The Sun Defines the Climate – an essay from Russia

Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc. – Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory, Head of the Russian/Ukrainian joint project Astrometria – has a few things to say about solar activity and climate. Thanks to Russ Steele of NCWatch

Russ1__550x348

Total Solar Irradiance over time in watts per square Variation in the TSI during the period 1978 to 2008 (heavy line) and its bicentennial component (dash line), revealed by us. Distinct short-term upward excursions are caused by the passage of faculae on the solar disk, and downward excursions by the passage of sunspot groups.

Key Excerpts:

Observations of the Sun show that as for the increase in temperature, carbon dioxide is “not guilty” and as for what lies ahead in the upcoming decades, it is not catastrophic warming, but a global, and very prolonged, temperature drop.

[…] Over the past decade, global temperature on the Earth has not increased; global warming has ceased, and already there are signs of the future deep temperature drop.

[…] It follows that warming had a natural origin, the contribution of CO2 to it was insignificant, anthropogenic increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide does not serve as an explanation for it, and in the foreseeable future CO2 will not be able to cause catastrophic warming. The so-called greenhouse effect will not avert the onset of the next deep temperature drop, the 19th in the last 7500 years, which without fail follows after natural warming.

[…] We should fear a deep temperature drop — not catastrophic global warming. Humanity must survive the serious economic, social, demographic and political consequences of a global temperature drop, which will directly affect the national interests of almost all countries and more than 80% of the population of the Earth. A deep temperature drop is a considerably greater threat to humanity than warming. However, a reliable forecast of the time of the onset and of the depth of the global temperature drop will make it possible to adjust in advance the economic activity of humanity, to considerably weaken the crisis.

Full Study is here. (PDF patience, takes a bit to load)

210 thoughts on “The Sun Defines the Climate – an essay from Russia

  1. I’m puzzled by the use of the PMOD solar irradiance composite. Leif believes that the recent rapid decline, highlighted in the paper, is erroneous, and the ACRIM team claims that the PMOD composite is erroneous during the ACRIM gap.

  2. As I understand it, the peak temperature was in ’98 but the graph shows Solar Irradiance peaking shortly later. Why would the peak in temperature precede the peak in Irradiance?

    I’m just asking the question I know will be directed at me.

  3. At long last, there’s something for a Russian to be proud of…

    Wait a minute. “Habibullo Abdussamatov” is a pure Tatar name, not a Russian one! It’s a Muslim conspiracy against the global warming! “Beck” also sounds a lot like a Muslim last name. Glenn Beck must be a member of the same conspiracy. Everything is clear now! I shall immediately inform George Soros of this insidious attack by Saudi-financed enemies of the Obama Climate Change.

    Meanwhile, it’s snowing hard in New Mexico. Merry Christmas.

  4. I’ve been wondering when one of these studies was going to be ‘widely released’.

    This is proof that the reach [and money] of Gore and Strong doesn’t extend everywhere.

    For many, this is a ‘peek’ at what may be driving the Kremlin’s energy and foreign policy, and this is by no means the only Russian ‘climate study’ that’s been generated.

    For obvious reasons, the Russians research efforts [and their viewpoints] aren’t getting a whole lotta airplay.

    Question: is this Russia’s pre-Copenhagen position?

  5. Very interesting contribution.
    Curious to find out what the warmists are going to say against it.
    Wait, is he a dedicated climate scientist?
    Oops, is it peer-reviewed?

    I’m loving it.

  6. a well written, thoughtful and compelling essay.

    it will have no effect on global warming alarmists.

    in a related note, as I’m trying to put pieces together the thought occurs: is it possible that planetary position (yes, the “barycenter” theory) would have an impact on the internal fusion rate and/or convection rate and/or raduis of the sun as described?

  7. timetochooseagain (07:43:19) :
    There is a bitter discussion on that issue, but the 200 years oscillation appears also in Prof. Leif Svalgaard graphs, as we have seen in the discussion held here in WUWT in another thread.

  8. @ servius

    The paper states that TSI peaked in “the early ’90’s.” I think the peak of cycle 22, which was larger than 23, was in 1991.

  9. Congratulations Anthony!, this one will be the longest threads ever.
    Prof.Abdusamatov also points out that Mars and other planets had its 1997-98 El Nino warming!

  10. @ Servius:

    The 1998 peak is usually attributed to PDO cycles – namely, a strong El Nino. The difficulty in the proving-or-disproving of AGW is that we have many layers of environmental effects building on one another. You could also argue, for example, that the very-regular sunspot cycle bears little resemblance to global average temperatures.

    Anyways, the proof is in the pudding. I’ve been telling any of my friends that will listen since 2005 that the world is going to cool for at least the next 10 years. I expect this year to be quite cold. They’re starting to believe me.

  11. Habibullo Abdussamatov, Arctic ice, Richard Lindzen, Copenhagen’s reassessment, Roger A. Pielke Sr., How not to measure temperature part 91, sun spot, the Vikings and Greenland, Bob Carter, 350 PPM of CO2, October temps, Roy Spencer, Ocean Heat Content diverge from GISS projections, with some fun to boot—and that’s just on the front page, from only the last four days no less.

    How is WattsUpWithThat not 2009 Science Blog of the Year??

    p.s. I understand the magnitude of the Yamal story at ClimateAudit. That would be the single most important science story of the year! (so far) But this blog is best for the overall year. There is not even a close second! Look at all the science here!

  12. Its surprising the quality of work Russian scientists can still produce on their diet of borscht and potatos. Perhaps ours of unrefined sugar and red meat is a great evil.

  13. Servius: As I understand it, the peak temperature was in ‘98 but the graph shows Solar Irradiance peaking shortly later.

    Servius, the 1998 anomaly was caused by strong El Nino and Atlantic oscillation positive anomalies. Changes between maxima and minima of solar cycles are hardly detectable in the climate, only their cumulative effect in span of years to decades.

  14. jaypan (08:03:44) :

    Very interesting contribution.
    Curious to find out what the warmists are going to say against it.
    Wait, is he a dedicated climate scientist?
    Oops, is it peer-reviewed?

    I’m loving it.

    He runs the Astrometry project on the Russian half of the International Space Station too. He’s not on a soap box on the street, or teaching in an obscure community college. I think you’d love that too.

  15. Astrometry project — the Russian and Ukrainian space agencies joint project to determine the time and extent of the global cooling at mid-century

    ….Earth has hit its temperature ceiling. Solar irradiance has begun to fall, ushering in a protracted cooling period beginning in 2012 to 2015. The depth of the decline in solar irradiance reaching Earth will occur around 2040….Dr. Abdussamatov’s space team will be conducting a regular survey of the sun.

    http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0

  16. gary gulrud (08:30:05) :

    Its surprising the quality of work Russian scientists

    They beat the USA with Sputnik. Now they’re beating the USA in study of the sun.

    (I am also aware of the many science disasters in Russia. The US has had far less of them. That in itself is a wonderful victory for the US.)

  17. The fundamental conclusion of the paper is based on the top panel of their Figure 3 which shows TSI reconstructions the last 400 years. This plot is WAY out of date and its use basically invalidates the rest of the paper.
    It is instruction to look at a recent poster [Froehlich is a co-author]:
    ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/Claus/IAMAS-2009/iamas-poster_SABF.pdf
    The last Figure shows how the TSI reconstructions have moved with time from the large variation to almost flat. They are nicely approaching my graph here: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.png
    The PMOD data had bad calibration and instrument degradation and there is no dramatic decrease this minimum as suggested by Figure 1, and the ACRIM problem seems to have been resolved http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL040707.pdf [there is no significant difference between the minima]

    All in all, this paper cannot be taken seriously. There is a ~100 year ‘cycle’ in activity, and we are nearing a minimum. Perhaps a 200-yr as well. These ‘cycles’ have been found to be nearly random in occurrence.

  18. What will the warmists say against it? They will say that nothing state-supported (and everything is) from Russia can be trusted because they are a major oil exporter. Ditto for Canada. Nothing from Indonesia because they are a major coal producer. Nothing from China and India because they have to have major emissions increases to grow their economies into superpowers over the next 50 years.

    No one, no one, no one is to be trusted if they are a skeptic. All skeptics clearly have evil and selfish motives driving their true agenda.

    That’s what they’ll say.

  19. In the 1970s, we only had very coarse measurement methods. Those methods would have tended to behave as a de facto low pass filter. The methods that came on line at the end of the 1970s gave us a finer level of discrimination and vastly increased the ability to discern higher frequencies. These statements apply to both EM energy and to temperature. The earlier coarser measurements hinted at long, long term cooling and the 1970s Ice Age scare was a result. Later, with the finer measurements, we started to get tricked by the little wiggles of ENSO, PDO, as well as the shorter period signals in terms of solar and cosmic EM and photonic energy. This led to the AGW scare, given the timing of the finer abilities coming on line just as we lapsed from a negative to positive PDO, from a negative to postive ENSO, and, a mere couple years after that, a rising solar activity level. We need to take a step back and proactively apply a low pass filter to everything. We may be quite disturbed by the result.

  20. Guys, this is drivel, everyone who is not a denialist can see the warming happening. Didn’t NASA just record the highest ever SSTs for July? Didn’t GISS just report that temperatures are back up to record highs.

    Sure NASA used just one flawed dataset, and GISS has “lost” all of the unadjusted data, and the Briffa and Mann and the rest of the team are spending a lot of time polishing a few sticks, but you have to believe these guys, ummm because their intentions are a pure as wind driven snow. Now thats just a saying, everybody knows it doesn’t snow anymore.

  21. Leif … I would be more than interested in the views of Dr. Abdussamatov regarding your comments. Do you converse with him at all?

    Jon

  22. I have been waiting a very long time for an update from Habibullo Abdussamatov. Thanks very much for the article.

    It is Interesting to note that their SC 24 prediction sunspot max of just under 75 is similar to Leif’s prediction.

  23. Jon (10:12:07) :
    Leif … I would be more than interested in the views of Dr. Abdussamatov regarding your comments. Do you converse with him at all?
    No. He is welcome to weigh in on this blog. See if you can find his email address and invite him to join.

  24. Seems a bit all over the place to me.

    Does anyone have the a link to the referenced Borisenkov paper? What method does he use to determine that a 200 year cycle exists?

    What’s the justification for the following statement?

    The data on changing solar intensity that we will collect over about six years will enable an extrapolation to past and future periods and development of a more precise scenario of future climate change.

  25. Mr. Alex (10:17:41) :

    I have been waiting a very long time for an update from Habibullo Abdussamatov. Thanks very much for the article.

    The essay was written a year ago.

  26. Will (10:18:10) :
    Russian science is policy driven. Kind of like Western science.
    Likely. Abdussamatov may be their Anti-Hansen. Because Russia and the US disagree on climate change, any paper that disagrees with US policy [AGW] is good science by Russian standards.

  27. kim (07:52:38) :

    Hmmm, maybe sunspots cool and faculae warm.
    ============================

    Hmmm, indeed. They quit measuring the faculae in 1977, estimating instead. Then they stopped estimating in 1982.
    So, who’s interested in measuring (they are measured, not counted) faculae?
    Calcium II K-line is on the kludge side of things, being that it is actually the Faculae + network that is imaged.

  28. As for cooling, or getting very cold, we are having some of it right now. Southern California’s crops will freeze tonight after an Arctic blast that brought 50 mile per hour cold winds with gusts to 80.

    Meanwhile, CO2 continues to increase.

    One can only imagine how cold it would be if not for all that Global Warming.

  29. “Russian science is policy driven. Kind of like Western science.
    Likely. Abdussamatov may be their Anti-Hansen. Because Russia and the US disagree on climate change, any paper that disagrees with US policy [AGW] is good science by Russian standards.”

    As the Russians will be practically exempt from emissions targets, I would have thought it would be in their own interests to support the Copenhagen targets. At least that way they can watch the death by a thousand cuts of the USA.

  30. Is there a trend in TSI,it seems Froehlich thinks so.

    Evidence of a long-term trend in total solar irradiance
    C. Froehlich

    ABSTRACT

    Aims. During the solar minimum of 2008, the value of total solar irradiance at 1AU (TSI) was more than 0.2Wm−2 lower than during the last minimum in 1996, indicating for the first time a directly observed long-term change. On the other hand, chromospheric indices and hence solar UV irradiance do not exhibit a similar change
    .
    Methods. Comparison of TSI with other activity parameters indicates that only the open solar magnetic field, BR, observed from satellites at 1AU show a similar long-term behaviour. The values at the minima correlate well and the linear fit provides a direct physical relationship between TSI and BR during the minimum times.

    Results. This correlation allows an unambiguous reconstruction of TSI back in time, provided the open solar magnetic field can be determined from e.g. geomagnetic indices or cosmogenic radionucleides. Since the solar UV irradiance has no long-term trend, the mechanism for the secular change of TSI must differ from the effect of surface magnetism, as manifested by sunspots, faculae, and network which indeed explain well the intra-cycle variability of both total and spectral irradiance.

    Conclusions. The long-term trend of TSI is most probably caused by a global temperature change of the Sun that does not influence the UV irradiance in the same way as the surface magnetic fields

  31. Enjoy global warming while it lasts. A Winter storm has forced the Boulder area schools and the University of Colorado to close today. NOAA is open but allowing employees to take leave. The snow is expected to continue for another 24 hours. We’re in for a white Halloween.

  32. Quote from the article: ” a reliable forecast of the time of the onset and of the depth of the global temperature drop will make it possible to adjust in advance the economic activity of humanity, to considerably weaken the crisis”

    A reliable forecast is precisely what can not possibly be done, any more that I, working as a hydraulics engineer, could possibly forecast or predict when the next 50 year frequency storm would occur.

    Old adage: “Save your money for a rainy day.” Good advice. Wastefully spending money and using other resources in an attempt to prevent which can’t be prevented assures that there won’t be money or resources available to alleviate the bad effects of what will happen, and the last, alleviating the bad effects, is entirely possible.

  33. Forget about average global temperatures. Forget about ice caps melting and Polar Bears floating across the Atlantic on ice cubes. Forget about rising sea levels, droughts, increased hurricanes, floods and on and on. Also forget about sunspot cycles or El-Nino and La-Nina, or whatever the hell else has been thrown into the mix as a distraction because none of it matters, none of it is relevant. All we have to do is drill down and focus on one thing only.

    That one thing is CO2.

    It is claimed that humans are responsible for Climate Change because of our CO2 emissions and that we need to have limits imposed because we need to reduce our emissions of CO2.

    So first simply ask yourself this:

    Can CO2 trap in heat?

    Answer: NO, nothing traps in heat, substances can only absorb and re-emit heat but they cannot trap heat.

    Next question, does CO2 absorb heat more strongly than the other gasses in the atmosphere?

    Answer: NO, CO2 is only 0.03811% of the atmosphere and remains as solid ice up to a temperature of 194.65 K

    Nitrogen and Oxygen which make up 99% of the atmosphere on the other hand, begin to melt at temperatures as low as 50-60 K and so are much stronger absorbers of heat and at the same time, make up most of the atmospheric gasses.

    This puts the effect of CO2 into context. CO2 cannot trap heat as no gasses in the atmosphere can. CO2 is a tiny proportion of the gasses in the atmosphere, so tiny in fact that compared to Oxygen and Nitrogen it is barely noticeable. The effect of such tiny amounts of CO2 being a much weaker absorber of heat than Nitrogen and Oxygen, also show that the warming effect of CO2 is insignificant.

    So the final question is, are we responsible for Climate Change through our CO2 emissions?

    Answer: NO WE MOST DEFINITELY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE.

    Take that to Copenhagen!

    If you would like to know more about the AGW fraud and carbon tax, download this free .pdf book

    [snip – self promotion ]

  34. Leif Svalgaard (10:47:57) :

    Somebody has to get in the face of AGW, else thier polyscience wins by default.
    Some of the things I like about what they(Russian studies) are doing would be:
    1.) Looking off-planet (Mars, etc.)
    2.) Looking back over the past and identifying a need to explain coincidental solar activity to climactical value.

    One thing is very certain: There will be no advance in understanding in a vacuum.
    Too complicated and impossible-to-understand are guantlets thown down.
    ‘What else can it be’ and ‘the science is settled’ runs contrary to the human need to know.

    Chicken-little has declared the sky to be rising/burning from a soap box.
    Are we going to let him get away with it?
    Chicken-little, for his part, gets the point that over time, the climate does change and does make for significant pressures on civilization.
    Chicken-little does not seem to grasp that man is along for the ride, and deliberate monkeying with things that look too good to be true on paper are just that: Invitations to disasters due to the law of unintended consequences.

  35. Alexander Feht (07:57:35) :

    Meanwhile, it’s snowing hard in New Mexico.

    Ahh, that usually happens in October. Global cooling is a straw man. ;-)

  36. Speaking of the sun and climate

    Piers Corbyn is speaking in London today at the Imperial College London. He’s revealing some of his techniques there.

  37. It may just be me, but I get the impression Lief sells himself as the one true credible solar scientist?

    It’s just an impression, just my opinion, but does Lief himself believe in other credible solar scientists?

  38. The Met, UK, predicts winter 2009-10 in the UK near or above average temps, with 1 in 7 chance of a cold winter.

    Piers Corbyn, using the sun as the leading component for making forecasts, says 85% chance of a cold winter in the UK with some very cold spells.

    He is revealing more details of his winter forecast at Imperial College London today :

  39. So here we come to the value of a good peer review, because for us who are not competent solar scientists the questions are too many to be able to resolve: methods of measuring past solar irradiance and error bars on the measurements, why such large changes etc are too esoteric for a blog like this.

    Maybe we would gain in understanding if Leif and dr Abdussamatov had an interchange here, and maybe not.

    At least the Russians are proposing a direct measurement to test their hypothesis about the size of the sun, and do not rely just in reanalyzing old data.

  40. Leif Svalgaard.
    This plot is WAY out of date and its use basically invalidates the rest of the paper.

    I think most people would agree that the older it is, the less chance there is of it having been distorted by alarmists. Therefore I would say that the exact opposite is closer to the truth. The use of plots ‘created’ recently invalidates the bulk of the warmist papers.

  41. R Shearer (11:37:15) :

    Enjoy global warming while it lasts. A Winter storm has forced the Boulder area schools and the University of Colorado to close today. NOAA is open but allowing employees to take leave. The snow is expected to continue for another 24 hours. We’re in for a white Halloween.

    I recall a snow storm much like this in Oct 1971 or 72 I where it dropped 9″ of snow on haloween night (little kids stopped showing up at the door about 8:00). The ground was not free of snow here in the Denver area until about April, and we had a bitter cold winter.

    It will be interesting to watch this develop and see if we flop into that same sort of pattern where we get almost weekly polar fronts coming down the front range.

    They had so much snow that the City of Denver ran out of room to stack it and could not put any more into the Platte river, so there was a berm of snow about 3-4 ft tall down the entire length of Broadway, and travel in the city got real ugly as the warm man hole covers (from municipal steam) kept melted clean and the road had 4-5 inches of hard pack snow and ice on it. The resulting ice pot holes made the tire and suspension repair shops very happy. I think that was also the year that resulted in the local city governments getting in lots of trouble with the public over lack of snow plows.

    Larry

  42. Temperatures should be progressive upward to be accepted, as far as they remain conservatively at the same level or being un-progressively downwards they are surely politically biased.

  43. OT, but the Science Museum count has suddenly gone to :
    * 778 counted in so far
    * 5317 counted out so far

    Have they removed multiple entries?

  44. maksimovich (11:25:10) :
    Is there a trend in TSI,it seems Froehlich thinks so.
    “Conclusions. The long-term trend of TSI is most probably caused by a global temperature change of the Sun that does not influence the UV irradiance in the same way as the surface magnetic fields”

    He is not quite ready to throw in the towel. He is in the process of recalibrating his composite. PMOD has been drifting down compared to SORCE [which has the best calibration]. If you scale the two so that they match around 2008.0, you can see how PMOD is still drifting downwards: http://www.leif.org/research/Comparison%20SORCE%20PMOD%20since%202008.png the drift in a year-and-a-half being about 0.1 W/m2. This has to be resolve, before any conclusions can be drawn.

    Bill Livingston has carefully measured the global temperature of the Sun and showed that it has no solar cycle variation and that it has been constant the past 35+ years.

    rbateman (12:00:08) :
    Chicken-little has declared the sky to be …
    The West and Russia’s Chicken-littles declare opposite disasters…

  45. maksimovich (11:25:10) :
    Is there a trend in TSI,it seems Froehlich thinks so.
    “Conclusions. The long-term trend of TSI is most probably caused by a global temperature change of the Sun that does not influence the UV irradiance in the same way as the surface magnetic fields”

    He is not quite ready to throw in the towel. He is in the process of recalibrating his composite. PMOD has been drifting down compared to SORCE [which has the best calibration]. If you scale the two so that they match around 2008.0, you can see how PMOD is still drifting downwards: http://www.leif.org/research/Comparison%20SORCE%20PMOD%20since%202008.png the drift in a year-and-a-half being about 0.1 W/m2. This has to be resolve, before any conclusions can be drawn.

    Bill Livingston has carefully measured the global temperature of the Sun and showed that it has no solar cycle variation and that it has been constant the past 35+ years.

    rbateman (12:00:08) :
    Chicken-little has declared the sky to be …
    The West and Russia’s Chicken-littles declare opposite disasters…

  46. Abdusammatov has been consistent in his opinions as to what drives climate change – not so the rest of the Russian science establishment. Until 2004, they were pretty sceptical – but then Putin saw the advantages of joining the carbon credit schemes and selling the carbon dioxide they were not emitting because of a failing economy to the West. For a while, academicians like Yuri Izrael, Vice Chair of IPCC for a while, would state their views – like – ‘the main driver of global warming has been natural cycles’ until Putin had a quiet word and persuaded Yuri as to the virtues of controlling the climate and preventing global warming – with a nice fat grant to Yuri’s institute. He reported last month in Russian Hyrdrology and Meteorology on the results of his study: of all the control techniques, injecting sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere is the preferred technology – simple and relatively cheap.

    I have read Abdusammatov’s paper – also wondering how it fitted with Leif’s analysis – but wish it had a peer-reviewed source!

  47. Gene Nemetz (12:43:55) :

    The Met, UK, predicts winter 2009-10 in the UK near or above average temps, with 1 in 7 chance of a cold winter.

    Piers Corbyn, using the sun as the leading component for making forecasts, says 85% chance of a cold winter in the UK with some very cold spells.

    Warmer than average at the moment though. What Piers Corbyn and the Met have in common in those predictions is that neither can be wrong.

  48. Phillip Bratby (13:26:08) :

    OT, but the Science Museum count has suddenly gone to :
    * 778 counted in so far
    * 5317 counted out so far

    Have they removed multiple entries?

    It’s natural variation and the ‘counted in’-s will take over soon.

  49. Adam from Kansas (12:42:47) :
    It’s just an impression, just my opinion, but does Leif himself believe in other credible solar scientists?
    Almost all solar scientists are credible. And scientific disagreement is not a sign of not being credible. Claus Froehlich is actually a very good friend of mine, and is very credible. One can be credible and still be wrong.
    Joe Public often thinks in terms of ‘credibility’ when it is inappropriate.
    When I disagree with a fellow scientist, I show my evidence for everybody to see, to accept or reject as they like.

  50. Peter Taylor (13:28:58) :
    I have read Abdusammatov’s paper – also wondering how it fitted with Leif’s analysis – but wish it had a peer-reviewed source!
    It probably would have died in a competent review for the reasons I stated.

  51. Leif Svalgaard (09:01:08) : The fundamental conclusion of the paper is based on the top panel of their Figure 3 which shows TSI reconstructions the last 400 years. This plot is WAY out of date and its use basically invalidates the rest of the paper…
    ..the TSI reconstructions have moved with time from the large variation to almost flat. They are nicely approaching my graph here: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.png.. All in all, this paper cannot be taken seriously.

    For the moment we just have your word that your reconstruction of the TSI is correct and Dr Abdussamatov’s is wrong.

    When I have time I will review (I cannot peer review since I am not your peer) your reconstruction and see if I can make any sense out of it and if it should be believed rather than Dr Abdussamatov’s.

    However I rather suspect that though we will really not know definitely either way the balance of evidence falls with Dr Abdussamatov’s reconstruction.

    I think that his paper must be taken seriously because one thing I know from our history warming has caused us no harm, but rather on the balance great benefit, and cooling has been disastrous for us.

    The ice core records show there have been coolings as well as warmings during the past 10,000 years. So I will go with Dr Abdussamatov.

  52. “”” Sophistry in politics (11:59:50) :

    Forget about average global temperatures. Forget about ice caps melting and Polar Bears floating across the Atlantic on ice cubes. Forget about rising sea levels, droughts, increased hurricanes, floods and on and on. Also forget about sunspot cycles or El-Nino and La-Nina, or whatever the hell else has been thrown into the mix as a distraction because none of it matters, none of it is relevant. All we have to do is drill down and focus on one thing only.

    That one thing is CO2. “””

    Well SIP, it seems you don’t have a very good understanding of what “heat” in the atmosphere really means. The temperature of gases is determiend by the mean energy (due to mechanical oscillations) of the individual molecules in the gas. In effect, every single molecule is one of Mother Nature’s (Gaia) thermometers. That mechanical energy is kT/2 per degree of freedom per molecule, which we can also represent as (mv^2)/2 for a particle velocity of (v).

    A GHG molecule such as CO2, constitutes one out of every 2577.3 atmospheric molecules, and in the wavelength range from 13.5 to 16.5 microns or thereabouts, CO2 molecules can capture photons, which excite a particular bending mode of oscillation in the excited molecule. But the CO2 molecule is surrounded by about 13.7 layers of ordinary atmospheric molecules, mostly N2, O2, and Ar, so the excited CO2 molecule is likely to encounter one of these ordinary gas molecules, and as a result the excitation energy is going to get distributed in collisions with the ordinary gas molecules, and that will result in a general increase in the temperature of the ordinary atmospheric gases.

    Only at very high altitudes does the mean free path get long enough compared to the mean lifetime of the CO2 excited state, so the molecule can spontaneously re-emit a photon containing the exciting energy.

    So you are correct, that we cannot trap the LWIR energy and stop it from escaping; but we sure can harass it and delay that escape. For however long, we manage to delay the escape of a LWIR photon from earth into outer space, the sun continues to pour in more solar energy, which results in raising the temperature; and the longer we delay the outgoing radiation, the higher the temperature rise due to additional solar heating. I know that is not the traditional way of viewing the “Greenhouse” effect; but it is a perfectly valid way to represent the consequences of molecular absorption spectra.

    The atmospheric gases in turn, by reason of their non zero (K) temperature, also emit LWIR radiation, which also will follow approximately the T^4 total spectral emittance of the black body radiator model.

    So it is not productive to deny that resonant spectral absorption by certain molecules present in the atmosphere, even in small amounts, can and does result in increasing the local temperature of that gas.

    If a dove hunter stands in a field, and only shoots the doves that he sees take to the air within the effective range of his shotgun, it isn’t wise to assume that dove hunters don’t have any effect on the dove population because they are few and far between, and their capture range is limited.

    I have no idea what the capture crossection of CO2 is for 15 micron
    (82.7 meV) LWIR photons; but it isn’t zero by a long shot.

    The question is not whether CO2 can capture LWIR energy; it can; but is that significant compared to that captured by H2O molecules, which are much more plentiful; and can it prevail over the propensity of H2O to form clouds, which block sunlight from reaching the ground, and so results in surface cooling.

    If the earth’s atmosphere contained no H2O molecules, this planet would be a frozen ball, even with its present 388 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    But if it was the CO2 that was completely absent; I suspect the only difference we would note other than the absence of life on earth, would be that the average global cloud cover would be a little bit lower. The temperature would not be much differnt, since it is fully regulated by the physical properties of H2O, the Sun’s TSI, and the present earth orbit.

  53. Richard (13:56:00) :

    However I rather suspect that though we will really not know definitely either way the balance of evidence falls with Dr Abdussamatov’s reconstruction.

    He hasn’t reconstructed anything: he’s used an existing – likely obsolete – reconstruction.

    “Thy wish was father, Harry, to that thought”

  54. Vincent (11:17:41) :

    “Russian science is policy driven. Kind of like Western science”.

    I often wonder if the entire AGW scam is designed as pay back for the Russians losing the Cold War twenty years ago!

  55. Yarmy (14:17:14) : He hasn’t reconstructed anything: he’s used an existing – likely obsolete – reconstruction.

    Dr Abdussamatov’s reconstruction = the reconstruction he has used, whether done by himself or others.

    On what basis do you say “likely obsolete”

  56. Gene Nemetz (08:51:26) :

    gary gulrud (08:30:05) :

    Its surprising the quality of work Russian scientists

    They beat the USA with Sputnik. Now they’re beating the USA in study of the sun.

    (I am also aware of the many science disasters in Russia. The US has had far less of them. That in itself is a wonderful victory for the US.)

    Yes, but if the US under Obama is going to shut down it’s economy they will emerge as the winners of the Cold War. All they have to do is transfer their political system to communism again, a process that already is underway.

    Stalin is polished up again and the Old Empire rising.
    How about them apples.

  57. Peter Taylor (13:28:58) :

    until Putin had a quiet word and persuaded Yuri as to the virtues of controlling the climate

    Did Putin also speak with the Mayor of Moscow?

    “Moscow Mayor Promises a Winter Without Snow

    …the mayor of Moscow promises to keep it from snowing…the mayor’s office will hire the Russian Air Force to spray a fine chemical mist over the clouds before they reach the capital, forcing them to dump their snow outside the city…Controlling the weather in Moscow is nothing new…The plan was unsurprisingly rubber-stamped this week by the Moscow City Council…The air force will use cement powder, dry ice or silver iodide to spray the clouds from Nov. 15 to March 15…”

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091017/wl_time/08599193082200

  58. “….world temperatures are mainly controlled by solar activity, or in particular geomagnetic activity, and its modulation by the plane of the moon’s orbit…. We’ll say a bit more about world climate developements at the Weatheraction special conference on Wewdnesday, the 28th of October…”

  59. PS
    Leif Svalgaard (09:01:08) : The fundamental conclusion of the paper is based on the top panel of their Figure 3 which shows TSI reconstructions the last 400 years. This plot is WAY out of date and its use basically invalidates the rest of the paper…

    Does it invalidate the rest of the paper according to Lief?

    I just had a look at Figure 3 and here is what it says: Fig. 3. Variation in the TSI drawing on the data reconstruction of Lean, J.L (2000) and Wang Y. – M., Lean J.L., Sheeley N.R. (2005) up to 1978, sunspot activity of the Sun from 1611, and changes forecast by us after 2008 (dotted lines).

    Not all that ancient.

    If that graph agrees with the temperature reconstructions it needs to be taken seriously. I’ll go with that.

    I’ve had a quick read through his paper. It certainly does not merit that quick dismissal that Lief gave.

    Another thing – Lief forecasts no drop of temperature in the near future, Dr Abdussamatov forecasts a drop.

    We shall soon see. I think we will soon have Leif Svalgaard’s forecasts and opinions put in cold storage.

  60. “We can’t drive our SUVs, and eat whatever we want, and keep our homes at 72 [degrees] all the time, whether we live in the desert or the tundra, and keep consuming 25% of the world’s resources with just 4% of the world’s population… That’s not going to happen.” Pres. Barack Obama, campaigning

    Sounds like a Royal to me.

  61. Sorry found it and “your graph” contains both Lean and Wang which Dr Abdussamatov uses.

    And what I note is THE SHAPE of the graphs are very similar. So this would CERTAINLY NOT invalidate any of Dr Abdussamatov’s conclusions as he is discussing how temperature VARIES with the TSI

  62. Richard (13:56:00) :
    For the moment we just have your word that your reconstruction of the TSI is correct and Dr Abdussamatov’s is wrong.
    You have the graph of reconstructions on the Poster I referred to:
    ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/Claus/IAMAS-2009/iamas-poster_SABF.pdf

    There are several papers in the last three years showing the same thing. That is the evidence. My graph is not. I was just noting with some satisfaction that the newer reconstructions were converging on mine.

    On page 13 of http://www.leif.org/research/Froehlich-Sofia-2008.pdf you can see how Foehlich is struggling with the old Lean 2000 reconstruction, eventually deciding it is wrong. Even Lean herself expresses doubt that long-term variation occur: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEAN2008.png
    This one shows the last 100 years: http://www.astro.phys.ethz.ch/papers/haberreiter/Schoell_subm2007.pdf note how the latest reconstructions are converging to musc less or no long-term trend. I could go on with several more.

    Abdussamatov is not quite honest in the Figure, where he claims that it is also based on Wang et al. 2005. This is untrue. You can see the Wang et al. 2005 on my graph: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.png
    More modern reconstructions: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-recon3.png
    They all show that the Lean 2000 is no good. Had Abdussamatov been honest, he would have included some of these and warned the reader that there was a progressive consensus towards much less variation over time. Since his paper is a ‘position’ paper designed to convince, he obviously did not do this. If you decide to ‘to go with Abdussamatov’, you are also just cherry picking, because his conclusion jives with your preconceived notion.

  63. What will the warmists say against it?

    Well, one response might be … In particular, the notion that climate is one-dimensional — which is to say, that it is totally described by some fictitious global mean temperature and some single gross forcing a la increased CO2 — is grotesque in its oversimplification. I must reluctantly add that this error is perpetuated by those attempting to ‘explain’ climate with solar variability. Unlike greenhouse forcing, solar forcing is so vague that one can’t reject it.

    However, acting as though this is the alternative to greenhouse forcing is asking for trouble.

    Oh, wait, that was Richard Lindzen.

    How about “His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion,” said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England’s Oxford University. Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that “the idea just isn’t supported by the theory or by the observations.”

    or more succinctly from Charles Long, a climate physicist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratories in Washington

    “That’s nuts,” Long said, “It doesn’t make physical sense that that’s the case.”

  64. Zeke the Sneak (15:06:27) : “We can’t drive our SUVs, and eat whatever we want, and keep our homes at 72 [degrees] all the time, whether we live in the desert or the tundra, and keep consuming 25% of the world’s resources with just 4% of the world’s population… That’s not going to happen.” Pres. Barack Obama..

    No thats not going to happen NOT because thats the way you should live – it is – but because you will be broke thanks to his asinine policies. You wont be able to afford to do that – the average American or westerner. Wont apply to American Presidents or Al Gore though.

  65. Richard (15:06:00) :
    Leif Svalgaard (09:01:08) : They are nicely approaching my graph here: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.png.. All in all, this paper cannot be taken seriously.
    Can yours? When your graph TSI-LEIF.png cannot even be found on the server?

    Wordpress is very picky with extra periods. If you clicked on my original posting:

    Leif Svalgaard (09:01:08) :
    The fundamental conclusion of the paper is based on the top panel of their Figure 3 which shows TSI reconstructions the last 400 years. This plot is WAY out of date and its use basically invalidates the rest of the paper.
    It is instruction to look at a recent poster [Froehlich is a co-author]:
    ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/Claus/IAMAS-2009/iamas-poster_SABF.pdf
    The last Figure shows how the TSI reconstructions have moved with time from the large variation to almost flat. They are nicely approaching my graph here: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.png
    The PMOD data had bad calibration and instrument …

    You would not have had your problem.
    You problem came because you yourself screwed up the link:

    Richard (13:56:00) :
    Leif Svalgaard (09:01:08) : The fundamental conclusion of the paper is based on the top panel of their Figure 3 which shows TSI reconstructions the last 400 years. This plot is WAY out of date and its use basically invalidates the rest of the paper…
    ..the TSI reconstructions have moved with time from the large variation to almost flat. They are nicely approaching my graph here: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.png.. All in all, this paper cannot be taken seriously.

    Bad, bad style

  66. Richard (15:11:35) :
    Sorry found it and “your graph” contains both Lean and Wang which Dr Abdussamatov uses.
    No it does not contain Wang. He claims, incorrectly, that it does. Not quite honest here.

    Richard (14:56:37) :
    If that graph agrees with the temperature reconstructions it needs to be taken seriously. I’ll go with that.
    This is the ultimate in cherry picking. Leif’s law strikes again: “if the data supports your contention, obviously the data is good”.

  67. Richard (15:11:35) :
    And what I note is THE SHAPE of the graphs are very similar.
    No, not at all. The long-term trend is given by a line joining the minima. And mine is absolutely flat, partly because I agree with Lean 2008 when she doubts that there is any long-term change.

  68. Richard (14:56:37) :
    Another thing – Leif forecasts no drop of temperature in the near future, Dr Abdussamatov forecasts a drop.
    I do think temperatures are falling [cold phase of PDO, etc] but this has nothing to do with the Sun. His forecast is based on cherry picked and outdated [wrong!] input and is there not valid, even if it should come true.

  69. Leif Svalgaard (15:28:54) :
    “Sorry found it and “your graph” contains both Lean and Wang which Dr Abdussamatov uses.”
    No it does not contain Wang. He claims, incorrectly, that it does. Not quite honest here.

    I said that clumsily. What I meant was that even though my graph has both, Abdussamatov does not use both [or show both] contrary to his claim.

  70. “And mine is absolutely flat, partly because I agree with Lean 2008 when she doubts that there is any long-term change.”

    “doubts”??

    Yes Leif, but there are others that disagree with your (and Lean’s) assessment of TSI and the sun’s influence on climate in general, many whose recent published papers have been presented at WUWT. You have said that correlation is not causation, yet there cannot be causation without correlation and thus far to many of us the evidence for sun/climate connection is quite strong even if science isn’t able to explain much of it.

    Piers Corbyn claims to have been using the sun to make his weather forecasts for 20+ years, so what is Leif’s opinion of Corbyn? Is he a charlatan? Does he in reality throw bones, use Tarot cards or summon spirits? Maybe use a Magic 8 ball?

    I for one am not convinced the sun does not influence climate.

  71. Richard: You replied to Leif, “And what I note is THE SHAPE of the graphs are very similar. So this would CERTAINLY NOT invalidate any of Dr Abdussamatov’s conclusions as he is discussing how temperature VARIES with the TSI.”

    The shapes of the graphs are in no way “very similar”. The Lean 2000 shows a steep rise in TSI minimum from the late 1800s to the 1940s, while the Leif 2007 TSI reconstruction shows little variation in the TSI minimums. The Lean 2000 TSI reconstruction, like Hoyt and Schatten (1993)…

    …was manufactured to explain, in part, the rise in global temperature in the early 20th Century. This is the same reason that Abdussamatov is using it. It’s convenient. If we scale the TSI using a commonly used factor, we can see the assumed rise in global temperature that was created by the outdated TSI data:

    The above tinypic links are from my post “IPCC 20th Century Simulations Get a Boost from Outdated Solar Forcings”:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/ipcc-20th-century-simulations-get-boost.html
    Which Anthony also co-posted here at WUWT:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/05/ipcc-20th-century-simulations-get-a-boost-from-outdated-solar-forcings/

    Had you researched the subject you would have discovered that Judith Lean no longer agrees with the variability of TSI minimums shown in her 2000 TSI reconstruction. Refer to Leif’s 10/26/08 @ 14:55:41 comment on the following thread at WUWT. It agrees with his reply to you above:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/25/new-theory-predicts-the-largest-ozone-hole-over-antarctica-will-occur-this-month/

    He wrote, “Note that Judith Lean [2002 and 2008] is agreeing with me that TSI hasn’t changed significantly over time. Nevertheless, the model-paper you reference, uses the old Lean [1995] and Hoyt and Schatten [1993] TSI-reconstructions that are simply wrong. Therefore the result is spurious and cannot be trusted.”

    And if you’re wondering, there’s little difference between Lean 1995 and Lean 2000:

    Regards

  72. After doing some other work, I have to side with Leif here that the Sun does not vary enough in order to change temperatures on Earth by very much.

    There is a reason that it is very hard to tease out a solar cycle impact in the temperature record. It is so small that it can’t really be found.

    Using the Stefan Boltzmann equations, even if the solar irradiance varied by 4 Watts/metre^2 (the maximum decline estimated for the Maunder Minimum versus the more recent 1 to 2 Watts estimates), this lowest estimate would only reduce temperatures at the surface by about 0.2C

    The Sun has to vary more that it seems to do, or there has to be more impact from the solar wind, magnetic field or varying EM spectral output than has been demonstrated; for it to make much difference to surface temperatures.

    Solar insolation can be higher or lower at the poles or high latitudes which can then change the Albedo of the Earth causing the ice ages for example, but this is more related to Earth’s orbital characteristics than changes in the Sun.

  73. Really if PMOD or ACRIM or whatever, the sun looked like this during the 97-98 El Nino:

    As the Moche culture (north of Peru) saw it during MWP. I felt it like that on my skin. It was really aggresive.
    Now, during the few minutes that there is a open sky, it feels feeble.
    So, there must have been a difference, of what wavelengths I don´t know. All we know for sure that solar specialists will keep on discussing, as no one lived the experience, about curves and statistical adjustments, but hey! take some instruments and go out to determine what really happens.

  74. Piers and colleagues have placed bets of about £1,000 with William Hill and Coral [Bookmakers] for snow at various locations on Christmas Day and stand to win many thousands if they are correct.

    Piers whose record of weather bets is second to none* said: “We have just made a breakthrough in our ‘Solar Weather technique of long range forecasting – called SWT25 – and are 75% sure there will be snow in many but not all locations offered by boookies this Xmas, and we have a fair idea of where the best bets are likely to be”.

    This £1,000 was of course lost.

    http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/search/label/corbyn

  75. DR (16:19:39) :
    Yes Leif, but there are others that disagree with your (and Lean’s) assessment of TSI
    And who might they be?

    and the sun’s influence on climate in general, many whose recent published papers have been presented at WUWT.
    This is a different question. and there does seem to be a 0.1K solar cycle variation [although only ‘seems’ as the correlation is a bit shaky – but if you believe…]

    Piers Corbyn claims to have been using the sun to make his weather forecasts for 20+ years, so what is Leif’s opinion of Corbyn? Is he a charlatan?
    He was supposed to tell today us how he does it. From looking at his self-congratulatory writings on his website, your charlatan theory does sound all that bad, but we should give him the benefit of the doubt and hear him out.

    I for one am not convinced the sun does not influence climate.
    For the one that is convinced already, evidence obviously doesn’t matter anymore.

  76. Chillybean
    Therefore I would say that the exact opposite is closer to the truth.

    Leif Svalgaard
    I think that kind of paranoia is not helpful

    Please do not patronise me Leif. It’s not helpful to your cause but the truth is more important than your reputation. I think everyone here would acknowledge that you have a greater depth of knowledge of your field than most on the site but that alone does not make you right.

    Sometimes it takes the better man to admit when he is wrong and move on.

  77. Leif Svalgaard (17:06:16) :
    “Corbyn? Is he a charlatan?”
    He was supposed to tell us today how he does it. From looking at his self-congratulatory writings on his website, your charlatan theory does not sound all that bad,

  78. “Leif Svalgaard (17:06:16) :
    “Corbyn? Is he a charlatan?”
    He was supposed to tell us today how he does it. From looking at his self-congratulatory writings on his website, your charlatan theory does not sound all that bad,”

    Stop it Leif, my respect for you is draining at an alarming rate now. Please leave the ad hom’s to the useful stupid people.

  79. chillybean (17:06:16) :
    Sometimes it takes the better man to admit when he is wrong and move on.
    Doesn’t that apply to you?

    and wrong about what?
    chillybean (12:53:22) :
    I think most people would agree that the older it is, the less chance there is of it having been distorted by alarmists.

    You are making a serious accusation about people I know and respect and vouch for, and THAT was my problem with your posting. Unless you can demonstrate that these people distorted their data, you should keep that sort of crap to yourself if you were even halfway decent.

  80. chillybean (17:22:55) :
    my respect for you is draining at an alarming rate now.
    Considering the accusations you make about people I care for, perhaps I would rather do without it.

  81. Well said, George E. Smith, a beautiful description of how CO2 could affect atmospheric temps. It can’t affect “climate” really, because the temp of the atmosphere is a small factor in controlling the temp of the ocean, which I believe is the major player in the Earth’s climate. The other “ocean” that I feel is very important is the “gassy ocean” of water vapour. As always it is why you hold an opinion that is the important thing, not what the opinion is. I.e. lots of “deniers” are just as guilty of blinkered and logically fallacious thinking as are the AGW’ers.

  82. I wonder how many people are like Adolfo and actually remember changes in what the sun felt like back then compared to now, that is interesting to say the least, what about the solar radiation causes that does one wonder?

  83. Leif Svalgaard (17:06:16) :

    From looking at his self-congratulatory writings…

    Seems that you are projecting.

  84. I didn’t see in Piers Corbyn’s web site that he was going to reveal those parts of his method on his web site. He said he was doing it today at a conference at Imperial College London.

    A little congeniality may do some commenters some good.

  85. Leif Svalgaard (17:17:32) :
    Solar activity leaves an imprint in tree rings…

    These are consequences not causes. There is a missing link out there, of course not of the “piltdown man” kind.

  86. Adam from Kansas (18:09:43) :

    Those who have had to work out in the weather over many years know better.
    The notion of a homogenous state of Earth’s climate runs 180 degree out of whack to the human experience, who over the millenia have written to us.
    It cannot be both ways.

  87. Let’s see if I’ve got this right,
    it’s not C02, it’s not the sun, huh, a missing link as the “first cause” of climate change on our tiny little watery planet. Like a drop of water on the galaxy by comparison.
    That’s good. I like that.

  88. Adolfo Giurfa (18:35:28) :
    “Solar activity leaves an imprint in tree rings…”
    These are consequences not causes. There is a missing link out there, of course not of the “piltdown man” kind.

    The only things that can be observed are consequences: the causes change the state of something and that consequence is felt.
    There are no missing links in the solar activity – tree ring : ice core chain. We understand those processes quite well.

  89. Gene Nemetz (18:27:48) :
    I didn’t see in Piers Corbyn’s web site that he was going to reveal those parts of his method on his web site. He said he was doing it today at a conference at Imperial College London.

    Nobody said anything about his website. The website reference was about the plug for Corbyn by ‘farmer Jones’.

    So I didn’t see it either, although one might think that would be an appropriate place for it, don’t you think? And did he reveal his method? and what is it? One would imagine that his talk would be available as a download as is usual at such conferences. Perhaps he wants money for it?

  90. Here’s some ‘homework’ to do.

    First, find the very large number that’s the total radiant output of the Sun in Watts.
    Second, find out how much that output has varied up and down over time and find the maximum and minimums *that have actually been observed*.
    Third, find the smaller yet still staggeringly huge number that’s the amount of Solar radiation in Watts Earth intercepts.
    Forth, calculate the maximum and minimum total Solar energy Earth intercepts, based on the observed variability of the Sun.

    Don’t use the % sign anywhere. Stick to the actual numbers. When you see any article that contains only percentages with nary a real number in sight, it’s a sure sign the author is trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

  91. All of this reminds me of the comological arguments over the State of the Universe. You don’t see anyone trying to hijack that. Good reason not to: there’s nothing to be gained in doing so.
    Climate, on the other hand, is fertile grounds for hijack & abuse by agenda.
    Climate needs to be defended by Science, not fought over.
    If you have not already done so, go back over what this topic heading has to say, and try to find something good in it.
    I have already stated 2 things I found to be good.
    What do you find?

  92. Gregg E. (20:40:18) :
    Here’s some ‘homework’ to do.
    When you do that, you’ll discover that from every July to every January, the total solar energy the Earth receives is almost 100 times larger than the difference between solar minimum and solar maximum.

  93. … Winter Storm Warning remains in effect until 6 PM MDT
    Thursday…

    A Winter Storm Warning remains in effect until 6 PM MDT Thursday.

    Snow… heavy at times will continue into Thursday. Total snowfall
    accumulations of 14 to 28 inches are expected… with up to 36
    inches possible near the foothills. North winds of 15 to 30 mph
    will produce areas of blowing and drifting snow.

  94. rbateman (20:43:57) :
    All of this reminds me of the comological arguments over the State of the Universe. You don’t see anyone trying to hijack that. Good reason not to: there’s nothing to be gained in doing so.
    On another thread there has been arguments over the Big Bang and evolution and size of the Universe, basically because of the implications for evolution and the existence of life, so hijacking does occur.

  95. Leif Svalgaard and Bob Tisdale –

    I will have to concede one thing and that is that Dr Abdussamatov’s graph in figure 3 is the same as Lean 2000. So IF that is wrong then yes it does weaken his case.

    But other reconstructions do show variations, though smaller ones and it is possible that small variations in TSI could have a large influence on the climate, specially if their cumulative effect adds up on larger time scales.

    At what timescales we could expect effects of TSI on sea and global air temperatures is the question.

    Leif Svalgaard (15:31:30) : “Richard (15:11:35) : And what I note is THE SHAPE of the graphs are very similar.”
    No, not at all. The long-term trend is given by a line joining the minima. And mine is absolutely flat,

    What I meant was the shape of Wang’s and Lean’s graphs.

    Why should the long term trend be determined by the line joining the minima? The Total TSI received in a year would be determined by the areas under the curve. Surely this would be the most important indicator of the radiation received by the sun?

    Also is there really any absolutely predictable trend in the sun’s radiance? The solar cycles vary themselves and they sometimes disappear as the Maunder minimum has shown.

    Also leaving aside controversial reconstructions, we do have TSI data since 1978. What does that indicate? Does that agree with Dr Abdussamatov’s conclusions?

  96. I’ve just added a new section to:

    Vaughan, P.L. (2009). 11.1 Year Cycle in Solar System Dynamics.
    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/VaughanPL2009_11.1aCycleSSD.htm

    Based on earlier discussions, I suspect some readers here will find the addition noteworthy.

    Motivation for undertaking this work:

    1) Illustrate the J-(N-U) 11.1-year-cycle (which I have not seen advertised anywhere [so far], despite looking [with a considerable amount of effort] for such communications).

    2) Verify calculations of others (for example Desmoulins), taking the opportunity to also:

    (a) develop alternate metrics (to those presented by Desmoulins & Hung), seizing the opportunity to also highlight nonstationarity (which is missed by basic FFT).
    [ See particularly:
    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/JEV_Period(8,17a)Morlet2pi.PNG ]

    (b) showcase the utility of wavelet methods. [Note: I have it in mind to use this as a teaching example. The controversy surrounding this will help keep students interested; even students who don’t care about planets & solar cycles can easily be inspired to learn about how manipulators fool (even themselves) with stats.]

    3) Organize 11.1-year-timescale solar system vs. solar cycle phase-comparisons into an overview that can easily be considered in 10 minutes.

    I make no physics-based claims regarding the loose synchrony of these “clocks”.

    In sharing the preceding, I ask that readers not misrepresent my work (for example by falsely claiming that I am claiming that planets cause solar cycles).

    If anyone (qualified) is willing to proofread a translation into Norwegian, please let me know – thank you.

    Best Regards,
    Paul Vaughan.

  97. PS If The long-term trend is given by a line joining the minima. And mine is absolutely flat, … -the line joining the minima from 1978 is not flat. It is going down.

    If temperatures also go down then how could you say this is not related and it is just a coincidence?

    Also if the measured minima are not flat then maybe they were not flat in the past either?

  98. Leif Svalgaard is a sobering kind of bloke. In the days of the long cattle drives of the large herds in Australia and the USA he would have been the one chosen to ride round the resting beasts at night, singing to keep them calm so they were not stampeded by sudden sight or sound…
    Cattle Call – Eddy Arnold

  99. Richard (21:24:03) :
    But other reconstructions do show variations, though smaller ones
    The reconstructions have converged to the point where there really isn’t any variation left. Lean is correct in saying that long-term variations have not been observed. And that is not the point, which is that Abdussamatov misrepresents the situation by dishonestly [unless you suggest ignorance] selecting an outdated reconstruction without mentioning that it is outdated and superseded and then even [incorrectly] claims that it incorporates the Wang 2005 reconstruction. His paper is a ‘position paper’, not a scientific evaluation of the data or the facts.

    Why should the long term trend be determined by the line joining the minima?
    The minima last a year or more.

    The Total TSI received in a year would be determined by the areas under the curve.
    see above.

    The solar cycles vary themselves and they sometimes disappear as the Maunder minimum has shown.
    There are variations in the maxima. and from minimum to maximum there is a 1 W/m2 variation. The cycle averages thus varies less than half of that, of the order of 1/3 W/m2.

    we do have TSI data since 1978. What does that indicate? Does that agree with Dr Abdussamatov’s conclusions?
    As you can see from his graph, there has been almost no variation in TSI during 1978-2008, so no conclusions can be drawn.

    As I said, it is hard to take the paper seriously, if one knows even just a little bit about this, unless one [as you] accepts it because it supports one’s own agenda.

  100. Leif Svalgaard (13:27:26) :

    He is not quite ready to throw in the towel. He is in the process of recalibrating his composite.:

    I cannot seem to find any such statements by Frohlich in his AA letters paper maybe you can expand,

    His minima comparison is here showing a negative trend.

  101. Richard (21:46:23) :
    Also if the measured minima are not flat then maybe they were not flat in the past either?
    I overused the word ‘absolutely’ flat. What I meant was that in the absence of solar activity TSI would be flat. This is based on the observations by Bill Livingston that the temperature of the Sun away from magnetic regions [solar activity] has been constant within observational error over the past 35+ years and does not vary with the solar cycle. Solar activity adds a little bit [0.1% at maximum] to the base TSI. Since the sunspot number at previous minima has not been zero, there were small residual activity contributions at those. Here are the sunspot numbers for the past several minima:
    1976 12.6
    1986 13.4
    1996 8.6
    2009 2.5
    You can see a downwards trend. That translates into a very small downward trend in TSI, less than a tenth of the 3 W/m2 Abdussamatov claims.

  102. Roger Carr (21:49:04) :
    Leif Svalgaard is a sobering kind of bloke. In the days of the long cattle drives of the large herds in Australia and the USA he would have been the one chosen to ride round the resting beasts at night, singing to keep them calm so they were not stampeded by sudden sight or sound…

    Aye….that he definitely is….

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  103. Leif Svalgaard (22:13:18) : ” ..it is hard to take the paper seriously, if one knows even just a little bit about this, unless one [as you] accepts it because it supports one’s own agenda.”

    I do not have an agenda just a deep seated hunch that the Sun influences our climate in more ways than are apparent. Also that small changes in TSI can eventually have significant impacts on the weather if the cumulative effect is large enough.

    I accept evidence where I see it without prejudice. I do think now that the paper maybe mistaken but will file my hunch away till I can see evidence either way.

  104. maksimovich (22:40:55) :
    I cannot seem to find any such statements by Frohlich in his AA letters paper maybe you can expand

    From an email exchange earlier this year. I had pointed out that PMOD was drifting lower compared to SORCE:

    From: Claus Fröhlich
    Date: 2009/4/14
    Subject: Re: PMOD
    To: leif@leif.org

    Yes, you may have noticed that the VIRGO data are now Version 6.002 and I changed an internal correction – I did this already in SF [San Francisco AGU meeting where we were discussing this]. A few years ago I found a linear trend between the corrected PMO6V and DIARAD time series and allocated it to DIARAD. At SF I realized that this was probably wrong and remembered also that the reanalysis I started 2 years ago and never completed showed that the corrections of PMO6V-B the less exposed backup was with the early increase as determined for PMO6V-A too much changing – so I attributed the trend to PMO6V and obviously got a smaller change relative to SORCE TIM, which was a kind of initiator of this whole action. But still it is completely internal to VIRGO and makes with all I know about VIRGO radiometry good sense.
    Cheers, Claus
    P.S. i have just submitted a paper about the long-term tren of TSI to A&A Letters – as soon as know more I send you a preprint.

    From me:
    Claus, a detailed comparison of SORCE and PMOD composite, shows good agreement until 2008.6, but then PMOD becomes much more erratic, not in keeping with the dead quiet the Sun has been the past nine months.

    Claus Fröhlich
    date Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 9:24 AM
    From that time on we have a problem with DIARAD I have not yet solved, but need to look into in much more detail – for the moment I use a simple correction, which may not be correct.
    —–

    As far as I know, the problem has not been resolved yet. And PMOD is still drifting lower: http://www.leif.org/research/Comparison%20SORCE%20PMOD%20since%202008.png

    See also my reply to Richard at Leif Svalgaard (23:01:53).
    Because the sunspot number at this minimum is very low and at the previous several minima were significantly higher, we would expect a small decrease of TSI, about 0.1 W/m2. That it is larger is probably due to the calibration problems.
    You would not find any comments on this in his A&A paper which had already been submitted and one usually does not comment on the very latest data still being calibrated. Hopefully, the PMOD problems will be resolved soon.

  105. Leif Svalgaard (21:18:26) :

    The stakes for cosmology are arguably low.
    The price of getting climate wrong in the face of what is planned is playing with matches in a powder magazine.
    You know as well as anybody that they aren’t even trying to get it right.

    Those agendists haven’t a clue as to what they are fooling around with.

  106. Adam from Kansas (12:42:47) :

    “It’s just an impression, just my opinion, but does Lief himself believe in other credible solar scientists?”

    Answer: Only if they agree with his opinion…

  107. maksimovich (22:40:55) :
    I cannot seem to find any such statements by Frohlich in his AA letters paper maybe you can expand

    I just got a newly updated PMOD from Claus. It seems that he still has the problem and has decided not to rock the boat just yet:

  108. maksimovich (22:40:55) :
    I cannot seem to find any such statements by Frohlich in his AA letters paper maybe you can expand

    I just got a newly updated PMOD from Claus. It seems that he still has the problem and has decided not to rock the boat just yet. Here is the complete record since SORCE was launched in 2003:

    Note how the yellow PMOD falls below SORCE+4.44 during the minimum by about 0.1 W/m2. We clearly do not have TSI well-determined to that accuracy and perhaps should not make too much out of such small differences.

  109. James F. Evans (23:36:11) :
    “It’s just an impression, just my opinion, but does Lief himself believe in other credible solar scientists?”
    Answer: Only if they agree with his opinion…

    See my reply upthread. And hold your nonsense.

  110. Leif Svalgaard (23:25:33)

    : From an email exchange earlier this year.

    Yes,thanks we already discussed this i could not recall if the exchange was prior or post.

    This aspect needs to be resolved,as if the assumed trend was real and persistent due to peculiarities of nonlinear mathematics(saddle-node bifurcation) ie a slight decrease in the net radiation balance would lead to catastrophic consequences.

    An important paper discussing this is in press.

  111. Paul Vaughan (21:24:39) : Paul, thank you very much for quietly slipping in this reference to your work on correlations, I emphasise with you correlations, not causations, between planetary combinations and the sunspot cycle.

    I’m aware that many are straining at the leash here to show a link between the Sun and climate, and will often entertain dubious science that seems to show this, for which Leif provides a very steady counterbeat. Thanks Leif.

    This is the whole scientific process raw and in the open. That is good. I too suspect the Sun is behind climate changes, and I too often want to support science that seems to support this, and sometimes this wish makes me slide over the quality of the science. But I think Leif has shown that there is at the very least considerable doubt that TSI changes alone can provide a causative mechanism.

    What still stands with Paul Vaughan’s work is the remarkable evidence of a double correlation, not one but two correlations, that have held steady for over two hundred years, with slight fluctuations to both sides that then return to exact correlation. The whole picture is of wheels within wheels.

    Now one correlation might seem scientifically reasonable, two seems like OTT. But for further evidence of the extraordinary attunement of the Solar System orbits to harmonic resonances, I invite readers here to get themselves a copy of “A Little Book of Coincidence” by John Martineau, published Wooden Books. This author takes geometrical and mathematical finesse and precision to a level of paradigm-shift I’ve not seen since Newton and Kepler. And he does it with grace and beauty.

  112. Leif:
    In a highly insulated space a rise in heating energy of 1% could cause the temperature in that space to rise significantly. To say that the same does not happen in the climate system implies a high degree of knowledge of the sensitivity of the system.

    How certain are we about the sensitivity of the climate system to changes in TSI?
    Could Svendsmarks proof of concepts for his own theories provide this sensitivity?

  113. rbateman (20:43:57) :

    All of this reminds me of the cosmological arguments over the State of the Universe. You don’t see anyone trying to hijack that. Good reason not to: there’s nothing to be gained in doing so.
    Climate, on the other hand, is fertile grounds for hijack & abuse by agenda.
    Climate needs to be defended by Science, not fought over.
    If you have not already done so, go back over what this topic heading has to say, and try to find something good in it.
    I have already stated 2 things I found to be good.
    What do you find?

    I found that, this kind of debate stifles learning what is really is going on.
    Another example::
    In the late 90’s I was an avid follower of the financial climate, (all those mega merger just freaked me) Alan Greenspan was already warning of ‘over exuberance and unsustainablilty.’ The lag time, ten years, before the crash.

    rbateman (23:29:14) :

    Leif Svalgaard (21:18:26) :

    The stakes for cosmology are arguably low.
    The price of getting climate wrong in the face of what is planned is playing with matches in a powder magazine.
    You know as well as anybody that they aren’t even trying to get it right.

    Those agendists haven’t a clue as to what they are fooling around with.

    Right on bro, keep on thinking free.

    But, I can’t do this climate debate thing, anymore.

  114. Richard (23:03:02) :
    Also that small changes in TSI can eventually have significant impacts on the weather if the cumulative effect is large enough.

    TSI has a relatively fixed minimum. All TSI minima drop to this level. The maxima vary from 1366 to 1367 Ignoring 1650 to 1700 period. Assuming that the cycles are sinusoids the variation in average TSI will therefore be about 0.5w/sq metre.
    Here is an un-offset TSI plot:

    There is no visible evidence of 11 year tsi cycles in a FFT of temp the effect is in the noise.
    The global air (fast response) sea (slow response) are not significantly responding to 11 year TSI variations.
    The 100 year modulation of TSI does not appear in the temp record (The TSI is a driving force on temp. So when TSI average just begins to reduce then so must temperature. There can be no delay / “pre-delay” between TSI and temp)

    Changes in TSI or GHGs can only be compensated by increased radiation to space (albedo, LWIR) LWIR is a black body radiation effect and so the earth temp must increase if TSI increases or if the GHG blanket increases. Albedo simply stops some SW light heating the earth.

    To me it seems that TSI and TSI timing related solar effects do not affect global temps significantly. All that is left are solar unknowns – gravity, magnetism, gamma rays (not sun originated – galactic), solar wind, yobba rays, pink matter,orange flugal dust etc.
    None of these other events – if they are valid – seem to be linked to solar cycles since they do not appear in the temp record in the correct phase/frequency

  115. Geoff Sharp (05:13:05) :
    Perhaps we need a name change to this blog.
    How about “Whats up with Leif”
    Not sure we are getting a balanced approach here.

    Perhaps the problem is new threads / new posts are generated saying the same ludicrous/wrong things that Leif has de-loused, corrected, and debunked countless times before. I am amazed that he has the patience to continue correcting!

  116. maksimovich (00:51:37) :
    This aspect needs to be resolved,as if the assumed trend was real and persistent due to peculiarities of nonlinear mathematics(saddle-node bifurcation)
    I think it is much simpler than that: combination of three things:
    1) drifting calibration and degradation of sensors
    2) the simple effect of residual solar activity at various minima. If you model TSI like this: TSI = base TSI + a*(sunspot number) [and this is a fairly good model: TSI = 1365.6 + 0.01 * SSN], you’ll see that since SSN in 2008-2009 is low ~ 2.5 and SSN in 1996 was 8.6 and in 1986, 13.4, that TSI just because of that would be [2008-2009] 1365.63, [1996] 1365.69, [1986] 1365.73.
    3) the desire of finding SOME variation

    Joachim (04:05:02) :
    How certain are we about the sensitivity of the climate system to changes in TSI?
    There should be at least a temperature increase of 0.07K from solar min to solar max from Stefan-Boltzmann’s law alone . There are people who think they see some 0.15K solar cycle variation in observed temperatures, so there is maybe a clue there. In any event it cannot be large as we do not observe a large solar cycle signal. There are various ways of plastering over this depressing result, e.g. by claiming an integrating effect due to oceans that would suppress variations on the time scale of decades or faster, but they look to me like special pleadings.

    Could Svendsmarks proof of concepts for his own theories provide this sensitivity?
    The observed sensitivity [cf above] is low, so Svensmark doesn’t really matter here.

  117. Geoff Sharp (05:13:05) :
    Not sure we are getting a balanced approach here.
    You are not and should not. A balanced approach to keeping a lawn in good shape is to let the weeds grow too.

  118. Leif Svalgaard (19:38:19) :…There are no missing links..”

    However you will remember that you asked , in another thread, for someone to show you the link in the relation Sun-Climate.
    Perhaps everything is wrongly understood, from the start, if TSI or whatever from the Sun does not correspond to experience and common sense.

  119. Geoff, I think a lot of us have hunches there is something in the SSB model, but we also respect that the path there has to be patient, laborious science. While I may not agree with Leif’s conclusions, I cannot fault his method or factual observations, and I think he is passionate about objectivity, in his realm. I respect that, even though Leif’s replies to all and sundry can be a bit overwhelming. And we can only conduct a debate here when participants stay very close to evidence and are willing to hear the other side.

  120. The foregoing discussion is quite fascinating but unfortunately completely over my head as a professional engineer. The problem I have is that no one has explained, in layman’s terms and to my satisfaction, what caused the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, and the present warming of the planets in our solar system, if it wasn’t the sun. Nor has it been explained why these cyclic effects, the period of which seems reasonably well established, should not continue and so affect our climate.

    The present global warming “debate” reminds me of the old religious arguments, and has almost reached the stage where we have the equivilent of debating how many angels will fit on the head of a pin. If some had their way we would be approaching the Inquision, so bitter has the argument become.

    To my mind, the mere fact that the proponents of CO2 being the cause of global warming have used their “hockey stick” graphs to purport to show that the most recent hot and cold spells this millenium did not occur has largely invalidated their argument that CO2 is the cause, apart from any other justification. Had they been able to show honestly how CO2 concentrations had caused them they would be so much more believable.

    As an unbiased observer, and whilst not arguing that CO2 has no influence on our climate, I am persuaded that it is the sun that primarily governs the global climate, and shall do so until someone comes up with a better argument than those advanced at present that it is something else.

  121. I agree with Bill (05:53:09) . I don’t know how Leif puts up with some of the snide remarks. I hope he dosn’t give up. As for balance (Geoff Sharp (05:13:05)) I think that Leif is very fair and open minded (unlike the RC-ers). However he calls a spade a spade as he should. That IS balance. Science should be based on facts, not opinion.

  122. bill (05:48:03) :
    Here is an un-offset TSI plot:
    http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/5881/tsi.jpg

    Your plot shows nicely how small the solar cycle effects are. On the other hand, the TSI that reaches the Earth varies quite a lot [because the distance to the Sun varies]. Here is an un-offset (real) TSI-plot:

    As everyone can see there is a strong annual variation. The solar cycle effects are also shown on the same plot. Can’t see them? That’s because they are VERY small. When people wring their hands about sensitivity to TSI and amplifications and feedbacks they should remember that those effects would also amplify the annual variation so we should observe enormous annual variations in global temperature. There is actually an annual variation of a few degrees, perhaps 3K [somebody: please research this]. With a TSI variation of 90 W/m2 that would put the sensitivity at 3K/90 per W/m2, so that the 1 W/m2 solar cycle variation would result in a temperature variation of 0.03K.

    Climate scientists invariable show the anomalies rather than the actual temperatures. This trick removes most of the annual variation, and people then forget that it exists.

    Adolfo Giurfa (06:29:46) :
    TSI or whatever from the Sun does not correspond to experience and common sense.
    Common sense does not seem to be very common, then, with a statement like that.

  123. EW (07:27:16) :
    Re Corbyn forecasts – apparently the conference was held, but not much about the details revealed.

    and what was revealed sounded pretty much like nonsense, except, of course, the implied plea for funding at the end:

    “For weather events, Corbyn identifies bursts of solar electromagnetic activity he calls SWIPS. These can be predicted deterministically, he claims, although he won’t disclose his method. The key is not the 11 year cycle, or even fluctuations in total solar irradiance (TSI), but the 22 year Hale Cycle in sunspot activity, which indicates changes in activity in solar wind. The team had also noticed a lunar modulation – probably two factors. When the Moon was in the Earth’s slipstream, its elevation influenced the climate. There were also other magnetic factors. All these influenced the jet stream, and in turn, weather.

    Mathematically in phase space, states are nearly always repeated. Similar states are (nearly) repeated at predictable times. It works because external forcing factors are more important than internal weather noise (transients) on reasonable time scales, of only about 4 days. The changes in energy flow are big – that’s why it actually works.”

    He said that he’d unconsciously adopted a quantum approach. “We generate rules that enable us to look back. Harry Fairbrother, a technician at Imperial College, came to one of my events – and he said, ‘I think you do it by quantum mechanics’. I said ‘I do, but I don’t think of it as quantum mechanics.'”

    In addition to an 85 per cent success rate, Corbyn’s WeatherAction says it can do more, but is hampered by resources.”

  124. Lucy Skywalker (02:54:38) :”What still stands with Paul Vaughan’s work is the remarkable evidence of a double correlation, not one but two correlations, that have held steady for over two hundred years, with slight fluctuations to both sides that then return to exact correlation. The whole picture is of wheels within wheels.”

    Agreed and well said…

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  125. Dear Leif–

    I read these entries with much curiousity and no knowledge (my science training ended with core required college Physics I). You seem like an honest scientist, arrogant (that’s OK you’ve earned it) but honest. Using Occam’s razor (and no expertise) I think you have the better of this solar output debate and that these Russians have an ‘agenda’. That said, as best I can piece together, the best explanation for ‘natural’ variabilty and no runaway AGW positive feedbacks is ‘in the clouds’ . Is there any possible causation between solar activity and cloud formation? — I know there is a ‘grand theory’ of cosmic rays and climate that you disagree with, but my question is narrower, is there any possible causation?

  126. The blemish on the life giving sun is moving away from mother earth. Solar flux has dropped to 78.9. It appears that our forces have prevailed over the crushing onslaught of evil.

    Yes there are widows and orphans. Many valiant defenders of some weird ideas lay broken on the bloodied field of battle. We must none the less be ready for further sacrifice.

    You can be sure that the next blemish will see the forces of Leif The Terrible return.

    Protect your kin and be sure he doesn’t capture anymore livestock.

  127. Is the Lean 2000 TSI reconstruction the Yamal of Solar science?

    If so too bad we don’t have a paleoclimatologist, that would state a la Leif:

    “All in all, this paper cannot be taken seriously.”

  128. bill (05:53:09) 10/29:

    “‘Geoff Sharp (05:13:05) :
    Perhaps we need a name change to this blog.
    How about “Whats up with Leif”
    Not sure we are getting a balanced approach here.’

    Perhaps the problem is new threads / new posts are generated saying the same ludicrous/wrong things that Leif has de-loused, corrected, and debunked countless times before. I am amazed that he has the patience to continue correcting!”

    I experience Leif as a passionate scientist and teacher/professor of solar science. I look forward to every one of Anthony’s solar blogs because I can depend on Leif’s interest in the best of solar science from his perspective and his willingness to communicate his knowledge to WUWT’s very large international audience. He is generous to new-comers, willing to teach Solar Science 101 over and over again. I learn something new every time and re-remember what I forgot.

    He also is an excellent disciplinarian re repetitive-error comments — something like, come on, stop pissing in the wind. If you disagree, disagree with the science in front of you, not hot air.

    When I read any research article on solar influence or TSI, I always look to see whose research the authors’ base their conclusions (numbers) on. Makes for enlightened reading. And I have many mini-seminars to while away unused time — if only there were many more such minutes. Thanks, Leif, for this knowledge and much more.

  129. pyromancer76 (09:42:30) : [and several others]
    Thanks, Leif, for this knowledge and much more.
    Thanks for the kind words, and thanks to Anthony for this blog. As you can see from the often hostile, snide, stupid, nasty, etc comments directed at my person, it is at times thankless to soldier on. I do this because I feel that I can make a contribution towards better understanding of the issues at stake here, even though my view differs a bit from Anthony’s in how important the Sun is for climate – Solar physics doesn’t really belong in a climate blog. Having said that, physics of the Sun and of our wider environment is a fascinating subject in itself and I hope to have communicated my own wonderment and fascination with old Sol to you all [or to those who are willing to listen].

  130. Steve Hempell (09:38:50) :
    Is the Lean 2000 TSI reconstruction the Yamal of Solar science?
    No. Judith Lean is a very good scientist and has done [and is doing] a terrific job. Everyone of her [many] reconstructions was [is] grounded in solid science at the time. She has known and acknowledged that assumptions behind the reconstructions are subject to improvements. And there have been several such over the 15 years she has been at it. At issue is the source of TSI. Roughly, we can say that TSI is composed of three pieces:

    TSI = base + background + solar activity

    The ‘base’ is that coming from the nuclear furnace. It is thought to be constant on a time scale of hundred of thousands of year, because it takes that long for the energy to diffuse out from the solar core and that process would dampen shorter variations, but we don’t know this for sure. Eventually, when we have accumulated enough solar neutrino data we might tell.

    The ‘solar activity’ part is obvious. We can see TSI increase when there are many bright faculae around sunspots, and we can see TSI decrease from the darkness of the spots themselves. The increase is about twice the decrease, so the net effect is an increase with solar activity as we all know.

    The ‘background’ is the hard part. There are small magnetic regions all over the Sun and there is a ‘network’ of magnetic fields organized into ‘supergranules’ by convective motions in the solar photosphere. These small-scale magnetic fields often ‘reconnect’ and cause minor brightenings in the process, and thus contribute to TSI.

    The whole debate really comes down to how important the ‘background’ is and if it varies. The network does not seem to vary and recent work suggests that the contribution of the background is rather constant. Page 21 of http://www.leif.org/research/Froehlich-Sofia-2008.pdf shows what we today think the various contributions are and how they vary.

    The basic change in the reconstruction of TSI simply reflects our improved knowledge and Lean has made important contributions to the progress and her reconstructions have kept pace with that progress.

    A major problem is that people who have an agenda will often go back and find an old reconstruction [that does no longer reflect what we think is happening] that seems to fit their agenda and then pretend that their agenda has support. This is the problem with the Russian paper under discussion here.

    gary gulrud (09:39:01) :
    Having scanned the commentary it would appear we’re dumber than when we started.
    Speaking for yourself?

  131. “Horse(07:38:18) :
    The foregoing discussion is quite fascinating but unfortunately completely over my head as a professional engineer.”

    I am also an engineer and in basically the same (probably crowded) boat as Horse. The message I am taking away from this sometimes good, sometimes bad, but usually informative conversation is a) known external energy input to the earth is basically constant and can’t account for temperature variations, and therefore, b) global temperature changes are driven by global system dynamics which, with an occasional exception, are not understood. I also discount CO2 as anything other than a bit player. Until someone demonstrates Leif to be wrong I have to accept his argument, which also leaves me confused about apparent correlation between past solar and global temperature events such as the LIA.

  132. I was wondering if Leif could comment on this piece from: http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/scientists-discover-sun-does-affect-earths-climate

    While climate scientists claim the 0.1% change in total solar irradiance (TSI) is not enough to reverse global warming on its own, new scientific evidence from NASA points to changes in the type of solar radiation arriving at the top of Earth’s atmosphere as a possible trigger for other powerful climate regulating mechanisms. Scientists have discovered, that while total solar irradiance changes by only 0.1 percent, the change in the intensity of ultraviolet light varies by much larger amounts. Research shows such variations in the Sun’s emissions can affect the ozone layer and the way energy moves both vertically and horizontally through the atmosphere

  133. Geoff Sharp (05:13:05) :

    Perhaps we need a name change to this blog.

    How about “Whats up with Leif”

    Posts on the sun usually do become all about him. Whether he is right in everything or not doesn’t matter to some, it seems. He is perceived by them as always being right.

  134. Lucy Skywalker (02:54:38) :

    This is the whole scientific process raw and in the open.

    It would be nice if the raw didn’t include rude.

    And I am certainly not referring to you in saying that. You are polite and congenial. I appreciate that! :-)

  135. Lucy Skywalker (02:54:38) :

    The whole picture is of wheels within wheels.

    I think that is a nice illustration. But I think some here want it to be just one wheel. And friction come from their insisting that it must be so, IMO.

  136. PMH (11:12:05) :

    Henrik Svensmark hypothesis gains evidence all the time. Have you seen this documentary about it?

    The Cloud Mystery, at YouTube in 5 parts :

  137. The Fool. On the Hill
    (Beatles)

    Day after day,
    Alone on a hill,
    The man with the foolish grin is keeping perfectly still
    But nobody wants to know him,
    They can see that he’s just a fool,
    And he never gives an answer,

    But the fool on the hill,
    Sees the sun going down,
    And the eyes in his head,
    See the world spinning ’round.

    Well on the way,
    Head in a cloud,
    The man of a thousand voices talking perfectly loud
    But nobody ever hear him,
    or the sound he appears to make,
    and he never seems to notice,

    But the fool on the hill,
    Sees the sun going down,

    And the eyes in his head,
    See the world spinning ’round.

    And nobody seems to like him,
    they can tell what he wants to do,
    and he never shows his feelings,

    But the fool on the hill,
    Sees the sun going down,
    And the eyes in his head,
    See the world spinning ’round.

    Ooh, ooh,
    Round and round and round.

    And he never listens to them,
    He knows that they’re the fools
    They don’t like him,

    The fool on the hill
    Sees the sun going down,
    And the eyes in his head,
    See the world spinning ’round.

    Ooh,
    Round and round and round

  138. Gene Nemetz (11:19:52) :
    How about “Whats up with Leif”
    Posts on the sun usually do become all about him.

    Because of people like you [and the usual other suspects] that bring nothing to the table except personal attacks on me. Scroll back through the comments on this topic and remove all the personal attacks and you’ll see that what remains is a substantial amount of actual information and discussion. Too bad you help dilute this resource.

  139. Leif

    I was most definitely was not questioning Judith Leans work. As you pointed out, she certainly seems to be a very good scientist and is open new data etc that may mean a revision or even rejection of previous work as opposed to others who need not be named in this company of commenters .

    My point was more that, because of your comments here regarding the misuse of Lean 2000, I am immediately suspicious of any work that uses it as I am of works that use Yamal.

    Making comments can be such a minefield!!

    And thank you for more info on TSI. As mentioned above your comments here are very much appreciated and I second everything pyromancer76 said.

  140. Steve Hempell (12:49:26) :
    My point was more that, because of your comments here regarding the misuse of Lean 2000, I am immediately suspicious of any work that uses it as I am of works that use Yamal.

    Yes, any TSI reconstruction before about 2007 is suspect and should not be used. Recent Papers that use them anyway should be rejected out of hand.

  141. PMH (11:12:05) :

    Until someone demonstrates Leif to be wrong I have to accept his argument, which also leaves me confused about apparent correlation between past solar and global temperature events such as the LIA.

    Assuming that the current consensus of sun scientists is correct as Leif expostulates, there are other means of the sun cycle affecting the climate, all of them speculative and being researched at the moment. One of them is the galactic cosmic ray hypothesis of Svensmark, and others depend on the ultraviolet changes, as in the link given by A Wod (11:12:42) : above. Another possibility is the albedo change again triggered by ultraviolet changes due to plankton http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/0702_planktoncloud.html .

    It is quite probable that many mechanisms in conjunction with the chaotic behavior of the ocean and atmosphere currents will be finally involved to solve the jig saw puzzle that is climate.

  142. Reading the article linked to by A Wod: It’s apparent that any solar/climate connection is something outside of the TSI, there’s also been other non-TSI related studies by the likes of people like Earlhapp and Tallbloke on this blog that try to find the solar effect on climate by not looking at TSI at all. There must be some variating going on with at least one wavelength if you look at the history of SOHO EIT images which go from dark colors in large places to large places of white.

  143. anna v (14:04:54) :
    It is quite probable that many mechanisms in conjunction with the chaotic behavior of the ocean and atmosphere currents will be finally involved to solve the jig saw puzzle that is climate.
    there is no doubt in my mind that the Sun has a role in this. What is also clear is that it is a minor role. A role that we can hardly pin down or demonstrate [otherwise these would be no debate]. People that invoke the Sun to explain everything are exposing their wishful thinking; ‘yeah it would be nice if it were so’.
    Even more dubious is the Piers Corbyn-type of pseudo-science [that he even failed to elucidate], where you use a combination of the 22-year cycle and the moon to forecast the weather next week. But, hey, if he can make a quid on it, there are worse scams out there.

  144. Adam from Kansas (14:38:46) :
    try to find the solar effect on climate by not looking at TSI at all.
    The 0.1% variation of the energy we get with TSI is about a thousand times larger than that in the solar wind. The UV varies more, but is only a very small part of the energy we get. And some UV bands vary in opposite phase to the sunspots [e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Erl70.png ]. The NEAR UV [242-310 nm] where there still some energy [18 W/m2] varies in anti-phase with the cycle, while the Far UV [180-241 nm] where there is very little energy [1.5 W/m2] shows larger variation. You can, of course, get around that by assuming the less UV is what [through unknown mechanism] warms the climate.
    It is possible that we tomorrow will discover how all these things hang together, but until so, we are hard pressed to argue that there is strong evidence of a solar connection.

  145. Gene Nemetz (12:06:05) : Alexander Feht (07:57:35) : Meanwhile, it’s snowing hard in New Mexico.

    Ahh, that usually happens in October. Global cooling is a straw man. ;-)

    Impressive winter storm… but isn’t it still Autumn?

    http://www.accuweather.com/m/blog-story.aspx?bn=weathermatrix

    Jesse Ferrell: Community Director

    Rockies Get Over 40 Inches of Snow!
    Excerpts…
    Here are the highest snowfall amounts by state as of 9 AM Mountain Time (amounts in parentheses are deprecated due to higher amounts):

    Pinecliffe, CO: 43.8″
    Sand Lake, WY: 41.0″(Jefferson, CO: 38.6″
    Meagher County, MT: 16.0″
    Deadwood, SD: 15.1″
    Rushville, NE: 12.0″
    Alta, UT: 10.0″

    As of this writing, CoTrip showed that most of the roads in the state of Colorado werelisted as “snow packed & icy” (colored light blue below) and several highways were closed, including I-25 between Wellington and the Wyoming border.WYDOT’s page said “most offices are closed due to the severe winter storm” and their road information website showed I-25 closed north of Cheyenne, along with many other roads(red=closed on the map below).

    How unusual is this much snow for this early in the season? Cheyenne, Wyoming set a new October total snowfall record Wednesday evening with 24 inches, and it is still snowing!

    I-80 west of Cheyenne has been closed at various times.
    Oct 28
    ‘Major’ winter storm strikes Colorado, Nebraska and Wyoming

    Five times the normal amount of snow in Cheyenne already … and here we go again Blizzard conditions and up to 18 inches of snow were forecast for a wide swath of the Wyoming, Nebraska and Colorado plains, says this article on MSNBC. The storm also brought snow to northern Utah’s Wasatch Front.  

    “It’s a major early season storm,” said Mike Weiland, National Weather Service meteorologist in Cheyenne. “The results are going to be quite a bit of snow and a fairly long duration snow event.”  

    With 14 inches so far, Cheyenne had already received almost 5 times its normal October snowfall. The average for the month is 3 inches.   http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33504548/ns/weather/

  146. anna v, Leif Svalgaard

    What about resonance and harmonics?

    The sun’s regular but rather weak oscillations will from time to time coincide with other periodic forcings such as the oceanic decadal / multidecadal oscillations, and harmonics of longer term orbital and precessional oscillations? For instance we are told that the ocean heat content balance has shifted in the last 10 years to negative – losing heat. On top of downturns in PDO and other ocean oscillations. The current solar downturn is coinciding with these changes.

    Could this explain why sometimes a feature of the solar cycle correlates with a climatic feature (e.g. LIA) and sometimes not. A solar change needs to coincide with (resonate with) one or two other forcings to have an effect?

    Lief Svalgaard’s focus on the small magnitude of TSI fluctuations is something of a straw man and I’m sure he knows this. The most plausible mechanism of solar effect is an indirect one like that proposed by fellow norseman Svensmark – interaction of solar wind and cosmic rays and cloud.

    By the way Lief do you believe in the solar DeVries-Suess and Gleissberg cycles (210- and 87-year periodicities, respectively) or are these also now unfashionable in being cycles at all?

  147. Phlogiston (17:29:46) :
    Could this explain why sometimes a feature of the solar cycle correlates with a climatic feature (e.g. LIA) and sometimes not. A solar change needs to coincide with (resonate with) one or two other forcings to have an effect?
    No, it just need to coincide with to give the impression that there is a sometime connection.

    Lief Svalgaard’s focus on the small magnitude of TSI fluctuations is something of a straw man and I’m sure he knows this.
    It is offensive to suggest that.

    The most plausible mechanism of solar effect is an indirect one like that proposed by fellow norseman Svensmark – interaction of solar wind and cosmic rays and cloud.
    Except that the evidence is against it. There has been quite a change in climate since 1952 when the first reliable cosmic ray observations began. The variation of cosmic rays since then does in no way resemble that of the temperature. The mechanism is supposed to work through clouds and albedo, but the observed variation of albedo does not match that of the cosmic rays.

    By the way Lief do you believe in the solar DeVries-Suess and Gleissberg cycles (210- and 87-year periodicities, respectively) or are these also now unfashionable in being cycles at all?
    Neither of them were ever thought of as strict cycles the same way that the sunspot cycle is not a true cycle either. The periods vary widely and the maxima and minima seems to occur almost at random within the typical time scales of each. The Gleissberg cycle has been ~100 years the past three centuries and there has been little signs of a 210-year sunspot cycle in the historical record [mostly because of record is not long enough]. Cosmic ray proxies show hints of ‘periods’ of 88, 150, and 220 years that come and go in a non-stationary way and are thus real ‘cycles’. You can find more about that here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039439.pdf

  148. Phlogiston (17:29:46) :
    Cosmic ray proxies show hints of ‘periods’ of 88, 150, and 220 years that come and go in a non-stationary way and are thus not real ‘cycles’.

  149. I hope everyone doesn’t forget modern Milankovitch research/theories and the variety of Earth orbits around Ol’ Sol: orbital eccentricity (shape of the orbit from elliptical to more circular, cycle ~100,000 years); inclination or axial tilt varying from 21.5-24.5, cycle ~41,000 years); precession (the wobbly spin of Earth’s axis with north moving from Polaris to Vega (cycle ~23,000 years). And when they all happen to coincide…! At one point I tried to find out where we are today. Can’t find the research, but I thought I tentatively found that while we are not in “danger” we are slowly moving away from “warmth” (maybe).

    Combine these mind-bending realities with the movement of tectonic plates and resulting serious volcanic activity, our vast oceans, and our chaotic climate conditions — oh, don’t forget galactic cosmic rays and cloud cover and albedo — and there are all kinds of possibilities for the realtively steady state of energy output of our Sun. Yes, without it we would be cold. And Leif is insistent, thank goodness, on keeping us focused on the science of the Sun’s activities.

    Being privileged to consider all of this in its beauty, rawness, mathematical perfection, and even its violence is awesome and humbling. WattsUpWithThat does a remarkable job of tantalizing us with a variety of bits and pieces of these amazing realities.

  150. Gene Nemetz (11:19:52) : “… He (Leif) is perceived by them as always being right.”

    Or; Leif, is perceived by many as a benchmark, thus preventing waste of time on wild goose chases, but allowing even flights of fancy when the basic rules are understood and acknowledged.
    Flights of fancy are of two kinds: 1. To escape reality (which we all needs do from time to time); and 2. to break new ground in the never ending quest to take mankind onward.

  151. Leif Svalgaard (11:42:52) :

    bring nothing to the table except personal attacks on me.

    Yes Leif, It’s all about you.

  152. Leif Svalgaard (11:42:52) :

    bring nothing to the table except personal attacks on me.

    Is using the word ‘attack’ an exaggeration? I do think it is projection though.

    You could lighten up Leif. I rarely say anything about you. It is not ‘usual’.

  153. Roger Carr (20:55:31) :

    Leif doesn’t like the work of Henrik Svensmark. Is Svensmark’s work a waste of time?

  154. Gene Nemetz (23:24:34) : (in regard to my comment 20:55:31) I may have misunderstood what you are saying.

    Perhaps I was not clear. My point is that Leif sets a benchmark against which we on this forum can judge our own ideas and concepts, pet theories and personal revelations. If they fail that benchmark then we can see our time would be wasted in pursuing them.

    It also allows us to conserve our time by not needing to read and consider this thread (for example) when Leif writes: The fundamental conclusion of the paper is based on the top panel of their Figure 3 which shows TSI reconstructions the last 400 years. This plot is WAY out of date and its use basically invalidates the rest of the paper.

    I do not consider the “benchmark” I note as in any way limiting consideration of any theory or idea which has the basic foundation… or perhaps I should just say I use Leif as my litmus test, and value the opportunity of doing so.

  155. Leif Svalgaard

    Interesting – if cosmic ray and/or solar periodicities come and go as non-stationary waves – does this not suggest interference and harmonic / resonant effects? Looks like we need a sound engineer to help us with this.

    Is it so unreasonable to suggest that a small solar cycle could have amplified effect if it harmonised with another oscillation such as an intrinsic one like the oceanic decadal oscillations? We all know that small forcings have greatest effect when they are in phase with natural frequencies of systems – just try walking with a glass of water in your hand to observe this effect.

  156. Phlogiston (17:29:46) :

    anna v, Leif Svalgaard

    What about resonance and harmonics?

    Resonances and harmonics have a role in a deterministic system, i.e. where we can put in parameters and boundary conditions and come out with a solution. Not in deterministic chaos. They may look like resonances but the causative link is involved and non linear.

    Deterministic chaos is where there are many deterministic equations entering the system and the system cannot have a predictable output as a solution. The theory of chaos and complexity is a total new “mathematical” field that covers disciplines from biology to physics.
    Climate is a classical case of deterministic chaos ( famous butterfly).

    Since you ask, in my personal view the climate should be modeled on the lines of the Tsonis et al paper ( was discussed here a while ago), where they developed a chaotic model with inputs PDO ENSO and the rest of the acronyms and did have as an output the stasis/cooling of the present days. I would add the small TSI changes, the tides (i.e. the moon/sun gravitational effect on the oceans and maybe the Coriolis ), the changes of albedo due to cosmic rays, the UV reaching the ocean, the UV on the ozone, etc, all the speculative tantalizing “causes” none of which is strong enough be a “cause”, and let the program develop to its attractor stages.

  157. Leif Svalgaard (14:39:23) :
    Even more dubious is the Piers Corbyn-type of pseudo-science [that he even failed to elucidate], where you use a combination of the 22-year cycle and the moon to forecast the weather next week. But, hey, if he can make a quid on it, there are worse scams out there.

    I have been trying to find an explanation of his method unsuccessfully.

    Nevertheless, I would not discount the moon. I live in Greece, which is a peninsula in the middle of the Mediterranean and so the observations apply here: Folk wisdom has it that the weather changes with the quarter of the moon. If the weather does not break within a day at the change( from rain to dry, from north winds to south,etc), it will continue another quarter. I have not been keeping statistics, but the truth is, from rain to dry, which interests me for the walks I take, it seems true that the change comes with the quarter of the moon.

  158. Leif Svalgaard (14:39:23) :
    Even more dubious is the Piers Corbyn-type of pseudo-science [that he even failed to elucidate], where you use a combination of the 22-year cycle and the moon to forecast the weather next week. But, hey, if he can make a quid on it, there are worse scams out there.

    I have been trying to find an explanation of his method unsuccessfully.

    Nevertheless, I would not discount the moon. I live in Greece, which is a peninsula in the middle of the Mediterranean and so the observations apply here: Folk wisdom has it that the weather changes with the quarter of the moon. If the weather does not break within a day at the change( from rain to dry, from north winds to south,etc), it will continue another quarter. I have not been keeping statistics, but the truth is, from rain to dry, which interests me for the walks I take, it seems true that the change comes with the quarter of the moon.

    example: we are expecting a drastic change from tomorrow, after a week of average October weather the day temperature drops 9C. And the moon will be full.

  159. anna v (02:12:32) :
    anna v (02:12:32)

    ‘Phlogiston (17:29:46) :
    anna v, Leif Svalgaard

    What about resonance and harmonics?’

    “Resonances and harmonics have a role in a deterministic system, i.e. where we can put in parameters and boundary conditions and come out with a solution. Not in deterministic chaos. They may look like resonances but the causative link is involved and non linear…”

    Science is still bad at understanding dynamic chaotic systems like our climate and often prefers to use linear trend lines which mean nothing and can be ‘cherry-picked’ to your hearts content.

    Some climate processes also have a fractal nature and this is has been know for some time as this abstract from a 1994 paper illustrates:-

    “Fractal analysis of climatic data: Mean annual temperature records in Hungary – L Bodri
    Rescaled range analysis of the annual mean surface air temperatures at 7 meteorological stations in Hungary for the period of 1901–1991 indicates that the considered temperatures are fractals with a mean fractal dimension of 1.23 ± 0.01. This value compares favourably with the fractal dimensions of other climatic records, both on small time scale of 10–100 years and for time spans 10^3–10^6 years. Possibly such fractal dimensions are characteristic of climate change over the whole spectral range of 10 to 10^6 years. If this assumption becomes confirmed through analysis of a wider set of climatic records, long-range climatic prediction (in statistical sense) on different time scales will appear feasible.”

    As you say, it could by that there is no single simple cause relating to solar cycles, rather a mass of small – possibly connected – events which push our climate into a lower energy state.

    Living in England, I know the influence of something as simple as the movement and strength of the jet stream can have a large effect on weather and I’m sure systems like this and the strength of the Arctic polar vortex, for example, can have big impacts over the longer term.

  160. anna v (03:30:06) :
    we are expecting a drastic change from tomorrow, after a week of average October weather the day temperature drops 9C. And the moon will be full.

    A full moon on Halloween is bound to have some effect :-))

  161. Gene Nemetz (23:22:07) :
    >i>Leif doesn’t like the work of Henrik Svensmark. Is Svensmark’s work a waste of time?

    Of course not. And it is not about “doesn’t like”. These are words that do not belong in scientific debate. Svensmark’s work is good science. I happen to have reasons to believe that his conclusion will not stand the test of time. Such disagreements are good and healthy. This is how progress is made.
    What was wrong with the Russian paper, was using obsolete data, dishonestly claiming it was newer data. That paper was not science, but propaganda. And as such it was lapped up by AGW skeptics because it supported their own bias. Some of their comments on this thread:
    “I’m loving it.”
    “At long last, there’s something for a Russian to be proud of…”
    “a well written, thoughtful and compelling essay.”
    “He’s not on a soap box on the street, or teaching in an obscure community college. I think you’d love that too.”
    “Now they’re beating the USA in study of the sun.”
    “Its surprising the quality of work Russian scientists can still produce”
    etc

  162. anna v, Tenuc

    I agree entirely that climate, atmospheres and ocean need to be studied with the expectation that they show dynamic chaos and non-linear / non equilibrium pattern, with attractors etc. I wasn’t aware that this rules out harmonics but if so, so be it. Maybe some aspects or the system are linear, some not.

    Climate, atmospheres and ocean are a dynamic system bound to be chaotic / nonlinear. This does indeed need to be taken seriously, it implies a large part of all theory and discussions on the subject to date may be irrelevant. Like astronomers pre Galileo and Copernicus discussing epicycles and other attempts to make the observed facts fit the model of all celestial objects orbiting the earth. No doubt some very intelligent people argued for epicycles. But their basic assumptions and model (sun orbits the earth etc) were so flawed that it was impossible for their work to be in connection with reality.

    Tenuc is right that fractal character should be expected in such a non-equilibrium non-linear system. I’ll repeat part of a posting that I put up here under the recent Richard Lindzen thread:

    “For example, take the Petit 1999 deuterium temperature reconstruction from the Vostok core going back 420,000 years. You can look at the difference (change) measured between neighboring core data points going back (or forward) in time. Then plot the nat log of point to point deg C change with nat log of frequency. What you get is:

    y = -2.1052x + 3.0077
    R2 = 0.9305

    x: nat log of change
    y: nat log of frequency

    So with an R2 of 0.93 we have what is effectively the fractal dimension of Vostok temperature change of 2.105.”

    A bit higher than your value from Hungary but probably our methods were different. (Perhaps you can point out an error in my method.)

  163. “It is quite probable that many mechanisms in conjunction with the chaotic behavior of the ocean and atmosphere currents will be finally involved to solve the jig saw puzzle that is climate.”

    And with respect to the source of energy, the ocean and atmosphere are passive components.

  164. gary gulrud (08:58:37) :
    And with respect to the source of energy, the ocean and atmosphere are passive components.
    The food I eat and the oxygen I breathe are the sources of my energy, I’m just a passive component [by your logic] in the system that is ‘me’.

  165. ”Congratulations to Piers Corbyn and everyone at WeatherAction on the latest advances in their solar forecasting technique. Who needs a Met Office supercomputer with the carbon footprint of a small town when the behavior of the Sun provides a more efficient and environmentally-acceptable forecasting solution? Now that measurement has definitively established anthropogenic “global warming” to be bunk, the British taxpayer could save a fortune by abolishing the Met Office and all other government departments that credulously believed in the alarmist nonsense peddled by the self-serving IPCC, and switching to WeatherAction instead. Three cheers for private enterprise, and for WeatherAction!”

    – Monckton of Brenchley

  166. Hard to have the label of ‘charlatan’ hold for Pirs Corbyn since he is right most of the time.

    There must be a secondary definition that a few use. ;-)

  167. Gene Nemetz (10:44:21) “[…] the British taxpayer could save a fortune by abolishing the Met Office […]”

    Obstructing climate research is not the answer, but restructuring appears clearly warranted.

    The mistakes left-wing organizations are making on the climate “issue” are so obvious that no comment is needed, but I think we all need to pause to realize why their nonsense has gone so far: The right-wing believes climate research has no value for society and therefore should not be funded at all; this “logic” is as fundamentally flawed as the alarmist “logic”.

  168. Gene Nemetz (10:44:21) :
    ”Congratulations to Piers Corbyn and everyone at WeatherAction on the latest advances in their solar forecasting technique…
    Well, Corbyn did not deliver anything, and is just being used by Monckton in his own agenda.

    I had predicted very dry weather in California where I live, and since May it has only rained twice. Corbyn still ranks as a successful charlatan in my book.

  169. Leif Svalgaard (06:17:42)

    3) the desire of finding SOME variation ::

    Which is a legitimate and natural line of inquiry.The converse argument that the sun is a perfectly governed heat engine, responding to changes in its radius and conversion of potential energy to mostly irriadiance seems um unnatural.

  170. Leif Svalgaard (11:17:05) :

    Corbyn still ranks as a successful charlatan in my book.

    It’s something to do with quantum mechanics and the moon. Has anyone got a Total Lunar Irradiance graph? :-)

    It’s a cliche, but the wish is the father to the thought with most of the comments here. You’d have thought that it would be more interesting to people that even in the face of a virtually unchanging solar input we’ve still had very large shifts in climate up and down over the past millennia. As far as I can tell the most prominent AGW proponents ascribe this to the, er, Sun.

  171. Note to non-alarmists:
    I think we need to seriously consider that Corbyn is an agent of the alarmists (on a puppet’s mission to undermine the credibility of non-alarmists). [no sarcasm intended]

    Mr. Corbyn: I invite you to prove me wrong.

  172. maksimovich (12:21:35) :
    3)”the desire of finding SOME variation”
    Which is a legitimate and natural line of inquiry.

    But for the wrong reason: as an argument against AGW.

    I have a desire to find variation too, but not for that reason. Should there be any, so more the better,

  173. anna v (14:14:22) :
    Here is a report of Corbyn’s method from an attendant of the “climate fools conference”

    some comments on individual slides:
    10: stop conveniently in mid 2008, before the increases in 2009
    12: from the desrciption it looks like the obsolete Hout&Schatten TSI was used. Or an early Lean.
    28: stops conveniently in 1989, just before the correlation breaks down.
    29: same problem. If averaged over the 60-yr SLAM [see slide 37] cycle, there are two data points with perfecr correlation
    31: geomagnetic activity should show a clear 22-yr cycle too [and there is actually one; not on his plot]
    32: would seem that one has to predict solar activity first one year ahead
    36: the ultimate cyclomania
    the rest: not weve wrong.

    I say ‘snake oil’.

    REPLY: Maybe not snake oil, but some variant. Perhaps “reptile balm”. I get these forecasts from him regularly, and they are so full of self promotion I can hardly stand to read them. Mostly I just press delete rather than try to wade through it. Too much noise. – Anthony

  174. Leif Svalgaard (16:14:57) :
    I say ’snake oil’.
    REPLY: Maybe not snake oil, but some variant. Perhaps “reptile balm”. I get these forecasts from him regularly, and they are so full of self promotion I can hardly stand to read them. Mostly I just press delete rather than try to wade through it. Too much noise. – Anthony

    Monckton has done his own credibility and his cause serious damage by endorsing this nonsense, and by ‘congratulating’ Corbyn and ‘Private Enterprise’.

  175. Global warming explained ?[see graph below] not entirely .I think that a possible cause of global warming trend of 0.5C /CENTURY is the gradual rise of the proton flux especially the higher level ones . OmniWeb has some plots but only to about 1970. It is difficult to get trends going back 100 years.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1900/to:2010./plot/sidc-ssn/from:1900/to:2010/trend

    Has anyone done a similar graph for proton flux [ not solar flux]

  176. I read the essay carefully through a couple of times, and I remain uneasy on the lack of solid justifications of the 200 years oscillation.
    At the paragraph below fig.8 the calculation of the warming shortage expressed in nuclear plants equivalent is badly wrong. Assuming a typical 2000 MW plant, the energy shortage due to 0.19W/m2 less TSI gives more or less 12000 plants, not 21 million ! (12000 is not bad either!) .

  177. Dr Svalgaard’s dismissal of Dr Abdussamatov’s paper, due to taking issue with one figure on historic TSI (and using a conference poster plus an instrument calibration argument for support) seem a little too ambitious.

    The Russian paper does not rest only on historic TSI: it involves a number of other components:

    (1) A serious inspection of climate history (19 cooling periods over 7500 years) which contrasts with the almost creationist approach by the AGW camp of ignoring climate history. Taking the past climate seriously is something that sets apart the pre-AGW and skeptic scientific cultures. Pro-AGW studies such as Pollock et al.’s reconstruction from bore-holes and BACKWARD extrapolation of global temperature – to an asymptotic flat line – illustrate the contempt the AGW movement have for past climate history.

    (2) The transition of the ocean heat budget from positive to negative in 2003 – well documented by several peer reviewed papers. Svalgaard has been silent on this part of Abdussamatov’s paper.

    (3) Recent TSI and the current decrease in sunspots and solar output, and the delayed cycle 24. (As distinct from historic reconstructed TSI.)

    (4) Several decadal and century scale empirically visible climate cycles.

    All these together lead the authors to make bold and highly testable / falsifiable conclusions: climate will stay flat-ish out to 2013 then nosedive. This fulfills the Karl Popper criteria of falsifiability for a scientific hypothesis. Again in striking contrast to AGW models which their rubbery flexibility to explain everything (Popper himself pointed out that a hypothesis that explains everything actually explains nothing).

    Abdussamatov’s paper survives even if figure 3 is wrong.

    2013 is only 4 years away – a shorter time than many research grant timescales. Looking forward at the accuracy or otherwise of their predictions is at least as important as looking back at the TSI reconstruction which is only on out of several supporting pillars of the paper’s arguments.

  178. Could increased proton events coming from the sun lead to increased ozone depletion lead to more direct UVB penetration and eventually to more heating of lower levels of Stratosphere and upper levels troposphere and thus affect the terrestial climate to cause a low level of global warming? You need about 0.005Cper year of background heating to raise the climate by 0.5C /century. The short term decadal warming like 1994-2008 are from natural innternal variation causes like ENSO/PDO,AMO and NAO

    http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/ao/ThompsonPapers/Hartmann.pdfof

  179. Phlogiston (18:50:47) :
    (and using a conference poster plus an instrument calibration argument for support) seem a little too ambitious.
    Of course it does rest on these things alone. It is generally recognized that the early reconstructions were incorrect. My criticism is also based on the deception attempted in Figure 3.

    It is, indeed, likely that there will be some cooling [PDO, etc], but not because of the Sun and not because of the arguments presented.

  180. Leif Svalgaard (22:24:34) :
    Phlogiston (18:50:47) :
    (and using a conference poster plus an instrument calibration argument for support) seem a little too ambitious.

    Of course it does NOT rest on these things alone….

  181. Leif Svalgaard (22:24:34)

    Deception of course would be out of order. But perhaps it was accidental – for instance bulking up the reference list without checking further than the abstracts in some cases..

  182. Phlogiston (17:05:52) :
    Deception of course would be out of order. But perhaps it was accidental – for instance bulking up the reference list without checking further than the abstracts in some cases…
    are you suggesting Abdussamatov did this?

  183. There is little or no doubt that the Sun defines Earth’s climate.

    But I wonder if Dr. Habibullo Abdussamator has considered the multitude of space-age measurements since 1960 that indicate:

    a.) The Sun is NOT a ball of hydrogen, but this lightest of all elements accumulates at the top of most stellar atmospheres;

    b.) The Sun formed on the remnant neutron star that remained after the precursor star exploded 5 Gy ago and ejected all of the material that now orbits the Sun; and

    c.) The Sun is heated by repulsive interactions between neutrons [1-4].

    Has he considered how a compact, energetic solar core might produce changes in solar surface activity?

    1. “Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy”, J. Fusion Energy 19,(2001) 93-98.

    http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf

    2. “€œNeutron repulsion confirmed as energy source”, J. Fusion Energy 20 (2002) 197-201.

    http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf

    3. “On the cosmic nuclear cycle and the similarity of nuclei and stars,” J. Fusion Energy 25 (2006) 107-114.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0511051

    4. ” The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass,” Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) 847-1856.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

Comments are closed.