Raimund Muscheler says that a steady high level of forcing can’t cause warming

Guest post by Alec Rawls

Solar warming and ocean equilibrium, part 4

I emailed Dr. Muscheler about the very strange remarks that were attributed to him in the recently released report on last year’s NCAR workshop: The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate. Dr. Muscheler says that the report’s version of his remarks “is obviously a mistake,” but he answers my query about what he had meant to say with yet another obvious mistake, a mistake the greatest import, and one which is no less egregious for being widespread.

The report (available for free download from the National Academies Press) seems to paraphrase Dr. Muscheler as claiming that cosmic ray flux during the late 20th century was “steady and high” (p. 17):

Muscheler stated that proxy data indicate that the cosmic-ray flux actually decreased early in the 20th century, but recently the level has been steady and high. Based on the proposed link between increased GCR flux and cloudiness, one might have expected that the late 20th century would be cooler than the early 20th century—a state that was not observed.

So I asked Dr. Muscheler:

By this paraphrase, your comment that “recently the level has been steady and high” seems to be referring to “the late 20th century,” but that can’t be right.

The abstract that you provided for your remarks begins by describing cosmogenic radionuclides as “the most reliable proxies for reconstructing solar activity variations thousands of years back into the past” (p. 41). But late 20th century solar activity was high, so if GCR is actually a proxy (inverted), it must have been low in the late 20th century [or it isn't much of a proxy].

Usoskin 2007 estimated a grand maximum of solar activity from 1920 to 2000. Lockwood put the peak of this grand maximum in the mid 80′s. Thus the statement attributed to you has to be a mis-transcription of some sort.

I’m guessing that your remark about recent GCR flux levels being “steady and high” was actually a reference to post 2003, not to “the late 20th century.” But that leaves the question of on what grounds you were claiming that the late 20th century should have been cooler than the early 20th century, or did they mis-transcribe that as well?

… If you really do think that, according to the GCR data, the late 20th century should have been cooler than the early 20th century, can you please explain why?

Of course I know the highly unscientific grounds on which numerous “consensus” climate scientists make such claims, but it’s important to get them on record saying it.

You can’t heat a pot of water by turning the flame to maximum and leaving it there

It’s not the level of the flame that causes warming, but the rate of change in the level of the flame. Everybody knows that, or so the anti-CO2 establishment would have us believe. See for instance, Rasmus Benestad, 2005:

A further comparison with the monthly sunspot number, cosmic galactic rays and 10.7 cm absolute radio flux since 1950 gives no indication of a systematic trend in the level of solar activity that can explain the most recent global warming.

It doesn’t matter that solar activity was at grand maximum levels from 1920 to 2000. Only the continued turning up a forcing can cause warming according to Dr. Benestad.

Here is a list of a dozen more top consensus climate scientists all making similar statements, and as I discovered from my “expert review” of the First Order Draft of AR5, this is now the IPCC’s official grounds for dismissing a solar explanation for late 20th century warming.

Would Muscheler add himself to the list? I had to give him a chance and he very graciously took it, thanking me for pointing to the obvious error in the transcription while confirming that, yes, he too looks at the wrong derivative. He should be looking at the zero derivative (the level of solar activity) but is instead looking at the first derivative (the rate of change in solar activity, or the trend).

Muscheler’s response (emphasis added)

Dear Alec Rawls,

unfortunately I haven’t been involved in writing this report. This statement is obviously a mistake and I don’t know why it ended up in the report.

In the early 20th century solar activity increased and, therefore, the cosmic ray flux decreased. According to the cosmic ray-cloud hypothesis the (low) clouds should have decreased and it should have led to a warming.

Solar activity & cosmic rays were relatively constant (high solar activity, strong shielding and low cosmic rays) in the second part of the 20th century and, therefore, it is unlikely that solar activity (whatever process) was involved in causing the warming since 1970.

Maybe I was unclear in replying to a question or there was a misunderstanding from the person writing the report. Anyway it is obviously wrong in the report.

Thank you for making me aware of this problem. I will contact the authors and ask if it can be corrected.

Best wishes,

Raimund Muscheler

The hidden (and completely untenable) assumption of rapid ocean equilibration

Last year I emailed the dozen climate scientists from my list of those who have made these kinds of claims and suggested that they must be assuming that that by 1980 or so the oceans had already equilibrated to whatever temperature forcing effect high 20th century solar activity might be having, otherwise the continued high level of forcing would cause continued warming.

Several confirmed that they were indeed assuming rapid ocean equilibration to any change in climate forcing. One was Mike Lockwood, whose 2007 paper with Claus Fröhlich had opened with a strong assertion that it is the trend in a forcing, not the level of a forcing, that causes temperature change:

There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, 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.

If the paper was assuming rapid ocean equilibration it really ought to have said so, but better late than never. In his response to me Lockwood offered evidence that ocean equilibration takes at most a decade, but his estimate does not stand up to scrutiny. It was derived from an energy balance model (Schwartz 2007) that represents the oceans by a single heat sink.

This is a highly unrealistic simplification (having the whole ocean change temperature at once). If a more realistic 2-heat-sink model is used, where it takes time for heat to transfer from one ocean layer to another (Kirk-Davidoff 2009), then rapid temperature adjustment of the upper ocean layer tells us next to nothing about how long it takes for the ocean to equilibrate to a long term forcing. (Full discussion in Part 2 of my “solar warming and ocean equilibrium” series.)

The Lockwood and Fröhlich paper acknowledges that there was a long natural warming from the bottom of the Little Ice Age (punctuated by notable downturns when solar activity fell during the Dalton Minimum and around the beginning of the last century), and they say themselves that this long natural warming was probably caused by increasing solar activity, yet we are supposed to be confident, on the basis of a completely unrealistic one-heat-sink model, that this long warming just happened to end in 1980, when the whole idea of a long period of solar warming is fundamentally inconsistent with that model. Crazy.

Workshop participant Isaac Held: “equilibration takes centuries”

One of NCAR’s workshop panelists actually addressed the time-to-equilibration issue (p. 21, emphasis added):

Issues in Climate Science Underlying Sun/Climate Research
Isaac M. Held, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

In his presentation Isaac Held asserted that the response of the climate to radiative heating—whether it comes from greenhouse gases trapping heat, stratospheric aerosols from volcanic eruptions or aerosols of various origin reflecting sunlight back to space, or finally variable TSI heating—involves both the troposphere and the ocean. The surface and the troposphere are intimately coupled through fast radiative-convective adjustments so that they respond as a whole, with part of the heat input going into the ocean. The ocean heat uptake and later slow release back to the atmosphere are the factors responsible for the difference between the transient response of the climate to radiative forcing as compared to the equilibrium climate (some 40-70 percent of the adjustment is achieved on a timescale on the order of 4 years, whereas equilibration takes centuries). This transient behavior can be demonstrated using a simple two-box model of the mixed layer and deep ocean, and it applies to all radiative forcings, such as to the Mount Pinatubo volcanic aerosols, as well as for the response to the 11-year solar cycle. On stratosphere-troposphere coupling, there is recent observational evidence that in the Southern Hemisphere the surface westerlies (and the storm track) have shifted poleward by a few degrees due possibly to the ozone hole over the South Pole in the stratosphere.

[Stephen Wilde will want to look at what the report says about the rest of Held's presentation.]

To clarify, when there is a long term change in forcing it isn’t 40-70 percent of the eventual deep ocean heat storage that is achieved within four years. Here Held is talking about the time-response of GMAST (the Global Mean Air Surface Temperature), which is largely driven by ocean surface temperature, and the ocean surface warms up quickly in response to an increase in forcing.

If elevated forcing persists for decades or centuries this warmed-up upper ocean layer will all-the-while be transferring heat to deeper ocean depths, causing the temperature differential between the upper and lower layers to shrink which in turn causes a slowing of the heat loss from the upper ocean to the deeper ocean. That slow decrease in heat loss from the upper ocean layer causes the upper ocean layer to slowly get warmer, which in turn causes a slow increase in atmospheric surface temperatures (the remaining 30-60 percent of the GMAST increase that Held is referring to). This continued warming can go on for centuries.

So I must appeal to Dr. Held: you really need to point out to your colleagues the implications of moving to a more realistic “two box model” (never mind a 3 or 4 box model) where it takes time for heat to accumulate in deeper ocean layers. If prolonged forcing can cause the oceans to warm for centuries (and GMAST to continue to rise for centuries) then no, we cannot be confident that by 1980 the oceans had equilibrated to the 20th century’s grand maximum levels of solar activity.

This is regardless of whether those levels were pre or post peak. It’s the level that matters, not the trend.

A helpful diagram

If anyone has trouble understanding why they should be looking at the level of a hypothesized solar-magnetic forcing, not just the trend, here is a helpful diagram from Ken Gregory:

Temperature falls only when the level of forcing falls below that needed to maintain the current temperature. With typical cyclical behavior, temperature peaks often lag considerably behind peaks in forcing. Everybody is familiar with this phenomenon from daytime temperatures, which do not peak at noon but peak in the mid-afternoon. So too with longer period forcings and deeper heat sinks.

So no, if temperature continues to rise after solar forcing has peaked it does not indicate that the continued warming is not caused by solar forcing. On the contrary, it is exactly what we would expect from a solar driver of climate.

In the case of late 20th century solar forcing there really was no discernable peak but rather a 50-year plateau, in which case temperatures should continue to rise until equilibrium is reached. There is no reason to think the oceans would have equilibrated to high 20th century forcing by 1980, and so no reason to dismiss a solar explanation for post 1980 warming.

Day vs. Season

In part 3 of my series Solanki and Scheussler offered a different rationale for assuming rapid ocean equilibration. The strong correlation between solar activity and climate that they had found was strongest with a short lag, less than ten years, so if there were longer-term solar effects, these scientists insisted that they had found no evidence for it. But that is wrong. Rapid responses to solar forcing are evidence for longer term responses, just as the rapid daytime temperature response to the rising sun implies that the hemispheres should warm when their seasons progress towards the greater insolation of summer.

This is pretty basic stuff so maybe these guys just aren’t getting out enough. They don’t talk to people who don’t share their eagerness to grab at any rationale that supports the CO2-warming theory, no matter how patently weak it is. And its pretty clear they aren’t even talking about these things amongst themselves.

Not a one of the quotes I have compiled betrays any hint of hidden assumptions about rapid ocean equilibration or anything else. They are unconditioned statements: the solar flame was not rising so it could not have caused warming. Only when pressed by WUWT do they scramble to support their unstated premises.

For each of these scientists it seems that plan-A was that nobody would notice that they were looking at the wrong derivative.

Leif Gets It right (right Leif?)

On the other side we have everyone who has ever heated a pot of water, including our own Dr. Leif Svalgaard, who was provoked last month to admit:

When I start the pot in the morning on maximum in order to get hot water for my tea and to boil my eggs, it works great for me. I get hot tea and boiled eggs in minimum time. If I turn down the heat, it takes longer…

Good thing Leif has tenure already. His mundane observation rebuts the very heart of the anti-CO2 industry’s dismissal of solar-driven warming.

Another question for Muscheler

When 50 years of steady high solar activity coincide with rising average temperatures, that would seem to be evidence for a solar driver of climate. What is Raimund Muscheler’s grounds for taking it as evidence against? His response to my first query does not say, so I sent him a second. I am contacting Isaac Held as well, whose 2 cents would be much appreciated.

Maybe Raimund really does think that it is the rate of change of a forcing rather than the level of a forcing that causes warming but I doubt it. More likely he has accepted the rapid-ocean-equilibrium assumption of Lockwood, Solanki and others without thinking it through. (Note that the paraphrase of Muscheler’s comments in NAP’s NCAR report has him making the same assertion as Lockwood: that if the sun were driving global temperature then late 20th century temperatures should have been falling, not rising. That seems to indicate a Lockwood-like rapid equilibrium assumption)

Muscheler’s 2007 paper on paleo and recent GCR deposition suggests that 20th century solar activity was merely “high instead of exceptional,” but for time-to-equilibration this distinction makes no qualitative difference. It is true that the smaller the change in forcing the faster equilibrium should be reached (like starting partway in on the equilibration response to a larger change in forcing), so maybe Muscheler sees himself as having strengthened the grounds for the rapid-equilibrium assumption, but that assumption is fundamentally flawed. It can’t be saved by a marginal adjustment of the forcing in question.

Remember the hypothesis Muscheler is trying to dismiss: that solar activity does have a substantial forcing effect, strong enough to be responsible for late 20th century warming. But if the forcing effect of solar activity is substantial then there is no reason to think that the oceans must have equilibrated to a sustained high level of such forcing by any particular 20th century date, hence no reason to say that late 20th century warming couldn’t have been caused by the continuing high level of solar activity.

Perhaps Dr. Muscheler has some other argument for why a steady high level of forcing can’t cause warming but if he has been carelessly making the same unstated rapid-equilibrium assumption as Lockwood et al., here is an opportunity to reconsider. We all make unconscious assumptions. Progress in understanding often comes from uncovering and scrutinizing those hidden assumptions, allowing any errors they contain to be corrected. There is no shame in such a re-evaluation. It is how we move forward.

If Dr. Muscheler would like to give a response that is not framed by my commentary I am sure that Anthony would be glad to offer him a guest post. Raimund been game so far, and hopefully will continue to be forthcoming.

My own summary conclusion

There is no possible way to sustain the claim that a steady high level of forcing can’t cause continued warming, or to sustain with any confidence the hidden claim that the oceans must have equilibrated to high 20th century solar activity by 1980. Without these claims AR5 goes straight to the trash bin and solar activity is still very much in play as an explanation for late 20th century warming.

If solar activity is responsible for any substantial chunk of that warming then CO2 becomes utterly benign. The IPCC’s high estimates of climate sensitivity, needed in order to attribute all recent warming to CO2, are off the table, meaning no possibility of any kind of run-away warming, and if solar activity is the primary explanation for late 20th century warming then the danger going forward is global cooling (now that the sun has turned quiet), making expensive efforts to reduce CO2 emissions the sheerest lunacy.

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

141 Responses to Raimund Muscheler says that a steady high level of forcing can’t cause warming

  1. You can’t heat a pot of water by turning the flame to maximum and leaving it there
    You keep saying that, but it is false. Want a pot of hot water, start at maximum flame and keep it here.

  2. John Shade says:

    I keep getting the impression that the scientific brains of those on the side of climate alarm are an order of magnitude less impressive than those of those who are as yet unconvinced by the hysteria. On the other hand, the political brains may be the other way round.

  3. John Shade says:

    I can’t help it, I keep getting the impression that the scientific brains on the side of climate alarm linked to CO2 are an order of magnitude less impressive than those of those who are as yet unconvinced by it.

  4. Doug Proctor says:

    The Undiscussed Assumption: the sand on which so many outcomes are built, never to be realized!

    Trenberth looks to the deep ocean for the heat he cannot find precisely because of this assumption. It is implicit that heat energy moved rapidly from the atmosphere-oceanic interface to explain away his observed energy imbalance (based on the energy theories he is using) using only shallow oceanic energy calculations.

    The warmists are humanists, not technical people. To them all these discussions are details fussing around on a grander stage, the only one worthy of consideration. How little they understand that the details ARE the grand stage!

    We are not in a war of brickbats and bullets, but of spitballs and spite. But those of junior high sensitivities, whining behind each others’ backs, see their world of trivialities as THE world. It would be best for all if they got out more from their intellectual cabins and upper-scale lounges to learn the difference between what bothers you and what is worth bothering about.

  5. John Shade says:

    Sorry about the double posting – there is no indication here that a post has been accepted, and the detour to enter names and passwords adds to my confusion. My own brain is well below par … an exception to prove a rule perhaps?

  6. Ed Reid says:

    I find it incredible that this discussion is happening after the expenditure of more than $100 billion on climate research in the US alone. The components necessary for the laboratory experiment which would resolve this issue could be purchased for under $100; and, the experiment could be conducted in a high school laboratory during the normal lab period.

    Sheesh!

  7. mrsean2k says:

    @Leif

    Have you read the article rather than skimmed it? Seen in context, I believe the author is ascribing that attitude to others and taking them to task for it, rather than expressing that belief himself

  8. Anymoose says:

    I find it interesting that all this theorizing is going on, in view of the relatively recent discovery of radio. Inferring accurate solar and cosmic records prior to that is a weak argument for anything. Let’s say that I remain unconvinced.

  9. mrsean2k says:
    October 14, 2012 at 12:40 pm
    Seen in context, I believe the author is ascribing that attitude to others and taking them to task for it, rather than expressing that belief himself
    An author should make clear the difference between what he is saying and what he ascribes to others. I seem to recall that he has used that phrase himself before. An article should not be a guessing game.
    Then there is the notion of Modern Grand Maximum. I think there was no such thing. See e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/TIEMS-Oslo-2012-Svalgaard.pdf

  10. Alec Rawls says:

    Leif: Thanks for confirming that you are one of the few tenured climate-related scientists who knows that if you “Want a pot of hot water, start at maximum flame and keep it here.” I understand that this puts your career in jeopardy, but since I am not funded by the global warming alarmists, there is no need for your very gracious attempt to keep me from being implicated in your heresy.

    Read carefully and you will note that I actually did out myself as one who knows, like you, that to heat a pot of water, “start at maximum flame and leave it there.” Here is a quote from the post (emphasis added):

    It’s not the level of the flame that causes warming, but the rate of change in the level of the flame. Everybody knows that, or so the anti-CO2 establishment would have us believe.

    Then I go on to quote Benestad and Muscheler claiming the opposite: that a high steady forcing will NOT cause warming.

    Having emboldened myself with the above very subtle statement, and following your brave lead, I proceeded even to state directly that those who claim that a stead high level of forcing can’t cause warming are “looking at the wrong derivative [trend rather than level].” Yes, I state directly, and more than once, that they are wrong. But don’t worry! I already get zero funding, so what can they do to me?

    When I am really feeling my oats (always heartened by your wisdom on this issue) I can even get a little sparky and say things like:

    You could collect every imbecile in the world together and not a one of them would ever come up with the idea that they have to turn the heat up slowly. It’s beyond stupid. It’s like, insanely stupid. And multiple [AR5] chapter-writing teams are proclaiming the same nonsense? Fruitcakes.

    So don’t worry Leif, we are 100% on the same side on this.

  11. wayne says:

    Agree Alex. The warming/depth curve to me would look roughly similar to a Carnot cycle plot, more rapid shallow surface warming but taking literally hundreds of years to totally equalize. The reverse path on a constant step in the forcing would take a different trajectory on the plot but in similar fashion forming the leaf shape on that plot. Seems it would be partially logarithmic and partial linear as all of radiation, diffusibility, conductivity and vertical mass movement would all affect the shape of such a plot.

    But the oceans quickly equalizing… just a fantasy.

  12. Gary Pearse says:

    Lacks a little clarity (like Lief, I thought he was against the idea of how to boil up tea and eggs in a hurry) but when you get it, it is a thoroughly clarifying read. It gives an understanding of Trenberth’s idea of first tier and second tier scientists. The first tier scientist from T’s point of view is the political scientist.

  13. Alec Rawls says:
    October 14, 2012 at 1:16 pm
    So don’t worry Leif, we are 100% on the same side on this.
    and yet you persists in suggesting that the non-existing Grand Modern Maximum is the cause of recent global warming…

  14. Jacob says:

    To Alec Rawls:
    I second Leif. Your prose is confused. I managed to get your claim right, but it took me a second and third reading, and some thought, to reconcile apparent contradictions.
    The idea could have been stated more clearly.

  15. AndyG55 says:

    There is actually an equilibrium point between the heat put into the water and the heat that escapes from the water (by evaporation, and other heat transfers. If you turn up the heat, a new equilibrium point will exist. Its basic physics ! (described by differential equations in maths)

    But it takes time !!!!!
    The more water there is, the longer it takes to reach the new equilbrium point.
    … the Earth has one heck of a lot of water.

    If the TSI in this chart is correct, then it is easily enough to explain all of the small amount of warming during the 1980-1998 period. (ignoring urban land temp calcs)

    http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/tim_tsi_reconstruction_2012.jpeg

  16. Paul in Sweden says:

    When I heat a big pot of soup with a small flame I find it necessary to stir the pot and move it around a bit so the flame heats up everything uniformly. This is why I think cloud cover, aerosols, etc… and ocean currents which are still unknowns may be a significant factor.

  17. Scute says:

    @ Alec Rawls

    “looking at the wrong derivative [trend rather than level].”

    Wrong derivative. I like that. That’s what we should be telling them about their explanations for the past decade of flat temperatures.

  18. AndyG55 says:

    ps. and if you notice that the latter part of the TSi graph sort of plateaus, then, from the thread a few down from here, showing 16years of level temps, it would seem we have reached that new equilibrium.
    That means that if the TSI drops, temperatures will also drop pretty much straight away, although somewhat buffered by the mass of water.
    Without a further increase in TSI, there will be no more warming if equilibrium has been reached.

  19. AndyG55 says:
    October 14, 2012 at 1:39 pm
    If the TSI in this chart is correct,
    The point is that TSI in that chart is not correct. Here is a better version [red curves]:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-Not.png

  20. vukcevic says:

    Dr. S looks to be correct about pot of water, but for some reason he keeps turning solar bit to the ‘minimum setting’.
    Dr. S I say the solar cycles do matter, calculation is ‘elementary and accurate’
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
    but it is the dreaded ‘mechanism’ that someone has to convince not only Dr.S. but the responsible scientists’ community from both sides of the debate..
    To my surprise even my friend Gavin at RC didn’t dispatch the above to the ‘bore hole’ which made me .dream of getting Svalgaard, Curry and Schmidt to have a ‘brainstorming’ session on my findings, since that is unlikely I shall plod along, but I do have lot of time and no reputation to consider.

  21. Kasuha says:

    I don’t like this “pot of water” analogy. We’re not boiling the water in it, it is already boiling because it’s our planet’s molten core. The stove is nearly freezing and we’re nudging its temperature mere 0.1 °C up or down. The material the pot is made of is styrofoam and it is several centimeters thick. And we’re studying temperature of the upper surface of a thin piece of paper attached to the bottom of the pot. So there, now it’s more like it.

  22. GeoLurking says:

    You can’t heat a pot of water by turning the flame to maximum and leaving it there

    Like [censored] you can’t. Turn the flame off and see how long it takes.

    If you have a large mass, you use a large flame. I have to crank the burner to maximum to heat the oil for the Turkey. If I don’t, I can’t overcome the heat loss and my oil never gets to the needed temperature… or it takes forever to do it. The same thing applies If I’m boiling peanuts.

  23. A quick glance at Dr. Svalgaard’s linked paper shows ample evidence for the high solar activity from the 1880s or so, particularly 1945 on, and possible corrections for the 1800s as well.

    The paper that “debunks” the Grand Solar Maximum actually tends to spread it somewhat, with a late 1800s phase and 1950-2000 phase. This hardly makes it irrelevant to forcing issues, even if his assertions are supportable. And the notion of a magnetic field “floor” means that it would take time for the recent high solar/low cloud activity to bleed off. I think we’re seeing that, anecdotally.

    The 10Be records are interesting, and somewhat in conflict — worthy of a separate paper. He’s got one from an ice core represented. But the red “Sun” line in Figure 9 suggests that something unusual had been happening in the last half of the 20th century.

    Amusingly, Dr. Svalgaard is bucking the “consensus” on sunspot counting, something that is obviously “settled science” and for which there should be “no debate.” Imagine if billions of dollars of funding and government expansion of revenue base rested on the number of sunspots! Perhaps it would be the autumn of his career: the Leif would fall.

    But the track record of things like CAGW and sunspot “consensus” science is … spotty.

    ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

  24. RHS says:

    You can’t heat a pot of water by turning the flame to maximum and leaving it there

    When using a Bic lighter, I tend to agree that even it’s max output will never boil a pot of water.
    /sarc

  25. vukcevic says:
    October 14, 2012 at 2:09 pm
    but I do have lot of time and no reputation to consider.
    Nor to gain, I reckon. Science is hard.

  26. Keith DeHavelle says:
    October 14, 2012 at 2:31 pm
    Amusingly, Dr. Svalgaard is bucking the “consensus” on sunspot counting, something that is obviously “settled science” and for which there should be “no debate.”
    Actually, this is not the case [and is not amusing]. So, on the contrary, the science is not ‘settled’ and there is intense debate, see e.g. http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home
    These workshops are sponsored by the sunspot ‘producing’ organizations:
    The National Solar Observatory (NSO), the Royal Observatory of Belgium (ROB), and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL).

  27. Alec Rawls says:

    Leif says: “and yet you persists in suggesting that the non-existing Grand Modern Maximum is the cause of recent global warming”

    If you would read the post, Leif, you would see that I address very clearly how little difference it makes whether, in Muscheler’s words, 20th century solar activity was “exceptional” or merely “high”:

    Remember the hypothesis Muscheler is trying to dismiss: that solar activity DOES have a substantial forcing effect, strong enough to be responsible for late 20th century warming. But if the forcing effect of solar activity is substantial then there is no reason to think that the oceans must have equilibrated to a sustained high level of such forcing by any particular 20th century date, hence no reason to say that late 20th century warming couldn’t have been caused by the continuing high level of solar activity.

    If Leif disagrees with this analysis, perhaps he can give us a reason.

    Jacob also says that he realize right off that I was heaping scorn on the idea that a steady high level of forcing can’t cause warming. In that case I wish I had added one word early on to clarify my position:

    Here is a list of a dozen more top consensus climate scientists all making similar GOOFBALLstatements.

    “Insane” would also have worked. My bad for this omission.

    I really wasn’t trying to be subtle. I thought it woould be clear that “can’t heat a pot of water by leaving the flame on maximum” was the “highly unscientific” claim that I said a lot of top consensus scientists were making. But I should have been more careful because it really is confusing when a bunch of supposed top scientists are all saying with complete sincerity that continued high forcing really can’t cause warming. I shouldn’t have deapanned my criticism at all.

  28. Luther Wu says:

    GeoLurking says:
    October 14, 2012 at 2:24 pm

    You can’t heat a pot of water by turning the flame to maximum and leaving it there

    Like [censored] you can’t. Turn the flame off and see how long it takes.

    If you have a large mass, you use a large flame. I have to crank the burner to maximum to heat the oil for the Turkey. If I don’t, I can’t overcome the heat loss and my oil never gets to the needed temperature… or it takes forever to do it. The same thing applies If I’m boiling peanuts.
    ________________
    Catch up!

  29. Keith DeHavelle says:
    October 14, 2012 at 2:31 pm
    But the red “Sun” line in Figure 9 suggests that something unusual had been happening in the last half of the 20th century.
    The sun line was calculated using the Group Sunspot Number which we show is seriously in error. You may consult the last slide of Hudson’s summary of the result of the 2nd workshop: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Hudson.pdf

  30. Layman Lurker says:

    Thanks for the interesting post Alec. I think that it is insightful to also consider that the ocean response times may well differ depending on the type of forcing. IIUC, an increase in ghg forcing is applied directly only at the surface of the ocean while an increase in solar forcing penetrates and directly affects to a depth of dozens of meters. The way I see it, ocean response should be much quicker to an increase in solar forcing than to an equivalent increase in ghg forcing.

  31. Alec Rawls says:
    October 14, 2012 at 2:41 pm
    Remember the hypothesis Muscheler is trying to dismiss: that solar activity DOES have a substantial forcing effect, strong enough to be responsible for late 20th century warming.[...]
    If Leif disagrees with this analysis, perhaps he can give us a reason.

    I think you misunderstand Muscheler. What he is trying to say is that since solar activity was not exceptional, the exceptional global warming [claimed by some to be exceptional, unprecedented, catastrophic, etc] is not due to the [non-existing] exceptional solar activity.

  32. Luther Wu says:

    vukcevic says:
    October 14, 2012 at 2:09 pm
    _______________
    I suppose you are used to it by now and therefore wear your flak jacket.

  33. Peter Hartley says:

    Alec,

    Regarding the issue of the time lag in the effect of solar heating on ocean temperature, how does your suggestion of a relatively long time lag (compared at least to the “consensus”) square with Nir Shaviv’s calculations of the ocean as a calorimeter for the 11-year solar cycle (see http://www.sciencebits.com/calorimeter )? Dr Shaviv does not seem to discuss the time lag in his blog post and although I read the actual paper some time ago I now do not recall that he did so in the actual publication. Perhaps you have looked at it more recently.

  34. John A Eyon says:

    fascinating read Alex – however – i too was momentarily nonplussed at the recipe for heating a pot of water – yet – i had a moderate inkling that you disagree with it – your sarc would have been expressed better if you had left off the “Everybody knows that,” – but the fact that there was a hint of sarcasm – and that you eventually clarified your position – makes Leif’s comments puzzling – you both should reflect on the uncertainty of the communication act – as well as the uncertainty behind AGW

  35. ferd berple says:

    How does CO2 theory or Solar TSI explain the asymmetric polar heating?

    Quite simply, it cannot. However the asymmetric movement of the earth’s magnetic field is completely consistent with the observed climate change at the north and south geographic poles.

    The north magnetic pole is moving rapidly towards the north geographic pole and arctic ice is melting. The south magnetic pole is moving away from the south magnetic pole and antarctic ice is increasing. The north magnetic pole shift is by far the fastest observed in history. The rate of ice melt in the arctic is the fasted observed in history.

    We know from the paleo records that magnetic pole shifts are associated with climate change. We know the solar wind enters the earth’s atmosphere at the magnetic poles. We know the solar wind brings an enormous volume of charged particles into the earth’s atmosphere, which modify the atmosphere. Is it reasonable to assume that this modification of the atmosphere has no affect on weather and climate?.

    Isn’t it time, given the failure of both CO2 and TSI to predict climate change beyond model curve fitting, to take a fresh look at the obvious alternatives.

  36. Dear Dr. Svalgaard:

    I had to laugh when I read the PowerPoint presentation you just pointed me to:• The older SSN records need rationalization
    • This group needs to take charge of the perception of
    SSN:
    – Consensus
    – Public databases and ample publications
    – Propaganda that discredits any research not using
    the consensus SSNThis discussion of propaganda and perception is interesting. One could snark an addition: “.. instead of science, since (as you said) ‘sciece is hard’.” But in fact, there is much science content as well. I hoped for more on the UV flux, as this is evidently an order of magnitude higher than TSI changes.

    But in the “caveats” section toward the end, the Hudson document has points including these:

    • Abjure running means
    • Establish consensus on early data under SIDC authority
    [...]
    • Eschew linear regression analysis

    Would you “abjure” and “eschew” running means and linear regression analysis on climate proxies in general, or just the solar work under discussion at that point?

    ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

    [Duplicate? Should this be deleted? Mod]

  37. Dear Dr. Svalgaard:

    I had to laugh when I read the PowerPoint presentation you just pointed me to:

    • The older SSN records need rationalization
    • This group needs to take charge of the perception of SSN:
    – Consensus
    – Public databases and ample publications
    – Propaganda that discredits any research not using the consensus SSN

    This discussion of propaganda and perception is interesting. One could snark an addition: “.. instead of science, since (as you said) ‘science is hard’.” But in fact, there is much science content as well. I hoped for more on the UV flux, as this is evidently an order of magnitude higher than TSI changes.

    But in the “caveats” section toward the end, the Hudson document has suggestions including these:

    • Abjure running means
    • Establish consensus on early data under SIDC authority
    [...]
    • Eschew linear regression analysis

    Would you “abjure” and “eschew” running means and linear regression analysis on climate proxies in general, or just the solar work under discussion at that point?

    ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

  38. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 14, 2012 at 2:36 pm
    vukcevic says:
    October 14, 2012 at 2:09 pm
    but I do have lot of time and no reputation to consider.
    Nor to gain, I reckon. Science is hard.

    At least you didn’t dispute my calculation.
    Science is hard if one needs need to earn living, from it, it’s a pleasure when pursued as a hobby. Hey, what do you say? Dr. Curry has privately made a positive comment; next would need a geologist/oceanographer, perhaps someone from WHOI ?

  39. As an aside, the ice core records (which show, in general, a several-hundred-year lag between temperature change and CO2 change) might be something of a proxy for ocean equilibrium time. Presumably, CO2 leaving or entering solution would likely be affected by deep ocean temps, not just the surface layer.

    Put another way:

    The CO2 rise (in ice core)
    Catches up in eight centuries or more
    Maybe this can’t be beat
    As a proxy for heat
    And the slowness of oceans before

    ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

  40. Alec Rawls says:

    Leif writes:

    I think you misunderstand Muscheler. What he is trying to say is that since solar activity was not exceptional, the exceptional global warming [claimed by some to be exceptional, unprecedented, catastrophic, etc] is not due to the [non-existing] exceptional solar activity.

    Muscheler is perfectly clear why he thinks the steady high level of solar activity over the second half of the 20th century cannot be responsible for the small bit of warming over the same period: because this high level of solar activity was steady, not rising, as if he thinks it is the rate of change of a forcing, not the level of a forcing, that drives temperature.

    But you Leif, you seem to grasp that it is the level of a forcing, not the rate of change of a forcing, that drives temperature, so what is YOUR grounds for dismissing 50 years of steady high levels of solar activity as a possible cause for a modicum of warming over the same period?

  41. Keith DeHavelle says:
    October 14, 2012 at 3:18 pm
    Would you “abjure” and “eschew” running means and linear regression analysis on climate proxies in general, or just the solar work under discussion at that point?
    Linear regression is appropriate when the relations are linear or when the changes are small. Regressions on running means is a no-no [that is what he meant].

    vukcevic says:
    October 14, 2012 at 3:20 pm
    At least you didn’t dispute my calculation.
    I didn’t know you have made a calculation worth disputing.

    Science is hard if one needs need to earn living from it, it’s a pleasure when pursued as a hobby
    Makes no difference, science is hard, period. Now, you may think you are doing science, but you are not.

    Alec Rawls says:
    October 14, 2012 at 3:31 pm
    as if he thinks it is the rate of change of a forcing, not the level of a forcing, that drives temperature.
    But do you know that he actually thinks like that?

    so what is YOUR grounds for dismissing 50 years of steady high levels of solar activity as a possible cause for a modicum of warming over the same period?
    Because we have had similar high solar activity in the 18th and 19th centuries without such warming. And it has not been 50 years of steady high activity, cycle 20 in the middle was low.

  42. ferdberple says:

    It is illogical to argue a constant TSI means the sun is not the source of climate change. The sun emits much more than is measured by TSI. Much of what is not included in TSI is highly variable.

    To argue that this variable portion does not affect climate, because we don’t understand the process, is proof of nothing. It simply means that there are things we don’t yet understand (such as cloud formation).

    Nature does not depend on human understanding for its operation. It is our ability to predict nature that is determined by our understanding. Thus, human ignorance is not proof of how nature works.

    In fact, our ability to think of an alternative explanation does not make the current explanation more likely. Our understanding of the universe is N / infinity = 0.00%. Thus, our inability to imagine an alternative, does not in any way make the alternative less likely.

  43. George says:

    Deep ocean response is different between cooling and warming. Cooler atmospheric temperatures are felt in the deep ocean faster than warming atmospheric temperatures. That is because one mode works with convection and the other against. If temperatures were to cool dramatically, this would be felt not only in cooler surface temperatures but in cooler downwelling waters though this might mean that the point of downwelling moves to lower lattitude as the water will reach a temperature cold enough to sink earlier. But generally, it is easier to cool a pot of water by chilling the surface than it is to heat it by warming the surface.

  44. Matthew R Marler says:

    Alec Rawls,

    Can you show that, over a long term (since 1850, for example), earth temperature change is proportional to, or a monotonic function of, some measure of solar output that was at a relative maximum during the time that the earth was warming?

  45. Ken Gregory says:

    Don’t get distracted by a discussion on the total solar irradiance (TSI). I don’t think there is a scientist on the planet who thinks that changes in TSI is a major cause of climate change. It is the solar magnetic flux changes that is hypothesized to cause climate change, not TSI. Changes in TSI is too small, which is why TSI is called the solar constant. Some climate modelers claim they include solar forcing in their models because they include changes in the solar constant! The year of maximum TSI is irrelevant because TSI in only a rough proxy for the total solar forcing, which is likely dominated by the Open Solar Flux, or measures of magnetic field strength.

    Sunspot number is also used as a proxy for total solar forcing, but it is a bad proxy for the solar-magnetic forcing. Sunspot number reached a maximum in 1958 in solar cycle 19, but the Open Solar Flux reached a maximum in 1992. Only a solar parameter that travels from the Sun to the Earth can effect our climate. No sunspot has ever hit the Earth, so sunspots don’t directly affect climate. The Open Solar Flux does interact with the Earth’s atmosphere, and it varies more than 10 fold. The Helio-magnetic field reached a peak also in 1992. The maximum temperature response is expected to be delayed at least 10 years to 2002 due to the large heat capacity of the oceans. In fact there has been no warming since 2002. The Svensmark cosmic ray theory is only one of several ways in which changes in the solar magnetic flux can affect climate. It also changes cloud height and ozone levels, both of which may affect climate.

    Plot of Open Solar Flux;
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/nir3-Solar_flux.jpg
    Plot of neutron count, helio-magnetic field and sunspot number:
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Rao_CR_HMF.jpg

    Alec included in his post a diagram titled “Climate Smoothing” from my 2007 critique of the Lockwood/Frohlich paper with a link to my article on a foreign (Argentina) website. The article can be found at my website in PDF and html versions at
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=227&start=15

  46. commieBob says:

    Alec Rawls says:
    October 14, 2012 at 2:41 pm

    … If you would read the post, Leif, you would see that I address very clearly …

    I, like Leif, had a hard time decoding your writing. It was anything but clear. The large number of posts that completely miss your point should tell you that.

    One suggestion: Make it crystal clear who is saying what. Try quote marks and explicit attribution. Here’s an example:

    Ali said “I am the greatest” and I sure wasn’t going to disagree.

    The other thing to be very careful about is putting words in other people’s mouths. You’re always much safer if you can use a direct quote.

  47. ferdberple says:
    October 14, 2012 at 3:44 pm
    It is illogical to argue a constant TSI means the sun is not the source of climate change. The sun emits much more than is measured by TSI. Much of what is not included in TSI is highly variable.
    It does not. The T in TSI means Total Solar Energy output. It is measured by letting sunlight heat an instrument in space. Furthermore, all the variation in TSI comes from variations of the sun’s magnetic field which then follows variations in TSI.

  48. Ken Gregory says:
    October 14, 2012 at 4:11 pm
    I don’t think there is a scientist on the planet who thinks that changes in TSI is a major cause of climate change. It is the solar magnetic flux changes that is hypothesized to cause climate change, not TSI
    I think many scientists [and I know quite a few] think TSI is the driver [as almost all the energy is in TSI]. Variations in the solar magnetic flux are what makes TSI vary, so any change in the one is a change of the other, so they go together.

  49. Reblogged this on sainsfilteknologi and commented:
    Global Warming ?

  50. AndyG55 says:

    Leif, are you saying that TSI has been essentially constant (with regular oscillation) since 1850, how about before that, to the Maunder minimum.

    What does it show if you adjust your TSI axis to go from 1361 to 1360 ?

    Thanks

  51. Alec Rawls says:

    Leif dismisses a solar explanation for late 20th century warming on the grounds that: “we have had similar high solar activity in the 18th and 19th centuries without such warming.”

    Those are not very good examples. The 18th century shows a pretty near perfect correlation between solar activity (Usoskin 2003) and temperature (Loehle 2008)? Solar activity jumped up after the Maunder minimum and temperatures did too.

    The 19th century is not so clear. Temperatures at the end were pretty similar to the beginning, maybe a bit cooler, but in support of the solar explanation, there was the Dalton Minimum to cause a temperature setback at the beginning of the century, and a late 19th century solar lull as well, and the Dalton DID coincide with a pretty significant dip in temperatures. So I think if Leif wants to find an actual counterexample he’ll need to search a little further.

    There’s a lot of temperature-solar activity to search through. I’m sure he can find something. In the meantime, are we agreed that Muscheler’s grounds for dismissing a solar explanation for late 20th century warming is nonsense?

  52. AJB says:

    Leif Svalgaard says October 14, 2012 at 2:06 pm
    Here is a better version [red curves]: http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-Not.png

    Any chance of the dataset for this please?

  53. ferdberple says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 14, 2012 at 4:25 pm
    It does not. The T in TSI means Total Solar Energy output. It is measured by letting sunlight heat an instrument in space. Furthermore, all the variation in TSI comes from variations of the sun’s magnetic field which then follows variations in TSI.
    =======
    The sun emits much more than sunlight. You are limiting your TSI logic to heating by radiative energy transfer. A change in radiative energy transfer is not required for the sun to affect climate.

    Nature always seeks the least expensive way to accomplish what it does. All that is required is for the sun to change the atmosphere electro-chemically, which will change the climate without any change in TSI. For example, by changing atmospheric ionization rates.

    As to the sun’s magnetic field driving all variation in TSI, that seems highly unlikely. Under the standard model the sun is in dynamic balance between gravity and nuclear energy. This balance will oscillate in the presence of any excitation. The years/centuries it takes for the energy to reach the surface masks this oscillation, making prediction unreliable, making cause and effect analysis unreliable at best..

  54. DesertYote says:

    Science is easy. Its the discipline to adhere to rigor that is hard.

  55. Alec Rawls says:
    October 14, 2012 at 5:39 pm
    The 18th century shows a pretty near perfect correlation between solar activity (Usoskin 2003) and temperature (Loehle 2008)? Solar activity jumped up after the Maunder minimum and temperatures did too.
    Usokin’s graph is based on the flawed Group Sunspot Number and cannot be trusted. There are many reconstructions out there that show various things [most of the flawed]. Here is one that compares Moberg’s temperature reconstruction with Solanki’s sunspot reconstruction: http://www.leif.org/research/Moberg-Solanki-Correlation.png and here is one using Loehle: http://www.leif.org/research/Loehle-Temps-and-TSI.png (the TSI is actually derived from 10Be – middle panel – and 14C -lower panel) and http://www.leif.org/research/Global-Temperatures-2000-yrs.png

    The 19th century is not so clear. Temperatures at the end were pretty similar to the beginning, maybe a bit cooler, but in support of the solar explanation, there was the Dalton Minimum to cause a temperature setback at the beginning of the century, and a late 19th century solar lull as well, and the Dalton DID coincide with a pretty significant dip in temperatures. So I think if Leif wants to find an actual counterexample he’ll need to search a little further.
    At the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th solar activity was comparable to what it was at the end of the 20th centuries and beginning of the 21st, but temperatures were not.

    are we agreed that Muscheler’s grounds for dismissing a solar explanation for late 20th century warming is nonsense?
    No, his reasons are clear and simple: solar activity was not exceptional, but global warming is.

  56. Alec Rawls says:

    Matthew R Marler: There is indeed at least a rough correlation between solar activity and temperature over the last few centuries. When the sun was very quiet in the 1600s, climate was at the bottom of the Little Ice Age. When the sun reached what everyone but Leif thinks was a grand maximum of solar activity from the early 1920s to the early 2000′s, it got warm.

    Not to say Leif is wrong, but warming contemperanous with mere “high” rather than “exceptional” solar activity is obviously also compatible with the hypothesis of solar driven warming. For the intervening centures (the 18th and 19th), I responded to Leif above, they too are suggestive-of/ consistent-with a solar explanation.

    As for a “montonic” relationship, you’re not going to find that beause temperature fluctuations are dominated by ocean oscillations.

  57. Alec Rawls says:

    Leif says:

    At the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th solar activity was comparable to what it was at the end of the 20th centuries and beginning of the 21st, but temperatures were not.

    Do you expect them to be, after an intervening century of some of the highest solar activity on record? You have some very funny ideas Leif. It’s like someone who is adding up numbers stopping and exclaiming:

    Hey, what is going on here? Last time I added a 10 to my total I got 100. This time when I add ten my total goes to 200? I can’t figure it out!

    Almost as crazy as thinking that a steady high level of forcing can’t cause warming. Leif, you ARE aware aren’t you that the ocean is a heat sink? Do you really think that the fact that similar levels of solar activity do not always correspond to similar temperatures means that solar activity cannot be driving climate?

    I’m going to have to add that to my list of blatantly untenable excuses out tenured scientists are putting out for dismissing a solar explanation for 20th century warming.

  58. AndyG55 says:
    October 14, 2012 at 5:36 pm
    Leif, are you saying that TSI has been essentially constant (with regular oscillation) since 1850, how about before that, to the Maunder minimum.
    Essentially, yes. And during the Maunder Minimum, the upwards bumps may be smaller but the bottom stays the same.

    What does it show if you adjust your TSI axis to go from 1361 to 1360 ?
    You must mean from 1361 to 1362: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-1361-1362.png

    AJB says:
    October 14, 2012 at 5:45 pm
    Any chance of the dataset for this please?
    Send me an email to remind me, I’m somewhat busy now.

    ferdberple says:
    October 14, 2012 at 5:45 pm
    As to the sun’s magnetic field driving all variation in TSI, that seems highly unlikely.
    That is what the observations show, like it or not.

    Under the standard model the sun is in dynamic balance between gravity and nuclear energy. This balance will oscillate in the presence of any excitation. The years/centuries it takes for the energy to reach the surface masks this oscillation, making prediction unreliable, making cause and effect analysis unreliable at best
    It takes 250,000 years for the nuclear energy to reach the surface so ANY variation on a time scale shorter than that is washed out.

    Alec Rawls says:
    October 14, 2012 at 6:08 pm
    Do you expect them to be, after an intervening century of some of the highest solar activity on record?
    The 20th century was not exceptionally high, and all the arguments about heat sink and lags apply equally well to the high activity in the 18th century, so we should simply see a shift in the two curves.

    I’m going to have to add that to my list of blatantly untenable excuses out tenured scientists are putting out for dismissing a solar explanation for 20th century warming.
    Good, then you have some good arguments to use when you eventually turn around on this.

  59. Matt G says:

    The heat only needs to be upped once and left at that level for a continued period for warming to occur, like when putting the gas on at a fixed setting to warm water in the saucepan. Any how a decline in low level clouds by 4 percent observed by satellite over the globe easily accounts for this previous ocean warming that had contributed towards previous global warming and Arctic ice melt. The way global temperatures are flat lining does look like this equilibrium of the previous switch has been reached.

  60. Matthew R Marler says:

    Alec Rawls: There is indeed at least a rough correlation between solar activity and temperature over the last few centuries.

    Let me try again. Is the rate of change of temperature proportional to, or monotonically related to, solar output. Obviously the relationship has R^2 < 1. In the 20th century, for example, temps had a positive rate of change, then negative or near 0, then positive again, then near 0. Over the 20th century, to select one subset, is the rate of change of temperature related to a measure of solar output. How about over the epoch since the end of the LIA?

  61. ferdberple says:
    October 14, 2012 at 5:45 pm
    As to the sun’s magnetic field driving all variation in TSI, that seems highly unlikely.
    That is what the observations show, like it or not.
    I forgot a reference:
    http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/590/2/1088/fulltext/57000.text.html
    “Current empirical models of total solar irradiance variability appear to be reaching a consensus that observed solar magnetic features are sufficient to account for most if not all of the observed changes in S [TSI]“

  62. Paul Linsay says:

    There is another mechanism related to TSI that you are neglecting. Electrical engineers call it pulse width modulation. My gas stove has a special burner that has a very low heat range below the normal low setting. The amount of heat is regulated by the amount of time the flame is on. At the very lowest end, the flame will only be on for a few seconds and then shut off for a minute. At the upper end of the range the flame will be on most of the time and off for a few seconds.

    The solar cycle is not a regular sine wave with TSI varying in a nice periodic way. The period varies quite a bit. Pulse width modulation applies here just as with my stove. When the cycle is varying rapidly it will apply more heat to the earth, and conversely less when it varies slowly, despite the apparent fact (according to Leif) that the TSI ampltude is quite stable. This accords with the observation (Frohlich?) that the earth is warmer when the sunspots cycle more rapidly.

  63. TimTheToolMan says:

    ferd writes “It is illogical to argue a constant TSI means the sun is not the source of climate change. The sun emits much more than is measured by TSI. Much of what is not included in TSI is highly variable.”

    and Leif responds “It does not. The T in TSI means Total Solar Energy output. It is measured by letting sunlight heat an instrument in space. Furthermore, all the variation in TSI comes from variations of the sun’s magnetic field which then follows variations in TSI.”

    I think you’re going to have to explain that Leif. Perhaps you’re talking past each other but it seems to me that ferd (and others) are describing the fact that whilst TSI doesn’t vary much the frequencies of light that make up the total vary considerably. Much more than was previously thought…and indeed much more than was used to derive much of the “TSI based science” in the past.

  64. paullinsay says:

    Whoops, I left out a crucial idea.

    The amount of heat is regulated by the amount of time the flame is on. However the flame height is always the same as the low heat setting.

  65. Paul Linsay says:
    October 14, 2012 at 6:47 pm
    There is another mechanism related to TSI that you are neglecting. Electrical engineers call it pulse width modulation.
    If this is applicable, it is applicable in every century, thus also for the 18th and 19th.

  66. Brian H says:

    Lief, and others, “You can’t heat a pot of water by turning the flame to maximum and leaving it there” is not BT’s statement or position, but his characterization of the AGW position, which he is disputing.

  67. LazyTeenager says:

    Alec Rawls says
    You can’t heat a pot of water by turning the flame to maximum and leaving it there

    It’s not the level of the flame that causes warming, but the rate of change in the level of the flame. Everybody knows that, or so the anti-CO2 establishment would have us believe. See for instance, Rasmus Benestad, 2005:
    ————-
    What on earth are you talking about?

    Talk about whopping great straw man argument.

    This is an obvious misrepresention of what scientists actually say. And asuuming it’s not deliberate deceit, it really boils down to Alex not being able to understand the distinction between transient and equilibrium behavior.

  68. TimTheToolMan says:
    October 14, 2012 at 6:52 pm
    the fact that whilst TSI doesn’t vary much the frequencies of light that make up the total vary considerably.
    Although those variations [which BTW are not secure yet, there are calibration issues and uncertainties] vary a lot, the energy they represent is still minute. It is like trying to assess Bill Gates’ wealth based on the variation of loose change in his pockets. And in any case, the variations still reflect variations of the solar magnetic field. Slide 3 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf shows the effect of the proposed variations on temperature at the surface. Interestingly enough they lead to much smaller influence on temperature than the ‘old’ values. This is because the visble TSI would be smaller and that is where most of the energy is.

  69. richcar 1225 says:

    I find the Eichler et al paper the most convinving on the role of solar forcing on atmospheric temperatures as determined by comparing solar proxies from an ice core from the Altai glacier and comparing it to temperatures derived also from this core.
    http://lch.web.psi.ch/files/Publikationen/analytic/Eichleretal_GRL2009.pdf
    The authors concluded that that the pre industrial temperature history (1250-1850) could be completely explained by solar forcing with a 10 to 20 year lag but that the late twentieth century warming could only be attributed 50% to solar forcing. While the predicted temperature increase at the Altai site was underestimated by 50 % it did in fact correctly predict the actual global temp which was 50% less than the Altai site (polar amplification?).
    I believe the poleward shift and increase of the strength of the Antarctic westerlies along with the ever increasing ozone hole is likely associated with the decreasing solar wind and increasing cosmic rays. The circum polar current is the strongest in the world and the only one that connects all ocean basins. It is currently bringing unusually cold deep water due to Ekman pumping which I believe is responsible for the rapidly cooling southern Hemisphere as evident in thirty year low SSTs in the Southern Ocean and the recent decline in the South Atlantic as well as the East Pacific through various Kelvin and Rosserby wave teleconnections.
    The decline in the solar wind began in 1992 and ten years later we are now beginning to see the decline in world wide temps.

  70. richcar 1225 says:
    October 14, 2012 at 7:25 pm
    I find the Eichler et al paper the most convinving on the role of solar forcing on atmospheric temperatures as determined by comparing solar proxies
    Is based on the flawed Group Sunspot Number, so is not so convincing.

  71. LazyTeenager says:

    John Shade on October 14, 2012 at 12:23 pm
    I keep getting the impression that the scientific brains of those on the side of climate alarm are an order of magnitude less impressive than those of those who are as yet unconvinced by the hysteria.
    ——–
    You have gained that impression by only visiting blogs intended to promote that impression. You need to take the blinkers off.

  72. TimTheToolMan says:

    Leif writes “shows the effect of the proposed variations on temperature at the surface.”

    Based on what? Models that were constructed based on an incorrect understanding in the first place? I suspect the changes to science due to changed understanding of what makes up “TSI” could run much deeper than you seem to expect.

    For starters, as you say, we only have a very small amount of data so its virtually impossible to understand the implications at this point. Claims of irrelevancy seem premature.

  73. Steven Mosher says:

    has anyone here besides leif
    a. looked at the actual instruments with which sun spots were observed
    b. examined the raw data
    c. examined the adjustment factors applied to the data.

    until you do you have no standing to question his position.

  74. TimTheToolMan says:
    October 14, 2012 at 8:09 pm
    it’s virtually impossible to understand the implications at this point. Claims of irrelevancy seem premature.
    By the same token, so are claims of relevancy.

  75. gymnosperm says:

    Keith DeHavelle says:

    There are other more nimble players than the deep ocean producing CO2 in response to warming. Probably mostly on land and in spite of offsetting photosynthesis, weathering, and carbonate deposition and remineralization also enhanced by warming, the wee beasties prevail.

  76. GeoLurking says:

    Luther Wu says:

    Catch up!

    I hate catchup on Turkey…

  77. Luther Wu says:

    Alec Rawls says:
    October 14, 2012 at 5:39 pm
    “…are we agreed that Muscheler’s grounds for dismissing a solar explanation for late 20th century warming is nonsense?”
    _____
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 14, 2012 at 5:52 pm
    No, his reasons are clear and simple: solar activity was not exceptional, but global warming is.
    _______________
    Dr. Svalgaard,
    That statement is unclear to me, as far as attribution of “global warming is (exceptional)”.
    _________________

  78. Luther Wu says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    October 14, 2012 at 8:18 pm

    has anyone here besides leif
    a. looked at the actual instruments with which sun spots were observed
    b. examined the raw data
    c. examined the adjustment factors applied to the data.

    until you do you have no standing to question his position.
    ___________________
    Your words have merit, but also bear the seeds of fallacy, wouldn’t you agree?

    As for me, I hope that Dr. Svalgaard doesn’t mind us asking questions about his work and about such things solar, in general.
    Actually, he may actually take more delight in answering those who question his work, rather than answering questions about his work, but that’s for him to say.

  79. richcar 1225 says:

    Lief,
    Proton solar wind density now registers near zero. Do you not find this extremely unusual?

  80. Luther Wu says:
    October 14, 2012 at 9:02 pm
    That statement is unclear to me, as far as attribution of “global warming is (exceptional)”.
    You may have heard that the global warming is unprecedented and catastrophic. That makes it exceptional.

    Actually, he may actually take more delight in answering those who question his work, rather than answering questions about his work, but that’s for him to say.
    Critique is good if it is well-founded and relevant. All to often, it is not.

    richcar 1225 says:
    October 14, 2012 at 9:20 pm
    Proton solar wind density now registers near zero. Do you not find this extremely unusual?
    No, as that reading probably is due to a failing satellite [ACE].
    Here is a comparison of ACE and the ‘official’ density values for the past several years: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar%20Wind%20Density%20OMNI%20vs%20ACE.png
    The ACE data also has an artificial 5.75 month period.

  81. richcar 1225 says:

    For everybody that wants to see how unusual the current solar conditions are as we approach or pass the cycle 24 max please read this.
    http://www-spc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/comparing_solar_minimum.pdf

  82. TimTheToolMan says:

    Leif writes “By the same token, so are claims of relevancy.”

    But at the end of the day if there is a newly discovered and as yet unaccounted for effect that could change the result then all bets are off as to the final result and people who claim one way or the other are only displaying their bias.

  83. AndyG55 says:

    So, We have 2 sources that give TSI reconstructions. One from Leen/Kopp or whoever, which shows Maunder very low and a pronounced rise during the 1800-2000 period , and one from Leif which he says has basically zero trend.

    Which is more correct ??

  84. richcar 1225 says:

    Lief admits the near zero reading of the density of proton (helimun nuclei) particles in the solar wind but blames the failure of the ACE satelitte. Can we find another opinion.? Maybe we can contact the ACE operators to verify this. Why does space weather perpetrate this fraud.
    http://www.spaceweather.com/

  85. TimTheToolMan says:
    October 14, 2012 at 9:54 pm
    But at the end of the day if there is a newly discovered and as yet unaccounted for effect that could change the result then all bets are off
    That would be the case if the new effect was solidly established which it is not. There is considerable doubt about its validity and more data is needed to check if the effect is real. Measuring the spectral composition of TSI is very difficult and the errors are much larger for the simple reason that at UV wavelength the energy is much smaller than at visual wavelengths, and the error depends on the number of photons hitting the detector.

  86. AndyG55 says:
    October 14, 2012 at 10:22 pm
    So, We have 2 sources that give TSI reconstructions.
    Which is more correct ??

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf
    “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. [...] drivers other than TSI dominate Earth’s long‐term climate change”.

    richcar 1225 says:
    October 14, 2012 at 10:26 pm
    Why does space weather perpetrate this fraud.
    It is not a fraud. They report the data coming from the spacecraft. It is not their fault that the spacecraft is ailing. Here is a better data set http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/windnrt/

  87. Noelene says:

    I have read the comments with interest.I do wonder if Leif can quote past sunspot numbers with certainty?Is it the same as meteorologists who tell us they know with certainty what the global temperature was 100 years ago?I do not believe that scientists know what the global temperature was 100 years ago.It’s all guesswork used to dazzle the public with scientific terms.Sunspot readings should be a piece of cake in comparison to global temperature readings,but is it tainted because the sun gazers did not have good enough instruments?

  88. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 14, 2012 at 3:42 pm
    vukcevic says:
    October 14, 2012 at 3:20 pm
    At least you didn’t dispute my calculation.
    I didn’t know you have made a calculation worth disputing.
    ………………………….
    Of course you do, it is that you just rather not know of it.
    Nothing unusual about that, it is perennial habit of many scientists.

  89. steveta_uk says:

    Alex, there seem to be various hysteresis effects for which you do not allow.

    As was observed by Mama Cass many years ago, “the darkest hour is just before dawn”. This implies a persistance in light levels well after the midnight, when you would guess the level of solar illumination would be at a minimum. If it takes light several more hours to fade away, how much longer would heat, which is much heavier than light, take?

  90. Bob Ryan says:

    Steven Mosher 8.18pm: what an odd interjection. Since when did data become immutable? Since when did the good teacher ignore his or her student? Since when did the good scientist consider the standing of his or her critics? Since when did the great scientist stop acknowledging that they might be wrong? Dr Svaalgard might be coming here out of some sense of duty to fight those who do not accept that the sun is irrelevant in explaining recent global warming. Or, he might be coming because he is a great scientist who harbours a worm of doubt about his position. Whichever way it is your put-down is counterproductive.

  91. John A says:

    Doug Proctor:

    The warmists are humanists, not technical people. To them all these discussions are details fussing around on a grander stage, the only one worthy of consideration. How little they understand that the details ARE the grand stage!

    I’ll never get used to posters who repeat the canard that the AGW proponents are part of some evil conspiracy of non-believers. Maybe it’s the company they keep since the major religions of the world, Christianity and Islam, look forward to Apocalypse and the final Judgment of infidels.

    Keep your sectarian abuse to yourself, and out of science.

  92. vukcevic says:

    The calculations that Dr.S. prefers to forget about:
    The Earth’s has the same magnetic changes as the Total Solar Iradiance (TSI) with magnitude of about 40 times greater in the percentage terms.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
    The Earth’s magnetic field is generated in the liquid outer core, and its role in the global temperatures is acknowledged by NASA-JPL scientists too as you can see here:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm

    Dr.S. Makes no difference, science is hard, period. Now, you may think you are doing science, but you are not.
    Not really that hard when is confirmed by ‘elementary and accurate calculation’, what is hard is to falsify it, and up to now without much success
    I admire your usual approach, on numerous occasions (including some of my previous work) when you think someone is wrong, you produce calculation to show it.
    But on the both of the above examples you abandoned the rigorous scrutiny appreciated by most of the readers, in favor of the meaningless ‘spurious’ or ‘I didn’t know you have made a calculation worth disputing’.

  93. Richard M says:

    I have noticed recently a short term effect of solar magnetic storms (CMEs) on temperature. Of course, this is too short to draw any conclusions. Is there any proxy for the number of these storms over time? Are sun spots a reasonable proxy? If not, what might correlate with total CMEs?

  94. Noelene says:
    October 14, 2012 at 11:19 pm
    Sunspot readings should be a piece of cake in comparison to global temperature readings,but is it tainted because the sun gazers did not have good enough instruments?
    Sunspots are counted [even today] with small telescopes. This is the telescope used by the inventor of the sunspot number [Rudolf Wolf, 1816-1893] http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-37mm.png

  95. vukcevic says:
    October 15, 2012 at 3:03 am
    But on the both of the above examples you abandoned the rigorous scrutiny appreciated by most of the readers, in favor of the meaningless ‘spurious’ or ‘I didn’t know you have made a calculation worth disputing’.
    I know that you admire your own dabbling in these matters, and I have commented on them before. It is my professional opinion based on rigorous scrutiny that what you claim is spurious and not worth disputing further. This may sound harsh, but scientific honesty should not be compromised. Scientists deal all the time with rejection of their work when trying to publish it; that is a fact of this hard and sometimes cruel business and one learns to take it as a man. You may learn that too one day.

  96. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: October 15, 2012 at 5:26 am
    ………
    It is my professional opinion based on rigorous scrutiny that what you claim is spurious and not worth disputing further. This may sound harsh, but scientific honesty should not be compromised.
    Not very convincing rebuttal, is it? I thought you could do better.
    Any reasonable person would conclude you done calculation, but then you wouldn’t tell us if you did and what you found out.
    I got this image of a fisherman caring his large and successful catch, and under its weight stuck to his waist in shallow quick sand, not sinking and not willing to throw some of his burden and dig himself out.
    Thanks and have a nice day.

  97. vukcevic says:
    October 15, 2012 at 6:08 am
    Not very convincing rebuttal, is it? I thought you could do better.
    sorry to disappoint you, but spurious stuff does not need nor deserve rebuttals.

  98. TrueNorthist says:

    Reblogged this on TrueNorthist and commented:
    Why Carbon Dioxide is NOT Changing the Climate Much at All (Or, how I learned to quit worrying about warming and love the Sun)

  99. Genghis says:

    I find these discussions fascinating and a little confusing, because it appears that everyone is possibly correct, but they are talking past each other.

    Alec’s position seems to be that the temperature is oscilating around a mean (equilibrium point, energy in = energy out) driven by the suns variations.

    Leif’s position seems to be that the suns output is basically constant and the variations are not large enough to force any temperature changes one way or another. I am not sure what Leifs position is on the equilibrium point.

    The standard AGW position seems to be that raising CO2 levels dramatically increases the equilibrium point and that the aproximate .8˚ temperature increase in the last century is attributable solely to increasing CO2 levels.

    It seems that it is easy (at least theoretically) to determine which theory is correct. All we have to do is determine what the equilibrium temperature is. In other words accurately measure the incoming and outgoing radiation from the earth.

    Personally I think that Leif is correct and I think that both Alec’s and the Standard AGW positions are based on inadequate data. In other words if we had extensive coverage of the ocean, land and air heat content, we would find no change. I also think that as we are improving our coverage we are seeing that now in the data.

  100. Andy Krause says:

    “All we have to do is determine what the equilibrium temperature is”.
    I like this comment. If the good scientists who are doing real science would produce this number and show the calculation we could ground the discussion on fact not professional or layman opinion. So Alec and Lief, what is the equilibrium temprature of the earth?

  101. Andy Krause says:
    October 15, 2012 at 9:06 am
    So Alec and Leif, what is the equilibrium temperature of the earth?
    To know that you need to know what the albedo is. There are measurements of the albedo, e.g. by looking at the Earthshine on the Moon. The best would be to look back at the Earth from the L1 point. There was once a satellite [Al Gore's pet project] designed to do that, but it was cancelled http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Climate_Observatory
    So we don’t know precisely enough what that temperature is and more importantly how it varies over decades.

  102. beng says:

    From Leif’s reconstruction, TSI is 1361.5 w/m2 + or – 0.5 w/m2 over the solar cycle. A whole 0.037%! Multiply 288K by that gives a whopping 0.1K variation around the mean. OK, if you think a “grand max” is constant high-activity (not true) and “mins” are constant lows, that gives a potential 0.2K. Um, that’s not very impressive & not nearly up to demonstrated historical variations.

    BTW, that gives a crude, linear sensitivity of 288K/1361.5 w/m2 * 3.7w/m2 of 0.78K for C02 doubling.

  103. beng says:
    October 15, 2012 at 10:00 am
    From Leif’s reconstruction, TSI is 1361.5 w/m2 + or – 0.5 w/m2 over the solar cycle. A whole 0.037%! Multiply 288K by that gives a whopping 0.1K variation
    The +/-0.5 W/m2 is a range of twice your number for a range of 0.073%. To evaluate what temperature variation that gives, you must divide by 4 [Stefan-Boltzmann's law], so 0.0184% of 288K = 0.05K. Steinhilber et al. from their study http://www.leif.org/EOS/GL2009GL040142.pdf of the Cosmic Ray record in ice cores over the past 9300 years suggest a range of 2 W/m2 over that whole period, so the temperature variation for that is 0.1 K.
    The standard excuses to overcome those small numbers include feedback, amplifications, lags, ocean heat inertia, bad data, TSI is not what the climate responds to, etc.

  104. Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 15, 2012 at 10:18 am
    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL040142.pdf
    sorry one GL too many

  105. sergeiMK says:

    try this plot of all tsi temp co2 all with correct zeroes displayed:
    http://imageshack.us/a/img196/2339/tsico2cetnooffset.png

    Not much of a wiggle in the TSI (1 pixel?)!

  106. wayne says:

    beng, just where is the maths that was used to calculate that 3.7w/m2? I have looked and looked but to no avail so far, that figure seems to just be assumed… maybe reaching back to Tyndall or Arrhenius?

    Closest I have come is in http://learningcenter.nsta.org/products/symposia_seminars/UCAR/files/HeatingandWarming–SensitivityofEarthsClimatetoAtmosphericCO2_9-24-2012_final.pdf , it is stated that

    Results show that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere would add 4 Watts of heat to every
    square meter of Earth. — John Tyndall, January 1863

    and I assume refinements in labs now give 3.7wm-2 but that is isotropic so half of that increased flux would be pointed upward giving not 3.7 but 1.85wm-2 downward increase, at most… could even be argued to be zero by cancellation. Half of that would be upward pointing and have a local cooling effect. So your 0.78C becomes 0.39C at best and I have seen that approximation of feedback-less approximation in various papers and other methods.

    Seems to me the 3.7wm-2 lies at the base of most of the estimates now proving to be far, far overstated. Seems someone (ending up in IPCC) forgot to divide by two due to the spherical geometries involved.

  107. vukcevic says:

    Genghis says:
    October 15, 2012 at 7:37 am
    I find these discussions fascinating and a little confusing, because it appears that everyone is possibly correct, but they are talking past each other.
    …………………..
    Nothing unusual about that, it is perennial habit of many scientists, it is that they rather talk their view.

  108. beng says:

    Thanks for clarifying my crude estimates, Leif.

    ***
    wayne says:
    October 15, 2012 at 10:51 am

    beng, just where is the maths that was used to calculate that 3.7w/m2?
    ****

    I thought that was the “standard” radiational effect for CO2 doubling. From MODTRAN perhaps? Team-members? I agree it’s arguable. So even using a possibly inflated value, a crude result would only be .78K. I guess that’s why GCMs need positive-feedback cloud effects on temps, even tho clouds reflect sunlight!

  109. george e smith says:

    “””””…..Leif Svalgaard says:

    October 14, 2012 at 12:22 pm

    You can’t heat a pot of water by turning the flame to maximum and leaving it there
    You keep saying that, but it is false. Want a pot of hot water, start at maximum flame and keep it here……”””””

    Well sorry Dr S. but I have experimental proof that the statement is TRUE (You can’t heat a pot of water by turning the flame to maximum and leaving it there ).

    As a teenager watching my Mother playing cards with her friends, I was asked by the lady of the house if I would “go and light the gas”.

    So I went out to the kitchen and lit one burner on the gas stove , pretty much full on, and returned to watching the card game.

    15 minutes later, the hostess noticed that the kettle had not whistled yet, so she asked me if I had “lit the gas” and I said “yes”
    .Well then she announced that she had wanted me to heat a kettle of water for “tea” !

    But she told me to “light the gas” which I did.

    When you write a process spec, you are supposed to list EVERYTHING that needs to be done (in order) and list NOTHING that does not need to be done.

    So turning the flame to maximum and leaving it there will not heat a pot of water, if you didn’t put the pot of water on the flame.

  110. george e smith says:
    October 15, 2012 at 1:03 pm
    So turning the flame to maximum and leaving it there will not heat a pot of water, if you didn’t put the pot of water on the flame.
    You sound like you have been in an accident and hit your head….

  111. Steven Mosher says:

    bob

    You think my interjection is odd. Here is what I find odd.People get all twisted over raw data and adjustments in the temperature record. Now Leif has examined some of the actual instruments. he has examined the raw log books and drawings. He has unravelled the adjustments. No one stands better than he does to explain the record. Yet readers with no comparable exposure to the data and methods persist in their ignorance. They dont know how to practice good skepticism. Good students ask questions with a willingness to learn. classclowns are a different breed.This old teacher knows the difference

  112. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 15, 2012 at 6:15 am
    vukcevic says:
    October 15, 2012 at 6:08 am
    Not very convincing rebuttal, is it? I thought you could do better.
    sorry to disappoint you, but spurious stuff does not need nor deserve rebuttals.
    ……………………
    Ah, spurious virus strikes again.
    Latin: spurius false, of illegitimate birth, from spurius, noun, bastard.

    1. you did calculation found it to be false, but didn’t whish to say so ?!
    2. you did calculation and did not fault it, but it must be spurious.
    Since the solar cycle is matter of recognized science (+ or -10% in amplitude doesn’t make great deal of difference) and the other component is matter of geophysics and related sciences produced by:
    Author(s): Andrew Jackson(1), Jeremy Bloxham(2) & David Gubbins(1)
    Affiliation: (1) Dept Earth Sciences, Leeds University (2) Dept Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University
    either
    1. Sunspot cycle annual values from SIDC or data produced by three distinguished scientists (named above) are gross forgeries
    or alternatively if both of above data sets have scientific credibility then
    2. the author of this graphic representation
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
    has made discovery of a fundamental importance not only for the climate science but for the geophysics and understanding of hitherto unknown sun-Earth relationship.
    I shall (before the December AGU meeting) send copies of my findings to 20-30 heads of geophysics and earth sciences departments of the world leading universities and let them deliberate on the validity.
    Science is not ‘very hard’ it is lot of fun, and I am looking forward to having some fun for Xmas.

  113. vukcevic says:
    October 15, 2012 at 2:06 pm
    Latin: spurius false, of illegitimate birth, from spurius, noun, bastard.
    Good that you looked it up, I was beginning to think you didn’t know what it meant, and perhaps I was correct in that, because you had to look it up. But now you know.

    1. you did calculation found it to be false
    As yo may recall we did the calculation of the skin depth for electromagnetic changes and demolished your ideas.

    2. the author of this graphic representation
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
    has made discovery of a fundamental importance not only for the climate science but for the geophysics and understanding of hitherto unknown sun-Earth relationship.

    It is a hallmark of pseudo-scientists to make such claims. Velikovsky comes to mind.

    I shall (before the December AGU meeting) send copies of my findings to 20-30 heads of geophysics and earth sciences departments of the world leading universities and let them deliberate on the validity.
    I predict they won’t even bother.

    Science is not ‘very hard’ it is lot of fun
    Science is hard, but [as you are finding out] pseudo-science is indeed fun.

  114. george e smith says:

    “””””…..Leif Svalgaard says:

    October 15, 2012 at 1:31 pm

    george e smith says:
    October 15, 2012 at 1:03 pm
    So turning the flame to maximum and leaving it there will not heat a pot of water, if you didn’t put the pot of water on the flame.
    You sound like you have been in an accident and hit your head………”””””

    Maybe so Dr Svalgaard; but the facts of my story are quite true as written. Just goes to show, how easy it can be to miscommunicate one’s intentions.

    But as to the idea you were trying to convey in your message, of course I agree with you. That’s why I don’t like Dr Trenberth’s value of 342 W/m^2 for his value of TSI. You can leave the flame height at that level forever, and never produce the same geographic weather / climate effects that 1362 W/ m^2 will.

    By the way, is that 1361.5 +/- 0.5 W/m^2 your current best value . I used to use 1366 as an eyeball guess from the plots from three different satellites, until I read in the last two years or so, that NASA was recommending 1362, which I have used since reading that; not that it matters much so long as those who do need to make accurate calculations dependent on that, do use the best current agreed on value.
    As to the constancy of TSI, I presume you are talking about any long term drifts in TSI value, rather than the 11 / 22 year cycle stuff. Are you and your colleagues fairly confident about any long term (but recent) drift in TSI ? Not that I am challenging your statement, simply trying to get informed.

    George

  115. george e smith says:
    October 15, 2012 at 9:47 pm
    By the way, is that 1361.5 +/- 0.5 W/m^2 your current best value . I used to use 1366 as an eyeball guess from the plots from three different satellites
    There has been no drift in TSI. The reason for the lower values is that all older instruments had a flaw that let in a little bit too much light. To correct for the flaw you subtract 4.5 W/m2.

  116. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 15, 2012 at 3:05 pm
    It is a hallmark of pseudo-scientists to make such claims.
    Science is hard, but [as you are finding out] pseudo-science is indeed fun.

    Well at least I am in good company
    Here is a quote from a JPL ‘pseudo-scientist’

    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.

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

    Hey, forget about the world with five computers, the phone has too many flaws to be seriously considered as a means of communication !

  117. vukcevic says:
    October 15, 2012 at 11:32 pm
    Well at least I am in good company
    Here is a quote from a JPL ‘pseudo-scientist’
    Jean Dickey of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena:

    I think she would object to be called a pseudo-scientist

    that an external (e.g. solar) process affects the core and climate simultaneously
    And here she obviously does not know what she is talking about. You can tell her that from me..

  118. vukcevic says:

    My totally independent calculations confirm in a very precise detail that during the last 150 years there is close relationship between natural temperature variability and the phase of the solar and the Earth magnetic fields.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
    This is in full agreement with Dr. Dickey’s statement.
    Data I use from: SIDC and Andrew Jackson, Jeremy Bloxham & David Gubbins.

    As you are well aware the above is also confirmed by strong correlation between your own sunspot data and strength of the geomagnetic field in the Antarctic
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
    Data I used from Svalgaard, Wang, Lean& Sheeley, and ETHZ.

    One spurious correlation may be an accident, but two could be a disaster for the valiant but fallible defense:
    calculation of the skin depth for electromagnetic changes and demolished your ideas.
    Lot of fun ahead, for months hopefully for years to come.

  119. AlexS says:

    What a disastrous thread. Arguing that temperatures in XVIII,XIX, XX century represent any reliable information and the ver present trying to find a silver bullet.
    As in most climate topics the only constant is trying to grasping at straws..

  120. vukcevic says:
    October 16, 2012 at 1:46 am
    This is in full agreement with Dr. Dickey’s statement.
    Her statement is too vague to allow meaningful comparison with. Have you contacted her and told her to good news? And what was her response?

  121. P. Solar says:

    Here is graph showing fitting of two sine functions plus linear to the first derivative of OHC 700m
    http://i47.tinypic.com/1zp46sx.png

    It is interesting that the NLLS fitting process brought out a period of 3.7y , this matches one of the strongest peaks in figure 4D of N. Scafetta’s “Aurora” paper. That is a strong suggestion that this signal in OHC is also of solar origin. The longer cycle would seem to be linked to Hale/Schwabe periods.

    I ended the fitting period at 2001 since I suspect the 2002-2003 spike to spurious (at least in its size). This is around the time of significant changes in the number and type of deployed sensors and with out any major accompanying climatic event , it seems likely to be data discontinuity than climate signal. After this glitch, that data falls back into line with the model.

    The linear rate of change may well not be linear but centennial variation of another sort. With 40 years of data the uncertainty in matching any model on that scale is too large to have any confidence. It does show some underlying long term rise.

    The fast response to short cycles is clearly shallow water response times. The ‘linear’ component may represent a longer term equilibration.

    Here is the residual after subtracting the sin+sin+linear fitted model
    http://i49.tinypic.com/2vjqvpl.png

    I invite comments on the fact that after each volcanic cooling there is a subsequent warming, NOT just and end to the cooling but a positive warming, in which the OHC largely recovers the heat lost due to the volcanic event.

    I would seem that the climate response is longer than the initial cooling and is more complex than a simple ocean heat sink (even multi-layered) which would not provide a rebound mechanism.

    An finally, here is the residual signal alongside El Nino 3.4 (inverted).
    http://i45.tinypic.com/2mgr13q.png

    So why the strong similarity between the volcanic cooling and hypothetical rebound warming and ENSO? Are the eruptions affecting or triggering the strong ENSO fluctuations?

    If not we need to explain why there is a temporal coincidence across three events spaced by 20 and 10y intervals.

    The relationship seems to change just before 2000, the end of the 40y period of volcanic activity that was accompanied by a fairly continued warming.

    This was the beginning of a changed pattern Arctic ice melting that persisted from 1997-2007, so this maybe another mode of behaviour in a period that has been characterised by a lack of warming.
    http://i46.tinypic.com/r7uets.png

  122. P. Solar says:

    That lost post got a bit longer than I intended in relation to this thread but the key point in terms of equilibrium is that if there an active rebound mechanism rather than just a passive heat sink, the climate could be reaching (or rather restoring) its equilibrium in around a decade w.r.t the volcanic events.

    The Arctic adjustment , which seems to have returned to it previous oscillatory mode would also suggest a decadal timescale.

  123. Layman Lurker says:

    Interesting post P.Solar.

    I would seem that the climate response is longer than the initial cooling and is more complex than a simple ocean heat sink (even multi-layered) which would not provide a rebound mechanism.

    I think that the OHC derivative should track the dip and rebound of the aerosol forcing. Therefore it would be the non-differenced (integrated) OHC series that should not expect a rebound mechanism.

  124. P. Solar says:

    Layman Lurker says: I think that the OHC derivative should track the dip and rebound of the aerosol forcing.

    There is no rebound in a aerosol, nor in a heatsink, that’s what’s significant. This shows an active climate response, not a passive recovery from a fading of the volcanic forcing.

  125. P. Solar says:

    Layman Lurker says: Therefore it would be the non-differenced (integrated) OHC series that should not expect a rebound mechanism.

    Yes, I see what you mean , the +ve excursion in d(OHC)/dt could be no more than the return to the previous value. I need subtract the equivalent model from the time series and see what remains.
    thx

  126. P. Solar says:

    The key point I think this demonstrates is that during the La Nina phase the ocean heat content recovers what was lost in OHC. This is not just a continual heat input from AGW additional forcing but a clear recovery period after each cooling.

    Current climatology seems to be maintaining that volcanoes cool the system and _amplified_ GHG forcing provides a constant underlying rise that compensates for the volcanoes. What the graphs show is that there is a short recovery pulse rather than a gradual, continual topping up.

    This recovery seems to be reflected in stronger (cooler) la Nina phases during which OHC rises. That fact that the surface is below its short term equilibrium creates conditions that cause OHC to increase. This is not the atmosphere warming the water, neither is it the constant GHG forcing, it must be more climatically induced, ultimately solar energy making it into the system.

  127. vukcevic says:

    vuk:I shall (before the December AGU meeting) send copies of my findings to 20-30 heads of geophysics and earth sciences departments of the world leading universities and let them deliberate on the validity.
    Dr.S. I predict they won’t even bother.

    You want to bet, even if I start writing on the geomagnetics as someone called Leef Svalbaard.
    Don’t panic, its only a joke.

  128. vukcevic says:
    October 16, 2012 at 10:49 am
    Don’t panic, its only a joke.
    I thought your whole ‘fundamental discovery’ was the joke, ah well, we shall see.

  129. vukcevic says:

    Dr. S. I thought your whole ‘fundamental discovery’ was the joke, ah well, we shall see.

    You can’t be serious man!
    You, Mosher and Willis E. spent countless hours and thousands of words and still were unable to convincingly demolish Scafetta’s 60 year planetary cycle in the climate data.
    As you well know I did it with one simple equation and one sentence (page 6), but if you acknowledge that, it would expose the vulnerability of the rest of your ‘apparent confidence’.

  130. vukcevic says:
    October 16, 2012 at 11:23 am
    You, Mosher and Willis E. spent countless hours and thousands of words and still were unable to convincingly demolish Scafetta’s 60 year planetary cycle in the climate data.
    You are confusing some things. First Scafetta’s stuff was demolished from the get go, simply by Scafetta’s misuse of the auroral data. Second it was easy to demonstrate that there was no 60-yr cycle in solar activity, but likely in the last 150 years of climate data. That that ‘cycle’ was planetary Scafetta never managed to show. There was a lot of discussion mainly because Scafetta refused to lie down, so the readers got a nice demonstration of human frailties.

    As you well know I did it with one simple equation and one sentence (page 6)
    OK, we all know you think you are a genius, God forbid we yank you out of that delusion.

  131. vukcevic says:

    L.S. There was a lot of discussion mainly because Scafetta refused to lie down, so the readers got a nice demonstration of human frailties.

    With not much of a success, because there is a quazi 60 year cycle (more like 64years) in the AMO, and no one knew where it comes from, until I’ve shown it to you (p.6), also Mosher and Dr. Curry now know too.
    Kind of ‘cycle’ persists within the AMO thought all of 300 years of the known solar data, but its amplitude and period are variable, it is questionable if it should be referred to as proper cycle, but sun is partially responsible.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-recon1.htm

    L.S. OK, we all know you think you are a genius, God forbid we yank you out of that delusion.

    It’s all your fault, if you didn’t exist, very little if anything of this would see light of the day. Once you declared that I ‘was a danger to society’ I knew I was onto something, didn’t know what, but I am taking lot of pleasure in finding out.
    Hey, I still have to throw this one at you:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-NAP.htm
    Too many coincidences for comfort? I’ll leave that one for 2013.

  132. vukcevic says:
    October 16, 2012 at 12:18 pm
    With not much of a success, because there is a quazi 60 year cycle (more like 64years) in the AMO, and no one knew where it comes from, until I’ve shown it to you
    Apparently you didn’t convince Scafetta.

    Once you declared that I ‘was a danger to society’ I knew I was onto something
    Pseudo-science is a danger, and you contribute to that, sadly enough.

  133. george e smith says:

    “””””…..Leif Svalgaard says:

    October 15, 2012 at 10:31 pm

    george e smith says:
    October 15, 2012 at 9:47 pm
    By the way, is that 1361.5 +/- 0.5 W/m^2 your current best value . I used to use 1366 as an eyeball guess from the plots from three different satellites
    There has been no drift in TSI. The reason for the lower values is that all older instruments had a flaw that let in a little bit too much light. To correct for the flaw you subtract 4.5 W/m2…….”””””

    Thanks Dr S. The “old” data I referred to, was from three different satellites, and not all overlapping, and clear offsets between the three, so as I said the 1366 was a dartboarfd guess.

    Nice to know you all feel you know the source of some instrumental error you are correcting.

  134. vukcevic says:

    Pseudo-science is a danger, and you contribute to that, sadly enough.
    with huge dose of encouragement from you, happily enough!

    Since this is a solar thread let’s finish on a happy note

    and may our friendship flourish while the sun is slowly winding down.

  135. george e smith says:
    October 16, 2012 at 12:47 pm
    Nice to know you all feel you know the source of some instrumental error you are correcting.
    It is more than a ‘feeling’: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2010GL045777.pdf

  136. P. Solar says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: OK, we all know you think you are a genius, God forbid we yank you out of that delusion.

    God forbid someone should say the same thing about your good self.

  137. P. Solar says:
    October 16, 2012 at 1:29 pm
    God forbid someone should say the same thing about your good self.
    Who would? as I clearly am not in the same league as Vuk.

  138. P. Solar says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:

    Vuk “Once you declared that I ‘was a danger to society’ I knew I was onto something”
    Pseudo-science is a danger, and you contribute to that, sadly enough.

    Well I don’t think Vuk is much of a danger but much of the pseudo-science being presented as climatology over the last couple of decades clearly is a danger to society.

    Here is the upshot of an analysis I posted on Bob Tisdale’s regional breakdown of OHC that says a lot about the recovery times discussed in this article. (references to figures relate to that article not this one.)

    LA NINA IS A WARMING EVENT IN TERMS OF OHC. EL NINO IS OCEAN COOLING.

    The one thing I see as the biggest anomaly (ie a real anomaly not a climatological one) in the OHC data is the big spike around 2002/3 without any obvious climatic event to explain it.

    OHC vs model : http://i48.tinypic.com/zx1d9k.png
    Model residual vs ENSO http://i45.tinypic.com/2mgr13q.png

    The regional breakdown, esp. figure 5 ( http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/5-so-atl.png?w=640&h=433&h=433 ) helps see the cause. It seems the only region showing huge step in this period is the Southern Ocean. This region had particularly poor coverage and was one of the major targets for ARGO deployment. The period of the peak I identified in that rate of change graph is the beginning of major ARGO deployment in S. O.

    The magnitude of the step , about 0.2 GJ/m2 over three years is about the same size as the deviation of this period from the fitted model as can be seen in the graph linked above.

    This adds some substantial evidence to my earlier suggestion that this spike is a data discontinuity and not a real OHC warming. Since it gives a nice little warming boost to the time series when real climate is pretty flat , I don’t expect they will removing this obvious flaw any time soon. They’ll probably use it to justify warming up some other datasets instead.

    The bottom line is that the similarity of deviations from the model and ENSO suggest that ENSO is providing the mechanism that allows the climate to warm back to it’s pre-eruptions state and that there is no energy deficit as a result of volcanic events beyond about 10 years.

    The fact that climate models don’t model ENSO properly means they only get half the story on volcanoes. This leads modellers to (erroneously) hypothesising amplification of the scientifically justified CO2 forcing to make up the deficit.

    So Bob Tisdale’s other posts suggesting ENSO is the cause of global warming may be valid in part. It looks like ENSO is responsible for the part that models incorrectly attribute to amplification: in the climate sensitivity of 3, one part is real, the other two parts (the amplification) are in fact ENSO acting as the mechanism restoring volcanic cooling losses.

    That still leaves the true CO2 forcing since 1960 which may be at least part of the linear term in the model. ENSO may be coming into play again to dump out some of that extra accumulated heat by means of the 1998 super el Nino

    Far from being neutral “internal variation” it looks like ENSO is a significant negative feedback acting to stabilise the climate, at least on decadal time scales.

  139. P. Solar says:

    For clarity here is the d/dt(OHC) residual from the sin+sin+linear model on its own. The short recovery from the volcanic cooling happens inside 10 years after each event. This is not slow CO2 warming , it is a climate reaction.
    http://i49.tinypic.com/2vjqvpl.png

  140. P. Solar says:

    This , of course, explains Trenberth’s missing heat. What must be obvious to most people by now is that there is no missing heat, the amplification was spurious, there never was any heat.

  141. Spector says:

    In regard to this heating a pot of water example, the top surface temperature would also be affected by whether it had a lid or not and the porosity of any such lid . . .

Comments are closed.