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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Indeed, it is also, as in all things in life, more than likely the one who gets the credit may have been the very one who previously crawled, hacked, and stabbed their way to the top of ‘the heap’ or even worse imposed for some time a ‘mutual backslapping club’ false paradigm which only delayed the emergence of that ‘ bountiful truth’.
It has taken us at least million years to evolve from being scavenging, aggressive apes to being ……….scavenging, aggressive apes.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 4, 2010 at 10:13 am
And I wonder why you think so. There is no threat deriving from pointing out his sloppiness.
OK, let’s review:
You said: “It is this kind of unfounded Alarmism that is dangerous and should be beneath serious work.”
I said: “It is this type of hyperbole that is silly and just undermines what you say.
David is right, you really do protest too much. I suspect it’s because you feel threatened by his work. Wonder why?”
You referred to his work as “dangerous” and as “Alarmism”, and yet you are trying to say all you were doing was “pointing out his sloppiness”?
Nice try. Pardon me, but your agenda is showing.
Steinar Midtskogen says:
July 5, 2010 at 5:19 am
I find it unclear what exactly it is that he’s done, except …..
That, Steinar, is precisely the problem- or one of them.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 4, 2010 at 11:24 pm
This is one reason I would expect temp to be better correlated with the peak-to-peak length than with the traditional min-to-min length; the peaks are better defined. Worth a try, right?
Bruce Cobb says:
July 5, 2010 at 6:04 am
You referred to his work as “dangerous” and as “Alarmism”, and yet you are trying to say all you were doing was “pointing out his sloppiness”?
Nice try. Pardon me, but your agenda is showing.
Bruce
I can’t speak for Leif, but I’d like to see a coherent and credible argument from those who are sceptical of AGW. The most damaging thing that could happen is that a high profile study or piece of research is later shown to be amateurish nonsense. Some time ago David Bellamy (mentioned by DA on the cover of his book) engaged in a debate with George Monbiot (the environmentalist writer in the Guardian). It was embarrassing. Monbiot slaughtered Bellamy. Monbiot is not the sharpest knife in the drawer but he was well prepared while Bellamy was all at sea with his facts. David Bellamy had appeared regularly on TV in the UK so he was seen as the most high profile sceptical voice in the country. The whole episode was a disaster for the sceptic cause in the UK. We can do without a repeat.
Steinar Midtskogen says:
July 5, 2010 at 5:19 am
A much more interesting discussion would be whether this is a coincident (which I’m inclined to think since we have so few cycles to test against), or if it could be something to it.
Agreed but my experiences tell me to take it one step at time with David. However I have touched on the probability of a coincidence in this post.
It isn’t just the fact that there are only a few cycles (as you pointed out), there is also the fact that those cycles broadly fall into 2 clusters. There are the 19th century cycles which tend to be 11+ years long. The 20th century cycles (beginning in 1913) tend to be nearer 10 years long (SC 20 is the exception). The 20th century was warmer than the 19th century so you naturally see a correlation. However the Armagh temperature varies just as much over a period when cycle length is virtually constant (e.g. 1913 to 1964) as it does when there are big changes in the cycle length.
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 12:52 am
I’m not sure what the fuss is about here.
The fuss is not about what is, but about the misuse of Figure 5. If D.A. wanted to emphasize a lag, he should have used Figure 7.
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:01 am
“she says “longer-term variations not yet detectable – … do they occur? ””
But then she also recently said:
“Satellite data show that the sun’s total irradiance rises and falls with the sunspot cycle by a significant amount.”
So it looks like you can pick a Lean quote to suit your taste.
Beneath even you. The solar cycle variation is not in doubt.
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:45 am
So you think he should have used the Svalgaard/Frolich reconstruction, which you claim makes Hoyt/Schatten obsolete, and which fits better with your agenda. So what?
Time and better data/understanding has made H&S obsolete. Happens all the time.
Bruce Cobb says:
July 5, 2010 at 6:04 am
Nice try. Pardon me, but your agenda is showing.
Since you say my agenda is showing, perhaps you could explain what it is…
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:56 am
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:01 am
“she says “longer-term variations not yet detectable – … do they occur? ””
But then she also recently said:
“Satellite data show that the sun’s total irradiance rises and falls with the sunspot cycle by a significant amount.”
So it looks like you can pick a Lean quote to suit your taste.
Beneath even you. The solar cycle variation is not in doubt.
Are you implying I’m telling a lie?
According to Schatten’s latest reconstruction, and even your own ironed out version, C20th variation in TSI averaged over the ss length exceeds that of some C20th solar cycles as I remember it.
John Finn says on July 5, 2010 at 7:16 am
So, which side of the argument do you incline towards? Perhaps you should take on the task. For my part AGW all looks political, and I have a gut feeling that there are strong stabilizing mechanism built into the climate … and besides, we have seen it all before.
That does not mean that AGW is correct, merely that its adherents are adept at presenting their case.
Your challenge, should you accept …
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 8:28 am
Are you implying I’m telling a lie?
You know best what you are telling so can best characterize it. But your insinuation should be beneath decent people [but apparently isn’t].
According to Schatten’s latest reconstruction
Latest? He only made one. [so, yes it is the ‘latest’]
C20th variation in TSI averaged over the ss length exceeds that of some C20th solar cycles as I remember it.
Irrelevant and misleading. A very large cycle will have a high average that can easily surpass the amplitude of a very small cycle. This has nothing to do with whether there is a secular trend.
David Archibald says: July 4, 2010 at 7:56 pm It is so simple that high school science students could do it
That’s the problem! Our climate is highly non-trivial. Any correlation between quantity A and quantity B is usesless as long as you cannot point to a specific mechanism.
What is your mechanism David?
It is possible that we may never be able to predict or understand the climate, which is non-trivial, non-equilbrium and non-linear with non-periodic forcing?
John Finn says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:16 am
I can’t speak for Leif, but I’d like to see a coherent and credible argument from those who are sceptical of AGW.
The problem, I think, is that an alternative for something always appears more convincing than just saying that something is wrong or doesn’t exist. To really kill AGW find something that really explains climate variations, and AGW will appear as nothing but a splash in a turbid river. But, as I see it, one big problem for AGW proponents is their belief that there is one variable that weights more than the rest combined. I think that assumptation requires an extraordinary strong proof since we’re dealing with something chaotic as climate. Many “sceptics”, in their eager to disprove AGW, make exactly the same mistake. They come up with an alternative explanations (or several, sometimes conflicting), which depend on the same unproven assumptation.
Steinar Midtskogen says:
July 5, 2010 at 10:19 am
But, as I see it, one big problem for AGW proponents is their belief that there is one variable that weights more than the rest combined.
The solar enthusiasts make the same mistake.
Dear David,
The weather of one year differs from that of another year, the weather of one decade from that of another decade; why should not the climate of one century differ from that of another century?
C. E. P. Brooks I.S.O., D.Sc., F.R.Met.Soc. Ernest, Climate Through the Ages (1950)
Let us for a moment imagine that we will never understand our climate. That all our explanations, both for and against catastrophic manmade global warming are silly!
I think that it is unfair that the climate of one century should not differ from that of another century when the weather for one decade varies from that of another decade. And I think it is unfair that the climate should not differ from one century to another in the period between ice ages when the climate of the ice age differs so dramatically from the climate between the ice ages. To me it seems that the proponents of catastrophic manmade global warming accepts all sorts of natural oscillations, but not the kind of oscillations that may lead to medieval warm periods and a little ice ages – that’s unfair!
What kind of argument is this? Does it make sense to argue that something is unfair in physics? Yes, it does! In physics there are several laws and principles that imply a balance, symmetry or invariance for the world we live in. There are numerous examples like the conservation of energy, and this is something that all physicists are aware of.
We may be sillier than you think David. Please make yourself a good cup of coffee, sit back, relax and watch this video of Rayleigh Bernhard convection. Watch it several times. You may from time to time se a pattern, and then someone will shout: “Heeeeyyyy I understand this, I have found the golden rule, the DaVinci Code!”
But there is no golden rule. The world we live in may in places be completely dominated by reaction diffusion systems just like Rayleigh Bernhard convection. And my gut feeling is that our climate is possibly one of those places. Then the only reasonable we can conclude is that it would be unfair if natural climate variations should not be allowed cause medieval warm periods and a little ice ages.
So please change your mind about the sun controlling the climate David!
Best Regards,
Invariant
Invariant (9:39 am)
Any correlation between quantity A and quantity B is usesless as long as you cannot point to a specific mechanism.
On the contrary, dinding an unexpected, persistent correlation is useful. It can help focus the investigation, which may then discover the mechanism.
Spelling mistake in last post : “dinding” should be “finding” ..
oneuniverse says:
July 5, 2010 at 11:45 am
Invariant (9:39 am) “Any correlation between quantity A and quantity B is useless as long as you cannot point to a specific mechanism.”
On the contrary, finding an unexpected, persistent correlation is useful.
The key word is ‘persistent’, and supposedly ‘good’, too. The correlations expounded here are neither.
(Spelling mistake in last post)
To me it seems that the proponents of catastrophic manmade global warming accepts all sorts of natural oscillations, but not the kind of oscillations that may lead to medieval warm periods and little ice ages – that’s unfair!
Leif, Jeffrey Glassman has commented on your comment on his solar climate analysis (via your conversation (blogversation?) with ecoeng).
Excellent response from Dr. Jeff Glassman.
One can only hope that Prof. Svalgaard is sufficiently the intelligent fellow he appears to be to do Glassman the courtesy of acknowledging (unsaid) the fact that at age 77 and retired (after an honorable career that needs no promotion), he doesn’t have the luxury of submitting his work for peer review in the ‘regular’ literature.
In any case, IMO the ‘closed shop’ old paper-based world of the ‘peer reviewed’ literature is a dinosaur whose end is nigh in the face of the democracy and intellectual transparency which the Internet offers (and which true science should be all about).
Personally, I regard Jeff Glassman as a genuine ‘quiet hero’ of good quality sceptical climate science. The real deal.
That is why the AGW lobby (and curiously much of the sceptical lobby too) so very, very carefully ignores Glassman’s work. But I’ll take the words and ideas of Dr. Jeff Glassman ahead of the Archibald’s, Miskolczi’s and Courtney’s of this world any day.
oneuniverse says:
July 5, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Leif, Jeffrey Glassman has commented on your comment on his solar climate analysis (via your conversation (blogversation?) with ecoeng).
I have not commented on his analysis only on the TSI version he has used. The response is rambling and intermixed with lots of other stuff. Perhaps a ‘boiled down’ version with the salient point would be better.
ecoeng says:
July 5, 2010 at 5:53 pm
he doesn’t have the luxury of submitting his work for peer review in the ‘regular’ literature.
There are journals that do not require publication fees.
In any case, IMO the ‘closed shop’ old paper-based world of the ‘peer reviewed’ literature is a dinosaur whose end is nigh in the face of the democracy and intellectual transparency which the Internet offers (and which true science should be all about).
Yet, whenever people want to make a point they alwasys say that the papers they refer to are ‘peer-reviewed’. I have yet to see a comment that proudly proclaims that the ten papers they refer to have NOT been corrupted by being peer-reviewed.
so very, very carefully ignores Glassman’s work. But I’ll take the words and ideas of Dr. Jeff Glassman ahead of the Archibald’s, Miskolczi’s and Courtney’s of this world any day.
Nobody I know of very carefully ignores his work. The reason it doesn’t have more of an impact is that it does not pass reasonable smell tests. One does not just state that this and that is better than this or that, but gives a reason for that belief.
ecoeng says:
July 5, 2010 at 5:53 pm
so very, very carefully ignores Glassman’s work. But I’ll take the words and ideas of Dr. Jeff Glassman ahead of the Archibald’s, Miskolczi’s and Courtney’s of this world any day.
Nobody I know of very carefully ignores his work. The reason it doesn’t have more of an impact is that it does not pass reasonable smell tests. One does not just state that this and that is better than this or that, but gives a reason for that belief.
Back in November 2007 I outlined several lines of research leading to my conclusion that there is no secular changing background in TSI. I quote [and apologize for its length even as I have shortened it a bit] from my post at ClimateAudit http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/30/svalgaard-solar-theory/ [where you also follow the comments on my posting]:
Leif Svalgaard writes (moved from another thread for convenience)
Line 1:
The Total solar Irradiance (TSI) has several sources. The first and most important is simply the temperature in the photosphere. The hotter the sun, the higher the TSI. Some spectral lines are VERY sensitive to even minute changes in temperature. Livingston et al. has very carefully measured the line depth of such temperature-sensitive lines over more than 30 years spanning three solar cycles [Sun-as-a-Star Spectrum Variations 1974-2006, W. Livingston, L. Wallace, O. R. White, M. S. Giampapa, The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 657, Issue 2, pp. 1137-1149, 2007, DOI; 10.1086/511127]. They report [and I apologize for the somewhat technical turn my argument is taking, but if you really want to know, there is no avoiding this], that both Ca II K and C I 5380A intensities are constant, indicating that the basal quiet atmosphere is unaffected by cycle magnetism within our observational error. A lower limit to the Ca II K central intensity atmosphere is 0.040. This possibly represents conditions as they were during the Maunder Minimum [their words, remember]. Within our capability to measure it using the C I 5380A line the global (Full Disk) and basal (Center Disk) photospheric temperature is constant over the activity cycles 21, 22, and 23″. I have known Bill Livingston [and White] for over 35 years and he is a very careful and competent observer.
Line 2:
Since the 1960 we have known that the suns surface oscillates up and down [with typical periods of ~5 minutes]. These oscillations are waves very much like seismic waves in the Earth [caused by earthquakes] and just as earthquake seismic waves can be used to probe the interior of the Earth, they can be used to probe the solar interior. There are millions of such solar waves at any given time and there are different kinds (called modes) of waves. The solar p-modes are acoustic [sound waves] normal modes. You one can imagine a frequency increase with an increasing magnetic field, due to the increase in magnetic pressure raising the local speed of sound near the surface where it is cooler and where the p-modes spend most of their time. Of course one can also imagine higher frequencies may result from an induced shrinking of the sound cavity and/or an isobaric warming of the cavity. Another kind is the solar f-modes that are the eigenmodes of the sun having no radial null points [i.e. asymptotically surface waves; again I apologize for the technical mumbo-jumbo]. From the solar cycle variations of p- and f-modes [and we have now enough data from the SOHO spacecraft to make such a study] we now have an internally consistent picture of the origin of these frequency changes that implies a sun that is coolest at activity maximum when it is most irradiant. Now, how can that be? How can a cooler [overall, including the cooler sunspots, for instance, as the temperature of the non-magnetic areas of the sun didnt change {see line 1 above}] sun radiate more? It can do that, if it is bigger! […] Goode and Dziembowski (Sunshine, Earthshine and Climate Change I. Origin of, and Limits on Solar Variability, by Goode, Philip R. & Dziembowski, W. A., Journal of the Korean Astronomical Society, vol. 36, S1, pp. S75-S81, 2003) used the helioseismic data to determine the shape changes in the Sun with rising activity. They calculated the so-called shape asymmetries from the seismic data and found each coefficient was essentially zero at activity minimum and rose in precise spatial correlation with rising surface activity, as measured using Ca II K data from Big Bear Solar Observatory. From this one can conclude that there is a rising corrugation of the solar surface due to rising activity, implying a sun, whose increased irradiance is totally due to activity induced corrugation. This interpretation has been recently observationally verified by Berger et al. (Berger, T.E., van der Voort, L., Rouppe, Loefdahl, M., Contrast analysis of Solar faculae and magnetic bright points. Astrophysical Journal, vol. 661, p.1272, 2007) using the new Swedish Solar Telescope. They have directly observed these corrugations. Goode & Dziembowski conclude that the Sun cannot have been any dimmer, [except] on the time steps of solar evolution, than it is now at activity minimum.
Line 3:
Foukal et al. (Foukal, P., North, G., Wigley, T., A stellar view on solar variations and climate. Science, vol. 306, p. 68, 2004) point out the Suns web-like chromospheric magnetic network (an easily visible solar structure seen through a Ca II K filter) would have looked very different a century ago, if there had been a significant change in the magnetic field of the sun supposedly increasing TSI. However, there is a century of Mt. Wilson Solar Observatory Ca II K data which reveal that the early 20th century network is indistinguishable from that of today.
Line 4:
Svalgaard & Cliver have recently (A Floor in the Solar Wind Magnetic Field, by L. Svalgaard and E. W. Cliver, The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 661, L203L206, 2007 June 1, 2007) shown that long-term (∼130 years) reconstruction of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) based on geomagnetic indices indicates that the solar wind magnetic field strength [and thus that of the sun itself, from which the IMF originates] has a floor, a baseline value in annual averages that it approaches at each 11 yr solar minimum. In the ecliptic plane at 1 AU [at the Earth], the IMF floor is ∼4.6 nT [later data have lowered that estimate to 4 nT], a value substantiated by direct solar wind measurements and cosmogenic nuclei data. We identify the floor with a constant (over centuries) baseline open magnetic flux […]. Solar cycle variations of the IMF strength ride on top of the floor. They point out that such a floor has implications for (1) the solar wind during grand minima we are given a glimpse of Maunder minimum conditions at every 11 yr minimum; (2) current models of the solar wind both source surface and MHD models are based on the assumption, invalidated by Ulysses, that the largest scale fields determine the magnitude of the IMF; consequently, these models are unable to reproduce the high-latitude observations; and (3) the use of geomagnetic input data for precursor-type predictions of the coming sunspot maximum this common practice is rendered doubtful by the observed disconnect between solar polar field strength and heliospheric field strength [the wrong prediction by the NASA panel for cycle 23 was based on this, and the prediction {of a high cycle} by one half of panel for cycle 24 is also partly based on this]. The constancy of the IMF also has implications for the interpretation of the Galactic cosmic ray flux.
Line 5:
But maybe it is the Ultraviolet flux that varies and affects the stratospheric ozone concentration and thereby influences the climate. I have earlier in (Calibrating the Sunspot Number using the Magnetic Needle, L. Svalgaard; CAWSES News, 4(1), 6.5, 2007] pointed out that the amplitude of the diurnal variation of the geomagnetic Y-component is an excellent proxy for the F10.7 radio flux and thus also for the EUV flux (more precisely, the FUV, as the Sq current flows in the E layer). […] Observations since the 1740s then lead to the conclusion that (as for the IMF) there seems to be a floor in rY and hence in F10.7 and hence in the FUV flux, thus the geomagnetic evidence is that there has been no secular change in the background solar minimum EUV (FUV) flux in the past 165 years.
Line 6:
Careful analysis of the amplitude of the solar diurnal variation of the East-component of the geomagnetic field [we have some measurements back to the 1740s] allows us the obtain an independent measure of the FUV flux (and hence the sunspot number) back to then. The result is that the Wolf number before ~1945 should be increased by 20% and before ~1895 by another 20%. The Group Sunspot number in the 1840s is 40% too low compared to the official Wolf number. When all these adjustments are made we find that solar activity for cycles 11 and 10 were as high as for cycle 22 and 23. Thus there has been no secular increase in solar activity […]. Of course, there has still been small and large cycles, but we are talking about the long-term trend here [or lack thereof].
Direct measurements (although beset by calibration problems) of the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) from satellites have only been available for 30 years and indicate that solar irradiance increases with solar activity. Correlating mean annual TSI and sunspot numbers allows one to estimate the part of TSI that varies with the sunspot number. If TSI only depends linearly on the sunspot number then irradiance levels during the Maunder Minimum would be similar to the levels of current solar minima. But TSI is a delicate balance between sunspot darkening and facular brightening, and although both of these increase (in opposite directions) with increasing solar activity, it is not a given that there could not be secular variations in the relative importance of these competing effects. Several earlier reconstructions of TSI, reviewed in Fröhlich, C. & J. Lean (Solar Radiative Output and its Variability; Evidence and Mechanisms, Astron..& Astrophys. Rev., 12(4), 273, 2004, Doi;10.1007/s00159-004-0024-1.[6] all postulate a source of long-term irradiance variability on centennial time scales. Each group of researchers have their own preferred additional source of changes of the background TSI, such as evidence from geomagnetic activity, open magnetic flux, ephemeral region occurrence, umbral/penumbral ratios, and the like. The existence of floors in IMF and FUV over ~1.6 centuries argues for a lack of secular variations of these parameters on that time scale. The six lines of evidence discussed above suggest that the lack of such secular variation undermines the circumstantial evidence for a hidden source of irradiance variability and that there therefore also might be a floor in TSI, such that TSI during Grand Minima would simply be that observed at current solar minima.
[…] And it is perfectly true that there may be effects we dont know about, but as Wittgenstein said of that which we dont know we should be silent.
Now, this is a BIG subject and you are in a sense watching science in the making, but the picture is becoming clearer and there is enough NEW evidence that simply quoting old papers [even rather recent ones] is old hat. If you look carefully at the various reconstructions they all rely on some combination of the [too low] Group Sunspot numbers and/or the [too low aa-index] and/or the now discredited doubling of open magnetic flux in the last 100 years [not even Lockwood thinks so anymore]. With these things out of the way there is little support anymore for the all-time high solar activity. But as I said, this whole thing will probably take some time to play out – let’s say about a solar cycles worth. Each of the issues mentioned above is complicated and requires a lengthy analysis and much convincing before they sink in. But at least you are now forewarned
All the lines are connected, you cannot easily accept some and reject the others [with possible exception of #1]. So accept all or reject all. Im very willing to discuss any and all of them in detail, but it has to be done with civility [windandsea: nobody is flinging nonsense. People are either ignorant (which is no shame) or have other hidden motives (which is no shame either)]. I have learned that civility is a precious commodity in the GW debate, but we can all do our part.”
Hhhhmmmm…
Perhaps Prof. Svalgaard you could try to explain all that to Jeff Glassman on his blog? Bothering of course to read what he has previously written there.
One thing is for sure – you would then at least have someone reading your own long (rambling) piece above who has had a rigorous physics training and a long career in dealing with electromagnetic radiation – somewhat of a rare commodity in the readership of WUWT where the scoring of ‘shots’ is relatively easy for one with a rigorous science education.
FYI, I am not one of those who proudly proclaims that the ten papers they refer to have NOT been corrupted by being peer-reviewed. I have about 100 peer reviewed publications myself and am reasonably happy with most of them. So it goes as Vonnegut used to say.
It is just that (at age 61), having spend almost approximately half my 35-year career in government research organizations doing good hard research and the other half in heavy industry, applying my technical knowledge, I developed a healthy scepticism (to use a tired old word) about the efficiency and integrity of the conventional peer-review process.
In my view, it is actually only a deep and retrogressive conservatism in the science community which resists allowing the literature and the actions of editors and ‘peer reviewers’ to discard the paper, save numerous trees and become fully online and hence fully transparent. Secrecy serves no purpose in Science other than to cater for the baser instincts of scientists. Surprisingly perhaps to you they do have ’em.
It strikes me that with the Internet we have the perfect tool to fix all that.
A very good question would by why is that paradigm shift so slow, and so resisted by scientists – ESPECIALLY in the one age where we are all being asked by those very scientists to accept (their) one giant paradigm which is supposedly global and threatening to all mankind and millions of other species.
BTW, I very much doubt cost is the reason why Jeff Glassman doesn’t publish – I would hazard a guess it is much more likely that, being aged 77 he is sensibly trying to enjoy his retirement while keeping his mind active. Presumably you might feel the same when you have attained the same physical maturity. At least his own views are fairly presented for all to see. They mostly seem quite rigorous to me
My career has also allowed me to get a very good look, admittedly from the perspective of an Aspie, at all the other sorts of syndromes which are relatively common in science and academia, in particular. I refer of course to such syndromes as the ‘gods in their own mind’ and/or the ‘professor as sociopath’ tendencies.
You might say I have developed a few idiosyncratic ‘smell tests’ of my own along the way.
ecoeng says:
July 5, 2010 at 10:43 pm
BTW, I very much doubt cost is the reason why Jeff Glassman doesn’t publish
Yet you make the following snide comment:
ecoeng says:
July 5, 2010 at 5:53 pm
“One can only hope that Prof. Svalgaard is sufficiently the intelligent fellow he appears to be to do Glassman the courtesy of acknowledging (unsaid) the fact that at age 77 and retired (after an honorable career that needs no promotion), he doesn’t have the luxury of submitting his work for peer review in the ‘regular’ literature.”
What is ‘luxury’ then, if not cost?
I would hazard a guess it is much more likely that, being aged 77 he is sensibly trying to enjoy his retirement while keeping his mind active.
Publishing is and excellent way of doing this.
Presumably you might feel the same when you have attained the same physical maturity.
Admittedly, at 68, I still have some way to go. I know many scientists publishing vigorously in their eighties and nineties.
They mostly seem quite rigorous to me
Which ones are not [since they are only ‘mostly’ …]
have someone reading your own long (rambling) piece above
implying that you did not show me the courtesy…
And since when is a detailed argument rambling? I even warn people that it might be technical and involved.
FYI, I am not one of those who proudly proclaims that the ten papers they refer to have NOT been corrupted by being peer-reviewed.
And yet you say:
“In any case, IMO the ‘closed shop’ old paper-based world of the ‘peer reviewed’ literature is a dinosaur whose end is nigh”. May I point out that I consider the Internet and blogs excellent tools for good peer-review. I advocate that the whole review process be in the open [on the internet] and have backed that up with action as well: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/29/leif-svalgaard-on-the-experience-of-peer-review/
A very good question would by why is that paradigm shift so slow, and so resisted by scientists – ESPECIALLY in the one age where we are all being asked by those very scientists to accept (their) one giant paradigm which is supposedly global and threatening to all mankind and millions of other species.
Paradigm shifts are not always slow. When faced with good enough data, the paradigm can change rapidly. E.g. the Big Bang, plate tectonics, accelerating expansion of the universe,
Sure, this is a REALLY BIG subject (like many others in science I hasten to note) and us peasants have all been very thoroughly warned.
However, it seems to me that the position has not really changed materially since 2006 when Foukal et al stated sensibly in their Review in Nature ‘ Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth’s climate’ that:
Variations in the Sun’s total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century. Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun’s output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present.
To repeat: ” …too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present”.
What I find disturbing about the hectoring of Prof. Svalgaard is this manic urgency to proclaim a brand new orthodoxy of a utterly steady state Sun which cannot possibly have any climatic forcing effects – a package based on an unbelievably brief period of (scientific) time which stands in marked contrast even to such simple things as the millenia long human record of flows in the Nile River.
It is trivially easy to quote a significant number of papers produced by researchers over the last decade exploring directly or by proxy possible climate forcing effects due to variations in photochemical reactions in the top of the atmosphere or indeed lower induced by absolute variations in UV or global distributions of plasma fluxes. This is not even to get into weirder Sun-related ‘action at a distance effects’ such as long term variations in the global dust accretion rate (noting we are located well up from the bottom of the gravity well) or the more commonly discussed effects of solar activity on the cosmic ray flux, and hence on aerosol and cloud nucleation (=> albedo).
So I’m unconvinced that the recent deep solar minimum somehow means that the jury has already delivered a verdict.