization beyond a certain time horizon, since the individual realizations diverge exponentially with an arbitrary small perturbation of the initial conditions.”
dmh
pretty much falsifies the value of the models in the first place.
JanP
Why do predictions of changes in the statistical properties of climate variables, i.e., the average weather and its variability, in the future due to changing climate drivers have no value? Ask, for instance, the insurance industry what they think about your assertion.
REPLY: By your own assertion that your views are in accordance with the IPCC, it is clear that of the variables considered by the IPCC, almost all have either a low or a very low Level of Scientific Understanding. As a consequence, any statistical properties forecast (predicted, projected, use any term you wish) based on those poorly understood factors produces a model result of no particular value and cannot be relied upon for decision making of any sort. The insurance industry deals with this matter simply by being smart enough to not offer insurance products in such circumstances.
The insurance industry, Dr JanP, is smart enough not to make a fool’s bet. If they haven’t good quality properties upon which to base their model, they choose not to make a fool’s bet. The problem here Dr JanP, is that you are making a fool’s bet, but you are doing it with my money, not yours. You want to throw my virgins into your volcanoe. You cannot understand the danger, the damage, and the billions of lives that will be lost if you make the bet that you want us to. All you can see is the billions of lives you think will be saved based on climate models that have repeatedly failed to produce results born out by observation over time and which are based on properties affecting earth’s radiative energy balance which you admit to having a poor understanding of, and which you admit can only result in model outputs with error variances so large as to be meaningless. Yet still you insist on making that bet.
Wow. After two days of fine passive-aggressive dancing and non-replies, Jan Perlwitz, GISS employee, tries to pull the “Woe is me, everyone hates me, everyone is picking on me” defense, said reason being “They just can’t stand that I’m smarter and know more than them!”
Right after dropping a load about the IPCC report being such great peer-reviewed science, after all we’ve learned about all the “grey literature” thrown in from activist groups, with the slanted-for-political-purposes writing and rewriting.
He’s going to be another of those pricks who comes here and stirs things up just so he can run back to his and other blogs and say how those mean ignorant anti-science deniers treated his so badly and kept trying to shut him up, isn’t he?
tallbloke says:
September 29, 2012 at 6:17 pm
the decade happens to include the sun going quiet, and cloud increasing, consistent with the Svensmark Hypothesis.
Not at all consistent: http://www.leif.org/research/Cloud-Cover-GCR-Disconnect.png
Heh. It was too ludicrous to reply to.
It is no more ludicrous than the other excuses you come up with, so you still include AGW as a possible excuse.
“Both GCR and AGW are dead as causes of climate change”
good to see that you agree.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 29, 2012 at 1:14 pm
“Then you should have no problem recognizing the long-term behavior of solar activity, but apparently you have.”
Not I. Peak in ~1970: about 100. Peak in ~1980: about 150. Conclusion: increasing activity, leading to acceleration in global temperature.
Peak in ~1990: about 150. Conclusion: SSN holding steady, temperatures continue to rise. Behavior up to 2000: consistent with behavior in previous two cycles. Conclusion: holding steady, temperatures continue to rise.
It is not until about 2000 that there is a break in the pattern since the pre-1970 low which, not coincidentally, was the previous era of temperature stabilization.
Peak in ~2000: about 100. Conclusion: activity declining, expect temperature advance to stall.
Temperatures after ~2000: stalled.
So, we have four decades over which solar activity can tell us reliably which direction temperatures are headed, yet you insist that there is no correlation. Otnay ootay ightbray, if you know what I mean.
“””””…..John Whitman says:
September 28, 2012 at 4:14 pm
george e smith says:
September 28, 2012 at 3:25 pm
Any fly fisherman knows that when you cast a fly line, you have to make the cast in such a way, that the linear momentum, and angular momentum, are both of the same sign, either both positive (forward cast) or negative (backward cast), and if you launch it with crossed up momentum signs, you get a tailing loop mess; every time..
= = = = = =
george e smith,
For casting a fly line, you must have a time lag after your back or forward false cast for the fly line to become approximately straight before you reverse your false cast in another direction. The key is that time lag judgment by the fisherman……John Whitman says:
September 28, 2012 at 4:14 pm
george e smith says:
September 28, 2012 at 3:25 pm
Any fly fisherman knows that when you cast a fly line, you have to make the cast in such a way, that the linear momentum, and angular momentum, are both of the same sign, either both positive (forward cast) or negative (backward cast), and if you launch it with crossed up momentum signs, you get a tailing loop mess; every time..
= = = = = =
george e smith,
For casting a fly line, you must have a time lag after your back or forward false cast for the fly line to become approximately straight before you reverse your false cast in another direction. The key is that time lag judgment by the fisherman……”””””
Well I don’t do much, if any, false casting, that just wastes time and effort so the fish has gone bye bye by the time you decide to cast to it.
And you don’t need any more time than it takes for the line to unroll and turn over the leader and fly; after that it will drop on the ground, if you wait any longer.
Mr Perlwitz says:
“…all the statements that build the theory of climate are tested against data from the real world.”
For a ‘scientist’, Mr Perlwitz cannot seem to understand scientific terminology. There is no “theory of climate”. There are conjectures and hypotheses. But a theory must be able to make testable, consistent and accurate predictions. As we see, no models are capable of accurate forecasting unless the error bars are so gigantic that the result is meaningless.
And, peak at ~2010: about 50. Conclusion: significant decline, expect temperatures to start dropping soon.
JanP
Then, if one wants to study climate change, one branches off simulations from the control simulation. In the branched off simulations, the boundary conditions are allowed to vary with time, and it is still a pure boundary condition problem that is being numerically solved. Then the statistics of the changed climate are compared with the statistics of the control simulations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There’s your problem. You’ve arrived at a simulation that when run over thousands of years arrives at some approximation of current conditions. You then make the assumption that by changing a given input such as 2X CO2, you can run the simulation forward in time and arrive at an approximation that is valid for the future.
The error you are making is in your assumption that there are no OTHER input properties to a given set of boundary conditions that, when run forward in time, wind up approximating current conditions. In fact, we have evidence that other value of input properties DO result in a an approximation of current conditions. We know this for the very reason that richardscourtney keeps on pointing out to you. The fact that inputs for aerosol forcing between models have a dramaticaly broader range than the model outputs themselves, is de facto evidence that the models are dependent upon input factors that are WRONG.
This being the case, the combination of input factors, which we know to be wrong for (at a minimum) all except one of the models, we can have NO CONFIDENCE AT ALL in their results projected into the future.
D Böehm says:
September 29, 2012 at 7:06 pm
I kind of expect him/her to come back with the old standby “Apparently you don’t understand science.” Which makes me think of my favorite Dilbert cartoon.
“””””…..Bart says:
September 28, 2012 at 4:55 pm
……………………………..
george e smith says:
September 28, 2012 at 3:25 pm
“…so you point your thumb in the positive angular rotation or velocity, or angular momentum direction and your fingers wrap around the vector direction in a clockwise direction…”
Use your other right hand. Or, get a new clock ;-)…..”””””
Well Bart, When I point MY right hand thumb at an analog clock face, I find that MY right hand fingers DO curl around that thumb direction in the usual clockwise direction.
So Why would I be looking at a clock face from INSIDE the clock. The only other explanation for your conclusion, could be that you are choosing as the right hand, what some primitive people use to wipe their rear end; In the West we use paper instead.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1095241
We are talking about Volume 1 of the IPCC Report, “The Physical Science Basis”. It is obvious that your “argument”, with which you dismiss the IPCC Report, is based on hearsay without you bothering to do any fact checking. The assertion about all the “grey literature” allegedly thrown in is not true for this volume. Each chapter of this volume is based on a few hundred papers from peer reviewed scientific journals.
You are free to check for yourself:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html
Bart says:
September 29, 2012 at 7:00 pm
So, we have four decades over which solar activity can tell us reliably which direction temperatures are headed, yet you insist that there is no correlation.
Your assertion is much too naive [you should listen to the EE in you] as your other suppositions of solar activity. The climate system has large inertia and will respond [if at all] only to the longer-term evolution of solar activity as given by the century-scale ‘swells’. Even if you allow shorter responses you still find a disconnect and no correlation, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Lockwood-2447-60.pdf
“Here we show that over the past 20 years [by now 25], all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.”
“The thermal capacity of the Earth’s oceans is large and this will tend to smooth out decadal-
scale (and hence solar cycle) variations in global temperatures, but this is not true of centennial variations”
You are way out of your depth here.
“””””…..Bart says:
September 29, 2012 at 1:12 pm
Bart says:
September 29, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Cue Leif screaming “It’s an 11 year cycle!” in 3-2-1…
The 11 year cycle is the rectified energy output of the 22 year Hale cycle, which is the period required for the Sun to return to its previous state. “””””
Well Bart, you seem to be full of avant garde definitions. Most people would regard any cycle as the period required to return to the same state; not to some previous different state. So just how does one “rectify” energy ? Are you sugesting, that there are energies where you have to add more energy just to get to NO energy at all ?
Jan P Perlwitz says:
September 29, 2012 at 5:51 pm
“Why are you faulting me? You have to admit that everyone has been piling on me, after I replied to some initial comment here.”
You made the initial and conscious decision to raise a controversial issue concerning greenhouse gasses being the dominant driver of temperature, wrong thread, wrong topic. You haven’t shown any courtesy to the wide variety of opinions here and have been dominantly vocal throughout. It seems as tho even from early on, your intentions were to disrupt what is actually a very interesting topic.
“Why don’t you blame them?”
I actually read Anthony Watts blog regularly and have become familiar with many of the readers and the variety of opinions they have, I think it would have been reasonable for you to a least engage with the readers here on topic instead of jumping in off the deep end, besides there are discussions on greenhouse gasses here too.
“And I haven’t even been able to answer to all of them, which has been very hurtful. And now you pile on me, too, and you promptly triggered another reply by me.”
It does seem that you made an incredible effort to answer (or dismiss) all of them, including being able to post some very unfair deceptive (hurtful?) articles about WUWT on your blog and encourage comments about how unscientific it’s readers are, which after I read prompted my response. (like I’ve nothing better to do! well actually I don’t, so your in luck).
“What can I do?”
Ha! [self snip] /jk
george e smith says:
September 29, 2012 at 7:24 pm
Well, Geo, that’s the convention. Google, e.g., “counterclockwise positive rotation” for confirmation. You’ll find many references, such as this. For the clock, you point your thumb normal to the clock face coming out of the clock, and the clock hands move opposite your fingers wrapping around it, so the rotation is negative (clockwise).
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 29, 2012 at 9:03 am
“In general, it is rather simple: solar activity has gone down the past several cycles, cosmic rays have gone up, and in contrast: cloud cover has gone down and temperatures have gone up.”
To present the actual data in contrast, with readily verifiable links, so some readers may get over naivety about Svalgaard:
Under increased (not decreased) solar activity with more GCR deflection, average cosmic ray flux went down (not up) a substantial 3% from cycle 20 (1964-1976) through cycle 21 and the cycle 22 ending in 1996.
The late 1970s through part of the 1990s, the heart of the anthropogenic global warming scare’s basis, was a time of substantially increased average solar activity (and reduced GCR flux reducing shading cloud cover) compared to the time of the global cooling scare before it. The El Nino in the late 1990s is when global temperatures peaked, being afterwards at most approximately flat to declining subsequently through now (2012), as seen at http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend
Cycle 23 from 1996 to 2008 later corresponded to about 0.5% more average cosmic ray flux than cycle 20, but the magnitude of the smaller difference there contrasts to the preceding. Only very recently has cosmic ray flux started to get much above the levels of cycle 20.
Solar cycle 20: October 1964 to June 1976 = 6180.84 average measured neutron count
Solar cycle 21: June 1976 to September 1986 = 5991.43 average measured neutron count
(showing cycle 21 had 96.9% of the cosmic ray index of cycle 20, 1.032x the inverted cosmic ray count, with increased solar activity deflecting more cosmic rays and decreasing GCR flux)
Solar cycle 22: September 1986 to May 1996 = 5991.56 average measured neutron count
Solar cycle 23: May 1996 to December 2008 = 6213.57 average measured neutron count
No appeal to sunspot number trend claims can truly counter what the neutron monitor data shows for cosmic ray counts having primarily gone down (not up) during the heart of the global warming scare, as expected under GCR theory, for the neutron counts are a more direct indicator of GCR flux.
The preceding figures are shown respectively by:
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=10&startyear=1964&starttime=00%3A00&endday=01&endmonth=06&endyear=1976&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=06&startyear=1976&starttime=00%3A00&endday=01&endmonth=09&endyear=1986&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=09&startyear=1986&starttime=00%3A00&endday=01&endmonth=05&endyear=1996&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=05&startyear=1996&starttime=00%3A00&endday=01&endmonth=12&endyear=2008&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
The fraction of cycle 24 from December 2008 through now is of 6549.4 average neutron count, corresponding to a substantial rise in GCR flux and decline in solar activity relative to cycle 20. However, the past few years are a far cry from the past several decades or the past several solar cycles.
With this having been pointed out repeatedly before, Svalgaard already knows this, but he follows the standard strategy that blatant and shameless repetition of a claim often enough gets many naive people to fall for it (while occasionally throwing in a superficial one-liner against CAGW if posting on WUWT, of never any serious argument against it but getting the naive to auto-trust).
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 29, 2012 at 6:49 pm
“http://www.leif.org/research/Cloud-Cover-GCR-Disconnect.png”
Debunked before.
GISS-ISCCP junk.
As a prior post of mine earlier in this thread remarked:
“There is a series of attempts by the CAGW movement to discredit cosmic rays having an influence ( http://www.sciencebits.com/RealClimateSlurs , http://www.sciencebits.com/HUdebate , etc.), and a particularly common one is to claim such is disproven by divergence between the cloud cover trends reported by the ISCCP at Hansen’s GISS in recent years (unfortunately publicized in climate4you.com graphs using them as a source) and that expected from GCR trends. However, http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/further-attempt-to-falsify-the-svensmark-hypothesis/ illustrates the “accidentally” uncorrected error from change in ISCCP satellite viewing angle occurring then, including a graph showing how other cloud cover trend datasets went in a different direction. 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.
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://s18.postimage.org/n9nm5glc7/solar_GCRvswatervapor.jpg
The top is from:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericSpecificHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
The bottom is from, inverted:
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“
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 29, 2012 at 7:34 pm
“The climate system has large inertia and will respond [if at all] only to the longer-term evolution of solar activity as given by the century-scale ‘swells’.”
Again betraying your lack of experience with dynamic systems. Things start changing immediately. The lag is in the steady state. But, because the inertia is large, the near term response is essentially an integration. And, there you go.
You really ought to be more cautious when venturing outside your area of expertise. You keep making these outlandish statements which, frankly, would subject you to ridicule in knowledgeable circles.
george e smith says:
September 29, 2012 at 7:54 pm
“Well Bart, you seem to be full of avant garde definitions.”
Pretty standard, actually. Every undergraduate EE knows that full-wave rectification of a sine wave doubles the frequency (halves the period) of the fundamental harmonic. It’s because of the trig identities sin(x)^2 = 0.5 – 0.5*cos(2x), cos(x)^2 = 0.5 + 0.5*cos(2*x).
Leif and I have been through this conversation before. The PSD of the SSN shows four main peaks with periods of 10 years, 10.8 years, 11.8 years, and 131 years. These four peaks are expected when the SSN is a rectification of a process with major harmonics at 20 years, and 23.6 years.
A pretty decent stochastic model of the SSN can be constructed from the absolute value of two lightly damped oscillators driven by wideband random processes (idealized as “white” noise). Simulation of this model produces data similar to what we observe.
Leif should get himself a Kalman Filter expert. Using a model such as this, he could obtain optimal estimates of future solar activity with associated error bounds. But, it’s a subject he doesn’t know much about, so he assumes it is unimportant.
Bart says:
September 29, 2012 at 8:36 pm
The PSD of the SSN shows four main peaks with periods of 10 years, 10.8 years, 11.8 years, and 131 years. These four peaks are expected when the SSN is a rectification of a process with major harmonics at 20 years, and 23.6 years.
Indeed, we have been over this nonsense before. You have the physics all wrong. The solar cycle is not “the absolute value of two lightly damped oscillators driven by wideband random processes (idealized as “white” noise)”.
subject you to ridicule in knowledgeable circles.
Most certainly not. Only in the pseudo-science circles you frequent.
Bart says:
September 29, 2012 at 8:36 pm
A pretty decent stochastic model of the SSN can be constructed from the absolute value of two lightly damped oscillators driven by wideband random processes (idealized as “white” noise).
You might educate yourself a bit on what the solar cycle really is:
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2010-6/
Bart says:
September 29, 2012 at 8:36 pm
Leif should get himself a Kalman Filter expert.
Oh, but I have. Here is a paper by two of my colleagues
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.3284v3.pdf
The technique works by data assimilation if the underlying model is valid, and yours is not. Again, you are way out of your depth.
Bart says:
September 29, 2012 at 8:36 pm
Leif should get himself a Kalman Filter expert.
Here is a tutorial for you [hopefully accessible enough]:
http://ihy.boulder.swri.edu/WHI/WHI_2WS/PRESENTATIONS/SOLARCYCLE/PLENARIES/Data_Assimilation_Approach_Kitiashvili_Kosovichev.pdf
where you can learn more about Kalman Filtering and the solar cycle.
From Jan P Perlwitz on September 29, 2012 at 7:25 pm:
Volume 1? Presumably you mean Working Group 1. Strange mistake for someone appearing to be such an expert on the IPCC reports.
An independent audit of the Fourth Assessment Report has already been completed, all references researched and vetted. WG1 did best, it averaged out to only 7% non-peer-reviewed sources, varying from Chapter 1 at 20% non-peer-reviewed, with Chapters 3,5, and 7 at only 4% non-peer-reviewed.
For all 44 chapters of the Report, 21 chapters had 59% or less of their references actually being peer-reviewed.
That’s a lot of grey literature. Even in WG1. And that’s not hearsay.
JanP;
As you have yet responded to my point about the low level of scientific understanding reported by the IPCC in AR4 WG1 regarding the vast bulk of factors affecting earth’s radiative balance, I thought I would also draw your attention to AR4 WG1 8.1.2.3 Testing Models Against Past and Present Climate in which it is stated that:
“Knutti et al. (2002) showed that in a perturbed physics ensemble of Earth System Models of Intermediate Complexity (EMICs), simulations from models with a range of climate sensitivities are consistent with the observed surface air temperature and ocean heat content records, if aerosol forcing is allowed to vary within its range of uncertainty. ”
There you have it yet again Dr JanP. The models only reach an output that approximates measured value if, and only if, aerosol forcing is allowed to be different for every model such that it results in them agreeing with each other. Since the real world can have only one actual aerosol forcing value, the only conclusion one can daw by the need to use values that are widly different from one another is to use them to cancel out other mistakes inherent in the model and hope nobody notices. This is exactly what richardscourtney has been complaining about, and a charge you refuse to answer. With Aersol values all over the map, we can only conclude that there is only one valid number to use for Aerosol forcing, and all the others are wrong. That being the case, the close approximations achieved between models shows that they have the balance of their analysis also wrong, way wrong, and the aerosol fudge factor is simply applied in an amount equal and opposite to the error inherent in each model in the first place. The problem with this is that since we don’t know the source of the error, the calculations producing it will result in new unexepected errors as time goes forward, forcing researchers to either admit that their models were wrong in the first place, or to change the aersosol number yet again to bring that model back in line. That you cannot see this for what it is, using aerosol forcing as a fudge factor that can, at best, get a model to approximate current conditions but render it useless for predicting future conditions in beyond me.
But you were the one the stipulated to IPCC AR4 WG1 as being representative of your views.
JanP;
From IPCC AR4 wG1 8.1.3.1 Parameter Choices and “Tuning”
The number of degrees of freedom in the tuneable parameters is less than the number of degrees of freedom in the observational constraints used in model evaluation. This is believed to be true for most GCMs – for example, climate models are not explicitly tuned to give a good representation of North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) variability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
See the problem here JanP? Modeling the NAO isn’t very easy for the models to do. BUT, we have considerable evidence to suggest that the NAO has a measurable effect on global temps, so NOT being able to model it makes he model…useless. And don’t even get me going on ENSO, the models can’t predict either ENSO or the effects of ENSO on climate. But hey, you said you were in agreement for the most part with IPCC AR4 WG1 so, do you agree that these are major problems or not?
JanP
You may also want to refer to IPCC AR4 Wg1 8.2 Advances in Modelling which says:
Despite the many improvements, numerous issues remain. Many of the important processes that determine a model’s response to changes in radiative forcing are not resolved by the model’s grid. Instead, sub-grid scale parametrizations are used to parametrize the unresolved processes, such as cloud formation and the mixing due to oceanic eddies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Gee JanP, would this be the same cloud albedo that was ranked by the IPCC has having a very low level of scientific understanding? Are you sure this is the source that you want to represent your opinion of the state of the art of the science?
I’m only scratching the surface here, but the hour is late. By the time I wake up again I imagine richardscourtney and others will have torn a few more strips off you. Do no shrink from the fight man! If you believe so strongly in your position, then defend it, by all means.
Jan P Perlwitz:
At September 29, 2012 at 4:26 pm you yet again you resort to blatant lies when asked to justify your assertions of superstitious twaddle.
I wrote saying to you at September 29, 2012 at 2:24 pm
Your reply is so jaw-droppingly, ridiculous, outrageous and untrue that few would believe anybody would write it. Therefore, I copy all of it to ensure that others know I am replying to what you actually wrote which was
NO REPORT OF THE IPPC SAYS, IMPLIES OR SUGGESTS
“that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have become the dominant climate driver on a multi-decadal and centuries time scale”.
I do study the scientific literature and – as this thread demonstrates – you don’t, and you deny what the literature says when it is quoted to you. And because of that difference you comare me to “creationists”!? ROFL
Indeed, your post replies to my accurate statement that says
By saying
I made no falsehood and you have cited none that you claim I have made.
You have replied to none of my points – none, not one, not any – except with blatant and demonstrable lies.
Are you real or are you pretending to be employed by GISS in attempt to discredit that Agency?
I ask because I am both appalled and surprised that any Agency of a Western government would employ a deluded, arrogant, bigoted, pseudoscientist of your kind.
Richard
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 29, 2012 at 8:48 pm
‘The solar cycle is not “the absolute value of two lightly damped oscillators driven by wideband random processes (idealized as “white” noise)”.’
“Here is a paper by two of my colleagues”
Bless your heart, Leif. You don’t realize that is precisely equivalent to what your guys are doing. Except they’re only modeling a single mode. And, there are several other things they could do to improve their processing.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
September 29, 2012 at 4:04 pm
……………….
Re: Central England Summer-Winter Temperatures apparent ‘paradox’
Vukcevic:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MidSummer-MidWinter.htm
1. the 350 years long record of the CET the mid-summer temperatures has no rising trend, but one would be expected, at least since 1950s if ‘the GHG factor’ was active. (see graph in the link above)
2. the 350 years long record of the CET the mid-winter temperatures has an even rising trend, going back to 1660s, but that would not be expected, at least not before say 1860s, some 200 years later, and continue at same rate post 1860 if ‘the GHG factor’ was active.(see graph in the link above)
Perlwitz:
I asked you to elaborate to what central statements of the theory the CET temperature record was in contradiction, if you make such an assertion. Just repeating the assertion that it was in contradiction isn’t really for what I asked you. How am I supposed to reply, if you don’t tell me, because I wouldn’t know what the alleged contradiction is supposed to be.
Dr. Perlwitz, I do not accept that you do not clearly understand what is meant by the above, what I am not certain whether your aim was to explain science or to ‘play cat and mouse game’, if the later, as it appears to be the case, I am not interested.
Dr. Perlwitz, you failed not because you didn’t , but because you clearly did understood ‘CET paradox’. You are always welcome back with good solid reasoning on the subject.
It is incumbent on those who define and promote a hypothesis of great uncertainty, on which the law of ‘green taxes’ in the UK and many other countries is based, to do explaining.
You have to make your living, and I have to keep paying not insubstantial ‘green tax.
Bart says:
September 29, 2012 at 8:14 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 29, 2012 at 7:34 pm
“The climate system has large inertia and will respond [if at all] only to the longer-term evolution of solar activity as given by the century-scale ‘swells’.”
Again betraying your lack of experience with dynamic systems. Things start changing immediately. The lag is in the steady state. But, because the inertia is large, the near term response is essentially an integration. And, there you go:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/nailing-the-solar-activity-global-temperature-divergence-lie/
You really ought to be more cautious when venturing outside your area of expertise. You keep making these outlandish statements which, frankly, would subject you to ridicule in knowledgeable circles.
Bart, thank you for referring to my original work. I have been explaining ocean inertia to Leif for the last four years. It’s something engineers have no problem with, but computer programmers like Leif and the other climate modellers seem to struggle on. Also, he is in denial of it when it doesn’t suit his argument, and promotes it when it does. In short, he is utterly inconsistent in this matter. Not very scientific is it?
I suggest that you don’t allow him to soak up too much of your time with this kind of horse-play, I need your help on more important projects than banging you head against Leif’s wall of studied misunderstanding.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 29, 2012 at 6:30 am
It is the correct IHV that shows that aa must be corrected. Lockwood concedes that IHV is correct. As simple as that. That he cannot yet stomach the floor just shows that he does not understand how to go back before the 1830s, but Schrijver does: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf
More attempts to confuse. The only consensus is that that aa record needs a small adjustment pre 1957. Lockwood, Finch, Rouillard, Mursula, Martini, Clilverd, Nevanlina to name a few agree that your IHV construction is flawed and the amended geomagnetic values still show the ramp up from the Maunder Minimum. No floor.
The Schrijver paper is model based and directed at TSI, a different argument separate from the geomagnetic record and hardly conclusive.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 30, 2012 at 1:09 am
Lockwood, Finch, Rouillard, Mursula, Martini, Clilverd, Nevanlina to name a few agree that your IHV construction is flawed and the amended geomagnetic values still show the ramp up from the Maunder Minimum.
The consensus is that IHV is correct. You are thinking of older papers before consensus was reached. The geomagnetic data only goes back to the 1840s, so a ‘ramp up’ from the Maunder Minimum is not ‘shown’ in the geomagnetic values.
The Schrijver paper is model based and directed at TSI
The paper estimates the open magnetic flux which is directly related to the geomagnetic record and is very conclusive.
Bart says:
September 30, 2012 at 12:47 am
You don’t realize that is precisely equivalent to what your guys are doing. Except they’re only modeling a single mode
You should take the time to study their paper to see how wrong you are.
vukcevic wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1095493
I apologize that I just dismissed your previous comment, since you indeed had written a little bit more about where you see the contradiction, compared to your first comment. I could have answered to that.
I am going to reply to the supposed paradox now:
This propositions has the underlying assumption greenhouse gases were the only factor that could influence the temperature trend in Central England, at least since 1950. The underlying assumption is false.
2. the 350 years long record of the CET the mid-winter temperatures has an even rising trend, going back to 1660s, but that would not be expected, at least not before say 1860s, some 200 years later, and continue at same rate post 1860 if ‘the GHG factor’ was active.(see graph in the link above)
Again, this proposition has the underlying assumption that greenhouse gases were the only factor, which could have an effect on the temperature trend in Central England. The underlying assumption is false.
1. No one says greenhouse gases were the only factor that influence the temperature record, except “skeptics” who use this alleged proposition as strawman argument to assert contradictions between empirical data and climate theory where there are none.
Globally averaged, greenhouse gases have become the dominant climate driver, which drives global climate change on a multi-decadal and century time scale, only during the second half of the 20th century. And “dominant” does not mean the only one. Other climate drivers are still important also nowadays. One can’t explain recent global climate variability without greenhouse gases. But one can’t explain it without, e.g., solar forcing and forcing by aerosols, either. And on an interannual time scale, internal natural variability like the one related to ENSO can mask the effect of any of the climate driver to a large degree. As for drivers with a positive forcing, greenhouse gases and solar forcing had about the same magnitude, at the mid of the 20th century, after greenhouse gases had risen from about 280 ppm in pre-industrial times to about 310 ppm in 1950. During historical times, before humans started to blow greenhouse gases and industrial aerosols in the atmosphere in a large scale, solar forcing in combination with natural aerosols (e.g., stratospheric aerosols from volcanic eruptions) were the dominant climate drivers. So, after the Little Ice Age, an explanation of climate change, as it is seen in empirical data, is not possible without taking those natural forcings into account.
2. No one says, the response of the climate system to an increase in the greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere is globally uniform, like when greenhouse gases increase temperature will just increases by the same magnitude at every location on Earth, except “skeptics” who use this alleged proposition as strawman argument to assert contradictions in the climate theory where there are none.
Even though greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been increasing, since the start of the industrialization, and the globally averaged temperature anomaly has been increasing, local and regional changes can be different from the global average. There are regions on Earth where the temperature hasn’t changed much. There are some regions where there has been even some cooling. Globally averaged, the temperature response to a perturbation of the global energy balance due to increasing greenhouse gases, everything else equal, is not very complicated. Impose a positive perturbation, temperature goes up in the troposphere and at surface, and down in the lower stratosphere. However, this is only true for the global average. Such a perturbation also leads to complex dynamical responses of the climate system. So the temperature response can vary a lot between different locations and regions. In a region like Central England, the temperature variability is strongly influenced by the variability of the Northern Hemispheric circulation patterns. Those circulation patterns determine where energy is transported from low latitudes to high latitudes. It is not exactly clear how those change in response to an increase in the greenhouse gas concentration, or to a change in some other climate drivers, for the matter of fact, look like. If there is some shift in the circulation patterns it can have a large effect on specific regions. I also think it is quite possible that changes in the mid- and high-latitude circulation patterns are much more influenced by the variability in the solar activity, e.g., the 11-year solar cycle, through dynamic stratosphere-troposphere coupling, than the globally averaged energy balance. There is some empirical evidence for that.
Additionally, another factor that has a much stronger effect on regional climate variability than on the global climate variability are aerosols, since aerosols have a large spatial and temporal variability. Regions with high industrialization are regions where aerosol effects have played a strong role in climate variability since the 19th century.
In summary, if one wants to understand the temperature record in a small region like in Central England, it needs a careful investigation, because several different factors are in play, which also can vary during different time periods. I haven’t done such an investigation for the Central England region, so I can’t give you a specific answer what caused the specific temperature changes in Central England at different time periods. The linear trend through the whole record is just a mathematical construct. It doesn’t tell you anything about attribution. And the linear trend calculated over the whole period also doesn’t tell you anything whether there has been an acceleration in recent decades or not. Applying a linear fit on a time series will always give you a linear result. At least, one would have to do the linear trend analysis for partial time periods to see whether there are changes between those.
There isn’t any “paradox”, and there isn’t any contradiction of the empirical data from Central England to the theory, which is seen by mainstream climate science as the valid scientific explanation for how the Earth system works. It is only in contradiction to something what you and other “skeptics” have made up in their heads, which seems to be a combination of some distorted fragments of the actual theory and free inventions.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 30, 2012 at 4:53 am
“The consensus is that IHV is correct”
I have only seen the opposite. You will have to provide the evidence to suggest otherwise.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 30, 2012 at 7:04 am
I have only seen the opposite.
Centennial changes in the heliospheric magnetic field and open solar flux: The consensus view from geomagnetic data and cosmogenic isotopes and its implications
Authors: Lockwood, M.; Owens, M. J.
Publication: Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 116, Issue A4, CiteID A04109 , 2011:
Svalgaard and Cliver (2010) recently reported a consensus between the various reconstructions of the heliospheric field over recent centuries. This is a significant development because, individually, each has uncertainties introduced by instrument calibration drifts, limited numbers of observatories, and the strength of the correlations employed. However, taken collectively, a consistent picture is emerging. We here show that this consensus extends to more data sets and methods than reported by Svalgaard and Cliver, including that used by Lockwood et al. (1999), when their algorithm is used to predict the heliospheric field rather than the open solar flux.
richardscourtney wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1095471
That is what Mr. Courtney asserts.
And here an actual quote from the IPCC Report 2007:
The widespread change detected in temperature observations of the surface (Sections 9.4.1, 9.4.2, 9.4.3), free atmosphere (Section 9.4.4) and ocean (Section 9.5.1), together with consistent evidence of change in other parts of the climate system (Section 9.5), strengthens the conclusion that greenhouse gas forcing is the dominant cause of warming during the past several decades. This combined evidence, which is summarised in Table 9.4, is substantially stronger than the evidence that is available from observed changes in global surface temperature alone (Figure 3.6).
(from Section 9.7, “Combining Evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change”, of the IPCC Report 2007, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-7.html, bold emphasis by me)
So much for Mr. Courtney’s falsehood, he, I suspect deliberately, disseminates in his statement quoted above.
After the falsehood above by Mr. Courtney, he seems to quote something that is coming from somewhere else. However, Mr. Courtney omits to provide a proof of source for the quote. There must be a reason for it.
The quote is as follows:
The nearest that any IPCC Report comes to that is in its AR4 (2007) where it says in its Chapter 2.4 titled “Attribution of climate change”
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.[8] This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations” (Figure 2.5). {WGI 9.4, SPM}
I ask Mr. Courtney, What is the source of this quote?
There is no Chapter 2.4 in the IPCC Report 2007 titled “Attribution of climate change”. Chapter 2 is about “Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing”, and Section 2.4 is titled “Aerosols”:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2.html
Figure 2.5 shows “Hemispheric monthly mean N2O mole fractions (ppb)…”:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3-3.html
Although Mr. Courtney disseminates falsehoods about the content of the IPCC Report 2007 and provides a quote with statements about a chapter in the IPCC Report that is about something else than what is claimed in the quote, he asserts to read the scientific literature. Really!
Mr. Courtney also seems to increasingly lose his countenance.
May I deconstruct the Perlwitz? Thank you:
Perlwitz says: “Globally averaged, greenhouse gases have become the dominant climate driver, which drives global climate change on a multi-decadal and century time scale, only during the second half of the 20th century.”
Fact: there is no empirical, testable scientific evidence to support that baseless assertion. It is only an assertion, and it has no scientific evidence supporting it.
Next, Perlwitz asserts: “No one says greenhouse gases were the only factor that influence the temperature record, except “skeptics” who use this alleged proposition as strawman argument to assert contradictions between empirical data and climate theory where there are none.”
Totally wrong. In fact, the opposite is true: there is no scientific evidence showing that CO2 has any effect on global temperature. However, there is ample scientific evidence showing that temperature changes cause changes in CO2. As usual, Perlwitz is conflating cause and effect. Further, Perlwitz insists on labeling his baseless assertion as “theory”, when it is only a conjecture; an opinion.
Finally, Perlwitz continually uses quotation marks around scientific skeptics. Skeptics are the only honest kind of scientists, so Perlwitz attempts to denigrate honesty. Perlwitz is a climate alarmist propagandist. He has no scientific evidence showing that CO2 has any effect on global temperatures. But his employment depends upon his baseless assertions. So he emits them here, hoping to convince the credulous. Readers should decide for themselves whether Perlwitz is a climate alarmist propagandist, or an honest scientist.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
“They are unwilling to make such predictions, because the earth is NOT warming at all.”
Utter rubbish. There is a multi-decadal statistical significant upward trend of the surface and tropospheric temperature, ocean heat content is increasing, the ice both in the Arctic and in the Antarctic is melting, the Arctic sea ice decline is accelerating, even more than previously predicted by the climate models, sea level is rising (and lower stratospheric temperature is decreasing, which belongs also to the physics of global warming.) The assertion, Earth wasn’t warming at all, doesn’t have any scientific substance.
From that comment and others you have made here, it is very apparent that you do not understand what “scientific substance” is.
When I was at university, we had a sign on the wall of the grad students bullpen that read “The Plural of Anecdote is not Data”. Statements like that of yours is why: To remind budding researchers that the scientific method is not some “preponderance of facts” exercise. People who forgot that would tend to do what you have done here. You have made an incomplete list of misleadingly stated and often false “facts” from which you proceed to draw an illogical conclusion. That is not how science is done. It is how politics is done.
Similarly, above the door to my first Physics class lecture hall was a bronze plaque that carried a quote from French polymath Henri Poincaré:
“Science is built up of facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house.”
Perhaps if your educationally formative years had provided such influences, you would not be comfortable saying such apallingly unscientific things as this:
This assertion is refuted by the fact that all the statements that build the theory of climate are tested against data from the real world.
Clearly false. If there is such a thing as a theory of climate, then that theory can only be tested on the whole. It is not a bad idea to test the individual components while constructing a theory, but that is not at all sufficient. The theory must make robust and comprehensive testable predictions. And it must pass those tests. ‘Climate science’ does not do this. It could. It does not.
Instead, it blusters and bluffs as you do here. The two explanations for this are ignorance and deceit. You get offended when I pick. How about you tell us which (both?) it is?
Friends:
I am addressing this to you all although it answers falsehoods from Jan PP. I write because the subject is of central importance to all the issues which Jan PP has avoided.
In his post at September 30, 2012 at 12:13 am Jan PP replies to my statement saying
by saying
Before explaining the issue, I point out that Jan PP claims I have made “falsehoods” but cites none because I have made none. Also, Jan PP has not replied to this point about “committed warming” at all in this thread or – to my knowledge – anywhere. The issue is as follows.
The IPCC AR4 WG1 Report says in several places that
The succinct quotation I have provided here is from Section TS.5.1 titled ‘Understanding Near-Term Climate Change’. It can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-5-1.html
The statement is considered so important a prediction that the IPCC bolds the text I have quoted.
Emissions have fallen “within the range of the SRES marker scenarios” and there has been “absence of large changes in volcanic or solar forcing”. So,
the clear prediction is 0.2°C per decade over the two decades starting at 2000.
More than half the period has elapsed and no discernible warming has happened. Indeed, the trends in global temperature data sets have been near flat or negative.
Clearly, the “Committed climate change” “of about 0.1°C per decade” “due to atmospheric composition in the year 2000” has NOT happened over the last decade. And the additional “expected” warming of 0.1°C per decade from “emissions” since 2000 has not happened, either.
This is a lot of missing “committed climate change” over the last decade. It is equivalent to a quarter of the global warming of 0.8°C observed over the entire twentieth century.
However, it could be argued that the IPCC prediction was for the trend over the first two decades after 2000 and a rise in temperature over the latter decade could result in the predicted “committed warming”. Such a rise would be extraordinary and is probably a physical impossibility because of the thermal capacity of the oceans. Such a rise in global temperature could occur, for example,
(a) by an instantaneous rise of more than 0.4°C now which is sustained until year 2020 (this instantaneous rise would more than half the global warming of 0.8°C observed over the entire twentieth century)
or
(b) a linear rise in global temperature from now of more than 0.8°C before the end of 2020 (this rise would be similar to the entire the global warming of 0.8°C observed over the entire twentieth century).
The “committed warming” predicted in the AR4 for the first two decades of this century has disappeared from the first of those decades: it is an ex-parrot. That is not a “falsehood” but is an empirical fact. And JanPP is spouting yet another of his lies when he says addressing the issue would “just would be a repetition of [his] previous replies”.
Richard
From Jan P Perlwitz on September 30, 2012 at 7:40 am:
That’s because he’s referring to the Synthesis Report, which does have “2.4 Attribution of climate change”.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-4.html
I found that out in ten seconds by Googling “ipcc attribution of climate change”, on dial-up.
Perhaps someday you can achieve a similar level of online computing proficiency, and can successfully avoid looking like a screaming idiot hurling baseless accusations at innocent people.
JJ wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1095760
I’m not going to dignify your ad hominem with which you have come up in response to factual statements by me, by replying to it.
You write:
Says who? You? The Commission for Normatives of Theory Testing?
Like global temperature increase, increase in ocean heat content, melting of the ice in the Arctic and in the Antarctic etc. as system responses to an increasing greenhouse gas concentration?
The fact that the catastrophes predicted in the 1980’s have shown no sign of eventuating will lead most to suspect that Hanson’s empire is built on quicksand. You can’t fool all of the people all of the time. A cacophony of lies will not serve except to disgrace the liars.
And Leif, the abstract for the paper you cited above contains the text “Steinhilber et al. (2010) have recently deduced that the near-Earth IMF at the end of the Maunder minimum was 1.80 ± 0.59 nT which is considerably lower than the revised floor of 4nT proposed by Svalgaard and Cliver. [snip] Hence the average open solar flux during the Maunder minimum is found to have been 11% of its peak value during the recent grand solar maximum. “
There appears to be no real difference between Perlwitz and Lewandowsky.
JanP
Like global temperature increase,
REPLY: FLAT FOR 15 YEARS
increase in ocean heat content,
REPLY: ARGO BUOYS SHOW DECLINE
melting of the ice in the Arctic
REPLY: LIKE IT DID IN THE PAST BEFORE CO2 CONCENTRATIONS INCREASED
and in the Antarctic etc.
REPLY: THE ANTARCTIC JUST SET A RECORD HIGH FOR ICE
as system responses to an increasing greenhouse gas concentration?
REPLY: Of your four points, all four are wrong!
Jan P Perlwitz says:
September 30, 2012 at 6:49 am
……………
Dr. Perlwitz,
Thank you for your very long answer, but I will summarize it as:
1.the CET’s 350 year long summer temperature record has no rising trend because there is something in the Central England region operating that just happens to equal and reverse any GHG effect since the 1860s.
2. the CET’s 350 year long winter temperature record has uniform rising trend because there is something in the Central England region operating that just happens to equal and reverse any GHG effect since the 1860s .
Since as it happens that you never investigated the CET, you have no idea what that something could be.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1095703
Dr. Perlwitz, thanks again and I really do appreciate your sense of humor.
I’d like to congratulate Dr P on his last few responses which actually have some substance to them versus the cat and mouse game he was playing earlier. Doesn’t make him right, but he’s at least engaging in a discussion.
richardscourtney asserts in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1095773
Is it? The temperature anomaly averaged over the last decade is 0.22 K (in the GISS surface temperature analysis) higher than in the decade before. The average temperature anomaly over the last decade (1991-2000) of the previous century is 0.331 +/- 0.133K, the average temperature anomaly of the first decade of this century (2001-2010) is 0.554 +/- 0.061K.
Dr P,
Your response to Vuckevic boils down to redefining the word “dominant” and admitting that natural variability can overwhelm CO2’s effects and, to defining CET as regional and thus not necessarily representative of global temperatures.
Thank you for the first admission.
As for the second matter, could you please comment on the work of Keith Briffa who presented a handful of trees from Siberia as being representative of the temperature of the whole world over the past 1000 years?
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 30, 2012 at 4:53 am
“You should take the time to study their paper to see how wrong you are.”
There is more than one way to skin a cat, Leif, and more than one way to expand the dynamics of a PDE in terms of its eigenstates, and represent them in a set of ODE state equations. Whether the chosen states mimic the evolution of something resembling a physically distinct variable, or some superposition of them, does not really matter. All that matters is that the system description be “output equivalent” to within some degree of accuracy. In many practical problems, it is advantageous to adopt a “restricted complexity” approach, in which variables with limited observabillty, and therefore low sensitivity to the output, are not actively estimated in the filter. Taking such things into consideration, my approach is precisely equivalent to what your guys are doing, only more robust, and likely to yield better results. Recognizing the modulation of particular harmonics with respect to one another opens up an avenue for minimizing the dimension of the state vector, with attendant benefits in accuracy and robust performance.
There are a number of other relatively simple things your fellows could do to dramatically improve their results. But, since you are apparently convinced of my technical inadequacy, phfft – let them find out for themselves. The history and successful application of empirical modeling for such problems is vast. If it didn’t work, many of the practical technologies you take for granted wouldn’t work, either. So, jump up on that high horse if it pleases you – Rosinante makes a fine mount.
In any case, the question at hand is, are the SSN data strongly correlated with terrestrial temperatures? I think Roger “Tallbloke” and others have amply demonstrated that they are. In fact, denying it requires a special kind of hubris in which you distrust even the information provided by your own eyes. There are those who bend the hypothesis to support the facts, and those who bend the facts to support the hypothesis. The alarmist cohort is decidedly of the latter persuasion – witness Perlwitz’ pretzel-like contortions in this thread. You are choosing, in this instance, to follow that path as well. Well, rotsa’ ruck with that.
tallbloke says:
September 30, 2012 at 1:08 am
“I suggest that you don’t allow him to soak up too much of your time with this kind of horse-play…”
It is tiresome. It’s amazing how people will rationalize to avoid confronting what is sitting right in front of their eyes. Younger scientists and engineers tend to get wrapped up in their equations, and start to believe they are more real than what their senses tell them. In fields such as mine, where getting things wrong can cost lives, you always in the end have to be able to perform sanity checks based on what you can see and discover directly by looking at the data. Then, you can be assured that the heavy machinery of the mathematics and algorithms is working properly. Climate scientists (and, ahem… others) have the luxury that there is no such harsh and immediate penalty waiting to exact a price if they get things wrong. And, they can always slough off their inattention to detail with a casual “oh, we were just following the best science at the time.”
Anyway, nice job.
pochas says:
September 30, 2012 at 8:45 am
And Leif, the abstract for the paper you cited above contains the text “Steinhilber et al. (2010) have recently deduced that the near-Earth IMF at the end of the Maunder minimum was 1.80 ± 0.59 nT which is considerably lower than the revised floor of 4nT proposed by Svalgaard and Cliver. [snip] Hence the average open solar flux during the Maunder minimum is found to have been 11% of its peak value during the recent grand solar maximum. “
There is disagreement on the Maunder Minimum flux, but that does not detract from the agreement covering the interval where we have actual data [rather than modeled inference] namely 1835-2012, which was the issue [if IHV and IDV were correct or not].
The low value for the Maunder Minimum is based on this Figure from their paper: http://www.leif.org/research/Lockwood-Flux-MM.png which shows the anomalous Steinhilber data point [lower left]. In a recent paper the same authors, Owens and Lockwood [JGR VOL. 117, A04102, doi:10.1029/2011JA017193, 2012] conclude: “that the CME rate observed during recent solar cycle minima is also the CME rate that existed throughout the Maunder Minimum” which in turn suggests that the magnetic field was also the same.
Mr Perlwitz:
September 30, 2012 at 7:40 am you ask and assert
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2.html
I answer, the chapter and statement which you dispute exist are in the AR4 Synthesis Report and can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-4.html
Your quote from Chapter 9.7 is correct. Thankyou for bringing it to my attention.
See, it is easy to learn if provided with information and to thank others when they provide it. You would start to be a scientist if you were to do the same.
Importantly, it would have helped if you had cited your quotation (and provided the link as you now have) so we could have discussed your interpretation (i.e. exaggeration) of it.
The IPCC says and you cite
You assert that the quotation you have now provided equates to your statement at September 29, 2012 at 12:35 pm. saying
You may be right that the IPCC intended what you say, but that is not what they say. And what you say is already falsified by nature.
Any effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gases as a climate driver has been overwhelmed by other climate driver(s) over the last decade and a dominant effect cannot be overwhelmed.
Richard
Jan P Perlwitz says:
September 30, 2012 at 9:03 am
“The temperature anomaly averaged over the last decade is 0.22 K (in the GISS surface temperature analysis) higher than in the decade before”
But, it hasn’t moved, while CO2 continues to rise. You might make points with such a gambit in a forum of average lay people. Here, it makes you look ridiculous and shady.
Bart says:
September 30, 2012 at 9:12 am
Recognizing the modulation of particular harmonics with respect to one another opens up an avenue for minimizing the dimension of the state vector, with attendant benefits in accuracy and robust performance.
The problem is that the Sun is not a dampened oscillator in the sense you use the term. But I see that reality cannot sway you, so will let that rest.
In any case, the question at hand is, are the SSN data strongly correlated with terrestrial temperatures? I think Roger “Tallbloke” and others have amply demonstrated that they are.
If we go that route, recent work has shown that there has been no long-term trend in the SSN the last 300 years, I believe some people are claiming that there is an upward trend in temperatures. On a shorter time scale, the solar indicators and temperatures vary in opposite directions as we have discussed.
richardscourtney says:
September 30, 2012 at 9:18 am
“…a dominant effect cannot be overwhelmed…”
That pithy tautological admonition belongs in a book of quotes somewhere. Or, high up on the wall of the reconstituted GISS after the fall.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 30, 2012 at 9:25 am
“If we go that route, recent work has shown that there has been no long-term trend in the SSN the last 300 years…”
It’s like talking to my grandpa after we had to move him into the Home. Forget it, Leif. Have some oatmeal.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
In my statement,
‘If the fact that finding a time period (15 years, 10 years, 2 weeks, 2 days, whatever) for which the increase in the temperature anomaly wasn’t statistically significant was sufficient to conclude that there was no physical process of global warming ongoing, then this would lead to absurd additional conclusions with necessity.’
the key word is “sufficient”.
No. All of the words in that statement are key. And you are running from all of them.
That statement is false. It is long past the time when an honest man would have admitted that.
The assertion, e.g., made by “D. Boehm”, is that it was sufficient to find such a time period.
D Böehm made no such assertion in the post to which you were putatively responding . That is a lie.
Rather, D Böehm was laughing at the fact that you were estimating a potential ‘delay’ in warming of 10 years due to the current weak solar cycle, when we are already sitting at 15 years of no warming. No matter what he actually said. You had a talking point that you wanted to use, and you pretended that D Böehm said something he did not, in order to give yourself cover to use it. That is what you political actors do. Among the numerous problems with that course of action is that your inappropriately directed talking point is false.
When you say, “there exists SOME length of time for which a lack of statistically significant warming would be sufficient to conclude that said theory is false.”, then this is not the same argument as put forward by “D. Boehm”,
I was not responding to D Böehm. Nor was I responding to the lie that you put in D Böehm’s mouth. I was responding to your asinine, scientifically illiterate statement.
In your statement, an additional proposition has been included, which must be fulfilled as necessary condition. The additional, necessary condition is that the time period of no statistical significance was long enough. Not just that one could find a time period without statistical significance.
No. My statement contains no additional proposition. Your asinine, scientifically illiterate talking point explicitly denied that there is any length of no warming period that would be sufficient to falsify ‘global warming’. Read what you wrote. Pay attention to all of your words, for they are all key. Among those key words: “whatever”.
You have been caught in multiple deceits. On this particular matter, you began by putting words in D Böehm’s mouth. You ‘answered’ that fabrication with an hilariously false statement. Rather than come clean, you double down on the strawman you created for D Böehm, reasserting that he said something he did not. Rather than admit that the laughingly unscientific talking point was false, you instead attempt to twist and dissemble your way around it’s meaning. You don’t get to be indignant anymore, when people question your ethics.
Jan P P:
At September 30, 2012 at 9:03 am you quote my accurate statement saying
And respond by asking and saying
YES, IT IS!
At issue is the rate of change over the last decade and that was zero.
The difference between the average anomalies of the last decade and the previous decade says absolutely nothing about the warming throughout the last decade. And the IPCC’s assertion of committed warming was for the last decade and the present decade.
Richard
Bart says:
September 30, 2012 at 9:32 am
It’s like talking to my grandpa after we had to move him into the Home.
Most decent people would treat their grandpa with some respect, but that, apparently, does not include you.
Bart;
It’s like talking to my grandpa after we had to move him into the Home. Forget it, Leif. Have some oatmeal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bart, that was out of line and uncalled for. As for your running diatribe with Dr Svalgaard, I can advise you from personal investigation that when he says something that seems completely counter intuitive, he does so with good cause.
From Bart on September 30, 2012 at 9:32 am:
As someone who cared for his dad and changed his adult diapers and wiped his butt before he ended up in a Home after breaking his hip, I think Leif is doing much better than you think. His teaching style may be off-putting due to the repetitious call to “Read the material, try to learn”, and young people tend to dismiss older instructors who no longer use the level of “dynamic engagement” found with younger ones, but I can assure you Leif does have a very coherent presentation style.
This is not to be taken as a blanket endorsement of everything he espouses. But solar dynamics is his area of expertise, not mine, and he honestly presents what he knows as the evidence and the theories, so I try to just sit back and see what I can learn from him. What are you doing?
davidmhoffer says at September 30, 2012 at 10:11 am.
Seconded!
Richard
Jan P Perlwitz says:
I’m not going to dignify your ad hominem with which you have come up in response to factual statements by me, by replying to it.
I have made no ad hominem. You misuse that term. Stop whining, and stop running from the truth.
You write:
“Clearly false. If there is such a thing as a theory of climate, then that theory can only be tested on the whole.”
Says who? You? The Commission for Normatives of Theory Testing?
Says deductive logic and the scientific method. They seek to avoid the sort of ad hoc fallacies that you create from your incomplete list of ‘evidence’.
Says Henri Poincaré, if you find value in ad vericundium arguments, as your decidely unscientific ‘says who’ question indicates. Scientists don’t ask “Says who”. They ask, “Say what?”
Like global temperature increase,
Flat for as long a period as the IPCC claims it rose due to CO2. Do tell us about the 50% CO2 duty cycle present in the ‘theory of climate’.
increase in ocean heat content,
LOL. We have only been measuring the heat content of the upper half of the ocean with anything even approaching sufficient spatial and temporal resolution for less than 10 years. Still bupkiss on the 50% of the ocean below 2000m. And even with what we have, Trenberth is still missing heat. It is a travesty, I tell you.
melting of the ice in the Arctic and in the Antarctic etc.
Arctic: Current research on ice cores in Greenland indicates that the arctic is melting consistent with a natural pattern established centuries before IPCC claims that humans had an effect on atmospheric CO2.
Antarctic: AR4 makes the following claim about ‘global warming’:
“Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic under all SRES scenarios.”
But Antarctic sea Ice just hit a new record high the other day. Whoopsie.
sea level is rising
Has been for milennia.
the Arctic sea ice decline is accelerating, even more than previously predicted by the climate models,
Uh, that is an example of the models being wrong. What else are they wrong about?
Climate models are recursive – the outputs from timestep 1 are the inputs for timestep 2. This permits the simulation of feedback mechanisms. We are told that Arctic sea ice extent is a powerful positive feedback mechanism, one of the things that is supposed to turn a theoretical 1C climate sensitivity into the 2C – 6C (LOL) 21st century temp increase predicted by the models presented in AR4. If the models are underpredicting Arctic sea ice loss, but not also underpredicting global average surface temp increase (arguably, they are significantly *overpredicting* that parameter), then there is a serious problem with those models.
But then, you knew that. But rather than present that knowledge that you undoubtedly have as a modeler, you instead pretend that the models being wrong with a cold bias about a single parameter is meaningful. Dishonest.
as system responses to an increasing greenhouse gas concentration?
Bald assertion. Based on pure conjecture and entirely unquantified.
All of the above is why any alleged theory of climate – which if it exists at all is to be found as the logic and parameterizations of those models – must be tested on the whole to determine its validity. Your ad hoc justification method is itself fallacious, above and beyond the fact that its operative components are themselves often exaggerated, misleading, or false.
davidmhoffer wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1095799
Like the other five times before that over the last 40 years?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47
Look! The six partial time periods with flat or negative trend are even overlapping. So, six overlapping time periods without any global warming. Then again, the positive trend over the whole time period is statistically significant.
What does this mean? Global warming and no global warming at the same time in the different time periods? A statement and the negation of the statement are both true at the same time?
Not a fact:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html
And the recent Levitus et al. (2012) reference:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051106
What “past” specifically? “The past” is long. Over geological times of Earth, climate changed significantly. There were times in the geological past, when it was much warmer than today. There is just no argument here that would refute logically or empirically the effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gases on climate.
Only the Antarctic sea ice in late winter with an increase less than 1% per decade. Compared to the Arctic sea ice decline of about 10% per decade in summer and accelerating. The most important component in the Antarctic isn’t the sea ice, though. It’s the huge glaciers on the Antarctic continent, instead. And these Antarctic land ice masses are melting, too. There is nothing “flat” there:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/416685main_20100108_Climate_1.jpg
So you say. Show me the data that refute what I have provided above in support of my statements.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
September 30, 2012 at 6:49 am
……..
Dr. Perlwitz,
The CET region and the North Atlantic are areas of my interest. The natural causes (bunched into something given name ‘the AMO’) are ‘the dominant factor’ of the North hemisphere’s temperature changes.
Here is an AMO reconstruction done by a ‘skeptic’ which has superior accuracy and resolution than those of Mann and Gray
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-recon.htm
or in more detail
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
This is not ideal occasion to go into more details. If you didn’t treat wide group of people, which happen to have justifiable skepticism at the parts or whole of the highly uncertain AGW hypothesis, as a bunch of ‘sub-humans’ then you could have some science discussed.
This Jan P Perlwitz chap is off on a very quaint run, isn’t he?
Once I learned of the Central England Temperature record, and looked at the numbers myself, I grew interested – perhaps because experimental physicists are interested in measurements, and also because I found I was born and live in the CET area. In England, we certainly know the difference between weather and climate!
It is clear to me that the CET values have not changed direction since we started burning lots of carbon. Which puts the CO2 theories at a major disadvantage. And, anecdotically, Church history tells us about wine-growing in Mediaeval times – with modern tree-line studies backing up the stories – so the “CO2 is dominant” theory takes another knock.
As for the cosmic rays, nothing is proved; but it seems to me to be a genuine attempt to measure – with real live measurements and real live apparatus, chaps! – a plausible cosmic-cum-solar influence on our climate. By way of clouds; and it is clear to us all that clouds play an important part in weather and in climate, both as cause and effect,
And Perlwitz? Methinks he doth protest too much.
JanP
Like the other five times before that over the last 40 years?
REPLY: Yes, and like the many similar times over the last several hundred years.
JanP;
Then again, the positive trend over the whole time period is statistically significant.
REPLY: Over the course of the modern instrumental record, the trend has remained pretty much constant, implying no change that can be directly attributed to CO2, and certainly nothing that can be considered “dominant”.
JanP;
: ARGO BUOYS SHOW DECLINE
Not a fact:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html
REPLY: Sir, you know very well that the Argo buoys have only been in operation for a few years, yet you show us a graph that begins decades before the Argo buoys were deployed.
JanP;
What “past” specifically? “The past” is long. Over geological times of Earth, climate changed significantly.
REPLY: I am glad that you recognize that Earth’s climate has changed significantly due to natural variation.
JanP;
Only the Antarctic sea ice in late winter with an increase less than 1% per decade. Compared to the Arctic sea ice decline of about 10% per decade
REPLY: Your specific statement was that Antarctic ice is melting. This statement was wrong, and you’ve now admitted it while at the same time trying to distract attention from the fact that you got it wrong by trying to compare it to the arctic.
JanP,
You have also not responded to my point that according to the IPCC, which you claim to endorse, our level of scientific understanding of 9 of the 14 factors contributing to uncertainty regarding earth’s energy budget are rated as low or very low. You have not responded to the point made by richardscourtney and myself that without widely diverging values for aerosol forcing, the models in the IPCC ensemble would also diverge, showing that wildly different aerosol values are being used to force the models to converge by negating other errors within the models. You have also not answered my question about Keith Briffa using a handful of trees in Siberia to represent the temperature of the globe.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
“Like global temperature increase,
REPLY: FLAT FOR 15 YEARS”
Like the other five times before that over the last 40 years?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47
Uh no. Not like that at all. None of those periods is anywhere near fifteeen years in length.
From your arguments above, you demonstrate that you understand and affirm the difference between short periods and long periods WRT statistical significance in trends. Now, you make an argument that trades on denying that difference. Using Cook’s sceptical strawman to boot.
You are not an honest man.
From Leif Svalgaard on September 30, 2012 at 9:25 am:
Leif, in June you said:
Does the work showing that lack of long-term trend incorporate that correction?
davidmhoffer says:
September 30, 2012 at 10:11 am
“Bart, that was out of line and uncalled for. “
Dr. Svalgaard has called into question my professional qualifications in a an area in which his qualifications are nil. He repeats irrelevant arguments which have been countered over and over, with not so much as a fleeting acknowledgement. He is rude and boorish, and quite simply, wrong.
But, I am “out of line”. Sure thing.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 30, 2012 at 10:36 am
Good grief. Are we arguing science, or practicing for an appearance on “The View”?
JJ;
You are not an honest man.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually, I think he is.
He has been immersed in a world where his opinions are simply echoed and reinforced by those around him. He’s frustrated and angry that we cannot so easily see the truth of his points like all his colleagues can. As I said earlier, at least he has stopped playing cat and mouse and has instead begun discussing the science. Let us encourage him to continue in that manner.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 30, 2012 at 11:46 am
Does the work showing that lack of long-term trend incorporate that correction?
Yes.
Bart says:
September 30, 2012 at 11:48 am
Dr. Svalgaard has called into question my professional qualifications in a an area in which his qualifications are nil.
Since the sun is not an oscillator, your qualifications are irrelevant: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.2345v1.pdf
davidmhoffer says:
Actually, I think he is.
The evidence inidcates otherwise.
There are honest arguments that can be made for the ‘global warming’ conjecture. And there are ways to argue honestly against some of the the points that sceptics raise. A highly placed NASA scientist should be capable of making those arguments. He has also made some demonstrably false statements, and made some appallingly non-scientific arguments. A highly placed NASA scientist should have the professionalism to fess up when those things are pointed out.
That is not what we are seeing here. Instead, we are seeing exactly the same sort of behavior as is practiced by non-scientist, ignorant politcal hacks like Cook from SKS. In fact, in his last post we now see the NASA scientist parroting Cook’s talking points, instead of engaging in a meaningful discussion of the current surface temperature trend and the implications on the ‘global warming’ conjecture. Shameful.
Your analysis of his likley social and professional circles does not demonstrate that he is an honest man, though it may go some distance in explaining why he evidently is not.
From Bart September 30, 2012 at 11:48 am:
After what you’ve said, you’d better stay away from The View. Barbara Walters would punch you in the nose, Sherri Shephard would kick your butt, Joy Behar would kick your crotch. Whoopi would be asking everyone to quiet down, show some patience, because you’re just an ignorant fool who doesn’t know what the hell you’re talking about, while slipping in a few impulsive small kicks to your ribs while you’re writhing on the floor in agony.
And that’s just for being a “climate denier”. If they found out how you were also talking smack about your elders… Here comes Barbara again!
davidmhoffer says:
September 30, 2012 at 12:03 pm
……
I agree, I wouldn’t question Dr. Perlwitz’s honesty, but his motivation could be driven by the instinct of the group-self-preservation. To small group of people focusing on a particular aspect of science, with the passage of time, the rest of the outside physical world gets blurred.
If Dr. Jan P Perlwitz has learned, not as much the science, but that the ‘skeptics’ often are experts in many branches of science or technology, and bring their experience to the blog, then he may benefit from this and possibly future visits.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 30, 2012 at 12:55 pm
“Since the sun is not an oscillator…”
The behavior is that of stochastically modulated oscillation, just as in the model I have suggested. Your article agrees with me and disagrees with you:
He then goes on to explain that the details of the nonlinear processes are so poorly known or chaotic that adding them in would not really help. The phrase “make even short-term prediction extremely difficult” is, of course, merely a value judgment and opinion. With, minimally, the dual mode model I have suggested, you could do just fine.
Bart says:
September 30, 2012 at 3:05 pm
The behavior is that of stochastically modulated oscillation, just as in the model I have suggested. Your article agrees with me and disagrees with you
The they go on to say:
“It therefore seems extremely unlikely that the dynamics of the solar interior can be described by a forced linear system without throwing away much (if not all) of the important physics. In this case it must be argued not only that this discarded physics is irrelevant to the dynamo process but also that the parameterisation of the unresolved physics should not include a stochastic component, as this would have an extremely large effect on such a relinearised system”
The main point of the article is that prediction beyond one cycle is impossible so there is no possibility to extrapolate the two harmonic modes you claim to find into anything useful.
Your response is typical of the lack of physical insight in your approach.
JJ wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1095950
Like the other five times before that over the last 40 years?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47
Uh no. Not like that at all. None of those periods is anywhere near fifteeen years in length.
The graphic illustrates the dishonest approach by “skeptics” supported by you to cherry pick a too small time period, which is dominated by internal natural variability on an interannual time scale, from the temperature time series to support the assertion that global warming “has stopped”, “ceased” or similar.
What is your scientific reasoning that 15 years of a “flat” temperature trend make all the difference compared to the examples in the animation? It’s not like you (well, maybe not you) wouldn’t find any partial time series from the last 40 years of about the same length, which looks very similar to the “flat” temperature record of the last 15 years.
Try the time period 1980 to 1995. It’s even 16 years:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:1995/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:1995/trend/plot/uah/from:1980/to:1995/plot/uah/from:1980/to:1995/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/to:1995/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/to:1995/trend/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1995/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1995/trend
16 years of a flat or even slightly negative (UAH, nothing statistically significant, though) trend from 1980 to 1995.
In this time period, internal natural variability wasn’t even characterized by a strong El Nino at the beginning and weaker El Nino and more La Nina conditions toward the end, rather like a lot of El Nino conditions over the whole time, unlike for the recent 15 years with the very strong El Nino 1998 near the beginning of the period and weaker El Nino and La Nina conditions toward the end:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
And solar activity wasn’t decreasing either between 1980 and 1995, unlike during the recent years with Solar Cycle 23 having a prolonged and deeper minimum than the previous cycles, from which one can expect some effect counteracting greenhouse gas forcing (the radiative forcing from TSI changes between solar maximum and minimum is somewhat smaller than 0.3 W/m^2. This is equivalent to about 10 to 15 years of additional greenhouse gas forcing):
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
At the end, the “flat” trend between 1980 and 1995 proved to be only a wobble within a multi-decadal upward trend of the atmospheric temperature. What reason is there to believe that this time will be different?
One can statistically disentangle the different contributions of forcings from solar variability and aerosols and of natural ENSO variability to the temperature variability over recent years. If one subtracts those contributions from the temperature variability, a residual trend remains in the temperature record, which is consistent with further increasing greenhouse gas forcing (Foster and Rahmstorf, ERL, 2011, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022, http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf).
This is some of the scientific evidence, based on which I predict that the multi-decadal upward trend of the globally averaged temperature anomaly will be shown as to be still intact in a few years from now. The recent “flat” atmospheric temperature trend will be proven as just another wobble, like the one between 1980 and 1995, caused by mostly natural variability on an interannual time scale. The thing with these kind of naturally caused wobbles is, that they are being followed by wobbles in the other direction at some point, which then add to the warming trend caused by greenhouse gases in the years when they occur.
Let’s talk about it at the end of the decade again. Things should have become clearer by then. So mark this thread and this comment by me as a future reference.
Bart says:
September 30, 2012 at 3:05 pm
The behavior is that of stochastically modulated oscillation, just as in the model I have suggested.
You may hope that none of your prospective customers are reading this blog. Backed by your self-proclaimed ‘professional’ qualifications you quote selectively and misleadingly. Here is the full text:
“What we have demonstrated [no mere value statement or opinion] here is that no meaningful predictions can be made from illustrative mean-field models, no matter how they are constructed. If the mean-field model is constructed to be a driven linear oscillator then the small stochastic effects that lead to the modulation will have an extremely large effect on the basic cycle [which are not observed] and make even short-term prediction extremely difficult. The second scenario, where the modulation arises as a result of nonlinear processes rather than stochastic fluctuations, is clearly a better one for prediction — though here too, prediction is fraught with difficulties. Owing to the inherent nonlinearity of the dynamo system, long-term predictions are impossible (even if the form of the model is completely correctly determined). Furthermore, even short-term prediction from mean-field models is meaningless because of fundamental uncertainties in the form and amplitude of the transport coefficients and nonlinear response. Any deterministic nonlinear model that produces chaotically modulated activity cycles will be faced with the same difficulties.”
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 30, 2012 at 7:23 am
Authors: Lockwood, M.; Owens, M. J.
Publication: Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 116, Issue A4, CiteID A04109 , 2011:
Svalgaard and Cliver (2010) recently reported a consensus between the various reconstructions of the heliospheric field over recent centuries. This is a significant development because, individually, each has uncertainties introduced by instrument calibration drifts, limited numbers of observatories, and the strength of the correlations employed. However, taken collectively, a consistent picture is emerging. We here show that this consensus extends to more data sets and methods than reported by Svalgaard and Cliver, including that used by Lockwood et al. (1999), when their algorithm is used to predict the heliospheric field rather than the open solar flux.
The lengths gone to save face are lame, you would begin to regain some respect if some honesty and admittance of error was forthcoming.
Some form of consensus of the geomagnetic record has been reached because you were forced to adjust your own derived method of measurement because it was found erroneous by your peers. Criticisms ranged from using average records through to cherry picking of individual stations. The overwhelming consensus reached is that all the geomagnetic records (now that yours is amended) show no floor and that a rise from the Maunder Minimum to a modern maximum exists, this is shown conclusively in the Lockwood paper you reference.
In a recent paper from Cliver (2012) who now seems to depart from you, your original claim of a floor level of 4 nT (near earth IMF) has been blown away by actual measurements of around 2 nT with Steinhilber (2010) also suggesting values would be considerably lower during the Maunder Minimum using empirical 10Be data. This is expected from us that recognize that all grand minima are not the same. Interestingly Cliver displays a breakdown in your prescribed method of forecasting SC24 and re estimates a much lower possibility (admittedly with huge error bars). There is obviously a disconnect in your perceived understanding.
So we are a wake to you and recognize that your insistence to claim a “flat floor” and the “Sun cant do it rhetoric” are just dishonest false claims that support your agenda. When I get time I will produce a thorough article on this topic with all the relevant links.
On a related topic I have shown you for 3 years that the L&P data suffers from the same problems, which is now being supported by scientists working in the field. Do the right thing and accept the solid criticism so that the general public including Anthony can begin to see the truth.
Fascinating.
On the one hand we have the ongoing Leif vs {sun did it crowd} turning over some interesting points, but devolving into “throwing oatmeal” on one side, and pithy snipe on the other. BOTH carefully avoiding paying any thought time at all to look at lunar tidal cycles as the thing that eliminates the “problems” with a solar correlation / planetary stir driver.
On the other hand, we have Perlwitz making arguments that exploit just about every logical flaw possible (some called out by name by others) while practicing PR / PC / Political Debate with the best of them. Like trying to get a handle on a pile of warm jello… Yet the opposition keeps coming back for more rounds of “Whack-A-Mole”…. Sigh. You know, if Perlwitz spent even 1/4 the time on actually thinking about the problems raised by others and having actual responses to the points, folks would learn a lot more (one way or the other). As it is, reminds me more of kindergarten food fight tactics.
Oh Well…
@Leif: Thank you for your efforts. I have benefited greatly from them. Yet simply doggedly saying “ignore the solar impact” can cloud that there is a correlated non-solar mechanism. Recognizing that correlation and then testing “possibles” is more productive, IMHO. Even if TSI is clearly not important. There is something of merit in the correlation…
@{Sun Did It Folks}: Yes, the correlation is compelling. PLEASE take just a little time to look at the Lunar Tidal paper that pretty much hands you the Planetary Orbit Driver for Earth weather and climate changes driven by planetary positions. Yes, it isn’t based on TSI, or UV, or other direct solar activity. No, I don’t know if it accounts for 1/10 or 9/10 of the total effect. But would it not be nice to have ONE clearly demonstrable causality to hang things on? To shift from “Hypothetically it can / can’t” bickering over to “It works party via lunar tides, but what percent is via that vs UV or…”
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.full
Lays out a clear climate driver, with nicely matching sizes of various periods. Including a mechanism via known ocean stirring tides.
@Perlwitz:
I found your song and dance on CET entertaining, if futile. CO2 is global and dominant, except that it doesn’t work globally and isn’t dominant. Priceless… I suppose that the fact that the Antarctic is growing in ice and getting colder is not important either…
And that there’s a very clear longer term cooling trend, from quite warmer 6000 years ago to colder now; but it has spikes of rapid warming, then rapid cooling: somehow that gets ignored in “trend”…
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/low-no-ice-arctic-5000-bc/
Simply put, we peaked in warmth about 8000 years ago and it’s been all down hill ever since. BUT there are some very rapid, if limited, spikes and drops (all long before CO2 generation by people). You conveniently ignore such things, dismissing them with a good drive by smugging… Yet they do not go away… ( Explain Heinreich Events, please… and D.O. and Bond Events and…)
So fitting a trend line to ANY period shorter than 6000 years becomes entirely an exercise in picking starting and ending dates. Nice propaganda, worthless science.
But look at the temperature history in the graph from the jonova link:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
Connect the tops of the upward peaks. Connect the bottoms of the down going peaks. The “tops” have “lower highs”. The bottoms have “lower lows”. We are inevitably headed into the next ice age glacial. That’s just the way it is. ( 60 N insolation is ‘on the cusp’ of the swap and dropping due to orbital mechanics). As soon as the North Pole has persistent multi year ice, increasing year over year (and NOT melting during warm spikes as now) we are headed into a “tipping point” (the only one that is real) back into a glacial.
ANY warming we can get is a good thing. Period. Full stop.
You choose to ignore that evaporation, convection, and precipitation put a limit on warming at just about the present temperatures. Any added heating just runs the “heat pipe earth” faster, not hotter. Yet desire to push, hard, toward colder. The one thing that has no limit until the whole planet is an ice ball ( we have past existence proofs). Sirrah, radiation does not trump evaporation and convection. That is your fundamental and fatal error.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/spherical-heat-pipe-earth/
But carry on… it makes for a fascinating study in psychology…
E.M.Smith says:
September 30, 2012 at 4:41 pm
But look at the temperature history in the graph from the jonova link:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
For us lazy critters, could you mark the mins and maxs of the lunar tidal cycle on this graph.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 30, 2012 at 4:38 pm
Some form of consensus of the geomagnetic record has been reached because you were forced to adjust your own derived method of measurement because it was found erroneous by your peers. Criticisms ranged from using average records through to cherry picking of individual stations.
Both of those are false, and muddled to boot.
The overwhelming consensus reached is that all the geomagnetic records (now that yours is amended) show no floor and that a rise from the Maunder Minimum to a modern maximum exists, this is shown conclusively in the Lockwood paper you reference.
You are stuck on the floor. The issue is whether our record back to 1835 [which is the earliest actual data we have] is correct, and there is agreement that it is.
In a recent paper from Cliver (2012) who now seems to depart from you, your original claim of a floor level of 4 nT (near earth IMF) has been blown away by actual measurements of around 2 nT
The minimum Cliver reports is 3.9 nT.
with Steinhilber (2010) also suggesting values would be considerably lower during the Maunder Minimum using empirical 10Be data.
There is controversy about the Steinhilber values [which at times go below zero]
Interestingly Cliver displays a breakdown in your prescribed method of forecasting SC24 and re estimates a much lower possibility (admittedly with huge error bars). There is obviously a disconnect in your perceived understanding.
Nonsense, Cliver does not dispute the forecast of SC24.
On a related topic I have shown you for 3 years that the L&P data suffers from the same problems, which is now being supported by scientists working in the field. Do the right thing and accept the solid criticism so that the general public including Anthony can begin to see the truth.
You do not do valid science, so have ‘shown’ nothing. A recent analysis by Fraser Watson using automatic processing of all MDI magnetic data confirms L&P’s data.
JanP;
Let’s talk about it at the end of the decade again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And, having failed to respond to a long list of major issues, JanP quits the field.
The thing is JanP, I would not be surprised if it IS warmer at the end of the decade than it is now. I would be shocked if, that being the case, you didn’t declare yourself the victor. But what will be the true arbiter of who is “right” and who is “wrong” will not be some amount of warming over current temps.
The arbiter of right and wrong will be if a model, ANY model, makes a prediction NOW that is proven accurate at the end of this decade. In addition to that will come some measure of the change in temperature being beneficial or not.
So here’s my prediction JanP. The models will ALL be proven wrong. Further, if there is any warming, it will be beneficial and if there is any cooling it will be detrimental to humanity.
Chefio,
Nice summary.
Chiefio!
Try and give the guy a compliment and can’t even spell his name right. Sorry.
Perlwitz says:
“The graphic illustrates the dishonest approach by “skeptics” supported by you to cherry pick a too small time period…”
First off, skeptics are the only honest kind of scientists. And Perlwitz is no scientific skeptic. Skeptics are not rent-seekers, we just present facts and ask questions that climate alarmists cannot answer.
Now, about ‘cherrypicking’ a too small time period. May I deconstruct? Thank you:
We will begin with a LONG time period; about three and a half centuries. Let’s look at the trend:
http://i35.tinypic.com/2db1d89.jpg
As we see, the long term trend is the same, whether CO2 is low or high. That is verified in this Wood For Trees chart. The naturally rising global temperature since the LIA has remained within its long term parameters. There is no acceleration in global warming; it is on the same trend line that it was on before the start of the industrial revolution, thus falsifying the CO2=CAGW conjecture.
And the scientific fact that CO2 has no measurable effect on global temperature is confirmed here. Notice that the two warming episodes — again, one when CO2 was low, and the other when CO2 was high — shows conclusively that any effect from CO2 is so minuscule that it is not even measurable.
Empirical measurements also show conclusively that CO2 follows temperature on all time scales, from decades to hundreds of millennia. That proves that the alarmist crowd has cause and effect reversed. Temperature changes cause CO2 changes, not vice-versa. There is no empirical, testable scientific evidence showing that rising CO2 causes rising temperature. That Belief is based on an entirely coincidental and short-term correlation, which is now breaking down.
Finally, the planet is starved of (harmless, beneficial) CO2. More is better. Bring it. The biosphere will thrive, and there will be no global harm or damage. The “carbon” scare is a false alarm.
Thus, using verifiable scientific facts, it is demonstrated that CO2 has no measurable effect on temperature. None. The reason that the alarmist contingent cannot get anything right is because they are fixated on the false and disproven narrative that CO2 drives temperature — when, in fact, exactly the opposite is true.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 30, 2012 at 3:25 pm
“The main point of the article is that prediction beyond one cycle is impossible so there is no possibility to extrapolate the two harmonic modes you claim to find into anything useful.”
Ridiculous. I do stuff like this all the time in products that actually work. Your response is typical of your lack of insight into signals and systems.
@Leif:
OK. It will likely take me a while (as I’m not great at manipulating other folks graphics) but I’ll do it. Likely a few days and I’ll put it up as a posting on my site. (Then put a reference in some posting here 😉
From the PNAS paper, this graph:
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814/F1.large.jpg
has the tidal raising forces from about 1600 to present while this graph:
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814/F2.expansion.html
has periods from 500 BC to present.
This one has 36 kyr of pattern with L.I.A., Minnesota dust layers, Akkadian Drought, Heinrich Events and Bond events marked.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814/F7.expansion.html
But I’ll see if I can integrate the Ice graph with those cycles… ( It’s a good ‘exercise for the student’ anyway… and I’m the student here… 😉
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 30, 2012 at 4:04 pm
“What we have demonstrated [no mere value statement or opinion] here is that no meaningful predictions can be made from illustrative mean-field models, no matter how they are constructed.”
Actually, it’s kind of obvious where he went wrong. But, don’t mind me (which you wouldn’t anyway). Just keep blustering on (like there was any chance I could alter that).
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 30, 2012 at 5:03 pm
You continue to live in your own universe. Bart sums up the situation well.
Bart says:
September 30, 2012 at 5:24 pm
Ridiculous. I do stuff like this all the time in products that actually work. Your response is typical of your lack of insight into signals and systems.
Since the sun is not an oscillator your stuff doesn’t apply. And I do have insight into signals and systems from when in another life I designed communication systems, e.g. for the Alternate War Headquarters Communication System for SHAPE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Headquarters_Allied_Powers_Europe
@davidmhoffer:
Thanks!
And no worries on the name…. I’d rather have been a Chef than a Chief anyway, but life didn’t work out that way…
(Really: I’m the cook at home and I grew up in a Family Restaurant. Everyone in the family cooks. At about 8 years old, I’d cut up a case of 50 chickens into parts every week, or less… So I take “Chef” as a compliment 😉
Geoff Sharp says:
September 30, 2012 at 5:56 pm
You continue to live in your own universe. Bart sums up the situation well.
And you cannot back any of your assertions up, so our two universes are indeed separate.
Bart says:
September 30, 2012 at 5:55 pm
Actually, it’s kind of obvious where he went wrong.
If so, you should do the right thing and write your obvious finding up and submit it to an appropriate astrophysical journal.
I’m not trying to pile on but, I live in the real world where Greenland was green when the vikings found it. They had to move when it got cold again. My solar powered yard lights turn off when the full moon is at its height at night which tells me there are lunar forces at work. Wether or not these are magnetic or reflective in nature really doesn’t matter, I know they exist but, nobody ever talks about these things. Since the moon has no real atmosphere and the radiative features appear to me to be quite strong and there are times when this temp and light and even magnetic forces effect the earth, why doesn’t anyone account for this?
This is a really cool thread.
Martin457 says:
September 30, 2012 at 6:40 pm
“My solar powered yard lights turn off when the full moon is at its height at night which tells me there are lunar forces at work.”
You are kidding, right? I didn’t see the sarc tag.
Nope. Couldn’t believe it myself till I seen it.
It’s really dry here in Nebraska. Theres a full moon tonight. If you have some of these things, check it out for yourself.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 30, 2012 at 6:07 pm
And you cannot back any of your assertions up, so our two universes are indeed separate.
All of my references (which include yours) are backed up by the scientists I mentioned, their words not mine. Like I said I will be providing an in depth article that will be a reference on the subject which will include copies of all the relevant papers (I have them all on my hard drive).
Maybe I should call it “Leif’s Flat Floor Fallacy”.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 30, 2012 at 8:46 pm
All of my references (which include yours) are backed up by the scientists I mentioned, their words not mine.
since they are not true, you are either mistaken or misleading. You can begin with those: “Some form of consensus of the geomagnetic record has been reached because you were forced to adjust your own derived method of measurement because it was found erroneous by your peers. Criticisms ranged from using average records through to cherry picking of individual stations.”
Show those references.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 30, 2012 at 8:46 pm
Maybe I should call it “Leif’s Flat Floor Fallacy”.
There are two distinct issues: 1) HMF back to 1835 which is observed and does not extrapolate to any ‘flat floor’, and 2) what happened before 1835. IHV/IDV belong to issue 1). The ‘Floor’ idea [which is not ours, so I should not get credit for it] has a long history: “[3] A |B| floor implies the existence of a time-invariant component of the open solar flux. A number of authors [McComas et al., 1992; Webb and Howard, 1994; Owens and Crooker, 2006, 2007] have suggested heliospheric magnetic flux consists of a constant open flux component [the floor] with a time-varying contribution from the closed flux carried by coronal mass ejections (CMEs), which provides the solar cycle variation in |B|. The return to the same value of |B| each solar minimum means flux added by CMEs must be balanced over the solar cycle, either by opening the closed flux via reconnection with open flux [interchange reconnection; Crooker et al., 2002], or by disconnecting an equivalent amount of open flux [McComas et al., 1992]. Using the observed CME rates and an estimate of the typical CME magnetic flux content, Owens and Crooker [2006] estimated that the observed solar cycle variability in |B| can be matched if CMEs contribute flux to the heliosphere for 30– 50 days. [4] Constancy of open flux also features in a number of models of coronal and heliospheric solar cycle polarity reversal. Fisk et al. [1999] suggest that continual reconnection between open and closed flux at coronal hole boundaries allows the polarity reversal to proceed as a rotation of the heliospheric current sheet (HCS), conserving open flux throughout. Fisk and Schwadron [2001] propose that HCS rotation is driven by a diffusive process involving interchange reconnection. Owens et al. [2007] suggest the interchange reconnection occurs in the legs of CMEs, conserving but transporting open flux in the manner required for the polarity reversal.”
2008GL035813.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 30, 2012 at 6:10 pm
“If so, you should do the right thing and write your obvious finding up and submit it to an appropriate astrophysical journal.”
It’s not my job, and this application doesn’t interest me. I don’t care to tell you what is wrong – you wouldn’t understand it, and I’ve been subjected to enough uninformed abuse. It’s something you will have to see for yourself before it makes an impact.
I’ve given you all the information you need, in this thread, in earlier ones, and at the photobucket site. Follow my prescriptions, in detail, or find someone who can, and it will become apparent to you what is holding the others back. Save any further criticism until you have at least made an attempt. Until you have, it’s just trash talk, and I’ve run out of time for that.
From Leif Svalgaard on September 30, 2012 at 6:00 pm:
Leif, some clarification requested.
The Sun is not an oscillator as Bart would it like it to be,
But as I see when reading about helioseismology, it does have oscillations (milli-Hertz range) and standing waves. And torsional oscillations:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/doi/10.1086/183286
The sun is observed to be a torsional oscillator with a period of 11 years
Howard, R.; Labonte, B. J.
Astrophysical Journal, Part 2 – Letters to the Editor, vol. 239, July 1, 1980, p. L33-L36.
So the Sun not a Bart-preferred type of oscillator, but it is an oscillator of a different type. Is that correct?
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 30, 2012 at 8:50 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
September 30, 2012 at 8:46 pm
All of my references (which include yours) are backed up by the scientists I mentioned, their words not mine.
———————————
since they are not true, you are either mistaken or misleading. You can begin with those: “Some form of consensus of the geomagnetic record has been reached because you were forced to adjust your own derived method of measurement because it was found erroneous by your peers. Criticisms ranged from using average records through to cherry picking of individual stations.”
Show those references.
Nevanlinna (2004), Clilverd et al (2005), Matini/Mursula (2004,2006,2008), Demetrescu/Dobrica (2008) and others. Links, excerpts and graphs will be provided in an upcoming article as stated.
Sun is not a free oscillator. Sun is a coupled oscillator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coupled_oscillators.gif
see two oscillating parameters in my graph represented by the equation with two components
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
or click on my name for polar field oscillations
Sun is not a free oscillator. Sun is a forced coupled oscillator !
Jan P Perlwitz:
At September 30, 2012 at 3:48 pm you provide more lies (n.b. demonstrable lies and not merely falsehoods) when you write
1.
You assert that you agree the IPCC and the IPCC chose the considered period, NOT the “skeptics”.
2.
The reasoning that the “15 years of a “flat” temperature trend make all the difference compared to the examples in the animation” is because the IPCC says it does.
In consideration of your posts here there has been a recent discussion of whether you are a liar or a fool. Your statements that I am writing to answer (and quote above in this answer) are undisputable proof that you are a liar (but they do not prove you are not a fool). I explain as follows.
At September 29, 2012 at 2:24 pm
I pointed out the IPCC prediction of “committed warming” and I said
Please note that the time period of “the first two decades of this century” is defined by the IPCC and NOT the “skeptics”.
At September 29, 2012 at 4:26 pm
You replied to that by claiming (a) I had repeatedly stated unspecified falsehoods and (b) you have repeatedly answered the point. Both those claims were untrue.
At September 30, 2012 at 12:13 am
I refuted those claims and expressed my amazement that a representative of GISS would make such statements in response to an observation of an empirical fact.
At September 30, 2012 at 8:33 am
I provided an explanation with links and quotations of the IPCC AR4 which explained my true and accurate statement which said
Importantly, it said
Importantly, in this context, the last TEN years is of immense importance and the fact that there has been no significant global temperature rise for the last 15 years emphasises that importance.
At September 30, 2012 at 9:03 am
you attempted to obfuscate the point with a non sequitur.
At September 30, 2012 at 9:24 am
Bart replied to that obfuscation saying to you
At September 30, 2012 at 9:46 am
I explained how and why your response was – and is – a non sequitur.
You have ignored that but have provided your post at September 30, 2012 at 3:48 pm which asserts
(a) “The graphic illustrates the dishonest approach by “skeptics” supported by you to cherry pick a too small time period”
NO! It incorporates more than half of the time period specified by the IPCC which you claim to accept.
(b) “which is dominated by internal natural variability on an interannual time scale, from the temperature time series to support the assertion that global warming “has stopped”, “ceased” or similar.”
The “similar” is that the “committed warming has disappeared”. IT HAS.
(c) “What is your scientific reasoning that 15 years of a “flat” temperature trend make all the difference compared to the examples in the animation?”
The IPCC AR4 says the first two decades of this century have that “difference” because of the asserted “committed warming”. You say you accept the IPCC AR4 statements but are disputing those statements.
(d) “It’s not like you (well, maybe not you) wouldn’t find any partial time series from the last 40 years of about the same length, which looks very similar to the “flat” temperature record of the last 15 years.”
That is another non sequitur: it is the present and previous decades which the IPCC – so YOU – say should warm at 0.2°C per decade as a result of “committed warming” and not any previous times.
In conclusion, your words and your actions in this thread prove beyond any possibility of doubt that you are a liar.
Richard
****
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 30, 2012 at 4:52 pm
E.M.Smith says:
September 30, 2012 at 4:41 pm
But look at the temperature history in the graph from the jonova link:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
For us lazy critters, could you mark the mins and maxs of the lunar tidal cycle on this graph.
****
Here’s your chance EM, for a landmark breakthrough. 🙂
Honestly, I am interested, as ocean changes have the potential for large heat-transport changes.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 30, 2012 at 11:17 pm
Nevanlinna (2004), Clilverd et al (2005), Matini/Mursula (2004,2006,2008), Demetrescu/Dobrica (2008)
Not good enough. Show where in those you see “Criticisms ranged from using average records through to cherry picking of individual stations”. and “because it was found erroneous by your peers”. Those statements are false.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 30, 2012 at 11:02 pm
But as I see when reading about helioseismology, it does have oscillations (milli-Hertz range) and standing waves. And torsional oscillations
Those are small local vibrations, not the Sun vibrating as a system. And the ‘torsional oscillation’ is a misnamed variation of a system of winds in the sun. It would be like calling the trade winds in the Earth atmosphere ‘oscillations’.
Bart says:
September 30, 2012 at 10:29 pm
I don’t care to tell you what is wrong
Put up or shut up.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 1, 2012 at 5:48 am
Geoff Sharp says:
September 30, 2012 at 11:17 pm
Nevanlinna (2004), Clilverd et al (2005), Matini/Mursula (2004,2006,2008), Demetrescu/Dobrica (2008)
“Not good enough. Show where in those you see “Criticisms ranged from using average records through to cherry picking of individual stations”. and “because it was found erroneous by your peers”. Those statements are false.”
Nevanlinna said your original IHV data was erroneous as I am sure you are aware. The rest will be summarized in a proper illustration of this whitewash attempt in due course.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 1, 2012 at 7:18 am
Nevanlinna said your original IHV data was erroneous as I am sure you are aware.
Here is what Nevanlinna (2004) said:
“1: Note, however, the criticism introduced by Svalgaard et al. (2003) concerning the secular trend of the aa-series in the 20th century, that have been claimed to be erroneous.”
He notes that I claim that the trend in aa is erroneous
“2: Thanks are given to L. Svalgaard and R. Pirjola for their valuable comments on the manuscript.”
Nothing about IHV being erroneous.
Next false statement, please.
richardscourtney wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1096629
and
Your whole comment in reply to my precious comment only circles around what “the IPCC” said something about “committed warming”, and that I said in some other comment I agreed with the IPCC Report. I actually said essentially.
(http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1095148)
It doesn’t mean I agree with every aspect, detail or word what is written there. As much to that.
I asked for scientific arguments why you think those 15 years make all the difference compared to the time periods shown in the animation, even though one can find a 16-year time period, 1980 to 1995, which looks very, very similar to the recent 15 years:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:1995/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:1995/trend/plot/uah/from:1980/to:1995/plot/uah/from:1980/to:1995/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/to:1995/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/to:1995/trend/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1995/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1995/trend
“Because the IPCC says so!” is not a scientific argument. It’s a childish response. How old are you? 12? Your reply does not contain any single scientific argument about what is different in the Earth system now compared to the time period 1980-1995, to draw the conclusion, according to which this time wasn’t just another wobble within an overall intact long-term upward trend of the globally averaged temperature anomaly, compared to the time period 1980-1985, which was such a wobble. And you know why that is? Because you don’t have any!
That’s why you once more, like you and your friends here have done this before again and again, divert from the scientific question, which I raised in my comment, and you write yet another comment with a noisy and vicious ad personam attack against me. There is a pattern in your behavior. If the scientific argument can’t be made, attack the opponent personally instead, insult him/her, denigrate him/her, smear him/her, make libelous accusations against him/her etc. That’s why you are not rightfully called skeptics, that’s why you are “skeptics” with quotation marks around it. You are no true skeptics (There are some true skeptics out there. Those I respect). You are fake skeptics. And what motivates you? No, scientific curiosity doesn’t motivate you for your behavior. You are likely motivated by an economical, political or ideological agenda, Mr. Coal-Magazine-Editor.
Back to the recent 15-year period and what the IPCC allegedly says about “committed warming”. Mr. Courtney asserts that “committed warming” hasn’t happened, and can’t happen until the year 2020 for reasons of physics.
Mr. Courtney quotes in one of his precious comments,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1095773
something from the IPCC Report 2007, Volume 1:
Committed climate change (see Box TS.9) due to atmospheric composition in the year 2000 corresponds to a warming trend of about 0.1°C per decade over the next two decades, in the absence of large changes in volcanic or solar forcing. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions were to fall within the range of the SRES marker scenarios.
(http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-5-1.html)
So far so good.
Mr. Courtney asserts in the same comment:
He repeats similar statements in following comments. Apparently by calculating the trend over a cherry picked 10 year or 15-year period, which is dominated by internal natural variability that masks the multi-decadal trend. From this he claims it was not possible that the temperature increase will be 0.2 K/decade in the year 2020.
1. What if we were in the year 1995, when we had a very similar picture in the temperature record as today as I have shown? Mr. Courtney probably would have made the same arguments.
Let’s look at the trend analysis for the two decades from 1991 to 2010. You can do it here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
Enter start year 1980 and end year 2000. Do the calculation. It gives you the trend plus the 2-sigma interval. The results for the 20-year trend of the surface temperature anomaly are:
GISTEMP: 0.144 +/- 0.120 K/decade
NOAA: 0.170 +/- 0.106 K/decade
HADCRUT3v: 0.169 +/- 0.116 K/decade
HADCRUT4: 0.177 +/- 0.109 K/decade
Average: 0.165 K/decade
The average trend over the two decades was 0.165 K/decade from those data sets. A little bit smaller, if one doesn’t use HADCRUT3v for the average of the data sets. So, yes, it could be the decadal trend over 2 decades will be smaller than 0.2 K/decade in 2020. But back then, it didn’t change anything about the overall intact multi-decadal upward trend. The “flat” temperature record of the period 1980-1995 was only a wobble.
So, I repeat my question. What are the scientific arguments for the assertion it was all different this time compared to the period 1980-1995?
2. My guess is, now Mr. Courtney will insist on “But the IPCC said 0.2 K/decade”, not 0.165 K/decade.
So what? Does it mean global warming has “ceased”, “stopped”, if the trend was 0.165 K/decade between 2001 and 2020, instead of 0.2 K/decade? Certainly not.
And the IPCC doesn’t say it must be exact 0.2 K/decade. It says about 0.2 K/decade, of which about 0.1 K/decade are committed. As one can see from the figure, there is an uncertainty range, also for the committed increase:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-ts-26.html
The “about 0.2 K/decade” is the ensemble mean prediction, calculated from all the model realizations. Nature provides only one realization. We can’t restart Nature for the same boundary conditions and randomly perturbed initial conditions to get a statistical sample with sample size > 1. There is no reasonable argument why a single random realization from all possible realizations of a statistical population must be equal to the average of a sample that is an estimate of the mean of the population. If the single realization is within a defined uncertainty range, one can’t draw a valid conclusion, according to which the single realization doesn’t belong to the population.
I also want to point out that there are conditions made in the quote above from the IPCC report, cited by Mr. Courtney, for the about 0.2 K/decade increase, which are:
in the absence of large changes in volcanic or solar forcing.
In reality, at least solar forcing has decreased in the previous decade. Some predict it is going to decrease further in the next years. This has to be taken into account also, when doing an honest comparison between the prediction from the IPCC Report and real world data.
3. Mr. Courtney believes that physics wouldn’t allow the prediction of the IPCC report of a temperature increase of about 0.2 K/decade becoming true for the time period 2001-2020. He asserts:
(http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1096629)
Mr. Courtney seems to believe it can’t happen because the oceans were a drag on the temperature increase in the atmosphere. He doesn’t get it. The ocean aren’t a drag, they are ahead of the atmosphere with respect to heat accumulation. The overwhelming amount of the additional energy due to the perturbation of the radiation balance by the increasing greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere goes directly into heating the oceans. The oceans heat the atmosphere, not the other way around. According to the recent estimate by Levitus et al, GRL, (2012), doi: 10.1029/2012GL051106, of the heat anomaly magnitude within the upper 2000 m of the oceans, if the additional heat accumulated since 1955 in the upper 2000 m was released at once into the troposphere, it would heat up the troposphere by 36 K or 65 F (sic!). This is just an illustration of the magnitude. It’s not going to happen. The troposphere is not going to heat by 36 K due to the ocean heat anomaly. Most of the energy will be radiated back to space over time.
From the conclusions of the Levitus et al. (2012) paper:
[21] We have estimated an increase of 24×10^22 J representing a volume mean warming of 0.09 C of the 0–2000 m layer of the World Ocean. If this heat were instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36 C (65 F). This transfer of course will not happen; earth’s climate system simply does not work like this. But this computation does provide a perspective on the amount of heating that the earth system has undergone since 1955.
(http://www.agu.org.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL051106.shtml)
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 1, 2012 at 7:46 am
Geoff Sharp says:
October 1, 2012 at 7:18 am
Nevanlinna said your original IHV data was erroneous as I am sure you are aware.
———————–
Here is what Nevanlinna (2004) said:
“1: Note, however, the criticism introduced by Svalgaard et al. (2003) concerning the secular trend of the aa-series in the 20th century, that have been claimed to be erroneous.”
He notes that I claim that the trend in aa is erroneous
“2: Thanks are given to L. Svalgaard and R. Pirjola for their valuable comments on the manuscript.”
Nothing about IHV being erroneous.
Next false statement, please.
The senile grandpa statements keep coming. Nevanlinna has always been in complete opposition to your erroneous IHV construction. Every Nevanlinna paper based on the Helsinki geomagnetic record shows a centennial increase opposing your flat floor illusion. Your sophist behavior has no end it seems.
Correction to a couple of typos in my previous comment,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1096946
1. The statement
Let’s look at the trend analysis for the two decades from 1991 to 2010.
should be instead
Let’s look at the trend analysis for the two decades from 1981 to 2000.
2. The statement
Enter start year 1980 and end year 2000.
should be instead
Enter start year 1981 and end year 2000.
The values of the 20-year trends in the comment are from the correct time period.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 1, 2012 at 8:39 am
“Nothing about IHV being erroneous.
The senile grandpa statements keep coming. Nevanlinna has always been in complete opposition to your erroneous IHV construction.
You have not demonstrated the truth of your statement that Nevanlinna forced me to “adjust your own derived method of measurement because it was found erroneous by your peers”.
Nevanlinna’s papers suffer from the same problem as aa, because he appends his data to the low end of aa. What matters is the acceptance of IHV/IDV of the geomagnetic community. Here is an excerpt from a recent IAGA publication endorsing our work http://www.leif.org/research/IHV-IDV-Indices-IAGA.png
So, now that we have disposed of your false claim about Nevanlinna, you can go on the your next false claim, please.
I note that you are stooping to the same level as Bart. Very telling, don’t you think?
Moderators.
My reply to JPP has gone in the ‘bin’.
Please find it and post it.
Richard
Oh, I just see, the last link in my comment,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1096946
leads only to a login page of CU:
Here is the correct link:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051106
Sorry about that.
JanP;
We have estimated an increase of 24×10^22 J representing a volume mean warming of 0.09 C of the 0–2000 m layer of the World Ocean. If this heat were instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36 C
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, if it was transferred to the top 1 km, we’d get warming of hundrfeds of degrees. Why not posit a xfer to the top 1 cm which wouls result in a few thousands of degrees?
This is precisely the sort of rant that does the most to discredit you and your colleagues JanP. The statement is technicaly accurate. But since no physical process exists in the real world that would result in this, why bring it up? It has value as a scare tactic because it sounds like a big number, but it has no value whatsoever as part of a scientific discussion.
As for the rest of your rant, I’ll leave it to richardscourtney to deconstruct it, but in brief, you said what you said, and richard proved you wrong. Now you’re trying to change what you said to what you meant, while claiming that you want to talk science not rehtoric. If so, just drop the rhetoric! It is that simple. By trying to assert that you said something different than what you did say, you just dig the hole deeper.
You still haven’t answered my previous questions by the way.
1. If you dismiss the CET as being regional, you must also dismiss Keith Briffa’s tree ring study which is based on a few trees from Siberia. Yes or no?
2. As you first claimed that IPCC AR4 WG1 was a good representation of your views on the science, but you now claim not in all cases, what is your position on WG1 Chapter 2, Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing, which clearly states that of 14 factors Level of Scientific Understanding is “Low” or “Very Low” for 9 of them, and only a single one is well understood. Do you agree with them on this? Yes or no?
3. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the various models in the IPCC ensemble use similar forcing values for all factors except aerosol forcing. For aerosol forcing, the values used diverge wildly from model to model, but the end result is that the model outputs converge. This demonstrates that aerosol forcing is not being estimated by the scientists or the data, but is being used as a fudge factor to bring the model results into closer agreement with one another. Yes or No?
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 1, 2012 at 5:48 am
“Put up or shut up.”
I.e., you lack the skill to do it yourself. Not my problem.
vukcevic says:
October 1, 2012 at 1:58 am
Yep.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
The graphic illustrates the dishonest approach by “skeptics” ….
No. That is a lie. That graphic does it depict anything “by skeptics” . That graphic was created by CAGW alarmist John Cook, for his political hack blog. It illustrates an alarmist’s charicature of sceptics, for use as a strawman argument – as you are doing here. It is no different than his buddy Lewandowsky’s attempt to pass off alarmists faked poll responses as the belief of sceptics. Why do you people have such difficulty dealing with the actual sceptic positions laid at your feet? Why must you lie?
… supported by you …
Another lie. I do not support anyone in their use of Cook’s method of time series analysis. On the other hand, you support Cook’s use of that lie, by making it your own.
Here we have a highly placed NASA scientist, parroting politicized strawman talking points from a cartoonist. And you people wonder why no one places any value on your pronouncements. To the extent that you have to be trusted, you demonstrate that you are not worthy of it.
What is your scientific reasoning that 15 years of a “flat” temperature trend make all the difference compared to the examples in the animation?
The primary difference is length of period and prevalence. There are other important differences, of course. Cook went well overboard in his use of overlapping periods, and failing to account for the trend in the centers of the individual trends, and in using land temp data under the title ‘global’, etc. But the fundamental differences are the fact that the period is longer, and includes the present.
Returning to previous discussion: IF ‘global warming’ is truly a scientific proposition and not merely the object of a religious/political faith commitment, THEN there exists SOME period over which a lack of warming would be held to falsify a robustly stated hypothesis test of the ‘global warming’ conjecture. As previously discussed, one estimate of such a criterion suggests that a time period of 17 years may be suffiicent. Given that we are currently at ~16 years of flat temps per two surface temp datasets (one thermometer, one satellite) the relevance is obvious.
Speaking of obvious, the question that you have not addressed: Given that you clearly hold your own conceptualization of ‘global warming’ to be a scientific proposition, what are your falsification criteria for temps?
How long can global average surface temps remain flat before you admit your theory is bust?
How long would they have to rise at less than the 0.2C/decade rate predicted by the low end of your scenarios before you will accept that you are wrong?
How much can they drop, before you will come to that conclusion?
Please be specific.
Bart says:
October 1, 2012 at 10:40 am
I.e., you lack the skill to do it yourself. Not my problem.
Because there is no obvious error, as simple as that.
E.M. Smith says:
“You know, if Perlwitz spent even 1/4 the time on actually thinking about the problems raised by others and having actual responses to the points, folks would learn a lot more (one way or the other). As it is, reminds me more of kindergarten food fight tactics.”
I note that Perlwitz cannot refute my falsification of the CO2=CAGW conjecture, and also that he will not answer JJ’s question, or davidhoffer’s questions. He is merely a rent-seeking propagandist for the anti-science crowd. The fact that he can blog and post comments throughout the work day shows how thoroughly corrupt GISS has become under James Hansen.
From Leif Svalgaard on October 1, 2012 at 5:48 am:
“Small” being a relative term, with amplitudes greater than California is long.
There can be a pattern without there being an oscillator.
There’s one thing that strikes me about this discussion. Given the mass of the Sun, the viscous composition, the turbulence and the inherent chaotic nature that arises, I do not see how the conditions for long-standing oscillations could be established. Indeed, given the scales involved including time, it’s like people are trying to decipher the behavior of an ocean by looking for patterns to the ripples at the water’s edge. And the effects of the motions of all the planets together are infinitesimal compared to the effect of the Moon on the Earth, thus a lot of noise from which they are trying to pull a signal.
How could the Sun possibly be an oscillator as they are discussing? Perhaps assume it has an iron core that “rings” at certain frequencies?
Re: CET ONLY A REGIONAL DATASET
Davidmhoffer
If you dismiss the CET as being regional…..
True, the CET is a regional data set, but region is large enough that it captures all major trend changes for period 1880-2010 of the:
-Northern Hemisphere temperature with correlation factor R^2 = 0.737
-Global temperature with correlation factor R^2 = 0.712
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CGNh.htm
Only difference is that volatility in the CET signal is far greater (fewer samples averaged).
Dr. Perlwitz either knows this, or if not then Dr. Perlwitz should know it !
I have no intention of getting involved in ‘slogging match’ with someone who either is not aware of basics or if so, purposefully contradicts what is integral to the data.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 1, 2012 at 11:22 am
“Because there is no obvious error, as simple as that.”
To you. Hardly an authoritative statement on this specific subject matter. But, thanks for making things easy for me. I don’t really want to help you out, and I’m just as happy that you willfully do not reap the benefit of my knowledge and experience.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 1, 2012 at 12:05 pm
These are oscillations. They are created by a process which can thereby be referred to as an “oscillator”. They are quite regular, and that makes them predictable, if one knows how to do it.
From Bart on October 1, 2012 at 12:49 pm:
I have a pot of thick soup on the stove. The heat is not high enough for continuous boiling. Instead, every now and then the bubbles below near the heat will grow and gather and finally “bloop” to the surface. There appears to be a pattern, the timing of the bloops is roughly regular and predictable.
I can read about the solar cycles, deduced from sunspot counts. While the average period is about 10.66 years, there is considerable variation, running from 9 to 14 years. From 1784 to 1799 was actually a double cycle, with one of the two having to have been shorter than 8 years.
My pot of soup is not an oscillator, and its “pattern” better matches that of the solar cycles than it does what I would expect from an oscillator. Therefore I conclude the Sun is not an oscillator.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 1, 2012 at 12:05 pm
Given the mass of the Sun, the viscous composition, the turbulence and the inherent chaotic nature that arises, I do not see how the conditions for long-standing oscillations could be established.
An oscillator must have a driving force and [importantly] a restoring force. The sun has neither and is not an oscillator on the scale of solar cycles.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 1, 2012 at 1:50 pm
An oscillator is “that which oscillates.” The only question is how well and repeatably it does so.
The oscillations of the SSN have very regular and repeatable structure, with some stochastic or chaotic variation. That makes them predictable with calculable error bounds. Take a look at Vukcevic’s plots. He’s more than halfway to the goal line.
Mr Perlwitz:
I am writing a response to your silly diatribe at October 1, 2012 at 8:07 am addressed as a supposed rebuttal of my response to your lies which I posted at October 1, 2012 at 2:01 am.
The facts are clear: you lied, repeatedly. Anybody can see that.
Your excuses are patently false; e.g.
at September 29, 2012 at 5:15 pm you wrote saying to davidmhoffer
you now write
Oh! So your “views” are what the IPCC says but only when it suites you! And fundamental statements about the science by the IPCC are “details” which you don’t accept when they show you have lied!
And you say
I gave you “scientific arguments”; i.e. the “committed warming” predicted by the IPCC for the two decades after 2000 has disappeared. The IPCC says nothing about “committed warming” for earlier periods.
The “committed warming” derives directly from the “science” as stated by the IPCC. The fact that it has not happened and shows no signs of happening is a direct indication of the validity of that “science”. And the “committed warming” has to exist if your assertions about future warming are true.
The rest of your post is similar. Indeed, it purports to be a defence against your exposure as a liar but adds more lies; for example, this
That is another blatant lie.
I wrote
“Probably a physical impossibility” is NOT “can’t happen … for reasons of physics”.
I quote one piece of your ignorant and stupid twaddle to demonstrate why I am not bothering to give further assistance to your intellectual masturbation. You say
You – not me – said the IPCC represented your views. I accepted that and addressed a fundamental statement about the “science”. So, if your accusation of “a childish response” is true then it applies to you and not me. (I think the IPCC presents biased and distorted representations of the science.)
Richard
Anthony:
This is, in my opinion, one of the best threads ever since I started attending your campus several years ago! – and looks like it is not over yet.
Thanks.
Bart says:
October 1, 2012 at 2:19 pm
The oscillations of the SSN have very regular and repeatable structure, with some stochastic or chaotic variation. That makes them predictable with calculable error bounds.
Here you are completely wrong. The SSN is at most predictable one cycle ahead.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 1, 2012 at 3:21 pm
“The SSN is at most predictable one cycle ahead.”
Have some oatmeal.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 1, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Bart says:
October 1, 2012 at 2:19 pm
The oscillations of the SSN have very regular and repeatable structure, with some stochastic or chaotic variation. That makes them predictable with calculable error bounds.
Here you are completely wrong. The SSN is at most predictable one cycle ahead.
==========================
Umm, would unpredictable be too strong a word, Leif ?
Bart says:
October 1, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Have some oatmeal
It is people like you and your ilk that make one feel pity for the human race. You should be ashamed of yourself, but probably are not.
u.k.(us) says:
October 1, 2012 at 3:45 pm
Umm, would unpredictable be too strong a word, Leif ?
Probably, as it seems that we can predict at least between half and one cycle ahead:
http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle%20%28SORCE%202010%29.pdf
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Jiang-Choudhuri-2007.pdf
REPLY: Copied fixed link here. W.P. steals some special chars so needs unicode. -ModE ]
WordPress mangles the file name at times, this may work better:
http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle%20%28SORCE%202010%29.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 1, 2012 at 4:18 pm
WordPress mangles the file name at times, this may work better:
http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle%20%28SORCE%202010%29.pdf
==========================
Thanks for the update, Leif.
I scanned the first few pages, which certainly confirmed I was in over my head.
I’ll give it another try though.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 1, 2012 at 4:01 pm
“It is people like you and your ilk that make one feel pity for the human race. You should be ashamed of yourself, but probably are not.”
Right back atcha’, big guy. You have no consideration whatsoever for other people. I’m just feeding you a mirror image. Don’t like what you see? Then, heal thyself, and start engaging constructively with people who, incredibly as it may seem, know a few things you do not.
Bart says:
October 1, 2012 at 5:18 pm
Right back atcha’
As I said you have no shame.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 1, 2012 at 4:13 pm
“The SSN is at most predictable one cycle ahead.”
“Probably, as it seems that we can predict at least between half and one cycle ahead:”
And, so, you find yourself having to climb down, because you let your emotions get to you, and had to issue a categorical imperative, pound your chest, and bellow your alpha status.
Pah! It’s possible to predict several cycles ahead. Actually, you can predict as far as you like, but the predictions don’t mean much without error bars. That’s what the Kalman Filter formalism gives you.
Vucevik’s done a creditable right here, using just trial and error. An advanced method would be able to do a lot more, but you don’t want to hear about it. That’s your choice.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 1, 2012 at 5:26 pm
“As I said you have no shame.”
Mirror, mirror…
Bart says:
October 1, 2012 at 5:30 pm
Actually, you can predict as far as you like, but the predictions don’t mean much without error bars.
Error bars larger than the ‘predicted’ values make the predictions useless to the point that they are no predictions at all. You seem not to have learned anything from our discussion, which would fit with your idea of ‘oatmeal’ being constructive engagement..
Serious and reliable prediction is of great societal and monetary importance.
From Bart on October 1, 2012 at 2:19 pm:
I was outdoors a while ago grilling sausage. I watched some stalks of overgrown grass, weeds, as their seedpod heads swayed in the wind, somewhat repeatably. I would not call them oscillators. Inherent in the concept of an oscillator is transformation, a stream of energy is transformed into a regulated pattern.
But what transforming were the stalks doing? Generalized, they were just a wad of cotton fibers wrapped around the end of a thin elastic rod. With a constant air flow, the heads should bend over so far and stay there, once the force from the wind balanced the elastic force from the stalk. Why were they coming back?
Which leads to the revelation I’m not watching the weeds acting as an oscillator, I’m watching the weeds react to variations in the wind.
Which brings up the importance of knowing the model, the physical mechanisms involved. Observations and correlations may indicate something worth investigating. But without having a plausible mechanism, that can be tested, they have little value. It is very important to identify the driver and the driven, and what is an effect of being driven. By observing the seedpods alone I might determine the weeds are oscillators, but the model reveals they are driven, and would not show apparent oscillation without the wind varying.
I can observe changes with a very regular and repeatable structure, by observing the display of my LCD wristwatch. But I do not declare the display an oscillator as I know the underlying mechanism. We have assorted old wind-up analog clocks with some stochastic or chaotic variation, that are predictable with calculable error bounds. But likewise I do not declare their hands and faces to be oscillators.
Provide a plausible testable physical mechanism, or you just have numbers. I can find existing examples with similar “predictable” apparent patterns to that seen with the solar cycles, that are not oscillators. I can find those that by simple observation could be declared oscillators, if it was not known they were driven by the real oscillators, or even by non-oscillating variations.
So provide the plausible testable mechanism where the Sun as an oscillator has the output of the observed solar cycles. Provide the proposed driving force. Provide the proposed restoring force, which would be required. Then you may have a chance at being persuasive.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 1, 2012 at 5:55 pm
Do you really think you are supplying information here?
“Error bars larger than the ‘predicted’ values make the predictions useless to the point that they are no predictions at all.”
No kidding??!! Duh… gee, Laef, I never’da thunk ’bout it lak thayat. Is that really how you see yourself? Is this a joke? For crying out loud, get over yourself.
Reply: This is getting close to the edge of too insulting. I’m letting it through as Leif is a strong personality who can deal with it. Please be more polite. -ModE]
Bart says:
October 1, 2012 at 5:49 pm
“As I said you have no shame.”
Mirror, mirror…
I am amazed at your capacity for demeaning yourself. I guess I have not been exposed enough to people like you at the bottom of the scale. Well, one learns all the time. Very sad.
richardscourtney wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1097319
Mr. Courtney opens his comment with two argumentative fallacies, which are appeal to (anonymous) majority, who allegedly supported his accusations, and poisoning the well. The first one probably serves the function to reassure himself and as a try of intimidation, the second one to create a bias against the opponent from the beginning.
I do not lie. I misperceive things, sometimes. I make mistakes, sometimes. I do not phrase precisely enough, sometimes, what I want to say, But I do not deliberately tell falsehoods. These are comments in an opinion blog, not everything said here is perfect. I’m not perfect. I apologize for all the instances where I have done this, and to be on the safe side, already for all future instances.
What “detail” in the IPCC Report is supposed to have shown that I deliberately told a falsehood?
I have to admit I still fail to anticipate the high degree of maliciousness, with which “skeptics” like Mr. Courtney, when they have lost the scientific argument, twist words in someones mouth, just to make some cheap propaganda points and to have a pretext to personally attack the opponent. I said the IPCC Report agrees with my views, essentially. I wanted to have a theoretical basis for discussion, without the need to explain all my views here, first. Expecting, using the world essentially would be sufficient, I did not anticipate that this was going to be twisted in a way, that I allegedly said to agree with every single word in there. I should have explicitly stated that this doesn’t mean to agree with everything. My bad.
1. The statement to which I had replied originally was about “flat” temperatures “for 15 years”, which, given the context, likely was made to suggest, that those “flat” temperatures contradict the prediction of a global warming.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1095799
What the IPCC Report said about “committed warming” didn’t play a role there. It was about a statement I made.
I replied to that here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1097319
Then JJ replied to my reply:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1097319
So, JJ’s argument, as I understand it, was that a time period of “15 years” make the difference for the assertion global warming “stopped”.
The topic was still not what the IPCC Report said about “committed warming”.
In reply to that I brought an example for 16 years “flat” temperature record from the last 40 years, which turned out to be only a wobble within an intact multi-decadal trend of a statistical significant temperature increase:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:1995/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:1995/trend/plot/uah/from:1980/to:1995/plot/uah/from:1980/to:1995/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/to:1995/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/to:1995/trend/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1995/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1995/trend
(http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1096128)
And my request was to provide the scientific arguments for what makes the difference between the 16 years back then and the recent 15 years of “flat” temperatures, so that recent 15 years were evidence that global warming “stopped”, although back then it was just a temporary wobble due to internal natural variability.
Up to this point, this was the question, and not what the IPCC Report said about “committed warming”.
So far, no one of the “skeptics” has given any scientific argument, not a single one, what is different in Nature today compared to the time period 1980-1995, so recent 15 years were evidence that global warming “stopped”, while it didn’t back then.
2. Mr. Courtney’s has not provided any evidence so far, for his assertion that the recent temperature record was in contradiction to what the IPCC Report says.
I have already made my arguments in my previous comment regarding this, which Mr. Courtney has chosen to ignore, very likely for good reasons. My arguments are:
a)
And the IPCC doesn’t say it must be exact 0.2 K/decade. It says about 0.2 K/decade, of which about 0.1 K/decade are committed. As one can see from the figure, there is an uncertainty range, also for the committed increase:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-ts-26.html
Mr. Courtney has not shown to be able to refute this.
b)
The “about 0.2 K/decade” is the ensemble mean prediction, calculated from all the model realizations. Nature provides only one realization. We can’t restart Nature for the same boundary conditions and randomly perturbed initial conditions to get a statistical sample with sample size > 1. There is no reasonable argument why a single random realization from all possible realizations of a statistical population must be equal to the average of a sample that is an estimate of the mean of the population. If the single realization is within a defined uncertainty range, one can’t draw a valid conclusion, according to which the single realization doesn’t belong to the population.
Mr. Courtney has not shown to be able to refute this.
c)
I also want to point out that there are conditions made in the quote above from the IPCC report, cited by Mr. Courtney, for the about 0.2 K/decade increase, which are:
in the absence of large changes in volcanic or solar forcing.
In reality, at least solar forcing has decreased in the previous decade. Some predict it is going to decrease further in the next years. This has to be taken into account also, when doing an honest comparison between the prediction from the IPCC Report and real world data.
Mr. Courtney has not shown to be able to refute this.
The only scientifically valid approach to demonstrate that the recent temperature record is in contradiction to the statements about “committed warming” or the predictions of the temperature increase made in the IPCC Report, is to demonstrate that the recent temperature record is outside of the uncertainty range of the prediction.
Mr. Courtney has not done this. Therefore he has not demonstrated that the recent temperature record is in contradiction to the statements and predictions in the IPCC Report.
He can’t do it, because the temperature record is not outside the uncertainty range:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
Mr. Courtney goes on,
The rest of your post is similar. Indeed, it purports to be a defence against your exposure as a liar but adds more lies; for example, this
Back to the recent 15-year period and what the IPCC allegedly says about “committed warming”. Mr. Courtney asserts that “committed warming” hasn’t happened, and can’t happen until the year 2020 for reasons of physics.
That is another blatant lie.
I wrote
Such a rise would be extraordinary and is probably a physical impossibility because of the thermal capacity of the oceans.
“Probably a physical impossibility” is NOT “can’t happen … for reasons of physics”.
Indeed, Mr. Courtney did not say, it can’t happen. He said instead, it was “probably a physical impossibility”. I reproduced it as an absolute statement, although he had added a “probably”, which includes the possibility that he was mistaken. My phrasing was not precise, but it was not a deliberate falsehood. I apologize for my sloppy phrasing.
I use the opportunity to get back to this statement by Mr. Courtney:
(http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1095773)
Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that the IPCC Report claimed a “committed warming” of exactly 0.2 K/decade until 2020 (which it didn’t. See above).
Mr. Courtney claims, a rise sufficient to get there from the year 2012 would be “extraordinary”.
I say he is wrong about “extraordinary”. Similar has happened before. I already presented the time period 1980-1995 as the example for a similar “flat” temperature record within the last 40 years, which is very similar to the recent one. From the end of year 1995 to 2000, only five years were left. The decadal trend from 1981 to 2000 was 0.165 K at the end. The globally averaged temperature anomaly increased from about 0.2 K in mid 1996 to about 0.6 K early 1998 in the surface data sets (the satellite data sets show an even larger increase over this short period). That did it.
Now, there are even more than eight years left until the end of 2020.
Bart;
Pah! It’s possible to predict several cycles ahead.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So put your prediction on the table. That’s about the only way the argument gets settled. Make a prediction and we can revisit it in a decade or two or three and see how close you got. Bold claims are meaningless.
I’ll make this observation however. There’s a lot of people who were quite certain that they could predict all manner of things about this planet we live on. We’ve got more information, in more detail, for longer time periods about earth than we do about the sun, and so far all the prognosticators who knew for certain what our climate was going to do and when have wound up with a considerable amount of egg on their faces. By all means, make your prediction. I suggest you keep some paper towels at hand because my prediction is that you’ll need them.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 1, 2012 at 5:59 pm
“Which leads to the revelation I’m not watching the weeds acting as an oscillator, I’m watching the weeds react to variations in the wind.”
Nope. You’re watching the damped oscillations at the natural frequency of the stalk excited by the input wind gusts. This is really a trivial example.
“But without having a plausible mechanism, that can be tested, they have little value. “
Nope. Empirical methods are used all the time. They work. These methods have grown out of functional analysis, which allows an incredibly wide range of processes governed by partial differential equations to be expanded as a set of eigenfunctions harmonic in time. Such behavior is ubiquitous in Nature.
” But I do not declare the display an oscillator as I know the underlying mechanism. “
The underlying mechanism is, in fact, a quartz oscillator.
Adding to the last comment by me, alternatively look at the temperature trend for the various data sets from 1984 to 2003 to also have eight additional years after the period 1980 to 1995. All temperature trends are about or above 0.2 K/decade, despite “flat” temperature from 1980 to 1995.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
Leif Svalgaard says:
Error bars larger than the ‘predicted’ values make the predictions useless to the point that they are no predictions at all.
Leif, please. Show some compassion.
Don’t say things like that in front of the ‘climate scientists’.
davidmhoffer says:
October 1, 2012 at 6:30 pm
“So put your prediction on the table.”
Why should I? It’s not my job. I just know the methodology exceedingly well, and can recognize when it hasn’t been employed even near to its fullest. Vucevik’s demonstration alone is enough to confirm what I say. He nailed the latest cycle peak.
“I suggest you keep some paper towels at hand because my prediction is that you’ll need them.”
I suggest you keep your day job – stand up isn’t for you.
Bart says:
October 1, 2012 at 6:57 pm
I just know the methodology exceedingly well, and can recognize when it hasn’t been employed even near to its fullest.
The world is full of people who ‘know things exceedingly well’. As Mark Twain said “it’s not what you know that gets you in trouble, it is what you know that ain’t”. In science, claims must be validated by successful prediction. If you cannot, you have nothing but numerology, but then lots of people also believe in that, so you are in good company.
JJ says:
October 1, 2012 at 6:52 pm
Show some compassion.
Don’t say things like that in front of the ‘climate scientists’.
I didn’t know they pay attention to error bars…
Jan P Perlwitz says:
I do not lie. I misperceive things, sometimes. I make mistakes, sometimes.
Perhaps if you made fewer ‘mistakes’ and owned up to them when they were pointed out, you wouldn’t be so ‘misunderstood’.
I apologize for all the instances where I have done this, and to be on the safe side, already for all future instances.
Mother never accepted such weak sauce. She knew that an apology could not be sincere if the apologist could not, or would not, bring himself to identify his err.
Then JJ replied to my reply:
“Uh no. Not like that at all. None of those periods is anywhere near fifteeen years in length.
From your arguments above, you demonstrate that you understand and affirm the difference between short periods and long periods WRT statistical significance in trends.”
So, JJ’s argument, as I understand it, was that a time period of “15 years” make the difference for the assertion global warming “stopped”.
No. JJ understands that there is no warming over any period when the trend is zero. Goes to the definition of “trend”.
The issue: is the period in question of sufficient duration to falsify a hypothesis test of the ‘global warming’ conjecture that there exists a dominant and increasing warming factor attributable to anthropogenic CO2.
And my request was to provide the scientific arguments for what makes the difference between the 16 years back then and the recent 15 years of “flat” temperatures, so that recent 15 years were evidence that global warming “stopped”, although back then it was just a temporary wobble due to internal natural variability.
Your request is nonsensical. It demands that the respondent accept your ‘global warming’ theory in order to answer. This is a form of confirmation bias, in that you cannot even conceive of an alternative interpretation such that you can ask an unloaded question. It is also a decidedly unscientific attempt to redefine the null hypothesis. Tsk.
From where we sit, both 15 year periods you refer to may be due to natural variability. There need be no identifiable difference between them, as ‘natural variability’ does not require that there be any. Flat may be followed by falling, by rising, or by more flat.
Conversely, ‘global warming’ theory makes claims that put bounds on the behaviour of the temp trend. What remains before us unanswered is where you draw those bounds. To wit:
Given that you clearly hold your own conceptualization of ‘global warming’ to be a scientific proposition, what are your falsification criteria for temps?
How long can global average surface temps remain flat before you admit your theory is bust?
How long would they have to rise at less than the 0.2C/decade rate predicted by the low end of your scenarios before you will accept that you are wrong?
How much can they drop, before you will come to that conclusion?
These are very simple questions, for someone who has indeed developed a useful ‘theory of climate’. In fact, having the answers to those questions is a necessary condition to any claim to having done so. Be a dear and answer them.
Please be specific.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 1, 2012 at 9:39 am
“Nothing about IHV being erroneous.
—–
The senile grandpa statements keep coming. Nevanlinna has always been in complete opposition to your erroneous IHV construction.
———
You have not demonstrated the truth of your statement that Nevanlinna forced me to “adjust your own derived method of measurement because it was found erroneous by your peers”.
Nevanlinna’s papers suffer from the same problem as aa, because he appends his data to the low end of aa. What matters is the acceptance of IHV/IDV of the geomagnetic community. Here is an excerpt from a recent IAGA publication endorsing our work http://www.leif.org/research/IHV-IDV-Indices-IAGA.png
So, now that we have disposed of your false claim about Nevanlinna, you can go on the your next false claim, please.
I note that you are stooping to the same level as Bart. Very telling, don’t you think?
Nothing about erroneous?? I have at least three occasions where your peers in print have called your data and methods erroneous. Let us first look at the full Nevanlinna account then move on.
The full text reads:
Mayaud’saa-index belongs to the K-index family (Ran-
garajan, 1989). It is determined from two hemispherically
antipodal observatories in England and Australia, giving per-
haps the simplest global index free from local time varia-
tions. The importance of the aa-series as a proxy tool in
solar-terrestrial studies lies in its long duration (since 1868
until present) and in the high degree of homogeneity (Clil-
verd et al., 2002). Note, however, the criticism introduced
by Svalgaard et al. (2003) concerning the secular trend of the
aa-series in the 20th century, that have been claimed to be
erroneous. Recent proofs of the usefulness of the aa-index
series have been given, for example, by Cliver et al. (1998),
Stamper et al. (1999), Lockwood et al. (1999), and Lock-
wood (2003). They utilized the aa-index series in studies
of long-term trends in the solar flux and solar irradiance in
connection with the Earth’s global temperature changes.
Nevanlinna is a long time fan of the aa record and when using the term erroneous he says “that have been claimed”. Have is plural and the aa record is singular so he is clearly directing this at Svalgaard et al.
Mursula and Martini have produced many papers showing the erroneous data and methods with your IHV(2004) construction. In 2005 they write:
The effect of calibrating the sampling change in the
way described above leads to larger values for the
centennial increase. By far the largest relative effect
to the centennial change in IHV-raw due to calibrat-ing the sampling change was found for CLH/FRD
where the increase was only 6% (Mursula et al., 2004,
see Table II in) before calibration but 27% after cal-ibration.
This change is even larger in IHV-cor in-dices which was 6% before and 30% after calibration.
It is interesting to note that, before calibration, the CLH/FRD IHV series was exceptional in
depicting by far the smallest increase of all stations
and that, based on this exceptionally weak increase
at CLH/FRD, (Svalgaard, 2004) erroneously claimed
that there was no increase in geomagnetic activity
during the last 100 years.
I dont think it gets much clearer than this. They attack the data sampling and also the use of the cherry picked mid latitude stations in your 2004 paper (can we get a copy of your 2004 paper?). They like others correct your erroneous data and find that the IHV now more closely follows the aa geomagnetic data. The centennial trend is observed, no flat floor.
In 2009 Mursula, Usoskin and Yakovchouk devote an entire paper to your erroneous use of the rY data where you attempt to iron flat another record (SSN). While the Ry record is related to IHV they do state the corrections needed to your IHV(2004) values.
based on the geomagnetic aa index it was
derived (Lockwood et al., 1999) that the strength of the
heliospheric magnetic field was more than doubled during
the last century, in agreement with a solar magnetic field
model and the observed sunspot numbers (Solanki et al.,
2000, 2002). The increasing centennial trend found in
solar and geomagnetic activity is further supported by
studies using cosmogenic isotopes ( Usoskin et al., 2003;
Solanki et al., 2004 ).
Despite this consistency, some doubt was raised on the
centennial increase in geomagnetic activity. Introducing a
new index of geomagnetic activity, the so-called IHV
(inter-hour variability) index, Svalgaard et al. (2004)
claimed that there is no long-term increase during the
20th century. However, it was shown soon thereafter
that when the effect of the changing data sampling
method in the early century is taken into account, the
IHV indices of all studied stations show a clearly
increasing centennial trend ( Mursula and Martini, 2006).
The centennial increase was recently further verified using
a novel Ah index which is a closer proxy than IHV to the
traditional K-based indices like Kp/Ap, and aa (Mursula
and Martini, 2007a, b ; Martini and Mursula, 2008).
They later go to say in relation to rY:
In this paper we examine the method used by
Svalgaard (2007) and demonstrate that the rY values do
not indicate that the observed Rz
values are under-estimated. (In this paper we concentrate on Wolf
numbers, leaving the analysis of Rg
values for a separate study.)
Rather, the results obtained by Svalgaard (2007)
are largely induced by the arbitrary and erroneous
detrending of the rY series, which enhances the sunspot
activity based on the rY series in the 19th century relative
to more recent times. We also show that the relation
between annually averaged rY values and sunspots is
greatly seasonally dependent, so also inherently inhomo-
geneous. Therefore, claims of need for a significant
revision of sunspot activity in the 19th century are not
founded.
So I dont think we can do away with the “erroneous” term. There are many hundreds of pages collected over a decade that need to be properly collated in relation to your 2004 IHV claims. I will do this and present the results in due course which will hopefully shine some light for the general public, who for the most part in this forum take your rhetoric as fact.
You have been trying to iron flat the geomagnetic, TSI and SSN records to support your claim ” The Sun doesn’t do it”. This is agenda driven science at its worst.
Leif Svalgaard wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1097585
Look at the bright side. Now the number of things you don’t know is Infinite minus 1.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 1, 2012 at 7:14 pm
Fine. Don’t take my advice. Your loss.
The old guard are still clinging onto their outdated “solar crap shoot” theory that is incapable of predicting future solar cycles. There are methods using oscillating principles that very effectively hindcast past SSN and the longer Holocene proxy record, so far these methods are nailing SC24. I have produced a 200 year solar cycle forecast based on these principles that is at present right on track, the rest will be judged by future researchers.
The solar powerwave once understood is a great example of a solar oscillator.
A word of warning to Bart. While Vuk is a likable fellow, I must point out his equation was predicting a high Hathaway style SC24 in the early days.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 1, 2012 at 9:04 pm
As I stated at: October 1, 2012 at 5:30 pm
“An advanced method would be able to do a lot more…”
Vuk’s on the right track. But, these are not wholly deterministic cycles. Incorporating the states of the oscillations into a Kalman filter, with modeled process noise allowing for small stochastic amplitude and phase modulation, and running it backwards and then forwards over the known data to prime it, would create a robust predictor with propagated covariance to provide error bars. It is essential that a sufficiently full and accurate modal expansion be used for the state space – single mode models won’t cut it – and system identification methods need to be used to determine accurate covariance weighting parameters.
Can we drop the gratuitous insults? It does not good for anyone’s arguments. Mostly it makes the person tossing insults look childish and a bit dim. I doubt that is really what you wanted as an effect…
Geoff Sharp says:
October 1, 2012 at 9:04 pm
“The solar powerwave once understood is a great example of a solar oscillator.”
I recall discussing this on other threads. I firmly agree with those who say the only way gravity can influence things is through tidal forces. And, the tidal forces, while not absolutely infinitesimal, are quite small. I think it is a long shot.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 1, 2012 at 8:43 pm
Let us first look at the full Nevanlinna account then move on.
“Note, however, the criticism introduced by Svalgaard et al. (2003) concerning the secular trend of the aa-series in the 20th century, that have been claimed to be erroneous.”
Nevanlinna is a long time fan of the aa record and when using the term erroneous he says “that have been claimed”. Have is plural and the aa record is singular so he is clearly directing this at Svalgaard et al.
He is saying that we [Svalgaard et al.] claimed that aa is erroneous. This has been accepted by later workers. Nevanlinna thanks me for useful comments on his manuscript, so both he and I knew what was being said and meant.
Mursula and Martini have produced many papers showing the erroneous data and methods with your IHV(2004) construction.
“The effect of calibrating the sampling change in the way described above leads to larger values for the centennial increase.”
This was discovered by us and we made M&M aware of this. In paragraph [50] of http://www.leif.org/research/2007JA012437.pdf we note “At our urging, Mursula and Martini [2006] came to the same conclusion”
I dont think it gets much clearer than this.
As you can see you got this backwards.
They attack … the use of the cherry picked mid latitude stations in your 2004 paper
There was no cherry picking. Our original paper was using CLH/FRD because there was a year of overlap [1957] between CLH and FRD allowing firm cross-calibration. And one should only use mid latitude stations in any case.
(can we get a copy of your 2004 paper?).
It is #130 on http://www.leif.org/research/
It may have escaped your attention that the 2004 paper is obsolete and has been replaced by http://www.leif.org/research/2007JA012437.pdf
IHV now more closely follows the aa geomagnetic data.
We show that IHV is a very good approximation to aa, provided that aa is corrected first [by 3 nT before 1957].
The centennial trend is observed
There is, of course, no ‘centennial trend’, aa and IHV increased until mid-century then decreased again back to where they were a hundred years ago.
no flat floor.
Again, you have this completely wrong. The ‘floor’ is the value when all solar activity has stopped. This has only occurred twice [in 1901-1902 and 2008-2009]. Even a small amount of activity at solar minimum increases aa and IHV above the floor value.
In 2009 Mursula, Usoskin and Yakovchouk devote an entire paper to your erroneous use of the rY data where you attempt to iron flat another record (SSN). While the Ry record is related to IHV they do state the corrections needed to your IHV(2004) values.
Their paper is moot as the 2004 paper has been superseded by the 2007 paper.
They later go to say in relation to rY:
Rather, the results obtained by Svalgaard (2007) are largely induced by the arbitrary and erroneous detrending of the rY series
They don’t know what they are talking about. rY should be detrended as shown by Cnossen et al. (2012). http://www.leif.org/EOS/2012JA017555.pdf
They write “[38] We also estimate changes in the Sq amplitude from 1910 to 2010 based on the scaling relations we found. This gives increases of 2.0–2.4, 3.0–4.7, and 1.3–2.0 nT, or 7.2–9.2, 6.2–6.8, and 6.3–6.8% in the northward, eastward, and downward Sq amplitude components, respectively. These values are slightly larger than the average upward trend of 1.3 nT/century reported by Macmillan and Droujinina [2007] or the 2.45 nT/century increase in the eastward component reported by Svalgaard [2009], but smaller than the trends of 4.8–8 nT/century reported by Elias et al. [2010]. Bearing in mind that actual trends are likely to vary from place to place, it appears that changes in dipole moment could make a significant contribution to long-term changes in Sq amplitude.
[39] Svalgaard [2009] noted that in particular the eastward component of the daily Sq variation is a useful indicator of solar activity, and may be used as a tool to calibrate the long-term sunspot number record. Clearly, if geomagnetic data are to be used in this way, the effects of the decreasing dipole moment on Sq variation must be considered and corrected for.
BTW, at the SSN meeting last May, Mursula gave a paper “From Saul to Paul” retracting his misguided ideas about the rY correction [in face of Cnossen’s paper].
in relation to your 2004 IHV claims. I will do this
The 2004 paper has been obsolete for 5 years and you will only make an even bigger fool of yourself by doing that.
You have been trying to iron flat the geomagnetic, TSI and SSN records to support your claim ” The Sun doesn’t do it”.
Since there is now widespread support for our work [the ‘consensus’], it would seem that your violent opposition “is agenda driven nonsense at its worst”.
JanP;
Wow, that’s some response to richardscourtney. What do I have to do to get that kind of detailed response? I observe that you began arguing that GHG’s are currently the dominant factor in climate, and have come full circle to argue that the lack of warming over the past 15 years or so is a product of natural variability drowning out the warming signal. Is “dominant” the word you wish to stick to?
I’d appreciate an answer as well to my other questions, which I reproduce here for your reference:
1. If you dismiss the CET as being regional, you must also dismiss Keith Briffa’s tree ring study which is based on a few trees from Siberia. Yes or no?
2. As you first claimed that IPCC AR4 WG1 was a good representation of your views on the science, but you now claim not in all cases, what is your position on WG1 Chapter 2, Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing, which clearly states that of 14 factors Level of Scientific Understanding is “Low” or “Very Low” for 9 of them, and only a single one is well understood. Do you agree with them on this? Yes or no?
3. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the various models in the IPCC ensemble use similar forcing values for all factors except aerosol forcing. For aerosol forcing, the values used diverge wildly from model to model, but the end result is that the model outputs converge. This demonstrates that aerosol forcing is not being estimated by the scientists or the data, but is being used as a fudge factor to bring the model results into closer agreement with one another. Yes or No?
Bart;
Why should I? It’s not my job
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You claim to have a certain skill. You can either demonstrate the skill or the audience draws their own conclusions regarding your claim.
davidmhoffer says:
October 1, 2012 at 10:37 pm
Draw whatever conclusion you like. I’ve given evidences. I’ve explained with extraordinary patience. You can look up everything I’ve told you. You can do the analysis yourself with the information I’ve provided. If you cannot, or refuse to, please tell me why I should care.
BTW – I’ve tried to understand why you got so worked up over my comparing Leif to a befuddled old man because of his apparent inability to follow a linear line of argument. I figure, either you’ve had to deal with a tragedy in your family (who hasn’t?) or you think I was making fun of Leif for being old. Well, I’m at least as old as Leif, and if I’m one of the “lucky” ones, I’ll end up in a Home somewhere soon enough, drooling and expiring in a cloud of effluvia myself. We all face that. Death is part of Life. You deal with it, and you move on. It’s not going to stop just because you tiptoe around it. For the record, my Grandad and I were very close. But, he’d have cuffed me one if I’d gone all mawkish on him.
JJ wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1097616
Then your conclusion from the “Zero” trend is logically wrong. The warming is a physical process. Trend is just a statistical measure. Not being able to get a statistically significant trend over a time period allows only the conclusion that a trend could not be measured, and a warming is not detectable. Non detectability of warming over a time period is not the same as absence of warming, because you can’t logically exclude the possibility, from just looking at the data from the limited time period, that the warming is only masked by noise and the trend becomes statistically significant when the time period is longer. You can’t have warming and no warming at the same time. A statement and its negation can’t be true at the same time.
BTW: Global warming isn’t just atmospheric warming. Global warming is heat accumulation in the troposphere, oceans, land, cryosphere, due to a perturbed radiative balance by greenhouse gases. Tropospheric warming isn’t the most important aspect of this heat accumulation. Heat accumulation in the oceans is, since most of the additional energy from the perturbed radiation balance goes directly into the oceans.
You cite me:
And my request was to provide the scientific arguments for what makes the difference between the 16 years back then and the recent 15 years of “flat” temperatures, so that recent 15 years were evidence that global warming “stopped”, although back then it was just a temporary wobble due to internal natural variability.
Your answer:
It only requests that the responded accepts that there had been a statistically significant temperature increase from a diagnostic point of view. No agreement with respect to attribution or the whole theory required. Anyone who claims global warming “stopped”, “ceased” has accepted such an increase. Something that hasn’t been there in the first hand, can’t stop.
The null hypothesis? Your statement presumes that there was a predefined Null hypotheses, the one and only one. Who has determined what the Null hypothesis is? God? I don’t believe in god.
The Null hypothesis is always a matter of a subjective choice in science. There is no such thing as an objective Null hypothesis. Where should such an objective Null hypothesis come from?
Of course, you are free to have any arbitrary opinion about this. Like about anything and its opposite.
However, the assertion is usual the one that the recent 15 years of “flat” temperatures scientifically proved that there was no global warming, or falsified the climate theory, which predicts global warming. And this is a positive statement, not just a speculation it could be this or that. The ones who make such a statement have the burden of proof, or at least the burden to make a scientific argument.
What are the falsification criteria for an asteroid trajectory? Uncertainty bounds. What if the asteroid trajectory moves outside those bounds? Does this outright falsify the whole astrophysics or theory of relativity?
The question is not precise enough. You have to think about what exactly is “the theory”. Generally speaking, I say if the temperature behaves in a way that is not explainable within the current theory, then my theory has a serious problem. But not every divergence of the temperature from the model predictions would fulfill that. Model predictions are not the theory. Models are not the theory. Such a divergence could come from anthropogenic emission scenarios, which could be different in reality compared to what was prescribed for the model predictions. Not a problem of the models, not a problem of the theory. Or, for instance, we enter a period with massive volcanic explosions, blowing large amounts of reflecting aerosols in the stratosphere, which have a strong cooling effect. Real world forcing would be quite different from what was prescribed in the model simulations, temperature would diverge downward from the predictions. This would not falsify the theory, since it is fully explainable within the theory. If it wasn’t I wouldn’t do it right now. It only would falsify those specific model simulations, caused by the different boundary conditions, compared to the real world forcing.
So, when we validate the model simulations and compare real world data to the model simulations, such effects (e.g., the divergence of solar forcing from what was prescribed for the future projections in the simulations) have always be taken into consideration before jumping to conclusions.
Having said that, if there is still no statistically significant temperature increase (after correcting for any divergence in the forcings between real world, e.g., solar forcing, and what was prescribed in the models) in the year 2020, then I would have to scratch my head, and think about whether something is seriously wrong with my understanding of the climate system. It doesn’t mean the whole theory must be wrong. There could be some aspects wrong. I wouldn’t jump to conclusions, like anthropogenic greenhouse gases weren’t climate drivers. I very much doubt radiation and atmosphere physics is wrong with respect to that. My best, but I don’t think likely candidate for the possibility causing such a flat trend are modes of ocean variability that we haven’t understood or even known yet, making natural variability larger than we thought. All the physics with respect to climate drivers could still be right in this case, nevertheless it would mean we have some serious lack of understanding regarding important aspects of the climate system.
There is no such prediction that the increase must be exact 0.2 K/decade.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 1, 2012 at 9:55 pm
Since there is now widespread support for our work [the ‘consensus’], it would seem that your violent opposition “is agenda driven nonsense at its worst”.
I think you might be getting a little carried away. By revising down your IHV and IDV values and the Lockwood camp moving theirs up slightly there is some consensus between these two groups only from now to 1900. Lockwood is still very much in doubt of the floor value as is Steinhilber, Usoskin, Solanki, Cliver, Clilverd, Mursula, Martini, Nevanlinna etc to name a few. The consensus for last century which is now revealed in your own work is that the HMF baseline values rose from 1900 to 1960 then dipped, rose again to 1990 and then began its decline. If the PDO is taken into consideration the temperature trend follows nicely.
There is still considerable work that needs to be performed on the IHV data before 1900.
davidmhoffer wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1097723
Being as noisy as him? Calling me “a liar” as often as he does? 😉
No, that is not quite correct. I said “climate driver”. Did I say “factor” anywhere? I doubt it. “Factor” is not specific enough. If I said “factor” at some point I misspoke. Usually I say “climate driver”. Greenhouse gases have become the dominant climate driver on a multi-decadal and centuries time-scale. Internal natural variability is not a climate driver, it’s a factor/aspect in the climate system, but not a driver. A climate driver is an external forcing. Internal variability belongs to what is driven. So there is no contradiction, and I still say what I said before.
First you have to show me that he claimed a few trees from Siberia were representative for the global (or Northern Hemisphere) climate. If he did I would like to see his argument for why this was the case, because I don’t see what argument could be made for it. Did he? Where?
Yes, I do. I understand this as a statement about the understanding of the physics or chemistry behind it. It doesn’t mean that the uncertainty range of the forcings, from a purely diagnostic point of view, is minus Infinite to plus Infinite.
I’m not going to reply to that. I have argued about this in more than one comment, and the arguments had progressed already. Now you just jump back to the initial assertion. The thread has become recursive here. I’m not playing this game.
One of the marvels of WUWT is that one is encouraged to examine questions such as, “Is Gloopy Soup an Oscillator?”
I think it is really; the heat is the forcing element, encouraging bubbling, and gravity the restoring force, as it pushes soup into the place the bubble came from. Although it comes to a natural end, when all the soup has boiled off. As our Sun will one fine aeon.
As for reeds blowing in the wind (getting a bit Biblical here) – plainly an oscillating rod, prodded intermittently by a varying wind.
And: we must distinguish between being wrong on the one hand, and lying (intending to deceive) on the other. I am often wrong, but attempt never to lie,
Mr Perlwitz:
I am writing to reply to your extremely long but evasive and self-indulgent missive at October 1, 2012 at 6:27 pm.
In this thread you have lied again and again. At October 1, 2012 at 2:01 am I wrote to explain some of those lies, and at October 1, 2012 at 8:07 am you wrote a diatribe in supposed rebuttal of the facts I had stated. My response to that was at October 1, 2012 at 2:40 pm and it began by saying;
And your reply (to which I am responding) is a ridiculous claim of my being illogical when you write
Bollocks!
My statement was of facts – not of assertion and/or argument – and I had demonstrated those facts in my post at October 1, 2012 at 2:01 am earlier. The facts are
1. You lied repeatedly
and
2. anybody with access to the internet can read my post at October 1, 2012 at 2:01 am.
It is no wonder that your statements on this thread are so devoid of logic when you proclaim you do not know the difference between evidenced fact and logic.
You follow that inanity with this
JJ answered that at October 1, 2012 at 8:03 pm and his response is so good – and so restrained – that I cannot better it. He wrote
You then ask me
Clearly, you have reading comprehension difficulties because I repeatedly explained that. For example, in the post you claim to be answering I quoted you having said
and I replied
Your response to that was to write
Therefore, I replied
You said IPCC “science” was your understanding of the “science”, you claim the recent 15-year temperature stasis has no relevance, I point out that the IPCC explains the recent stasis is different from any previous similar stasis, and you respond that you don’t accept that IPCC “detail” is “science”.
Let me recap. So far in this post I have only addressed your introductory remarks but I have already explained that your post says:
You don’t know what constitutes an evidenced fact.
You don’t understand logic.
You don’t understand logical fallacies.
You often state falsehoods but say those statements are “mistakes”.
You don’t apologise for those mistakes.
You don’t understand what you have written so need to have it explained to you.
You don’t understand what others write so need to have it explained to you.
You claim your understanding of climate “science” is as stated by the IPCC but refute the predictions of IPCC “science”.
You ‘change your tune’ when it is shown you made a false statement.
And then you write this
Firstly, I have not been “malicious”. Indeed, I have been very gentle with you considering your lies, deceits and obfuscations.
Secondly, I have NOT “lost” any “scientific argument” with you. On the contrary, despite repeated requests from me and others you have yet to address my first post in this thread (at September 28, 2012 at 1:35 pm) which explained how all (except perhaps one) of the climate models emulates a different climate system from that of the real Earth. You have “lost” every scientific argument you have had with me and with others in this thread.
Thirdly, nothing you wrote was “twisted” by anybody. It was quoted and addressed in the terms you stated.
It seems that in addition to your claims about yourself which I have listed, your assertions of “maliciousness”, “lost scientific arguments” and “twisted words” are assertions by you that you are delusional.
You then go on to disputation with JJ and he has rebutted those specious assertions so I need not give further answer to them.
And you follow that with more delusional assertion when you write
I shall assume you wrote this as another of your self-proclaimed frequent “mistakes” which has been induced by your difficulties with reading comprehension. In fact, you repeatedly tried to dispute my evidence which I clearly stated in my post at September 30, 2012 at 8:33 am.
You then provide another of your lies (or should that be “mistakes”) when you write
It is not true that I have “chosen to ignore” anything. The uncertainty range does not alter my point about the “committed warming” in any way because +/- 20% of nothing is nothing. The uncertainty range is an irrelevance and I chose to not be side-tracked into discussion of irrelevance. Simply, there is and was nothing (both literally and metaphorically) for me to “refute”.
And you continue
The IPCC draws a “the single realization”: argue with them about that, not me. I accepted it because YOU said the IPCC represents your view of the “science” so I was addressing your view.
Importantly, this goes to the heart of my point about all (except at most one) of the models NOT modelling the climate system of the real Earth. It seems you are now agreeing this but you claim that ‘average wrong = right’.
Yes, I said – indeed, I quoted – that in my explanation at September 30, 2012 at 8:33 am.
And you continue saying
There is nothing for me to “refute”. You are claiming that GHGs are “dominant” but now you claim they have recently been overwhelmed by changes in “solar forcing”. This is a direct statement by you that you are wrong. I cannot think why you would suggest I could want to refute it.
You continue
Bart,
I’ve followed you in several threads on several blogs, and you follow a consistant pattern. You being by mentioning that you are an EE, then follow that with comments about having designed actual instrumentation that actually works, and demanding that your opinion be accepted on that basis. When it is isn’t, you begin hurling insults. Thread after thread the pattern is the same. Your behaviour is boorish, rude, insulting, ugly, and uncalled for. The attempt in you last comment to suggest that I am reacting to you out of some deep seated pychological scar is the most egregious of these tactics. You were over the line of civil discourse and I called you on it as did others. This has nothing to do with me and everything to do with your poor behaviour.
As to the technical merits of your argument, I’ve followed them. I think you are wrong, and so I challenged you to put a verifiable prediction on the table. You have refused, cited rather flimsy excuses, and attempted to turn the discussion to my pychological background. You resemble the climate alarmists in this regard. You site your “credentials”, become all bluster and anger when someone won’t bow to your opinion, and when asked for a verifiable prediction, full of excuses.
And you do it all from an anonymous identity.
‘Nuff said.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 2, 2012 at 12:45 am
Lockwood is still very much in doubt of the floor value as is Steinhilber, Usoskin, Solanki, Cliver, Clilverd, Mursula, Martini, Nevanlinna etc to name a few.
They will come around as they have for the other things. That is what we have the ISSI workshop for. We have good data back to 1835 and the floor value has been observed to be 4 nT [and only reached twice]. What goes before is conjecture. A hint of what is to come may be the conclusion of Owens and Lockwood:
“the CME rate observed during recent solar cycle minima is also the CME rate that existed throughout the Maunder Minimum” JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 117, A04102, doi:10.1029/2011JA017193, 2012 suggesting [to me] similar solar magnetic field
BTW, Steinhilber et al. has a un-physical negative floor value… and Clilverd, Mursula, Martini, Nevanlinna don’t mention any floor values.
There is still considerable work that needs to be performed on the IHV data before 1900.
Since the floor is derived from IDV, not IHV you may be a bit confused. In any case, work is ongoing to further extend and solidify both IDV and IHV back to the 1830s.
Jan P Perlwitz:
In your post addressed to JJ at October 2, 2012 at 12:21 am you ask
Moderators:
My two recent posts included ‘open quotation’ where they should have provided ‘closed quotation’. In each case the erroneous formatting instruction was the final formatting instruction in the post.
I apologise for these errors and request that you correct them if they are likely to affect formatting of subsequent posts in the thread.
Sorry.
Richard
REPLY: I can’t determine where the blockquotes might go, so I leave them uncorrected. I suggest you simply submit new corrected comments and I’ll delete the old ones – Anthony
There is something odd about HMF-B (IDV ?) measurements before and after start of the space age (ground /satellite measurements ?).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HMF-JT.htm
Perhaps Dr. Svalgaard may wish to comment.
Min – Max of HMF and June coincidence should be of some interest to those interested in the natural variability.
Dr. Perlwitz dismisses external variability (puts it on a par with noise), well he couldn’t be more wrong, but as I see from flow of the discussion he is wrong on numerous other processes. He has insurmountable problem of replacing his beliefs with a knowledge, it could be done but for Dr. Perlwitz unlikely.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 2, 2012 at 6:08 am
“BTW, Steinhilber et al. has a un-physical negative floor value…”
You say un-physical but the isotope record at least is a single source of data that is not corrupted by the unlimited variables that exist in the geomagnetic record. It is painfully obvious the solar position right now is in a different league to a Maunder type event so we are not getting close to testing the water of a deep grand minimum. Your mate Cliver in a paper this year points this out even suggesting a zero state could be possible during a Maunder event, with a much lower nT reading than the 3.9 values recorded recently.
I don’t think we will have a Maunder type event for many hundreds of years so the floor question might not be resolved until then, the biggest take away message is that current conditions are very mild on the grand minima scale, to think today’s values apply to a Maunder type event might leave one open to ridicule.
richardscourtney wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1097984
I am not going to reply to everything by Mr. Courtney’s, most of what he wrote is a lot of noise, diversion, and ad personam drivel anyway, only to some factual assertions.
Mr. Courtney asserts:
Is Mr. Courtney delusional or is he just making things up? We are in the year 2012. The IPCC Report was published in 2007, the final draft was from 2005 or 2006. How can the IPCC Report have said anything about the “recent 15-year temperature stasis” and how it was different compared to “previous similar stasis”?
Mr. Courtney linked to this page of the IPCC Report:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-5-1.html
There is not a single word there about how the “recent stasis” was different to “previous similar stasis”. Mr. Courtney is lying or he has to provide the quote where the IPCC Report says anything like this.
This was one apparent lie by Mr. Courtney.
Concerning my statement, about the uncertainty range of the “committed warming” and the predictions in the IPCC-Report,
And the IPCC doesn’t say it must be exact 0.2 K/decade. It says about 0.2 K/decade, of which about 0.1 K/decade are committed. As one can see from the figure, there is an uncertainty range, also for the committed increase
he replies:
It’s about the uncertainty ranges of the “committed warming” and the scenario predictions, provided in the IPCC Report. Is Mr. Courtney claiming now, the values for the “committed warming” or the scenario predictions stated in the IPCC Report were “nothing”? Didn’t he assert before it was 0.1 K/decade and 0.2 K/decade, respectively? And even if the values for the “committed warming” and the scenario predictions, provided in the IPCC Report, had been 0 K/decade, the uncertainty range still would be a temperature range around this Zero, instead of “nothing”. It becomes more and more clear to me that Mr. Courtney doesn’t have any clue with respect to statistical metrics. He doesn’t know what he is talking about regarding statistics. Therefore he produces these kind of nonsense statements like the one quoted here.
Also following statement by Mr. Courtney points to this:
Here is the Figure ones more, about which Mr. Courtney claims the lines drawn there were just a “single realization”:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-ts-26.html
The Figure is on the same page from above:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-5-1.html
And what does it say in the caption of the Figure?
Figure TS.26. Model projections of global mean warming compared to observed warming. Observed temperature anomalies, as in Figure TS.6, are shown as annual (black dots) and decadal average values (black line)…Multi-model mean projections from this report for the SRES B1, A1B and A2 scenarios, as in Figure TS.32, are shown for the period 2000 to 2025 as blue, green and red curves with uncertainty ranges indicated against the right-hand axis…
It says multi-model mean projections. There is no possibility of a doubt that the lines for the model simulations in the graphic are the average over all the simulations done with multiple models, instead single realizations.
Thus, Mr. Courtney is lying when he says, “The IPCC draws a ‘the single realization'” or he doesn’t know the difference between a single realization from all possible realizations of a statistical population on one hand and, on the other hand, the average of a sample of the statistical population, or the mean of the statistical population. Here I tend to go with that Mr. Courtney is just incompetent in statistics. I suspect he didn’t understand a single word about what I wrote in my previous comments about the difference between a single realization and the average of a sample, and what the mistake is when one compares the average with the single realization and, because the single realization diverged from the average, claims the average was wrong.
Mr. Courtney quotes a statement by me:
In reality, at least solar forcing has decreased in the previous decade. Some predict it is going to decrease further in the next years. This has to be taken into account also, when doing an honest comparison between the prediction from the IPCC Report and real world data.
He replies with a statement that he very likely would have called a blatant lie, if I had done this with one of his statements:
I said and say greenhouse gases have become the dominant climate driver on a multi-decadal and centuries time scale. Nowhere, neither in my statement quoted here or anywhere else, did I say anything about greenhouse gases have “recently been overwhelmed by changes in ‘solar forcing'”.
I say it has to be “taken into account” when comparing model simulations with real world data, because the model simulations prescribed always the same solar cycle for their future part. Where does Mr. Courtney see an “overwhelmed” in my statement, when I say “solar forcing” has decreased? Since when does “decreased” means the same as “overwhelmed”? He is making this totally up.
Mr. Courtney seems to be a proven liar, according to his own criteria.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
“No. JJ understands that there is no warming over any period when the trend is zero. Goes to the definition of “trend”.”
Then your conclusion from the “Zero” trend is logically wrong.
No. MY conclusion is that “trend” has a meaning and I apply it. The conclusion that you attempt to put in my mouth is not my conclusion. Stop telling lies.
It only requests that the responded accepts that there had been a statistically significant temperature increase from a diagnostic point of view. No agreement with respect to attribution or the whole theory required. Anyone who claims global warming “stopped”, …
Must have first accepted that ‘global warming’ had started. If on the other hand, the warming and flat and cooling periods are assumed to be the result of natural variation, your question is nonsensical, for the reasons previously stated.
Something that hasn’t been there in the first hand, can’t stop.
Yes, exactly. I think that we can both agree that natural variation was there in the first hand, and remains. You assert that there was something else present during both of the 15 year periods you refer to – ‘global warming’. You are the one with something to prove.
The null hypothesis? Your statement presumes that there was a predefined Null hypotheses, the one and only one.
No. With respect to our discussion, the null hypothesis is the null hypothesis with respect to the assertion that there exists what you conceive of as a dominant, anthropogenic, CO2 driven effect: ‘global warming’. The null hypothesis being that there does not.
Who has determined what the Null hypothesis is?
Science. Logic.
God? I don’t believe in god.
What an odd thing to say in the context of this discussion.
However, the assertion is usual the one that the recent 15 years of “flat” temperatures scientifically proved that there was no global warming, or falsified the climate theory, which predicts global warming.
Rather than ginning up another strawman, how about you stick to what I have actually said? I have made no such assertion. I have asked you questions.
Given that you clearly hold your own conceptualization of ‘global warming’ to be a scientific proposition, what are your falsification criteria for temps?
What are the falsification criteria for an asteroid trajectory? Uncertainty bounds. What if the asteroid trajectory moves outside those bounds? Does this outright falsify the whole astrophysics or theory of relativity?
At some point, such incidents would be taken to falsify that theory of asteroid trajectories, irrespective of the implications to larger fields of understanding. Similarly, ‘global warming’ may fall without threatening quantum mechanics or the laws of thermodynamics.
How long can global average surface temps remain flat before you admit your theory is bust?
The question is not precise enough.
Yes it is.
Having said that, if there is still no statistically significant temperature increase (after correcting for any divergence in the forcings between real world, e.g., solar forcing, and what was prescribed in the models) in the year 2020, then I would have to scratch my head, and think about whether something is seriously wrong with my understanding of the climate system.
I did not ask you for the period over which lack of warming would make you scratch your head and ask the question “Is ‘global warming’ theory wrong”. I asked you for the period over which lack of warming would cause you to answer that question with a definitive “Yes”.
Is the ~25 year period that you have stipulated sufficient for that, or not? If not, please revise your answer.
How long would they have to rise at less than the 0.2C/decade rate predicted by the low end of your scenarios before you will accept that you are wrong?</b
There is no such prediction that the increase must be exact 0.2 K/decade.
Duh. Hence my question. Please answer it.
And this one as well:
How much can they drop, before you will come to that conclusion?
Anthony:
In response to my pointing out my formatting errors, you kindly write
I see no need to put you to all that trouble. However, in case there are people who cannot see where I made the formatting mistakes I inform as follows.
In my post at October 2, 2012 at 4:01 am I wrongly input a ‘open quotation instead a of a ‘close quotation’ after JPP’s sentence saying.
“He can’t do it, because the temperature record is not outside the uncertainty range:”
And before my statements saying,
“OK. First, and for sake of argument, let us accept that the predicted 0.2°C rise over the last decade did occur but cannot be discerned because of uncertainty in the measurement data.”
Then, in my post at October 2, 2012 at 6:44 am I wrongly input a ‘open quotation instead a of a ‘close quotation’ after JPP’s sentence saying.
“Where should such an objective Null hypothesis come from?”
And before my sentence saying,
“Your questions display such a fundamental lack of understanding of the scientific method that your ignorance of their answers probably goes a long way to explaining your behaviour in this thread.”
Sorry.
Richard
JanP;
No, that is not quite correct. I said “climate driver”.
>>>>>>>>>>
OK, let’s use the term you prefer:
I observe that you began arguing that GHG’s are currently the dominant climate driver, and have come full circle to argue that the lack of warming over the past 15 years or so is a product of natural variability drowning out the warming signal. Is “dominant” the word you wish to stick to?
JanP;
First you have to show me that he claimed a few trees from Siberia were representative for the global (or Northern Hemisphere) climate. If he did I would like to see his argument for why this was the case, because I don’t see what argument could be made for it. Did he? Where?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Either you dismiss his study in the context of global warming as regional, or you don’t. As you indicate in your response that you don’t see what argument can be made for it, I assume you dismiss it as regional until shown otherwise?
JanP;
Yes, I do. I understand this as a statement about the understanding of the physics or chemistry behind it. It doesn’t mean that the uncertainty range of the forcings, from a purely diagnostic point of view, is minus Infinite to plus Infinite.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Much of the debate regarding CO2’s effects relates to feedbacks. Given then we poorly understand the bulk of the factors relating to uncertainties in radiative forcing, including how they affect each other as well as what their range of forcing is, our understanding of the feedback effects of CO2 and other GHG’s in isolation may be high, but as part of a highly chaotic system with multiple feedback mechanisms, the over all effect of CO2 including all feedbacks cannot be estimated with a high degree of confidence. It isn’t about each driver alone, it is the manner in which the drivers are interrelated. Since we don’t even understand the bulk of the drivers in isolation well, we cannot possibly understand the system well.
JanP;
I’m not going to reply to that. I have argued about this in more than one comment, and the arguments had progressed already. Now you just jump back to the initial assertion. The thread has become recursive here. I’m not playing this game.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your answers were evasive and did not directly address the issue. Your answers were to the effect that there was a large range of uncertainty in aerosol forcing, and hence different models used values reflective of that uncertainty. This is precisely the point richardscourtney originaly raised. If the values used by the models are in general agreement on other drivers, then the wide range of values for aerosol forcing ought to cause them to diverge. Instead, they cause them to converge. If the models used a broad range of forcings for other drivers, then your argument would hold water. But they don’t, they use similar forcings. The only possible conclusion one can draw from this is that the range of uncertainty for aerosols is being used as a fudge factor to bring the model outputs into a given range. As richardscourtney repeatedly points out, there can only be one correct value. Run all the models with the same value and you will get huge disparities. Do it in a small an increment as you wish, across as broad a range of uncertainty as you wish, but each value will result in huge disparities between the models, showing rather conclusively that the underlying logic of the models themselves is wrong in the first place (or at best, all except one are wrong).
Geoff Sharp says:
October 2, 2012 at 7:41 am
You say un-physical but the isotope record at least is a single source of data that is not corrupted by the unlimited variables that exist in the geomagnetic record.
Regardless, a negative value for the field strength is unphysical.
And the isotope record is heavily influenced by a host of other variables than just the solar field. The climate and general circulation of the Earth’s atmosphere are two very important unknowns with a large influence.
It is painfully obvious the solar position right now is in a different league to a Maunder type event so we are not getting close to testing the water of a deep grand minimum.
It may pain you a lot, but there are good reasons for suggesting a coming Maunder Minimum. More important than a suggestion are the assessment by Schrijver et al. that TSI and the open flux during the MM were comparable to the 2009 minimum, and by Owens and Lockwood that the CME rate during the MM was comparable to that in 2009. A good working hypothesis is that solar activity did not disappear during MM and that the dynamo was working as usual, but that the solar magnetic field did not assemble into visible spots as the L&P data suggest may be happening again: http://www.leif.org/research/Disappearance-of-Visible-Spots.pdf . of course, only time will tell [and soon to boot]
Your mate Cliver in a paper this year points this out even suggesting a zero state could be possible during a Maunder event, with a much lower nT reading than the 3.9 values recorded recently.
Ed is basing that on the assumption that the polar fields went to zero during the MM. The vigorous modulation of GCRs during the MM argues strongly against a zero polar fields.
to think today’s values apply to a Maunder type event might leave one open to ridicule.
Valid scientific arguments never leaves one open to ridicule, a good example is Eddy’s paper on the MM. Scientists do not think in terms of ridicule and the like. Pseudo-scientists do.
vukcevic says:
October 2, 2012 at 7:28 am
There is something odd about HMF-B (IDV ?) measurements before and after start of the space age (ground /satellite measurements ?).
What is odd? That the CET correlation breaks down recently? Such breakdown is the usual fate of spurious correlations.
vukcevic says:
October 2, 2012 at 7:28 am
There is something odd about HMF-B (IDV ?) measurements before and after start of the space age (ground /satellite measurements ?).
What is odd? That the CET correlation breaks down recently?
Congratulations, you may just have proven AGW as your CET has gone up recently while HMF has gone down to its floor value also reached around 1900.
richardscourtney wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1098125
Null-hypothesis is all about statistics, but science, the progress from hypotheses to theory is not just a process of pure statistics, but this aside.
I’m only commenting some central points.
Says who? You? The Committee for Dictating The Null Hypothesis”?
If this was true, science, human knowledge could never progress, because it only would revolve around rejecting the only one Null Hypothesis over and over again forever. You never could get to the state where the proposition about the change has been successfully tested and is being acknowledged as scientifically (not mathematically!) proven, and becomes the new default for what is being inter-subjectively accepted as “truth”.
The Null hypothesis is not the case without change, necessarily. The Null hypothesis is the “general or default position”:
Here from wikipedia:
The practice of science involves formulating and testing hypotheses, assertions that are capable of being proven false using a test of observed data. The null hypothesis typically corresponds to a general or default position. For example, the null hypothesis might be that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena[1] or that a potential treatment has no effect.[2]
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis)
Here from a statistical glossary:
The null hypothesis, H0, represents a theory that has been put forward, either because it is believed to be true or because it is to be used as a basis for argument, but has not been proved.
(http://www.stats.gla.ac.uk/steps/glossary/hypothesis_testing.html#h0)
And what many here don’t seem to understand, when they assert the absence of a statistical significance of the temperature increase falsified global warming:
It is important to understand that the null hypothesis can never be proven. A set of data can only reject a null hypothesis or fail to reject it. For example, if comparison of two groups (e.g.: treatment, no treatment) reveals no statistically significant difference between the two, it does not mean that there is no difference in reality. It only means that there is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis (in other words, the experiment fails to reject the null hypothesis).[5]
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis)
davidmhoffer says:
October 2, 2012 at 4:44 am
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. You’re not exactly a paragon of patience and restraint.
I hurl insults when I am insulted. Especially when someone unqualified in my field impugns my professional qualifications, as Leif has repeatedly in this thread. You’ve fallen for his bluster. That’s your problem. I’m not going to quit remunerative application of my skills and build a 747 in my back yard to prove to David M. Hoffer that man can, indeed, fly. Sorry, I’m just funny that way.
Bart says:
October 2, 2012 at 9:10 am
I hurl insults when I am insulted. Especially when someone unqualified in my field impugns my professional qualifications, as Leif has repeatedly in this thread.
Your qualifications are not applicable to the problem at hand. Your attitude It is like claiming the undoubted qualifications of Joe the Plumber are applicable.
The slugfest with Perlwitz is an object lesson in futility. As long as you guys fight him/her on a battleground of his or her own choosing, it’s going to be a bloody war of attrition. There will be no winners.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 2, 2012 at 8:16 am
That the CET correlation breaks down recently? Congratulations, you may just have proven AGW as your CET has gone up recently while HMF has gone down to its floor value also reached around 1900.
Hi Doc
Correlation has not broken down, the CET-June and the HMF peaks and troughs still coincide. I know you could do better than that, as you well know the June temperatures (in the European north-west countries) respond to the AMO which has no trend (graph updated with the AMO – thin green line).
You often quote that HMF and 10Be correlation also breaks down at beginning of the space age. Could it be a difference in response to the ‘ionospheric currents cause’ at the satellite altitude and the ground level.
Do have another go
what is the difference in the output from satellite instruments and the ground level magnetometers, are the satellite instruments calibrated at the ground level ?.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 2, 2012 at 9:19 am
Actually, your qualifications are not applicable. At least, not yet. Until you gain more insight into what is actually going on, and can bring your dynamical models in line with it, you will continue floundering around. I would have been more than happy to work with you, gratis. I could have been the Lorentz to your Einstein, instead of the Mozart to your Salieri. That’s a missed opportunity for you to consider the problem in an interdisciplinary fashion. Too bad.
Sorry, forgot June-HMF-AMO link
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HMF-JT.htm
Bart says:
October 2, 2012 at 9:34 am
The slugfest with Perlwitz is an object lesson in futility. As long as you guys fight him/her on a battleground of his or her own choosing, it’s going to be a bloody war of attrition. There will be no winners.
>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, obviously we should get into a slugfest with him over at RC, that would be better?
Other than the “lie” word being thrown around way too much right now (Jan, Richard, you could both dial it back) you may have noticed that there’s some actual science being discussed here and there in the back and forth? You’d rather have Hansen and Mann making unchallenged pronouncements to the media while we just act as an echo chamber over here for our side?
I cannot think of anything BETTER than having someone of JanP’s stature and prominance duking it out on this forum.
vukcevic says:
October 2, 2012 at 9:51 am
Correlation has not broken down,
It is impossible to impact a true believer. The point is that CET is now high and HMF is now low, while in 1900 they were both low.
You often quote that HMF and 10Be correlation also breaks down at beginning of the space age. Could it be a difference in response to the ‘ionospheric currents cause’ at the satellite altitude and the ground level.
I don’t think I’ve said that.
what is the difference in the output from satellite instruments and the ground level magnetometers, are the satellite instruments calibrated at the ground level ?.
Both the satellites and the ground level data are correct. No calibration issues.
Bart says:
October 2, 2012 at 9:52 am
can bring your dynamical models in line with it, you will continue floundering around.
Forget about me, it is the opinion among hundreds of solar researchers that the cycle is not predictable on a longer time scale [say, past a cycle], to wit the lousy performance of such predictions. But, of course, none are up to snuff and none have the qualifications needed. Their Mozart has not come to their rescue.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 2, 2012 at 10:07 am
Well then, since we all know that science always moves forward by consensus, you must be right, and I must be delusional. Sorry to have wasted your time and mine.
Mr Perlwitz:
I am replying to your drivel addressed to me at October 2, 2012 at 7:48 am. It is really, really funny.
I especially enjoyed the laugh you gave me with this statement
I stick rigidly to the subject and address specific points. You waffle, obfuscate and repeatedly claim you intended other than you wrote while avoiding giving plain answers to plain questions. But you say I provide “noise” and “diversion” while calling my objections to your lies “ad personam drivel”.
ROTFL!
You ask
The IPCC could do it and did do it by printing the words to which you link; i.e.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-5-1.html
And you say
Of course not! That was about “Committed climate change (see Box TS.9) due to atmospheric composition in the year 2000”. There could not have been the same “Committed climate change” prior to 2000 because the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increased prior to 2000! The difference between prior to 2000 and after 2000 is the change to atmospheric composition.
And you follow that by saying
Really!? You think my stating – and quoting – what the IPCC published is “one apparent lie by Mr. Courtney”? Clearly you don’t know what a lie is: perhaps this explains why you lie so much.
You then waffle on with meaningless and irrelevant twaddle concerning the uncertainty range of that “committed warming” and the predictions in the IPCC-Report. I might bother to answer that nonsense if I thought you were capable of understanding the issue. As it is, I will let your waffle stand for others to make their own assessment.
I quoted the IPCC verbatim. You complained that this was only a “single realization” and I replied
Importantly, very importantly, I also said in bolded text
You have yet again not answered – or mentioned – that important point but, instead, you draw attention to the variety of model outputs which provide that ‘average wrong’.
(At this point in reading your post my sides were splitting with my laughter).
And you follow that comedy by saying
Mr Perlwitz, that paragraph proclaims to the world that not only are your comments comical, you are a joke.
I stated the IPCC statement verbatim. You – not me – objected to its being a ‘single realization’ and I told you to take it up with them. You now cite other information from the IPCC which illustrates my comments about the erroneous formulation of the models which you adamantly refuse to address. And – on the basis of that – you assert that my accurate quotation from the IPCC shows I am “lying” and “incompetent in statistics”. Your paragraph is Pythonesque.
And you continue in Pythonesque vein when you write
Say what!?
In the post you are replying I was writing in response to your direct statements saying of why the IPCC prediction of “committed warming” has not happened. You wrote
I replied to that saying
You now say
The warming has “decreased” to nothing as a result – according to you – of “solar forcing” changes. There is NO difference between ‘decreased to nothing’ and ‘overwhelmed’. I “made up” nothing, and your assertion that I did so “seems to be a proven liar” is either another of your lies or is psychological projection.
Richard
Bart says:
October 2, 2012 at 10:24 am
Well then, since we all know that science always moves forward by consensus, you must be right, and I must be delusional. Sorry to have wasted your time and mine.
Your understanding of science is incorrect. Science moves forward by reasoned disagreements that eventually get resolved and become the bedrock upon which further progress depends and upon which Engineering must rest as well.
You may be right about the delusional bit, though, and about wasting time.
Jan P Perlw1tz:
At October 2, 2012 at 8:44 am you attempt to refute my accurate and clear explanation of the Null Hypothesis which I provided at October 2, 2012 at 6:44 am. You provide several links and quotations which all support the explanation I provided.
Please read what I wrote and learn from it.
Richard
To return to the science and the topic for this post, the September sunspot number data from SIDC are now out. The smoothed sunspot number for September was 66.8 compared with 66.9 for August.
http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-24-Smoothed-Adj-2.png compares SC24 with SC14 with the minima epochs lines up. The thin pink curve is the official SSN, while the heavy red symbols are the SSN adjusted upwards by 20% to match the calibration of the SSN after 1945. For the first time in SC24 the smoothed SSN has not increased, another sign that we are entering the maximum phase. But just as in SC14, the maximum might well be drawn out over several years.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 2, 2012 at 10:37 am
Gracious and charming to the last. Have some oatmeal.
Hay doc,
I have no doubt your reconstruction to 1830 is good, the CET June temperature confirms it, I still think that there is difference between the ground level and the satellite latitude observation since 1970s (possibly to drift in the proximity of ionosphere to the satellite), while min max timings still agree.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HMF-JT.htm
I just wanted to find out, but it appears I have chosen wrong moment.
I wander is the old McCracken still waiting for the consensus?
Finally, I note that Svalgaard and Cliver [2005] have previously suggested that the
presently commencing sunspot cycle may be comparable to those in the interval 1890-
1910. This would be a most welcome contribution by our Sun to this discussion; in
particular it would allow the geomagnetic consensus to be tested against satellite
measurements.
http://www.leif.org/research/McCracken%20JGR%202.pdf
p.s. I do all this for fun, I am dis-believer, use the available data to support my life-long contrarian’s attitude.
Bart says:
October 2, 2012 at 11:09 am
Have some oatmeal.
Advice from the professional ‘Joe the Plumber’ look-a-like
vukcevic says:
October 2, 2012 at 11:23 am
I have no doubt your reconstruction to 1830 is good, the CET June temperature confirms it,
That is called Confirmation Bias and is not science.
I still think that there is difference between the ground level and the satellite latitude observation since 1970s (possibly to drift in the proximity of ionosphere to the satellite), while min max timings still agree.
As I said, nothing can rock the beliefs of a true believer.
I just wanted to find out, but it appears I have chosen wrong moment.
Nothing wrong with the moment. The satellite data comes from outside the magnetosphere, 100,000-1,000,000 km away from the Earth.
I wonder is the old McCracken still waiting for the consensus?
Ken is a dear old friend of mine, and still has problems with the cosmic ray record prior to the advent of Neutron Monitors in the 1950s. The resolution of this is scheduled for the next ISSI meeting in April, 2013.
See Figure 2 of http://www.leif.org/research/Svalgaard_ISSI_Proposal_Base.pdf
Finally, I note that Svalgaard and Cliver [2005] have previously suggested that the
presently commencing sunspot cycle may be comparable to those in the interval 1890-
1910. This would be a most welcome contribution by our Sun to this discussion; in
particular it would allow the geomagnetic consensus to be tested against satellite
measurements.
So far [for cycles 23 and 24] the geomagnetic data [blue] are fully confirmed by satellite measurements [red]: http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-IDV-Up-to-Date.png
We see no reason to suspect that the relationship has changed [the Earth does not know we are watching].
Jan P Perlwitz wrote in: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1094122 :
My apologies on the delay in responding – travel and field work occupied my time in between. And I did not intend for the response to be so long. However, I see you’ve been busy.
Certainly, Jan, you seem to have “longevity on the stoop” – model speak for persistence and endurance (that’s fashion model and not climate model). I’ll let you have the last word, as I don’t intend to reply to your response, if any, but certainly will read one.
“Please elaborate what you mean with ‘the IPCC very much does provide guidance on modeling, review the model outputs, and then interprets/reports on the result in the ARs.’”
This is what the IPCC means (my opinion is irrelevant) regarding its involvement with climate models:
“This paper summarizes the discussions and conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Expert Meeting on Assessing and Combining Multi Model Climate Projections… It seeks to briefly summarize methods used in assessing the quality and reliability of climate model simulations and in combining results from multiple models. It is intended as a guide for future IPCC Lead Authors as well as scientists using results from model intercomparison projects. This paper provides recommendations for good practice in using multi-model ensembles for detection and attribution, model evaluation and global climate projections as well as regional projections relevant for impact and adaptation studies. It illustrates the potential for, and limitations of, combining multiple models for selected applications. Criteria for decision making concerning model quality and performance metrics, model weighting and averaging are recommended. This paper does not, however, provide specific recommendations regarding which performance metrics to use, since this will need to be decided for each application separately,” – http://tinyurl.com/9koknlg (link to IPCC summary paper on climate models).
“There is no dictatorship of ‘the IPCC’. Who do you mean, anyway, when you say ‘the IPCC’?”
The term “IPCC” means just that – the Panel as detailed in its Governing Principals – http://tinyurl.com/2o4948 (link to IPCC Principals Governing IPCC Work). However, the Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors represent the the final word on the nuancing of their respective sections of the AR. These individuals represent the gatekeepers of the ARs. While the actual assessments may involve hundreds and even thousands of researchers, the final synthesis is limited to a handful of authors. Then again, I never claimed a dictatorship at the IPCC; I believe that is your term. You do, indeed, have a fondness for the straw man fallacy.
“TM: Yes, the IPCC does not actually run the models, but I never claimed they did.
“JPP: Well, you accused ‘the IPCC’ to have ‘perhaps’ committed ‘fraud’ with respect to what should be taken into account when modeling climate.”
To the extent that the IPCC hosts meetings which seek to, “Summarize methods used in assessing the quality and reliability of climate model simulations and in combining results from multiple models,” an argument exists that if a likely variable (e.g., changing solar radiation) is not recommended for modeling consideration than fraud (breach of confidence for gaining an unfair advantage) may be alleged. The unfair advantage is control of the model input to ensure it supports the desired nuancing.
“’In spite’ of what research published by whom, where, and when, specifically?”
As stated in my response, read the section in its entirety for the referenced research or studies (i.e., Solanki et al. 2004):
“More recent studies utilise physics-based models to estimate solar activity from the production rate of cosmogenic isotopes taking into account nonlinearities between isotope production and the Sun’s open magnetic flux and variations in the geomagnetic field (Solanki et al., 2004; Muscheler et al., 2005). Following this approach, Solanki et al. (2004) suggested that the current level of solar activity has been without precedent over the last 8 kyr. “
“Not just that, more important with the reasoning that ‘most of the recent studies (with the exception of Solanski and Krivova, 2003)’ come to this conclusion…”
Recall the nuancing? Now revise the above to read, “Most of the recent studies [reviewed by the IPCC for referencing in the AR],…” Most does not mean all, and although the IPCC referenced the previous Solanski paper as an exception, this was not the only exception yet the IPCC drafted the statement as if it were. Kirvova and Solanski (2008) even published a paper summarizing the recent advances in modeling of solar irradiance variations on time scales longer than a day, which did include several “exception” papers not included in the FAR, although they had been published during the AR’s review time period – http://tinyurl.com/8d2zwbh (link to Kirvova and Solanski, 2008).
“So you assert newer studies, which contradict the downward revision in the solar variability have been ignored in the IPCC report 2007. Which ones?”
If you’re interested, here are several and please note that “recent” doesn’t imply better with respect to a study – Björck et al. (2001) – http://tinyurl.com/9q3p35u ; Haigh (2002) – http://tinyurl.com/8msrq6g ; and – Swingedouw et al. (2010), newer but interesting – http://tinyurl.com/8vrq92u (all links to respective papers).
“You see wrong. This is not what I said. But the phrasing of my statement was not precise enough either. I give you that.”
No, you read wrong. I indicated that this was my deliberate assertion of a straw man argument – not unlike the several you had advanced against me in your response. It was a deliberately-loaded question.
“Are you asserting, those things have been presumed, and the assumption have been made in the referenced studies, because ‘the IPCC’ told the researchers to do that? If not, how is this quote supposed to be proof that ‘the IPCC’ presumes something? I only see here that presumptions and assumptions in scientific studies are being described in the IPCC report.”
To the extent that the IPCC relies on presumptive models in the AR, the IPCC’s summary (at least with respective to where the presumptive models are referenced) is also presumptive. Recall that my example provided a contradiction to your bold assertion that, “…{T]he IPCC report doesn’t ‘presume’ anything.” If it includes presumptive models in its review, then the IPCC can but only presumes “things” as part of its summary.
“Yes, this is true. And it is done, based on expert judgement, the results of some studies are assessed as more sound and relevant than others in the report. And some scientists won’t agree with those judgements of soundness and relevance.”
And again, this is where the IPCC influences the nuancing of the AR. The Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors are but a handful of people compared to the researchers providing input to the section. A number of issues (internally- and externally-identified) were identified with respect to the process of drafting the ARs (e.g., Ross McKitrick’s report entitled “What is Wrong with the IPCC? Proposals for a Radical Reform “ – http://tinyurl.com/cpj8f5c – link to the same). You may agree or disagree with these issues; I suspect, though, that you disagree, which is a matter of opinion and not scientific discussion. Researchers are human and prone to confirmation bias, as demonstrated repeatedly in the Climategate e-mails – http://tinyurl.com/9mtzl2x (link to Tom Nelson blog with sample listing). Even if you want to assert that the e-mails are quoted out of context, it’s discouraging (and unprofessional) to read climate experts detail schoolyard-like bullying against other climate experts.
“Yes, I do. But not in the reference list of Chapter 8. Why should it have been referenced there?… This paper is referenced in Chapter 6, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-references.html ”
Where:
(1) the post’s focus is on the absence of a changing solar radiation variable in the climate modeling (and Chapter 8 discusses the same) and
Given:
(1) that Soon and Baliunas (2003) asserted that, “The widespread geographical evidence [in their paper]supports the existence of both the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period, and should serve as useful validation targets for any reconstruction of global climate history of the last 1000 yr,” – http://tinyurl.com/8l6enhc (link to Soon and Baliunas paper) and
(2) climate modeling (when used for hindcasting) often fails to achieve the validation targets noted by Soon and Baliunas – http://tinyurl.com/8as7enb (link to Lohmann et al. 2012)
Proposed climate model validation targets should be referenced in the chapter on climate modeling. Perhaps, I am asking too much of the IPCC, given where a reference to the paper had already been made in another chapter?
“Box 6.4 provides more information on the ‘Medieval Warm Period’.”
Thank you for providing the link; I had forgotten about this discussion in the FAR.
“Any other study with, what you think are significant results from research, which was ignored in the IPCC report?”
There are several but this is a topic that could host its on discussion. The focus here is on the climate models and not the IPCC ARs.
“TM: I don’t believe I asserted this…
“JPP: ‘‘What’s troubling and often highlighted by CAGW skeptics is that this… presumption (this may be the wrong term – perhaps “fraud”) by the IPCC has been made with the full knowledge that changes in solar radiation certainly do matter and should be accounted for within the models. This has been asserted for over 15 years.’ That looks very much like to me that you write about assertions made by ‘CAGW skeptics’. BTW: What is a ‘CAGW skeptic’ skeptical of? I know ‘C’ is supposed to stand for ‘catastrophic’. I just don’t really know what statements are being rejected by ‘CAGW skeptics’. What is the difference between an ‘AGW skeptic’ and a ‘CAGW skeptic’?”
I indicated that CAGW skeptics are concerned (to the point of emphasizing) that climate models fail to reference a changing solar radiation variable and include instead a constant solar radiation variable. A more realistic solar radiation variable is the desired variable. The basis for that concern can be found in the post itself, as summarized by Dr. Leif Svalgaard (who references published papers on the concern via the links provided by him, as well as his defense throughout this thread).
For me, I am skeptical about whether anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has catastrophic results for the global climate. Catastrophic can be defined as extremely harmful for humanity and the planet. I do not doubt that the global climate is warming with respect to a global mean temperature anomaly (however you want to define it), but I think it unlikely that such change (1) will alter the planet significantly beyond expected natural variability and (2) alterations, if measurable, are best addressed through result adaptation rather than source prevention. There are a number of qualitative and quantitative reasons for my skepticism but (indeed) this is a topic that could host its on discussion.
And while I do not profess to be an AGW skeptic, I presume the difference between that and a CAGW skeptic is that the former is skeptical about whether anthropogenic carbon dioxide is a driver for global climate warming with respect to a global mean temperature anomaly. However, such skepticism typically involves how the anomaly is defined or calculated and is the result relevant to climate change.
“It’s not like[ly] that they all exactly matched the observed climate variability, or exactly matched each … But the spread between the models becomes wider for future projections. I don’t know why that is. One possible explanation for it I could think of is that the representations of different physical processes in the model are developed and tested for present day conditions, but internal feedbacks between the model components make the spread wider with increasing distance from present day.”
There is a wide-range associated with the aerosols variable in the climate models – far more so than is observed either by direct measurement or extrapolation. A likely conclusion is that this variable is being used (i.e., adjusted) by the climate modelers to ensure that model outputs align with observational data, which (if true) casts serious doubts on the forecasting abilities of the climate models. And if the forecasting abilities of the climate models are questionable (i.e., the feedback variables are inaccurate), where does that leave the notion of a 2-4.5 deg C increase with 3 deg C being the best guess for CO2 doubling – http://tinyurl.com/9xvdy69 (link to the FAR discussion in Chapter 10 on temperature mean)?
In fact, Assuming the FAR’s compiling of the climate models is correct (and hindcasting works), the global mean temperature for the past 110 years should be + 1.6-3.2 deg C. And yet, the observed temperature for the same time period is (at worst) 1 deg C. What’s up with that (pun intended)? Oh, right, “[D]ifferent physical processes in the model are developed and tested for present day conditions, but internal feedbacks between the model components make the spread wider with increasing distance from present day.” Which means…? The models aren’t overly accurate.
“There isn’t really any point in the paper. There is no original research presented in there. I also couldn’t find the evidence in the paper for the ‘absence of the predicted warming’, which you had asserted. What is supposed to be the evidence in there?”
The Lindzen paper was referenced not as an initial research paper but rather as a compilation (similar to the ARs) discussing the apparent uncertainties of climate models, which predict warming but Nature fails to produce it (e.g., Trenberth’s infamous travesty on missing heat – http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=6351 link to Trenberth e-mail Climategate thread). The paper highlighted the work of Lee et al. (2007), which reviewed the inability of the NSIPP, GEOS-5, GFDL AM2, and SNU atmospheric general circulation models to align predicted, tropospheric warming with observational data – http://tinyurl.com/94o2coq (link to Lee et al., 2007).
“I do not believe you that you are ‘genuinely curious’. You are loading the question with ridicule toward homogenization of data.”
No, I was (and still am) genuinely curious as to your position on the multiple homogenizations of the official temperature data sets. Common sense dictates that the more you modify them, the less the data resemble the actual measurements (error bars and all). Rather than changing the data to allow them to apply to larger presumed temperature grids, accommodations should be made for the recording inaccuracies. While not quite “fabricated”, the data here are distorted extensively by the homogenization process itself, unless you can explain why they are not – thus, my curiosity.
“However, I wonder how you would find out then that your assertion about the alleged ‘absence of predicted warming’ was true, if you don’t have anything to diagnose the alleged absence.”
One can compare the published outputs of past climate models with archived and current temperature data sets. In fact, it’s been done with not so impressive results attributed to the climate models – http://tinyurl.com/9xwch4r (link to Anagnostopoulos et al. 2010).
Your apologic stance is admirable, Jan, but I fear you are like the Little Dutch Boy trying to place as many thumbs and fingers in the dyke before it fails massively. Personally, I regard the climate models as the largest exposure for those promoting global warming alarmism. But rather than respond constructively to legitimate criticism of the models, a number of the associated researchers have mounted a subjective defense (and in some cases a quasi-religious defense along the lines of persecution like Drs. Hansen and Mann ) instead of an empirical testing. That’s not science – period.
Dr.S.
Satellite is outside magnetosphere – at the day time, at the night time magnetosphere goes beyond the moon. Ground level magnetometer is within magnetosphere day and night.
Have you got a link to any data files (since 1970-80s) to the satellite HMF data and a direct magnetometer output .
I didn’t say I believe, I said I think
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 2, 2012 at 11:48 am
“Advice from the professional ‘Joe the Plumber’ look-a-like”
So, you have inside info that Joe is a bad guy? Or just, you know, far, far beneath you, and therefore fair game for your withering contempt, whether justified or no? Do you treat all working men and women with such disdain? If so, I hope the pipes never burst in your palace.
From Bart on October 1, 2012 at 6:31 pm:
I said “variations in the wind”, you said “wind gusts”. Same thing, except “gusts” sounds like pulses when it’s really occasional surges with some brief lulls.
Just checked, the stalks are about 38″ long, call it 3 ft. Speed of sound in ordinary wood is about 11,000 ft/sec. Using that, a full cycle in the shaft would be about 3,700 Hz, a period of 0.00027 seconds. It was a light wind, the seedpods were swaying with periods of about one to one-half second.
Thus it was not a natural frequency of the stalk. Thus you have committed a science newbie mistake, and not checked the reasonableness of the numbers involved.
So many big words, you sound like a GISS employee, trying to demonstrate authority by using big words, but not demonstrating you know what the big words mean, which would be beneath someone who is an authority such as you are expecting to be recognized as since you are a user of the big words.
You are expecting the solar cycles to be based on equations, as would be needed for predictability. But instead of variables that can be replaced with numbers and a certain result cranked out, one or more variables are actually the results of other unknown equations (aka functions), with the variables in those equations possibly also the results of other equations, repeat, repeat.
So you find numbers that will work “close enough” for those variables that are functions, treating those variables as constants, yielding “close enough” equations with “close enough” results that seem to match the observations. You may even end up with a range of “close enough” equations, where different fill-in “constants” give a better match depending on the range the value of another variable is in.
When done, you have equations that are “good enough” without knowing why they are “good enough”, you still don’t know the mechanisms. You have also added another layer of ignorance, as the “variables that are functions” are still unknown.
For some things that’s not a bad approach and reveals a good deal about the underlying structure. Like when Willis Eschenbach showed the one climate model was replicable by a one-line equation, same as GISS Model E. But that revealed the un-natural nature of the models, and the models use equations.
For the Sun, a natural system, FIRST you’re assuming it is describable by equations, despite the known chaotic behavior.
THEN, going by Vuk’s work that you endorse, the assumption is made that the equations are sinusoidal, as would be expected with coupled oscillators as presented. But the pitfalls of that were revealed in Willis’ piece Riding a Pseudocycle.
I mean, you’ve linked to Vuk’s SSN work, presented it with a “This says it all!” certainty… And from the first graph at the top I see the “SSN signal” crammed into ill-fitting sinusoidal curves, both on the “periodicity” and “amplitude” curves. Clearly there is much not being accounted for, the “matches” are lousy.
And, I can see he’s upside down. By taking the absolute value for the “periodicity” function, like running AC through a full wave rectifier, he ends up with rounded peaks and sharp-pointed troughs.
But as easily seen on a closer view, it is the troughs that should be rounded.
It’s like the SSN was a tone being fed into an amplifier, and the “periodicity” was generated by playing with the gain (volume control). When the Sun is calmer (low gain), the tone goes through cleanly, the trough is rounded. But as the gain goes high, solar activity is high, the tone breaks up, becomes distorted… And that’s what the peaks look like, broken up and distorted, the true shape lost. Low amplification, signal preserved. High amplification, signal distorted, popping and squealing.
And as with a maxed-out amplifier, the “intended” maximum value of the peak is lost. The width of the “distortion” hints at it. If the amplifier is working good the distortion comes later, the peak is high and narrow. But if the amplifier is perturbed and the distortion comes early, the “peak” is wide and low. Use that to “reconstruct” what should have been the peak of Cycle 20 (1970) and it better fills that “periodicity” half-cycle, and the same happens for the one around 1860, 1830, 1815… But completely screws up the curves around 1905, even more than they already are.
Indeed, the lows peaks of “periodicity” at the lows of the “amplitude” curve are clearly wrong, not in sync and not matching the heights of the data, and would be far worse with the distorted peaks reconstructed. With this curve fitting exercise at its worse at these lows, and the solar cycles heading into a low, how much predicative power could they possibly have?
Further, it is obvious a sine curve would be a bad fit regardless. The signal clearly has sawtooth components. Even with the best formed peaks, the signal clearly shows a sharp rise followed by a less-steep drop, thus inverse sawtooth. This is even more evident upon examining the troughs, a sawtooth form is clearly visible.
Thus I can tell Vuk doesn’t have it right.
So to recap, they are the wrong type of equations, that don’t fit the data, that don’t account for the real shape of the data, do not take into account the likely distortion of the data, and clearly lack predicative power at the low spots such as we now heading into. Just as with the climate modelers, their “predicative ability” needs be considered on the whole, and is limited to hindcasting which comes from being tuned to past data… And their ability to “forecast” the future appears gravely limited, as they can’t even properly replicate details of the past that they were tuned to fit on the whole.
This is the type of work you present as a serious challenge to Leif? Try again after you can demonstrate some competency in proper curve fitting, that provides believable equations that actually fit the data, and shows you understand the nature of the data beyond mere numbers to be crunched. And you think you can do that without a plausible model of the underlying physical mechanisms? Then do so, and surprise me.
vukcevic says:
October 2, 2012 at 12:47 pm
Satellite is outside magnetosphere – at the day time, at the night time magnetosphere goes beyond the moon. Ground level magnetometer is within magnetosphere day and night.
Have you got a link to any data files (since 1970-80s) to the satellite HMF data and a direct magnetometer output
My experience with you is that it doesn’t matter what I say. You must think scientists to be morons. The modern satellite data comes from a satellite at the L1 point [Google it], a million miles from the Earth. The solar wind hits the magnetosphere and puts stress on it. The stressed magnetosphere is unstable and blows up now and then. The debris races towards the night side of the Earth and creates magnetic activity which IDV and IHV are measuring.
Satellite data are here http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Magnetometer output can be found http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/bou_12h.html and many other places [e.g. at Tromsoe].
I didn’t say I believe, I said I think
Thinking usually does not preclude learning, although in your case it, sadly, seems that it does.
Bart says:
October 2, 2012 at 12:48 pm
So, you have inside info that Joe is a bad guy?
I must apologize to Joe the Plumber. It was wrong of me to lower him to your level. But one aspect of my comparison was valid, namely that his professional qualifications are just as ill-suited to the problem of solar activity as yours.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 2, 2012 at 12:52 pm
THEN, going by Vuk’s work that you endorse, the assumption is made that the equations are sinusoidal, as would be expected with coupled oscillators as presented. But the pitfalls of that were revealed in Willis’ piece Riding a Pseudocycle.
Hi KD Knoebel
Vuk’s oscillators are as sinusoidal as astronomy can provide, they have been like that for few billion years, they are called Jupiter and Saturn.
No idea is it right or wrong, it just works, for time being.
Willis is right, Scafetta’s is confused about 60 (actually 64-5) years cycle, it is only an apparent cycle, and has no astronomic or planetary orbital meaning.
Dr.S
You didn’t say that it is at Lagrangian point, so any effect of the reconnections is not registered by satellite, while many are registered at both sides of the globe at the same time.
See the spike at Tromso today at 12 mid-day.
http://flux.phys.uit.no/cgi-bin/plotgeodata.cgi?Last24&site=tro2a&
I’ll look at the data and be back, if no difference I am happy to accept discrepancies between pre and post 1980’s.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 2, 2012 at 12:52 pm
“Using that, a full cycle in the shaft would be about 3,700 Hz, a period of 0.00027 seconds.”
Sure. And, when you pull up one of those stalks and “twang” it, it emits an ear-piercing high frequency shriek. Farmers in Kansas have to wear ear plugs when walking through their wheat fields, as their dogs cower under the woodshed.
“So many big words, you sound like a GISS employee, trying to demonstrate authority by using big words…”
Or, I undertook 8 years of undergraduate and graduate study, and those words are simply comfortable to me.
“You have also added another layer of ignorance, as the “variables that are functions” are still unknown.”
Knowing the form that a realistic model must take can be a huge help in sifting through the possibilities. There’s a reason the fundamental transform of Special Relativity is called the Lorentz Transformation, and not the Einstein Transformation, you know.
“Thus I can tell Vuk doesn’t have it right.”
Never said he did. I said he was on the right track, and his results are compelling. And, I then explained how to improve the method.
“Try again after you can demonstrate some competency in proper curve fitting, that provides believable equations that actually fit the data, and shows you understand the nature of the data beyond mere numbers to be crunched.”
Go jump in a lake.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 2, 2012 at 1:15 pm
“I must apologize to Joe the Plumber. It was wrong of me to lower him to your level.”
But, he’s still untermenschen, no?
“But one aspect of my comparison was valid, namely that his professional qualifications are just as ill-suited to the problem of solar activity as yours.”
Because you expect to sit in a cubbyhole somewhere and capture all the behavior through divine inspiration. Data? You don’t need no stinkin’ data.
vukcevic says:
October 2, 2012 at 1:40 pm
You didn’t say that it is at Lagrangian point, so any effect of the reconnections is not registered by satellite, while many are registered at both sides of the globe at the same time.
So what? They have nothing to do with each other. As I said, you have a learning problem. I have patiently explained many times how this works. For a refresher: http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf or http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf
I am happy to accept discrepancies between pre and post 1980’s.
There are no discrepancies between HMF from satellite and from Ground-Based IDV.
The difference with CET is another matter. The simplest explanation is that you have discovered AGW.
Bart says:
October 2, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Go jump in a lake.
It is rare I come across people from the baser levels of humanity, but here it happens too frequently for my taste.
Bart says:
October 2, 2012 at 2:03 pm
But, he’s still untermenschen, no?
When using big words, use them correctly: ‘ein untermensch’.
Data? You don’t need no stinkin’ data.
Data does not stink. They are the lifeblood of science. But, of course, will not play a role in your ‘oscillator’.
KD Knoebel
I think you misunderstood what the equations are about.
For sunspot cycles there are 3 points that matter, times of the min & max and the SSNmax.
First two are shifting all the time and the third is always disputed by someone, Dr.S is attempting to change it too.
Curvature of the rise time is about Cos^2, while of fall time is more exponential, peaks are mess, and minima overlap by few years, as you see not much to do with a sinusoid shape, polarized or rectified.
Equations are there to give an idea that the general form of the sunspot magnetic activity can be found elsewhere in the solar system, i.e. within combination of the orbital parameters of two largest magnetospheres.
So if you whish to look at what the sun’s magnetic field is doing, the sunspots are not good point to start anyway, perhaps you could start with polar fields, which have more regular form, but still not sinusoidal:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
and for frequency
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-Vfspec.htm
Since it is not possible to turn on-off the sunspot cycle, than one guess could be as good as another. My guess made in 2003 still looks OK.
The equations are not result of superior knowledge of the solar activity but the recognition of the cross-modulation pattern, as I point on the graph (see inset 2000-2020)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
I am not really bothered what anyone may think about it, Dr. S has been at it for about 3-4 years now, show mi something better which can be linked to some other known cosmic event and I am happy to accept it.
I hope that is of some help to understand what the equations are about.
Dr. S
The simplest explanation is that you have discovered AGW.
Great, do I get a multimillion dollar grant ?
Hmm, are you sure your monitor is on the level ?
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HMF-JT.htm
but if you are so certain I better book Stockholm flight.
(p.s. discrepancy referred to the reduction of correlation since late 1970s)
Tom Murphy:
re. your post at October 2, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Excellent! Well said.
I commend everybody to read all of it.
Richard
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 2, 2012 at 2:23 pm
“It is rare I come across people from the baser levels of humanity, but here it happens too frequently for my taste.”
Every morning shaving is not what most people would consider “rare”.
‘ein untermensch’
OK, so Joe is subhuman. Glad we have your confirmation. Gives us a little window into your soul.
“They are the lifeblood of science.”
Then, one who refuses to consider them would be not a (fill in the blank).
Bart says:
October 2, 2012 at 3:38 pm
OK, so Joe is subhuman.
Perhaps you should not insult Joe.
Anyway, looking back at your comments on this thread, I note that you have brought nothing to the table. You should be glad that Anthony let you dilute the bandwidth on his blog.
vukcevic says:
October 2, 2012 at 3:23 pm
but if you are so certain I better book Stockholm flight.
You have to go to Oslo, like Al Gore, not Stockholm.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 2, 2012 at 5:00 pm
If you really practice, you could be even more petty.
Bart says:
October 2, 2012 at 5:31 pm
If you really practice, you could be even more petty.
You are hard to beat in that department
Tom Murphy says:
October 2, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Following this approach, Solanki et al. (2004) suggested that the current level of solar activity has been without precedent over the last 8 kyr.
Later research suggests that this probably was not the case: http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
Martin457 says:
September 30, 2012 at 6:40 pm
“My solar powered yard lights turn off when the full moon is at its height at night which tells me there are lunar forces at work.”
Martin457 Photo-sensitive security lights is what you mean, they switch on at night time! a full moon can switch them off, they are usually fitted with a switch to adjust the sensitivity of the photovoltaic sensor to compensate for other light sources. You know you can predict the next full moon and adjust them properly but good luck tying to predict what the weather is gonna be like.
Good stuff Lief. Looking forward to your friend’s findings on the nuclear decay anomaly tracking rotation of the sun(?). I used to read these solar threads verbatim, now: i just wait a week or so then I fast forward to the end and only read your responses. My hats off to your patience with your patients!!!!
johnnythelowery says:
October 2, 2012 at 6:38 pm
Good stuff Leif
Thanks. On that positive note, I’ll go have some oatmeal.
From Bart on October 2, 2012 at 1:51 pm:
You’re right, I should have reviewed figuring out the natural frequency (although a dry stalk can be used as a whistle if you know how).
So I figured it out as an undamped single degree of freedom (SDoF) oscillator, a beam (rod, shaft) with one end fixed and the opposing end with an attatched mass (seedpod). As the possible dampening force would be supplied from the shaft/seedpod unit interacting with the air, and this was the mechanism transmitting energy from the wind to the unit, treating it as an undamped oscillator is justified.
The equation is:
f = 1/(2π) * (k/m)^(1/2)
where k is stiffness in Newtons/meters,
and m is the mass on the end in kilograms.
A fresh grass stalk with leaves removed was suspended between two points. Separation was 24″, which is irrelevant other than to indicate multiple stalk joints were present. A fabricated weight holder was placed at the midpoint. Stalk bottom to surface below was 2 3/16″. Three US quarter dollars placed in the holder resulted in clearance reduced to 1″. Thus 1 3/16″ deflection for 3 quarters.
1 3/16″ * 25.4mm/in * 1m/1000mm
= 0.030m deflection
By a digital kitchen scale of unknown make and model originating from Walmart, 16 quarters were weighed, yielding a “weight” of 90g. The US Mint gives the weight of a new quarter dollar as 5.670g.
90g/5.670g = 16 quarters, reading of scale is confirmed within two significant digits and allowing for loss of mass due to pocket wear.
12 seedpods were collected, weight was 18g.
18g* 1/12 * 1kg/1000g
= 0.0015kg/seedpod on average.
Bringing it together:
90g * 3/16 * 1kg/1000g * 9.81m/s²
= 0.17N force of 3 Quarters
Stiffness=Force/deflection
k = 0.17N/0.030m
k = 5.7 N/m
Natural frequency
f = 1/(2π) * (5.7N/m / 0.0015kg)^(1/2)
f = 9.8Hz
Invert, period is 0.10 seconds.
The observed periods of the seedpods swaying were from about 1 second to perhaps about 1/2 second. The calculated natural frequency yields a period that is an order of magnitude less.
Therefore it is concluded the seedpods observed were not oscillating to the natural frequency of the stalks. The apparent pattern witnessed was the effects of the varying wind on the unit, and would not have occurred with a constant wind velocity.
I have researched, collected data, performed the calculations. I conclude you were wrong. If you have reason to believe this is in error, present your evidence.
From Bart on October 2, 2012 at 1:51 pm:
Ah, so you are well practiced at feigning authority by using the big words, a useful skill for picking up undergrads who are easily impressed by such demonstrations of intelligence.
Respect for a fellow intellectual, as Henri Poincaré named the transformation after Lorentz. Lorentz’ work was mathematical gyrations while trying to salvage luminiferous ether theory after the historic null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Since the presence of the ether was the “realisitic” model that Lorentz was working with, which was debunked despite the mathematical results of Lorentz and other adherents to the theory, what does that say about your adhering to the “Sun as an oscillator” model because you like the resulting equations?
So to summarize, you are saying you never said Vuk had it right, just that he was on the right track.
So for you to know Vuk is on the right track, you must know the destination he is approaching. So cut to the chase and tell us what it is. For such an authoritative knowledgeable expert as you wish to appear to be, it should be easy to convince Leif by the weight of your certain evidence.
Must it be a lake? Ponds are more prevalent, lakes are very rare with the local terrain. It’s been raining, perhaps I could find a mud puddle. Although to avoid a water-borne disease, a swimming pool is best.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 2, 2012 at 8:56 pm
Google is your friend.
Lorentz specified the transformation. Einstein merely explained how it was a consequence of the principle of relativity.
“For such an authoritative knowledgeable expert as you wish to appear to be, it should be easy to convince Leif by the weight of your certain evidence.”
Leif couldn’t be convinced his hair was on fire if he didn’t want to be. And, his expertise does not extend far into the realm of signal processing and systems analysis. That’s a double “no chance in Hades”. And, you’re apparently nursing a personal grudge, so not much chance of convincing you, regardless of your qualifications.
It’s isn’t even really important – it’s just annoying, because it could be resolved so straightforwardly. But, I can’t carry the world on my shoulders, so someone else is going to have to step up to the plate. Anyway, the actually important question is, is the Sun driving recent temperature variations on Earth? Clearly, it is, to anyone with his or her eyes open. Sadly, of those, there are remarkably few.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
Something that requires an explanation:
(after correcting for any divergence in the forcings between real world, e.g., solar forcing, and what was prescribed in the models)
How is it that when solar forcing is known to vary by an amount that you now argue is equivalent to 10-15 years of ‘global warming’, neither the models nor the error bands on their predictions incorprate this variation?
What else is left out of the models, and out of the uncertainty bands?
Bart says:
October 2, 2012 at 10:34 pm
“Leif couldn’t be convinced his hair was on fire…”
It’d go something like this:
Me: Leif, you’re hair is on fire!
Leif: No, it isn’t.
Me: There are flames dancing on top of your head!
Leif: How do you know that?
Me: I’m looking right at them!
Leif: You don’t know what you’re talking about. Sight is useless for measuring the heat of a fire.
Me: Wha… What?
Leif: How could my hair be on fire?
Me: I don’t know, but the flames are licking the ceiling now.
Leif: Fire is not spontaneous. There has to be a cause. If you don’t know the cause, how can you be sure my hair is on fire?
Me: Are you insane? Your whole scalp is starting to boil.
Leif: Your insults show you to be a person of low character, just like Joe the Plumber.
Me: (aside) Somebody grab a fire extinguisher!
Leif: If you were sure my head was on fire, you’d get the extinguisher yourself.
Me: It’s at the end of the hall, with that group of people I’m trying to signal.
Leif: Well, obviously you are delusional, and this conversation has been completely unproductive.
Me: (throwing up hands) OK, whatever you want.
Leif: I’m going to get the last word.
Reblogged this on Standard Climate.
From Bart on October 2, 2012 at 10:18 pm:
Google does not relieve you from having to review results for relevancy. This refers to gusting strong winds yielding large deflections and snapping trunks and stalks. I am examining non-damaging gentle swaying motions in a light breeze.
Also they are simulating a “periodic gusting wind” with an equation with a sinusoidal component, while acknowledging “In reality, wind gusts are not sinusoidal and forcing amplitudes are stochastic.” Assume the unnatural and get modeled results which are supposedly reflective of results from natural processes. Sound familiar? And again, drive with an oscillating signal, get an oscillating effect. What is the driver and what is driven?
Lorentz did good math while trying to support a bad theory. Einstein derived mathematically equivalent equations.
Lorentz shows us that the math can look very good yet one can still be wrong about what underlies the math. But with the “Sun is an oscillator” belief, so far the math is not even looking good.
From Bart on October 2, 2012 at 10:34 pm:
And you have dreamed up quite an envisioning of that scenario. You should write comedy.
But once again you show your “cart before horse” tendency. The correct sequence would be first putting out the fire with whatever’s at hand, as soon as possible. Then you show Leif the evidence his hair was on fire, so he knows you didn’t just dump your coffee on his head on a lark.
As your expertise does.
“When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”
Gee, I wonder who said that…
Translation: I’m sorry but I can’t be bothered to show you the elegant divine truth that has been revealed to me, so you’ll have to wait until someone else does. But trust me, it’s beautiful and I assure you it’s all true!
The Sun is the ultimate source of the energy, but the clouds control how much of it is allowed to warm the Earth. The solar output can drop, but the cloud cover could reduce to where the Earth gets warmer. Show first that the Sun is controlling the clouds, then you may say the Sun is driving recent temperature variations on Earth.
Kadaka & Bart let me tell you a short story
About 10 years ago, my younger daughter ( then at secondary school, gradated from Oxford University last summer, MSc degree) with her homework, it was about sun and the Earth. She also had a handbook from the library with sunspot cycle. I knew about 11 year cycle, but I don’t think I’ve seen actual waveform before. Since I had lot of experience in the ‘signal processing’, I recognized a cross-modulation pattern. Within minutes I was at the Excel, running Jupiter and Saturn orbital numbers, didn’t work but it look promising, used 2xJ +S then rectified, got a bit closer, and finally 2-3 days later had a go at 2xJ +JS all rectified, looked good and that was it.
Subsequently I learned that there is whole brunch of science devoted to the sunspot cycles and a new hobby was born, from then there was only a short step to the climate change.
Should we always declare as a coincidence something that we currently do not fully understand?
The equations have been called coincidence, astrology, pseudo science, nonsense and lot more, but 10 years hence the result (the polar fields version) is still as close as you can get to the complex and the non-testable process as generation of the solar magnetic field.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
Good agreement with the contemporary science’s results:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC17.htm
If you wish to understand solar ‘oscillations’ look at the polar fields first.
BTW Dr. S also uses strength of the polar fields for the SSNmax prediction.
JJ says:
At October 2, 2012 at 11:26 pm you write:
Simon and Garfunkel wrote a song about the answer you are likely to get. It is called
‘The Sound Of Silence’.
Richard
Bart says:
October 2, 2012 at 10:34 pm
And, his expertise does not extend far into the realm of signal processing and systems analysis.
Regardless [and ignoring your abusive crusade – and I shouldn’t really feed the troll], the issue is whether such extension is relevant, and the generally accepted view [with which I agree] is that it is not, as the Sun is not an oscillator with driving and restoring forces controlling solar activity. Attempts to predict solar activity along these lines have repeatedly met with failure.
It’s isn’t even really important – it’s just annoying, because it could be resolved so straightforwardly.
On the contrary, the issue of the cause and predictability of the solar cycle is of utmost importance. Of course, there is no shortage of pseudo-scientists and instant arm-chair experts who claim that this issue can be solved in a straightforward manner; the problem is that none of these folks have done so.
But, I can’t carry the world on my shoulders
But you could perhaps behave in a decent manner, or is that hoping for too much
Anyway, the actually important question is, is the Sun driving recent temperature variations on Earth? Clearly, it is, to anyone with his or her eyes open. Sadly, of those, there are remarkably few.
Perhaps there are so few because it simply isn’t so. A good illustration of the failure of the ascribing recent temperature variations to solar variations is this plot: http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-Not-png where the various red curves [on top of each other] are several modern estimates of solar variability.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 3, 2012 at 7:37 am
A good illustration of the failure of the ascribing recent temperature variations to solar variations is this plot: http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-Not.png where the various red curves [on top of each other] are several modern estimates of solar variability.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 3, 2012 at 1:31 am
“Google does not relieve you from having to review results for relevancy.”
“But with the “Sun is an oscillator” belief, so far the math is not even looking good.”
Says the guy who thinks grain stalks vibrate at 3.7 kHz. Fine, whatever you say. We’re done.
vukcevic says:
October 3, 2012 at 2:40 am
Vuk – These correlations can look compelling, but without understanding the mechanisms, it’s a hard sell in general. Just look at the resistance I am getting to something which should be a slam dunk.
I am agnostic by nature – I try to keep an open mind. I’m not going to rule out a possibility just because I do not currently see a route to it. But at the same time, I’m not going to become devoted to it, either.
I am promoting the route of taking the observed oscillations as a given, and using their obvious structure as a means of making practical predictions. When the predictions pan out, people will get interested in looking into the causes. That should be a reasonable and worthwhile endeavor in any case, but even that clearly gets considerable resistance.
Fortunately, there are people looking into it. I took my advice to kadaka that “Google is my friend” last night. There are tons of people looking into applying the very methodology I have advocated. Eventually, the truth will out.
Anyway, keep on looking. I think you’ve made some nice observations. We’ll see how the future unfolds.
From Bart on October 3, 2012 at 9:44 am:
Finally! I missed the end of the Jan P debunking event, but well, sometimes you gotta stop and clean out the stables before you go out for a ride, you know?
Vuk, it’s official, Bart threw you under the bus. Promoted your ideas, said how he ‘gave you suggestions’ to appear as a mentor with superior wisdom. Then when things didn’t work out…
“Best of luck with your future endeavors, and I wrote you a nice recommendation.”
Congratulations, you’re now a sitcom character who had a bad manager/fellow employee relationship!
Seriously Vuk, the main problem is taking the absolute values and completely ignoring the shape of the troughs. With sinusoidal curves, it looks obvious to me the SSN follows a sine curve, a complete un-rectified sine, which is then offset on the y-axis by the addition of another sine curve, which is itself offset.
That would preserve the troughs, which are the most clearly defined feature of the SSN signal, as the peaks are likely distorted as I described above. For the added lower frequency signal, use a constant for the offset, the SSN record is very short and there are many characteristics of the Sun that are basically unchanged throughout and will remain so for centuries to come.
And don’t use absolute values as that precludes the possibility of negative sunspot counts. Yes, I am serious. You are modeling the underlying processes that lead to sunspots. The SSN tracks successful sunspot eruptions. It does not track unsuccessful “squibs”. Yet those processes would yield them, so your model must allow them. Indeed, around 1810 the SSN should have been negative by the shape of the curve.
So try it that way. After correcting the SSN numbers you are using per Leif, item 1550, “Reconciliation of Group & International SSNs”. As it appears that will yield a new “standard” SSN, start with it now.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 3, 2012 at 1:18 pm
“…the main problem is taking the absolute values and completely ignoring the shape of the troughs. “
It seems, among other things, you do not understand Fourier expansions.
“Yes, I am serious. “
We only wish you weren’t. It’s painful to see.
“Bart threw you under the bus.”
Ah, no. Vuk has nailed the major harmonic components. I merely demur at assigning a specific cause to them. Just as I do not know why Leif’s hair might be on fire, but I would still be able to see the flames.
Bart says:
October 3, 2012 at 4:22 pm
“Bart threw you under the bus.”
Ah, no. Vuk has nailed the major harmonic components. I merely demur at assigning a specific cause to them.
Talking about painful. You do not understand that the sun is not a harmonic oscillator and therefore doesn’t have harmonic components based in physics like a vibrating string. Apparently, you do not understand Fourier expansions either – just because almost any function can be expanded as a Fourier series, does not mean that those waves have any physical existence. This is typical for people that learn a skill by rote without understanding and then apply that skill over and over and over. This is the difference between a scientist and an EE: understanding versus blind application of skill. And it is time you refrain from personal nastiness.
From Bart on October 3, 2012 at 4:06 pm:
You said we were done. Yet here you are again. Why did you lie?
I had previously identified the SSN signal as having sawtooth features. A sawtooth wave can be constructed by additive synthesis using a Fourier series. Getting a good fit with sines is a good start.
If you don’t understand what I’m discussing, that’s okay. You already bowed out of any pretenses of meaningful contributions to the discussion, you can leave anytime you want, it won’t matter.
From Bart on October 3, 2012 at 4:22 pm:
Vuk has assigned their causes, Jupiter and Saturn. They are the source of the constants of his equations. So you are saying you are supporting the equations whose constants match Jupiter and Saturn, without supporting Jupiter and Saturn as the causes of those exact matching numbers?
I know I’m not stupid enough to believe those linguistic gyrations. Vuk should be insulted that you expect him to believe you.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 3, 2012 at 4:35 pm
The oscillations are visible by inspection. The harmonics are readily evident in the PSD. You are so out of your league in this.
And, as for nastiness… you started it.
Bart says:
October 3, 2012 at 5:02 pm
The oscillations are visible by inspection. The harmonics are readily evident in the PSD. You are so out of your league in this.
To a hammer everything looks like a nail. Just because something is varying does not mean it is an oscillator. That requires two opposing forces: a driver and a restoring force. And you,should know that the Fourier expansion defined on an interval of a function generally have no predictive power outside of that interval, unless they describe actual physical forcings.
And, as for nastiness… you started it.
A childish and untrue assertion.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 3, 2012 at 5:17 pm
“That requires two opposing forces: a driver and a restoring force.”
To be precise, it requires storage of energy, and a mechanism for conversion or transmission between specific manifestations of or reservoirs for that energy. You have that here.
“And you,should know that the Fourier expansion defined on an interval of a function generally have no predictive power outside of that interval, unless they describe actual physical forcings.”
Unless the function really is periodic, and that interval contains at least one full cycle. The SSN is not periodic. But, it is quasi-periodic, in the sense that it behaves like a sum of lightly damped oscillating modes disturbed by wideband fluctuations in forcing. Those modal oscillations have repeatable structure, and because of that, the future depends at least partially deterministically on the past, and can therefore be predicted within the bounds of that determinism.
If the SSN had no regularity at all, if the curves from one cycle to the next varied widely and essentially randomly, I would agree with you that this system would be unpredictable. But, they don’t do that.They have a very repeatable structure. You can move fairly smoothly from one peak to the next.
I do not know precisely how well I could predict the SSN after a given number of cycles. But, I know that I can predict them, and I know that I can estimate accurate error bounds for the predictions, and that in itself is something of considerable value.
Bart says:
October 3, 2012 at 7:44 pm
To be precise, it requires storage of energy, and a mechanism for conversion or transmission between specific manifestations of or reservoirs for that energy.
To be even more precise: If the system is displaced from the equilibrium, there should be a restoring force, tending to bring it back to equilibrium. and there is no such force.
The SSN is not periodic. But, it is quasi-periodic, in the sense that it behaves like a sum of lightly damped oscillating modes disturbed by wideband fluctuations in forcing.
Here is where you go wrong [the hammer and nail thing], there are no oscillating modes because the solar cycle is not an oscillator.
They have a very repeatable structure. You can move fairly smoothly from one peak to the next.
Again wrong, the conversion from toroidal field [sunspots] to poloidal fields [seeds for the next cycle] is essentially a random process, and large random jumps can occur. The small Cycle 20 following the all-time high Cycle 19 is a good example.
But, I know that I can predict them, and I know that I can estimate accurate error bounds for the predictions, and that in itself is something of considerable value.
Until you have done so, you don’t know. Nobody has ever managed to predict more than a cycle ahead every time. The error bounds are not of value per se. What is important is to have narrow error bounds, so people can act on the prediction.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 3, 2012 at 7:59 pm
“To be even more precise…”
No, I think I’ll keep my definition. What is a “force”? What is, e.g., the “force” which produces the oscillations of an electromagnetic field? You can loosely say it is the Laplacian of the field vectors, but easier to imagine it as simply the alternating storage of energy in the E and the B fields.
“…there are no oscillating modes because the solar cycle is not an oscillator.”
There is just this incredibly regular 11-ish year cycle with a 130-ish year beat.
“Again wrong, the conversion from toroidal field [sunspots] to poloidal fields [seeds for the next cycle] is essentially a random process, and large random jumps can occur.”
If the former were so, the peaks would be scattered all over the place with no discernible pattern. As for the latter, that can happen in simulating my model here, as in this plot, in the peak before 1900, and the second one after 1950. This is due to the two modes which make up the model randomly moving in and out of sync with each other. It can be predicted well in advance of the event, as the stochastic phase modulation of each component is not particularly fast.
“Until you have done so, you don’t know. Nobody has ever managed to predict more than a cycle ahead every time. The error bounds are not of value per se.”
Fair enough on the first, at least as far as knowing how large the error bars would be. I suspect they would be reasonably tight for a reasonably long duration but,… fair enough. On the latter, knowing how much an estimate might be in error would be quite useful for, e.g., implementing contingency operations for an electrical utility, or preparing propellant budgets for the ISS, or determining whether to invest in sunscreen oil futures.
Leif, where do you get the monthly SSN data, and where are the corrections applied?
You stated here:
SIDC is available from WoodForTrees: http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/sidc-ssn
They’re showing 63.1 August, 61.5 September.
NASA-Marshall reports the International Sunspot Number from “the Solar Influences Data Analysis Center”: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch/spot_num.txt
Same as from WFT.
Where is the 66.9 and 66.8 from?
Where is the 66.9 and 66.8 from?
http://sidc.oma.be/sunspot-data/
Bart says:
October 3, 2012 at 9:48 pm
but easier to imagine it as simply the alternating storage of energy in the E and the B fields.
Imagining is one thing, reality is another
There is just this incredibly regular 11-ish year cycle with a 130-ish year beat.
Not regular at all.
If the former were so, the peaks would be scattered all over the place with no discernible pattern.
There are two processes going on: 1) the solar dynamo winds up the poloidal field. That is fairly deterministic. 2) the sunspots [the toroidal fields] fall apart and their magnetic debris is moved towards the poles by a combination of meridional circulation and random diffusion. Less than one percent of the magnetic flux makes it to the poles in a very haphazard way, so although there is some memory in the process [more spots to begin with, more field eventually to the poles in general], the random part is strong enough that the polar fields at the end of a cycle do not follow the strength of the cycle, i.e. are not predictable.
On the latter, knowing how much an estimate might be in error would be quite useful
The prediction is only useful if the error bar is small enough, and then it doesn’t really matter how small, e.g. a prediction of 100+/-50 is useless, while 100+/-10 is useful.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 3, 2012 at 10:25 pm
Leif, where do you get the monthly SSN data,
In tracking the solar cycle one uses the smoothed [over one year] values. Last column of ‘monthly and monthly smoothed sunspot number’ from here http://www.sidc.be/sunspot-data/
Thanks Vuk, for another source. I had just gotten done figuring it out for myself when I saw your comment (which was about 2 hours ago as I’ve been researching stuff while writing this).
I got the data from this NOAA page, select “plot data” at bottom:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/nndc/struts/results?t=102827&s=5&d=8,430,9
Found from this Solar Indices Data page:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/nndc/struts/results?t=102827&s=1&d=8,4,9
I recalled Leif said “smoothed”. Figured out the derivation by comparing monthly and monthly smoothed and with a spreadsheet.
So it’s a 12 month running average, but to center it you take a 13 month span, and average together the 11 middle months but only half of the beginning and end months.
By the presentation, 66.9 would be the February 2012 number. The NOAA data didn’t have the September mean value yet so I grabbed it from the WFT file. That gave 66.8 for March 2012.
So did Leif misspeak when he said August and September?
Oh well, back to digesting Leif’s reference 1550, and figuring out the cryptic notation.
Rz – Relative Zurich count, aka Wolf number.
Ri – Says here that’s the ISN that replaced Rz from January 1981. So when Rz is seen referencing 1981 and later SSN data, it’s Ri.
Rg – Group Sunspot Number, by the 15 observer independent group listed on slide 15? But slide 13 says that’s 1825 to 1900. The H&S 1994 graph on slide 3 of Wolf and Group numbers is apparently showing Group data past 1900. Yep, I’m lost.
Bart says:
October 3, 2012 at 9:48 pm
If the former were so, the peaks would be scattered all over the place with no discernible pattern.
A good review of solar cycle prediction can be found here:
Pesnell, W. D. (2012), Solar Cycle Predictions (Invited Review), Solar Phys., The Sun 360, doi:10.1007/s11207-012-9997-5
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 4, 2012 at 2:21 am
So did Leif misspeak when he said August and September?
Yes, I’m sorry for that. It should have been February and March.
What I meant was that the latest smoothed value published in August was 66.9 and published in September was 66.8
Rz – Relative Zurich count, aka Wolf number.
Ri – Says here that’s the ISN that replaced Rz from January 1981. So when Rz is seen referencing 1981 and later SSN data, it’s Ri.
Yes, there are just too many names for this. As Ri was meant to be a follow-up for Rz, I use Rz for the whole time. It is too cumbersome otherwise.
Rg – Group Sunspot Number, by the 15 observer independent group listed on slide 15? But slide 13 says that’s 1825 to 1900.
Should have been 1936. Graph got updated. This is a work in progress.
Probably paper 1570 is better.
The H&S 1994 graph on slide 3 of Wolf and Group numbers is apparently showing Group data past 1900. Yep, I’m lost.
The Group numbers go to 1996 or so. I’m only concerned with the part around the jump in 1885.
richardscourtney says:
“How is it that when solar forcing is known to vary by an amount that you now argue is equivalent to 10-15 years of ‘global warming’, neither the models nor the error bands on their predictions incorprate this variation?
What else is left out of the models, and out of the uncertainty bands?”
Simon and Garfunkel wrote a song about the answer you are likely to get. It is called
‘The Sound Of Silence’.
Yes. Fellows like Perlwitz participate only so long as they are permitted to tell lies about others. When asked to tell the truth about their own beliefs, they run. They like fighting strawmen, they don’t like being shown they are one.
richardscourtney wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1098503
You can post this link as often as you want, it still won’t make appear statements in the report, which you have only made up.
Box TS.9 explains what “Committed Climate Change” is. It says:
If the concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols were held fixed after a period of change, the climate system would continue to respond due to the thermal inertia of the oceans and ice sheets and their long time scales for adjustment. ‘Committed warming’ is defined here as the further change in global mean temperature after atmospheric composition, and hence radiative forcing, is held constant…
(http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-5-1.html)
There is nothing in there that says this was only the case for the “recent 15-year temperature stasis”, compared to the “previous similar stasis” between 1980-1995 where the temperature record appeared to be “flat” in a trend analysis over that limited time period. You read something into it, which is only in your head.
Why would it be different? All the conditions listed there needed for a “committed warming” were also present in the year 1980.
You didn’t quote anything where the IPPC Report says what you assert regarding this issue above. You only post a link and try to support your assertions by asserting it is quoted under the link, which you post.
I didn’t complain anything like you assert here about what the IPCC Report presents on this page. My argument was directed against your faulty line of reasoning, which is to compare the multi-model mean results about the “committed warming” of about 0.1 K/decade until 2020 and the multi-model mean value of the scenario predictions of about 0.2 K/decade temperature increase with the one single realization of the temperature record provided by Nature, and, because both supposedly diverged from each other, to conclude the “committed warming” calculated with the models and the scenario predictions were wrong.
No, I do not agree with the first statement, and I do not claim second statement. The model do simulate the climate system of real Earth. They just don’t do it perfectly.
There are no such statements by me. I haven’t said anything about “why the IPCC prediction of ‘committed warming’ has not happened.” You are just projecting your own assertion on me, according to which it hasn’t happened. If I wanted to explain “why”, I would have to accept the presumption as true first, according to which there wasn’t any “committed warming”. The evidence is lacking for the validity of the presumption, though. Results from non-robust trend analysis, the apparent “flat” temperature trend, are not evidence for it. A failure to reject the Null hypothesis that there wasn’t any change doesn’t falsify the alternative hypothesis that states there was a “committed warming” or global warming as predicted in the scenario calculations. My response was about something else. It was about why your reasoning is faulty, based on which you claim that the real world temperature record contradicted the model results.
I haven’t said anything like the statement you assert here, according to which “the warming has ‘decreased’ to nothing” due to solar forcing, or any other cause for the matter of fact. You are making things up again. You are projecting your own assertion, according to which warming has “vanished”, but for which evidence is lacking, on me.
If you are not deliberately disseminating falsehoods, what is your problem then, since you read things that aren’t being written, both into the IPCC Report and into my comments.
As for the assertion, the temperature record was in contradiction to the “committed warming” of about 0.1 K/decade, and scenario warming of about 0.2 K/decade, one can look at the decadal averages of the globally averaged temperature anomaly.
Using the data from the GISS Surface Temperature Analysis:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt
These are the annually averaged anomalies in K:
For the decade of 1981 to 1990:
0.27, 0.06, 0.27, 0.10, 0.06, 0.13, 0.28, 0.33, 0.21, 0.37
mean+/-std = 0.208+/-0.113
For the decade of 1991 to 2000:
0.36, 0.14, 0.15, 0.25, 0.40, 0.30, 0.42, 0.59, 0.34, 0.36
mean+/-std = 0.331+/-0.133
For the decade of 2001 to 2010:
0.49, 0.58, 0.57, 0.49, 0.62, 0.56, 0.59, 0.44, 0.57, 0.63
mean+/-std = 0.554+/-0.061
2011:
0.51
Running decadal averages of the anomaly from end year 1991 to end year 2000:
0.217, 0.225, 0.213, 0.228, 0.262, 0.279, 0.293, 0.319, 0.332, 0.331
Running decadal averages of the anomaly from end year 2001 to end year 2010:
0.334, 0.338, 0.430, 0.454, 0.476, 0.502, 0.519, 0.504, 0.527, 0.554
Running decadal average for end year 2011:
0.556
Anomaly change between decadal averages of consecutive decades with end years from 2001 to 2011 (e.g., average of decade 1992-2001 minus average of decade 1982-1991):
0.117, 0.113, 0.217, 0.226, 0.214, 0.223, 0.226, 0.185, 0.195, 0.223, 0.222
What is supposed to have vanished again? I would say those data aren’t as far away from the about 0.2 K/decade in the scenario prediction from the model simulations. Those changes in the anomalies averaged over the decades are well within the uncertainty range up to the end year 2011.
Thanks Leif.
So from ref 1570, where is the x1.2 correction applied?
Slide 26, pre-1945 (from start to 12/1944)?
Slide 31, before 1946 (from start to 12/1945)?
Since Waldmeier took over in 1946 (slide 30) and the post 1945 Zurich numbers were 21% higher by sunspot area (slide 23), the second appears correct.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 4, 2012 at 9:19 am
So from ref 1570, where is the x1.2 correction applied?
Since Waldmeier took over in 1946 (slide 30) and the post 1945 Zurich numbers were 21% higher by sunspot area (slide 23), the second appears correct.
The exact date is hard to pin down [work in progress] as the Archives have been disappeared ( ! what else is new?), but does not matter much as 1945 was a minimum year with few spots. The different dates reflect the uncertainty on the date.
Jan P Perlwitz says: October 4, 2012 at 7:28 am
I would say those data aren’t as far away from the about 0.2 K/decade in the scenario prediction from the model simulations. Those changes in the anomalies averaged over the decades are well within the uncertainty range up to the end year 2011.
Dr. Perlwitz
De-trended North Hemisphere and the N. Atlantic SS temperatures show that the 0.2C/decade is a natural variation
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
There is very little understanding of the changes due to the external causes, consequently a fudge factor is applied and the changes are attributed to the CO2.
Natural oscillations of te same order persist throughout previous 300 years as Gray and Mann have shown
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-recon.htm
Jan P Perlwitz says: October 4, 2012 at 7:28 am
I would say those data aren’t as far away from the about 0.2 K/decade in the scenario prediction from the model simulations. Those changes in the anomalies averaged over the decades are well within the uncertainty range up to the end year 2011.
Dr. Perlwitz
De-trended North Hemisphere and the N. Atlantic SS temperatures show that the 0.2C/decade is a natural variation
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
There is very little understanding of the changes due to the external causes, consequently a fudge factor is applied and the changes are attributed to the CO2.
Natural oscillations of same order persist throughout previous 300 years as Gray and Mann have shown
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-recon.htm
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 4, 2012 at 2:17 am
Here is how the predictable, smooth outputs of a randomly driven set of coupled damped oscillators can combine to create an abrupt transition in the output SSN.
The first harmonic output is decaying slowly in accordance with its damping time constant after a period of excitation. The second is holding steady. The phases simply line up so that there is a seemingly abrupt transition in the output. But, the non-smooth output is more apparent than real. And, it is predictable given what came before.
You need to model what is actually evident in the data – multiple modes of oscillation with characteristic decay due to energy dissipation. Energy always finds a path to leak out of the system, and the rate at which it does so generally has to be determined empirically.
I’ve done the best I can to demonstrate it to you, more than you had any right to expect. If you spurn my gift, well, others will steal the march on you. But, I have other things to do now.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 4, 2012 at 2:27 am
A good review of solar cycle prediction can be found here:
Pesnell, W. D. (2012), Solar Cycle Predictions (Invited Review), Solar Phys., The Sun 360, doi:10.1007/s11207-012-9997-5
A copy is here http://www.leif.org/EOS/Pesnell_2012.pdf
Note that the paper only discusses prediction one cycle ahead.
Bart says:
October 4, 2012 at 10:30 am
The first harmonic output is decaying slowly in accordance with its damping time constant after a period of excitation. The second is holding steady. The phases simply line up so that there is a seemingly abrupt transition in the output. But, the non-smooth output is more apparent than real. And, it is predictable given what came before.
Except that is not how the Sun operates, as I have explained to you several times.
I’ve done the best I can to demonstrate it to you, more than you had any right to expect. If you spurn my gift, well, others will steal the march on you. But, I have other things to do now.
As the Sun does not work as you assume, nothing has been demonstrated. Your effort is limited by the skill-set you have and does not apply outside of that. So your ‘gift’ really has no value and there is no ‘danger’ that some other will ‘steal the march’. It would be wonderful if someone would, but that does not seem in the cards. In the meantime we work to understand the physics of the system and will base predictions on that rather than numerology.
Mr Perlw1tz:
I notice that ‘The Sound Of Silence’ is booming in response to JJ’s question to you.
But you have attempted to draw attention from your evasion of that simple and straightforward question with a ludicrous and rambling dialogue which you aim at me at October 4, 2012 at 7:28 am.
Let us be clear. Your lies do not obscure the truth and you are delusional if you think anybody is being fooled by them except perhaps yourself.
The IPCC predicted “committed climate change” for the first two decades after year 2000 because of the increase to atmospheric GHG (notably CO2 concentrations). I cited, referenced, linked and quoted those predictions. But you say to me
I did NOT “make up” anything and you do not state anything I “made up” because you know I did not “make up” anything.
You quote and link to IPCC Box TS.9 which defines “committed climate change”. Thankyou, that confirms what I said and have repeated here. But from that you assert
No! Please do not pretend you are an idiot. As I said in the post you claim to be replying
Are you seriously claiming that the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration measured at Mauna Loa since 1958 is “only in [my] head”?
You repeatedly made the false assertion that I had made the mistake of only drawing a “single realization” when – in fact – I had only quoted the IPCC and YOU – not me – had claimed the IPCC represented your views. I quoted you verbatim (and at length) and I rejected your offensive and untrue ranting. You now say
Bollocks!
You wrote an infantile, offensive and untrue rant. It is so silly that I copy it here so everybody can laugh at it again. Your “argument” concerning my “faulty line of reasoning” was this
And I responded to that nonsense saying
And I said
You have now replied to that saying
THAT IS YET ANOTHER REFUSAL TO ADDRESS THE FACT THAT NONE – EXCEPT PERHAPS ONE – OF THE MODELS EMULATES THE CLIMATE OF THE REAL EARTH. And it also evades JJ’s questions.
“No, I do not agree” does not constitute a logical or a scientific argument. It seems you have no idea what science and logic are.
You reinforce this indication of your lack of logical ability when you write
Say what!? That is such a load of twaddle that I need to answer each of its statements in turn.
JPP
There are no such statements by me. I haven’t said anything about “why the IPCC prediction of ‘committed warming’ has not happened.”
RSC
Absolute rubbish! You do not dispute (a) that the IPCC predicted the “committed warming” for the two decades following year 2000 and (b) that there has been no discernible warming after year 2000. And you said about “why the IPCC prediction of ‘committed warming’ has not happened” e.g.
I really do not understand why you keep stating such blatant lies as “I haven’t said anything about …”: it does you no good.
JPP
“You are just projecting your own assertion on me, according to which it hasn’t happened. If I wanted to explain “why”, I would have to accept the presumption as true first, according to which there wasn’t any “committed warming”.”
RSC
I am “projecting” nothing. You DID debate why the “committed warming” has not happened and I have quoted some of your explanation. And, therefore, you DID agree “there wasn’t any “committed warming”.”
JPP
“The evidence is lacking for the validity of the presumption, though. Results from non-robust trend analysis, the apparent “flat” temperature trend, are not evidence for it. A failure to reject the Null hypothesis that there wasn’t any change doesn’t falsify the alternative hypothesis that states there was a “committed warming” or global warming as predicted in the scenario calculations.”
RSC
You are being plain daft. You have repeatedly claimed AGW has become the “dominant climate driver at decadal and century time scales”. The “committed warming” is the AGW effect. If the AGW effect is “dominant” and exists then it cannot have been reduced to nothing by other “drivers”. THERE HAS BEEN NO DISCERNIBLE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RISE SINCE YEAR 2000. Either the “committed warming” has not happened or it is NOT dominant: there are no other possibilities. In either case, “THE SCENARIO CALCULATIONS” ARE FALSIFIED.
JPP
“My response was about something else. It was about why your reasoning is faulty, based on which you claim that the real world temperature record contradicted the model results.”
RSC
You claim my reasoning is faulty! ROTFL.
You follow that twaddle with this
Say what!? Are you now claiming there is a discernible rise in global temperature since year 2000 or are you denying that you said “at least solar forcing has decreased in the previous decade”?
In either case I am not “projecting” anything but you are refuting your own statements.
And I am certainly NOT doing as you suggest when you write
Now that is a clear psychological projection: it attributes to me your repeated behaviours in this thread when I have done none of them.
You then go on about temperature anomalies. It seems that whenever you have lost an argument you obfuscate with irrelevance. At issue is
(1) Has there been a stasis in global temperature since year 2000?
(within measurement capability, there has been stasis according to several data sets)
And
(2) Is the present global temperature stasis different from previous similar periods?
(According to the IPCC, it is because it has more “committed warming”)
And
(3) Has the “committed warming” predicted by IPCC AR4 happened?
(It has not happened, and it now seems extremely improbable that it could be realised before year 2020).
You attempt to obfuscate those facts by comparing GISS temperature anomalies for decades prior to year 2000 and the decade after year 2000. Of course that is as relevant as the temperature of my socks before and after I donned them. The relevant fact is that there has been temperature stasis since year 2000 although the IPCC predicted “committed warming” averaged over the two decades after 2000 of 0.2K/decade: n.b. it was 0.2K/decade and NOT 0.1K/decade as you assert because the IPCC said the higher value was “committed” if CO2 emissions were within the predictions of the SRES scenarios and they have been.
So, in answer to your question
I answer:
The “committed warming” has vanished because the predicted rise of 0.2K since year 2000 has not happened. The anomalies you quote are as relevant as the temperature of my socks.
Now, having tried your diversion which I have answered, will you answer JJ’s questions?
Richard
From Jan P Perlwitz on October 4, 2012 at 7:28 am:
I am certain anyone reading that would be quite impressed with the effort you exerted to convert them to Kelvin from the original GISS presentation as degrees Celsius, especially as Kelvin is so much more scientifically authoritative thus its use would befit such as yourself.
Let’s see, GISTEMP LOTI, three decade ranges, 1981-1990, 1991-2000, and 2001-2010, all inclusive.
Done.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1981/to:1991/plot/gistemp/from:1981/to:1991/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1991/to:2001/plot/gistemp/from:1991/to:2001/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001/to:2011/plot/gistemp/from:2001/to:2011/trend
Note in WFT notation the “from” year is included, the “to” year is excluded.
1991-2000 has the greatest rate of warming, expected as it includes the 1997-98 Super El Nino.
But it is clearly seen the 2001-2010 rate of warming is far reduced, even lower that 1981-1990. All the way down to 0.045K/decade. Looks rather stalled to me.
And the models are saying 0.2K/decade, 4.4 times that rate?
Let’s shift one year, look at 2002-2011. Uh-oh! Now there is cooling, the temperatures are dropping 0.017K/decade!
Now let’s look at trends for the decades since the Super El Nino, 1999-2008, 2000-2009, 2001-2010, and 2002-2011:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1999/to:2009/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/to:2010/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001/to:2011/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2012/trend
The rates of warming are clearly going down, the warming is decelerating, with the last rate negative.
Heck, let’s look at ten straight decade trends, from 1993-2002 to 2002-2011:
(Long link)
The evidence is clear. Global warming hasn’t just hit a lull, it decelerated, with the last rate negative. Global warming has reversed. While the atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ and CH₄ continue their merry rise.
It’ll take some more years to be certain, with the decade rates staying negative, and likely increasingly negative. But offhand it looks like Anthropogenic global warming has stopped being a problem. Non-anthropogenic global cooling, now that may be becoming something worth worrying about.
“I’ve done the best I can to demonstrate it to you, more than you had any right to expect. If you spurn my gift, well, others will steal the march on you. But, I have other things to do now.”
So spoke Gizbart the Orc to Gandalf, before turning on his heel and commencing a firm stride as far from the coming battle at Mordor as he could muster, leaving the party to wonder amongst themselves what greater task the argumentative interloper could possibly have set for himself.
– unused Lord of the Rings concept by JRR Tolkien, recovered from a bucket by the fireplace before being burnt, used as wrapping paper for a broken child’s toy that was put away.
JanP, richardsourtney, etc
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. Here’s the picture:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-4.html
It is very clear that the orange line represents the “committed” temp increase which is based on no additional CO2 from 2000 forward. Clearly, actual temps from 2000 until now are lower than the “committed” projection, while actual CO2 levels are higher than 2000 levels.
davidmhoffer:
As you say in your post at October 4, 2012 at 3:40 pm
Yes. Indeed so. But that is not in dispute.
In his post at October 4, 2012 at 7:28 am, Mr Perlw1tz pretended that temperature data from BEFORE 2000 provides an indication concerning the reality of “committed” temperature increase which the IPCC predicted for AFTER 2000. As I said, the temperature data he presented is as relevant to the prediction for after 2000 as the temperature of my socks (and I am certain he knows that).
Importantly, he presented the irrelevant data as part of his attempt to avoid – and to distract from – the straightforward question from JJ. He really doesn’t want to discuss the faults in the models, and his desire to avoid that discussion is very understandable when he is a climate modeler and the climate models are rubbish: if the models were any good then he would want to take every opportunity to proclaim their abilities and to discuss their limitations.
Richard
Bart says:
October 3, 2012 at 7:44 pm
“I do not know precisely how well I could predict the SSN after a given number of cycles. But, I know that I can predict them, and I know that I can estimate accurate error bounds for the predictions, and that in itself is something of considerable value.”
There is a solid reason why it is impossible to use previous sunspot data or solar proxy records to extract some sort of recurring pattern to predict future sunspot cycle strength or grand minima. Put simply the pattern never repeats exactly although there is a rough underlying trend that lures those into a false trap. I tried to explain this phenomenon to Willis but he was too pig headed to learn. Vuk’s equation has missing components otherwise he is on the right track.
Once you understand how the pseudo pattern repeats everything becomes clear and that trying to use mathematical tools is fruitless. Contact me on my blog if you wish to know more.
richardscourtney;
I started wondering what CO2 concentration the B1 scenario in the graph I linked to would be in 2012. To my surprise, the various scenarios described in the SRES don’t seem to say anything at all about Co2 concentrations. They are all in gigatons of carbon per year. Am I missing something here? Is there not some expression of the various scenarios in terms of the expected CO2 levels? Forcing from CO2 has to be calculated from concentration levels which cannot be directly extrapolated from the amount of carbon we burn since the resulting CO2 doesn’t all stay in the atmosphere, some of it gets taken up by the biosphere, oceans, etc. Where’s the conversion from gigatons per year to ppm in the atmosphere?
davidmhoffer:
At October 4, 2012 at 7:00 pm you ask me:
The basic procedure was initially described in the First IPCC WG1 Report and is Chapter 2 titled ‘Radiative Forcing of Climate’.
The SRES scenarios are daft (I have published on this) but, for this answer, I take them as read.
The anthropogenic emissions of GHGs are estimated and their contributions to atmospheric concentration are calculated; e.g. the (ridiculous) Bern Model is used to determine how much the CO2 increases in the air as a result of an annual anthropogenic emission of CO2. Thus, an estimate is obtained for the anthropogenic increase to each GHG in the air.
The “CO2 equivalence” of each GHG (e.g. CH4) in the air is calculated. Subsequent IPCC Reports have endorsed the method but have amended values of “CO2 equivalence”. The procedure is as follows.
1.
The “CO2 equivalence” of a GHG is the amount of CO2 that would provide the same change to radiative forcing as the GHG if it were added to the air.
2.
All the calculated “CO2 equivalence” values are added to obtain a total “CO2 equivalence” of the GHG in the air for each year.
3.
The total “CO2 equivalence” is converted to gigatonnes of carbon (GtC) by assuming it is actually CO2 and the volume of the atmosphere is a constant (1.5 ppmv of CO2 in the air is equivalent to about 3 GtC in the air).
I hope this succinct answer is clear.
Richard
Geoff Sharp says:
October 4, 2012 at 5:48 pm
Geoff, please post any links where you discuss what you have uncovered. It could be helpful an enlightening.
The pattern in my simulation never repeats exactly, either, because of the disturbances driving the oscillations. The question is, how rapidly does the disturbance modulate the pattern in amplitude and phase, and how quickly will a propagated oscillation diverge from reality? These questions can be answered, and the indications are that several cycles likely can reasonably be projected forward, because the contributing harmonics are reasonably smooth, even when the resulting measurement can be highly variable.
Leif is quite wrong about the character of this time series. The “restoring force” he demands is embedded within the Laplacian of the governing equations in his model. It astounds me that he could have worked with these dynamics for so long, and yet not appreciate what the terms in his equations represent. No doubt, pointing it out will only occasion another nasty shouting match, so to save time, take it as read that he will disparage my capabilities once again, and insist that he has a lock on the one and only true way of viewing things, and I am a fool. Meh.
This is not to say that I have the one and only true way of viewing things. A simple, reduced complexity model such as I have suggested can be used to formulate a linear Kalman Filter, which is generally much more robust than a filter which tries to add in noonlinear complexity which is swamped by the disturbances, and so is not likely to help much, if at all, and may even contribute to more rapid divergence of the prediction. But, if additional terms can be added to the model which strongly influence particular behavior above the S/N ratio, this would help improve things. Also, performing a system identification to determine any limitation of the bandwidth, or particular character of the disturbances, would also help. Taking it all into account, and determining steps to improve the estimation, is a monumental task which could keep several analysts continually employed over many years, which is why I likened the full task to building a 747 in my back yard to davidmhoffer.
You guys reading this can disparage me all you like. You can hate me for an insensitive lout. But, I have actually successfully completed projects like this, and seen the fruits of my labors, so it really doesn’t matter to me. As of right now, there have been 29 views to my latest chart. There have been over 400 to the other plots I have put up on this topic. Hopefully, some of those views are from people who will take the ball and run it to the goal line. That is all that really matters to me. I hope the things I have pointed out will be of benefit to someone. For that special someone, or someones, I will repeat some key items:
1) use a multi-mode model – the existence of at least two major harmonics is revealed in the PSD. The way these modes interfere with one another is key to reproducing large swings in the output, as shown here, while maintaining smooth, predictable underlying processes
2) run the filter backwards and then forwards over the data to prime the prediction phase. Consult a text on Kalman Filtering for constructing the backward filter formulation. You want to get the best estimates of the initial states possible for initiating the prediction forward.
3) perform identification analysis to obtain the best estimates for model parameters – the rate of energy dissipation which leads to damping ratios is key to being able to produce robust and reliable predictions.
Bart says:
October 5, 2012 at 7:51 am
Geoff Sharp says:
October 4, 2012 at 5:48 pm
The “restoring force” he demands is embedded within the Laplacian of the governing equations in his model.
Still that is not how the Sun works.
You guys reading this can disparage me all you like.
You seem not to be able to draw the distinction between disparaging a person [as you do all the time] and pointing out that what that person says is wrong [as I do].
The bottom line is that people have already trying what you suggest and have found that the approach doesn’t work. The way forward is the measure in real time what the actual internal flows are in the Sun [we can do that now] and then go from there. Numerology dressed up in whatever clothes you think are pretty doesn’t work.
JJ wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1099290
Well, the forcing from the difference between TSI at solar maximum and solar minimum equivalent to an amount of greenhouse gas forcing that is added over 10 to 15 years is not so much over a time period of multiple decades and a century, considering that greenhouse gases add this amount of forcing every 10 to 15 years, currently, whereas, assuming solar activity stayed at the minimum it would be only a one-time subtraction altogether, counteracting the greenhouse gas forcing. Averaged over the whole solar cycle, let’s say cycle 22 as baseline, the decrease in solar forcing wouldn’t be equal the difference between maximum and minimum, anyway. Instead, it would be the difference between the average TSI over the whole cycle and minimum TSI.
As for the model simulations. State-of-the-art Earth system models use the historic variability of the solar forcing as input to drive model climate together with the other climate drivers. However, for future scenarios the solar cycle was prescribed constant for CMIP3. The same for CMIP5. I guess the problem is that no one really knows how the solar cycle is going to develop over future decades and centuries, and when those experiments were designed there wasn’t as much scientific hypothesis out there about a period of “hibernation” of the sun over the next decades.
I would like to do some future scenario calculations with the assumption of solar variability is going into a state like the Maunder Minimum to test the sensitivity of these scenarios to such a change in solar variability. However, currently I’m working on different projects, which have exhausted my time budget.
I find the prospect of the sun going into a Maunder minimum like state very exciting. I really hope it’s going to happen. It will be sort of the ultimate test for the question which one of the two forcing dominates nowadays, anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing or solar forcing. I suppose you can guess what I think, which one is the more important one for present-day global climate.
davidmhoffer wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1101272
The curves you see in the graphic are low-pass filtered model output. It is not scientifically sound to compare low-pass filtered model output, where short-term unforced variability on interannual time scales has been largely removed, with unfiltered data from observations that have all the short-term unforced variability present. This unforced variability makes the temperature record from the real world wobble, with quite large amplitude, around the long-term trend. The proper comparison to the model output is done by using also a low-pass filtered observed temperature record where the short-term variability is equally strongly damped like for the model output. This is how I have done it, when I used the decadal averages of the observed temperature record in one of my previous comments. Doing this shows that the longer-term trend of the low-pass filtered observed temperature is quite well in agreement with the model projections.
JanP;
The curves you see in the graphic are low-pass filtered model output. It is not scientifically sound to compare
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, you are admitting that the science as presented in the IPCC report is misleading in this case?
davidmhoffer wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1101916
What? No, I am not. Why would you say that?
JanP
What? No, I am not. Why would you say that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jan, seriously? Read the string again.
Jan P Perlwitz:
I read your musings at October 5, 2012 at 8:31 am . I would now be interested to read an answer from you to JJ’s questions which that post quoted. Please provide answers.
Richard
Oh! It has already been retrieved. Thankyou Mods.
Richard
Jan P Perlwitz says:
October 5, 2012 at 8:15 am
I find the prospect of the sun going into a Maunder minimum like state very exciting. I really hope it’s going to happen. It will be sort of the ultimate test for the question which one of the two forcing dominates nowadays, anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing or solar forcing.
Unfortunately, it may very well be that this will not be the ‘ultimate’ test:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL046658.shtml
“Therefore, the best estimate of magnetic activity, and presumably TSI, for the least-active Maunder Minimum phases appears to be provided by direct measurement in 2008–2009. The implied marginally significant decrease in TSI during the least active phases of the Maunder Minimum by 140 to 360 ppm relative to 1996 suggests that drivers other than TSI dominate Earth’s long-term climate change.”
Leif Svalgaard:
I write to support your opinion stated at October 5, 2012 at 12:10 pm.
The assumption that a ‘Maunder Minimum’ would “be sort of the ultimate test for the question which one of the two forcing dominates nowadays, anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing or solar forcing” presupposes that one of these two forcings “dominates”.
In reality it is quite possible that internal variability of the system may dominate both anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing and solar forcing. Several people – including me – have been pointing out this possibility since the early 1990s.
Notably Richard Lindzen has been consistently explaining the matter. His first publication concerning the possibility of which I am aware was in 1997. Much more recently he has published an explanation at
http://www.glebedigital.co.uk/blog/?p=1450
His explanation at that link says
Richard
Somebody is coming around:
[“21] In the model, the change in phase between the heliospheric modulation potential and sunspot maxima is a direct result of assuming the HCS continues to cycle in the same manner, regardless of the strength of the sunspot cycle. Thus we suggest that the solar cycle polarity reversals were unaffected by the relative absence of sunspots during the Maunder Minimum. In turn, this argues that the solar dynamo continues to cycle with an approximately 11-year period throughout grand solar minima, but that the necessary photospheric flux emergence takes place in flux tubes with field too weak, or of too small a diameter, to form sunspots [Spruit, 1977] ((the Livingston & Penn effect)). The presence of small flux tubes with no dark sunspots may imply that although UV emission from the chromosphere would be lower during grand minima (such as the Maunder Minimum) than during grand maxima (such as recent decades), the visible and infrared emissions from the photosphere would actually be greater than in recent years ((TSI higher during Maunder Minimum)). During the recent long and extended solar minimum SC23/SC24 observations by the SORCE satellite [Harder et al., 2009] show that the decline in UV was larger than expected but that IR and visible emissions increased.
[22] Applying the [open solar flux] OSF model to future variations, we note a continued decline in solar activity over cycles 24 and 25 may not produce a steady decline in OSF. The model predicts that even a steady decline in sunspot number may result in a plateau in OSF during SC24 ((they are discovering the floor))”
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L19102, doi:10.1029/2012GL053151, 2012
Heliospheric modulation of galactic cosmic rays during grand solar
minima: Past and future variations
M. J. Owens, I. Usoskin, and M. Lockwood
There is also some nonsense in the paper, but they at least got the above right. Things in ((are my comments))
JanP
What? No, I am not. Why would you say that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jan, seriously? Read the string again
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’ve given you most of the day to respond and…. nothing. Perhaps you are just busy.
Bottom line is that you said that the IPCC AR4 WG1 was representative of your opinion if the science. I then presented to you a graphic showing warming for various scenarios, including committed warming from CO2 levels post 2000. You advised that this graphic was NOT a proper representation of the science. In fact, you said:
“The curves you see in the graphic are low-pass filtered model output. It is not scientifically sound to compare low-pass filtered model output, where short-term unforced variability on interannual time scales has been largely removed, with unfiltered data from observations that have all the short-term unforced variability present.”
Jan, you have asserted that WG1 represents your opinion on the science, and you have also asserted that in this case WG1 has published something not scientificaly sound. At worst this means you think they are dead wrong, at best, that the graphic is misleading.
Many assumptions are made about the sunspot cycles intensity effect on the global temperatures. None of the proposed solutions demonstrate numerically existence of a direct link. However, simple arithmetic will show that interactions between the Earth’s magnetic field change and the solar magnetic cycles show strong correlation to the North Hemisphere’s (de-trended) temperatures, most likely as a consequence of the AMO, while correlation in the SH is much weaker.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
Jean Dickey of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena:
One possibility is the movements of Earth’s core (where Earth’s magnetic field originates) might disturb Earth’s magnetic shielding of charged-particle (i.e., cosmic ray) fluxes that have been hypothesized to affect the formation of clouds. This could affect how much of the sun’s energy is reflected back to space and how much is absorbed by our planet. Other possibilities are that some other core process could be having a more indirect effect on climate, or that an external (e.g. solar) process affects the core and climate simultaneously.
Reasons why the NH apparently does respond strongly , and the SH not so much, are somewhat more complex but could be explained by combination of the geomagnetic and the oceanographic differences.
By adding the temperatures of two hemispheres into a single global data stream the effect is diminished in the intensity, and less likely to be positively identified.
vukcevic says:
October 5, 2012 at 3:36 pm
However, simple arithmetic…
Einstein said: “make it as simple as possible, not no simpler”. Simple solutions to complex preoblems are almost always wrong.
Bart says:
October 5, 2012 at 7:51 am
Geoff, please post any links where you discuss what you have uncovered. It could be helpful an enlightening.
Bart, the link I provided earlier gives the base detail. We are not permitted to discuss the detail here but feel free to discuss on my blogs.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/218
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 5, 2012 at 2:13 pm
Somebody is coming around:
Lots of assumptions here both by Lockwood’s model and yourself.
You guys can play around with the components of the HMF but at the end of the day the GCR flux is the most reliable source which sums magnetic strength, wind speed and tilt angle. I have not seen evidence of Maunder Minimum GRC flux matching the current readings.
Perhaps we could see the entire paper before commenting, but Lockwood unlike you, places a high regard on UV variations and climate connections which he notes the UV readings are surprisingly low. Pity we dont have reliable UV values for the Maunder.
The so called L&P Effect is rapidly becoming isolated with many providing evidence of its non existence.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/280
Sunspot magnetic strength is basically following the sunspot cycle as expected.
But this one happens to work
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
and further more these calculations are supported by (no less than four) independent unrelated reconstructions (Proctor, Gray, Man, Folland)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-recon.htm
as listed here:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/speleothem/scotland/scotland_data.txt
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/amo-gray2004.txt
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iamo_manna.txt
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/snao-folland2009.txt
Geoff Sharp says:
October 5, 2012 at 11:34 pm
the GCR flux is the most reliable source which sums magnetic strength, wind speed and tilt angle
I guess you missed the title of the paper: ‘Heliospheric modulation of galactic cosmic rays during grand solar minima: Past and future variations’
The so called L&P Effect is rapidly becoming isolated with many providing evidence of its non existence.
On the contrary, one of your own graphs shows how well the decline matches that of L&P: http://www.leif.org/research/Disappearance-of-Visible-Spots.pdf (slide 6)
It is quite normal that when new epoch-making discoveries are made, that there are a lot of ‘rear-guard’ action trying to preserve status quo. You are no exception.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 5, 2012 at 11:34 pm
the GCR flux is the most reliable source which sums magnetic strength, wind speed and tilt angle
I guess you missed the title of the paper: ‘Heliospheric modulation of galactic cosmic rays during grand solar minima: Past and future variations’
The so called L&P Effect is rapidly becoming isolated with many providing evidence of its non existence.
On the contrary, one of your own graphs shows how well the decline matches that of L&P: http://www.leif.org/research/Disappearance-of-Visible-Spots.pdf (slide 6)
Even deToma has come around [lower graph on slide 5] and Fraser Watson [slide 7]
It is quite normal that when new epoch-making discoveries are made, that there are a lot of ‘rear-guard’ action trying to preserve status quo. You are no exception.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 5, 2012 at 11:34 pm
at the end of the day the GCR flux is the most reliable source which sums magnetic strength, wind speed and tilt angle.
As discovered by me: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/262766a0-HCS-Cosmic-Rays.pdf
Geoff Sharp says:
October 5, 2012 at 11:34 pm
The so called L&P Effect is rapidly becoming isolated with many providing evidence of its non existence.
Here is a section of my keynote talk at http://www.tiems.info/about-tiems/oslo-conference-2012.html :
Recent Changes in the Sun?
Historically all solar indices have been closely correlated as they all derive from the same source: the variable magnetic field. In fact, the various reconstructions of past (and predictions of future) activity all rely on the implicit assumption that the correlations stay the same over time. This is likely to be true for indices that have a close physical connection, like the 10.7 and UV fluxes, but is not given a priori for correlations that are more indirect, e.g involving the sunspot number: the processes creating visible sunspots are varied and not fully understood. And indeed, while there has long been a stable relationship between the 10.7 flux and the sunspot number, allowing one to calculate or map one from the other, that relationship has steadily deteriorated in the past decade to the point where the sunspot number for a given flux has decreased by about a third (Figure 12).
A similar decrease of the sunspot number for a given amount of magnetic flux in the plages surrounding active regions has occurred as well as a decrease of the number of spots per active region. This is unprecedented in the observational record. We interpret this decrease as a loss of primarily the small spots. (((which is why looking at the largest spots is not so good)))
Observations by Livingston & Penn since 1998 until the present show that the average magnetic field in sunspots has steadily decreased by 25% [Livingston et al., 2012], regardless of the fact that we are now again at the maximum of a solar cycle. Since the magnetic field cools the spots, a decreasing field means that the sunspots are getting warmer and that their contrast with the surrounding photosphere is getting smaller, making the spots harder to see. There is a minimum field strength in visible spots of about 1500 Gauss [0.15 T] and as that 1500 G threshold is approached, magnetic fields appear at the solar surface which do not form dark sunspots or pores. Owens et al. [2012] suggest that the photospheric flux emergence in such cases may take place in flux tubes with field too weak, or of too small a diameter, to form sunspots, citing Spruit [1977]. The observed distribution of number of spots vs. field strength has been shifting steadily towards that limit. If, and that is a big if, this trend continues, the number of visible spots in the next cycle [and perhaps beyond] may fall to values not seen since the Maunder Minimum, but without dramatic changes in the emerging magnetic flux. Without the dark spots, Total Solar Irradiance might even be a bit higher. It is not clear what this will mean for the impact of solar activity on the Earth’s environment, if any, but it portends exciting times for solar physicists.
Leif Svalgaard says:
….the GCR flux is the most reliable source which sums magnetic strength, wind speed and tilt angle.
As discovered by me: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/262766a0-HCS-Cosmic-Rays.pdf
M. Vukcevic says:
And even of more profound importance for the understanding natural variation in climate change is the coupling between the solar and the Earth’s magnetic fields.
As discovered by me: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
Snap!
vukcevic says:
October 6, 2012 at 10:51 am
And even of more profound importance for the understanding natural variation in climate change is the coupling between the solar and the Earth’s magnetic fields. As discovered by me
Except that coupling is spurious.
Oh, yea, all 150 years of it, plus another 150 years of the corroborated reconstruction.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-recon.htm
in contrast with 10 years of the L&P ‘effect’ (unconfirmed and irreproducible) which is an absolute.
Hey doc, you do have a sense of humor.
vukcevic says:
October 6, 2012 at 11:57 am
Oh, yea, all 150 years of it, plus another 150 years of the corroborated reconstruction.
Oh, yeah, this is rubbish. Sorry to say so, but there is no validity that I can see to any of this. Now, I may just be incompetent to judge such things, so why would you so vehemently object to my evaluation of your handiwork? Take it as a man and just go your own way regardless; after all you have hundred of thousands of devoted followers out there [and at NASA, FBI, CIA, NOAA, ESA, JPL, etc].
Oh, yeah, this is rubbish. Sorry to say so, but there is no validity that I can see to any of this.
No, you are sorry not
because you know rubbish it is not,
you are very sorry because what I got.
Just you wait, ‘enry ‘iggins,
Just you wait until you see this!
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AOP.htm
until you find out what the NAP is
Just you wait, ‘enry ‘iggins
Then you’ll be sorry, but your sorry’ll be too late!
NASA, NOAA and USGS are regular visitors to my web-pages, I haven’t noticed the ESA , but hey, what do you know about CIA and FBI ?
vukcevic says:
October 6, 2012 at 1:37 pm
what I got.
Good luck with that
Jan P Perlwitz says:
“How is it that when solar forcing is known to vary by an amount that you now argue is equivalent to 10-15 years of ‘global warming’, neither the models nor the error bands on their predictions incorprate this variation?”
I guess the problem is that no one really knows how the solar cycle is going to develop over future decades and centuries, …
Then why don’t the error bands reflect that? And despite your voluminous response that expounded on things not asked, why didn’t you answer that question the first time it ws asked?
Speaking of error bands, what is the uncertainty in the solar input for the past – the period over which the models were calibrated and of the data which was used to back out the alleged CO2 effect? And how was that uncertainty propagated forward in the model predictions that you already refuse to stand behind without ad hoc adjustments?
Which of course brings us back to the other questions, asked more than once, that remain unanswered:
How long can global average surface temps remain flat before you admit your theory is bust?
Is the ~25 year period that you have stipulated sufficient for that, or not? If not, please revise your previous answer.
How long would they have to rise at less than the 0.2C/decade rate predicted by the low end of your scenarios before you will accept that you are wrong?
How much can they drop, before you will come to that conclusion?
These are not difficult questions, for someone who makes claims …
I find the prospect of the sun going into a Maunder minimum like state very exciting. I really hope it’s going to happen. It will be sort of the ultimate test for the question which one of the two forcing dominates nowadays, anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing or solar forcing.
It cannot be a test, if you will not commit to specific, quantified criteria upon which failure would be judged to have occurred.
Answer the questions.
Leif,
I just noticed an article, they think Voyager 1 has likely left the solar system (heliopause).
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/10/more-evidence-that-voyager-has-exited-the-solar-system/
Charged particle counts dramatically dropped. Possible instrument failure? More GCR’s, magnetic field data not yet definite.
Do you have more info and references? Possibly something for a quick post before Anthony throws in the “open thread weekend” towel again?
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 6, 2012 at 4:04 pm
I just noticed an article, they think Voyager 1 has likely left the solar system (heliopause).
I saw it too. I don’t think it is a malfunction [it would too much of a coincidence], but we have to await what the experimenters say.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 6, 2012 at 4:04 pm
More GCR’s
Arguable, the most important piece of information we can get form the Voyagers is a measurement of the cosmic ray spectrum [or count] in the Local Interstellar Medium. This value underlies our whole calculation of the solar modulation of cosmic rays and has until now only been guessed at.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 6, 2012 at 7:11 am
On the contrary, one of your own graphs shows how well the decline matches that of L&P: http://www.leif.org/research/Disappearance-of-Visible-Spots.pdf (slide 6)
Fig. 6 shows the FSU and L&P data following the sunspot cycle. This is what you get once the erroneous data collection method of L&P is removed.
Dr. S
Kadaka
I superimposed two images (GCR and charged particles)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/V1.htm
considering time coincidence and amplitude values (GCR vs protons) I would guess everything is functioning as normal.
On matters galactic:
NASA records new ‘black hole’ in action
Geoff Sharp says:
October 6, 2012 at 9:51 pm
Fig. 6 shows the FSU and L&P data following the sunspot cycle.
All the figures show that there is a weak solar cycle variation [to be expected] on top of the general downward trend. This is regardless of L&P. F10.7, MSPI, CaII, Spots/Group, Owens et al (GCRs) all are what show this. L&P just happens to confirm the decline.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 7, 2012 at 5:48 am
All the figures show that there is a weak solar cycle variation [to be expected] on top of the general downward trend. This is regardless of L&P. F10.7, MSPI, CaII, Spots/Group, Owens et al (GCRs) all are what show this. L&P just happens to confirm the decline.
The figures show from many reliable sources that the sunspot magnetic strength follows the overall sunspot count. This is clearly shown in Fig. 6 which you have not denied. L&P and yourself are off the rails when suggesting the sunspot magnetic strength defies the weak but still upward trend of SC24 [to be expected]. The empirical evidence outweighs the erroneous data presented by yourself and L&P as questioned by many of high regard. The data collection method of L&P opposed by myself some years ago is now backed up by experts in the field.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/280
Geoff Sharp says:
October 7, 2012 at 8:13 am
The data collection method of L&P opposed by myself some years ago is now backed up by experts in the field.
You just don’t get it. The decline in all solar indicators is independent of L&P, the latter only serving as an explanation of the decline. And L and P are experts in the field [in particular Livingston who is the most experienced observer alive]. The data collection is unbiased as all spots are measured in every observing slot. The earliest data before 1998 were biased towards large spots, so are not used. That you oppose the most expert of the experts is not of any consequence.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 7, 2012 at 8:13 am
The data collection method of L&P opposed by myself some years ago is now backed up by experts in the field.
You are saying that “The data collection method of L&P … is now backed up by experts in the field”
From Geoff Sharp on October 6, 2012 at 9:51 pm:
Huh? I found an abstract of a 2011 presentation by L&P and “Svalgard” describing the method: “From 2001 to 2011 we have measured field strength and brightness at the darkest position in umbrae of 1750 spots using the Zeeman splitting of the Fe 1564.8 nm line. Only one observation per spot per day is carried out during our monthly telescope time of 3-4 days average.”
They collected data when they could, common in astronomy. How is their data collection method erroneous?
Of course the L&P data follows the sunspot cycle, in the sense of “following” that it tracks the cycle, which it would since it is sampling the cycle. But it could not be “following” the cycle in the sense of L&P lagging behind the cycle since L&P is a sampling.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 7, 2012 at 1:57 pm
Of course the L&P data follows the sunspot cycle, in the sense of “following” that it tracks the cycle, which it would since it is sampling the cycle
The salient feature of L&P is that in addition to the solar cycle dependence in the sense of there being more spots at maximum, there is a much stronger general decline of the magnetic field of the spots: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
I think it is safe to ignore Geoff’s wringing of hands when he is faced with an inconvenient truth. In fact, he should not complain at all, as L&P gives and explanation for Grand Minima with strong cosmic ray modulation [as observed].
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 7, 2012 at 1:57 pm
Huh? I found an abstract of a 2011 presentation by L&P and “Svalgard” describing the method: “From 2001 to 2011 we have measured field strength and brightness at the darkest position in umbrae of 1750 spots using the Zeeman splitting of the Fe 1564.8 nm line. Only one observation per spot per day is carried out during our monthly telescope time of 3-4 days average.”
They collected data when they could, common in astronomy. How is their data collection method erroneous?
You have the answer in your previous post. L&P changed the method by measuring all spots no matter how big, smaller spots by nature have a lower magnetic strength. As the presentations by the experts show the amount of smaller spots has increased while larger spots have decreased during SC24. L&P by treating small spots the same as large spots are erroneously displaying the magnetic strength of SC24 spots, all they are showing is we are having more smaller spots.
When the L&P data is filtered correctly it agrees with other studies that show the sunspot magnetic strength is aligned with the sunspot cycle [as fig. 6 and others show], there is no gradual decline towards a time when spots will not be seen. SC24 and most likely SC25 are part of a weak grand minimum that does not need a spurious L&P type “Effect” to explain it.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/280
Geoff Sharp says:
October 7, 2012 at 6:10 pm
L&P changed the method by measuring all spots no matter how big, smaller spots by nature have a lower magnetic strength.
That was done so early in the game that it does not impact the past decade.
all they are showing is we are having more smaller spots.
On the contrary we are loosing the small spots as deToma shows so nicely [bottom panel on slide 6], and as shown by the smaller number of spots per group.
When the L&P data is filtered correctly
You mean when you doctor the data?
SC24 and most likely SC25 are part of a weak grand minimum that does not need a spurious L&P type “Effect” to explain it.
Ah, that exposes your agenda. L&P is a threat to your ideas.
But, you are missing the point: the loss of small spots is shown by all the other indices I mentioned, regardless of L&P.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 7, 2012 at 6:10 pm
L&P by treating small spots the same as large spots are erroneously displaying the magnetic strength of SC24 spots, all they are showing is we are having more smaller spots.
the plot http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png shows ALL spots, the large ones are on top and the small ones on the bottom and that for both SC23 [since the maximum] and SC24. At the recent Mini-workshop at Sunspot (I’m not finished putting the presentations on the Wiki) http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Mini_SSN Workshop this was discussed at great length and deToma produced the bottom panel on slide 5 of the presentation I already linked to. The issue to answer was: for very small groups [the smallest we can see – your ‘specs’] has there been a decrease of the number of spots in these smallest groups [specks] since ~1990 and as you can see there has been such a decrease. This settled the matter. It was also found that the number of spots per group measured by the US Air Force matched that found by the SONNE observers [and Locarno] shown in the upper panel on slide 5. The initial flaw with deToma’s analysis was that the count was not normalized to the same size solar cycle, so her results simply showed that solar activity as a whole has decreased the past three cycles, and not anything about the change of distribution.
The presentation by Watson shows that the automatic detection of spots on MDI spots [which BTW does not work well at solar minimum so the values for 1996, 1997, and 2009 are suspect] and measuring the largest magnetic fields on all the spots on each day [using the MDI magnetograms] yields the same trend as L&P. Watson is now at NSO in Tucson and will be adapting his method to use HMI, so we can continue to follow the decent into a likely Maunder Minimum with modern data treated with correct science.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 7, 2012 at 6:10 pm
the sunspot magnetic strength is aligned with the sunspot cycle [as fig. 6 and others show],
Figure 6 [supplied by you, actually] show that from the maximum in 2000 to the [almost] maximum in 2011 the magnetic field has decreased by some 400 Gauss consistent with the change that L&P claim to have found, so Figure 6 is a nice confirmation of L&P.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 7, 2012 at 7:19 pm
That was done so early in the game that it does not impact the past decade.
Yes it does, the small spots by increasing skew the record. Everyone else is measuring the highest magnetic region as Solanki did before L&P.
On the contrary we are loosing the small spots as deToma shows so nicely [bottom panel on slide 6], and as shown by the smaller number of spots per group.
de Toma shows the total number of spots per group declining but what is important is the ratio of large spots to small spots. He also shows the large spots decreasing by 70% and small spots decreasing by 5%. He is a strong advocate for the L&P data being incorrect. Another study using FSU data that concentrates on individual spot sizes clearly shows a rise in small spots as large spots decrease.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/toma3.png
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/nag2.png
You mean when you doctor the data?
L&P and yourself are doing the doctoring. Everyone else is using the highest reading that all show a small but natural increase in sunspot magnetic strength as SC24 max approaches.
Ah, that exposes your agenda. L&P is a threat to your ideas.
On the contrary, but unlike you I prefer to uncover the facts instead of manufacturing or cherry picking data to suit an agenda. There are many questioning the L&P data, the science is far from settled.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 7, 2012 at 8:37 pm
Figure 6 [supplied by you, actually] show that from the maximum in 2000 to the [almost] maximum in 2011 the magnetic field has decreased by some 400 Gauss consistent with the change that L&P claim to have found, so Figure 6 is a nice confirmation of L&P.
I have no problem with the overall magnetic strength of SC24 being lower than SC23 at solar max. But as shown the magnetic strength is rising since solar minimum which is in direct contrast to L&P. After SC24 solar max we would expect another decline down to the next solar minimum and then rise towards SC25 max perhaps to a similar level of SC24 max. If there is a recovery during SC26 the magnetic values should recover likewise. This is very different to the constant decline of magnetic strength shown by L&P that does not show the ramp up of strength happening now. There is no mysterious force in the background, all we have are one or maybe two low cycles where the overall magnetic strength is declining BUT still closely following the ups and downs of the reduced sunspot record.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 7, 2012 at 8:56 pm
Everyone else is measuring the highest magnetic region as Solanki did before L&P.
Which is clearly wrongheaded as we are talking about solar activity as a whole. But even so, the results of Watson and of FSU both show that even the highest fields are decreasing. In a sense it doesn’t really matter which spots are decreasing, what matters is that there are fewer visible spots for a given magnetic field.
de Toma shows the total number of spots per group declining but what is important is the ratio of large spots to small spots.
That she does not show anything about. I wish she would.
He also shows the large spots decreasing by 70% and small spots decreasing by 5%.
She shows that the area of the large spots is decreasing between cycle 22 and 23. Of course large spots have large area so no surprise that the decrease in total area is large for large spots and small for small spots. But all she is showing is just that SC23 was smaller than SC22 which we all know.
He is a strong advocate for the L&P data being incorrect.
Not at all, nobody question L&P’s measurements.
You mean when you doctor the data?
when ‘filtered…’
the science is far from settled.
Science is never settled. What is settled is the data.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 7, 2012 at 9:10 pm
But as shown the magnetic strength is rising since solar minimum which is in direct contrast to L&P.
Since there were no large spots at solar minimum, the largest fields will, of course, increase as larger spots begin to appear. This is not in contrast to L&P which is concerned with the average field of all spots.
This is very different to the constant decline of magnetic strength shown by L&P that does not show the ramp up of strength happening now.
There is no ramp up of the ‘overall magnetic field’. The average field of all spots is declining by ~50 Gauss per year.
low cycles where the overall magnetic strength is declining BUT still closely following the ups and downs of the reduced sunspot record.
The careful measurements by L&P show a steady decline not following the ups and downs. And you are evading the critical issue that L&P are only confirming a trend that is seen in other solar indices. A good example is slide 3 which shows that for a given magnetic field the sunspot number has decreased by 30%, same as for given F10.7. That is the real L&P effect.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 7, 2012 at 9:10 pm
But as shown the magnetic strength is rising since solar minimum which is in direct contrast to L&P.
Since there were no large spots at solar minimum, the largest fields will, of course, increase as larger spots begin to appear: http://www.leif.org/research/L-and-P-larger.png . This is not in contrast to L&P which is concerned with the average field of all spots, which has been falling since 2000.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 7, 2012 at 10:04 pm
He is a strong advocate for the L&P data being incorrect.
—————————————-
Not at all, nobody question L&P’s measurements.
The measurements are not in question but WHAT they measure is. This is another example of your sophist ways and attempt at confusion. I have presented solid evidence from many including your peers that refute the L&P steady decline of the magnetic strength to 1500 gauss. That you ignore this evidence shows that you are not a subjective scientist and by using the faulty L&P data to predict an imminent Maunder Minimum type event puts you on very shaky ground.
No one questions that all indices are on the decline during SC24, but suggesting that spot magnetic strength is breaking away from the rest of the data that follows the sunspot cycle is erroneous.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 8, 2012 at 12:56 am
No one questions that all indices are on the decline during SC24, but suggesting that spot magnetic strength is breaking away from the rest of the data that follows the sunspot cycle is erroneous.
This is not a suggestion, but an observational fact. You may better study the evidence and learn something or two. The solar cycle as such has nothing to do with this. Show us that you are capable of straight thought and discuss Figure 2 and Figure 3. Perhaps Figure 3 is the easiest one. It shows [top] the MPSI [which is the magnetic field of all the plages on the disk, before it becomes sunspots and afterwards when the spots decay]. There is a strong solar cycle dependence, of course. In fact, on average SSN = 55 MPSI. But during SC22 the observed SSN was higher than that average and during SC23, the observed SSN was lower than the average. This means that for the same magnetic flux fewer sunspots were visible during SC23. That is what L&P confirms, as simple as that. Whether that leads to a Maunder Minimum like condition time will tell, but the evidence from GCRs [Owens et al.] strongly suggests so. Show us that you understand what Figure 3 is telling us.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 8, 2012 at 12:56 am
I have presented solid evidence from many including your peers that refute the L&P steady decline of the magnetic strength
This is what some peers [Hudson, 2012] say:
Livingston-Penn effect
• There’s no question that something is happening that we have not seen before
– We should be proud of this, and exploit it
• Phenomena associated with the Livingston-Penn observations are unmistakably novel and should motivate research into the physical origins of SSN and F10.7
Geoff Sharp says:
October 8, 2012 at 12:56 am
suggesting that spot magnetic strength is breaking away from the rest of the data that follows the sunspot cycle is erroneous
From another peer [talk accepted for AGU Fall Meeting 2012]:
Cycle 24: The Continuing Deviation Between the Sunspot Number and F10.7 Activity Indices
Ken Tapping, National Research Council, D.R.A.O., Penticton, BC, Canada
“Cycle 24 is marked by a continuing deviation between the sunspot number and 10.7cm solar radio flux indices which is unique since 1947. It reflects a decline in photospheric activity compared with that seen in the chromosphere and corona. The comparison to date indicates we are at or very close to the activity maximum. The deviations suggest two things: firstly that the Sun is doing something different, perhaps similar to previous periods of extended low activity, and secondly, that there is a need for a certain care in how we rate sunspot number (and F10.7) based proxies when modelling historical irradiances”
Well, I’ve been having fun. Learned a lot.
Found a good dictionary of astronomical terms:
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/terms.htm
Found a good page explaining many solar concepts I’ve been wondering about:
http://www.cora.nwra.com/~werne/eos/text/convection_zone.html
Part of a larger set of topics available by raw index:
http://www.cora.nwra.com/~werne/eos/text/
Problem being the CZ one is apparently done but the links don’t all work, others from the index are partially done with some hardly stubs, the group is a work that was in progress. By the index it’s from 2000, hope the theories haven’t changed much since then.
They were done by Dr. Joseph Werne. He was at “NorthWest Research Associates” in Colorado, became “Senior Research Scientist” in 2001, Googling yields a mention of becoming a VP, he last published in 2005, therefore he is likely dead. So they’re not getting any more complete.
Also located a more-advanced presentation on sunspot magnetic fields, still digesting (and is the title of slide 14 a typo?):
http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/solanki/saas_fee_39/SaasFee39_Handout_L3.pdf
More learning to do, more researching.
More wondering about the strange quirks. Like why gauss is used for sunspots, with field strengths comparable to a rare earth magnet (imagining the force that could be exerted by a supermagnet a kilometer in diameter is good for perspective), yet the larger tesla unit is used for the weaker fields in the heliosphere, normally as nano-teslas.
But at least I can now follow these conversations better.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 8, 2012 at 12:31 pm
Like why gauss is used for sunspots
some people still measure distances in miles, temperatures in Fahrenheit, and weight in stones. Not all solar magnetism is measured in Gauss. Some solar papers use modern units [like Tesla], e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/The%20Strength%20of%20the%20Sun's%20Polar%20Fields.pdf and http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
Jan P Perlwitz says:
The curves you see in the graphic are low-pass filtered model output. It is not scientifically sound to compare low-pass filtered model output, where short-term unforced variability on interannual time scales has been largely removed, with unfiltered data from observations that have all the short-term unforced variability present.
Those graphics have error bands on them. Any “short-term unforced variability” that has been removed from the main trace should be added to the error bands. If it is, then the comparison is valid. If it isn’t, then you guys are hiding uncertainty. You guys wouldn’t do something like that, would you?
Sorry, that’s another question, isnt it? I forgot, you don’t answer questions . Like these:
How long can global average surface temps remain flat before you admit your theory is bust?
Is the ~25 year period that you have stipulated sufficient for that, or not? If not, please revise your previous answer.
How long would they have to rise at less than the 0.2C/decade rate predicted by the low end of your scenarios before you will accept that you are wrong?
How much can they drop, before you will come to that conclusion?
These are not difficult questions, for someone who makes claims …