Levy walks, solar flares, and warming

Scientists find errors in hypothesis linking solar flares to global temperature

From Physorg.com.  h/t to Leif Svalgaard who offers this PDF with this diagram that makes it all clear.

Scientists find errors in hypothesis linking solar flares to global  temperature

Enlarge

In contrast to a previous analysis, a new study has shown that the distributions of (a) the global temperature anomaly by month since 1880 and (b) the solar flare index by day over a few solar cycles are fundamentally different. One feature the detrended data do have in common is self-similarity: the probability density functions are the same on different time scales, which means that neither can be described as Lévy walks. Image credit: Rypdal and Rypdal.

(PhysOrg.com) — The field of climate science is nothing if not complex, where a host of variables interact with each other in intricate ways to produce various changes. Just like any other area of science, climate science is far from being fully understood. As an example, a new study has discredited a previous hypothesis suggesting the existence of a link between solar flares and changes in the earth’s global temperature. The new study points out a few errors in the previous analysis, and concludes that the solar and climate records have very different properties that do not support the hypothesis of a sun-climate complexity linking.

In a handful of studies published in Physical Review Letters between 2003 and 2008, a team from Duke University and the Army Research Office including Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West analyzed data that appeared to show that have a significant influence on . Solar flares, which are large explosions in the sun’s atmosphere that are powered by magnetic energy, vary in time from a few per month to several per day. Although solar flares occur near sunspots, their frequency variation occurs on a much shorter time scale than the 11-year . In their studies, the researchers’ results seemed to show that data from solar flare activity correlates with changes in the global temperature on a short time scale. Specifically, their analysis showed that the two time records can both be characterized by the same Lévy walk process.

However, in the new study, which is also published in , Martin Rypdal and Kristoffer Rypdal of the University of Tromso in Norway have reexamined the data and the previous analysis and noticed some shortcomings. One of the biggest causes of concern is that the previous analysis did not account for larger trends in factors that affect solar flares and global temperature. For instance, the solar cycle has its 11-year periodic trend, where periods of lots of sunspots cause larger numbers of solar flares. Likewise, the global temperature anomaly has numerous other factors (a “multi-decadal, polynomial trend”) that impacts global temperature fluctuations. By not detrending this data, the analysis resulted in abnormally high values of certain variables that pointed to Lévy walk processes. By estimating the untrended data, Rypdal and Rypdal hypothesized that the solar flare records might be described by a Lévy flight, while the global temperature anomaly might obey a distribution called persistent fractional Brownian motion.

Read the entire article here at Physorg.com

A preprint of the paper is available here

Practice making your own Levy walks here

Advertisements

307 thoughts on “Levy walks, solar flares, and warming

  1. Wasn´t it that the sun, that shiny and round thing up there used to warm the earth?. This is really Ravetz´s PNS…
    Let it shine, let it shine, let it shine… ♪♪♪

  2. What we see here is the beginning of a LONG conversation. This smells a bit like the campaign to get rid of the MWP to me.

  3. hehe
    Yep that diagram makes it all clear.looks like a toddler’s drawing.
    They drew the squiggly lines wrong,should have drawn them this way.
    Sorry,couldn’t resist,I know it’s important scientific stuff.I’ll stop now.

  4. As long as GTA is used, nothing will be explained. The moment GTA will be dropped for what it is -irrelevant to climatic changes, at least when taken within its present day variations range-, research will advance.

  5. From the paper:
    We were very surprised that Scafetta and West never show such results in their papers. It seems that they have designed all their tests with the purpose of proving a wanted result, and deliberately avoided analysis that points in other directions.
    I’m surprised that they are surprised. This suggests they haven’t been following the posts and comments on WUWT and other sites. Someone send them a link!

  6. The first thing that strikes me is the GTA graph. How does anyone determine and anomaly of global temp? To do so would require one to know what the normal global temp is. We all know from the geologic record how much temperatures fluctuate globally. So to me the GTA as described here is unknowable.
    The correct method of analogy here would be to compare solar flare index to the global temperature record as known through proxies as they would give an accurate look at what global temperature was doing over the period.
    So this whole post to me is garbage based on inaccurate global temperature analysis.

  7. Plotting flares (bell bottoms) and miniskirts as correlations to the rise and fall of the stock market. Why not.
    Just remember, when we see superstition carry a huge weight in long term warming trends of a hockey stick nature, it is taboo to admit to being superstitious.

  8. Looks like the journalist at Physorg has fallen into a popular statistical beartrap:
    “Rypdal and Rypdal hypothesized that the solar flare records might be described by a Lévy flight, while the global temperature anomaly might obey a distribution called persistent fractional Brownian motion”. Physical phenomena are generally only described by distributions, rather than obeying them, as the paper itself indicates.

  9. David S (09:43:02) :
    Physical phenomena are generally only described by distributions, rather than obeying them, as the paper itself indicates.
    Same trap Scafetta and West were in, if we want to go that route. My own criticism of Scafetta and West is that they used flare counts [as they lamely note are ‘a proxy for the sunspot number’] when they could have used sunspot numbers directly.

  10. Actually, the author of the published story, Lisa Zyga (and maybe the researchers ?), claim:
    As the researchers explain, the results provide more evidence to support the supposedly controversial theory of human-induced global warming.
    This seems to be false logic of the “it does not follow” type (non sequitur).

  11. The chaotic behavior of the system has only been seen for a very brief interval yet mathematicians without knowing the interrelationships of the variables claim they can define a pattern?
    Can one use an elastic metric like GTA and base a hypothesis on a ‘polynomial’ which has terms some of which are unknown and which interact in unknown ways, that has been studied over a brief period in which some polynomials have not fully cycled?

  12. Further on in the article is this: “As the researchers explain, the results provide more evidence to support the supposedly controversial theory of human-induced global warming.”
    I don’t like statements like this. The paper may in fact refute Scafetta and West, but refuting this hypothesis doesn’t generate evidence for AGW. In fact, I would think that showing that the GTA exhibits “persistent fractional Brownian motion” would suggest the opposite. Brownian increments are supposed to be random, independent, and equally likely to occur in either direction. How does this correlate with constantly increasing GHG concentration?

  13. Mike Clark (09:41:17) :
    The first thing that strikes me is the GTA graph.
    The GTA data is the one used by S&W [Scafetta & West] and just about everybody else in this game. So GIGO [if that is what you advertise] starts with S&W.

  14. John F. Hultquist (09:51:42) :
    This seems to be false logic of the “it does not follow” type (non sequitur).
    If we are not distracted by that nonsense [likely injected by the journalist] the paper by R&R ends much more reasonably: “The results provide strong evidence that the stochastic properties of the temperature record are generated by the long-term memory internal dynamics of the climate system and are not linked to the short-memory intermittent fluctuations which characterize the solar output”.

  15. LIEF: are you concerned about CO2 concentrations and emmissions? You said this over on another thread which caught by attention. Just wanted to clarify this
    ————————————————————-
    Leif Svalgaard (10:50:22) :
    Stephen Wilde (10:18:46) :
    You could just have said that the expansion of the atmosphere below the thermosphere is insignificant but then it still wouldn’t be zero would it ?
    If we put the lower border of the thermosphere at 100 km, then the expansion of everything below that would be precisely zero.
    Where does that leave your assertion about the effect of more UV ?
    This has been established for decades. See e.g. http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2007-2/
    There has been a long-term [i.e. not solar cycle related] change in stratospheric temperature, attributed to chemical composition changes [and Global Warming, even]
    8042010 Leif Svalgaard (10:51:01)
    ————————————————————-
    This last statement. About the Stratospheric Temp, attributed to chemical changes, and global warming even….
    Is this something to worry about? Is CO2 doing the changing? The global warming you refer to: Is this the AGW ‘global warming’ or the general warming. (I assume we all agree there is warming)?

  16. R. Craigen (09:22:46) :
    “What we see here is the beginning of a LONG conversation. This smells a bit like the campaign to get rid of the MWP to me.”
    I’m betting that the purpose of the paper is to keep variations in the sun’s output out of the discussion, which is kind of suspicious, as without the sun we wouldn’t be having a climate at all. It may well be that there is no direct coupling between solar explosions and the weather, but one might want to analyze the impulse response of the earth’s magnetosphere and ionosphere to the blasts, and then look at other coupling mechanisms. Maybe we’ve lucked out, and the Earth’s weather patterns are immune to solar strobes. As long as the science is good, we’ll survive, we just can’t take any more frauds.

  17. The two graphs might indicate more similarity if they were displayed in the same timeframe. but the Solat Flare index is displayed at 15000 days and the Global temp is displayed at 45000 days (figuring a rough 30 days per month)

  18. Dave F (10:00:36) :
    So if the sun has an even smaller effect, then what caused the MWP? The LIA?
    This is another example of false logic. The “appeal to ignorance”: ‘What else can it be? BTW, the MWP had the Oort Grand Solar Minimum smack in the middle of it.

  19. I will accept this analysis.
    Now go back and follow the same standards and procedures to connect CO2 and temperature for a period longer than 2000 years.

  20. Considering the complexity of the mechanisms interposed by the Earth system between incoming solar energy, an effect on tropospheric temperature (which is all they are really considering) and then departure of energy from the system this article is a pitifully inadequate attempt to distract from the very idea that solar effects could be significant without having to go to much effort or expense.
    For what it’s worth my view is that they are probably right about short timescales where chaotic variability overlays and obscures the lesser solar and oceanic cycles but almost certainly wrong on longer timescales from say 500 years or more which lead to the longer term climate cycling from events such as the Mediaeval Warm Period to Little Ice Age to the current Modern Warm Period.
    A lazy and disingenuous piece of work in my opinion.

  21. The authors try to correlate in a short term way, but indirectly, sunspots with climate – an exercise in hubris. But we have seen so many times before with climate “correlations” that these are multivariate and polynomial, not linear, since the primary effects are modulated by secondary buffering effects, leading to lag times. These lag times then are superimposed on other primary factors, also with lag times, leading to polynomially related sinusoidal stacking of cycles.
    In other words, their are so many sinks that modulate effects of sun, cosmic rays, water and sea cycles, tectonics, orientation and position of the earth, etc., leading to many equations with many unknowns. It is a fool’s errand to try to simplify.

  22. @ Leif Svalgaard (10:20:25) :
    Hmm, I wasn’t appealing to ignorance to dispute the paper, but instead asking a question. That question was, what other things could cause the climate to vary as it did in the MWP and LIA if it wasn’t the sun, and wasn’t GHGs? I thought the sun was the favored explanation for LIA?
    The logical fallacies only apply to debates, not questions, or every question would be an appeal to ignorance, and science the art of appealing to ignorance, no? 😉

  23. Where at Minute 2:30 a visit to a river: The IGuato River (sp?) by Argentinian physicist Pablo Mauas (sp?) has found the ‘shethru’ (can’t make out what he says actually) goes up and down 3 times during that last century following sun spot levels beautifully (a scientific way of saying ‘so robustly you can’t deny it!).

  24. Hi Leif, the authors note that there is only a monthly GTA available.
    That’s not precisely true. There is a substantial daily global record
    (23,000 stations ) available ( with different spatial coverage ) With some of the new methods ( RomanM and JeffId) that people are using to construct
    GTAs ( getting rid of the Common Anomaly period which requires 20 years of data in the period 1961-90 ) it may be possible
    to construct a good daily record for the globe for the past 40 years
    or so. I havent discussed this with Jeff or Roman ( their method currently
    works on Monthly data ) but it strikes me that some solar studies would
    benefit from a higher resolution ( but shorter time period) GTA. Not sure.
    Also, I’m wondering if they could also getting a better look at things by
    considering Tmax only.

  25. Chaos breeds strange attractors. That the fractal horse head in the scribble is replicated through dimensions is not accidental. Random is an imaginary concept, chaos is a real phenomenon. Science is still in its infancy.

  26. Not every solar cycle is eleven years from start to
    finish. Also, some solar cycles overlap the one before, the one
    after, or both.
    Not every sunspot produces a flare. Not every
    flare comes from a sunspot.
    The level of solar activity may have a +/- cumulative
    effect on earth atmospheric temperatures, but with a lag time
    that takes the change beyond one cycle and into the next.
    I don’t think “discredited” applies to all possible instances…
    and solar flares may only be one form of solar output that
    impacts our atmospheric temps.

  27. This final concluding paragraph from the Phys.org article is revealing of the mind set of the authors of the scientific paper in the post:
    “The theory of anthropogenic global warming consists of a set of logically interconnected and consistent hypotheses,” Martin Rypdal said. “This means that if a cornerstone hypothesis is proven to be false, the entire theory fails. A corresponding theory of global warming of solar origin does not exist. What does exist is a set of disconnected, mutually inconsistent, ad hoc hypotheses. If one of these is proven to be false, the typical proponent of solar warming will pull another ad hoc hypothesis out of the hat. This has been the strategy of Scafetta and West over the years, and we have no illusion that our paper will put them to silence. However, the only scientifically valid strategy to confront these new hypotheses is to shoot down every new missile as they come in, using the most advanced weapons at hand. We believe that this operation was successfully accomplished with respect to the complexity linking hypothesis, but there will be many more battles to be fought until the issue of the contribution of solar variability to recent global warming is settled.”
    http://www.physorg.com/news189845962.html
    To highlight: “However, the only scientifically valid strategy to confront these new hypotheses is to shoot down every new missile as they come in, using the most advanced weapons at hand.”
    While it’s admirable that the scientists are so up-front with their goals and purposes, this kind of pointed “outcome” oriented agenda should make readers cautious when considering what weight to give the conclusions of this paper and other papers who’s authors state similar “outcome” oriented agendas.

  28. johnythelowery (10:07:41) :
    Is this something to worry about? Is CO2 doing the changing? The global warming you refer to: Is this the AGW ‘global warming’ or the general warming. (I assume we all agree there is warming)?
    Compositional changes does affect the stratosphere. This does not mean that that change propagates downwards to change the surface, which is [as far as I can ascertain] what Steve Wilde claims.
    Stephen Wilde (10:24:13) :
    A lazy and disingenuous piece of work in my opinion.
    You must, of course, be referring the S&W’s work. That is the whole point of R&R’s rebuttal.
    bubbagyro (10:26:58) :
    The authors try to correlate in a short term way, but indirectly, sunspots with climate – an exercise in hubris.
    Again, you must be referring to S&W and not R&R
    Dave F (10:45:33) :
    @ Leif Svalgaard (10:20:25) :
    Hmm, I wasn’t appealing to ignorance to dispute the paper, but instead asking a question.
    I was not referring specifically to ignorance on your part, but to the general fallacy behind “what else can it be?”. just because we don’t know another explanation, does not make the one we have correct.
    I thought the sun was the favored explanation for LIA?
    The problem there is that the Sun and the temperatures don’t really vary in phase. Here is a comparison between temps and TSI [a general measure of solar activity]: http://www.leif.org/research/Loehle-Temps-and-TSI.png
    As you can see there is very little similarity.
    steven mosher (10:58:19) :
    Hi Leif, the authors note that there is only a monthly GTA available.
    That’s not precisely true.

    R&R just follow S&W here. If daily GTA is available [notwithstanding all the folks that a Global Temperature is absurd 🙂 ], then daily sunspot numbers numbers are available back to 1818. A worthwhile project for the enthusiasts to embark upon.

  29. Have to agree with bryan, the two graphs do not cover the same time frame 1500 months is approximately 45000 days, not 15000 as the second graph shows. Could be a typo, but if thats the case, then it demonstrates a certain lack of attention to detail.

  30. “These results provide strong evidence that the stochas-
    tic properties of the temperature record are governed by
    the long-memory internal dynamics of the climate sys-
    tem and are not linked to the short-memory intermittent
    fluctuations which characterize the solar output.”
    for those of you commenting on the “brownian motion” aspect, you
    need to realize that they detrended the data with a 4th order poly
    that represented the decadal variations ( read oceanic cycles) in the
    data. S&W missed this step and its fairly well known that to estimate
    H ( Hurst ) you need to take care, as these authors did.

  31. R.S.Brown (11:00:00) :
    I don’t think “discredited” applies to all possible instances…
    and solar flares may only be one form of solar output that
    impacts our atmospheric temps.

    And yet S&W claims that flares [or what they are a proxy for] control more than 60% of the climate variation. This is what the paper of this topic refutes.

  32. jnicklin (11:20:44) :
    Have to agree with bryan, the two graphs do not cover the same time frame 1500 months is approximately 45000 days, not 15000 as the second graph shows. Could be a typo, but if thats the case, then it demonstrates a certain lack of attention to detail.
    If I’m not mistaken that lack of attention is S&W’s, but someone check up on me on that.

  33. So if it isn’t the sun affecting the climate according to sun spot data, why is the
    the Iguato River (sp?) in the Amazon river basin as analysed by Argentinian physicist Pablo Mauas (sp?) , tracking sun spot levels beautifully?
    The connection is………………….
    Well, there isn’t according to this article. But as we know there is, perhaps it’s to do with the photon itself. Is everything to be known about the photon…known?
    DIdn’t the maunder minimum settle this issue? It is too early to tell about our current dead sun (Eddy minimum).

  34. We only see the flares when the sun is facing us, but, when they could occur
    around the otherside into the solar wind and blow back on us…without us seeing the flare, that could ramp up the intensity of the radiation without a corresponding flare obversation? Does a flare which propogates on the otherside, necessarily be there when that location rotates to face us, and therefore, us to observe the flare?

  35. James F. Evans (11:08:41) :
    While it’s admirable that the scientists are so up-front with their goals and purposes
    I think you miss the point. Their statement is not about goal and purpose, but about proper scientific analysis: if there are scores of claims, then the way to separate the wheat from the chaff, is to get rid of the chaff. If a theory survives in spite of persistent attempts to shoot it down, then we gain confidence in it. And that is the goal and purpose.

  36. johnythelowery (11:29:10) :
    the Iguato River (sp?) in the Amazon river basin as analysed by
    For every river that does, there is one that doesn’t 🙂
    There is a selection effect here. If I take 100 rivers, and analyze them then about 5 should show an effect on at the 95% confidence level. If I only publish the ones that do and ignore the rest [after all, they can’t be too interesting since they show no effect], you have a nice selection effect.

  37. Leif Svalgaard (10:20:25) :
    the MWP had the Oort Grand Solar Minimum smack in the middle of it.

    And the dryest years contain record lows along with record highs.
    Long dry spells give way to deluges in the same manner as flipping the light switch. Climate (and Weather) are full of stark and adjacent contrasts as well as longstanding slopes in both directions.
    Yes, the records bear out that these oppositions are in microcosm and macrocosm. There are also relatively quiescent periods.
    The model I would propose would test out even/odd numbers of drivers that can oppose or be caused to oppose, override/be overriden or be caused to overide/be overriden, as well as operate in either short or long terms cycles. Throw in some ellipticity to their strengths. That should make a wild output.

  38. <>
    I referred to S&W, correct.
    As to the shooting of missiles as they appear, this is the ABSOLUTE goal of science. Mr. Evans may not be a scientist, but our goal as scientists is to attack (nullify) every new hypothesis. Withstanding such attacks over time leads to theory. We expect our own hypotheses to be nullified; this we not ony deserve, but expect and embrace.

  39. I cannot understand why anybody talks about TSI at all, when what is found to be correlated with climate / temperature is various aspects of the entire double cycle, particularly cycle length and magnetic variation.
    To use TSI as a proxy for anything interesting is just silly, and the concentration of this paper “solar flares” smacks very heavily of a strawman.

  40. Leif: Agreed on the Iguato river. I’m going to see if I can find out who that guy is and if he ever published and why that hit him on the head like you did me with it. The sun is bloody annoying actually now that I think about it! A sort of Enigma in front of your face! Sending us off down blind alleys with spots and flares and non-barrycenters or not, cycles, etc. Even Oliver thinks it’s a neutron bomb encassed in a Iron core!

  41. Leif Svalgaard (12:12:06) :
    BTW in http://www.leif.org/research/Loehle-Temps-and-TSI.png the two bottom graphs show different estimates of solar activity, derived from different cores by different teams and methods. Note that they agree rather well, but not with the temperature reconstruction. Now, you can always claim that the only good temperature reconstructions are the ones that agree. There are people who do that, you are welcome to join their ranks 🙂

  42. I feel like i’ve been rock face climbing for two years and I look down and i’m about 3 feet off the ground!!! : (

  43. Dr. Svalgaard presents Evans (11:08:41) statement: “While it’s admirable that the scientists are so up-front with their goals and purposes”.
    And Dr. Svalgaard (11:35:21) responds: “I think you miss the point. Their statement is not about goal and purpose, but about proper scientific analysis…”
    I accept your point that part of the statement goes to proper scientific analysis…which is as you say, “to seperate the wheat from the chaff” and focus on one individual hypothesis at a time.
    But I think it’s also fair to say the authors of the paper have an “outcome” oriented agenda, as evinced by this statement: “This has been the strategy of Scafetta and West over the years, and we have no illusion that our paper will put them to silence.”
    It would seem that Martin Rypdal, an author of the posted paper, attributes motive to Scafetta and West, but is blind to the motive his statement reveals, “put them to silence”, or maybe Rypdal doesn’t care about whether people knows his agenda — in fact, it would seem from such a statement in the Phys.org article that, in fact, he does want people to know his agenda.
    And, as stated above, knowing Rypdal’s agenda should make readers cautious when assessing the his work.

  44. Craig Goodrich (12:09:38) :
    To use TSI as a proxy for anything interesting is just silly, and the concentration of this paper “solar flares” smacks very heavily of a strawman.
    TSI is a very good proxy for solar activity in itself as it is modulated by magnetic activity. The cycle length etc is just voodoo and has no credence. BTW, the ‘TSI’ I referred to is actually derived from magnetic activity, namely cosmic ray modulation by the Sun’s magnetic field.

  45. steven mosher (11:21:57) :
    for those of you commenting on the “brownian motion” aspect, you
    need to realize that they detrended the data with a 4th order poly
    that represented the decadal variations ( read oceanic cycles) in the
    data. S&W missed this step and its fairly well known that to estimate
    H ( Hurst ) you need to take care, as these authors did.

    Random walks can happen it random environments, with random potentials, this has been rigorously proved eg Yasha Sinai 1982.
    That there is no prohibition to random excursions that my happen from time to time is also a legitimate line of enquiry.
    The Ruelle conjecture is that random excursions can exhibit historical behaviour without being recurrent is a constraint on the degree of certainty that can be applied to modelling complex systems where the qualities are not known and only a statistical description is available.
    The Almighty Chance is a troublesome property.
    http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/0862.html

  46. Referencing the concluding paragraph:
    “The theory of anthropogenic global warming consists of a set of logically interconnected and consistent hypotheses,” Martin Rypdal said. “This means that if a cornerstone hypothesis is proven to be false, the entire theory fails. A corresponding theory of global warming of solar origin does not exist. What does exist is a set of disconnected, mutually inconsistent, ad hoc hypotheses. If one of these is proven to be false, the typical proponent of solar warming will pull another ad hoc hypothesis out of the hat. This has been the strategy of Scafetta and West over the years, and we have no illusion that our paper will put them to silence. However, the only scientifically valid strategy to confront these new hypotheses is to shoot down every new missile as they come in, using the most advanced weapons at hand.”
    The idea that one should try and shoot down a new hypothesis is, of course, a vital process for the advancement of science. To assume beforehand that all hypothesis regarding the sun and climate change will be shot down is, of course, a bias, and is a clear statement of an agenda.
    The question then arises: Why is there no consorted effort to ‘shoot down’ the notion of positive feedbacks to increasing CO2, the ultimate cornerstone to the AGW theory? On the contrary, there has been a large, expensive and consorted effort to FIND evidence of the persistent positive feedbacks, with little success, yet no one is ever applauded for ‘shooting down’ the feedback cornerstone! It is quite obvious that the AGW theory is treated as sacrosanct by a large segment of the atmospheric science community, which explains why so little has been accomplished in the field over the last 20 years.

  47. The diagram looks like Brownian motion as generated, of course, by a nice hot cup of tea, much like the Infinity Improbability Drive from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. (h/t the late Douglas Adams)
    Paul 🙂

  48. Leif: Okay. Agree about my daft River stuff. But, let’s hear Pablo Mauas out…
    PABLO MAUAS and RIVER FLOW CORRELATIONS WITH SUN ACNE
    ‘……………………..
    Flowrate of World’s 4th Largest River Linked to Solar Cycle
    Monday, 05 April 2010 22:11 Dr. David Whitehouse .A new study has postulated a link between solar activity and the flowrate of one of the largest rivers in the world, and suggests that it will lose water as the current low solar activity continues.
    The quantity of water flowing down a river is a good climatic indicator since it integrates rainfall over large areas. In a paper submitted to the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Pablo Mauas and Andrea Buccino of the Institute of Astrophysics, and Eduardo Flamenco of the National Institute of Agricultural Technology, Argentina, follow-up a previous study of the influence of solar activity on the flow of the Paraná River – the fourth largest river in the world by outflow – and second only to the Amazon in South America.
    They find that the unusual minimum of solar activity observed in recent years has a correlation with very low water levels seen in the Paraná’s flowrate. Additionally they report historical evidence of low water levels during the Little Ice Age.
    They also consider flowrates for three other rivers (Colorado, San Juan and Atuel), as well as snow levels in the Andes. They conclude, after eliminating secular trends and smoothing out the solar cycle, there is a strong positive correlation between the residuals of both the Sunspot Number and the flowrates of these rivers as well.
    Looking more closely at the data they say that the correlation between Sunspot Number and low water flow rates is stronger than that between flow rates and the incidence of Galacric Cosmic Rays suggesting that the chief influence on climate here is probably changes in solar irradiance and not changes in cosmic rays affecting levels of cloudiness over the region studied.
    Both results imply that higher solar activity corresponds to more intense precipitation, in summer and in winter, in the large river basins of South America that have been studied.
    The correlation between sunspot number and the rivers’ behavior has been tracked over more than one solar cycle suggests to the researchers that the low levels of activity expected for Solar Cycle 24 will result in a dry period for the river Parana in particular over the next decade.
    Usually studies that investigate the effect of solar activity levels on climate have been carried out in the northern hemisphere and have been limited to studying Northern Hemisphere temperatures or sea surface temperatures. In recent years however some correlation has been postulated between solar activity and the Asian monsoon. This study is among the first to link the sun’s prolonged solar minimum at the end of cycle 23 to decadal variations in the weather.
    Feedback: david.whitehouse@thegwpf.org This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
    …………………………………………………………………………………………………’

  49. Leif Svalgaard (10:07:02) :
    John F. Hultquist (09:51:42) :
    This seems to be false logic of the “it does not follow” type (non sequitur).
    If we are not distracted by that nonsense [likely injected by the journalist] the paper by R&R ends much more reasonably: “The results provide strong evidence that the stochastic properties of the temperature record are generated by the long-term memory internal dynamics of the climate system and are not linked to the short-memory intermittent fluctuations which characterize the solar output”.
    I thought that there are several solar cycles over and above the 11/22 year sunspot cycles. Are there and how do they fit in with this theory.

  50. For those asking about Levy Flights and fractals.
    Persistent brownian motion is just a random walk in which the size of each step is described by a gaussian (normal) distribution.
    A Levy flight (a motion often found in such things as the flight of an Albatross and animal foraging behavior) is just a random walk in which the size of each step is described by a power-law distribution (i.e. many small steps, fewer and fewer long steps).
    That is, brownian motion has a definable scale (defined by the mean of that normal distribution), whereas a Levy flight does not (and is therefore a type of fractal).

  51. James F. Evans (12:21:25) :
    It would seem that Martin Rypdal, an author of the posted paper, attributes motive to Scafetta and West, but is blind to the motive his statement reveals, “put them to silence”
    It is S&W that have an agenda, putting an agenda to silence is what climate skeptics are trying to do, no?
    And, as stated above, knowing Rypdal’s agenda should make readers cautious when assessing the his work.
    This applies only to people that do not understand the paper or the issue. If I claim that 2+2=5 because my agenda says that modern science is all wrong and is one big conspiracy against the good people who only believe in observation and measurement [e.g. what they can see with their own lying eyes] and all the rest is theory and assumptions built on mathematical models [using the false assertion that 2+2=4] who no-one understands, then that claim can be refuted regardless of what my agenda is.

  52. Does this make sense?
    The polar regions do not get much direct heating from solar radiation, far less than the tropical regions. Thus if you were trying to match up “pulses” from the Sun with temperatures, you certainly would not want to use the GTA which smears together all the regions. You should concentrate on tropical temperatures, as there you would find the strongest signal of heating influenced by solar variances.
    Does that sound reasonable? Has anyone tried it?

  53. Leif Svalgaard (11:14:37) :
    “”Hmm, I wasn’t appealing to ignorance to dispute the paper, but instead asking a question. ”
    I was not referring specifically to ignorance on your part, but to the general fallacy behind “what else can it be?”. just because we don’t know another explanation, does not make the one we have correct.”
    But that is the summation of the entire IPCC argument for accepting the AGW theory and making life more difficult for every man, woman and child on the planet. “Our models don’t work if we do not include greenhouse gases as the main driver of late 20th century warming, so CO2 must be the reason!” Why is the IPCC argument not immediately recognized as a fallacy by all reasoning people?
    (I remember almost falling off my chair when I first read it in the Executive Summary, then sat dumbfounded for months as the mainstream scientific community nodded in unison as if the argument was iron clad!)

  54. Somewhat OT, but given the recent interest in stats, and Bayes in particular, I thought this was interesting as an example of a practical application of Bayes Theorem. These kinds of things are common in many applications, including the “Help” function in MS Office. It also illustrates a weakness – so draw whatever conclusions you’d like from that. 🙂
    To me it illustrates the danger of not taking proper care in selecting a statistical/probability approach for the task, and ignoring the logic/common sense required to address adequately the issue. I think far too many people are very mechanical in their approach to the use of statistical analysis, when they should not be. Statistics merely inform our opinion and actions, they should never decide.
    From: Risks Digest – http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/26.01.html#subj22
    The next escalation in the spam war: circumventing Bayesian filters
    Jonathan Kamens
    Thu, 01 Apr 2010 01:58:51 -0400
    I’ve been using bogofilter , a Bayesian
    spam filter, to filter
    email coming into my inbox for over seven years; I even wrote and maintain
    the Milter that integrates bogofilter with
    sendmail . Until quite recently, it has
    been remarkably effective. For example, in the past year, an average of 935
    spam messages per day have passed through my bogofilter, and it successfully
    identified over 98% of them as spam, with very, very few false positives.
    All that changed on 10 Mar. Since then, the success rate of bogofilter has
    plummeted from over 98% to less than 85%. In real terms, this means I’m
    being forced to at least briefly eyeball well over 100 spam messages per day
    to confirm that they’re spam so I can tell bogofilter to retrain them,
    whereas before I was seeing less than 20. Yowza! (You can see a 60-day
    history of my bogofilter stats showing this dramatic drop on my home page
    .)
    The cause of the success rate plunge appears to messages such as this one
    , each of which
    contains, below the actual spam payload, a sequence of random text snippets
    on many different topics.
    These messages are coming from many different IP addresses, so it would seem
    that they’re being generated by a botnet.
    I did a quick statistical analysis of a small subset of these messages that
    I’ve received, 35 of them, and discovered that these 35 messages contained
    10,860 unique words, of which over 68% appeared in only one of the messages,
    81% appeared in one or two messages, 87% appeared in 1-3 messages, 90%
    appeared in 1-4 messages, and 98% appeared in less than half of the
    messages. This would seem to indicate that the text snippets being used by
    the spam generator vary widely and are thus likely to hit upon keywords that
    previously occurred in legitimate email.
    It would seem that somebody has figured out how to do a pretty good job of
    outsmarting Bayesian filters. Frankly, I’m rather surprised that it’s taken
    this long.
    I’ve started a discussion about this on the bogofilter mailing list, which
    those of you who are curious can follow at
    http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.mail.bogofilter.general/11492.

  55. Quoting from Rypdal & Rypdal’s preprint” “….These results provide strong evidence that the stochastic properties of the temperature record are governed by the long-memory internal dynamics of the climate system and are not linked to the short-memory intermittent fluctuations which characterize the the solar output.” One is hard pressed to understand where L. Zyga came up with his or her conclusions. I suggest they be ignored. I see no problem with the math and must accept R&R’s work, until someone more qualified can show it to be in error. I do have many of the same concerns, already stated by others in this thread. I am not comfortable with any attempt to extrapolate their conclusions further then the authors have stated in their paper.

  56. Sorry if this is OT. I know other people have implied this, my apologies for not giving proper reference credit but I think we might have the beginning of a counter hypothesis to CO2 based AGW – or significant AGW in general – to explain the temperature increases for last 30 years. In particular this hits off some of the mechanisms described in Wilde’s (I think it was Wilde) in the recent post on a new model for climate a few days back.
    In summary, we know that insolation levels do not seem to correlate well (if at all) with global temps… but we know that virtually all energy (with the exception of energy coming from the earth’s core) comes from the sun. We know, as is well demonstrated by every El Nino, that the oceans can have massive impacts on global temps. After all, they store 1000x more energy than the atmsphere. Note as well recent work on the faint sun paradox which does not show the “expected” CO2 levels – which leaves the oceans, water vapor and clouds to explain (anything else I’m missing)?
    If insolation did match temps we would see measurable fluctuations every 11-or-so years, and on longer cycles, that correlate with solar input. If CO2 and atmospheric water vapor were the cause (as implied by Hansen and the “consensus”) then we should have seen continued increases in temp over the last few years which we haven’t.
    This could be the big chicken and the egg. Currently the thinking seems to be that the atmosphere drives OHC… but the oceans have shown us (through El Nino) that they can collect and expell energy quite effectively on somewhat random timeframes. To quote Henry chance (I think that’s the poster’s name) from a recent discussion, perhaps atmospheric temps are really a “lagging indicator” of changes in solar input via the ocean?
    Don’t get me wrong, clouds are hugely important in controlling input into the system, UHI/LULC is important to understanding the behavior of the other 29-or-so-% of the earth’s surface, and Greenhouse Effect is important to keeping us insulated from outer space… but the idea that GHG control it all seems somewhat backwards. In particular, the notion that CO2 drove atmspheric water increase, and that between them they drove all the temperature increases measured since 1980 seems patently ridiculous. How can the portion of the system (atmosphere) that contains 1/1000 of another (oceans) – note: that’s without even including net energy stored in the land surface – control all of it?
    Dr. Svalgaard
    Where am I wrong here?

  57. bubbagyro (12:04:37) wrote: “As to the shooting of missiles as they appear, this is the ABSOLUTE goal of science. Mr. Evans may not be a scientist, but our goal as scientists is to attack (nullify) every new hypothesis. Withstanding such attacks over time leads to theory. We expect our own hypotheses to be nullified; this we not ony deserve, but expect and embrace.”
    Yes, I’ll stand corrected.
    Perhaps, also, the goal should be to not assume prior theories are infalable and be open to challenges to those older theories. Sometimes, it seems such is not the case.
    So, it depends on the quality and quantity of data, observations & measurements, methodology, and analysis & interpretation.
    Close scrutiny with reasonable skepticism and an open-mind should be applied to all scientific papers.
    Sometimes there is a thin line between proper scientific falsification and personal agendas.

  58. johnythelowery (12:43:13) :
    that the chief influence on climate here is probably changes in solar irradiance and not changes in cosmic rays affecting levels of cloudiness
    go tell that to the Svensmark enthusiasts. This precisely illustrates the point, that the new hypotheses [actually an old one, the Nile is also rumored to follow the sun, e.g. in this marvelous piece: http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf ] are disconnected to some older ones and the whole thing is a mess.
    SandyInDerby (12:45:30) :
    I thought that there are several solar cycles over and above the 11/22 year sunspot cycles. Are there and how do they fit in with this
    There seems to be a ~100 year cycle, but it is not clear if this is a REAL cycle or just coincidence or some natural slow variation of solar parameters.

  59. @ Ian W (09:59:00) :
    The chaotic behavior of the system has only been seen for a very brief interval yet mathematicians without knowing the interrelationships of the variables claim they can define a pattern?
    Can one use an elastic metric like GTA and base a hypothesis on a ‘polynomial’ which has terms some of which are unknown and which interact in unknown ways, that has been studied over a brief period in which some polynomials have not fully cycled?

    There are tests for chaotic behavior, but they are not simple or totally accurate. Generally, they are based on knowledge or “probability” of the initial, and boundary, conditions, often derived from what is called “prior” information, meaning that which is from scientifically, and/or experimentally established relationships and data, and often as the probability of applicable behavior stated by a “expert” in the field(s) and then compared to truly random behavior.
    Every tree in a forest is unique in some respect, but discerning one from the other can be difficult. We can easily spot the difference between oaks and pine even tho both are trees, but may not be able to tell one pine from another. Initial and boundary conditions must be defined in terms of the question asked. Ask a fuzzy question and you’ll get a fuzzy answer. 🙂

  60. Jim Clarke (12:54:32) :
    Why is the IPCC argument not immediately recognized as a fallacy by all reasoning people?
    Because cleverly done propaganda can be very persuasive.
    Yarmy (12:57:04) :
    That Levy walk resembles the route I take home when returning from the pub on a Saturday evening.
    If so, I’m amazed you made it home.
    NickB. (13:17:43) :
    Dr. Svalgaard, Where am I wrong here?
    who says you are wrong?
    James F. Evans (13:27:24) :
    the goal should be to not assume prior theories are infalable and be open to challenges to those older theories.
    This is what scientists do and are all the time. There is no greater joy than overthrowing old dogma.
    Close scrutiny with reasonable skepticism and an open-mind should be applied to all scientific papers.
    This is wrong. Papers are judged by their inherent merit and skepticism/open-mind has not and should not have any influence here.

  61. From: Jim Clarke (12:54:32)
    But that is the summation of the entire IPCC argument for accepting the AGW theory and making life more difficult for every man, woman and child on the planet. “Our models don’t work if we do not include greenhouse gases as the main driver of late 20th century warming, so CO2 must be the reason!” Why is the IPCC argument not immediately recognized as a fallacy by all reasoning people?
    My television remote requires 2 AA batteries. Therefore only when you include 2 good AA batteries does the television work, and television programming exists at all.
    The first part of the statement is considered valid by around 90% of the population, as most people have lost or never had the ability to use those funny buttons and knobs that may be present on a modern remote-equipped TV, if people know they exist at all. (And with these new flatscreens with the buttons at the rear to the side, they sure aren’t advertising they exist, and they’re barely labeled to boot.) Also, in the “all things are relative” file, if someone is not witnessing something then it does not exist. As I have said when stopping my dial-up connection, “time to shut down the internet for the night.” 😉

  62. Let me see if I’m following along.
    Scafetta and West analyzed data without de-trending it and it appeared to show that solar flares have a significant influence on global temperature. They appeared to be following the same random walk.
    Rypdal and Rypdal analyzed the same data, but de-trended it and the correlation went away.
    The concern is that by not de-trending the data, Scafetta and West unintentionally included factors other than solar flares in their analysis.
    Correct?

  63. @ Jim Clarke (12:54:32) :
    What scientists, technicians, engineers, etc. often fail to recognize is the hierarchy of decision making. Often, a decision must be made, at some level of responsibility, regardless of whether any data, etc. supports, is even available, or explicitly pertains. These are cultural, and/or political, etc. issues. Pay grade counts.

  64. [quote Curiousgeorge (14:19:27) :
    @ Jim Clarke (12:54:32) :
    What scientists, technicians, engineers, etc. often fail to recognize is the hierarchy of decision making. Often, a decision must be made, at some level of responsibility, regardless of whether any data, etc. supports, is even available, or explicitly pertains.
    [/quote]

    Engineers understand that. I’m sure scientists do too.
    The problem is the green movement has a history of pushing bad ideas as solutions to over-hyped problems.
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d24b56MmIts&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0]

  65. Can the cosmic rays perhaps change the Solar Radiance photon/wave itself. There appears to be a collision, and during high sunspots, the cosmic sourced radiation doesn’t come through. So, what is the physics going on there?
    Secondly, are Photons generic?

  66. NASA describes Forbush decreases or events as declining in a matter of hours while taking a few days to increase again. There is about a 2-4 day delay from a coronal mass ejection to the Forbush decrease at Earth.
    It would appear that the impact of such rapid changes would be superimposed on periodic, chaotic and Brownian motion of atmospheric and oceanic circulation which vary from hours to centuries.
    Would it not require detailed high resolution measurements with hour level resolution to quantify and distinguish these features?

  67. Leif Svalgaard said :
    “Compositional change does affect the stratosphere. This does not mean that that change propagates downwards to change the surface, which is [as far as I can ascertain] what Steve Wilde claims.”
    I’ve laid this canard to rest several times but Leif keeps repeating it.
    It appears to be the rate of upward energy transfer that changes from layer to layer of the Earth system. I do not propose that energy is ever propagated downwards.
    The evidence for varying rates of upward energy transfer is the observed differential warming and cooling of troposphere, stratosphere, and the upper layers. They never warm or cool in parallel. All seem to react differently to stimuli from above and below.
    Whether the rate of energy transfer is affected wholly by events emanating at the surface (the oceans) or whether there is a contribution from solar events is the critical issue and I am open minded about it but on the balance of the evidence overall I do not feel that Leif’s level of apparent certainty is justified.

  68. Curiousgeorge (14:19:27) :
    “Often, a decision must be made…”
    With no evidence of a crisis, or even a problem that can be rectified, there is certainly no need for a decision! In fact, taking aggressive action to solve a problem that does not exist is sure to make things a lot worse. Again, this seems self evident.

  69. NickB. (13:17:43) :
    If insolation did match temps we would see measurable fluctuations every 11-or-so years, and on longer cycles, that correlate with solar input.
    We do see measurable fluctuations, in the rate of change, that correlate with solar input, over 11-or-so year cycles. But only within the range of temperature change that can be explained by the 11 -or-so-year cycles in TSI. These are “wiggles” in the longer ~0.6C/century rise in global temperatures; they cannot explain the long term trend itself.
    How can the portion of the system (atmosphere) that contains 1/1000 of another (oceans) – note: that’s without even including net energy stored in the land surface – control all of it?
    Of the energy received from the sun at the equator, most of it is transported poleward through atmospheric circulation, not ocean circulation. Winds are far more important than you given them credit for. What we see as 30-60 year climate cycles may be the result of shifts in the jet stream. When the jet stream moves poleward, winds become more zonal, with maritime winds providing more moderate (warmer) climes for the continents. When it moves back to the south, the jet stream becomes more loopy, with meridional flows bringing more continental/polar air masses to dominate continental climates. Thus atmospheric circulation can have a lot to do with climate cycles.

  70. NickB. (13:17:43) :
    Brilliant NickB!
    They tell us that our climate is a fragile balance controlled by the atmosphere. Yet the atmosphere constitutes a negligible fraction of the thermal mass here.
    Is it possible that the long-term internal dynamics of the climate system may be mainly due to dissipation of heat between the ocean and the atmosphere through evaporation, cloud formation and precipitation?
    They tell us that our climate is a fragile balance controlled by the atmosphere.
    Yet life on earth has survived millions of years with severe climate changes.

  71. Leif Svalgaard (13:52:12) :
    who says you are wrong?
    Well, you’re the sun guy and when someone floats a specious theory (especially anything involving the sun) you have no trouble making your objections known… which is really another way of saying you have a critical eye and are bluntly honest (both of which are good things). I wanted to make sure what I said, at least on first glance, passed the “Leif Smell Test” as I call it, so barring additional comment I will say thank you and continue to pursue this train of thought. Much appreciated 😀
    One additional note, this thinking appears to be in keeping with Beenstock and Reingewertz (WUWT Discussion, Paper). The paper examines three variables – temperature, irradiance, and GHG – and finds that changes in GHG have a temporary effect on temperature and that a 1 W/m2 change in irradiance have an effective permanent effect of 1.47 C.
    Of particular interest IMO are Tables 3 and 4 in the paper. The first shows “Impulse Responses” (i.e. time effects on temperature) which for irradiance is 0 effect year 1, 1.44 C year 2, dipping back down to .75 C year 3 and then eventually trending back up to 1.47 C as the permanent effect. Table 4 – Contributions to Global Warming in the 20th Century – shows how these play out in their analysis (GHG has been increasing over the period after all).
    They appear to use the same irradiance data as: Lean, J. & Rind, D. How will earth’s surface temperature change in future decades.
    Geophysical Research Letters 36, 1-5 (2009) (Paper, discussion on Pielke Sr.’s site here)
    Cheers!

  72. johnythelowery (14:48:48) :
    Photons generic?
    Leave photons alone, will you 🙂
    photons are the exchange currency for electromagnetic interactions, like money is the exchange medium for some human transactions, and are just as impervious to the nature of the transaction.

  73. NickB. (15:33:06) :
    They appear to use the same irradiance data as: Lean, J. & Rind, D.
    They use the Lean 2005 series for TSI, and newer reconstructions [this is a rapidly improving field] show much less variation, c.f. the red[dish] curves on http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-recon3.png
    It was thought just a few years ago that TSI had two components: one that was simply proportional to the sunspot number plus one that was a long term variation, e.g. from the Maunder minimum to today. The latter component being the largest [simply because there is no clear and large 11-yr cycle in climate]. The pendulum is swinging towards abandoning the long-term component. Even Lean is doubting that long-term variations exist. See the last line of the green text in the lower right corner of http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEAN2008.png [from a talk in 2008 by Lean].

  74. @ Jim Clarke (15:16:46) :
    Curiousgeorge (14:19:27) :
    “Often, a decision must be made…”
    With no evidence of a crisis, or even a problem that can be rectified, there is certainly no need for a decision! In fact, taking aggressive action to solve a problem that does not exist is sure to make things a lot worse. Again, this seems self evident.

    To do nothing, is also a decision. I’m not differentiating between a correct or incorrect decision with regard to any real or imagined future of this planet. As has been said: “The data do not support any conclusions at present”. Yet, decisions are being demanded and made nonetheless. Whether those decisions will ultimately benefit or harm all or any part of life on this planet has yet to be seen.

  75. Stephen Wilde (14:53:31) :
    It appears to be the rate of upward energy transfer that changes from layer to layer of the Earth system. I do not propose that energy is ever propagated downwards.
    sigh. What is rate of upwards energy transfer? Joule per second [=Watt] per square meter? or what?

  76. Stephen Wilde (14:53:31) :
    I do not propose that energy is ever propagated downwards.
    Right now, the Sun is warming my back. Energy seems to be coming downwards…

  77. uhh, Leif? Where might you be located that said Sun is warming your back? Please post and I will buy a ticket to your location post haste.

  78. Pamela Gray (16:57:53) :
    uhh, Leif? Where might you be located that said Sun is warming your back? Please post and I will buy a ticket to your location post haste.
    California: 38.2318 North and 122.5618 West [during breaks in the clouds:-)].

  79. Yarmy (12:57:04) : That Levy walk resembles the route I take home when returning from the pub on a Saturday evening. Leif Svalgaard (13:52:12) : If so, I’m amazed you made it home.
    Not really. Chaos is deterministic. Solar flare systems, global climate systems, and Yarmy’s staggering home are NOT random (i.e. not stochastic). Those systems may or may not be connected, but randomness is not phenomenological.

  80. Why only use solar flare influence? Perhaps because they wanted to show an effect that would punch through the greenhouse effect (GHE) before the GHE had time to react?
    Surely, the only thermal signal to reach Earth’s surface would be in the greenhouse ‘window’ anyhow.
    Wow! Would this be a falsification for CO2 warming? The slowly closing ‘window’ that CO2 obscures for outgoing long-wave radiation (OLR) is also slowly closing for insolation!
    GHE works both ways!
    This isn’t what I was going to post, but the thought just struck me. 🙂
    Best regards, suricat.

  81. You are 2.2 degrees straight south of me and the sun is just now popping through the breaks.
    No warmth to speak of but the Ravens bicker all day long.

  82. But……like Hansen, CRU, Etc…..I really prefer hot models I can manipulate into being even hotter? : )

  83. …Can i inquire if you fit into the Hot Model mold or, with manipulation, even the hotter one?

  84. Leif Svalgaard (16:11:52) :
    It was thought just a few years ago that TSI had two components: one that was simply proportional to the sunspot number plus one that was a long term variation, e.g. from the Maunder minimum to today. The latter component being the largest [simply because there is no clear and large 11-yr cycle in climate]. The pendulum is swinging towards abandoning the long-term component. Even Lean is doubting that long-term variations exist. See the last line of the green text in the lower right corner of http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEAN2008.png [from a talk in 2008 by Lean].
    Wow – interesting! In the B&R post I was the one who kept bringing up that the data might be crap (which necessarily invalidates anything built on top of it). At the time I was thinking more about the surface temps than solar input, but the same rule would apply. I couldn’t get behind the paywall to see what they had actually used, but I am curious… this implies that the party line story here: http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/2009/articles/climate-change-incoming-sunlight might be overstated for natural variability. It would also imply that the TSI records used for both B&R and Lean and Rind are crap.
    Is there anything definitive we can say about TSI over the last hundred or so years, what about 1978-on (when satellites came onto the scene)? It seems like we’ve gone from solar constant to highly variable sun to slightly variable sun back to solar constant.
    I’m not a Scafetta proponent (i.e. thinking that solar variability directly correlates and explains more or less all things) although I do like his first name. I had, however, given a certain amount of reliance on the TSI chart from NOAA being a reasonable representation for the last 50-100 years. Don’t take it personally, consider this a rhetorical gripe of mine, but it’s more than a little frustrating to try and contemplate the workings of the climate when the story around the baseline input keeps changing 🙂
    As always appreciate the replies and conversation. Best Regards.

  85. Do we really need astudy to tell us the obvious that Solar is regular cyclic and global temp is not, as it varies according to many inputs, solar, ocean, gases, volcanic, albedo, etc!!! Waste of money and time imo!!!

  86. NickB. (17:40:47) :
    Is there anything definitive we can say about TSI over the last hundred or so years
    Evidence is mounting that TSI returns to the very same value at every solar minimum [once one gets the calibration and compensation for degradation right]. This would indicate no long-term variation. Bill Livingston has carefully over the past four decades measured the solar temperature at disk center when there was no magnetic region there and states that to observational accuracy [1 degree or] the temperature does not vary with time, so the Sun is constant as far as we can tell, except when magnetically active.

  87. NickB. (17:40:47) :
    it’s more than a little frustrating to try and contemplate the workings of the climate when the story around the baseline input keeps changing 🙂
    It’s called progress, and is good.

  88. Basil (15:17:18) :
    NickB. (13:17:43) :
    If insolation did match temps we would see measurable fluctuations every 11-or-so years, and on longer cycles, that correlate with solar input.
    We do see measurable fluctuations, in the rate of change, that correlate with solar input, over 11-or-so year cycles. But only within the range of temperature change that can be explained by the 11 -or-so-year cycles in TSI. These are “wiggles” in the longer ~0.6C/century rise in global temperatures; they cannot explain the long term trend itself.
    How can the portion of the system (atmosphere) that contains 1/1000 of another (oceans) – note: that’s without even including net energy stored in the land surface – control all of it?
    Of the energy received from the sun at the equator, most of it is transported poleward through atmospheric circulation, not ocean circulation. Winds are far more important than you given them credit for. What we see as 30-60 year climate cycles may be the result of shifts in the jet stream. When the jet stream moves poleward, winds become more zonal, with maritime winds providing more moderate (warmer) climes for the continents. When it moves back to the south, the jet stream becomes more loopy, with meridional flows bringing more continental/polar air masses to dominate continental climates. Thus atmospheric circulation can have a lot to do with climate cycles.
    ____________________________
    Basil there are changes in the meridional flow patterns that change in sync with the 27.32 day patterns of the Lunar declinational tides in the atmosphere, and also in it’s 18.6 year long Mn periods. These patterns work much the same in pumping the equatorial air into the mid-latitudes where they become mostly zonal in nature, it is my hypothesis that these effects are helping to drive the pulses in circulation that modulate the Thermostatic effects that Willis Eschenbach subscribes to, in short term pulses of forcings off center, that then average back, to keep it more stable in the long run.

  89. Just a few comments on this new paper by Rypdal and Rypdal.
    I suspect that it is another case similar to Benestad and Schmidt’s case. This authors have mistaken Levy-flights for Levy-walks. We are talking about Levy-walks not Levy-flights. Moreover, we have explicitly excluded in our papers a direct connection between the “increments” contrary to what Rypdal and Rypdal claim in their paper.
    Levy-Walks are a property of the smooth component of a signal which emerge from a microscopic intermittency. Because of this, detrending the data in any way can destroy any memory associated with any statistics the data might have that develops in the time-frame dimension. Moreover, processed Levy-Walk signal may present increments that may indeed look like fractal Brownian motion.
    The issue is why, when the data are analyzed without improper manipulation such as detrending, they suggest a link between solar activity and climate. Can somebody explain the mystery? 🙂
    Moreover, the link between solar activity and climate at multiple time scales is proven in numerous and more recent papers of mine using numerous other records at multiple time scales.
    Apparently, Rypdal and Rypdal have not read any of them: they stopped at a paper in 2003. Finally, the “put them to silence” it is quite psychological reveling. Who knows what will happen. We will see. 🙂
    About the first comment by Leif Svalgaard, “My own criticism of Scafetta and West is that they used flare counts [as they lamely note are ‘a proxy for the sunspot number’] when they could have used sunspot numbers directly.”
    I believe that Leif does not know what we intend for Levy-Walk and why we use a specific solar flare record. (very few people know what Levy-Walk is). The figure he suggested above refers to Levy-Flights in the space dimension, we talk about Levy-walk in the time-dimension. Moreover, we also used sunspot number in another paper and found similar results. So, the result is very general.
    Sun and climate are quite linked!

  90. Leif: I’ll not mention photons again. Don’t tell Pam but my knowledge of this stuff is not rock star….more roadie…or lower….Catering maybe. If you ever recall that thread, i’d love to read that thread you had with Arnold as I see he was a co-author of that linked document you posted here. You had a discussion with him about ‘that’ New Scientist article in 2006 we discussed. If it ever comes back to you let me know. I’ll keep looking now. I’m done for a while.
    70 shots at Leif and not a single goal! Though I think NickB might have got one close but you let it in!
    NickB-Your goal doesn’t count.

  91. Nicola Scafetta (19:52:00) :
    Moreover, the link between solar activity and climate at multiple time scales is proven in numerous and more recent papers of mine using numerous other records at multiple time scales.
    ‘Proven’ is a very BIG word.

  92. Nicola Scarfetta: Welcome to WUWT. Great to see you here. You’ve asked a interesting question i’ve never heard of:
    ‘…….The issue is why, when the data are analyzed without improper manipulation such as detrending, they suggest a link between solar activity and climate. Can somebody explain the mystery? : ) ……….’
    But as you are 100 miles ahead of us, what would be your explanation?
    I’ll take the answer off the air.

  93. Leif Svalgaard (20:03:53) :
    Ok, instead of “proven” let us use the word “strongly suggested”.
    Have you any other serious explanation of why the solar patterns appear quite correlated to several climate patterns at multiple time scales?

  94. Nicola Scafetta (20:15:54) :
    Ok, instead of “proven” let us use the word “strongly suggested”.
    Have you any other serious explanation of why the solar patterns appear quite correlated to several climate patterns at multiple time scales?

    There is definitely a solar activity – climate link. We would expect a solar cycle effect of the order of 0.1 K [and some people claim to find something like that, e.g. Lean GRL 2009]. So we do agree that there is a link.

  95. Ok, Leif Svalgaard (20:23:40) :
    There is a 11-year solar cycle effect of the order of 0.1 K. This agrees with my studies too in 2005, not just with Lean’s one.
    What about the longer and shorter scales?
    For example what caused the bi-secular little ice ages and the millenarian temperature cycles with maxima during the Minoan, Roman, Medieval and Modern periods?
    The amplitude of these oscillations are much larger than 0.1K and may be as large as 1K!

  96. [quote johnythelowery (14:48:48) :]
    Can the cosmic rays perhaps change the Solar Radiance photon/wave itself. There appears to be a collision, and during high sunspots, the cosmic sourced radiation doesn’t come through. So, what is the physics going on there?
    [/quote]

    This video should explain how the physics works. In a word, it’s electromagnetism.
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUUvqtwL8hY&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0]

  97. Leif Svalgaard (17:06:51) :
    “…
    uhh, Leif? Where might you be located ….
    California: 38.2318 North and 122.5618 West.
    …”

    Could you be a little more precise? 😉

  98. Nicola Scafetta (20:49:44) :
    What about the longer and shorter scales? […]
    The amplitude of these oscillations are much larger than 0.1K and may be as large as 1K!

    Those are the ones that have not been shown to exist. Not that there are any lack of claims [yours included]. But I can turn the question around: if solar activity only produces 0.1 K changes, then what causes these much bigger changes?

  99. That link to the PDF of random walk/flight Leif provided left me spitting out my beverage! Kinda reminds me of the local farmers and welders that talk machinery. If you listen to the conversation long enough (like hours and hours) you might get a statement with actual words in it. The rest is all measurements, models and serial numbers. But it is hilarious to listen to.

  100. Nicola Scafetta (19:52:00) :
    Thank you for the comments. I appreciate seeing them. And I appreciate more that you are congenial.
    Sun and climate are quite linked!
    Since the earth is in the atmosphere of the sun it seems completely feasible.

  101. Richard, Basil,
    First off my apologies if I came off as some sort of jeststream/atmospheric circulation denier 😛 it wasn’t intended.
    My train of thought in this area is admittedly reductionist, possibly to the point of fault, but consider that the “sunlit” ocean zone goes down as far as 600 feet, and that the twilight zone (no not that twilight zone) goes down to 3,000 feet… you’re talking about a very significant potential for energy to accumulate over time outside the layer that can be expected to interact with the atmosphere (which is essentially the skin if the water is calm). An interesting view to be gained, for me at least, by looking at this as a relatively static situation is that the heating should be expected to be depth stable. The lower you go the less light gets in to heat the water so no convection.
    Of course there are massive currents in the ocean, the surface is rarely calm due to winds, the atmospheric circulations (AO for example) by themselves can be very powerful, and that the combination between ocean phenomenon (AMO, PDO, etc) and atmospheric phenomenon (ENSO – which I should have pointed out was a combination punch) can result in, from a climate standpoint at least, a quite spectacular release of energy.
    I guess for me the main point of consideration (the light, again, turned on by Wilde’s recent post) is that the ocean currents (thermohaline in particular) contain water that has been in it for hundreds of years. Atmospheric energy cycles run much more quickly. If there is significant variation in long term solar behavior, the oceans could explain an offset of this expression of energy back into the system (possibly through cyclical releases like ENSO, or possibly through random noise due to dispersed upwelling).
    The Greenhouse Effect-centric view (where GHGs control the system) is, IMHO, necessarilly disproven by the last 10 years where we have seen continued increases in CO2, other anthropogenic-foced GHGs, *and* water vapor alongside temperatures exhibiting a slight downward trend. This is especially broken for the last 3-4 years with OHC also flatlined or on a slight down trend of late. If their explanation for 1980-2000 holds, then there are massive amounts of energy disappearing somewhere.
    I think instead, the more likely explanation, is that they are not just off the mark by a bit… but way off. Something really big, and really powerful has been at play. It doesn’t appear to be solar variation (pending, of course, the conversation that just started up here), so what else could it be than the ocean? If there were a decrease in clouds from 1980-2000 with an increase since that could explain it too… but I think we may have spent too much time looking up for all our answers.

  102. Leif Svalgaard
    On average, overall, energy is not propagated downwards . It does however penetrate the atmosphere and the ocean surface via direct solar insolation before commencing it’s journey back upwards.
    You know perfectly well what I meant. You have said it yourself previously.

  103. Leif Svalgaard,
    “My own criticism of Scafetta and West is that they used flare counts [as they lamely note are ‘a proxy for the sunspot number’] when they could have used sunspot numbers directly.”
    Very uncool. Some respect please.

  104. Stephen Wilde (01:54:10) :
    You know perfectly well what I meant. You have said it yourself previously.
    You didn’t answer my question: “What is rate of upwards energy transfer?” and perhaps give some numbers for what you think the various layers receive.

  105. Leif Svalgaard (02:52:59)
    The rate of upwards energy transfer is the speed at which heat transfers upward from surface to space by whatever means is available. In the troposphere it is largely conductive and convective but from stratosphere upward it appears to be primarily radiative.
    You have previously stated that radiative energy always travels at the speed of light which is all very well but we nevertheless see the atmospheric layers warming and cooling differentially which is an issue not resolved by your bald assertion.
    I have no idea what the numbers are and nor it seems does anyone else although I have seen much speculation.
    You have said that only the thermosphere expands and contracts in response to solar surface variability.
    However you have also said that the stratosphere is warmed by the extra UV arriving during spells of a more active solar surface. If it is warmed then there must be some expansion.
    However in contrast to that expected stratospheric warming the stratosphere actually cooled when the sun was more active and is no longer cooling now that the sun is less active. Indeed it may be warming again.
    C02 proponents put that down to reduced rate of energy flow from troposphere to stratosphere.
    You put it down to unspecified and unquantified reactions to changes in chemical composition. I assume you mean ozone related changes.
    I think it more likely that there is a differential response in the seperate layers of the atmosphere caused by changes in activity levels on the solar surface.
    Can you make your assertions more consistent with observations please ?

  106. Stephen Wilde (03:15:59) :
    The rate of upwards energy transfer is the speed at which heat transfers upward from surface to space by whatever means is available.
    Before things can be discussed [and numbers put on them, otherwise they cannot be compared], they must first be defined and agreed upon. So my question still stands. Your answer refers to ‘speed’, so I assume that you are talking about something like meters per second. Now, if you, as you say, “have no idea what the numbers are”, then how can one have a meaningful discussion?

  107. Stephen Wilde (03:15:59) :
    If it is warmed then there must be some expansion.
    If I understand you correctly [and that is hard because you are not precise nor quantitative], then the crucial difference is that you claim the expansion controls the temperature, while in actual fact the temperature controls the expansion.

  108. Leif Svalgaard (21:10:24) :
    “Those are the ones that have not been shown to exist. Not that there are any lack of claims [yours included]. But I can turn the question around: if solar activity only produces 0.1 K changes, then what causes these much bigger changes?”
    well, those long variations too are quite well documented by numerous studies based on both climate and solar proxies, including mine!
    How many studies propose an alternative explanations. So, what is your explanation: what causes these much bigger changes?

  109. Of course sunspots are irrelevant to Earth’s Global Average Temperature; they are never strong enough to have any bearing upon the earth’s radiative budget. The interplay of coronal mass ejections with magnetic solar conditions that are responsible for stimulating the magnetic vulcanic potential on earth are, on the other hand, relevant to Earth’s Global Average Temperature because they do.
    nonsensically complicated ideas and formulations about the causally simple relations between the earth and sun entertain to distract and manipulate

  110. Leif Svalgaard (03:04:38) :
    When people stop claiming they have proven something, they regain and deserve respect.
    Such arrogance, you do not have my respect.
    Your comments are getting tired, recycling the same old lines, do you keep your comments so you can copy and paste?
    Most of us are aware the MWP is between the Oort and Wolf, but you seem to be relying on Wiki approx dates? I can see why some describe you as a charlatan.
    The same old TSI arguments also having a repeat performance, science has moved on, we all know there are other influences coming from Sol.
    It’s time to come up with something new Leif, we have heard it all before. Treating other scientists with a modicum of respect would be a good start.

  111. Leif Svalgaard (10:20:25) :
    Dave F (10:00:36) :
    So if the sun has an even smaller effect, then what caused the MWP? The LIA?
    This is another example of false logic. The “appeal to ignorance”: ‘What else can it be? BTW, the MWP had the Oort Grand Solar Minimum smack in the middle of it
    Dave F,
    Poor Old Leif has trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time.
    He, of cousre, is unable to deal with the possibility that the short term Oort “Grand” Solar Minimum in solar activity (~ 1050 A.D.) might be caused by a phenomenon that is acting on a different time scale to another (solar) phenomenon that might have caused the long-term increase in the Earth’s temperature (900 – 1300 A.D.) during the MWP. If you get beyond one phenomenon acting at one time, Leif gets lost.

  112. Leif Svalgaard (21:10:24) :
    Nicola Scafetta (20:49:44) :
    What about the longer and shorter scales? […]
    The amplitude of these oscillations are much larger than 0.1K and may be as large as 1K!
    Those are the ones that have not been shown to exist. Not that there are any lack of claims [yours included]. But I can turn the question around: if solar activity only produces 0.1 K changes, then what causes these much bigger changes?
    Leif,
    Have you ever thought of the possibility, that the temperature changes here on Earth are caused by changes in sea surface temperatures caused by the solar/lunar tides? It also might be possible that changes in solar/lunar tides just happen to be synchronized with changes in the level of long term solar activity simp[ly because the changes in shape and precession of the Lunar orbit happen to be influenced (over the billions of years) by changes in the general level of solar activity.

  113. Nicola Scafetta (05:14:59) :
    well, those long variations too are quite well documented by numerous studies based on both climate and solar proxies, including mine!
    An example of how careful one has to be with words. The non-existence was not about the variations, but about any causative link between them, or even just that they are sufficiently correlated to warrant interest.
    How many studies propose an alternative explanations. So, what is your explanation: what causes these much bigger changes?
    An appeal to the Fallacy of Ignorance. Just because you do not have another hypothesis handy, does not make the one you have correct.
    There are no ‘much bigger changes’ in the Sun and the tiny variations we observe do not match with the ‘much bigger changes’ in the climate that are inferred. Roy Spencer’s recent book ‘The Great Global Warming Blunder’ might give you some insight into the variability of climate.
    jinki (06:20:02) :
    Such arrogance, you do not have my respect.
    I’m not fishing for it.
    Most of us are aware the MWP is between the Oort and Wolf
    You should study these Figures closely http://www.leif.org/research/Loehle-Temps-and-TSI.png
    The two bottom panels how very recent reconstructions of TSI [which is a good proxy for solar activity as a whole.

  114. Ninderthana (08:07:55) :
    Leif, Have you ever thought of the possibility, that the temperature changes here on Earth are caused by changes in sea surface temperatures caused by the solar/lunar tides?
    No, and even poor old Nicola would not subscribe to that idea [I think, but I’ll let him explain himself].

  115. Ninderthana (07:59:35) :
    might be caused by a phenomenon that is acting on a different time scale to another (solar) phenomenon that might have caused the long-term increase in the Earth’s temperature (900 – 1300 A.D.) during the MWP.
    A good principle in science is not to invent a new cause for every new observation. See here

  116. Leif Svalgaard (08:21:29) :
    “The non-existence was not about the variations, but about any causative link between them”.
    Leif, the problem of the physical mechanisms is different from the problem of a physical-link. It is possible to determine that two fenomena are linked even if the microscopic causes are not fully understood yet. In complex system that is often the case. For example, everybody knows that an aspirin can help in some muscular pain, nobody knows about the exact mechanisms how it happens.
    “or even just that they are sufficiently correlated to warrant interest.”
    The correlations are sufficiently good. See the figures in my papers, please.
    “An appeal to the Fallacy of Ignorance. Just because you do not have another hypothesis handy, does not make the one you have correct.”
    Science is done with what we know and see, not with what we do not know. If you do not have any “hypothesis handy” you just do not have any scientific arguments to contradict other hypotheses supported by data correlations!
    About the tides, they can partially contribute to something. The climate system is not just a piece of iron heated by a fire!


  117. Leif Svalgaard (08:21:29) :
    You should study these Figures closely http://www.leif.org/research/Loehle-Temps-and-TSI.png
    The two bottom panels how very recent reconstructions of TSI [which is a good proxy for solar activity as a whole.

    I recognize Loehle’s non-treering temp reconstruction, but are the other 2 graphs TSI reconstructions? The blue line on the bottom graph seems to be a repeat of a section of the middle graph, but what’s the orange line?
    But if the point is that there’s no decent correlation then I knew that anyway. 🙂

  118. Nicola Scafetta (08:59:11) :
    “or even just that they are sufficiently correlated to warrant interest.” The correlations are sufficiently good. See the figures in my papers, please.
    I have, of course, seen your Figures and they do not impress.
    contradict other hypotheses supported by data correlations!
    Except that correlation is not causation, and the correlations are not so good to begin with. See further down in my reply to Yarmy.
    About the tides, they can partially contribute to something. The climate system is not just a piece of iron heated by a fire!
    You are side-stepping the issue. The statement “temperature changes here on Earth are caused by changes in sea surface temperatures caused by the solar/lunar tides” leaves no room for any other causes. The ‘partially contribute’ phrase is vacuous without specifying how much. 100%, 10%, 1%, 0.1%, 0.01%, 0.001%, 0.0001%, … Be specific, or at least indicate a range if in doubt.
    Yarmy (09:00:07) :
    but are the other 2 graphs TSI reconstructions? The blue line on the bottom graph seems to be a repeat of a section of the middle graph, but what’s the orange line?
    Yes, they are. They are based on three independent analyses of different ice cores. The fact that they look alike is simply because they show the same phenomenon. They should look alike, to have any relevance, no?
    But if the point is that there’s no decent correlation then I knew that anyway. 🙂
    Something for Nicola to ponder.

  119. Ciao Nicola, bienvenuti!
    It’s great to see you joining the fray – it might get a little rough and tumble here sometimes but there is, IMO, some very fascinating “sausage-making” going on here. It’s an honor to have you here. Now a question for you and Leif…
    Leif, Nicola
    Could I be correct in stating the following: the core of your disagreement is regarding the, more or less, direct correlation of solar input with climate – technical considerations aside.
    My background is economics, not a solar physics, and I think it might be constructive for the bystanders here (like me) to really understand, in your own words perhaps, what it is the two of you are disagreeing on. I think I have a rough idea about the core of the issue and the consequences but, TBH, I’m not really sure how accurate it is. Just a thought…
    Best Regards and, as always, thank you for being here!

  120. Leif Svalgaard (10:07:02) :
    John F. Hultquist (09:51:42) : This seems to be false logic of the “it does not follow” type (non sequitur).
    If we are not distracted by that nonsense [likely injected by the journalist] the paper by R&R ends much more reasonably: “The results provide strong evidence that the stochastic properties of the temperature record are generated by the long-term memory internal dynamics of the climate system and are not linked to the short-memory intermittent fluctuations which characterize the solar output”.

    I too consider this to be a sensible conclusion but still have not given up on the Jose Cycle although I am finding the Milankovitch Cycle washes out most historical suggestions of climate modulation by short term solar variation. In other words, outside the Holocene Optimum and ‘Winsconsin et al’ Glaciation there is not much left to look at.
    So I concede you and others I’ve discussed this with may be right 😀 … but my argument is now with the silly graph in this article detailing temperature. I now think the Holocene Interglacial ended 2000 years ago and the Milankovitch Cycle is carrying on, ‘on schedule’ and we now only are waiting for a Heinrich Event to seal the deal (looking for a 7000 year cycle now :D)
    I now wonder if the present lack of solar activity will present more questions and not at all settle the question of a direct link to climate … now that I think we are under the more prominent influence of the Milankovitch Cycle as it has been manifested for the last 500k years.

  121. NickB. (09:33:40) :
    Could I be correct in stating the following: the core of your disagreement is regarding the, more or less, direct correlation of solar input with climate – technical considerations aside.
    As I see it, we can start with the agreement. Solar activity [as commonly measured by sunspot number or TSI or Heliospheric Magnetic field -doesn’t make any difference which] produces a 0.1K variation of global temperature. This is observed [just barely though, and not really significant, but accepted because of:] and expected and mostly understood.
    The global temperatures show much larger variations [say 1K] than the 0.1K and the issue is whether there is a corresponding variation in solar output that is ten times larger than the observed variation in solar activity. I contend there is not, and that a claim to the contrary is an ‘extraordinary claim’. And that the correlations between the large global temperature changes and solar activity are not good to non-existing, perhaps because the data is not good, but ‘extraordinary claims’ require extraordinary evidence, which has not been produced.
    In the end, it may come down to examination [or re-examination] of the data, both solar and terrestrial, as there is debate about both. To claim that the link has been proven or ‘strongly suggested’ by the shaky data is going too far. To me, the subject is important, so it is important that it be dealt with correctly, and the ‘what else can it be’ argument does not fall in that category.

  122. Leif Svalgaard (09:16:59) :
    “I have, of course, seen your Figures and they do not impress.”
    are you sure to have seen them well and read all comments etc? 🙂
    “Except that correlation is not causation”,
    again what is your alternative theory of climate change if the sun does not play any role but with the 11-year cycle?
    NickB. (09:33:40) :
    the core disagreement between Leif and me is that Leif has proposed a total solar irradiance record which is practically constant with a 11-year solar cycle modulation. So, in his solar reconstruction nothing but the 11-year solar cycle exists. Consequently, he does not see the correlations that exist between the temperature data and the solar reconstructions, but the 11-year modulation of course.
    Please see Leif’s reconstruction (red curve) compared with those proposed by everybody else, here
    http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20%28Reconstructions%29.pdf
    Leif’s reconstruction is by far the flattest, nothing can be flatter than that! Moreover Leif’s solar reconstruction clearly disagrees even with the satellite measurements from all experimental groups since 2004. This is evident in his figure 1 bottom where his reconstruction (red line) does not reproduce the decreased solar activity seen experimentally by everybody (but him).
    In any case, if you are interested in knowing more about climate change, please feel free to read this work of mine:
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climate_change_causes.html

  123. Leif Svalgaard
    Leans (2010) explanation of the recent cooling implies greater sensitivity to the solar component and concomitant phase process such as enso eg
    Direct linear association of natural and anthropogenic influences explains 76% of the variance in the observed global surface temperature during the past 30 years (and also in the past 120 years22),Figure 2 shows how a model that combines these
    influences clearly identifies the cause of the rapid global temperature rise from 1992 to 1998 as the result of ENSO-induced warming following Pinatubo produced
    cooling. The cause of the lack of overall warming in the last decade is also identified, the result of decreasing solar irradiance in the declining phase of cycle 23 from 2002 to 2009 and La Nina cooling countering anthropogenic warming.

    As around 25% of the qualities for warming (cooling) are unexplainable,and there are problematic reasons for this type of analysis for a velocity inversion,confidence is not great in the robustness of her arguments.

  124. Hello Dr. Scafetta, thank you very much for posting.
    Don Easterbrook agrees with you about correlations between temperature and solar (and CR) proxies. He noted a while back on his website that :
    “Good correlations can now be made between global temperature change, sunspots (Eddy, 1976; Stuiver and Quay, 1980; Baldwin and Dunkerton, 2005), solar irradiance (Lean, 1989, 1991, 2000, 2001, Lean and Rind, 1998; Lean et al., 1995, 2002), and 10Be (Beer et al., 1994, 1996, 2000) and 14C production (Fig. 38) (Stuiver, 1961, 1994; Stuiver and Brasiunas, 1991, 1992; Stuiver et al., 1991, 1995; Matter et al., 2001) in the atmosphere. [..]”
    “Correlations of solar variation and climate have recently been made by Soon (2005), Soon and Yaskell, (2004), Scafetta (2009), and Scafetta and West (2005, 2007, 2008) and a mechanism for explaining the relationship between solar fluctuations and climate has been proposed (Svensmark, 1998, 2006; Svensmark and Friis–Christensen, 1997; Marsh and Svensmark, 2000a,b; Svensmark et al., 2007; Svensmark and Calder, 2007). ”
    http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/research/global/solar-variability&climate-change.pdf

  125. Nicola Scafetta (10:25:29) :
    again what is your alternative theory of climate change if the sun does not play any role but with the 11-year cycle?
    As Roy Spencer points out a natural variation in the amounts of clouds resulting from chaos in the complicated climate system is perfectly capable of causing the observed climate change.
    NickB. (09:33:40) :
    Moreover Leif’s solar reconstruction clearly disagrees even with the satellite measurements from all experimental groups since 2004.
    The claim that TSI this solar minimum is lower than at previous minima is usually based on the PMOD composite. Comparisons with SORCE TIM since 2004 clearly demonstrate that PMOD [based on SOHO data] is degrading [due to the harsh environment in space] more than accounted for. Here is a comparison of PMOD, SORCE, and the ratio between them [which should be constant if both were operating correctly]: http://www.leif.org/research/PMOD-Degradation.gif
    It is evident that PMOD is showing steadily less TSI with time. The degradation back to 1996 is just the difference people claim this minimum is lower than the previous minimum. In case you wonder what the strong spikes in the ratio are every ~90 days [marked by the cyan vertical lines], they happen when SOHO is in the keyhole position [lasting a couple of weeks], and are thus artifacts in PMOD. Again showing that the calibration is somewhat wanting, if systematic errors like those shine through.
    My reconstruction does not disagree with everybody else’s, only with old, obsolete, or inferior ones. Preminger and Walton reconstruct TSI back to 1874 [ http://www.leif.org/EOS/2005GL022839.pdf ]. Their result agrees closely with mine [pink and red, respectively at http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-recon3.png ]. They note:
    “Lean et al. [1995] suggested that a solar irradiance component with a long term secular trend might exist and estimated the magnitude of that component by assuming that it tracks the overall level of solar activity. We find that the data do not support such an assumption.”
    Even Lean herself is doubting that long-term changes exist. See the last lines of green text on this plot [from a recent talk by Lean]:
    http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEAN2008.png
    “longer-term variations not yet detectable – … do they occur?
    So, the indications are that there are no long-term trends, or at least that the evidence for such is shaky, and finally that several other recent reconstructions [http://www.leif.org/research/Loehle-Temps-and-TSI.png bottom panels] do not show variations exceeding the 1-2 W/m2 characteristic of the ordinary cycle [which cause a 0.1K variation], plus the fact that the peaks and valleys do not line up. E.g. in 600 AD.

  126. Wait a minute – self similarity on different time scales – surely not fractal pattern?? How bizzare is that! A system as simple as climate, passive to controlling forcing by CO2 and entirely explained by the Stefan-Boltzman law? Where could the complexity come from to allow non-equilibrium pattern formation and log-log distributions and fractal pattern? Must be an instrumental glitch – dodgy sensor somewhere.
    If however strangely it was in fact a non-equilibrium (see LIndzen’s recent post) quasi-chaotic system then it might just turn out to be a periodically forced oscillatory non-linear system, which depends on the periodic forcing(s) but [this is the important bit] whose emergent patterns and frequencies bear only partial relation or no relation to the forcing frequencies.
    Thus trying to match up neatly the periodicities of the solar cycles and climate cycles, plus planetary gravitational plus Milankotitch and all the others, cannot be the whole story. Correlation is not proof of causation. Nor in a non-linear periodically forced oscillatory system (e.g. reaction-diffusion system such as a Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction) is non correlation proof of non-causation. Not even close I’m afraid.
    BTW if you are looking for traditional correlations between variables A and B, if you subject either or both of A and B to some mathematical treatment, however righteous the justification, you will increase and multiply error and decrease the chance of a correlation remaining. So the authors subject the data to “de-trending”. And the correlation goes away! Again – how surprising is that??

  127. oneuniverse (11:35:37) :
    Don Easterbrook agrees with you about correlations between temperature and solar (and CR) proxies. He noted a while back on his website that :
    These correlations assume a TSI variation of 3-4 W/m2 over the past 400 years. Nobody in the TSI-field today believes that such a variation exists. As Lean pointed out, they have not been demonstrated. Gregg Kopp from the SORCE TIM team a few days ago said in an email to me: “Sadly, this probably does mean we don’t have good knowledge of how this current minimum relates to the prior one.”, so again, shaky data.
    The SORCE 2010 [May] meeting scientific committee in has accepted this abstract of my presentation at the meeting:
    “Comparing the latest PMOD composite with SORCE/TIM I find that the ratio PMOD/SORCE has been declining steadily since 2004.0 [a total of 80 ppm]. Extrapolating the decline back to 1996.75 [previous solar minimum] the decline amounts to 172 ppm. In addition, the ratio seems to have ‘spikes’ of the order of 50-100 ppm [thus not trivial]. These spikes coincide with times when SOHO was in a ‘keyhole’ condition [KH], and are thus artifacts. During a KH there is a slight data loss and calculating a daily average has to be done VERY carefully [especially the correction for solar distance]. Another possibility is the effect of some differences in the thermal environment during KHs. I conclude that if we assume a correct SORCE/TIM calibration, the difference between the latest solar minimum and the previous minimum may not be real and that the Sun even this minimum may have just returned to the same constant conditions prevailing when there is no solar activity.”
    The point is that TSI is under debate and nothing ‘proven’ or ‘strongly suggestive’ can be stated with any degree of integrity.

  128. Leif Svalgaard (12:02:11) :
    “As Roy Spencer points out a natural variation in the amounts of clouds resulting from chaos”,
    Leif, if climate changes is caused just by (the god) “chaos” you have a Greek mythological understanding of nature.
    Chaos does not explain the correlation with the solar records found in the papers that oneuniverse (11:35:37) references.
    Climate is forced: its chaotic behavior is a fluctuation around the forcing patterns.
    About the decreased solar activity which is now lower than ten years ago, you find the figure of both ACRIM and PMOD records here
    http://acrim.com/TSI%20Monitoring.htm
    These figures disagree with your reconstruction of the total solar irradiance. If you do not like PMOD, notice that ACRIM too disagrees with you.

  129. Chaos and uncertainty, two fantastic solutions for what we do not know. That’s what your doctor tells you: Virus or Cancer, choose the lie you prefer!

  130. Leif Svalgaard (12:22:10) :
    Leif is feeling hot, and he is reminding us that the topic here is R&R’s paper. Fine.
    Just a last comment on RR’s paper. This adds to my comment of yesterday in Nicola Scafetta (19:52:00)
    The addition is:
    Rypdal and Rypdal have proven that when the temperature data are altered, in their case by adopting several detrending procedures, the properties we found in the data, which are hidden in the smooth component of the temperature, disappear.
    I suspect that R&R’s methodology can be used to disprove any study.
    It is easy: take a study, alter the data in such a way to eliminate the part where the interesting properties are hidden, prove that the altered data do not contain any more the original properties and, finally, conclude that the original paper must be wrong! Great logic indeed!
    As pointed above: The issue is why, when the data are analyzed without improper manipulation such as detrending, they suggest a link between solar activity and climate. Can somebody explain the mystery?
    Leif’s scientific solution: it is god Chaos! 🙂

  131. Nicola Scafetta (12:23:34) :
    Chaos does not explain the correlation with the solar records found in the papers that oneuniverse (11:35:37) references.
    Most of those records are obsolete and the correlations are shaky anyway.
    If you do not like PMOD, notice that ACRIM too disagrees with you. and with PMOD as well.
    If everybody disagrees with everybody, we must have really good data to base our fantastic correlations on, right?
    As I said, it is down to cherry picking the data you like to support what you want.

  132. maksimovich (12:28:30) :
    Because you did,
    OK, I did it as an example of what is out there. If she back down from her earlier view or is not to be believed for some reason, that just adds to my point that the data barely shows any correlation.

  133. Nicola Scafetta (12:23:34) :
    About the decreased solar activity which is now lower than ten years ago, you find the figure of both ACRIM and PMOD records here
    Adroitly avoiding the issue that ACRIM and PMOD disagree strongly for the three minima. What I’m saying is that the data is shaky and not a sound foundation to build on.

  134. Leif Svalgaard (12:59:33) :
    “If everybody disagrees with everybody, we must have really good data to base our fantastic correlations on, right?
    As I said, it is down to cherry picking the data you like to support what you want.”

    Sounds much like climate science to me:-)
    I suspect that process on the sun, like those on Earth, are driven by deterministic chaos (not randomness). Trends have little meaning and any averaging, smoothing or other linear statistical manipulation of the data causes loss of signal.
    I’m very surprised that we don’t have more reliable, high temporal resolution data of the sun’s total energy output and have to make do with daily means. I thought it was only climate science that suffered from low quality, temporally inadequate data! Does the new SDO have better instruments to measure solar output?

  135. Leif Svalgaard said:
    “As Roy Spencer points out a natural variation in the amounts of clouds resulting from chaos in the complicated climate system is perfectly capable of causing the observed climate change.”
    Why invoke chaos ? Just regular cycling around a point of equilibrium is what we need on longer timescales. Chaos is the default position for day to day weather and perhaps a degree of season to season variability but not for longer than that.
    As the cloud bands move latitudinally beyond normal seasonal variation (as they clearly do) they will cause larger albedo changes than any albedo changes arising from the other proposed causes such as more cosmic rays increasing overall cloudiness. Clouds are far more reflective under a more intense sun.
    Now if it can be shown that such latitudinal shifts can occur in both directions (poleward and equatorward) without any solar effects impacting on the atmosphere and thereby influencing the strength of the Arctic and Antarctic Oscillations then I could drop the solar driver component from my ‘model’ but frankly the complete lack of a solar effect from above seems highly implausible.
    The oceans have little effect above the tropopause but we see differential warming and cooling of the upper layers. How can we account for that on the basis of variations from below the tropopause ?
    Rossby waves et al are short term and local phenomena. We need to know exactly why the stratosphere appears not to warm and cool in parallel with the higher layers. Guessing about chemical composition changes in the atmosphere is just not good enough to remove the possibility of a solar effect.
    So far Leif has failed to comment on the issue of differential warming and cooling of the individual layers above the tropopause. Perhaps he could now state his position on that ?
    Bear in mind that he has admitted a supposed warming effect on the stratosphere from more UV from higher solar activity but denies any expansion of the stratosphere as a consequence. In practice however such warming has not been observed. The stratosphere actually cooled whilst the upper layers warmed from higher solar activity.
    And if Leif accepts that layers of the atmosphere below the thermosphere (right down to the stratosphere) can be warmed by that extra UV then why does he say that there is zero expansion of the atmosphere below the thermosphere ?
    To refine my climate model I’d like the answers please.

  136. Leif Svalgaard (12:59:33) :
    “Most of those records are obsolete and the correlations are shaky anyway.”
    In my papers I always use the latest available data. One of my paper was published in Dec 2009 and another in February 2010.
    The fact that there are problems with the data does not justify your choice of putting the solar activity “constant” (plus the 11-year cycle). However, clear patterns emerge from the records. Interpreting complex pattens in the data is where the scientific process must be applied and this is done by looking at the gig picture.
    To say, the data are not perfectly consistent with each other and therefore no conclusion can be draw, it is just ignoring what does it mean to look carefully into the issues. Not all data are equally good, but it is possible to discriminate among them.
    In any case, you said that you wanted to discuss the RR’s paper, did you forget it already?

  137. Nicola Scafetta (12:57:00) :
    Leif is feeling hot
    I’m always feel that when on a roll 🙂
    the properties we found in the data, which are hidden in the smooth component of the temperature, disappear.
    As you chose not to get technical, we can stay hand wavy. The smooth component of GTA shows a steady rise over the interval, but solar activity right now [and lately] is back to where is was a century ago, thus showing that the temperature rise was not driven by solar activity. No chaos here, just simple [phenomenological] data.

  138. Leif Svalgaard (14:28:45) :
    the solar activity is still quite high relative to 100 years ago. It is your “constant” solar proxy that does not show any increase.
    Moreover, the Earth system does not respond instantaneously to solar changes. Never thought about thermal inertia?
    We just stated to observe a decrease in solar activity. The ocean needs time to cool. But the ocean is slowly cooling, following the Sun. This things are clearly written in my papers and in my december 2009 paper.

  139. Tenuc (14:18:54) :
    Does the new SDO have better instruments to measure solar output?
    No, this is not the mission of SDO, SORCE is still going and new missions to follow up, e.g. PICARD are on the way.
    Stephen Wilde (14:23:03) :
    To refine my climate model I’d like the answers please.
    Hard to give answers when you are so vague. Perhaps we should clear up the fundamental position first. Does the temperature control the expansion or the expansion control the temperature?
    Nicola Scafetta (14:24:25) :
    “Most of those records are obsolete and the correlations are shaky anyway.” In my papers I always use the latest available data.
    Irrelevant, because you were referring to a load of references by ‘oneuniverse’ mostly from the 1990s.
    Not all data are equally good, but it is possible to discriminate among them.
    How do you do this? By how well they match your ideas? Sometimes the discrimination goes a bit to far, e.g. as pointed out here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL040707.pdf :
    “that irradiance changes due to non-magnetic effects, if any, cannot be revealed by either SATIRE-S used here nor by SATIRE-T employed by Scafetta and Willson [2009]”
    In any case, you said that you wanted to discuss the RR’s paper,
    See already posted reply.

  140. Nicola, Leif,
    Grazie, Dank u for the replies. Having a good laymen’s explanation is, for me at least, a huge help for setting a baseline understanding for the discussion.
    That said, I will now return to the sidelines – thanks again!

  141. Nicola Scafetta (14:53:05) :
    the solar activity is still quite high relative to 100 years ago. It is your “constant” solar proxy that does not show any increase.
    Again not being up-to-date. Solar activity is LOW, and most forecast even lower in years to come. So you would then predict a severe cooling of the Earth back to 1880-1910 levels [a drop of 1K]. This would be a good and strong test.
    Moreover, the Earth system does not respond instantaneously to solar changes. Never thought about thermal inertia?
    People that find the 0.1K solar signal don’t find any significant lags [a few years at most]. But I agree that with a suitable lag [perhaps even variable], one can explain almost anything. I have seen people talking about lags of 88 years.
    The discussion is about long-term trends not half a solar cycle or less. The latest TSI reconstructions [e.g. Steinhilber et al., 2009, http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL040142.pdf ] show variations of the order of 1 W/m2 over the past ~10,000 year, while in your papers [e.g. slide 72 of Feb/26/2009] you show Lean’s old 2005 reconstruction with systematic errors, e.g. the rise since the 1890s. As long as it comes down to haggling over whose data is best, the science can scarcely be said to be proven or ‘settled’. Whatever you might think [and the one to fool first is oneself], the evidence is simply not there.
    The issue of TSI [and related proxies] might be resolved in the decade to come and the community might settle on something we can work with. At the moment it is cherry picking as usual.

  142. Why not compare satellite TSI with land based TSI guys? In particular the UV spectrum!
    I think the UV spectrum varies by <30% at surface and we know that ozone propensity in the ionosphere lags any solar UV variation. Ozone is also a strong GHG that will absorb much of Sol's small IR signature before it gets deeper into the atmosphere and point it elsewhere. Stability and instability in one, it also looks like a variance multiplier.
    I know this sounds like a 'forcing' from climate (as it's the Earth's atmosphere that reacts), but hey, the sun does it!
    Best regards, suricat.

  143. Leif Svalgaard (15:29:15) :
    “People that find the 0.1K solar signal don’t find any significant lags”
    Wrong: you do not read carefully my paper. The time lag depend on the frequency you are considering, this is basic math. Again you do not know how thermal inertia works.
    “The latest TSI reconstructions [e.g. Steinhilber et al., 2009, http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL040142.pdf ] show variations of the order of 1 W/m2 over the past ~10,000 year you show Lean’s old 2005″
    Wrong: you do not read carefully my paper. I used Solanki 2007. Steinhilber reconstruction came later I wrote my papers. Solanki and Steinhilber show approximately the same secular variation. Moreover, Steinhilber’s reconstruction shows an increase of TSI since 1900 contrary to what you have claimed above. And there exist a clear up ward trend since 1500.
    Again you do not appear to read carefully the literature. This is probably the biggest problem in climatology. People read superficially the papers and do not get the right picture, however they criticize what they do not understand.

  144. Nicola Scafetta (10:25:29) :
    Thank you for commenting.
    The reason I point to your (10:25:29) comment is that it shows that Dr. Svalgaard has a dog in this fight — his own hypothesis depends on debunking your paper and the R&R paper acts as a proxy for his purpose of doing that.
    A cat’s paw, if you will.
    So, Dr. Svalgaard can grind his axe in the comments section (no surprise Dr. Svalgaard tipped this to Anthony Watts).
    Not that Rypdal & Rypdal don’t have their own axes to grind, so the analogy isn’t perfect, but it will do.
    Nicola Scafetta’s (12:57:00) comment: “Rypdal and Rypdal have proven that when the temperature data are altered, in their case by adopting several detrending procedures, the properties we found in the data, which are hidden in the smooth component of the temperature, disappear.
    I suspect that R&R’s methodology can be used to disprove any study.”
    Interesting and revealing that Dr. Svalgaard has no direct response to that specific statement — it’s a damning argument against the R&R paper (which Dr. Svalgaard complained was being ignored in the discussion).
    What’s interesting to me is the word, “detrending”. The word suggests that manipulation is being removed from the data (which would make it more accurate), but it would seem that in actuality, it acts in an opposite way, it’s its own type of manipulation for a desired “outcome” in line with a political agenda. Something I tried to point out earier in the discussion, but perhaps met with limited success.
    Nicola Scafetta points out that Dr. Svalgaard’s conclusions are an outlier from other scientists’ conclusions (which possibly suggests Dr. Svalgaard’s statements and conclusions on this website are not as representitive as he’d like readers to think).
    Also, interesting is that when Dr. Svalgaard had it pointed out to him that his data and conclusions were an outlier from other papers, he cavalierly dismissed them all. Even satellite observations & measurements, which he then dismissed based on faulty apparatus, and then justified on an acceptance for publication of a presentation he gave supporting the dismissal of the data — sounds good.
    But it turns out (thanks to Mr. Scafetta) there are other satellites which confirm the data. To this Dr. Svalgaard scrambled the discussion, saying there is so much disagreement among the data that nobody knows what’s going on — which would include Dr. Svalgaard, too, I might add (he doesn’t mention that, of course).
    Dr. Svalgaard never does address the additional satellite data other than to attempt his “scramble”.
    Perhaps this is too far afield: Dr. Svalgaard’s qualifications based on his own statements in other discussion threads boils down to him getting invited to make presentations at various conferences — mostly astrophysical conferences.
    (Dr. Svalgaard makes reference to his making a presentation and that his presentation has been accepted for publication as proof for his assertions about the satellite data.)
    Obviously, the conference organizers know what he will say and likely agree with him. (That’s how it works at many conferences. How many skunks get invited to the garden party?)
    Turns out the vast majority of astrophysicists and astronomers totally buy into Man-made global warming (of course, there are important exceptions). And, Dr. Svalgaard’s conclusions fit in with these AGW perceptions in the astronomy community like a glove.
    So, who else are you going call to invite to give a presentation, but a fellow astrophysicist that will reinforce their pro-AGW perception (it does not matter that Dr. Svalgaard doesn’t explicitly state support for AGW — that is cleverly left to the audience to make the connection between his conclusions and astrophysical support for AGW — it would be too ham-handed if he did — that’s not Dr. Svalgaard).
    Many readers assume Dr. Svalgaard is a leader in helio-astrophysics (he’ll throw his conference presentations in your face if you challenge him), but Dr. Svalgaard’s role is as a statatician – one versed or engaged in compiling statistics – and mathematician, more than a front-line scientist engaged in observation & measurement, he gets that from others.
    Perhaps, now, readers will understand why Dr. Svalgaard gets invited to make so many presentations — his conclusions are exactly what the pro- AGW audience wants to hear.
    Make no mistake about it: Dr. Svalgaard has a dog in this fight. One could say, “he’s all in”, if one were playing poker.
    Anyway, thanks again, Mr. Scafetta for participating and, yes, defending your paper from Dr. Svalgaard’s sharp and motivated intellect.
    It provides real time discussion of points pro and con which allows readers to draw their own conclusions about the weight to be given respective papers and the weight to be given speaker’s arguments about those papers.

  145. Leif Svalgaard (15:46:58) :
    thank you for proposing me to come at the SORCE 2010 meeting.
    I was invited but I could not go. I do not know yet if I can come now.

  146. Dr. Svalgaard: These correlations assume a TSI variation of 3-4 W/m2 over the past 400 years.
    The papers consider sunspots, solar irradiance, and 14C and 10Be production (CR proxies). Which of them make the 3-4 W/m2 TSI assumption ?
    Dr. Svalgaard to Dr. Scafetta: Irrelevant, because you were referring to a load of references by ‘oneuniverse’ mostly from the 1990s.
    Over 50% of the 33 papers referenced in support of Dr. Scafetta’s statement were written in the 21st century. Most of the rest are from the 90’s, a few from earlier. Later research has confirmed and built on earlier results.
    Dr. Svalgaard to Dr. Scafetta: Adroitly avoiding the issue that ACRIM and PMOD disagree strongly for the three minima. What I’m saying is that the data is shaky and not a sound foundation to build on.
    You use such data in your own papers, so whatever caveats you feel you should apply in those papers, perhaps also apply in this discussion.
    In an earlier post, you repeatedly refused to consider the cosmogenic 10Be and 14C CR paleo studies I referenced, saying they didn’t reliably carry a signal, even for the recent millenia. Yet in Svalgaard and Cliver 2007, for example, you use 10Be and 14C proxies – what’s more, you use the CR-determined production rate signal from the proxies to assume something about the solar wind strength – a further stretch than just using them as CR-flux proxies, which you’d rejected.

  147. Leif claiming that the TSI data is shakey and then claiming there is no drop off in TSI when comparing with the last minimum is an oxymoron, or did Judith Lean say something similar about the “solar constant”
    The UV values taken from CELIAS/SEM also display a 6% reduction when compared to 1996, or shouldn’t I mention the UV word?
    Thanks very much for your contribution Nicola, its about time we had some balance in here. Leif’s arguments certainly do not seem so robust when questioned by others knowledgeable in the field.

  148. Harry Lu (16:29:22) :
    I’m no scientist, I’m an engineer. What on Earth are FFTs? Why do you compare regional temperatures with a global phenomenon if not to ‘cherry pick’?
    “There are no significant number showing anything like TSI peaks. I have seen similar plots from Leif.”
    There are TSI peaks, but they’re quite small when the totality of the solar spectrum is observed (from wherever).
    Best regards, suricat.

  149. Nicola Scafetta (16:06:52) :
    Wrong: you do not read carefully my paper. I used Solanki 2007. Steinhilber reconstruction came later I wrote my papers. Solanki and Steinhilber show approximately the same secular variation. Moreover, Steinhilber’s reconstruction shows an increase of TSI since 1900 contrary to what you have claimed above. And there exist a clear up ward trend since 1500.
    This is an important point, both sets of data which are totally independent show a very close match, especially when the Steinhilber data is re plotted (the flat graph hiding some of the detail). Both sets of data are showing a significant rise in TSI from 1500. The proxy data raises serious doubt about the 0.1 % TSI variance claimed by the AGW crowd.

  150. suricat
    FFTs can transform from time to frequency domain hence a time plot can be changed to periodic plot.
    If the TSI effect is small and hidden by other effects then is it not insignificant?
    Here’s another way of doing it
    Get HADCRUT3V global temp record
    Average over 6 months to remove some of the “noise”
    Create a series of narrow band filters on the resultant temperature plot.
    Tune each filter manually to isolate peaks in the output.
    These SHOULD show peaks wherever there is a signal of, say, Scarfetta’s 60 years.
    Take the output of each narrow band filter and generate a cosine wave that is as near as possible the same amplitude and phase as the filtered signal.
    Do this a number of times isolating each frequency.
    Add together the generated cosines. Multiply the result by a factor (approx 3 in the plot below). If there is a suitable long period – low frequency – signal isolated the resultant should match the original signal. IT DID NOT so a trend was added.
    y = 2.44231E-07x^3 – 1.36387E-03x^2 + 2.53884E+00x – 1.57576E+03 (not good as it deviates before 1850.
    This is what I got :
    http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/905/temperaturesynthesis.png
    Note
    No 60 year signal
    No massive TSI signal (there is some!)
    The significant signals are all around 2 to 6 years
    The plot shows prediction for the next few years!!!!
    Get HADCRUT from CRU website
    Get Excel from microsoft
    Get bandpass filter from
    http://www.web-reg.de/index.html
    in general set the bandwidth to months/150 (e.g. period start 21.19 end 21.29 months ie. months/200 in this case)
    \harry

  151. Nicola Scafetta (16:06:52) :
    The time lag depend on the frequency you are considering, this is basic math. Again you do not know how thermal inertia works.
    Of course I do. For the solar cycle effect [which we agreed on] there is no time lag. for longer periods, e.g for the 100-yr Gleissberg cycle we do not know what the time lag is [curve fitting is not enough as we do not know what fraction of the temperature variation is solar related].
    You mentioned yourself that the oceans are now cooling. So, no thermal positive pulse warming the oceans from long-term variations, or are the oceans both cooling and warming at the same time?
    Wrong: you do not read carefully my paper. I used Solanki 2007
    Perhaps you would be so kind to turn to slide 72 of your Feb/26/2009 paper and tell us what reconstruction it said you used.
    Steinhilber’s reconstruction shows an increase of TSI since 1900 contrary to what you have claimed above. And there exist a clear up ward trend since 1500.
    What is important is the magnitude of the trend. The Steinhilber trend since 1900 is very small, ~0.25 W/m2 until about 10 years ago. The reconstruction you used had a trend three times as large, to the point where TSI at solar max a century ago was larger than at solar min today. Size matters.
    James F. Evans (16:08:28) :
    Is so full of ad-homs that it is not worth commenting on.
    jinki (17:55:30) :
    Both sets of data are showing a significant rise in TSI from 1500. The proxy data raises serious doubt about the 0.1 % TSI variance claimed by the AGW crowd.
    Steinhilber et al. claims that the increase since the Maunder Minimum is 0.9 W/m2. For your information that is 0.9/1361*100 = 0.066%, only about half the 0.1% variance…

  152. Nicola Scafetta (16:06:52) :
    my paper. I used Solanki 2007
    And BTW the Solanki 2007 paper was still based on the supposed ‘more than doubling’ of the Sun’s open flux during the 20th century first postulated by myself in 1977 and later popularized by Lockwood et al. in 1999. Lately Lockwood et al. [and I] have seen the light and recognized that this doubling did not happen. Instead the solar flux climbed until mid-century and has now declined to the level of 1901. So Solanki 2007 is not a good reconstruction to use as it is based on a false premise.

  153. The F10.7 radio flux is believed to be a better proxy of solar activity than the venerable sunspot number. Careful analysis of independent measurements since 1951 from Canada and Japan show that the two series agree very well and that F10.7 at every sunspot minimum since the beginning of the measurements [1954, 1965, 1976, 1986, 1996, 2008] returns to the same value, i.e. that there are no measurable differences between the minima.
    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1003/1003.4281v1.pdf
    In case you do not know Hugh Hudson: he collaborated with Dick Willson in showing [using early ACRIM data] that the ‘solar constant’ varied the infamous 0.1%.

  154. Leif Svalgaard (19:23:53) on Evans (16:08:28):
    “Is so full of ad-homs that it is not worth commenting on.”
    What ad hominems?
    Unanswerable, maybe — ad hominems, no.
    oneuniverse (16:58:59) wrote:
    “Dr. Svalgaard to Dr. Scafetta: ‘Irrelevant, because you were referring to a load of references by ‘oneuniverse’ mostly from the 1990s.’
    Over 50% of the 33 papers referenced in support of Dr. Scafetta’s statement were written in the 21st century. Most of the rest are from the 90’s, a few from earlier. Later research has confirmed and built on earlier results.
    Dr. Svalgaard to Dr. Scafetta: ‘Adroitly avoiding the issue that ACRIM and PMOD disagree strongly for the three minima. What I’m saying is that the data is shaky and not a sound foundation to build on.’
    You use such data in your own papers, so whatever caveats you feel you should apply in those papers, perhaps also apply in this discussion.
    In an earlier post, you repeatedly refused to consider the cosmogenic 10Be and 14C CR paleo studies I referenced, saying they didn’t reliably carry a signal, even for the recent millenia. Yet in Svalgaard and Cliver 2007, for example, you use 10Be and 14C proxies – what’s more, you use the CR-determined production rate signal from the proxies to assume something about the solar wind strength – a further stretch than just using them as CR-flux proxies, which you’d rejected.”
    Seems that Dr. Svalgaard hasn’t responded to any of those points.
    “In an earlier post, you repeatedly refused to consider the cosmogenic 10Be and 14C CR paleo studies I referenced, saying they didn’t reliably carry a signal, even for the recent millenia. Yet in Svalgaard and Cliver 2007, for example, you use 10Be and 14C proxies – what’s more, you use the CR-determined production rate signal from the proxies to assume something about the solar wind strength – a further stretch than just using them as CR-flux proxies, which you’d rejected.”
    I’m particularly interested in an answer to the above passage.

  155. Leif Svalgaard (19:23:53) :
    Steinhilber et al. claims that the increase since the Maunder Minimum is 0.9 W/m2. For your information that is 0.9/1361*100 = 0.066%, only about half the 0.1% variance…
    But if we read closer (which seems to be mandatory requirement for your references) Steinhilber states 0.9 W/m2 as an average with a error range of 0.4 W/m2. The MM figure is compared to the mean value of SC22 (1365.9 W/m2), if compared with solar max figures of say SC19 (1366.9 approx) the results would be very different. Your reconstruction shows about 1 W/m2 variance from the bottom of MM to the peaks of today. Steinhilbers results have the scope to be at least twice that figure. His study casts more doubt on your figures.
    Also Steinhilber does not seem to be aware of the reported UV variances between 1996 and 2009. This graph might enlighten him and others.
    http://www.usc.edu/dept/space_science/sem_data/SEM%20Data%20Graphs/SEM_1996-2009.jpg

  156. Nicola Scafetta (14:24:25) :
    In any case, you said that you wanted to discuss the RR’s paper, did you forget it already?
    Let me try to analyze and paraphrase the R&R paper [and S&W’s] as I have understood it [and it is admittedly a bit exotic]. First some prelimary concepts:
    1: the solar atmosphere and the terrestrial atmosphere are both very complex systems. Even a very weak transfer of energy from one system to the other [presumably from sol->terra] could regulate the statistical properties to make them similar, and if such similarity is found that is evidence of a coupling.
    2: If there is such a coupling it could be a sign that terrestrial climate is much more sensitive to solar activity than the solar cycle variation indicates.
    3: The concept of random walk [independent steps with no memory] leads to Brownian Motions [in position or time as one prefers; it is in one dimension so it doesn’t matter which].
    4: The probability distribution function [PDF] of the 1D position at a given instant is the same at all instances [if suitably scaled] and looks like Figure 1 of http://www.leif.org/research/Rypdal-Levy-Paper.png .
    5: One can construct a so-called Fractional Brownian Motion process [FBM] by introducing memory into the system determined by the self-similarity exponent h, according to x(t) = L^h x(Lt). For h = 0.5 the system is just the no-memory Brownian Motion [BM]. For h < 0.5, we get anti-persistent BM [APBM], that varies ‘more’ than randomly, for example the sequence of heads and tails HTHTHTHTHTH… For h > 0.5, we get persistent BM [PBM] that varies ‘less’ than randomly, for example HHHHHTTTTTHHHHTTTT…
    6: The standard deviation s(t) = SQRT(AVERAGE(x^2)) = D t^H can then be described by the fractional dimension D and the self-similarity diffusion exponent H = h.
    7: A Levy-flight [LF] makes very small steps most of the time, but now and then [i.e. rarely] makes a very large step [‘flies far away’], with no upper limit on the step size. The same equation applies: x(t) = L^h x(Lt), so the PDF is determined by h, but s(t) is unbounded [‘infinite’], because there is no limit on the step size.
    8: The PDF of Levy-flights [again suitably scaled] looks like Figure 2 of http://www.leif.org/research/Rypdal-Levy-Paper.png .
    9: A Levy-walk [LW] has a distribution of waiting times [between making a step] determined by P(u,t)~t^(-u) and is completely determined by the waiting-time exponent u.
    10: But Levy-walks are not self-similar, and the PDF changes as time goes by as shown in Figure 3 of http://www.leif.org/research/Rypdal-Levy-Paper.png . Note the ‘spikes’. These occur because a Levy-Walk is not a self-similar random process.
    11: To summarize the differences:
    a. FBMs are self-similar, Both the self-similarity exponent h and the diffusion exponent H are defined, with h = H.
    b. LFs are self-similar, with self-similarity exponent h, but with undefined H
    c. LWs are not self-similar, i.e. h is undefined, but H is well-defined: H = 1 – u/2
    Now, on to S&W. They postulate that
    12: On time scales much shorter that the 11-yr solar cycle, the solar flare Index [SFI] and the Global Temperature Anomaly [GTA] have the same statistical properties
    13: Both series are random porocesses that are Levy-walks with the same waiting-time exponent u = 2.1, which means H = 1-u/2 = 0.95
    14: This coincidence is evidence that there are subtle couplings between solar activity and terrestrial climate.
    R&R notes
    15: that there is a clear trend in GTA, but no similar trend in SFI. This is shown by the red line in the plot of GTA. They describe GTA as a persistent Brownian Motion [random walk] with exponents h = H = 0.65 on top of a slowly rising non-random trend [h is greate than 0.5]. The PDF of the random part of the process is shown in R&R’s Figure 1(c) and looks indeed like the PDF described in our point 4 [above].
    16: The SFI is a Levy-flight random process on top of a periodic variation. Removing the latter yields the PDF, with h = 1.0, in R&R’s Figure 1(d) which looks indeed like the PDF described in our point 8 [above].
    17: so, the S&W postulate 13 is falsified. This is the result of the R&R paper.
    18: R&R goes on the experiment with detrended and non-detrended signals using synthetic data, where they know its statistical properties, and find:
    19: A synthetic [i.e. made up random data] FBM random walk with h = 0.65 placed on top of the observed trend gives precisely the same distribution as the observed GTA analyzed using S&Ws procedure. And so conclude that there is no evidence of coupling.
    Now, in replying to this. you can conveniently refer to the specific numbered points above, so the discussion can be kept on track.

  157. James F. Evans (16:08:28)
    Interesting background info. So Leifs posts generally translate as:
    “who’s that walking over my bridge?!”

  158. phlogiston (22:44:26) :
    “who’s that walking over my bridge?!”
    I think it would be more appropriate to stick to the topic [e.g. my analysis of the R&R paper just before your post], rather than making silly comments about my person.

  159. jinki (20:55:21) :
    Steinhilber states 0.9 W/m2 as an average with a error range of 0.4 W/m2.
    so it could be as low as 0.5 W/m2…
    The MM figure is compared to the mean value of SC22 (1365.9 W/m2), if compared with solar max figures of say SC19 (1366.9 approx) the results would be very different.
    You cannot compare a mean value to a max value, and expect to be taken seriously.
    Your reconstruction shows about 1 W/m2 variance from the bottom of MM to the peaks of today. Steinhilbers results have the scope to be at least twice that figure. His study casts more doubt on your figures.
    Or the scope to be half that figure. The 0.9+/-0.4 overlaps with my figures so they confirm Steinhilber’s result nicely.
    Also Steinhilber does not seem to be aware of the reported UV variances between 1996 and 2009. This graph might enlighten him and others.
    Of course, he and all the rest of us in this business are fully aware of this. The EUV [to be exact – reading things closely helps] depends on the sunspot number which during 1996 was 8.6 and in 2008 was 2.9, so three times lower. We would therefore expect [as observed] a slightly smaller EUV flux in 2008. The EUV [down around 30 nm that your plot refers to] is a vanishing small part of TSI, so makes no measurable contribution.

  160. James F. Evans (20:44:25) :
    “In an earlier post, you repeatedly refused to consider the cosmogenic 10Be and 14C CR paleo studies I referenced, saying they didn’t reliably carry a signal, even for the recent millenia.
    What nonsense is that? There is a nice signal and the studies are beginning to agree more and more as I showed repeatedly in the lower panels of http://www.leif.org/research/Loehle-Temps-and-TSI.png
    Earlier studies were somewhat erratic, but later data is getting better and better. For the topic at hand, the issue is how those CR variations relate to TSI, and that is much less certain, but we’ll eventually get there too and be able to construct reliable TSI. We are just not there yet.

  161. Leif Svalgaard (15:03:40)
    “Perhaps we should clear up the fundamental position first. Does the temperature control the expansion or the expansion control the temperature?”
    Obviously the rise in temperature occurs first then the expansion.
    However the expansion then seems to facilitate an increased upward flow of energy from below. That increase in energy coming up from below adds to the solar warming effect in the upper layers which become warmer than they would have done just from the solar changes.
    The extra warming of the upper layers is at the expense of cooling in the lowest layer, the stratosphere, so the stratosphere will cool when the upper layers warm and vice versa as per observations.
    The effect cannot have any significant impact below the tropopause because below the tropopause the heat transfers are dominated by convective and conductive processes rather than radiative processes.
    The stratosphere is thus a varying buffer between the conductive and convective processes in the troposphere and the radiative processes from tropopause to space.
    The changes in the stratosphere then feed back to variability in the intensity and size of the Arctic and Antarctic Oscillations.
    That is the only concept that I can think of that could explain the observed differential warming and cooling of the layers in the atmosphere.

  162. Leif Svalgaard (23:30:02) :
    You cannot compare a mean value to a max value, and expect to be taken seriously.
    A mean TSI value over the year is very different to a mean TSI figure for the cycle. Your own figures are higher than the 1365.9 adopted by Steinhilber. The Steinhilber derived TSI values are based on an incorrect premise, it is obvious the end result is severely discounted.
    Of course, he and all the rest of us in this business are fully aware of this. The EUV [to be exact – reading things closely helps] depends on the sunspot number which during 1996 was 8.6 and in 2008 was 2.9, so three times lower. We would therefore expect [as observed] a slightly smaller EUV flux in 2008. The EUV [down around 30 nm that your plot refers to] is a vanishing small part of TSI, so makes no measurable contribution.
    Of course, a lower figure is a result of lower activity which is also observed in TSI over the same time frames, that’s the point, the minimums are different. EUV is considered important by recent studies dealing with climate drivers, your “no measurable contribution” statement is behind the times.

  163. Leif Svalgaard (23:39:11) : “What nonsense is that? There is a nice signal [..] Earlier studies were somewhat erratic, but later data is getting better and better. ”
    What nonsense? You refused to consider the 10Be and 14C proxies when I was using them, but you deem them acceptable for use in your own work. That’s nonsense, Leif.
    I’ve excerpted the thread of conversation pertaining to using proxies for CR below, so readers can judge for themselves. At no point did you admit that there’s a useful production signal derivable from the proxies – on the contrary, you strenuously argued against it.
    From http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/14/dr-nicolas-scaffeta-summarizes-why-the-anthropogenic-theory-proposed-by-the-ipcc-should-be-questioned/ :
    oneuniverse (09:46:52) :
    I thought that there is ample paleoclimatic evidence to support the notion that cosmic rays affect terrestrial climate.
    [Quoting] Jasper Kirkby : “Numerous palaeoclimatic observations, covering a wide range of time scales, suggest that galactic cosmic ray variability is associated with climate change. The quality and diversity of the observations make it difficult to dismiss them merely as chance associations.”
    Leif Svalgaard (10:35:16):
    Apart from the difficulties of determining the paleo-data [especially the cosmic ray intensity], there is little evidence from modern data to suggest the notion, so little reason to suspect it in the deep past.
    oneuniverse (15:35:41):
    The first part of this statement is in contrast to Kirkby’s, concerning the quality and diversity of the paleo-observations. You yourself kindly pointed me to a reconstruction on your site from proxy records . Not to dismiss the difficulties with proxy reconstructions, but not to dismiss the proxies altogether either.
    Leif Svalgaard (20:23:43) :
    Using 10Be for climate studies is a bit dangerous as the 10Be deposition depends somewhat on the climate as well.
    [[ I was trying to use them as proxies for CR, not climate btw ]]
    oneuniverse (21:03:58):
    In “Information on past solar activity and geomagnetism from 10Be in the Camp Century ice core” (1988), Beer et al. find “strong evidence that the isotope variations [in the 10Be and 14C records] have a common cause, namely changes in production rate”.
    Ice-core 10Be and tree-ring 14C are closely correlated over the last 5,000 years once the low-pass filtering effect of the 14C sequestration process is accounted for, so changes in deposition rates must have been small over the period.
    Leif Svalgaard (21:54:17):
    From a 2010 paper co-authored by Beer [he has learned something since 1988]: “[20] The radionuclide concentration data contains two components: (1) a production signal induced by solar magnetic activity and long-term changes in the geomagnetic field intensity and (2) a (atmospheric) system signal related to the geochemical properties of cosmogenic radionuclides and climate effects.”
    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009JA014193.pdf

    oneuniverse (07:00:20):
    If you’d bothered including the very next sentence, readers would immediately realise that the findings support Beer et al.’s 1988 results :
    “The observed changes in radionuclide concentrations between grand solar minima and grand solar maxima are mainly due to production rate changes as shown by McCracken [2004] and Heikkila¨ et al. [2008]. While the climate-induced system effects on the transport and the deposition of 10Be are comparatively small, they are not negligible.”
    So the main signal is from the production rate, and the climate effects are not negligable, but comparatively small, findings in support of the results from their 1988 paper.
    What Beer has reconsidered is the role of the geomagnetic field in modulating the production rate. Whatever the role, it’s just one more factor affecting the GCR flux, the relevant quantity under study.
    Leif Svalgaard (21:54:17):
    From: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004.pdf comparing different ice cores:
    “The good long-term agreement between 10Be variations in both cores reflects a regional response to production and climate changes, but the disagreements in the earlier parts of the two records suggest that 10Be should be measured in ice cores from locations with non-complex ice flow regimes.”
    So, there is a growing realization that climate has an influence as well.

    oneuniverse (06:58:34) :
    From the same paper: “It is also clear that it is preferable to have 10Be records from sites with non-complex ice flow regimes, and no or infrequent summer melt, such as NGRIP and South Pole.”
    So let’s use South Pole ice-core 10Be data – it’s clear from Kirkby’s Fig. 2b that for the last 1000 years it closely matches different 14C records and Greenland 10Be data. Furthermore, Beer et al. 1998 find the same relationship is present for over 5,000 years (a slight divergence between 10Be and 14C is noted for >10k years).
    The ‘orthodox’ scientific understanding is that a good GCR flux signal can be extracted, carefully, from the 10Be records, particularly for the past millenia.
    Leif Svalgaard (10:31:48):
    Over short periods of time the production rate dominates. Over longer period the gromagnetic field and the climate are dominant.
    oneuniverse (15:03:47):
    According to the Usoskin et al. 2009, the climate is thought to be dominant only over short time-scales (which makes sense, given that we haven’t found a 10Be sink).
    [..]
    You’ll notice that over the longer timescales (>100 years) the solar and geomagnetic field are considered to be important. Since these affect the CR flux and so the production rate, not the deposition rate, this means that the data from the last 10k years can be used as a CR flux proxy.
    Leif Svalgaard (15:45:15):
    [Climate induced system effects] have been relatively small lately when climate has not varied much, but go back in time and much larger variations were present.
    [..]
    Imagine we have a ’snowball’ Earth, or a glaciation. That greatly interferes with atmospheric circulation that is instrumental in transporting 10Be to the poles. And on short time-scales you quote him saying that climate is dominant, e.g. for the sharp dips…

    oneuniverse (06:56:29):
    There haven’t been any snowball Earth or glaciation episodes during the last 10,000 years, the period in which the 10Be and 14C CR-proxy data is considered to be most reliable.
    Leif Svalgaard (10:09:51):
    Again, being selective. Your assumption is that the ‘evidence’ of paleo-stuff hundreds of million years ago is representative of today or can be used to draw conclusions about today. This assumes that the climate has not changed.
    oneuniverse (16:22:34):
    The hundreds of millions of year old data comes from meteorites, unaffected by the climate. The <10k yr statement comes from an analysis of data from the last 10k years.
    Why not look at the CR-proxy data from the last 2000 years? We know climate hasn't changed that much over the period.

  164. Monthly surface temperatures (most locations) at these larger solar flares; http://www.solarstorms.org/SRefStorms.html
    are mostly above normals.
    Temperatures at weeks/months of significant new sunspot activity can be higher or lower than normals. I do have a theory to explain this, and will be sharing this at some point.
    Regarding the 11yr cycle itself and temperatures, as a general rule, a larger cycle
    will have higher temperatures overall, but the relationship is not directly proportional.
    Colder winters are more likely to be found at solar maximum rather than at minimum. There are more solar minimums with long spotless periods that have above average rather than below average temperatures. This suggests that the solar wind is a more important factor in producing temperature deviations from normals, than flares or sunspots.

  165. Unfortunately today I will be very busy, so I will not be able to comment and disprove Leif word by word. Only a few points
    Ulric Lyons (03:25:08) : thank you for the web site showing that solar weather effects the Earth system. This indirectly suggest the physical plausibility of our conclusions.
    Leif Svalgaard (19:23:53) :
    you need to read the paper printed in the journals. It is a bad habit to criticize works without reading them!
    Now let us move to R&R and to
    Leif Svalgaard (22:32:02) :
    “10: But Levy-walks are not self-similar, and the PDF changes as time goes by as shown in Figure 3 of http://www.leif.org/research/Rypdal-Levy-Paper.png . Note the ’spikes’. These occur because a Levy-Walk is not a self-similar random process.”
    What are those strange spikes? What are you representing in the distribution #3? You have no clue of what a Levy-Walk is!
    “11: To summarize the differences:
    a. FBMs are self-similar, Both the self-similarity exponent h and the diffusion exponent H are defined, with h = H.
    b. LFs are self-similar, with self-similarity exponent h, but with undefined H.

    fine!
    “c. LWs are not self-similar, i.e. h is undefined, but H is well-defined: H = 1 – u/2”
    false, read my papers, h is defined and related to H!
    Now, on to S&W. They postulate that
    12: On time scales much shorter that the 11-yr solar cycle, the solar flare Index [SFI] and the Global Temperature Anomaly [GTA] have the same statistical properties.
    false! We use the waiting time distribution between “large” flares not the SFI which has a completely different meaning! This is the major error of R&R. They take apples for oranges! We explicitly excluded indexes such as the SFI from the analysis.
    By confusing apples for oranges R&R believed that the low frequency component of the temperature signal could be removed without problems. However, because we were talking about the time structure of the signal, the smooth part of the temperature is where the signal is and cannot be removed without alter the physical properties of the signal that we wanted to detect.
    In conclusion: R&R took apples for oranges and inverted the physical meaning of the low and high frequency component of the signal!

  166. Stephen Wilde (01:25:26) :
    Obviously the rise in temperature occurs first then the expansion.
    However the expansion then seems to facilitate an increased upward flow of energy from below. That increase in energy coming up from below adds to the solar warming effect in the upper layers which become warmer than they would have done just from the solar changes.

    You describe a strong positive feedback loop: temperature increase => expansion =&=; more increase => more expansion => warmer => more expansion … runaway…
    Anyway, your model starts with expansion, perhaps you should modify it to start with [as you now say] temperature rise. That exposes the circular argument. And you do not give numbers. I asked you specifically about that, and all you can say is that you do not know of anything else that might explain the climate, ergo …
    jinki (02:18:53) :
    A mean TSI value over the year is very different to a mean TSI figure for the cycle.
    Yeah, by typically 0.05%. Very different indeed.
    Your own figures are higher than the 1365.9 adopted by Steinhilber. The Steinhilber derived TSI values are based on an incorrect premise, it is obvious the end result is severely discounted.
    The only thing that makes sense in the relative values, as we do not know the absolute value better than 4 Wm2. Different reconstructions are thus arbitrarily aligned with a fiducial average, e.g. the 1365.57 used by Steinhilber and taken from the PMOD composite. SORCE TIM measure values 4.43 W/m2 lower than PMOD. You cannot therefore compare absolute values. My reconstruction is also arbitrarily shifted to 1366.0 Wm-2 for 1980-2000.
    EUV is considered important by recent studies dealing with climate drivers, your “no measurable contribution” statement is behind the times.
    You are confusing possible effects with the plain measurements of TSI. The latest values for the wattage of EUV is 0.0005 W/m2 which is below the stated precision of 0.007 W/m2 for TSI.
    oneuniverse (03:19:26) :
    Why not look at the CR-proxy data from the last 2000 years? We know climate hasn’t changed that much over the period.
    You are confusing the record itself with what it is being presumed to represent. Imagine that the CR-proxies WERE heavily contaminated by climate, then the proxies could still agree nicely with each other and yet not be reliable for extraction of any solar activity signal. And you were pushing the argument back hundreds of millions of years and I’ll maintain that the ‘data’ on that are dubious, both as regards climate and CRs. On short time-scales there is no good evidence for a GCR influence on ion-nucleation; people trying to measure that directly find no signal, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/acpd-9-21525-2009-print.pdf
    When people compare different proxy records they find regional differences, remember the discussion in http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004.pdf related to climate and ice-flow. A larger number of cores might in time help to extract the true solar signal.
    So, there is a signal, the ‘nonsense’ part was your claim that I refused to consider something. I consider everything that comes my way.
    Now, S&W claim that the climate link is through TSI. You et al. claim it is cosmic rays. It seems that the discussion should be between you and S&W to stay a bit on topic.

  167. Zoom a picture until you see just pixels, there you´ll find a lot of “that Levy walks”, however if you zoom it back you´ll see the picture of, say, a beautiful woman. What I try to say is that all that is to show there is but randomness and God plays dice, which is not the case. Zoom out the picture and forget all that numerology!

  168. Leif Svalgaard
    One of the problems I have is that the sun cannot cause warming,but it is used as explanation for an absence of warming,and cooling in the past eg Lean 2010 and Lockwood et al 2010.
    Are cold winters in Europe associated with low solar activity?
    Abstract. Solar activity during the current sunspot minimum has fallen to levels unknown since the start of the 20th century. The Maunder minimum (about 1650–1700) was a prolonged episode of low solar activity which coincided with more severe winters in the United Kingdom and continental Europe. Motivated by recent relatively cold winters in the UK, we investigate the possible connection with solar activity. We identify regionally anomalous cold winters by detrending the Central England temperature (CET) record using reconstructions of the northern hemisphere mean temperature. We show that cold winter excursions from the hemispheric trend occur more commonly in the UK during low solar activity, consistent with the solar influence on the occurrence of persistent blocking events in the eastern Atlantic. We stress that this is a regional and seasonal effect relating to European winters and not a global effect. Average solar activity has declined rapidly since 1985 and cosmogenic isotopes suggest an 8% chance of a return to Maunder minimum conditions within the next 50 years (Lockwood 2010 Proc. R. Soc. A 466 303–29): the results presented here indicate that, despite hemispheric warming, the UK and Europe could experience more cold winters than during recent decades.
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/2/024001/fulltext
    The paper must be rigorous and robust as per said comment,
    Michael Mann of Penn State University in the US says the research “appears to be a very solid analysis”, which “provides further support” for the idea that the Sun was behind Europe’s cold winters 300 years ago. He adds that he and other researchers have shown that fluctuations in solar activity can also explain the relatively warm winters that occurred in Europe about 1000 years ago’

  169. Leif Svalgaard (07:56:03):
    So, there is a signal, the ‘nonsense’ part was your claim that I refused to consider something.
    Now you’re agreeing that there is a retrievable production signal, but previously you were arguing against it, which if accepted would have reduced the credibility of the 10Be and 14C CR proxy studies I was referring to at that time.
    If you doubt this, please re-read our comments in that the thread. I cited various studies involving these proxies, and your only response was to question whether the proxies could be used to derive the CR production signal because, you repeatedly said, of the effects of changing climate on the depostion rate.
    eg. Leif Svalgaard (10:31:48) (earlier Scafetta/IPCC thread) :
    Over short periods of time the production rate dominates. Over longer period the geomagnetic field and the climate are dominant.
    The geomagnetic field is causatively ‘upstream’ of the atmospheric CR flux variable that was being calculated in that discussion, so unless the magnetic field has an effect on the deposition rate, it is not relevant here.
    The production rate, and not the climate-affected deposition rate, is dominant for timescales >100 years (shorter if there is a grand solar minima). 10Be depostion times in particular don’t vary much (~1-2 years), in any case.
    “On the common solar signal in different cosmogenic isotope data sets”
    Usoskin et al. 2009 :
    “Interplanetary magnetic field during the past 9300 years inferred from cosmogenic radionuclides”, Steinhilber et al. 2010 :
    “So far, the cosmogenic radionuclide data (e.g.10Be, 14C) are the only reliable source of information regarding the IMF prior to 1610. These data are proxies for the cosmic ray intensity at Earth, which is largely determined by the strength of the IMF. The cosmogenic records extend over more than ten thousands years, with an appropriate time resolution of a few years.”

  170. oneuniverse (12:53:58) :
    Now you’re agreeing that there is a retrievable production signal, but previously you were arguing against it, which if accepted would have reduced the credibility of the 10Be and 14C CR proxy studies I was referring to at that time.
    Sigh. There is no doubt a retrievable production signal and we are getting better at it. There is also no doubt contamination by other factors: climate, volcanics, geomagnetic field. With only one or a few records it is hard, if not impossible, to disentangle those effects. with more an more records becoming available, and also more information about the other factors [e.g. better models for the dipole changes], it is becoming easier to extract the solar signal, and as we do that we discover that the correlations get worse and worse.

  171. Leif Svalgaard (13:11:53) :
    with more and more records becoming available, and also more information about the other factors [e.g. better models for the dipole changes], it is becoming easier to extract the solar signal
    An example of what I’m talking about:
    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039439.pdf
    Their Figure 1 shows 14C and 10Be records the past 10,000 years. Note that the long-term variations [orange and blue top curves] are quite different. Only when we remove the long-term variation [caused by regional differences, climate, different physics, etc] do we recover the solar signal [lower panel].
    In http://www.leif.org/research/Loehle-Temps-and-TSI.png I have taken the lower panel, reversed the time [I hate it when people plot time running backwards] and show how well the short-term variations agree with Steinhilbers [middle panel], and how poorly they relate to the temperature reconstruction. One can formalize this by calculating the cross-correlation coefficient, but already by eye it is obvious that the correlation, if any, is very poor [like where in the lower records is the clear 2000-year wave seem in temperatures?]. A favorite trick is to claim: “yeah but from 1421 to 1454 the trend appears to be the same”. In a wiggly curve you can find many such ‘matches’. I could go through the trouble to digitize the Figures and do the correlation exercise [and so could you – why don’t you, or try to get the data from the authors], but it will be a waster of time because you would then just find a different temperature reconstruction or another [obsolete] 14C curve and then we start all over, ad infinitum.

  172. Leif Svalgaard (07:56:03)
    I don’t see that there has to be a runaway.
    The solar effect both initiates and limits the process.
    The atmospheric ‘stimulation’ from the solar variability can stop the process as easily as it can start it.
    Why do you think otherwise ?

  173. Interesting paper “Are cold winters in Europe associated with low solar activity?” – M Lockwood1, R G Harrison, T Woolling and S K Solanki.
    Link to Physics World article here:-
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42298
    Part quote from article – (bold mine)
    “…changes to the behaviour of a current of air known as a jet stream that travels west to east across the Atlantic. The jet stream can get caught up in itself and remain blocked over the ocean, preventing mild maritime winds from reaching Europe and allowing icy arctic winds to take their place. Changes in solar magnetic activity would affect the amount of ultraviolet radiation emitted by the Sun, which could then affect temperatures and wind patterns in the stratosphere, effects which, as shown by other recent research, can feed down to the troposphere – the lowest portion of the atmosphere.
    According to Lockwood, lower solar activity does not guarantee a cold winter. He points out that England’s coldest winter on record was 1684 but that the following year was the third warmest on record, even though solar activity remained very low. Conversely, he adds, 1947 was a cold winter even though solar activity was high. However, he says, the results show that there are more cold winters when solar activity is low and more warm ones when it is high…”

  174. Tenuc (14:45:37)
    When solar activity is high the Polar Oscillations are weaker, energy escapes faster to space, jet streams move poleward and the mid latitudes warm up.
    When solar activity is weak the Polar Oscillations are stronger, energy escapes more slowly to space, jet streams move equatorward and the mid latitudes cool down.
    However the behaviour of the oceans also has to be taken into account and I suspect you will find that the exceptions to the general rule always occurred when oceanic effects offset the solar effects.

  175. I am follow the discussion from this night. By my opinion it is very interesting ,because the problem the relationship “sunspot activity -solar
    flares” is noth enough close. It is very crude similarity of the sunspot and flare (+CME) 11 yr cycles. The relationship is relative good in the increasing and near maximal phases, but after that /in the downward phase/ it is falling down. This effect is very good expressed for the strong classes flares (M and even more for X) as well as for CMEs.
    During the last month in collaboration with Dr. Peter Duchlev (from our Institute of Astronomy -Bulg. Academy of Sciences) we finished a study for reconstruction of C, M and X classes flares time series since March 1968 up to Dec. 2009 by using of SOLRAD and GOES satellite data. For the period between March 1973 to Aug. 1975 there are not observations and we put there “synthetic data” -on the base of multiple regressions between the monthly number of C,M and X flares as predictants and the montly numbers of radiobursts in four frequences in the MHz and GHz ranges + the F10.7 flux as factors-predictors / very good relationships , coeffucients of correlation R =0.79 for the X class, 0.89 for the C lass and 0.92 for the M class, the period is AD 1980-2009; GOES data; small residual variance -14% for M to 38% for X/.
    The most interesting result is that there is NOT relationship between the sunspot cycle magnitude and the number of M and even more X class flares. For example cycle No 20 is the most weakest as sunspot magnitude from the last 4 ones, BUT the percent of X class flares and the absolute number is essentially higher as in No 21, 22 and 23. In contrary , for the C -class events the situation is very roughly like for the sunspots, i.e. they are less in No 20 as in 21, 22 and 23. The overall flare activity roughly follow the C and B class flare activity and by this one it roughly follow the overall sunspot activity too. But this is not valid for M and for X classes flares.
    The last one is VERY IMPORTANT in the context of the “Sun- climate” relationship.
    I am interested of solar flares influences over the climate since 2003, after when I found statisticaly strong cycles in the range of 50-70 years and ~ 110-120 years in the “Greenland” 10Be series with strong analogs in climatic data series. Because now is very late night there I will only mark my general conclusions concerning the flares- climate relationship
    1. The most powerfull flares – especially the higer degrees of the X class are the most important component of the overall “Sun-climate” relationship, about 50-60% participation , which is 2-2.5 times higher as from TSI or GCR variations. The quasy 55-60 and 110-120 year climatic oscilations are caused by the “flare” solar component. The 55-60 both and 205-210 yr cycles are very clear detectable in the midle latitude auroral events.
    2. However the effect is strongly non-linear and its sign depend by the N-S assymetry. At mean and high level of flare activity in the northern hemisphere the effect is “climate cooling” and “climate warming ” in the case of when there are high levels and negative (south) assymetry. WWhen the sunspot activity tend to 0 /during the ssolar minimums/ the south assymetry correspond to cooling , while the north one -for warming. These effects are very exactly detected by multiple regression analysis/There are 42-45, 54 , 66 and 115-120 year cycles in the N-S sunspot arrea assymetry for the period 1820-1994.
    3. Physical mechanisms of the relationships (hypothesis)- (a) high energetic solar particles ionization and aerosol generation forcing in the trophosphere; (b) spaccial redistribution of the galactic cosmic rays flux and on this base – climatic effect
    4. The warming tendency after AD 1975 is most probably caused by two factors: a/ the downward tendency of flare activuty from the stronger classes and the transition of the sunspot arrea assymetry index from positive to negative near to AD 1975-76.
    5. Relations for the Sun-climate relationship during solar cycle No 24: It need to taken into account not only the weak general amplitude of this cycle /i.e relative low levels of TSI and high levels of GCR/ but also the flare activity regime and the assymetry index. The most possible situation – low overall sunspot activity centered predominaantly in the Norther Sun hemisphere + high number of M and X class flares, i.e. general cooling effect
    6. In the flare activity during the great solar minima epochs the stronger classes M and X are dominated. There are historical evidences for this one. The climate cooling during these epochs is much more caused by this one as by the TSI decreasing. This is why the deepest phases of cooling are not strongly centered to the deepest phase of sunspot minimums, but usually are delayed approximately by one 11 yr cycle

  176. Harry Lu (18:52:17) :
    Thanks for that Harry, I googled FFT and came up with ‘Fast Fourier Transform’. However, your linked graphs don’t mean much to me yet (I’ll ‘bone up’ on that later), but your description of time series to frequency rings a bell on carrier wave frequency spectral separation and information content to me for telecoms. They aren’t the same, but I think can have similarities where there is close carrier bleed through between signals in AM (audio modulation).
    I think I get the idea. We’re looking for a frequency that isn’t there in the solar signal, to match an observed temperature anomaly frequency. However, as ocean surface is ~70% of Earth’s surface with an albedo of ~0.9 (ignoring cloud shadow), wouldn’t the major ‘coupling’ be to ocean surface temperatures, or perhaps near [sub] ocean surface temperatures? As the ocean surface coupling would likely be swamped at times in tropical latitudes and result in hurricanes and typhoons (the ‘overheated’ thermostat).
    So. Why are we looking for this coupling in land near surface temperatures?
    I still favour the UV hypothesis. It has a memory that presents as ozone propensity.
    Again, thanks for the ‘pointers’. I’ve already used them, but being sole carer for my mother 24/7 at her home for over a year now (she’s 98 in May) I’ve not been able to use my LAN network at home with all my references. I’m stuck with this pesky lap top that doesn’t even have a printer attached to it. However, I’ll survive and thanks for your help.
    BTW, EUV isn’t the usual ‘Dobson’ figure, It’s the level that UV may damage your skin! This brings about a calibration and unification scenario.
    PS. My post may have been superseded by Boris. I haven’t digested this yet.
    Best regards, suricat.

  177. jinki (18:06:39) :
    A reasonable match I would think.
    Only for a most hardened believer, I would think. Take, f.ex., the ‘matches’ in 1005 and 1605. In addition, the Solanki reconstruction does not match the Steinhilber very well and the Moberg temperatures don’t match the Loehle very well. An objective test is to compute the cross-correlation between your two series. Do that and come back again. Considering that climate science is a trillion dollar game, it might be worth your time to calculate the correlation for us. Perhaps even have your important result peer-reviewed and published for inclusion in IPCC’s AR5.

  178. Leif Svalgaard (19:16:34) :
    the Solanki reconstruction does not match the Steinhilber very well
    Considering they are both proxy records taken from different area’s there is a remarkable match between both sets, perhaps you have not seen the match up?
    Keeping in mind all the data sets mentioned are proxy records the match up of Solanki and Moberg is good, certainly good enough to suggest strongly there is a link between the two. Also keep in mind the earth bound systems and buffers involved in the climate process, you cannot expect an exact match.
    Speaking of peer review, last time I checked the Steinhilber paper we have been discussing was not peer reviewed, is that still the case?

  179. jinki (20:03:34) :
    Also keep in mind the earth bound systems and buffers involved in the climate process, you cannot expect an exact match.
    The match between the two solar activity proxies and between the two temperature reconstructions are, of course, better that between solar activity and temperature. To call anything ‘remarkable’ is, as I said, for the enthusiasts. If we even had an approximate match there might be something, but we don’t. Since you are not inclined [I think] to disprove your claim by calculating the correlation, it seems I’ll have to do it for you. Give me a few hours.
    Speaking of peer review, last time I checked the Steinhilber paper we have been discussing was not peer reviewed, is that still the case?
    Steinhilber was peer-reviewed and published in GRL: http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0919/2009GL040142/2009GL040142.pdf on 2 Oct. 2009.

  180. Yet another ‘NEW’ ‘investigation’ to ‘disprove’ the already clearly demonstrated causal connection between solar activity (particularly particle-magnetic) and Earth’s weather!
    They use the same tired old 3 step deceit:-
    1. Choose any solar parameter that follows the 11 year cycle (as most do).
    2. Compare that on short time scales preferably about 5 years or less (to keep the 11 year signal in view) with world temperatures – which it is well known follow the 22 year magnetic cycle of the Sun.
    3. Announce !*!!NEW!!*! FINDINGS that half the time the two data sets move in different directions (OBVIOUSLY!) and therefore “The Sun Doesn’t do it”. Put this in any Climate-fraud friendly journal which will likely put an editorial Comment to the effect ‘Oh well then it must be CO2’.
    However in using the “It’s not a dog therefore it must be a Cat!” ruse be careful to avoid approaching any actual Canine Defence journals because they might actually conclude “Ah well then it must be cats”.
    The negative scientific integrity of the anti-solar crew (or cru) and associates has been reported before but most usefully have a look at
    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3307&linkbox=true&position=6
    and Comment therein which Links to VIDEO.
    Also for web-movies showing examples of the causal chain of (PREDICTED) events Solar flares -> Sudden Ionospheric disturbances -> geomagnetic storms -> shifts in polar winds & jetstream -> predicted weather extremes, have a look at:
    http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews10No8.pdf
    Thanks Piers Corbyn (also piers@weatheraction.com)

  181. Piers Corbyn (21:14:52) :
    Yet another ‘NEW’ ‘investigation’ to ‘disprove’ the already clearly demonstrated causal connection between solar activity (particularly particle-magnetic) and Earth’s weather!
    As the late Jack Eddy once remarked: “this topic brings all kinds of critters out of the woodwork”.
    As long as you have not explained in detail what your theory/correlation/method/whatever is you have little standing.

  182. Leif Svalgaard (07:56:03)
    In suggesting a runaway event I think you have missed the point that I am proposing only a redistribution of energy within the system.
    Any additional non solar warming of the layers of atmosphere above the stratosphere caused by an acceleration of the upward energy flow would be offset by the corresponding cooling of the stratosphere for a zero net effect from the energy redistribution process overall.
    The more active sun draws energy through the system faster by first warming and then expanding the atmosphere. You have accepted that the extra UV during periods of more active sun affects layers other than the thermosphere, indeed you have accepted that an effect is observed down to the stratosphere itself.
    That radiative effect works faster than the predominant conductive and convective processes in the troposphere can adjust to it and the temperature of the stratosphere varies whilst the equilibrium remains out of balance. That imbalance affects the size, position and intensity of the Arctic and Antarctic Oscillations.
    The Arctic and Antarctic Oscillations then vie with oceanic effects on the energy flow from below and it is the ever changing balance between solar effects from above and oceanic effects from below that dictates every climate phenomenon and all the observed variability.

  183. Stephen Wilde (21:30:49) :
    In suggesting a runaway event I think you have missed the point that I am proposing only a redistribution of energy within the system.
    Numbers, Stephen, numbers!
    Begin with some numbers for the ‘speed of energy flow’ [I presume in meters per second or something like that] from layer to layer.
    This discussion is OT here [hijacking a thread is not nice]. Return with your answer to the appropriate thread where we discussed this before, please.

  184. jinki (18:06:39) :
    Comparison of Moberg’s temperature reconstruction and the Solanki 14C solar proxy record for the past 2000 years here.
    A reasonable match I would think.

    I digitized your Figure and sampled the values every 10 ten years [Solanki’s values are 10-year mean IIRC]. Here is the result:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Moberg-Solanki-Correlation.png
    The lower plot is the correlation. As you can see R^2 is 0.0392, which means that only 3.9% of Moberg is ‘explained’ by Solanki. Furthermore, even this number is too high as there is considerable autocorrelation in the data. At any rate, such a low R^2 is usually not considered significant, so there is no ‘reasonable match’.

  185. Leif Svalgaard (22:27:49) :
    At any rate, such a low R^2 is usually not considered significant, so there is no ‘reasonable match’.
    I am not sure why you would run such a test on proxy records that at best could be expected to have a loose fit. We are looking for trends that might match, not super close correlations. What is obvious is the major events lining up, the Dalton, Maunder, Sporer, Wolf and Oort grand minima are matching along with the modern maxima and MWP. The Loehle reconstruction also showing a reasonable fit suggesting a good portion of our climate is controlled by the Sun.
    I wouldn’t bother with the Mann and Briffa reconstructions.

  186. jinki (23:36:00) :
    What is obvious is the major events lining up, the Dalton, Maunder, Sporer, Wolf and Oort grand minima are matching along with the modern maxima and MWP.
    No, it is obvious that they don’t match:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Moberg-Solanki-Correlation.png
    I have marked the disagreements with green ovals.
    And go further back in time and note the disagreements. Look carefully at the Loehle plot and see that the big wave in Temps are not present in Solar activity. If you won’t see it, then I just give up on you. Fair enough?

  187. I have found 25 years ago that studiying the “sunspots -temperature” dependence for a large number of metheorological stations (without smoothing) that the better relationships are of type:
    T =a/Ri+b; T- temperature , Ri – the international sunspot number.
    whree coefficients of correlation are between 0.35 and 0.55
    The “a” values are negative in all cases, i.e the “sunspot-temperaature” relationship stay important near to sunspot minima epochs.
    There are not exactly Ri= 0 mean annual values during the investigated period (1899-1979) and this is why the above mentioned relationship is possible.
    However, if a shifting (cross-correlation) on 5 or 6 years is provided the relationship is transformed in the common linear with the approximately same coefficients of correlations.

  188. Leif Svalgaard (07:56:03) :
    On short time-scales there is no good evidence for a GCR influence on ion-nucleation; people trying to measure that directly find no signal, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/acpd-9-21525-2009-print.pdf
    In that study, the measurements of nucleation events were taken with instruments 2-8 m off the ground. Only the high energy CRs penetrate to have an effect at such a low altitude (eg. Usoskin et al. 2004), and those CRs are not affected much by solar variations, so one wouldn’t expect to see a solar cycle influence on GCRs and hence ion-nucleation at that height.
    If you look at Fig. 11b of the paper, comparing cloudiness & cosmic ray ionisation intensity, there appears to be a correlation.
    There are some atmospheric observations in the paper too – Fig. 9 shows that while the ion/particle ratio is highest at altitudes 3000-8000m (for the airborne observations taken in May 2008 over Central Europe), the concentration of particles in the 2-10 nm range drops at heights of 2000-6000m.
    One would wish to know the corresponding observations for larger particles – condensation nuclei (CN) are >1-2 nm, and cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) are about ~50 nm – perhaps at 2000-6000m, CCN are being formed from CN with CN being a limiting resource, hence the drop in 2-10nm particle concentration.
    Harrison and Stephenson looked at 50 years of daily instrumental insolation data gathered in the UK, compared to neutron monitor counts from Climax in Colarado, and found a significant correlation. The study is independent of satellite cloud data and provides support for the Svensmark’s CR-cloud work.
    “Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds”
    Harrison and Stephenson 2006
    “Across the UK, on days of high cosmic ray flux (above 3600×102 neutron counts h−1, which occur 87% of the time on average) compared with low cosmic ray flux, (i) the chance of an overcast day increases by (19±4) %, and (ii) the diffuse fraction increases by (2±0.3) %. During sudden transient reductions in cosmic rays (e.g. Forbush events), simultaneous decreases occur in the diffuse fraction.”
    “Although the statistically significant nonlinear cosmic ray effect is small, it will have a considerably larger aggregate effect on longer timescale (e.g. centennial) climate variations when day-to-day variability averages out.”

    Concerning CR activity at different altitudes, latitudes and energies :
    “Cosmic ray induced ionization in the atmosphere: Spatial and temporal changes”
    Usoskin, Gladysheva and Kovaltsov 2004
    Cosmic Rays and Climate
    Kirkby 2008
    “There is some experimental and observational evidence to support the presence of ion induced nucleation in the atmosphere. Early studies, beginning in the 1960’s, [111, 112] demonstrated ultrafine particle production from ions in the laboratory, at ion production rates typically found in the lower atmosphere. This has also been found in a more recent laboratory experiment, under conditions closer to those found in the atmosphere [113]. Observations of ion-induced nucleation in the upper troposphere have also been reported [114, 115] and also of aerosol bursts in the lower troposphere [116], although their rate frequently exceeds what could be caused by instantaneous ion-induced nucleation. Laboratory
    measurements have shown that ions are indeed capable, under certain conditions, of suppressing or even removing the barrier to nucleation in embryonic molecular clusters of water and sulphuric acid at typical
    atmospheric concentrations, so that nucleation takes place at a rate simply determined by the collision frequency [117, 118, 119].”

  189. Leif Svalgaard (00:27:29) :
    If you won’t see it, then I just give up on you. Fair enough?
    I gave up on you long ago.

  190. Leif Svalgaard (13:11:53): There is no doubt a retrievable production signal and we are getting better at it. There is also no doubt contamination by other factors: climate, volcanics, geomagnetic field.
    I see that you’re pretending that you didn’t reject the availability of this production signal in the earlier thread.
    Also, I have to note that you provide no comment on your misleadingly-edited quotation from Steinhilber et al., concerning the presence of production and climate signals. One would normally expect an apology or explanation after being caught in such an apparently mendacious act. It’s a matter of conscience and integrity. Perhaps you feel that the stakes are too high to admit any mistakes or misdemeanours – I suggest an opposite is the case.
    Anyway, the geomagnetic field is not a contaminant of the CR-flux signal, although it does need to be considered if calculating solar variables from these proxies.
    jinki (18:06:39) :
    Figs. 2 & 3 of the Kirkby 2007 paper referenced above show better correlations over the last 2k years. The 10Be & 14C proxies are used to determine CR-flux rather than SSN. The former has a more direct physical relationship to the isotope formation process, and therefore has fewer uncertainties in its derivation.

  191. Nicola Scafetta (19:52:00) , (07:15:55) , (12:57:00)
    Dr. Scafetta, thank you for the rebuttal and explanations.
    Nicola Scafetta : The issue is why, when the data are analyzed without improper manipulation such as detrending, they suggest a link between solar activity and climate.
    Since the correlations are between terrestrial and extraterrestrial variables, some of the confounding uncertainties which would preclude a conclusion of a causative connection are removed, if we asssume that terrestrial climate events have negligable effect on extra-terrestrial events.
    For two correlated variables A & B, either
    a) The correlation is a coincidence – less likely as the duration of the correlation period extends
    b) A affects B
    c) B affects A
    d) Some system C affects both A and B
    e) A and B have a non-physical connection, such as a similarity in structure.
    If A is terrestrial and B is extra-terrestrial, then option (b) is no longer available, and in option (d), C must also be extra-terrestrial. Therefore either it’s a coincidence, and or some extra-terrestrial factor is influencing B, or exotic possibility (e).

  192. oneuniverse (05:17:19) :
    Also, I have to note that you provide no comment on your misleadingly-edited quotation from Steinhilber et al., concerning the presence of production and climate signals.
    Remind me of what that was, so I can comment.
    Anyway, the geomagnetic field is not a contaminant of the CR-flux signal, although it does need to be considered if calculating solar variables from these proxies.
    For people like S&W that claim that TSI is causatitive, the geomagnetic field is a problem. For people that claim that CR as such is causative, the field should not be corrected for. This is, as you point out, correct., but then you run into the problem that the actual flux does not correlate with temperatures, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg
    The usual excuse is that the CRs that are important for Svensmark are so energetic [greater than 10 Gev] that the dipole changes don’t matter. That introduces another problem, namely that the is very little solar modulation of CRs above 10 GeV.
    The 10Be & 14C proxies are used to determine CR-flux rather than SSN.
    They derive the SSN from the proxies [there were no observed SSN before 1610].

  193. jinki (04:55:30) :
    I gave up on you long ago.
    Faced with an R^2 of 0.04 and the glaring discrepancies [green ovals], it seems prudent to give up. So, at least, we are making some progress…

  194. To take a broader view:
    One issue that sticks out: Proxy reconstructions are problematic.
    There are enough variables (many with their own problems of reconstruction) that a clever person can reconstruct the climate or the Sun’s activity level to suggest whatever “outcome” one is predisposed to find, whether consciously or unconsciously.
    Either side to the issue at hand can take most any study and poke holes in it.
    It’s a demonstration that “science by proxy” ends up being a field day for whichever side has the most clever individuals supporting it. In my opinion that’s not good Science.
    Good Science is not consensus, but consensus in this kind of battle usually wins the war and the victors write the history and thus the consensus ends up appearing as if there was the only reasonable analysis & interpretation of the scientific evidence.
    When, in fact, there were other reasonable alternative analysis & interpretation of the evidence — in fact, it’s entirely reasonable and possible that the consensus is wrong — and in terms of past climate-Sun interactions, quite possible Science will never know what happened with a high degree of accuracy or certainty.
    Perhaps, this comment will make neither side happy.
    But “happy” is for politics — Science is about trying to answer a question about a physical relationship, whether past, present, or future, but also realizing (particularly past events in the field that weren’t observed & measured in high resolution) there will be times when Science has to frankly admit — we don’t know and possibly or likely will never know.
    Beware of those in science who claim absolute certainty in the face of uncertainty about issues that are problematic — it’s likely they are simply attempting to be a shaman or worse, a charlatan.
    Trillion dollar questions and the actions and consequences dependent on those trillion dollar questions should not be taken on such flimsy foundations.
    The first injuction of medical science is “do no harm”.
    For a scientific question that has such huge political and economic magnitude and consequences, “do no harm” has to be the fail-safe position.
    That Man-caused CO2 results in dangerous climate warming is an extraordinary claim — therefore, it takes extraordinary evidence to confirm it.
    So, far, the “extraordinary evidence” is entirely lacking.

  195. Leif Svalgaard (09:00:23) :
    oneuniverse (06:01:52) :
    For two correlated variables A & B, either…
    As long as R^2 is of the order of 0.04, NO explanation is needed.

  196. Leif Svalgaard (21:25:18) :
    Piers Corbyn (21:14:52) :
    Yet another ‘NEW’ ‘investigation’ to ‘disprove’ the already clearly demonstrated causal connection between solar activity (particularly particle-magnetic) and Earth’s weather!
    As the late Jack Eddy once remarked: “this topic brings all kinds of critters out of the woodwork”.
    arrampicandosi sugli specchi

  197. To Leif Svalgaard (08:08:15) :
    “For people like S&W that claim that TSI is causatitive, the geomagnetic field is a problem. ”
    As usual Leif does his best to mislead people and misrepresent our papers. In our paper we have never stated that the TSI is “causative”. We have always stated that we are using the TSI records as “proxy” for the sun-climate interaction.
    This means that according the logic of our papers TSI real effects on climate may be even zero. And what is causing climate change is a mysterious extraterrestrial forcing “X” that for some mysterious reason has geometrical patterns that look quite similar to the patterns found in the TSI records, that is it has a 11-year cycle plus the other modulations found in such records. We simply assume that TSI is an acceptable proxy for the extraterrestrial forcings of climate whatever they might be, and found that the results are quite good, indeed. Indeed, the TSI records we have are “proxy” and we treat them as such!
    I ask again Leif to read our papers before criticizing them without having read them.

  198. Ulric Lyons (12:17:11) :
    arrampicandosi sugli specchi
    You are right. However, solving the problem is not impossible! 🙂
    I just ask that people read carefully the papers and try to understand the issues and the reasoning instead of misinterpreting them and then claiming that they have disproved them. The careless behaviors of the critics is what makes these kind of issues more complicated than what they are!

  199. oneuniverse (05:17:19) :
    Figs. 2 & 3 of the Kirkby 2007 paper referenced above show better correlations over the last 2k years. The 10Be & 14C proxies are used to determine CR-flux rather than SSN. The former has a more direct physical relationship to the isotope formation process, and therefore has fewer uncertainties in its derivation.
    The Kirkby results do show a better correlation, and attempting to discredit the correlation with inappropriate tools would also be pointless. The general trends observed in the NH cave deposits agreeing with the Moberg data.
    Here is fig 3 from the Kirkby paper.
    http://i44.tinypic.com/negpzm.jpg
    Two proxy records in the Kirkby paper in general agreement, that’s all any reasonable person could expect.

  200. Nicola Scafetta (15:27:37) :
    “Ulric Lyons (12:17:11) :
    arrampicandosi sugli specchi
    You are right. However, solving the problem is not impossible! :)”
    One may consider the use of acronyms. EUV is duplicitous in its meaning, thus, a ‘mirror’ image of your logic may be apparent to a reader. It’s a good idea to present an ‘acronym’ with the more verbose form in brackets as an introduction of the acronym to your text.
    Having said that, this isn’t the current problem.
    Best regards, suricat.

  201. Leif Svalgaard (08:08:15) :
    Remind me of what that was, so I can comment.
    The partial quotation from Steinhilber et al. 2010. Please refer to the exchange at 21:03:58, 21:54:17 and 07:00:20 in the earlier thread, and contained in a summary here at 03:19:26.
    Leif: The usual excuse is that the CRs that are important for Svensmark are so energetic [greater than 10 Gev] that the dipole changes don’t matter. That introduces another problem, namely that the is very little solar modulation of CRs above 10 GeV.
    Although lower energy CRs are present in greater numbers, they’re less able to penetrate the trposphere, and are more strongly modulated by the geo- and solar magnetic fields. For lower portions of the troposphere, higher energy CRs provide a significant amount of the ionisation – see Usoskin, Gladysheva and Kovaltsov (2004), hyperlinked earlier.
    The 11-year solar cycle appears to affect low cloud cover :
    “Latitudinal dependence of low cloud amount on cosmic ray
    induced ionization”
    Usoskin, Marsh, Kovaltsov,Mursula, Gladysheva 2004
    “We find that the time evolution of the low cloud amount can be decomposed into a long-term trend and inter-annual variations, the latter depicting a clear 11-year cycle. We also find that the relative inter-annual variability in low cloud amount increases polewards and exhibits a highly significant one-to-one relation with inter-annual variations in the ionization over the latitude range 20–55◦S and 10–70◦N. This latitudinal dependence gives strong support for the hypothesis that the cosmic ray induced ionization modulates cloud properties.”
    Correction to 06:01:52 : “Therefore either it’s a coincidence, and or some extra-terrestrial factor is influencing B..”:
    That should have been “.. some extra-terrestrial factor is influencing A”.

  202. oneuniverse (17:56:36) :
    The partial quotation from Steinhilber et al. 2010.
    Ah, the one where they say that the climate-induced effects are not negligible.
    Although lower energy CRs are present in greater numbers, they’re less able to penetrate the trposphere, and are more strongly modulated by the geo- and solar magnetic fields. For lower portions of the troposphere, higher energy CRs provide a significant amount of the ionization
    I think that was precisely what I said: the higher energy CRs that are significant for ionization are hardly modulated at all, so we would not expect any modulation of ionization.
    jinki (16:36:39) :
    Two proxy records in the Kirkby paper in general agreement, that’s all any reasonable person could expect.
    No, these are extraordinary claims, and require extraordinary evidence, not just cherry picked weak correlations.
    Nicola Scafetta (15:19:22) :
    In our paper we have never stated that the TSI is “causative”. We have always stated that we are using the TSI records as “proxy” for the sun-climate interaction.
    In your presentation [and I refer to that one because it is at a more accessible level for most – on purpose, i presume] of 26 Feb. 2009, you refer extensively to TSI (I count 55 times) and refer to ‘thermodynamic’ forcings.
    And what is causing climate change is a mysterious extraterrestrial forcing “X” that for some mysterious reason has geometrical patterns that look quite similar to the patterns found in the TSI records
    Not a single time do you refer to forcing ‘X’. Now, it is good if you have abandoned the TSI track, as that was clearly not fruitful. I’m not so sure Mystery-X will be more palatable. After all, we are seeking physical causes.
    About the Levy walks. The R&R paper was not my paper. I was extracting and perhaps making a bit more accessible the general ideas as expressed by R&R, including the fact that Levy-walks are not scale invariant. You are claiming that R&R do not understand what a Levy-walk is. The Figure 3 I showed [with the spikes] is from a lecture series by the Rypdals http://web.me.com/kristofferrypdal/Publication_Site/Popular_and_media_files/Birkelandseminar%2014.%20januar.pdf
    It is in Norwegian [which I understand very well] and may not be easily decipherable, but you can find the discussion on page 30. Their main argument is that you think that the process is a Levy-walk, while it in fact is a Levy-flight.
    It is not a valid objection form you that R&R [and by extension I] do not know what Levy-walks are. I think they [and I] do.

  203. Leif Svalgaard (22:35:05): Ah, the one where they say that the climate-induced effects are not negligible.
    Yes – your selective quotation was deceptive, in my opinion. Your quotation established that both a production signal and a climate atmospheric signal exist in the cosmogenic data. The paper goes on to say in the next sentence that the climate signal is not negligable, it is comparatively small compared to the production signal. That’s the very point I was trying to make, and which you were arguing against.
    You edited out the salient part of the paragraph – very unscientific.
    Leif Svalgaard: I think that was precisely what I said: the higher energy CRs that are significant for ionization are hardly modulated at all, so we would not expect any modulation of ionization.
    Modulation does occur, though. The 11-year solar cycle is clearly visible in the instrumental record. The higher energy CRs are modulated less, the lower ones more. Looking at results in Usoskin et al. (2004) paper for polar regions, the lower energy CRs are contributing to troposheric ionisation too, although one would expect the the low energy CR contribution to lessen geomagnetically stronger equatorial latitudes.

  204. Correction to final sentence : “..the low energy CR contribution to lessen at geomagnetically stronger equatorial latitudes.”

  205. Leif Svalgaard (22:35:05) replying to jinki:
    No, these are extraordinary claims, and require extraordinary evidence, not just cherry picked weak correlations.
    Claims of cherry-picking also require evidence.
    There seem to be too many papers finding climate correlations with solar variables for them all to be cherry-picked. It’s possible, but your opinion on the matter is insufficient – provide evidence, please :
    – Usoskin, Marsh, Kovaltsov,Mursula, Gladysheva (2004), cited earlier, use the ISCPP D2 cloud cover dataset – are you saying that’s an example of cherry-picking? Is their CR data cherry-picked?
    – How exactly are the results of Harrison and Stephenson (2006), also cited earlier, based on cherry-picked data?

  206. Leif Svalgaard (22:35:05) :
    as usual you try to not understand the issue. Those spikes emerge in the integrated signal if you look at it at different diffusion times because a Levy walk is constrained.
    In any case, in Levy-Walk, what is distributed with an inverse power law is the waiting time between two events. R&R instead took the amplitude of the SFI as the index, which is a measure of the daily energy emitted by the solar fare that we explicitly excluded. SFI amplitude is too a Levy signal, but it is not what we were talking about.
    To let you to understand the difference between the waiting time distribution and the SFI distribution of increments as R&R use you need just to consider that a waiting time distribution is defined only for “Delta tau”>0, while for a SFI distribution of increments “Delta X” the distribution is defined for both positive and negative values (that is they are symmetric around zero) which are the ones that R&R shows in their figure 1e and 1d.
    This yields to a complete misunderstanding of the math that needs to be used because they have confused the waiting time between the events for the amplitude of the single event. It is like confusing the frequency of a sinusoidal signal for its amplitude!

  207. oneuniverse (03:04:21) :
    Yes – your selective quotation was deceptive, in my opinion.
    Deception implies intent, so is a severe accusation, but such seems to be the order here.
    it is comparatively small compared to the production signal.
    The paper was concerned with relatively small variations in climate. The context of our discussion was much longer time scales where much larger climate variation will have occurred. E.g. a glaciation.
    Looking at results in Usoskin et al. (2004) paper for polar regions, the lower energy CRs are contributing to troposheric ionisation too, although one would expect the the low energy CR contribution to lessen geomagnetically stronger equatorial latitudes.
    Cloud cover in the polar region has very little impact on the climate [albedo is already high because of the snow and ice and solar insulation is already very small]. The important region is precisely the equatorial one.
    are you saying that’s an example of cherry-picking?
    Perhaps not by them, but certainly by you. How many papers have you cited that show no evidence of CR effect? And there are many, especially newer ones. You have not cited a single one…
    Nicola Scafetta (05:12:25) :
    as usual you try to not understand the issue
    I was explaining the paper by R&R, so you’ll have to claim that they did not understand the issue.
    R&R instead took the amplitude of the SFI as the index […] This yields to a complete misunderstanding of the math that needs to be used
    The sticking point is not just about SFI [which is a Levy-flight and not a walk], but also whether the global temperature is a FBM process or a Levy-walk. You have to specifically show where their mistake is rather than just claim that they don’t understand anything.

  208. Nicola Scafetta (05:12:25) :
    as usual you try to not understand the issue.
    I think that my extensive comments here are good indicators that I am trying to understand the issue. But on your part, instead of saying that people don’t understand anything, you should better use your energy on furthering their understanding. E.g. one of R&Rs criticisms is that you do not show the PDFs [as they did in their Figure 2]. This would seem to be easily countered: simply show them.
    About the SFI and amplitudes vs. frequencies. The amplitude of the SFI by its definition includes a frequency component: If many flares occur on a given day [or month] that is the waiting time is short, the amplitude of the SFI will be high. If anything, that might indicate that the SFI is inappropriate for this kind of analysis because of mixing of amplitude and frequency components.

  209. Leif Svalgaard (06:13:55) :
    Ok, now I see that you are trying to understand. You have finally acknowledged that “SFI [which is a Levy-flight and not a walk]”. Because we are talking about “Levy Walk” and not “Levy Flight” R&R took apples for oranges. So SFI is inappropriate for the analysis.
    The problem now is that if you think that the phenomenon is described by “apples” you will think that what matters are the local increments and believe that the smooth component of the signal can be removed without problems. This is what R&R did.
    If you realize that the phenomenon is described by “oranges” you will understand that what matters is the smooth component, not the increments which can be also random Gaussian noise. So the smooth component of the temperature signal can not be removed without changing the physical properties of the signal.
    In conclusion R&R is misleading because their methodology did not disprove what we were talking about, they just misunderstood the physics of our arguments!
    The waiting time PDF relative to the solar flare intermittency is discussed in my longer paper on the issue, see figure 5 in http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/PRE46203_02.pdf
    As you can see the distribution is quite different from what R&R plot.
    The PDF cannot be taken for the temperature because you need to study the temporal patterns, not its increments. This is better done in the frequency domain.

  210. suricat (17:12:30) :
    … think I get the idea. We’re looking for a frequency that isn’t there in the solar signal, to match an observed temperature anomaly frequency. However, as ocean surface is ~70% of Earth’s surface with an albedo of ~0.9 (ignoring cloud shadow), wouldn’t the major ‘coupling’ be to ocean surface temperatures, or perhaps near [sub] ocean surface temperatures? As the ocean surface coupling would likely be swamped at times in tropical latitudes and result in hurricanes and typhoons (the ‘overheated’ thermostat).
    So. Why are we looking for this coupling in land near surface temperatures?

    Seasonal changes in global temperatures obviously are caused by changes in the solar radiation received by the different hemispheres. Whilst this is much greater than TSI variation it causes a 40C variation in UK that is exactly synchronized but phase shifted by about a month with the changing radiation patterns. The oceans can act as a low pass filter on the temperature variation. But frequencies of 1 cycle per year are still allowed to give seasons.
    TSI is on 11 year cycle I do not see why the low pass filter effect of the oceans should not allow the signal to be visible. It is not however!
    \harry

  211. Thanks for your input Harry, but I’m not convinced that we are not “trying to read a multi-meter at far less than half scale needle deflection”! Then again, perhaps we’re both saying the same thing, but in other words.
    IMHO, when we see a ‘flight’ in a ‘levy walk’ we can conclude that the sample resolution is lower than the ‘walk’ event on a temporal scale. IOW, the sample rate is good for some of the ‘levy walk’ actions, but too slow to capture the more frequent activity of the ‘walk’ which then becomes ‘a flight’!
    Best regards, suricat.

  212. Nicola Scafetta (07:31:29) :
    acknowledged that “SFI [which is a Levy-flight and not a walk]“. Because we are talking about “Levy Walk” and not “Levy Flight” R&R took apples for oranges.
    The mistake is to try to model SFI as a Levy-walk. The SFI is fundamentally memory-less [like the deaths of soldiers from being kicked by horses in 19th century studies of exponential distributions]

  213. Leif Svalgaard (06:13:55): “Perhaps not [cherry-picking] by them, but certainly by you. How many papers have you cited that show no evidence of CR effect? And there are many, especially newer ones. You have not cited a single one…
    You accused the authors of cherry-picking – please provide some evidence instead of changing the subject! You’ve admitted that the two papers I mentioned do not use cherry-picked data and they find significant correlations.
    The Kirkby 2008 paper I cited is a review – all you needed to do was to read the papers I cited to get an idea of the range of papers for and against. Most papers tend to review the field, mentioning different or conflicting results.
    I don’t notice you following your own advice when you cite papers in the comments, by the way.
    Leif: “Cloud cover in the polar region has very little impact on the climate [albedo is already high because of the snow and ice and solar insulation is already very small]. The important region is precisely the equatorial one.”
    See Usoskin, Marsh, Kovaltsov,Mursula, Gladysheva (2004) mentioned just earlier: “We also find that the relative inter-annual variability in low cloud amount increases polewards and exhibits a highly significant one-to-one relation with inter-annual variations in the ionization over the latitude range 20–55◦S and 10–70◦N.
    Harry Lu (18:01:15) : “TSI is on 11 year cycle I do not see why the low pass filter effect of the oceans should not allow the signal to be visible. It is not however!”
    White et al 2007 (” Response of global upper ocean temperature to changing solar irradiance”) seemed to find the 11-year solar signal in upper layer ocean temperatures.
    In order to preempt another accusation of cherry-picking from Dr. Svalgaard for citing a paper with evidence for some idea, I’d better recommend that you carry out a thorough review of all the pertinent literature in the field before drawing any conclusions from the cited paper.

  214. Mistake in my previous 04:29:36 comment to Harry Lu post – the paper is White et al. 1997, not 2007.

  215. ————————————————————
    ‘………..The 11-year solar cycle appears to affect low cloud cover :
    “Latitudinal dependence of low cloud amount on cosmic ray
    induced ionization”
    Usoskin, Marsh, Kovaltsov,Mursula, Gladysheva 2004
    “We find that the time evolution of the low cloud amount…………….
    ————————————————————
    I am Puzzled by the apparent correlation in say, some Amazon Delta rivers and solar activity but not, presumably, in all the Amazon Delta rivers falsifying the correlation. Quite accepted—thanks Leif.
    Here’s my question:
    Is the earth’s atmosphere acting like a eye-ball and lensing
    and focusing a .1K input at the highest level to a 1K affect in a very localised
    band according to the density of the air in the various levels of Wilde’s atmosphere?
    Just a guess and mean no offence if this is too retarded to post on this impressive thread. But, i’ve not seen this phenomenon mentioned. Just an idea. Never under estimate the power of distributed processing is my defense. Pablo Maus would be delighted if his river analysis wasn’t cracked out of the park with one sentence! 🙂
    Thanks for all this posting. In a way, it’s a great public service to the public as I see alot of hard work in put here, to educate us to the intricacies beyond the ‘concencus’.

  216. oneuniverse (04:29:36) :
    You accused the authors of cherry-picking
    I accused you of cherry picking, not the authors
    Most papers tend to review the field, mentioning different or conflicting results.
    Now you admit that the papers admit to conflicting results.
    I don’t notice you following your own advice when you cite papers in the comments, by the way.
    Leif: “Cloud cover in the polar region has very little impact on the climate [albedo is already high because of the snow and ice and solar insulation is already very small]. The important region is precisely the equatorial one.”

    It doesn’t matter much for the climate how sensitive the polar regions may or may not be. The climate comes from where the action is: low latitudes.
    Now, instead of just reviewing papers or reviewing reviews of papers that review yet other papers, there are scientists out there [ourselves included] that are actually trying to do science and advance the field. I and my colleagues have been involved in the CR modulation field for decades. We just presented a paper at the second workshop on cosmic rays in the heliosphere http://www.issibern.ch/workshops/cosmicrays/
    Click on ‘talk’. Then go to Thursday and take a look at ISSI 2010 Wieler GCR long term variations .ppt and there are many other goodies. worth spending your weekend looking at all of them, actually.

  217. Leif Svalgaard (07:21:34) : I accused you of cherry picking, not the authors
    You accused the authors of cherry-picking (you accused me afterwards, when I asked you to back up your claim, which you still haven’t done) :
    jinki (16:36:39) : Two proxy records in the Kirkby paper in general agreement, that’s all any reasonable person could expect.
    Leif Svalgaard (22:35:05) : No, these are extraordinary claims, and require extraordinary evidence, not just cherry picked weak correlations.
    Now you admit that the papers admit to conflicting results.
    I never denied it?? Some conflicts arise from the a lack of understanding, by the way.
    Now, instead of just reviewing papers or reviewing reviews of papers that review yet other papers, there are scientists out there [ourselves included] that are actually trying to do science and advance the field.
    Examing the literature and ‘doing science’ are not mutually exclusive.
    Jasper Kirkby, the author of ‘Cosmic Rays and Climate’ review, also does experimental work.

  218. johnythelowery (04:58:23) :
    “Is the earth’s atmosphere acting like a eye-ball and lensing and focusing a .1K input at the highest level to a 1K affect in a very localised band according to the density of the air in the various levels of Wilde’s atmosphere?”
    Hi John, there’s no known lensing of the photonic solar radiation.

  219. oneuniverse (09:30:44) :
    You accused the authors of cherry-picking (you accused me afterwards, when I asked you to back up your claim, which you still haven’t done)
    All authors cherry pick in this field [as far as I can see]. They use the Group Sunspot number when that supports their claim, they use Hoyt&Schatten TSI when that supports their claim, they use the 10Be core that best support their claim, the use the doubling of sun’s magnetic field, if that supports their claim, they use cosmic ray records that show the largest modulations, if that supports their claim, they use polar region influx instead of the important equatorial one, if that supports their claim, etc. If you claim to know the literature you’d know this.
    Some conflicts arise from the a lack of understanding, by the way.
    And you think that lack of understanding on part of the author of a review paper lends credence to it?

  220. oneuniverse (09:30:44) :
    jinki (16:36:39) : Two proxy records in the Kirkby paper in general agreement, that’s all any reasonable person could expect.
    At the ISSI workshop I referred to on the Lockwood-thread http://www.issibern.ch/workshops/cosmicrays/ a paper by Joos Fortunat gives a ‘paleo-perspective on the carbon cycle – climate system:
    [also here: http://www.leif.org/research/Joos-Bern-2010.ppt ].
    “Conclusion: contribution to 20th century warming is less than 0.15K for all solar scalings” including, of course, solar modulation of 14C.
    As long as we are down in that range, I have no reason to object, as that is what observationally driven modelling and theory show we should have.
    May I suggest that further discussion on CRs be taken to another, more appropriate thread. This one here is for Levy-flights and S&W. Sadly, thread-hijacking is so prevalent, let’s try to decrease it a bit.

  221. Leif Svalgaard (21:51:10) :
    “The mistake is to try to model SFI as a Levy-walk.”
    we explicitly excluded SFI, we are not using that record in any way. It is R&R that wanted to use it claiming that they did the same thing that we do.

  222. Nicola Scafetta (15:02:16) :
    we explicitly excluded SFI, we are not using that record in any way.
    Help me out here. Direct me to the paper where you say “we explicitly exclude SFI”. I don’t remember seeing that. On the other hand, while you often explain in great detail where you get the temperature data from, many of your papers talk about solar flares being used, without specifying where you get the data from. Perhaps elaborate on that a bit.

  223. Leif Svalgaard (18:47:25)
    The Scafetta & West paper under discussion cites the following paper for the analysis of the solar flare data :
    “Diffusion entropy and waiting time statistics of hard-x-ray solar flares”, P. Grigolini, D. Leddon, N. Scafetta 2002
    “The data are a set of 7212 hard x-ray peak flaring event times obtained from the BATSE/CGRO (Burst and Transient Source Experiment aboard the Compton Gamma Ray observatory
    satellite) solar flare catalog list. The data is a 9-year series of events from 1991 to 2000.”

    That covers the entire period the satellite was in use. This data is not the SFI, which is a synthetic index maintained at Bogazici University .

  224. oneuniverse (21:54:57) :
    The Scafetta & West paper under discussion […] solar flare data :
    “The data are a set of 7212 hard x-ray peak flaring event times obtained from the BATSE/CGRO (Burst and Transient Source

    Thanks for that info. It might be interesting to see R&R’s response. On the other hand, the data period is rather short, only 9 years. The main argument of R&R, as far as I can tell, is that the PDF for the temperature does not have the sharp peaked structure of a Levy distribution.
    In my opinion just because two distributions look the same [which they btw don’t] it is not shown that they are caused by the same physical process. Perhaps it would work the other way: if the distributions are different, that would be an argument against a similar physical processes. It would be interesting if S&W would actually plot the two distributions for us all to see.

  225. oneuniverse (21:54:57) :
    The Scafetta & West paper under discussion […] solar flare data :
    “The data are a set of 7212 hard x-ray peak flaring event times from the BATSE/CGRO”

    Colleagues of mine have publish a ‘Science Nugget’ on the waiting time distribution for flares:
    http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/~tohban/wiki/index.php/Waiting_Times_of_Solar_Hard_X-Ray_Flares
    They find that “statistical distributions of waiting times observed during three solar cycles with different instruments are fully consistent with a nonstationary Poisson process; this corroborates the conclusion that solar flares are indeed a phenomenon with self-organized criticality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organized_criticality
    Such processes are scale-invariant, as are Levy-flights, but Levy-walks are not scale-invariant [or self-similar].

  226. Leif Svalgaard (22:45:56) :
    Colleagues of mine have publish a ‘Science Nugget’ […]
    The nugget is based on this preprint:
    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1002/1002.4869v1.pdf

    One of the conclusions is:
    “1. Waiting time statistics gathered over a relatively small range of waiting times, e.g., < ∼ 2 decades as published by Pearce et al. (1993) or Crosby (1996), does not provide sufficient information to reveal the true functional form of the waiting time distribution.”
    This would then also seem to be a problem with the 9-yr series used by S&W.

  227. I follow the discussions here with great interest. I will comment on some of the stuff chronologically as I read – on points where I believe I can contribute constructively. I will start with a remark made on April 12., at 10.00.30. Here Tamara writes:
    “The paper may in fact refute Scafetta and West, but refuting this hypothesis doesn’t generate evidence for AGW. In fact, I would think that showing that the GTA exhibits “persistent fractional Brownian motion” would suggest the opposite. Brownian increments are supposed to be random, independent, and equally likely to occur in either direction. How does this correlate with constantly increasing GHG concentration?”
    I totally agree that falsiying S&W does not verify AGW. Those are not our words, but the journalist’s. However, while it is true that Brownian increments are random, FRACTIONAL Brownian increments are not. The GTA time-series exhibits a long-range memory, where the strength of this memory is characterized by the Hurst exponent H. However, one of the main points in our paper is that the strong multidecadal trend observed in the GTA signal is NOT an inherent part of the fractional Brownian motion (fBm). In fact if you produce a synthetic fBm signal and fit a fourth order polynomial to define such at trend, you will always find a much weaker trend than we have in the real GTA. This is why we have to subtract this trend from the GTA before we analyze it to find the properties of the random component of the signal. When we do this we find that it is an fBm with H=0.65. If there is an influence of the increasing GHG concentration on the GTA signal, the information about this is in the slow trend component, not in the fBm component of the signal. The memory in the fBm component, which we observe on time scales from a month up to a about ten years, we believe is due to internal dynamics in the climate system.

  228. April 12 (10.16.39) bryan writes:
    “The two graphs might indicate more similarity if they were displayed in the same timeframe. but the Solat Flare index is displayed at 15000 days and the Global temp is displayed at 45000 days (figuring a rough 30 days per month).”
    S&W analyze catalogs of flare onsets, and make statistics for waiting times between them. They find some memory in that statistics for time scales up to 3 months, but not longer. Our analysis of the SFI, shows that it is adequately modeled as a Levy flight, which is a process without memory. We have also defined flare onsets from the SFI by counting the times when the index grows above a certain threshold, and find that there is no memory on time scales longer than a month when the quasi-periodic trend due to the solar cycle has been removed. However, our analysis of the GTA signal shows long-renge memory on scales up to 100 months.
    A natural question to ask is: is there any reason to conjecture that the long-range memory in the GTA that lasts up to a decade has its origin in the sun when there is no such memory in the solar flare data?

  229. On April 12 (11.08.41) James F. Evans write:
    “While it’s admirable that the scientists are so up-front with their goals and purposes, this kind of pointed “outcome” oriented agenda should make readers cautious when considering what weight to give the conclusions of this paper and other papers who’s authors state similar “outcome” oriented agendas.”
    I think James misunderstands a bit. Our “outcome oriented agenda” is to falsify hypotheses in general, not only those that are incompatible with the AGW theory. This agenda is consistent with Carl Popper’s philosophy that scientific theories can be falsified, but never verified. We would be very proud of ourselves if we could falsify the AGW theory, for instance by proving that increased consentration of greenhouse gases is not the dominant cause of recent global warming.
    Unfortunately, eliminating one competing hypothesis, like the S&W hypothesis of a complexity linking, only provides a moderate additional support to the AGW theory. This is because the “solar theory” is not a theory at all, but a fragmented set of mutually inconsistent hypotheses. If the S&W hypothesis (actually they have several) is falsified, there is a bunch of them left to keep the idea of the sun as the cause of recent decades’ global warming alive.

  230. April 12 (13.27.24) James F. Evans write:
    “Sometimes there is a thin line between proper scientific falsification and personal agendas.”
    Our paper should be judged based on its scientific content, not on speculations about the authors’ personal agendas. It seems that you have nothing to say about the paper, only about why we wrote it. An it seems that your criticism is that we should have chosen another problem to work on. We ARE working on a lot of other problems, and most of them are not about climate change.
    Here is how and why we wrote this paper. I am a plasma physiscist by training, I am approaching 60 years of age, and my son Martin (29) is a mathematician. During the last few years I have built a small cross-disciplinary group in complex systems science at the University of Tromso, north of the Arctic Circle in Norway. S&W work in a similar area, and this is how we learnt about their work. Since we work with similar methods we were able to read and understand these papers about complexity linking that to a great extent have been overlooked, presumably because it is hard for climatologists to penetrate the statistical physics jargon uused. We believe we found serious methodological weaknesses in the data analysis presented in those papers and decided to make our own analysis. We felt that our findings were interesting, and we decided to publish it.
    So, what is wrong with that personal agenda?

  231. April 12 (14.19.21) magicjava wrote:
    “Let me see if I’m following along.
    Scafetta and West analyzed data without de-trending it and it appeared to show that solar flares have a significant influence on global temperature. They appeared to be following the same random walk.
    Rypdal and Rypdal analyzed the same data, but de-trended it and the correlation went away.
    The concern is that by not de-trending the data, Scafetta and West unintentionally included factors other than solar flares in their analysis.
    Correct?”
    Let me try to give you in a nutshell what they did. They assumed the validity a model for the statistical fluctations of solar flares and global temperature called a Levy walk. This is different from a Levy flight (the diagram at the top of the page looks more like a Levy flight). The Levy walk model is fully described by two parameters, let us call them D and H (in the paper D is denoted by a greek delta and H by H_D). But there is really only one free parameter for the Levy walk, because for the Levy walk one has the relation
    D=1/(3-2H). (1)
    By fitting the solar flare data data to their model S&W found a value for D which is close to unity (D=0.94). The nature of the data the chose to analyze did not allow them to compute H directly. By applying a similar analysis to the global temperature (GTA) data without detrending they got D and H slightly different from each other, but both close to 1. That automatically makes Equation (1) above satisfied (D=H=1 satisfies the equation). One important property that distinguishes Levy walks on one hand and Levy flights and fBms on the other, is that Levy walks are not selfsimilar (D is different from H), but Levy flights and fBms are (H=D). Since they found H and D slightly different and approximately satisfying Equation (1) they concluded that the GTA is also a Levy walk, with roughly the same parameter D as the solar flare signal, and hence there should be a linkkage according to S&W.
    By detrending the GTA we found D=H=0.65, and with a Gaussian distribution, which strongly indicates that it is an fBm. These values of D and H do NOT satisfy Equation (1), and hence it is NOT a Levy walk.
    S&W have argued that one should not perform detrending. In an earlier message I have explained why one should.

  232. oneuniverse (07:00:20):
    If you’d bothered including the very next sentence, readers would immediately realise that the findings support Beer et al.’s 1988 results
    Not to pollute the thread too much with OT stuff there is a couple of papers by Webber and Higbie that were discussed at length at the ISSI workshop:
    http://www.leif.org/EOS/1003-4989.pdf
    http://www.leif.org/EOS/1003-4989.pdf
    The main conclusion: “These and other features suggest that galactic cosmic ray intensity changes which affect the production of 10Be in the Earth’s atmosphere are not the sole source of the 10Be concentration changes and confirm the importance of other effects, for example local and regional climatic effects, which could be of the same magnitude as the 10Be production changes.”
    We should find another thread to discuss these if you wish to.

  233. Kristoffer Rypdal (07:32:39) :
    “By detrending the GTA we found D=H=0.65, and with a Gaussian distribution, which strongly indicates that it is an fBm.”
    The problem should first be addressed from a mathematical point of view.
    1) Detrending a Levy-Walk signal of its smooth component kills its Levy-Walk properties.
    2) Levy-Walk signals may present a distribution of events that looks Gaussian.
    Therefore R&R methodology is not appropriate for the task.
    Leif Svalgaard (22:15:30) :
    “The main argument of R&R, as far as I can tell, is that the PDF for the temperature does not have the sharp peaked structure of a Levy distribution.”

  234. Leif Svalgaard (22:15:30) :
    “The main argument of R&R, as far as I can tell, is that the PDF for the temperature does not have the sharp peaked structure of a Levy distribution.”
    The PDF for the temperature does not need to have the sharp peaked structure of a Levy distribution at all! Levy Walk do not have such a peaked structure in their increments because they do not have long tails!

  235. Kristoffer Rypdal (04:16:12)
    Hello Dr. Rydpal, welcome and thank you for the explanations.
    From the paper : “By subtracting a fitted fourth order polynomial from x(t), we obtain a detrended signal x_circumflex(t) which has Hurst exponent H ~ 0.65 in contrast to the H ~ 0.9 found in [1].”

    Leaving aside the question of the appropriateness of detrending, may I ask what the reasoning is behind the choice of a fourth-order polynomial, over, say a 2nd order polynomial, or a 15th order polynomial ?

  236. April 12 (19.52.00) Nicala Scafetta wrote:
    “I suspect that it is another case similar to Benestad and Schmidt’s case. This authors have mistaken Levy-flights for Levy-walks. We are talking about Levy-walks not Levy-flights. Moreover, we have explicitly excluded in our papers a direct connection between the “increments” contrary to what Rypdal and Rypdal claim in their paper.
    Levy-Walks are a property of the smooth component of a signal which emerge from a microscopic intermittency. Because of this, detrending the data in any way can destroy any memory associated with any statistics the data might have that develops in the time-frame dimension. Moreover, processed Levy-Walk signal may present increments that may indeed look like fractal Brownian motion.”
    It is quite incredible that you can contend that we “mistake Levy flights for Levy walks”, when a major part of our paper is to point out the difference. I would appreciate if you could point out exactly which passages in our paper where we do these mistakes.
    Fractional Brownian motions, Levy flights, and fractional Levy flights are well defined classes of stochastic processes and textbook stuff in the math literature. Levy walks are not that well defined. In your papers you actually use different definitions. In the analysis of solar flares you just look at event sequences characterized by discrete sequences of of times-the amplitude of events being irrelevant. These sequences are characterized by a distribution of waiting-times between events, and you characterize it as a Levy walk if this distribution has an algebraic tail with finite mean but infinite variance. Basically the waiting-times are Levy distributed, while for the Levy flight the increments are Levy distributed. You determine the exponent charcterizing the algebraic tail both by plotting the waiting-time distribution directly and by performing DEA analysis on the time-series obtained by considering the waiting time t_n versus the the event number n (the event number in the sequence functions as “time”). For numerically generated event sequences you also construct time series in “real” time by computing a frequency of events as a function of time. This time series can be analyzed both by DEA analysis and SDA analysis. You also present another version where a time series in real time is constructed by assuming that the walker moves with a given velocity in either the positive or the negative direction. At the times of the events the sign of this velocity is redefined by the flipping of a coin.
    We have shown that the SFI time series is a Levy FLIGHT, at least on time scales longer than a few months. We can produce an event sequence from this signal by introducing a threshold on the signal amplitude, and recording the times when the signal amplitude rise above that threshold. If the threshold is relatively low, we get many waiting times that are shorter than a month, and the waiting-time distribution will be algebraic for these short scales, but it will become exponential for waiting times larger than a month. Exponentially distributed waiting times implies Poisson statistics, i.e. the event probability is independent on the time since the last event (no memory). These results are completely consistent with the solar flare statistics performed in your papers, you just avoid mentioning the important fact that there is no memory in the solar flare statistics on time scales longer than a few months.
    When we turn to the GTA signal you don’t have an explicit event statistics and it is not so meaningful to define events from using thresholds. So I assume that you envisage that this time series is modeled by one of the “real time” time series mentioned above, and you perform DEA and SDA analysis on this time series.
    Please, Nicola, point out where I have misunderstood.
    The crucial question is then if the slow, multidecadal trend in the GTA signal should be considered as an inherent part of the Levy walk, or whether it should be subtracted to discern the contended Levy-walk statistics. We believe it can be easily demonstrated that this trend must be removed. This will be the subject of my next message. But first I need some sleep (the time is 23.17 in Norway).

  237. Kristoffer Rypdal (14:18:34) :
    “Exponentially distributed waiting times implies Poisson statistics, i.e. the event probability is independent on the time since the last event (no memory).”
    This isn’t what was observed in Leif’s colleagues’ ‘Science Nugget’.
    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1002/1002.4869v1.pdf
    From this I deduce that the temporal duration between flares determines the amplitude of the flare (e.g.. A longer time scale between flares evidences a greater flare eruption amplitude, whereas a shorter time scale between flares evidences a lesser flare eruption amplitude). Thus, there is something that remembers the timing of the last flare eruption and this is presented in the amplitude of the following flare eruption. This is a ‘memory’!
    However, climate also provides a second ‘memory register’. Though this lags events simply because it needs to be ‘taught’ how to respond. Ozone in the stratosphere is altered (generated) by the insolation of EM radiation at wavelengths of ultraviolet and shorter into the ‘ozonosphere’. Although the ‘ozonosphere’ has a relatively quick ‘turnover’ of specific O3 gas molecules (ozone is relatively short lived), it is likely to permit short bursts of energy through while it builds ozone, but as energy bursts decrease the ‘ozonosphere’ provides an excellent barrier to ionising wavelengths (it’s a ‘learning and forgetting curve’).
    As I said, a second ‘memory’ to the chain of events for GTA. How is it that you see none when I see, at least, one at each end of this interaction?
    While I’ll admit that I’m out of my depth in this thread and I’m here for ‘learning purposes’, but this is what I see here.
    BTW, it’s now 01:45+ here in the UK at this time of posting. Good night and god bless (just a local phrase). 🙂
    Best regards, suricat.

  238. suricat (17:51:39) :
    From this I deduce that the temporal duration between flares determines the amplitude of the flare (e.g.. A longer time scale between flares evidences a greater flare eruption amplitude, whereas a shorter time scale between flares evidences a lesser flare eruption amplitude). Thus, there is something that remembers the timing of the last flare eruption and this is presented in the amplitude of the following flare eruption. This is a ‘memory’!
    Not really, as great flares simply are much rarer than small flares. The might be a slight ‘memory’ in the small flares, because a given active region often produces many small flares. This is not a real memory, as each flare is basically independent of the previous one: the magnetic field gets wound up by plasma motions and gains energy by this. If the energy exceeds a threshold [set by local conditions, e.g. the shape of the field], the flare blows. It is like stretching an elastic until it breaks, then stretching another elastic until it breaks, etc. The point where the second elastic breaks does not depend on where the first elastic broke.

  239. On April 13 (12.57.00) Nicola Scafetta writes:
    “Rypdal and Rypdal have proven that when the temperature data are altered, in their case by adopting several detrending procedures, the properties we found in the data, which are hidden in the smooth component of the temperature, disappear.
    I suspect that R&R’s methodology can be used to disprove any study.
    It is easy: take a study, alter the data in such a way to eliminate the part where the interesting properties are hidden, prove that the altered data do not contain any more the original properties and, finally, conclude that the original paper must be wrong! Great logic indeed!”
    and on April 18 (11.47.47) he continues:
    “1) Detrending a Levy-Walk signal of its smooth component kills its Levy-Walk properties.
    2) Levy-Walk signals may present a distribution of events that looks Gaussian.
    Therefore R&R methodology is not appropriate for the task.”
    These statements illustrate very clearly the fallacy of S&W. Let me explain why:
    Nicola’s idea is that the the Levy-walk scaling properties they found in the data are “hidden in the smooth component”. He contends tat our detrending procedure for the GTA “eliminates the the part where the interesting properties are hidden”. He is wrong. The Levy-walk properties that S&W claim to find by SDA and DEA analysis on scales up to 4 years are NOT contained in the much slower (but strong) multidecadal trend (a 4’th polynomial fit) that we slow in Fig. 1 of our paper.
    The demonstration of this is easy. Produce an ensemble of synthetic Levy walk noises and make a 4’th order polynomial fit to each of them. Each fit will show a much smaller trend that what we get from the GTA data. If we make large ensemble, and compute the mean square deviation of these fitted curves from the flat mean curve, we find that it is much smaller than the mean square deviation for the trend curve obtained from the GTA data.
    Hence the probability that a signal with such a strong slow component as the one observed in the GTA data should be produced by an underlying Levy-walk mechanism is practically zero.
    The clue is that you should not eliminate components on scales that are comparable to or smaller than the scales you use for computing your scaling. In the GTA case you should only remove components on scales larger than the 4 year analyzing window.
    Below I will elaborate a bit on how we proceed to find the proper degree of smoothing. Bear over with me if you think I am getting over-pedagogical. I am trying to avoid the patronizing evasiveness that characterizes Nicola’s style of arguing.
    First I would like to stress that the difference between a Levy walk (LW) and fractional Brownian motion (fBm) on one hand, and a Levy walk noise (LWN) and a fractional Gaussian noise (fGn) on the other. A LWN is the differentiated time series of a LW time series. And an fGn is the differentiated fBm. In the discussions here we have talked about LWs and fBms, but the actual GTA time series are not thought of as walks or motions (which are non-stationary stochastic processes), but as noises (which are stationary). In our paper we contend that the INTEGRATED GTA is an fBm with Hurst exponent H=0.65. What this means is that the actual GTA time series is an fGn. Nicola’s position is that the actual GTA is a LWN (because in their papers S&W perform SDA and DEA analysis on the integrated signal). Realizing that we are both modeling the GTA signal as a noise, it becomes more evident that the slow trend that we eliminate is not an inherent property of the model.
    S&W’s method of analyzing scaling properties is by SDA and DEA analysis. SDA is nothing but the first order structure function (first statistical moment of differences), and a more systematic approach to scaling analysis is to compute large number of empirical moments for many values of q (see our paper for details) as estimates of the structure functions. However, this implies creating PDFs of differences between values of the integrated time series separated by a time lag Dt. This difference is the same as the sum of the values of the noise time-series in the time window Dt. But we will encounter a problem if the the mean of the noise time series over this window is not zero, because then this mean will accumulate linearly with time when we sum them, and hence at large Dt this mean value will dominate the scaling and hide the actual microscopic scaling properties. If we don’t eliminate this local mean value in the noise signal, the integrated signal will appear as a smooth curve on sufficiently long time scales, and the Hurst exponent will approach 1. Hence, by performing proper detrending we do exactly the opposite of what Nicola says, we discern properties that would otherwise be hidden.
    There are many methods of detrending. What we do is a minimal one, and it goes as follows: We start with the lowest possible polynomial order (i.e we subtract a linear fit over the entire record length) and compute the empirical moments and the associated scaling function \zeta(q) (see our paper). If there is a string trend we then get Hurst exponent close to H=1. Then we increase the order of the polynomial until the result appears to converge. If the result has converged at a polynomial order where the polynomial still appears very smooth on the scales for which we perform the analysis, and if the resulting structure functions and the scaling function are straight curves in log-log plots, we have a selfsimilar process. If I also do the DEA analysis on the detrended data I know that I will get that D=H (the selfsimilarity exponent equals the Hurst exponent), and I conclude that the noise signal analyzed is NOT a LWN. If the PDFs in addition are Gaussian, I know that my signal is an fGn. This is exactly what we got for the GTA signal, and is why we have concluded that it is an fGn with H=0.65 and that there is no evidence in the data that it could be modeled as a LWN.

  240. I would ask Nicola Scafetta to specify exactly which version of the Lévy Walk that we should consider as a model of the GTA, and to specify all parameters. If he does this we can calculate the probability of having the kind of trends observed in the GTA.
    If the Lévy walk is a realistic model for the GTA, then he should have no problem accommodating my request.

  241. Kristoffer Rypdal (04:37:59) :
    I thank Dr. Rypdal of his comments, but I do believe that he is not getting the point.
    1) We have already proven in our subsequent papers that the smooth component Rypdal extracts with a polynomial fit has a solar modulation. Taking off trends in the temperature signature cannot but eliminate a fundamental solar component in the temperature and make weaker its presence in the temperature. We have also proved that a decadal and bidecadal temperature oscillation have solar origin. Our paper in 2003 is part of our early results but it is not even central to the theory that has been developed since 2003 as Rypdal has claimed in his phyorg interview. Even if some part of our study of 10-8 year ago should be disproved, the most recent studies of the last five years are not conditioned at all by those. Therefore, claiming, as Rypdal has stated, that his study disprove our studies is a great exaggeration.
    Rypdal’s statement include:
    “This means that if a cornerstone hypothesis is proven to be false, the entire theory fails. A corresponding theory of global warming of solar origin does not exist. ” Then he starts talking about “to shoot down every new missile” etc which is not really appropriate in a scientific debate.
    2) In our pre 2003 studies where we talk about solar flares we are using the waiting time distribution of “large” flare as proxy of the solar dynamics, not their intensity as measured by SFI. We not only never claimed that solar flare energies are the origin of the climate increments, we have explicitly excluded it.
    For example in we stated (page 8)
    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/PRE26303.pdf
    “The solar flare intermittency is not the direct cause of the earth temperature fluctuations, since the radiation energy of the solar flares is relatively small.”
    Thus, Rypdal’s discovery that the increments of the temperature record do not present the peaked Levy-Flight structure of the SFI does not disprove, but confirm our statements!
    3) About the effect of the detrending procedure. Let us explain it with a simple example. Let us suppose to have to coupled systems. One is characterized by an intermittent nature, so we have spikes of vary amplitude that are separated by a given time interval. The other is sensitive to the spike frequency of the first one, not to the amplitude of the same. Now when the frequency of the first signal increases this causes a trend increase in the second signal. (For example think about the relation between the cycle frequency of a car engine and the velocity of the car). We study this kind of property and conclude that the two systems are linked.
    Rypdal confuses the topics and claims that we are relating the spike amplitudes of the first signal to the increments of the second signal. To better isolate the increments of the second signal he has the great idea to eliminate the trending component of the second signal (the smooth component of the velocity of the car) that is what is related to the peak frequency function of the first signal (the frequency cycle of the engine) .
    Finally he claims that he has disproved our result (that the frequency cycle of the engine is related to the velocity of the car) and he adds that his result has disproved all our results including those that are nor related at all with our 2000-2003 early studies!
    This looks “propaganda” to me!
    What we have proven in our studies is that climate system dynamics present a significant similitude with solar dynamics at multiple time scales. This similitude is present in the temporal patterns of the signal. This result will be reinforced by new studies! 🙂

  242. Nicola Scafetta (06:48:29) :
    We have already proven in our subsequent papers […] We have also proved that a decadal and bidecadal temperature oscillation have solar origin.
    I don’t like the proven bit. That is much too strong. And even if there is a 0.1K 11-year period [which we expect], that is such a small part of the 1K long-term trend, that one cannot claim that 60% of that is due to solar activity.
    Could you comment on the ‘Science Nugget’: http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/~tohban/wiki/index.php/Waiting_Times_of_Solar_Hard_X-Ray_Flares and Aschwanden’s paper.

  243. Nicola Scafetta (06:48:29) :
    we are using the waiting time distribution of “large” flare as proxy of the solar dynamics, not their intensity as measured by SFI. We not only never claimed that solar flare energies are the origin of the climate increments, we have explicitly excluded it.
    Would not the picking of “large” flares already assume that the energy is important?

  244. Martin Rypdal (05:45:01) :
    Your question avoid the real issues. That is, we are not talking about the increments of the temperature signal and claiming that they must present a Levy-statistics, we are talking about the temporal patterns, not the increments.
    Levy-Walk noise are quite complex because they may be mixed with random noises and give origin to a multitude of signals, which still present the Levy walk properties, although several indexes such as PDF are greatly deformed.
    Our 2002-3 papers should be interpreted as starting papers which have all the limits of being starting papers. In those papers we have found a similarity of scaling indexes (when the data are analyzed unaltered). We did not explain to origin of this similarity which we are still looking for.
    In our subsequent papers we focuses on different issues such as the interpretation of the trends and large patterns, and we found that the temperature records contain strong signature of the solar records. This goes from a few years to millennia.
    So, the idea of a complexity matching is more than justified by our subsequent findings that are easier to understand.
    Moreover, even if Levy-statistics is not involved at all, this does not nullify the result (the correspondence of the scaling exponents) because other more complex mechanisms may be involved in the process.
    For example let us suppose that somebody find a good correlation between the decadal temperature oscillation and the decadal solar cycle and interpret such correlation as due to TSI effects. Then somebody else proves that TSI is not involved in the process. The latter finding disproves the interpretation of the first scientist, not the result, that is, existence of the correspondence between the solar cycles and the temperature cycles. Perhaps, a different a more complex mechanism is involved.
    A detrending procedure of the smooth component of the temperature is not appropriate because we found a correspondence between that smooth temperature modulation and the solar modulation. Therefore, taking off this component kills a solar signature for sure.
    The issues with the paper by R&R are:
    1) whether they have understood the philosophy of our 2003 paper. And I prove that they did not because we are not claiming that the increments in the temperature must be Levy-distributed.
    2) whether a detrending procedure can keep intact the Levy-walk properties of complex Levy-walk signals such as those where the increments are noised. This is pure mathematics and the detrending procedure will destroy such memory definitely. This is because Levy-walk properties are hidden in the smooth component of a signal, not in its increments that may be also very similar to gaussian random noise.

  245. Leif Svalgaard (07:44:04) :
    in physics the term “proven” is always used in a “weak” term.
    There are several other patterns beside the 11-year cycle that are “proven” to correspond between the solar indexes and the temperature: for example during the solar Maunder minimum is was quite cold! And the same happened during the other little ice ages and so on.
    The mechanisms are still “unproven”, not the existence of those correlations, which are “proven”.
    About the ‘Science Nugget’. We discuss about the different interpretations of the solar flare intermittency, Levy or Poisson, and concluded that the data we analyzed present a clear levy structure. Moreover, inverse power law distributions can also be obtained with incremental Poisson distributions.
    All figures shown in your web-site indicate a Levy-structure. note that the graphs are all in a log-log plot

  246. Nicola Scafetta (08:52:39) :
    There are several other patterns beside the 11-year cycle that are “proven” to correspond between the solar indexes and the temperature: for example during the solar Maunder minimum is was quite cold!
    No, that is not ‘proven’. It was cold much longer than the MM, up until the end of the 19th century. And in the 1780s solar activity was even higher than today. Now, there are a lot of myths out there, and even with your ‘weak’ bar for proof, there simply isn’t good correlation. A good theory and understanding of a phenomenon can survive a poor correlation, but without such, you have no ‘proof’ that the correlation represents a physical relationship.

  247. Nicola Scafetta (08:42:38) :
    whether a detrending procedure can keep intact the Levy-walk properties of complex Levy-walk signals such as those where the increments are noised. This is pure mathematics and the detrending procedure will destroy such memory definitely.
    It is difficult to do “pure mathematics” if you don’t specify the model. Please answer my question: Is the Levy walk a valid stochastic description of the GTA? If so, specify the construction and the parameters.

  248. Leif Svalgaard (18:44:11) :
    “This is not a real memory, as each flare is basically independent of the previous one: the magnetic field gets wound up by plasma motions and gains energy by this. If the energy exceeds a threshold [set by local conditions, e.g. the shape of the field], the flare blows.”
    I didn’t consider the ‘memory’ to be part of the flux collapse per se, but more a property of the plasma tidal motions that generate massive electrical/magnetic fields. However, I can see you’re busy so I’ll just lurk. 🙂
    Best regards, suricat.

  249. suricat (14:06:54) :
    the plasma tidal motions that generate massive electrical/magnetic fields.
    There are no tidal effects that can be observed on the Sun, so no ‘massive’ effects from them.

  250. Leif Svalgaard (09:37:24) :
    sorry we disagree on this point. The data I have analyzed and modeled say otherwise! Similar conclusions were obtained by several other people as well.
    Unfortunately you need to study my papers carefully and look at the figure carefully, not just criticizing them without reading them on the only basis of your conviction that that solar activity is constant (plus a 11-year modulation)!
    Total solar irradiance has been measured since 1978 by several groups. All of them can conclude that your “constant” TSI proxy model is not realistic. Accept it and move on.
    Martin Rypdal (10:44:42) :
    The model is specified in the papers we wrote in 2003. Your way to do calculation should be tested first. Which is what you did not do. Moreover we are not talking about the increments of the climate system, we explicitly excluded that such “increments” have a levy-statistics.
    This was my position in 2003.
    In 2010 after seven years of research my conclusion is that climate is characterized by an underlying smooth component (from a few years and above) which is mostly driven by astronomical forcings at multiple time scales plus an internal chaotic variability due to the dynamics of the climate system which just fluctuates around the astronomical forcing signature. A detrending of the temperature signal eliminates part of the the astronomical signal in the climate record and emphasizes the internal chaotic behavior. So, detrending the climate record of its smooth component is not appropriate for determining an astronomical influence on the climate.

  251. Nicola Scafetta (16:02:38) :
    Leif Svalgaard (09:37:24) :
    Unfortunately you need to study my papers carefully and look at the figure carefully, not just criticizing them without reading them on the only basis of your conviction that that solar activity is constant (plus a 11-year modulation)!
    I have and do. And I found them wanting.
    Total solar irradiance has been measured since 1978 by several groups. All of them can conclude that your “constant” TSI proxy model is not realistic. Accept it and move on.
    Unfortunately, people are findings that TSI is just the solar cycle on top of a constant background. A good illustration is this graph [from Steinhilber et al. 2010]: http://www.leif.org/research/Steinhilber-TSI-vs-Others.png that shows that from 1995 to today, the experts’ opinion on the long-term variation of TSI, has changed [progressively] from significant to negligible. Accept that and move on with the modern view.
    So, detrending the climate record of its smooth component is not appropriate for determining an astronomical influence on the climate.
    Since TSI [or the mysterious X-force for which it is supposed to be a proxy] does not have any long-term trend [c.f. what I told you above], then what is that ‘astronomical influence’?

  252. Nicola Scafetta (16:02:38) :
    The model is specified in the papers we wrote in 2003. Your way to do calculation should be tested first. Which is what you did not do.
    I have done it now, and our method is fine!
    Nicola Scafetta (16:02:38) :
    Moreover we are not talking about the increments of the climate system, we explicitly excluded that such “increments” have a levy-statistics.
 This was my position in 2003.
    I am not sure I know what you are talking about here, but nobody is saying the increments of the GTA have heavy tailed distributions.
    You are still avoiding my question. I repeat: Should we understand the model specified in the 2003 papers as a “toy” or as a realistic description of the GTA? You are still not clear on this point.

  253. Leif Svalgaard (20:18:02) :
    Unfortunately, people are findings that TSI is just the solar cycle on top of a constant background. A good illustration is this graph [from Steinhilber et al. 2010]: http://www.leif.org/research/Steinhilber-TSI-vs-Others.png that shows that from 1995 to today, the experts’ opinion on the long-term variation of TSI, has changed [progressively] from significant to negligible. Accept that and move on with the modern view.
    The TSI calibration method used by Steinhilber has already been shown to be flawed.
    1. The error percentage of nearly 50% is too vague.
    2. Averaging the whole solar cycle to achieve a mean TSI number is erroneous.
    The previous link you gave me did not point to the published peer reviewed Steinhilber paper, I not being a member of the institution.

  254. In his later messages Nicola Scafetta has begun to admit that there may be flaws in his 2003 papers, but he does not think these papers are important in the light of his later work. We have shown that the strong slow component in the GTA signal cannot be a consequence of Levy-walk statistics in the model realization of a Levy walk using the prescription given in the 2003 papers (where DEA and SDA analysis is applied the frequency signal of temporally Levy distributed unit pulses). He now stresses that the slow component cannot be removed because his later work has “proven” that this slow component is (partly) of solar origin. But this is completely irrelevant for the issue we are discussing. In our paper we explicitly avoid discussion of the physical mechanism of the slow component, because the issue in the S&W 2003 paper is the assertion that the LW statistics and its characteristic exponent can be detected in the GTA signal. WE have shown that if you want to discern this kind of statistics in a truthful way you MUST eliminate any strong slow component, whatever the physical origin of that component may be.
    Our criticism of the S&W 2003 paper concerns the scientific methodology, not the larger issue of the solar origin of climate change. Nicola’s tendency to divert the focus to other issues when he is pressed on methodology is known from other debates. We will be happy to discuss his later work in another setting, but not here.
    The flawed logic in the S&W paper is quite simple to understand, and can be summarized as follows:
    They contend that the waiting-time statistics satisfies a power-law with a specific value of characteristic exponent describing the weight of the power-law tail of the waiting-time distribution. This is the essential ingredient in a Levy walk (LW). We think that this assertion is true, but only up to time-scales of about 3 months.
    The controversial point, however, is their assertion that this LW- statistics is detectable in the GTA signal. The only evidence they present for this assertion is the result of so-called SDA and DEA analysis of the GTA signal, which yields the value of two exponents.
    Our main objection is that the values they find for these exponents do not represent evidence for underlying LW-statistics, only that the undetrended signal is strongly persistent and not selfsimilar. There is an infinity of mechanisms other than Levy walk noises that will generate the same result. In our paper we show one such mechanism, namely a weakly persistent fractional Gaussian noise with H=0.65 superposed on the slow, but strong, multidecadal component found in the GTA signal.
    S&W 2003 make the fundamental logical error: A implies B, observe B is true, then A is true.
    I will conclude this discussion from my side (after all, we have job to look after) with a quote from a well-known satirical play by the Norwegian-Danish writer Ludvig Holberg, (1684-1754), called Erasmus Montanus. What is written below are not my words, but taken from the web-site
    http://www.twinkle.ws/docs/erasmus-montanus.html
    In this satire, a farmer’s son, Rasmus Berg (or Erasmus Montanus in Latin), goes to the big city to study, and become “an academic” in lack of a better term. Upon returning to his home in the country, he displays arrogance against his peers, now a know-it-all (borderline snob), hence causing quite a stir in the village. For instance, he deploys invalid rhetorical logic to prove that his mother is a stone, and in a discussion with the church bell ringer, Per, he sets out to prove that Per is a cock:
    “A cock crows; so do you. A cock is proud of its crow; so are you, I can clearly hear that. A cock crows when it is time to get up. You ring the bell, when the folks go to church.
    Ergo, you are a cock!”

  255. jinki (01:11:43) :
    The TSI calibration method used by Steinhilber has already been shown to be flawed.
    By whom?
    2. Averaging the whole solar cycle to achieve a mean TSI number is erroneous.
    Nonsense. Then Solanki’s is wrong too. What about the situation that the radionuclide used is a ten-year average it self, e.g. derived from a layer that represent 10-years of ice [or three rings]?
    The previous link you gave me did not point to the published peer reviewed Steinhilber paper, I not being a member of the institution.
    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL040142.pdf
    http://www.issibern.ch/workshops/cosmicrays/presentations/04_Thursday/steinhilber.pdf
    Kristoffer Rypdal (03:09:55) :
    S&W 2003 make the fundamental logical error: A implies B, observe B is true, then A is true.

  256. Leif Svalgaard (05:01:11) :
    Nonsense. Then Solanki’s is wrong too. What about the situation that the radionuclide used is a ten-year average it self, e.g. derived from a layer that represent 10-years of ice [or three rings]?
    What is nonsense is trying to establish a reliable TSI figure from a proxy record. Solanki and Steinhilber have provided a detail solar record over the Holocene that both more or less agree, the records are an indication of overall solar activity and not an accurate TSI reconstruction. The very interesting aspect is that both sets of records do not show a flat solar floor.
    I am with Nicola on this one, the weight of evidence is not on your side.

  257. jinki (06:39:19) :
    What is nonsense is trying to establish a reliable TSI figure from a proxy record. Solanki and Steinhilber have provided a detail solar record over the Holocene that both more or less agree, the records are an indication of overall solar activity and not an accurate TSI reconstruction. […] I am with Nicola on this one
    The logic is a bit circular. Nicola says that he is not using TSI as such, but just considers the TSI reconstructions to be proxies for general solar activity, which is what Solanki, Steinhilber, and the rest have reconstructed. That they express that in terms of TSI is really irrelevant. My reconstruction of TSI is also just derived from ‘general solar activity’.

  258. Kristoffer Rypdal (03:09:55) :
    “S&W 2003 make the fundamental logical error: A implies B, observe B is true, then A is true. A implies B, observe B is true, then A is true. ”
    In science the logic is: A implies B, observe B is true, then A is possible.
    You methodology has removed a known solar signature on climate which is associated to the Gleissberg (50-80 years) and Suess (160-260
    years) solar variability. Moreover, if the record were twice as long what kind of fit would you use? A 4th, 5th or 6th order polynomial?
    Levy-walk noises may present very long trending properties because of their fat temporal tail distributions.
    In any case, the real problem with your work is that you mistake the increments with the time structure. We talk about waiting time distribution, you are talking about increment distributions. The scaling is in the time structure, not in the increments.
    You cannot disprove anything by mistaking the correct observable and the correct interpretation. The logic in your work is the following:
    ‘A’ does not have anything to do with ‘B’, ‘B’ is false therefore ‘A’ too must be false!

  259. Nicola Scafetta (17:07:19) :
    In science the logic is: A implies B, observe B is true, then A is possible.
    Very contorted. The standard rules state that if A implies B, and B is true, then A can be either true or equally well false, i.e. nothing can be said about A. To know something about A, B must be false [in which case A is false too].
    You methodology has removed a known solar signature on climate which is associated to the Gleissberg (50-80 years) and Suess (160-260
    years) solar variability.

    These may be solar signals, but it is not known that they are causing climate changes. You may think so, but that does not constitute ‘knowledge’. The power spectrum of solar activity [monthly values SSN] since 1700 [since when we have reasonable knowledge of it, has its long-term peak at ~100 years: http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-Power-Spectrum-SSN-1700-2008.png , between the two cycle period you mention.

  260. Leif Svalgaard (17:37:45) :
    in science nothing is proven. I thought that you knew that. 🙂
    Only in mathematics the theorems can be proven! Don’t you know it?
    The logic used in climate science and in several observational sciences is that: A implies B, observe B is true, then A is possible.
    For example:The big-bang theory predicts the 3K background temperature of the universe; the 3K background temperature is observed; therefore the big-bang theory is plausible.
    “Gleissberg (50-80 years) and Suess (160-260
    years) solar variability. These may be solar signals”
    really? You surprise me! So, after all the sun is not constant (plus a 11-year cycle)!
    Just a curiosity. During the Maunder minimum no sunspots were seen. Do you believe the TSI was completely and perfectly constant during that period?
    I propose to call such a value the Leif’s constant 🙂

  261. Nicola Scafetta (18:16:48) :
    The logic used in climate science and in several observational sciences is that: A implies B, observe B is true, then A is possible.
    Since A can be equally well true as false, A is possible in the same sense that it is possible that my next flip of a coin will produce ‘heads’.
    really? You surprise me! So, after all the sun is not constant (plus a 11-year cycle)!
    If you would care to actually read my papers you would have been less surprised. In http://www.leif.org/research/The%20IDV%20index%20-%20its%20derivation%20and%20use.pdf you would find [paragraph 20]:
    “[20] The 11-year running mean (green line) of B over the period hints at the 100-year wave (±15%) often seen in solar activity and proxies thereof [Gleissberg, 1939].”
    Do you believe the TSI was completely and perfectly constant during that period?
    No, we do not believe that anymore. TSI at each solar minimum returns to the same value, so we surmise that it also did that during the MM. On top of that there would a ~12.5-yr smallish solar activity component. Cosmic ray modulation was considerable during all Grand Minima [that occur at random, BTW], so the magnetic cycle was still operating. Why sunspots were not seen, is unknown, but their magnetic field could have sunk to just below 1500 Gauss, which would cause them to be effectively invisible. Something like that may be happening right now, e.g. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1003/1003.4281v1.pdf
    I propose to call such a value the Leif’s constant
    Very generous. But it would have to denote the solar ‘base-level’ that is approached at each solar minimum. thanks for your support on this. Submit your proposal to IAU who is in charge of naming things astronomical.
    In debates, even blogs, it is good form and polite manners to at least try to answer direct questions. I’l ask again:
    Leif Svalgaard (20:18:02) :
    Nicola Scafetta (16:02:38) :
    So, detrending the climate record of its smooth component is not appropriate for determining an astronomical influence on the climate.
    Since TSI [or the mysterious X-force for which it is supposed to be a proxy] does not have any long-term trend [c.f. what I told you above], then what is that ‘astronomical influence’?

  262. Nicola Scafetta (18:16:48) :
    The logic used in climate science and in several observational sciences is that: A implies B, observe B is true, then A is possible.
    If (A) angels were pushing the planets around, (B) planets are observed to move around the Sun, then according to your logic (A) is possible. Where are the angels? Perhaps something else is at work? Newton had an idea about that…

  263. Leif Svalgaard (18:45:09) :
    “Since TSI [or the mysterious X-force for which it is supposed to be a proxy] does not have any long-term trend [c.f. what I told you above], then what is that ‘astronomical influence’?”
    It is not true that solar activity does not have any long-term trend. Notice that I always use the TSI proxy models as approximate proxy of a generic solar activity. Nothing exclude me to use some other solar proxy for the purpose.
    Do not be impatient about the exact mechanism! before or later it will be found but the signal is there and also strong. Just, I do not believe that there is only one mechanism at work.
    Leif Svalgaard (18:49:05) :
    Unfortunately science is not a perfect structure for determining the truth! The logic in science is: A implies B, observe B is true, then A is possible.
    If you do not like it, you needed to be a mathematician, not a solar scientist!

  264. However, now this topic was discuss long enough.
    I will stop now.
    thank you to all of you. !

  265. Nicola Scafetta (19:17:21) :
    I will stop now.
    thank you to all of you. !

    And thank you for stopping by, trying to make us understand what you think you see.

  266. I am not letting Nicola have the final word:
    Nicola Scafetta (17:07:19) :
    “Your methodology has removed a known solar signature on climate which is associated to the Gleissberg (50-80 years) and Suess (160-260
    years) solar variability. Moreover, if the record were twice as long what kind of fit would you use? A 4th, 5th or 6th order polynomial?”
    As explained earlier our methodology removes things that may be of solar origin. But everything of solar origin does not have to derive f rom Levy-walk statistics. On of the great problems with your methodology, and this permeates everything you do in climatology, is your uncritical mixing of categories.
    We have also explained earlier how we determine the order of the fitting polynomial. It is by increasing the order till the value for H converges, combined with an a posteriori test that the polynomial varies slowly over the largest time scale T for which we find memory (the SDA-curve has a linear slope H up to to a certain time T, after which is becomes flat). But other detrending procedures are equally adequate; smoothing by a running mean is fine, as long as the length of the smoothing window is selected from the same criteria. If the signal is reasonably stationary an increase in the record length should not change the length of the smoothing window. The polynomial order may increase to provide the same level of smoothing.
    Nicola Scafetta (17:07:19) :
    “Levy-walk noises may present very long trending properties because of their fat temporal tail distributions”.
    This statement is too vague. Our attempts to produce the trends observed in the GTA by using the prescription for generating a LW-noise time series in your 2003 and 2004 work have failed. We have asked you several times for a prescription for how you generate realizations for LW time series that can be compared to the measured GTA signal, but we get no answer. Instead you keep repeating the mantra:
    “In any case, the real problem with your work is that you mistake the increments with the time structure. We talk about waiting time distribution, you are talking about increment distributions. The scaling is in the time structure, not in the increments.”
    In all my later messages I have been talking about time structure and waiting time distributions, and this is perfectly relevant for certain types of solar records. But climate data like the GTA are given as time series of increments sampled at regular intervals. If you remove the information about the increments, there is no information left. In your SDA and DEA analysis of the GTA (which is the only analysis you do on these data) you use of course the increments, because this is all you have. As long as you do not give a clear prescription for how you go from an assumed underlying time structure of waiting times to an observable time series of increments, there is no way your hypothesis can be tested. I think I know why you avoid that. It is because you are afraid that more detailed statistical tests on such a synthetic time series will reveal that it is profoundly different from the observed GTA signal.
    Nicola Scafetta (17:07:19) :
    “In science the logic is: A implies B, observe B is true, then A is possible.”
    I agree with the first statement. But in a Bayesian framework it can be made more precise. It is not only interesting to know that A is possible but rather how probable it is that A is true, and how more probable this has become after we have observed B to be true. If we denote the prior probability of A and B as p(A), and p(B), and the conditional probability of B, given A, as p(B|A), the Bayes’ theorem states that the probability of A, give that we have observed B to be true , is
    p(A|B)=p(B|A)p(A)/p(B).
    From this expression we see that the confidence in A is changed by the factor p(B|A)/p(B) by observing that B is true. Assume that A is the hypothesis that LW noise is hidden in the GTA signal, and B is the observation of exponents from DAE and SDA analysis with D different from H, but both close to unity. The question is now what values we assign to p(B|A) and p(B). Let us assume that we agree that if if A is true we will observe B, we will have that p(B|A)=1, so our change in belief is really given by 1/p(B).
    Here we are coming to the point where our paths diverge. From a glance at the GTA signal I would be certain that B is true, without performing any analysis at all, hence I would assign a prior probability p(B)=1, and hence the analysis would not change my belief. This can be formulated in a less subjective way by showing that there exist a set of mutually exclusive alternative hypotheses H_i that all give the result B and whose probability sum up to nearly 1, i.e. that p(B)=\sum_i p(B|H_j)p(H_j)~1.
    You, Nicola, do not realize that there are so many other probable explanations of your observation B, so you will assign a very small value to the prior probability of B, i.e. you would assume p(B)<<1. But that assumption is objectively wrong.
    Another (and more subjective) element that determines the a posteriori belief p(A|B) is the prior belief in the hypothesis A. I find it very improbable, and would set p(A)<<1. Your analysis should only change into a believer if the product p(A)/p(B) is close to unity. But since I don't consider p(B) to be much less than unity, I still should not believe in your hypothesis.

  267. Kristoffer Rypdal (02:43:48) :
    the final word will be said at the end of history!
    The Bayesian framework does not have any physical meaning because in physics one deals also with the unknown.
    If we were living in 1600 you would use it to support Aristotle against Galileo.

  268. Nicola Scafetta (05:44:10) :
    “The Bayesian framework does not have any physical meaning because in physics one deals also with the unknown.
    If we were living in 1600 you would use it to support Aristotle against Galileo.”
    Interesting. Could you elaborate on that? How systematic testing of hypotheses against observations within a Bayesian framework would end up supporting Aristotle, who never bothered doing experiment or observation.
    Should I understand your statement that you reject Bayesian hypothesis testing as a scientific method?

  269. You don’t have the last word today! As far as i know, the thread will be open time immemorial. The debate is worth having, in my view, and until you both get to an impasse of interpretation ie you agree to disagree. As long as you are both trying to iron out misunderstandings of each others science, no harm done. 🙂

Comments are closed.