I’m on my way back to the USA from my Australian speaking tour. I’ll be offline a couple of days. There are many, many, people who I owe a debt of gratitude to, for kindnesses big and small, but, there is one person to who I owe a debt that is much more prominent.
That person is Mr. David Archibald of Perth.
David has been my constant companion throughout the grueling continent crisscrossing pace of the tour, sorting out and correcting details, making sure I was where I needed to be when I needed to be, fighting some idiotic travel battles we faced, and most importantly, helping me hear. This was critical in Q&A after the lectures.
Without him, I would have been lost. He’s a gentleman, a scholar, and I count him as a friend. David, I cannot thank you enough.
That said, there’s something WUWT readers can do that can show gratitude on my behalf, while learning something in the process.
David spoke right along side me at each stop, and created an excellent presentation from the work he has done on his just printed book The Past and Future of Climate.
I’ll review this book in a future post, I’ve read a personal copy he gave me and it reads very well. Like WUWT, this book is heavy on illustrations. There’s not only some very interesting solar research, but some points on climate as well.
For example this illustration (from his slide show) is very interesting:
On my recommendation, if you wish, you can download an order form here:
The Past and Future of Climate – order form
He offers the book for $30AU post paid, and advises that he’ll also ship internationally as well. You can also visit his website at http://davidarchibald.info/
When I do my review, he’ll have an order form that can be used via PayPal, until then, direct by postal mail or PayPal via email contact are the only options.
Again my sincere thanks to David for his unfailing help, good cheer, and pathfinding. I hope WUWT readers can express thanks also.
Svalgaard, you may be proven correct ( I do not know enough about the subject to say one way or the other), but do you have to be such a pompous ass with a large chip on your shoulder? Your responses sound like someone who is cornered. I think people would pay more attention if you weren’t such a jerk about it. Nobody is hacking and slashing at you, merely asking questions. The internet does not make bullying OK. Have a cup of tea and chill out a bit.
Leif Svalgaard says: July 3, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Your best argument that convinced me is that TSI is 10 zillion times stronger than HMF B, so there is no reason to expect that the length of one solar cycle will affect the temperature in the next:
http://friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Solar%20Cycle%20-%20Friis-Chr_Lassen-.pdf
So any “relationship” remains a mystery!
Watson: “This is indeed a mystery,” I remarked. “What do you imagine that it means?”
Holmes: I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theories before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts…
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/805-agw-revisited.html
Enneagram says: July 3, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Dear Anthony, with Dr.Archibald´s constant company, check if you are not already in free fall around the barycenter.
I am waiting for dr.bill to give a rationale.
David Ball says:
July 3, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Have a cup of tea and chill out a bit.
Did I hit a raw nerve there?
OK, I’ll leave poor D.A. in peace for now. No need to grind his nose in it anymore, is there? But it would be nice if you could stick to the science rather than being personal.
Invariant says:
July 3, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Holmes: I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theories before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts…
Seems to describe D.A.’s work well.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 3, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Did I hit a raw nerve there?
OK, I’ll leave poor D.A. in peace for now. No need to grind his nose in it anymore, is there? But it would be nice if you could stick to the science rather than being personal.
Irony – it’s what’s for dinner!
Especially since you started with “You can always count on D.A. to do sloppy, misleading work.”
Yeah, that’s very objective and sciencey. Nothing personal there, nooooooo.
As someone who doesn’t even play a doctor on TV, I prescribe 250mg “chill” 3x day until the swelling goes down.
My post was even tempered but sincere. Seems I am not the only one who dislikes the “blowhardedness” of your posts. Check your gigantic nordic ego at the door next time you enter. Remember that even you may be wrong.
vukcevic says:
July 3, 2010 at 5:40 am
Gail Combs says: July 3, 2010 at 4:24 am
Since the air temperature is driven by the oceans and the oceans act as a giant “capacitor” absorbing heat….
In my view the UK summer months are more likely to respond directly to the solar activity then the rest of the year when the Gulf Stream is predominant. http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETm.htm
In tropics response to the sun is probably more or less constant throughout the year, the higher latitudes would depend on the rate the Gulf Stream is pumping warm water.
One could also speculate that the saline warm waters are likely to be impeded by the magnetic field; since the GMF is variable than the CETs would respond appropriately.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETlmt.htm (with reversed scale for GMF )
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC10.htm
Cumulative effect of rising solar activity (rising temperature in the Equatorial Atlantic) and dramatic fall in strength of the Earth’s magnetic field may have caused sudden uplift in temperatures in early 1700’s.
Next rapid decline in GMF was 1910-1950 and then from 1975 – present.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TGa.gif
vukcevic,
Aren’t you forgetting just one wee tiny detail in all of that? The Earth’s rotation, tilt, and nutation.
David Ball says:
July 3, 2010 at 3:58 pm
My post was even tempered but sincere. Seems I am not the only one who dislikes the “blowhardedness” of your posts. Check your gigantic nordic ego at the door next time you enter. Remember that even you may be wrong.
I don’t get this at all.
At some time or another most of us who read this blog must have wished that someone – anyone – could come up with the absolute proof that AGW is a crock. We’d love to see the confident sneer wiped off the smug faces of the AGW crowd. We tend, therefore, to be more receptive to some of the “way out” hypotheses that are put forward. David Archibald has tapped in to this mindset. He has taken the fairly loose correlation which exists between solar cycle length (SCL) and temperature and used it to form the basis of his argument against AGW. Most of the original work was produced by other scientists.
Unfortunately the SCL/temperature link falls apart under close analysis. That, though, hasn’t stopped David. He simply changes the rules. There are plenty of good scientists who are either sceptical or ‘agnostic’ about catastrophic AGW, e.g. Spencer, Lindzen …. Svalgaard even. The problem is none of these people can give you the absolute assurances you are looking for. David produces results which appear to satisfy our need. Doubts and uncertainties are not a problem for David. Unfortunately his analysis is badly flawed. It is, as Leif says, “sloppy”.
David Ball says:
July 3, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Merovign says:
July 3, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Just MHO from a psychological viewpoint of problems of long term specialization.
What we have here is the results of a lifetime of researching and forming opinions using new approaches to old problems, reporting what he knows, and building a body of work that reflects his knowledge base.
There are many among us that have a wider base of viewpoints that are not what he has studied and confounds him to entertain new ideas that may be / may not be congruent with what research he has done in the past. The problem of being in the lime light and publishing so much for so many years, is there is a body of his past expressed opinions that are being, questioned by others newer to the scene and with different basic ideas on how the electromagnetics of the solar system interacts to give results he has not entertained in the past.
At some point in the gradual transition in the understood science as new ideas enter the mainstream and modify or replace older ones, those that do not deeply consider the new approaches and incorporate them into their way of thinking get defensive in areas where yielding to a compromise is unforgiving.
Gate keeping, stonewalling, and outright dismissal are the usual signs of a past prime scientist, too busy with maintenance of previous opinions to learn the leading edges of the area of expertise as it expands rapidly in all directions, hence the frustration well established professionals exhibit under pressure from multiple fronts, that they don’t have time enough or interest enough to study.
That is why usually break throughs come from the sidelines where pressure and defensive actions (and impressions such as those by the two commenters above, as a result) don’t slow down the new curious seeker of the truth.
Good onya David A and Anthony!
Historical climate data compiled by many historians from daily records show that Europe had at least five cold periods since 1000 A.D. Each of these cooling periods is well documented in historical records of the day, including descriptions of crop failures and severity of winters.
Each cooling periods coincided with increases in the Be10 and C14 production in the atmosphere that occured at:
1010 – 1050 Oort Minimum
1280 – 1350 Wolf Minimum (Black plague ~ 1349 A.D.)
1460 – 1550 Sporer Minimum (double dip minima at ~1480 and ~1520)
1645 – 1715 Maunder Minimum (coldest part of the Little Ice Age)
1790 – 1820 Dalton Minimum
It is generally belived that the increased Be10 and C14 production was caused by an increase in amount of cosmic rays hitting the Earth because of a weaker Solar magnetic field.
Of course, full-time Sophist, Leif Svalgaard does not let facts get in the way of his one man mission to drag the Scientific Principle through the mud. He has a pre-determined conclusion which he believes gives him the right to ignore 95 % of the evidence and highlight the 5 % that agrees with his model.
Leif, are you really saying the sun has no effect on climate, or sunspots, or what exactly?
Excellent Job by the both of you Anthony. In an era when Politics thinks Science is merely a vehicle for promoting bad policy, people like you and David are important for the information exchange….. The debate that was supposed to be over, etc;-)
Keep up the good work…. We’re all out here are reading, listening and informed because of it.
David Ball says:
July 3, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Remember that even you may be wrong.
I have been wrong many times and undoubtedly will be in the future. That is not the issue, which is the incredible sloppiness and outright falsehoods in D.A.’s ‘work’. Somebody once had this to say about it: http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html
If this is your hero and this is your science, we are, indeed, all doomed. No wonder AGW has an easy time.
cohenite says:
July 3, 2010 at 7:08 pm
Leif, are you really saying the sun has no effect on climate, or sunspots, or what exactly?
Of course it has an effect: all of 0.1C.
Ninderthana says:
July 3, 2010 at 6:23 pm
Each cooling periods coincided with increases in the Be10 and C14 production in the atmosphere that occurred at…
There is mounting evidence of an inconvenient truth:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1003/1003.4989.pdf
“These inconsistencies all suggest that “atmospheric” or “local” effects, which may be at least as large as or larger than changes in the input production function, are apparently able to modify the ratio of production to concentration of 10Be. This result compliments recent climatic studies e.g., Field, Schmidt and Shindall, 2009, and references therein, which suggest climatic effects will produce significant modifications to the production to concentration ratio of 10Be.”
=======================
In general, the issue is the poor quality-work of D.A., which assertion, I note, nobody has challenged here. David is certainly a gentleman [as per all the help provided to our host], but a scholar he ain’t.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 3, 2010 at 8:15 pm
[–snip–]
In general, the issue is the poor quality-work of D.A., which assertion, I note, nobody has challenged here. David is certainly a gentleman [as per all the help provided to our host], but a scholar he ain’t.
According to whom, and with what proof of that assertion?
Or is that merely your own opinion?
899 says:
July 3, 2010 at 8:30 pm
>i>”David is certainly a gentleman [as per all the help provided to our host], but a scholar he ain’t.”
According to whom, and with what proof of that assertion?
I assume that the Gentleman bit does not need proof, and that you are referring to his sloppy work, which speaks for itself, should you care to look closely. Even on this very blog there has several instances of this. The latest being the present topic. Perhaps you would take upon you to show that David’s analysis is not flawed? or is your faith strong enough that evidence is not needed?
Or is that merely your own opinion?
And, yes, that is my considered opinion.
Leif says the solar effect on climate has a temperature measure of 0.1C; gosh, even TAR puts it at 0.4C; of course it was downgraded in AR4 to 0.1C; that’s over the 20thC; I guess in AR5, or what ever they’re going to call the next stupid edition, an increase in solar activity will cause cooling. Anyway, the lads at RC have a different take:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/
The RC boys say this:
“For instance, the GISS model equilibrium runs with 2xCO2 or a 2% increase in solar forcing both show a maximum around 20N to 20S around 300mb (10 km):” this is about the THS; gee Leif, a doubling of CO2 has as much temperature effect/forcing as a 2% increase in solar output. Isn’t life grand?!
Ninderthana says:
July 3, 2010 at 6:23 pm
Each cooling periods coincided with increases in the Be10 and C14 production in the atmosphere that occurred at…
More from http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.2675.pdf line 222:
“Indeed this implies that more than 50% the 10Be flux increase around, e.g., 1700 A.D., 1810 A.D. and 1895 A.D. is due to non-production related increases!”, i.e. climate, volcanoes, local effects.
So, the hallowed correlations may simply be correlating climate with climate.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 3, 2010 at 8:15 pm
Of course it has an effect: all of 0.1C. That is only if one looks exclusively at TSI. There are other interactions between the earth and the sun. Some we may not even be aware of. You are being disingenuous once again.
I certainly do not believe any (including Archibald) have all the answers. Truthfully we are a long, long way from that. What I find distasteful is the presentation of ones own views as being all encompassing and absolutely correct. This is hubris of the highest order. Leave the childish egos out of it. At least Willis E. is willing to admit that what we do not know, far outweighs what we do know. Including the interaction between the earth and the sun. I believe it is I who touched a nerve.
John Finn says: (July 3, 2010 at 5:47 pm) David produces results which appear to satisfy our need. Doubts and uncertainties are not a problem for David. Unfortunately his analysis is badly flawed. It is, as Leif says, “sloppy”.
Which neatly encapsulates my dislocation, John. I find David’s conclusions seductive. I find Leif’s compelling.
David’s: “Our generation has known a warm, giving Sun, but the next generation will suffer a Sun that is less giving, and the Earth will be less fruitful.” has stayed firmly in my mind for a couple of years, and I tend to believe the conclusion of a cold time coming; but… after reading extensively here (and being heavily influenced by Leif) I do not think it is the sun — or at least what we know of the sun right now…
…so I will just keep reading; and continue pleased that comments such as yours above are cautioning on this and other threads
cohenite says:
July 3, 2010 at 8:53 pm
a doubling of CO2 has as much temperature effect/forcing as a 2% increase in solar output. Isn’t life grand?!
Well, if that is what you really believe, we can put some numbers to that. A 2% increase in solar output would give you a 2%/4 = 0.5% = 288K*0.5%/100 = 1.44K temperature increase. Except that the Sun has not varied that much the past ~10,000 years, more like 10-20 times less.
David Ball says:
July 3, 2010 at 9:01 pm
There are other interactions between the earth and the sun.
None that have the energy required.
Some we may not even be aware of.
And that have effects that we are also not aware of?
Roger Carr says:
July 3, 2010 at 9:10 pm
I find David’s conclusions seductive.
And that why they are dangerous. D.A. is the ultimate, likable Alarmist, seducing people to drink the Koolaid.
Leif Svalgaard says:
Steinar Midtskogen says:
Anyway, even if D.A. did everything wrong, that hasn’t convinced me that there is no correlation between cycle length and temperature during the next cycle.
And what convinces you that there is?
The same exercise has been done for other stations and the trend is the same, nothing more. My main concern is that there aren’t that many cycles with realible temperature records and when the parameters can be picked freely (without having to prove any physical explanations) anyone will eventually find coincidents that look like correlations. My basic view on climate is that it’s too complex to be likely driven by one main factor, so the claim doesn’t seem likely to me, but if one hypothesis allows itself to be falsified by temperature in a decade (unlike the CO2 hypothesis), I’m willing to hear it. Since SC22 was short and SC23 was long, it cannot be the most important driver unless SC24 becomes colder than SC23. Well (relatively) soon know.
Goodness!! How did this thread turn into a “pile on Leif” party??
Sorry, Leif! Some folks seem pretty new to WUWT and don’t appreciate your rapier wit AND dry Scandinavian humor! (not to mention your Encyclopedia Galactica-style of scientific knowledge!)
Meanwhile, the minimum grinds on…. fascinating event!
The presentations in Canberra by Tim Curtin, David Archibald and Anthony were linked to area the of interest of each speaker and were all individual with no overlap except a common aim to knock down some AGW false idols.
I was aware of the controversy in David’s analysis but enjoyed each presentation, given each had strong and not so strong points, but that’s science, and at least these guys have the guts to get out there and expound their thesis in a public forum.
But I would like to see DA to come out and vigorously defend his analysis in threads like this.