2008 Ends Spotless and with 266 Spotless Days, the #2 Least Active Year Since 1900, Portends Cooling

“what was the response from Friis-Christensen to this questioning of their methodology and conclusions?”
One at least from 2004:
http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/Scientific%20work%20and%20publications/comment%20to%20EOS_28_Sept_04.pdf

Question:
Is there a lag between Solar Irradience/spotless days/ other factors and the mean temperature on earth?
Or, to restate the question: Does it take several years or months for the earth to lose the energy that is stored in heat sinks, and once that energy is depleted, would lower mean temperature result because of lower irradience and sunspots?
I am trying to phrase the question well enough for others understand my question, but I feel I may not be successful.
thanks

Dav,
It’s hilarious that Schneider defended what he said by claiming that *all* scientists face the same “dilemma”, or in his words, a “bind”, and morphed his original statement of “need” to “forced to do media clips”. While at the same time being “unusually forthright”, no less:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DetroitNews.pdf
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats,
the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to
reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. Ihope that means being both.”
“It is strange that The News should accuse me of trying to hide scientific uncertainty through this quote, when by the very nature of explaining the dilemma I am being unusually forthright in trying to show how
all scientists face a bind when forced to communicate in short sound bites in the media what the essence of a controversial complex problem is.”

The best part of all of this is the sun is cooperating on testing solar cycle hypothesis. We have an anomalously long cycle which should lead to cooling according to the hypothesis (potentially quantifiable – Hathway I believe is calling for a 2.1 deg C decrease, if I recall correctly). We need testable hypotheses to move climate science ahead. Of course, those with purely political agendas will never acknowledge this, but the public will recognize what’s going on (via observable changes in the weather) & those with purely scientific agendas will be shown to the credible sources of information.

The plot of solar cycle length versus temperature from
Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate
E. FRIIS-CHRISTENSEN 1 and K. LASSEN 1
is very interesting.
However, how does this correlation plot look up to 2008 inclusive? Is it available?

Glenn (12:38:09) : *all* scientists face the same “dilemma”, or in his words, a “bind” … While at the same time being “unusually forthright”, no less:
Ah, yes! The old “Honestly, I’m a liar!” trick! The only “bind” is determining when he is and when he is not.

Phil,
You said
“Which has nothing to do with the point in question,”
You are right, but if these people who found the math error can’t see the simple rubbish in Mann how can I trust them. BTW, I don’t disagree with your link as I don’t know the data. I just was hoping for a better source.

Glad to be reminded of that quote from Schneider. Lovely!
Have we got any logicians around the place that can deconstruct that for us? If I read it right: We are scientists and therefore we have to be honest and include all the doubts in what we publish but even if we have doubts global warming is so important that we don’t need to include them on this subject.
But if you have doubts surely there is a possibility that global warming is less important than you are trying to claim and therefore you ought to include your doubts in the published literature.
Or am I being naive, here?

Phil: “It’s difficult to write a paper in 2004 including data for the cycle length of the current cycle which had not yet ended!”
What *data* did they include of the then current cycle? Explain this statement of yours. Did you read the original? Do you consider the results of techniques such as “filtering”, “smoothing”, “adjusting” as “data”?
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Solar%20Cycle%20-%20Friis-Chr_Lassen-.pdf

Further to Friis-Christensen 1991 paper see:
The cause-and-effect relationship of solar cycle length and the Northern Hemisphere air surface temperature
The cause-and-effect relationship of solar cycle length and the Northern Hemisphere air surface temperature Richard Reichel, Peter Thejll, Knud Lassen

Abstract: It has previously been demonstrated that the mean land air temperature of the Northern Hemisphere could adequately be associated with a long-term variation of solar activity as given by the length of the approximately 11-year solar cycle. In this paper it is shown that the right cause-and-effect ordering, in the sense of Granger causality, is present between the smoothed solar cycle length and the cycle mean of Northern Hemisphere land air temperature for the twentieth century, at the 99% significance level. This indicates the existence of a physical mechanism linking solar activity to climate variations.

For variety, here is a 2007 paper claiming the opposite:
Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature
MIKE LOCKWOOD, CLAUS FROHLICH

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.

However, they make no mention of the Pacific Decadal Oscillations etc. which may invalidate their conclusions.

Getting back to the C of E, a once noble institution which is now on its deathbed–death by anemia– if they sign on to something, it’s the Titanic redivivue.