Spotting the Solar Regime Shifts Driving Earth's Climate

Some people cite scientists saying there is a “CO2 control knob” for Earth. No doubt there is, but due to the logarithmic effect of CO2, I think of it like a fine tuning knob, not the main station tuner. That said, a new data picture is emerging of an even bigger knob and lever; a nice bright yellow one.

The ultimate power shifter - artwork by Anthony - click to enlarge

A few months back, I found a website from NOAA that provides an algorithm and downloadable program for spotting regime shifts in time series data. It was designed by Sergei Rodionov of the NOAA Bering Climate and Ecosystem Center for the purpose of detecting shifts in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

Regime shifts are defined as rapid reorganizations of ecosystems from one relatively stable state to another. In the marine environment, regimes may last for several decades and shifts often appear to be associated with changes in the climate system. In the North Pacific, climate regimes are typically described using the concept of Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Regime shifts were also found in many other variables as demonstrated in the Data section of this website (select a variable and then click “Recent trends”).

But data is data, and the program doesn’t care if it is ecosystem data, temperature data, population data, or solar data. It just looks for and identifies abrupt changes that stabilize at a new level. For example, a useful application of the program is to look for shifts in weather data, such as that caused by the PDO. Here we can clearly see the great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976/77:

Another useful application is to use it to identify station moves that result in a temperature shift. It might also be applied to proxy data, such as ice core Oxygen 18 isotope data.

But the program was developed around the PDO. What drives the PDO? Many say the sun, though there are other factors too. It follows to reason then the we might be able to look for solar regime shifts in PDO driven temperature data.

Alan of AppInSys found the same application and has done just that, and the results are quite interesting. The correlation is well aligned, and it demonstrates the solar to PDO connection quite well. I’ll let him tell his story of discovery below. – Anthony

=================================

Climate Regime Shifts

The notion that climate variations often occur in the form of ‘‘regimes’’ began to become appreciated in the 1990s. This paradigm was inspired in large part by the rapid change of the North Pacific climate around 1977 [e.g., Kerr, 1992] and the identification of other abrupt shifts in association with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) [Mantua et al., 1997].” [http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes/Regime_shift_algorithm.pdf]

Pacific Regime Shifts

Hare and Mantua, 2000 (“Empirical evidence for North Pacific regime shifts in 1977 and 1989”): “It is now widely accepted that a climatic regime shift transpired in the North Pacific Ocean in the winter of 1976–77. This regime shift has had far reaching consequences for the large marine ecosystems of the North Pacific. Despite the strength and scope of the changes initiated by the shift, it was 10–15 years before it was fully recognized. Subsequent research has suggested that this event was not unique in the historical record but merely the latest in a succession of climatic regime shifts. In this study, we assembled 100 environmental time series, 31 climatic and 69 biological, to determine if there is evidence for common regime signals in the 1965–1997 period of record. Our analysis reproduces previously documented features of the 1977 regime shift, and identifies a further shift in 1989 in some components of the North Pacific ecosystem. The 1989 changes were neither as pervasive as the 1977 changes nor did they signal a simple return to pre-1977 conditions.”

[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7B-41FTS3S-2…]

Overland et al “North Pacific regime shifts: Definitions, issues and recent transitions”

[http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/foci/publications/2008/overN667.pdf]: “climate variables for the North Pacific display shifts near 1977, 1989 and 1998.”

The following figure from the above paper show analysis of PDO and Victoria Index using the Rodionov regime detection algorithm. A regime shift is also detected around 1947-48.

The following figure shows regime shift detection for the summer PDO, showing shifts at 1948, 1976 and 1998.

[http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/data/Images/PDOs_FigRegime.html]

(For detailed information on the 1976/77 climate shift,

see: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/The1976-78ClimateShift.htm)

Regime Shift Detection in Annual Temperature Anomaly Data

The NOAA Bering Climate web site provides the algorithm for regime shift detection developed by Sergei Rodionov [http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes/index.html]. The following analyses use the Excel VBA regime change algorithm version 3.2 from this web site.

The following figure shows the regime analysis of the HadCRUT3 annual global annual average temperature anomaly data from the Met Office Hadley Centre for 1895 to 2009 [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual].

The analysis was run based on the mean using a significance level of 0.1, cut-off length of 10 and Huber weight parameter of 2 using red noise IP4 subsample size 6. Regime changes are identified in 1902, 1914, 1926, 1937, 1946, 1957, 1977, 1987, and 1997. Running the analysis based on the variance rather than the mean results in regime changes in the bold years listed above.

Regime Shift Relationship to Solar Cycle

The NASA Solar Physics web site provides the following figure showing sunspot area.

[http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml]

The following figure compares the Hadley (HadCrut3) monthly global average temperature (from [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/]) overlaid with the regime change line (red line) shown previously, along with the sunspot area since 1900. The sunspot cycle is approximately 11 years. The sun’s magnetic field reverses with each sunspot cycle and thus after two sunspot cycles the magnetic field has completed a cycle – a Hale Cycle – and is back to where it started. Thus a complete magnetic sunspot cycle is approximately 22 years. The figure marks the onset of odd-numbered cycles with a vertical red line, even-numbered cycles with a green line.

From the figure above it can be seen that the regime changes correspond to the onset of solar cycles and occur when the “butterfly” is at its widest. The most significant warming regime shifts occur at the start of odd-numbered cycles (1937, 1957, 1977, 1997). Each odd-numbered cycle (red lines above) has resulted in a temperature-increase regime shift. Even-numbered cycles (green lines above) have been inconsistent, with some resulting in temperature-decrease regime shifts (1902, 1946) or minor temperature-increase shifts (1926, 1987).

An unusual one is the 1957 – 1966 cycle, which in the monthly data shown above visually looks like a temperature-increase shift in 1957 followed by a temperature-decrease shift in 1964 but the regime detection algorithm did not identify it. This is likely due to the use of annually averaged data in the regime detection algorithm.

The following figure shows the relative polarity of the Sun’s magnetic poles for recent sunspot cycles along with the solar magnetic flux [www.bu.edu/csp/nas/IHY_MagField.ppt]. The regime change periods are highlighted by the red and green boxes. Each one occurs on as the solar cycle is accelerating. The onset of an odd-numbered sunspot cycle (1977-78, 1997-98) results in the relative alignment of the Earth’s and the Sun’s magnetic fields (positive North pole on the Sun) allowing greater penetration of the geomagnetic storms into the Earth’s atmosphere. “Twenty times more solar particles cross the Earth’s leaky magnetic shield when the sun’s magnetic field is aligned with that of the Earth compared to when the two magnetic fields are oppositely directed” [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/news/themis_leaky_shield.html]

The following figure shows the longitudinally averaged solar magnetic field. This “magnetic butterfly diagram” shows that the sunspots are involved with transporting the field in its reversal. The Earth’s temperature regime shifts are indicated with the superimposed boxes – red on odd numbered solar cycles, green on even.

[http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2010-1&page=articlesu8.html]

The Earth’s temperature regime shift occurs as the solar magnetic field begins its reversal.

Solar Cycle 24

Solar cycle 24 is in its initial stage after getting off to a late start. An El Nino occurred in the first part of 2010. This may be the start of the next regime shift.

Climate Regime Shifts

[last update: 2010/07/04]

The notion that climate variations often occur in the form of ‘‘regimes’’ began to become appreciated in the 1990s. This paradigm was inspired in large part by the rapid change of the North Pacific climate around 1977 [e.g., Kerr, 1992] and the identification of other abrupt shifts in association with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) [Mantua et al., 1997].” [http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes/Regime_shift_algorithm.pdf]

Pacific Regime Shifts

Hare and Mantua, 2000 (“Empirical evidence for North Pacific regime shifts in 1977 and 1989”): “It is now widely accepted that a climatic regime shift transpired in the North Pacific Ocean in the winter of 1976–77. This regime shift has had far reaching consequences for the large marine ecosystems of the North Pacific. Despite the strength and scope of the changes initiated by the shift, it was 10–15 years before it was fully recognized. Subsequent research has suggested that this event was not unique in the historical record but merely the latest in a succession of climatic regime shifts. In this study, we assembled 100 environmental time series, 31 climatic and 69 biological, to determine if there is evidence for common regime signals in the 1965–1997 period of record. Our analysis reproduces previously documented features of the 1977 regime shift, and identifies a further shift in 1989 in some components of the North Pacific ecosystem. The 1989 changes were neither as pervasive as the 1977 changes nor did they signal a simple return to pre-1977 conditions.”

[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7B-41FTS3S-2…]

Overland et al “North Pacific regime shifts: Definitions, issues and recent transitions”

[http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/foci/publications/2008/overN667.pdf]: “climate variables for the North Pacific display shifts near 1977, 1989 and 1998.”

The following figure from the above paper show analysis of PDO and Victoria Index using the Rodionov regime detection algorithm. A regime shift is also detected around 1947-48.

The following figure shows regime shift detection for the summer PDO, showing shifts at 1948, 1976 and 1998.

[http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/data/Images/PDOs_FigRegime.html]

(For detailed information on the 1976/77 climate shift,

see: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/The1976-78ClimateShift.htm)

Regime Shift Detection in Annual Temperature Anomaly Data

The NOAA Bering Climate web site provides the algorithm for regime shift detection developed by Sergei Rodionov [http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes/index.html]. The following analyses use the Excel VBA regime change algorithm version 3.2 from this web site.

The following figure shows the regime analysis of the HadCRUT3 annual global annual average temperature anomaly data from the Met Office Hadley Centre for 1895 to 2009 [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual].

The analysis was run based on the mean using a significance level of 0.1, cut-off length of 10 and Huber weight parameter of 2 using red noise IP4 subsample size 6. Regime changes are identified in 1902, 1914, 1926, 1937, 1946, 1957, 1977, 1987, and 1997. Running the analysis based on the variance rather than the mean results in regime changes in the bold years listed above.

Regime Shift Relationship to Solar Cycle

The NASA Solar Physics web site provides the following figure showing sunspot area.

[http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml]

The following figure compares the Hadley (HadCrut3) monthly global average temperature (from [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/]) overlaid with the regime change line (red line) shown previously, along with the sunspot area since 1900. The sunspot cycle is approximately 11 years. The sun’s magnetic field reverses with each sunspot cycle and thus after two sunspot cycles the magnetic field has completed a cycle – a Hale Cycle – and is back to where it started. Thus a complete magnetic sunspot cycle is approximately 22 years. The figure marks the onset of odd-numbered cycles with a vertical red line, even-numbered cycles with a green line.

From the figure above it can be seen that the regime changes correspond to the onset of solar cycles and occur when the “butterfly” is at its widest. The most significant warming regime shifts occur at the start of odd-numbered cycles (1937, 1957, 1977, 1997). Each odd-numbered cycle (red lines above) has resulted in a temperature-increase regime shift. Even-numbered cycles (green lines above) have been inconsistent, with some resulting in temperature-decrease regime shifts (1902, 1946) or minor temperature-increase shifts (1926, 1987).

An unusual one is the 1957 – 1966 cycle, which in the monthly data shown above visually looks like a temperature-increase shift in 1957 followed by a temperature-decrease shift in 1964 but the regime detection algorithm did not identify it. This is likely due to the use of annually averaged data in the regime detection algorithm.

The following figure shows the relative polarity of the Sun’s magnetic poles for recent sunspot cycles along with the solar magnetic flux [www.bu.edu/csp/nas/IHY_MagField.ppt]. The regime change periods are highlighted by the red and green boxes. Each one occurs on as the solar cycle is accelerating. The onset of an odd-numbered sunspot cycle (1977-78, 1997-98) results in the relative alignment of the Earth’s and the Sun’s magnetic fields (positive North pole on the Sun) allowing greater penetration of the geomagnetic storms into the Earth’s atmosphere. “Twenty times more solar particles cross the Earth’s leaky magnetic shield when the sun’s magnetic field is aligned with that of the Earth compared to when the two magnetic fields are oppositely directed” [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/news/themis_leaky_shield.html]

The following figure shows the longitudinally averaged solar magnetic field. This “magnetic butterfly diagram” shows that the sunspots are involved with transporting the field in its reversal. The Earth’s temperature regime shifts are indicated with the superimposed boxes – red on odd numbered solar cycles, green on even.

[http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2010-1&page=articlesu8.html]

The Earth’s temperature regime shift occurs as the solar magnetic field begins its reversal.

Solar Cycle 24

Solar cycle 24 is in its initial stage after getting off to a late start. An El Nino occurred in the first part of 2010. This may be the start of the next regime shift.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
660 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
July 5, 2010 12:17 am

For very busy people like me, a ‘Conclusion’ paragraph would have been great.

rms
July 5, 2010 12:53 am

Agree with Jim.

el gordo
July 5, 2010 12:58 am

A positive Indian Ocean Dipole and a cool PDO means big floods in the land of Oz.

Adolf Balik
July 5, 2010 12:58 am

The same wrote in his essays Theodor Landscheid in 1990th and early in the current dacade:
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/papers-by-dr-theodor-landscheidt/

July 5, 2010 1:17 am

If I remember correctly, there is a self-appointed “world’s foremost Solar scientist,” very popular among some people frequenting the WUWT site, who repetitiously proclaimed that anybody asserting any connection between Solar cycles and climate changes is not worthy of any consideration, since the Sun cannot affect climate, period.
I also recall that one of the moderators, residing in San Francisco, has been very supportive toward this prominent scientist, to the deplorable extent of certain editorial bias in his favor.
He laughs best who laughs last.

rbateman
July 5, 2010 1:18 am

SC20 should have been regime change down, as was SC14. The reason it did not is because the temp data has been monkeyed with. Remember, SC20 is the 70’s Cooling Period. It was also a long cycle, as was SC14.
RGO is a high-quality database until SC20. Afterwards, one should use Debrecen / 1.1

Amino Acids in Meteorites
July 5, 2010 1:25 am

Interesting. So it’s the sun. The sun also influences El Nino and La Nina, doesn’t it? Seems it does.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Chris de Freitas with a little about 1976 Great Pacific Climate Shift

July 5, 2010 1:30 am

What mechanism causes the shifts in global temperatures and how can it be tied back to solar variability? Also, the upward shifts in 1925 and 1986/87 occurred at even cycles and they are approximately the same magnitude as the other lesser shifts that occurred at odd cycles.

Steven mosher
July 5, 2010 1:41 am

Alexander.
WRT the algorithm in question. you might take a look at it. I downloaded it a couple years ago and turned some people onto it over at CA. after playing around with it it became clear that I could tune the thing to fit my assumptions. Hint: if he set the cuttoff length at 11 instead of 10 the trick would have been too obvious. By diddling
the noise parameter and the p value you can make all sorts of pretty pictures.
Further, the series being correlated is as everybody knows.. highly massaged and infected with UHI. Basically, without a specific physical mechanism ( the missing CONCLUSION) this is numerology, al beit slightly more interesting than other attempts.

July 5, 2010 1:50 am

That would be fine if it is only possible solution.
Here I have superimposed the Geomagnetic Z flux of the dominant Hudson Bay – Greenland area, where the Arctic currents enter Labrador Sea.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC12.htm
Original graph can be found here:
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/41/83/04/PDF/NATA.pdf
‘The warm water current branching of the North Atlantic Current and combination of the Arctic cold currents create Labrador Sea currents; this tightly governs the strength of the Subpolar gyre’s circulation, which is the engine of the heat transport across the North Atlantic Ocean.’

Amino Acids in Meteorites
July 5, 2010 1:55 am

Steven mosher says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:41 am
Why is it when the sun influencing climate comes up it is shot down? The earth is in the sun’s atmosphere. Changes in the sun must make for changes on the earth. It doesn’t make sense that it would have no effect.

July 5, 2010 1:59 am

vukcevic says: July 5, 2010 at 1:50 am
……..
May I add that the same type analysis produces high correlation with the Arctic temperature Anomaly and the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
and is in good agreement with CETs all the way back to Maunder Minimum.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETlmt.htm

July 5, 2010 2:12 am

Steven,
I hear you. Yes, it is often possible to massage the data and to play with parameters to fit assumptions. Any UN statistical analysis and modeling, not only by the IPCC, and not only climatology-connected, is manipulated by definition. It may very well be that this is the case here.
My point is, climate DOES change depending on Solar cycles. I know it because I lived through about five of these cycles, and observed the climate. And I would rather believe my own perception than anybody’s “credentials.”
Mechanism? Uncertain. Correlation? Obvious. What does it mean? We must explain the mechanism, instead of telling people who notice the obvious that they are fools and are not qualified to argue with bottle washers and button sorters.

phlogiston
July 5, 2010 2:15 am

To quote the Stranglers, “there’s always the sun”
Why no mention of Tsonis, he did some important work on oceanic phase shifts involving nonlinear mathematical analysis? i.e. at certain phase relationships of PDO and AMO for instance, a climate shift is caused:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/16/synchronized-chaos-and-climate-change/

Mailman
July 5, 2010 2:42 am

If the sun doesn’t affect climate what would happen if the sun stopped shining?
Oh, that would affect the weather only? 🙂

Alan the Brit
July 5, 2010 2:50 am

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! For years scientists have been saying the Sun has all sorts of effects on our planet, electro-magnetic & otherwise. How can one simply deny its effects on our climate when in the atmosphere it can produce things of beauty such as the Northern & Southern Lights? I know the Met Office have solar scientists looking in to how the Sun “might” affect the climate, but if you’re coming in at it from a slanted angle you a distorted picture. If these chaps & chapesses are AGW believers from the outset, it seems rather pointless them studying solar activity other than from curiosity, or to produce evidence that it doesn’t affect the Earth.

Stephen Wilde
July 5, 2010 2:55 am

Time to revisit my New Climate Model ?
Solar changes from above constantly interacting with oceanic changes from below to drive the mid latitude jets and the ITCZ latitudinally thus changing global albedo to cause changes in the global temperature trend and with regional climate changes depending on the shift of individual regions in relation to those latitudinal positions of the air circulation systems.

tallbloke
July 5, 2010 3:06 am

It is noticeable that many of the upwards step changes coincide with El Nino. Bob Tisdale has already elucidated that. I have already made an attempt at explaining the el nino – solar link too:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/el-nino-and-the-solar-cycle/
Has it occurred to Steven Mosher it might just be that the parameters fit the data because Alan Cheetham has zoomed in on the correct parameter values?
For sure we need to do a lot more work on this stuff, but to dismiss a study like Alan’s as ‘numerology’ (not the first time Mosh has offered this cheap insult to solar investigators, see the last Scafetta thread ), seems a bit facile to me.

July 5, 2010 3:27 am

Why is it when the sun influencing climate comes up it is shot down?
One problem with the solar cycles – temperature relationship is clearly demonstrated during 1950 -1965 period, while solar activity was getting stronger, the temperatures were falling (to compensate for this anomaly ‘cycle length’ , ‘cycle gear shift’ etc were introduced, but neither is convincing).
No such problem with the geomagnetic correlation; see:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/05/spotting-the-solar-regime-shifts-driving-earths-climate/#comment-423344

tallbloke
July 5, 2010 3:29 am

Stephen Wilde says:
July 5, 2010 at 2:55 am
Time to revisit my New Climate Model ?
Solar changes from above constantly interacting with oceanic changes from below to drive the mid latitude jets and the ITCZ latitudinally thus changing global albedo to cause changes in the global temperature trend and with regional climate changes depending on the shift of individual regions in relation to those latitudinal positions of the air circulation systems.

I think there is a lot of merit in your hypothesis Stephen, having personally witnessed the difference the jet stream positions have made to the UK weather over the last few years.
I would add that the small changes in TSI which Leif Svalgaard never tires of telling us are too small to account for climate change are obviously amplified by the cloud albedo changing the actual insolation at the surface. Both TSI and surface insolation correlate well with these changes, so it’s time to smoke the red herrings.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/willie-soon-brings-sunshine-to-the-debate-on-solar-climate-link/

tallbloke
July 5, 2010 3:36 am

Bob Tisdale says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:30 am
What mechanism causes the shifts in global temperatures and how can it be tied back to solar variability? Also, the upward shifts in 1925 and 1986/87 occurred at even cycles and they are approximately the same magnitude as the other lesser shifts that occurred at odd cycles.

The upward shifts in the even cycles in 1925 and 1986/7 both come a decade or so after the weak odd cycles preceding them. Which lends some support to what David Archibald was highlighting, and confirms the decade or so lag I suggested to Leif Svalgaard over a year ago on his climate audit solar threads. He seemed to think it was reasonable at the time.
The mechanism of upward shift is El Nino, as you have shown us, and that ties back to solar cycle periodicity as you and I discussed in the thread on my blog. http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/el-nino-and-the-solar-cycle/
It’s an unfinished conversation, and I look forward to continuing it as and when you have time.

Chris Wright
July 5, 2010 3:42 am

On the face of it, the demonstrated correlation is astonishing. It could well be true, as there is a mountain of evidence suggesting that our local star has a fundamental effect on the climate.
However, it’s right to be – shall we say – sceptical. If the algorithm can be tuned to get a desired result, then that’s cause for concern. Climate science has been badly corrupted by that kind of behaviour (no names, but you know who I mean!)
I hope the writer can follow up on this potential problem. If he can demonstrate that the technique is ‘robust’ and does not depend on tuning of the algorithm, then I would say that this is a very important finding. But this question of tuning the algorithm does need to be addressed….
Chris

KevinUK
July 5, 2010 3:46 am

tallbloke,
I’m afraid Mosh is a lost cause and has been for some time now and especially since he’s been hanging out with the likes of Nick Stokes and Ron Broberg over at Lucia’s Blackboard.
Alan Cheetham in contrast still has an open mind as to whether or not the late 20th century warming trend was caused by man’s emissions of CO2 or not and like myself and many other skeptics of CAGW think that it’s not a good idea to attempt to de-carbonise your economy when the science is far from settled. Mosh on the other hand seems to think that the science is settled, CO2 is the primary cause of the late 20th century warming trend and as a consequence he is now urging us all to ‘act now’.

tallbloke
July 5, 2010 3:49 am

vukcevic says:
July 5, 2010 at 3:27 am (Edit)
Why is it when the sun influencing climate comes up it is shot down?
One problem with the solar cycles – temperature relationship is clearly demonstrated during 1950 -1965 period, while solar activity was getting stronger, the temperatures were falling (to compensate for this anomaly ‘cycle length’ , ‘cycle gear shift’ etc were introduced, but neither is convincing).
No such problem with the geomagnetic correlation; see:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/05/spotting-the-solar-regime-shifts-driving-earths-climate/#comment-423344

Vuk, isn’t geomagnetism affected by the heliomagnetism anyway? I think all these things tie in together. Your graph also shows temperature dipping below your Bz curve postwar after all. It looks like oceanic oscillations and cloud albedo have ‘overshoot’, just like your decaying Geomagnetic reaction from the 1600’s.
Coupled oscillators, with some system inertia thrown in.

tallbloke
July 5, 2010 4:06 am

KevinUK says:
July 5, 2010 at 3:46 am (Edit)
Mosh on the other hand seems to think that the science is settled, CO2 is the primary cause of the late 20th century warming trend and as a consequence he is now urging us all to ‘act now’.

He is?! Got a link??

phlogiston
July 5, 2010 4:07 am

Steven mosher says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:41 am
Basically, without a specific physical mechanism ( the missing CONCLUSION) this is numerology, albeit slightly more interesting than other attempts.
This is Aristotle’s “argumentum ad ignorantium”. “We wont believe it because we dont know the mechanism”. This is one of the biggest epistemological diseases of the late 20th – 21st centuries. Science has become so conceited about its technical (“bottle washer and button counter” – nice quote Alexander) achievements that it has allowed the epistemological underpinning of science to atrophy. Subordination to political pressure has helped this process along. The other disease is inductivism (as opposed to deductivism) a.k.a. Karl Popper.
The opposite pathology has also emerged – fixation on a mechanism and belief in an outcome from this mechanism in complete disgregard of impirical evidence to the contrary, this could be called “argument ignarus res” or “argument despite the facts”.
Examples:
CO2 and Arhennius theory – IR absorption by CO2 means it must be warming the (cooling) planet.
Genetic modification: modified genes must be damaging the environment since they are introducing alien genes, despite accumulating evidence of no harmful effect
Ionising radiation must cause cancer down to zero dose since DNA strand can be broken by a single ionising event, ignoring overwhelming evidence of the reality of a threshold dose below which ionising radiation is either harmless or exerts a slightly positive health effect.
There is even a new abusive term for it: “phenomenological”. It refers to someone who places more weight on observed facts than on predictions from models or mechanistic hypotheses. Its a sure way to lose research grant funding.

July 5, 2010 4:28 am

Slightly O/T – [snip]
[Reply] Completely O/T. Take it to tips and notes please. RT-Mod

BBk
July 5, 2010 4:35 am

” The onset of an odd-numbered sunspot cycle (1977-78, 1997-98) results in the relative alignment of the Earth’s and the Sun’s magnetic fields (positive North pole on the Sun) allowing greater penetration of the geomagnetic storms into the Earth’s atmosphere. “Twenty times more solar particles cross the Earth’s leaky magnetic shield when the sun’s magnetic field is aligned with that of the Earth compared to when the two magnetic fields are oppositely directed””
I find that a fairly plausible explaination as to the “how.” Shifting and earth rotation align with the sun’s own cycle periodically to have periods with more solar bombardment and periods with less solar bombardment, causing the oceanic oscillations, etc.
This notion that the sun only emits visible light, IR, and UV is wrong and oversimplifies the energy input from the sun…. you know, that hallmark of AGW theory that states that the sun’s energy input is constant.
The fact that the guy could get the regime change steps to align at all is pretty impressive in my book, even if he was picking numbers out of his hat until he found a set of parameters that worked.

July 5, 2010 4:36 am

tallbloke wrote, “Which lends some support to what David Archibald was highlighting, and confirms the decade or so lag I suggested to Leif Svalgaard over a year ago on his climate audit solar threads. He seemed to think it was reasonable at the time.”
Why would the surface temperature response to solar variations have a 10-year lag, when the response to volcanic aerosols is measured in months?
You wrote, “It’s an unfinished conversation, and I look forward to continuing it as and when you have time.”
Isn’t the ball in your court? I check that thread regularly. Do you want to continue on that thread or start a new one?

thethinkingman
July 5, 2010 4:40 am

“So you run and you run to catch up with the sun,
but it’s sinking.
Racing around to come up behind you again,
The sun is the same in a relative way but you’re older,
Shorter of breath and one day closer to death. ”
The sun effects everything on Earth, absolutely everything. As it pulses so we pulse and those pulses are occurring over short , long and very long time scales, just talk to the geologists. Four and a half billion years and we witter on about the last 150 years, give me a break.
In my 62 year puff I have seen hotter and colder, wetter and dryer, lighter and darker here in Harare, Zimbabwe. What I haven’t seen here is a trend of any sort just climate change manifested in my experience of the weather which has been impossible to predict but fairly easy to adapt to.
It’s good to be alive people and able to add to what I know each day. What I have learned is that the sun is rather important to our happy existence here on the third rock and the trace gas CO2 that we add to by burning stuff doesn’t seem to do much at all.

Dave F
July 5, 2010 4:44 am

If the sun causes an effect, it is not at all clear from reading this what the effect is, other than a change. I did not notice any sort of pattern to the solar cycle change/regime change in climate. What was the proposed mechanism that causes the changes? If it is the magnetic field, which is what the article focused on, how does that affect temperature?

Stephan
July 5, 2010 4:53 am

OT [snip]
[reply] correct, it is OT. Please take it to tips and notes. RT-Mod

BBk
July 5, 2010 4:56 am

Dave F:
“What was the proposed mechanism that causes the changes? If it is the magnetic field, which is what the article focused on, how does that affect temperature?”
The implication is that temperature is an indirect effect. He correlated with PDO, implying that the sun drives PDO (changes in upper atmosphere causing shifting weather patterns, etc) which in turn changes temperature.
But beyond that, the sun issues a constant stream of energetic, ionized, particles. Each has energy, and when it enters a system the energy ultimately has to be transferred to the system. The atmosphere will be absorbing this additional energy (caused by the magnetic window opening further) and changes happen as a result. As the windows closes the system has a chance to dissipate or shift the additional energy again and reset to the previous state (although potentially with slightly higher temperatures, depending on whether the energy can be re-radiated out of the system or not.)

Chris L
July 5, 2010 4:58 am

Re: Steve Mosher’s comment,
I think once the vertical lines are lined up across the Solar and temp graphs (provided that the graphs are genuine and they are lined up correctly), one can ignore the horizontal lines of the “numerology” shift detector and simply look and see if we can detect shifts. If we do see them (and we do), and if they are consistent, then that looks significant.
The temp graphs are surely massaged, but that tends to be done on an incremental basis, so should not overly affect these shifts.
Things like UHI and population density are very unlikely to show up so abruptly on a global basis so as to nullify the ability to detect the shifts.
I guess the next step would be to compare the solar with the sat temp graphs, and various other versions of the other temp graphs, and see if the pattern holds.
But I guess adjustments could matter if they started purposefully dinkin’ with ’em to try and make the pattern go away. So everybody screen cap all the temp graphs you can, ’cause I’m sure they’ll start trying to make any correlation disappear.

tallbloke
July 5, 2010 5:01 am

Bob Tisdale says:
July 5, 2010 at 4:36 am
tallbloke wrote, “Which lends some support to what David Archibald was highlighting, and confirms the decade or so lag I suggested to Leif Svalgaard over a year ago on his climate audit solar threads. He seemed to think it was reasonable at the time.”
Why would the surface temperature response to solar variations have a 10-year lag, when the response to volcanic aerosols is measured in months?

Because volcanic aerosols have an immediate effect on surface insolation from the atmosphere, whereas the decadal scale interaction between the absorption of solar energy ino the ocean, and the ocean-atmosphere coupled interaction plays out on longer timescales.
You wrote, “It’s an unfinished conversation, and I look forward to continuing it as and when you have time.”
Isn’t the ball in your court? I check that thread regularly. Do you want to continue on that thread or start a new one?

Here’s where we left it at: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/el-nino-and-the-solar-cycle/
Bob Tisdale says:
February 10, 2010 at 11:24 am
tallbloke: You wrote, “Looking at the rate the North Altlantic OHC is dropping, whereas it was rising in ‘98, this is one of the important differences.”
The variability of the North Atlantic SST anomalies is a product of AMOC, Saharan dust, ENSO, NAO, etc. Not sure where you’re going with that one.

I was talking about OHC (ocean heat content). Your reply concerned SST (sea surface temperature)
There seems to be a common issue with your replies to me on this thread and that thread on my blog. You are concentrating on short term atmospheric effects whereas I am trying to delve under the surface and understand the longer term changes.
Your insights into the way El nino causes decadal step changes is spot on. I’m just trying to get you to go the extra step and see what is causing those. El nino releases a bunch of solar derived heat-energy from the ocean which is hidden from the surface record in the deeper ocean heat content. In general, that heat-energy from the sun gets mixed down when the solar cycle is waxing and comes back out again when it it waning and just after minimum. Hence the correlation of the step changes with the solar cycles as noted by Alan Cheethams article.

BarryW
July 5, 2010 5:09 am

Mosh
I agree with you up to a point, but when you can hit parameters that match ten times in a row as opposed to the CO2 modeling with has to jump though hoops to even get close I find it a compelling argument.
Your UHI comment is also off base since it affects the trend, not the steps. I’d like to see the algorithm applied to a detrended data set.

July 5, 2010 5:26 am

tallbloke says: July 5, 2010 at 3:49 am
I think the Arctic is the key to the most of climatic events affecting the Atlantic basin north of Equator, including the Atlantic oscillation.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
Exact coincidence of any ‘driver’ to climatic diagrams is probably almost impossible, and to be honest I was very surprised by correlation in the above link. For a time I was also puzzled by 6 year delay between AMO and GMG and finally got answer, see bottom of the same link or the and answer to Dr. S.: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/03/a-note-of-sincere-thanks/#comment-423001
where you can find links to a couple of research papers.

Stefano Zottele
July 5, 2010 5:28 am

I can only tell what I see and that is that after more than 2 years of low solar activity we had here in north Italy 2 years of abnormal snow **(ask to the winter industries) and 2 short summers (ask to the climatization industries).
Now we are living in the third short summer and I accept (small) bets on how much will be the snow this Year!
** this is not personal experience because millions of peoples here in europe had very good ski experiences this years.

Ian W
July 5, 2010 5:40 am

Why do people repeatedly say “there is no (known) mechanism for this effect’ and then imply that therefore its not a real effect?
I doubt that any of the readers here know of or understand the mechanism by which alkaloid poisons kill you: But does that mean after watching several people eat toadstools and die, you will happily eat toadstools as well – as you don’t know ‘the mechanism’ so their dying cannot be a real effect?

Gail Combs
July 5, 2010 5:42 am

Alexander Feht says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:17 am
If I remember correctly, there is a self-appointed “world’s foremost Solar scientist,” very popular among some people frequenting the WUWT site, who repetitiously proclaimed that anybody asserting any connection between Solar cycles and climate changes is not worthy of any consideration, since the Sun cannot affect climate, period.
I also recall that one of the moderators, residing in San Francisco, has been very supportive toward this prominent scientist, to the deplorable extent of certain editorial bias in his favor.
He laughs best who laughs last.
___________________________________________________________
The latest fight over the sun’s influence is http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/27/the-beauty-of-a-near-spotless-sun/
oneuniverse has given a pretty good rebuttal that highlights the bias.

Don B
July 5, 2010 5:52 am

Landscheidt believed global temperatures lag the aa geomagnetic index by 4-8 years.
http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm
Klyashtorin and Lyubushin found Arctic sea ice lagged global temperatures by 8 years, figure 2.16
http://alexeylyubushin.narod.ru/Climate_Changes_and_Fish_Productivity.pdf?

Rhys Jaggar
July 5, 2010 5:54 am

The step changes in temperature resemble a ‘random walk function’.
Any studies done yet to try and determine the parameters which determine in which direction the random walk goes at each branch point, or is that still a couple of layers higher than is feasible at this time?

Enneagram
July 5, 2010 6:00 am

This shows that while IPCC and railway specialists as Pachauri and Hansen (coal trains) and their play station models were only focused on the atmosphere, the real issue was in the seas, like this paper by Klyashtorin shows (page 50, fig.9.1):
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/y2787e08.pdf
Our friend Vukcevic goes a step forward and show us the link between GMF and Climate:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMOFz.htm
Now, the next Socratic question, according to the method of Mayeutics, would be:
How does the Sun cause changes in GMF, which, in turn, cause climate changes?
and, last but not least, what does it make the Sun change?

tallbloke
July 5, 2010 6:21 am

Enneagram says:
July 5, 2010 at 6:00 am (Edit)
Now, the next Socratic question, according to the method of Mayeutics, would be:
How does the Sun cause changes in GMF, which, in turn, cause climate changes?
and, last but not least, what does it make the Sun change?

According to the planetary theory we are developing, the rest of the mass in the solar system causes changes in the distribution of the molten and magnetic materials inside the Earth. It also causes changes in the sun which affect it’s internal oscillations and sunspot production. We have some evidence behind our ideas.
For example:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/north-pole-position-shifts/
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/12/30/meet-the-new-kepler-p-a-semi/

July 5, 2010 6:21 am

tallbloke wrote: “Your insights into the way El nino causes decadal step changes is spot on. I’m just trying to get you to go the extra step and see what is causing those.”
You’re interested in cause of ENSO, and I’m interested in the aftereffects. There’s no extra step involved.

idlex
July 5, 2010 6:30 am

Some people cite scientists saying there is a “CO2 control knob” for Earth. No doubt there is, but due to the logarithmic effect of CO2, I think of it like a fine tuning knob, not the main station tuner.
I’ve been wondering about this. I’ve read several times that CO2 absorbs photons of a particular frequency, and this kicks electrons into a higher orbit, but after a while the electrons fall back to the former orbits, and the photon is re-emitted in a random direction. While the molecule is in this excited state, it can’t absorb another photon. So if an infrared photon emitted by the surface of the earth is captured by a CO2 molecule, it will re-emit this shortly afterwards with an equal chance of the photon being re-emitted upwards as downwards. So it would seem that there’s a 50% chance of the re-emitted photon either being absorbed by the earth’s surface, or disappearing into outer space. Yet I keep reading that the atmosphere re-radiates something more like 60% of its photons back to earth, and only 40% into outer space. I’ve also read that some climate models have 90% of the re-emitted photons going earthwards. Why is that? And what happens if some of the re-emitted photons get captured by other CO2 molecules?
So I’ve been thinking of building a little computer simulation model of a rather topical sort. The CO2 molecules would behave like footballers on a football pitch which represents the atmosphere, with the earth’s surface being the goal at the west end, and outer space the goal at the east end. The ball, which represents a photon, is kicked out of the west end goal mouth, and either rolls all the way through to the goal at the other end, or it is picked up by one of the football players. This footballer then turns with the ball at his feet and kicks it away, either returning it back towards the west end goal, or pushing it upfield towards the east end. In this way the ball gets passed around between the players until it finally ends up in one goal or the other. There is a constant stream of balls coming out of the west end goal. When a footballer has a ball at his feet, he can’t pick up another one until he’s kicked his current ball away somewhere. Who’s likely to win this sort of football match? Will it work out at 5-all, or 6-4, or 9-1? How will the results vary as more footballers are added?
Before I go away and start writing this model, I just thought I’d ask: is this an at all plausible representation of the passage of photons through a CO2-laden atmosphere?

tallbloke
July 5, 2010 6:39 am

Bob Tisdale says:
July 5, 2010 at 6:21 am (Edit)
You’re interested in cause of ENSO, and I’m interested in the aftereffects. There’s no extra step involved.

You asked “What mechanism causes the shifts in global temperatures and how can it be tied back to solar variability?”
I was just trying to help you find the answer. But if you are only interested in aftereffects and not causes, then fair enough.

TFN Johnson
July 5, 2010 6:40 am

40 years ago I attended a weekend course on time series analysis run by the head of GE (USA). After a day and a half of maths somewhat beyond me someone asked him how he handled a change of trend.
He replied “Gee, a change in the trend – that’s a very deep concept”.
My scepticism about this sort of thing has lasted 40 years, and this article hasn’t changed my opinion….

kramer
July 5, 2010 6:42 am

I’d like to know if the graph with the temperature has adjusted or raw temperature data.

Basil
Editor
July 5, 2010 6:45 am

Bob Tisdale says:
July 5, 2010 at 4:36 am
tallbloke wrote, “Which lends some support to what David Archibald was highlighting, and confirms the decade or so lag I suggested to Leif Svalgaard over a year ago on his climate audit solar threads. He seemed to think it was reasonable at the time.”
Why would the surface temperature response to solar variations have a 10-year lag, when the response to volcanic aerosols is measured in months?

There are possibly multiple effects taking place here. I haven’t fully assimilated this posting yet, but what certainly jumped out at me is the claim to find regime shifts at times of magnetic field reversals. I’ve used the regime shift algorithm in professional work, and have some sense of its sensitivity to the tuning parameters, so I’m holding back on jumping on the bandwagon here. But I’ve done enough work to know that there is some connection with global temperature changes and the Hale cycle, so I’m open to the possibility that there is something to this.
As for a response measured in months rather than years, there is that too. Anthony and I have shown that there is a “weak” response in temperature signals to the solar cycle that is of an order of magnitude that even Leif acknowledges is there. So there is the effect that you would be looking for. But that doesn’t rule out other effects on longer time scales, like a bidecadal effect influenced by the reversal of the sun’s magnetic field.
Personally, I think Alan might want to try running the regime shift indicator on a random noise series with mean and standard deviation comparable to the data in question to see if it picks up “regime changes.” I wouldn’t be surprised that it does: random walks reverse direction at random intervals. That doesn’t rule out the usefulness of the technique. It might show that “this” is not like “that” — i.e. yes, the method can find “regime shifts” in random data, but those shifts occur randomly, whereas here we have shifts occurring at harmonic or quasi-harmonic periodicity. And that would be something.
Finally, how does this square with Dr. Spencer’s thesis of being able to generate temperature variations of a magnitude seen in the instrumental data from “random” effects? Seems like we now have two competing theories here on WUWT. How do we decide which is the more likely? Which is the more “testable?” Any takers?

Tom in Florida
July 5, 2010 6:56 am

Point of view from one of the regular Joes that visit here (the peanut gallery as was once referred to on this blog).
It seems to me that on the subject of the Sun influencing climate there is a lot of discussion (arguing?) over apples and oranges with a few lemons thrown in. Dr S says that a change in TSI does correlate to a change in Earth’s temperature but one so small it doesn’t matter. However, if a change in TSI causes A which then causes B which then causes C which then causes some greater change in Earth’s temperature, does that really mean that the TSI change caused that temperature change? Or is the TSI change just a part of the entire process that depends on all the other causes being equal each and every time to result in the same temperature change? If any one of those individual causes gets modified then so would the outcome, so can the TSI change still be considered the cause of the temperature change? I would think not, especially in such a chaotic system. In the end it seems insolation is the key. Can we all agree that so many variables affect insolation that there is no simple cause and effect that can be pinpointed?
Again, just a comment from the sidelines. It does make for interesting reading though.

Basil
Editor
July 5, 2010 7:02 am

I’m a little further into reading and assimilating this. I’m not surprised by finding interesting effects at the times of solar magnetic field reversals. But I think Alan needs to explain why the “regime shifts” are continually upward throughout the second half of the 20th century. At least with the PDO, the regime shift algorithm finds alternativing phases. I have one possible explanation in mind, but I’d be interested in hearing Alan’s (or anyone else’s).

kim
July 5, 2010 7:03 am

Three Hale’s Cycles in a PDO and cosmic wave crowns alternating in each phase of the Hale, or each Solar Cycle. Presto, changeo, a mechanism for the alternate heating and cooling of the two phases of the PDO cycle. Now, if we could only connect the shape of that cosmic ray peak with albedo…..
====================

Ron Cram
July 5, 2010 7:15 am

Anthony,
One of my favorite papers on this topic is ” Tropical Pacific decadal variability and global warming” by Bratcher and Giese published in 2002. Of course, the IPCC completely ignores the paper and its prediction of a cooler climate regime “in about four years.” I thought the climate regime turned at the end of 2007/beginning of 2008, but the current warm El Nino has me wondering now. What I would expect to see when the PDO is in the cool phase is weaker El Ninos and stronger La Ninas, but this El Nino is pretty strong and is hanging on longer than I expected.
It will be interesting to see this play out.

July 5, 2010 7:19 am

I suggest that solar activity harmonically accelerates the oceans natural cylces such as PDO rather than forcing regime changes. The data is best fit with combinations of sine and cosine functions with harmonics that more often result in sawtooth and triangular forms rather square waves. It takes only a little force properly timed to magnify the amplitude of a vibration.

Britannic no-see-um
July 5, 2010 7:22 am

Nigel Calder has a blog called Calder’s Updates with many good posts on solar-cosmic and other topics, such as:
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/do-clouds-disappear-2/
It doesnt seem to have the hits it deserves, IMHO.

latitude
July 5, 2010 7:37 am

“”Alexander Feht says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:17 am
If I remember correctly, there is a self-appointed “world’s foremost Solar scientist,” very popular among some people frequenting the WUWT site, who repetitiously proclaimed that anybody asserting any connection between Solar cycles and climate changes is not worthy of any consideration, since the Sun cannot affect climate, period.””
Even the AGWer’s are trying to have it both ways. They say the sun does not affect climate, but yet use a weaker, cooler sun as the excuse for no run away global warming when CO2 levels were many times higher.

Enneagram
July 5, 2010 7:38 am

Ron Cram says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:15 am
There is not such an El Nino time ago:
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
This last El Niño was not a usual one, if you take into consideration that El Niño was named as such because of the appearance of a north-south warm current around Christmas, by peruviian fishermen; that´s El Niño 1-2 area not 3-4. A real El Níño opposes south-north cold Humboldt´s current.

tallbloke
July 5, 2010 7:39 am

Basil says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:02 am (Edit)
I’m a little further into reading and assimilating this. I’m not surprised by finding interesting effects at the times of solar magnetic field reversals. But I think Alan needs to explain why the “regime shifts” are continually upward throughout the second half of the 20th century. At least with the PDO, the regime shift algorithm finds alternativing phases. I have one possible explanation in mind, but I’d be interested in hearing Alan’s (or anyone else’s).

Easy. The average sunspot number over the period of record (1750-2010) is ~40.
The average sunspot number over the 2nd half of the C20th (1950-2000) is ~70
40 SSN is also the ‘neutral’ value where the ocean neither gains nor loses heat-energy.
This means a lot more heat got stored in the oceans, as evidenced by the upwards trend of OHC from the ’50s. That heat-energy has to be solar in origin because long-wave radiation from the atmosphere can’t penetrate the ocean, whereas solar short-wave radiation goes down tens of metres or around 200 feet.
So even in negative phases of the PDO, we will still get some strongish El Nino’s as the ocean burps some of the excess energy back out while the sunspot number is low.

July 5, 2010 7:41 am

Whatever hypothesis you use it has to have an answer for SS cycle – temperature contradiction period 1950-1970 otherwise the proposition isn’t going to be credible.
I have searched extensively for it and found that only the Arctic magnetic field resolves this contradiction satisfactorily as well as correlates well with the records for 300+ years.
I was expecting that old doc Svalgaard might come in, maybe he is a bit of a rough diamond (not that he thinks much of my contributions), but still he is a gemstone when the matters solar are considered.
C’mon doc we may not always agree but still like to hear from you.

tallbloke
July 5, 2010 7:43 am

Ron Cram says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:15 am (Edit)
What I would expect to see when the PDO is in the cool phase is weaker El Ninos and stronger La Ninas, but this El Nino is pretty strong and is hanging on longer than I expected.

If you look at a comparable time when the sun was getting weaker after a run of strong cycles, the same thing happened:
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/sst-ssn1870.jpg

Aldi
July 5, 2010 7:48 am

“What mechanism causes the shifts in global temperatures and how can it be tied back to solar variability? Also, the upward shifts in 1925 and 1986/87 occurred at even cycles and they are approximately the same magnitude as the other lesser shifts that occurred at odd cycles.”
Circulation. Less(or more) output from the sun changes the air and water circulations(their extends I would think). The same way as heating water in a pot would create movements in the water by exciting the molecules. Exactly in detail how Earths circulation is influenced is not understood yet. But the strong correlation of the solar cycles and shifts in temperature trends can be seen even in the “adjusted” data.

kwik
July 5, 2010 7:53 am

Britannic no-see-um says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:22 am
I liked that letter from Nigel Calder!
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/do-clouds-disappear-2/
moahahahah! It describes the situation so well!!
Well done, Nigel Calder!

Basil
Editor
July 5, 2010 8:03 am

tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:43 am

Easy. The average sunspot number over the period of record (1750-2010) is ~40.
The average sunspot number over the 2nd half of the C20th (1950-2000) is ~70

Have you allowed for Leif’s contention that modern counting is overstated relative to earlier counting (or vice versa)?

R. Gates
July 5, 2010 8:06 am

Very fascinating reading, and there is no doubt that the sun does play a role in climate regimes, as it were, but I think the very opening assumption that the build up of CO2 remains purely a logarithmic effect throughout the the entire range of increase may not be correct, and may be proven to create its own “regimes” as it were.
The chaotic nature of the climate would preclude a smooth logarithmic effect from CO2, and so we should see “jumps” to new “regimes”, or what could also be called attractors in the terminology of chaos theory. I think the recent appearance of the Arctic Dipole anomaly could be one such attractor, that would not be predicted from a smooth logarithmic effect of CO2, and while not predictable (certainly none of the GCM’s forecast its appearance) it is quite deterministic and not a random event. As a positive feedback event it behaves much like any attractor (or regime, if you prefer), and creates the conditions (i.e. the warming of the arctic) that will reinforce itself.
The 30% or so increase in CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution, up to around 390 ppm now, after 10,000 years or more of being in the range of 270-280 ppm is no trivial change in this GH gas. The climate regime that existed under the 270-280 ppm was its own attractor, and despite changes in the sun, which certainly created periods of warmer or cooler climate (i.e. the Maunder minimum or MWP), the CO2 remained constant. Now that we’ve seen an such a relatively large increase in CO2 over such a short period, one would have to expect a chaotic climate system to seek a new attactor, and since CO2 continues to rise, there may be several attractors along the way to wherever the final leveling off point is for CO2.

phlogiston
July 5, 2010 8:08 am

idlex says:
July 5, 2010 at 6:30 am
Interesting question – is the direction of photon emission / scatttering from CO2 random or not? Here’s my empirical take on it.
Longwave (IR) radiation within the very narrow window that interacts with CO2 can interact in 2 ways: (1) absorption resulting in heat energy deposition, or (2) scattering (absorption-re-emission) at a (presumably) random angle.
If all interactions are type 1 heat depositing, then CO2 absorbs all photons within about 10 m, and thus the saturation argument, CO2 cannot be a factor in atmosphere heat.
However for longwave IR to penetrate a long distance through the atmosphere, most interactions must be of the scattering (absorption-re-emission) type, resulting in a diffusive movement of IR photons.
In principle the direction of this “diffusive radiation” should be random, EXCEPT for one factor: the exponential reduction with height in air density.
An analogy: a one-celled animal – the paramecium – swimming in a pond homes in on food items in the following way: if it “smells” in the water an increasing food concentration, it reduced the number of times it changes direction (randomly) and if the food smell gets weaker, it increases the frequency of (random) direction changes. The result of this is, on statistical average, swimming toward higher food concentration and finding the source of the food smell.
So an IR photon going downward in the atmosphere will encounter air at increasing concentration, while going up it will “find” more rarified air, and fewer scattering events. So, like the paramecium, the IR photon will on average diffuse upward. And eventually out into space.
Interesting to see what your model will output. I would hazard – following your football analogy – the earth surface would approximate Germany’s goal, and outer space the goal occupied by the English / Australian / Argentinian goalkeepers.

Stephen Wilde
July 5, 2010 8:09 am

Vuk etc. says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:41 am
Whatever hypothesis you use it has to have an answer for SS cycle – temperature contradiction period 1950-1970 otherwise the proposition isn’t going to be credible.
I have searched extensively for it and found that only the Arctic magnetic field resolves this contradiction satisfactorily as well as correlates well with the records for 300+ years.”
Being aware of that problem caused me to propose independently varying ocean cycles underlying the ENSO phenomenon, becoming more apparent over longer time scales and in my view becoming highly visible on a 500 year timescale from MWP to LIA and then to date.
We don’t have much data on SST (sea surface temperature) conditions that long ago but we do have data concerning the positions of the jets and the ITCZ (Inter Tropical Convergence Zone) back then so we can use those positions as proxies for the SSTs since the temperature of the equatorial SSTs must be one of the factors dictating the positions of the jets and the ITCZ.
Ocean SSTs must have been cooler than now because the jets were much further equatorward during the LIA according to various sources including ships logs.
So the period 1950 to 1970 was a time when negative ocean phases more than offset the effects of the more active sun.
The active sun was apparently trying to allow the jets to move poleward but the lack of support from the cooler SSTs meant that the poleward latitudinal shift if any was very weak. Then when the ocean SSTs warmed from the late 70’s onwards the necessary support was provided and the jets move significantly poleward.
Since the sun became weaker from the late 90’s the jets have moved back equatorward again but not as far as they will do soon enough because the ocean SSTs are not especially low as yet due to the energy overhang from a long spell of poleward jets letting more solar shortwave into the equatorial oceans.
And as I have previously shown the observed changes in global albedo match very well the latitudinal shifts in the cloud bands.

July 5, 2010 8:17 am

Alan of AppInSys [main article]
The onset of an odd-numbered sunspot cycle (1977-78, 1997-98) results in the relative alignment of the Earth’s and the Sun’s magnetic fields
At least try to get the facts straight: The reversal of the polar fields at the maximum of the even-numbered cycles results in the alignments, thus half a cycle before the offset.

Gail Combs
July 5, 2010 8:24 am

Willis E. posted this nice graph of the CO2 measurements from Mauna Loa and the ice cores. Looks more like a hockey sick than the above data to me. This graph of 2004 to 2009 shows how linear the CO2 rise is (and that the data is changed)
The discussion about the CO2 measurements is here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/07/some-people-claim-that-theres-a-human-to-blame/
Despite Willis’s faith in the CO2 data, I do not believe CO2 is homogeneous through the atmosphere, that the rise is linear, or that the measurements in the early days at Mauna Loa (1950’s thru 1970’s) are accurate. Why?
Because in 1972 and later in 1979 the labs I work in tried to use Infrared Spectrophotometers to come up with an analytical test method… and failed miserably.
In the first case the staff included 2 PhD analytical chemists, one grad student finishing up his PhD thesis, two with MS degrees in Chemistry and one with a BS in Chemistry. The wet chemical method we were trying to replace took three days and had to be carried out under a nitrogen blanket. (we all hated it) The batch had to sit in the mix kettle for the entire time so adjustments could be made and the company lost money for every day it sat. Therefore there were major incentives to get that new test method working. Unfortunately the data was all over the place. (perhaps other older chemists can comment)
For those not familiar with chemistry, the generic analytical procedure is as follows:
1. Run the “unknown” sample and the pure chemical of interest.
2. Pick out a strong clean peak for the chemical of interest that has no interference in the “unknown” sample.
3. Pick out a “calibration standard” material that does not interfere with the peak of interest and has a strong peak in an area where the unknown does not.
4. Make up a series of five to ten “calibration standards” using a set amount of the calibration material and known amounts of the pure chemical so the range expected in the unknown is covered.
5. Run ten or more curves for each calibration standard amount to determine precision and accuracy.
6. Plot the calibration curve.
7. Spike the unknown with the calibration standard and use the two peaks and the curve to determine the amount of the chemical of interest in the unknown.
To actually determine the area under the peak of interest either cut out the curve and weigh the paper on an analytical balance OR draw a baseline and measure the height of the curve and the width at 1/2 the height and multiply. Computers were not hooked to analytical equipment until the end of the sixties and then only by “rube goldberg” methods. It was the eighties before combined analytical/computer equipment was really available.
So how is the early data at Mauna Loa with a lot of “noise” tortured into giving results with a 0.1 PPM “precision”?
“4. In keeping with the requirement that CO2 in background air should be steady, we apply a general “outlier rejection” step, in which we fit a curve to the preliminary daily means for each day calculated from the hours surviving step 1 and 2, and not including times with upslope winds. All hourly averages that are further than two standard deviations, calculated for every day, away from the fitted curve (“outliers”) are rejected. This step is iterated until no more rejections occur.”
In other words run a line through the data (remember no computers in the fifties) and toss out the data that does not fit the line.
This also puts a question mark on the Mauna Loa data. Documents released Friday by the Nixon Presidential Library show members of President Richard Nixon’s inner circle discussing the possibilities of global warming more than 30 years ago… Adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan, notable as a Democrat in the administration, urged the administration to initiate a worldwide system of monitoring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, decades before the issue of global warming came to the public’s attention.
This information is especially interesting when the 1972 Earth Summit was already claiming “Global Warming” as a problem BEFORE we finished coming out of the cooling. This is shown in the above article’s graph of PDO shifts. The shift was in the mid 70’s not at the beginning of the decade.

Basil
Editor
July 5, 2010 8:26 am

Bob Tisdale says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:30 am
What mechanism causes the shifts in global temperatures and how can it be tied back to solar variability? Also, the upward shifts in 1925 and 1986/87 occurred at even cycles and they are approximately the same magnitude as the other lesser shifts that occurred at odd cycles.

If I may be so immodest as to call attention to this:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/figure6.png
I’m wondering if the “regime shifts” that Alan is discerning are not simply the “turning points” shown on the above graph, which are closely aligned with phases of the solar and lunar nodal cycles? Here the mechanism is straight-forward: the broader amplitudes are governed by variations in TSI, and the frequencies are related to the solar cycle and the lunar nodal cycle. What is curious is that the TSI signal tends to be stronger with the odd numbered cycles than with the even numbered cycles. What this chart doesn’t explain, by itself, is the upward trend in the late 20th Century; it just demonstrates some evidence of periodicity in the global temperature data. And maybe the “regime shifts” are just mirroring that periodicity. This would explain their frequency. It wouldn’t explain the trend.
In other words, explaining shifts of global temperature, and relating them back to a solar influence, is not hard at all. What is hard is explaining the trend in the data. Incidentally, there is a trend in the figure linked to above, but it is so minor in relation to the the amplitudes of the decadal and bidecadal cycles that it seems inconsequential. Which is why I think the trend could well be “random” along the lines of what Dr. Spencer has been positing.

timetochooseagain
July 5, 2010 8:28 am

The matches are impressive, how these “shifts” correspond very well to solar cycle transitions. The question is, is there a way to use this finding to create a quantitative model of these temperature changes, to see what the implications are? A match is suggestive that you’ve found something important. How important, is something more difficult to determine.
Interestingly, the ramp up of cycle 21 corresponds to the 1976 climate shift very well, and marks a ramp up from cycle 20 after dropping from the record cycle 19. Then, the last three cycles have remained at elevated solar activity levels, but declined fairly steadily, behaving remarkably similarly to the PDO. HOWEVER! The problem is that the previous PDO shift, downward from 40’s, occurs about a decade before the ramping up of cycles ends, the shift associated with cycle 18 instead of 19. So that is a problem which remains to be explained.

July 5, 2010 8:29 am

Alexander Feht says:
July 5, 2010 at 2:12 am
I know it because I lived through about five of these cycles, and observed the climate. And I would rather believe my own perception than anybody’s “credentials.”
Indeed, so you have observed [or at least perceived and now believe] how the climate has become considerably warmer while solar activity has decreased significantly.

Amino Acids in Meteorites
July 5, 2010 8:36 am

tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 4:06 am
KevinUK says:
July 5, 2010 at 3:46 am (Edit)
Mosh on the other hand seems to think that the science is settled, CO2 is the primary cause of the late 20th century warming trend and as a consequence he is now urging us all to ‘act now’.
He is?! Got a link??
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
A link would indeed be interesting because I don’t think he’s going to have one.
KevinUK,
I don’t think Steven mosher is who you describe. Check into again.

tallbloke
July 5, 2010 8:38 am

Basil says:
July 5, 2010 at 8:03 am
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:43 am
Easy. The average sunspot number over the period of record (1750-2010) is ~40.
The average sunspot number over the 2nd half of the C20th (1950-2000) is ~70
Have you allowed for Leif’s contention that modern counting is overstated relative to earlier counting (or vice versa)?

Even Leif’s adjustments, which have not been accepted by the mainstream no matter what he tells you, aren’t so large from 1880 as to make much difference to the situation. The fact remains, the average SSN over the second half of the C20th was significantly higher than the average over the period of record, or even just the C20th as a whole.

thethinkingman
July 5, 2010 8:38 am

OT but . . . [snip]

[reply] But me no buts, butter me no parsnips, take it to tips and notes please. Thanks, RT-Mod

tallbloke
July 5, 2010 8:40 am

Stephen Wilde says:
July 5, 2010 at 8:09 am (Edit)
We don’t have much data on SST (sea surface temperature) conditions that long ago but we do have data concerning the positions of the jets and the ITCZ (Inter Tropical Convergence Zone) back then so we can use those positions as proxies for the SSTs

We do? Cool, where can I find them please.

tallbloke
July 5, 2010 8:45 am

phlogiston says:
July 5, 2010 at 8:08 am (Edit)
So an IR photon going downward in the atmosphere will encounter air at increasing concentration, while going up it will “find” more rarified air, and fewer scattering events. So, like the paramecium, the IR photon will on average diffuse upward. And eventually out into space.

Will the curvature of th Earth also increase the chance of a free path to space? If half the photons were to head downwards and half upwards, those going sideways would also encounter less dense air as they effectively gained altitude.

Gail Combs
July 5, 2010 8:45 am

vukcevic says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:50 am
That would be fine if it is only possible solution….
____________________________________________________________
I think most of us agree there is not “one solution” but several independent and dependent variables that contribute to changes in the climate. You have identified one of those variables. If there was one dominant independent variable it would be very obvious. I am not including the ocean oscillations because they are dependent not independent variables.
Come to think of it the Sun/cosmic rays, the Earth’s eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession, volcanoes and possibly the earth’s geomagnetic field are the only independent variables I can think of. CO2 is certainly not an independent variable. A point everyone seems to forget.

July 5, 2010 8:54 am

The real problem is that ‘temperatures’ correlate with CO2 rise and no matter how much it is shown that there is not a constant correlation, or question whether we are measuring temperature correctly it is almost impossible to separate the one from the other at this point in time. Perhaps that is all we need in the end, another century of observation to truly understand the role of CO2. In the meantime we will just have to put up with people who are on the gravy train.

tallbloke
July 5, 2010 9:02 am

Innocentious says:
July 5, 2010 at 8:54 am (Edit)
The real problem is that ‘temperatures’ correlate with CO2 rise and no matter how much it is shown that there is not a constant correlation

Which of these correlates better?
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/soon-arctic-tsi.jpg

Amino Acids in Meteorites
July 5, 2010 9:04 am

RT-Mod,
I appreciate you directing OT’s to Tips and Notes.
🙂

BBk
July 5, 2010 9:11 am

tallbloke:
“Will the curvature of th Earth also increase the chance of a free path to space? If half the photons were to head downwards and half upwards, those going sideways would also encounter less dense air as they effectively gained altitude.”
Actually, given the curvature of the earth, you can make a simpler arguement yet.
At any point on a sphere the volume of the shell in the inch outside that point is greater than the volume of the shell inside that point. Given that radiation is totally random, it’s the radiation is more likely to move outward from the radiating atom than inward.
Given the huge curvature, it should be a minor increase to the odds, but multiply by HUGE numbers of interactions and it would start adding up I’d wager.

Jean Meeus
July 5, 2010 9:16 am

Anthony,
In your Glossary, CAGW is missing.

tallbloke
July 5, 2010 9:17 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
July 5, 2010 at 8:29 am (Edit)
Alexander Feht says:
July 5, 2010 at 2:12 am
I know it because I lived through about five of these cycles, and observed the climate. And I would rather believe my own perception than anybody’s “credentials.”
Indeed, so you have observed [or at least perceived and now believe] how the climate has become considerably warmer while solar activity has decreased significantly.

Your own TSI reconstruction graph shows a ‘second peak’ in the eighties after the highest cycle ever in the 50’s. And although the amplitudes have diminished over cycles 21-23 they were short cycles with steep ramps which kept the average sunspot numbers high compared to the C20th average. Then from C23 max there has been a steep drop back to 1900 TSI levels and low and behold, the planet cooled not long after.
It almost beggars belief that someone with your expertise still uses this tired and inaccurate argument about diminishing peak amplitudes of solar cycles when you know full well they are not the whole story.

Dave F
July 5, 2010 9:21 am

OT, but this should probably be in tips & notes. 😉

July 5, 2010 9:24 am

tallbloke: You wrote, “The mechanism of upward shift is El Nino, as you have shown us, and that ties back to solar cycle periodicity as you and I discussed in the thread on my blog.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/el-nino-and-the-solar-cycle/
But the graph you presented in your post shows little correlation between ENSO and the solar cycle.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/ssn-nino3-4.jpg

rbateman
July 5, 2010 9:24 am

Basil says:
July 5, 2010 at 8:03 am
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:43 am
Easy. The average sunspot number over the period of record (1750-2010) is ~40.
The average sunspot number over the 2nd half of the C20th (1950-2000) is ~70
Have you allowed for Leif’s contention that modern counting is overstated relative to earlier counting (or vice versa)?

This article does NOT use sunspot counting. It uses sunspot area measurements.
You have 2 choices of measurements to consider:
1.) Uncorrected (as seen from Earth)
2.) Corrected for foreshortening (as occured on the Sun)

July 5, 2010 9:28 am

tallbloke: You replied, “I was talking about OHC (ocean heat content). Your reply concerned SST (sea surface temperature).”
Let me correct my reply: The variability of the North Atlantic OHC anomalies is a product of AMOC, Saharan dust, ENSO, NAO, etc. Not sure where you’re going with that one.

tallbloke
July 5, 2010 9:33 am

Bob Tisdale says:
July 5, 2010 at 9:24 am (Edit)
tallbloke: You wrote, “The mechanism of upward shift is El Nino, as you have shown us, and that ties back to solar cycle periodicity as you and I discussed in the thread on my blog.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/el-nino-and-the-solar-cycle/
But the graph you presented in your post shows little correlation between ENSO and the solar cycle.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/ssn-nino3-4.jpg

I wouldn’t expect it to. Something closer to a phase shifted anti-correlation is what I would expect. I did do another graph on a different averaging period which seemed to make it more explicit. It’ll be somewhere on my backup disk. The surface record is noisy though, and winds, tides, currents and cloud comes into play. Do you really expect to find nice neat correlations?

tallbloke
July 5, 2010 9:37 am

Bob Tisdale says:
July 5, 2010 at 9:28 am
tallbloke: You replied, “I was talking about OHC (ocean heat content). Your reply concerned SST (sea surface temperature).”
Let me correct my reply: The variability of the North Atlantic OHC anomalies is a product of AMOC, Saharan dust, ENSO, NAO, etc. Not sure where you’re going with that one.

I’m not sure where you’re going with that one either, do you think those factors and nothing else account for the variability of the OHC anomalies of the Atlantic over the period of record?
If so, what makes you so sure?

Enneagram
July 5, 2010 9:40 am

R.Gates:
The chaotic nature of the climate would preclude a smooth logarithmic effect from CO2,
I told you more than once that whenever you find something apparently “chaotic” we must see the chaos in ourselves=Ignorance about causes. God doesn’t play dice, little silly humans do. However, FORGET about CO2, the atmosphere CAN NOT HOLD ENOUGH HEAT AS YOU MAY DREAM OF (Air heat capacity=0.001297 jcm-3 K-1; Water=4.186, so 3,227 times) then IT’S THE SEA saving or spending SUN’s heat.

John Whitman
July 5, 2010 9:45 am

Alan of AppInSys,
Thanks for your article. Solar related discussions are always great. And, Anthony thanks always for the solar posts . . . . they are the greatest.
**************
Question to Alan and all: Leaving out the “regime” and “regime shift” terminology, is Alan describing a basis for a theory that during the changing (reversal ) of the Sun’s magnetic field polarity there is some cause for upward and sometimes downward shifts in the HadCRUT3 annual global annual average temperature anomaly? I noticed on Alan’s chart of the HadCRUT3 data that from 1900 to 2008 there have be 7 upwards temps shifts and 2 downwards shifts which he tried to correlate to the process of the sun’s magnetic polarity changes. During that (1900 to 2008) period there were basically an equal number of odd & even solar cycles . . . . how to account that some temp shifts were negative? How to account for predominance of warming shifts? I am missing a consistent picture from Alan’s article.
John

July 5, 2010 9:46 am

This is very very good, you have to get past the old idea the the sun is a heat source, it is a power source, it powers up the earth. think this way, is your re fridge hot inside or cold? it is powered up by plugging it into a power source. the earth can be heated or cooled by adding power. don’t agree? well, this is to me the same indifference than the voodoo CO2 CAGW “science” going on. we need heat to live, with out heat we die, it is just that simple yet week after week “they say it is too hot” well it will be plenty hot where they are going to end up! after the lies and obfuscation they have perpetrated on all of us!
sorry for the truth full rant.
fluffy clouds

phlogiston
July 5, 2010 9:50 am

R. Gates says:
July 5, 2010 at 8:06 am
The 30% or so increase in CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution, up to around 390 ppm now, after 10,000 years or more of being in the range of 270-280 ppm is no trivial change in this GH gas. The climate regime that existed under the 270-280 ppm was its own attractor, and despite changes in the sun, which certainly created periods of warmer or cooler climate (i.e. the Maunder minimum or MWP), the CO2 remained constant. Now that we’ve seen an such a relatively large increase in CO2 over such a short period, one would have to expect a chaotic climate system to seek a new attractor, and since CO2 continues to rise, there may be several attractors along the way to wherever the final leveling off point is for CO2.
Interesting idea. However I don’t think atmospheric concentration of one gas such as CO2 is a good candidate for a parameter displaying non-linear / non-equilibrium dynamics and thus having an attractor. A key characteristic of such systems is being far from equilibrium. In the case of gas concentrations this would be reflected in significant concentration gradients and spatial differences. However in other threads, the AGW side has argued (probably correctly) that CO2 concentration is close to uniform, the atmosphere can be considered well mixed. This points to equilibrium in terms of composition. (But not energy – energy is very much at disequilibrium, thus temperature gradients, differences, winds, clouds etc.) In fact, the energy disequilibrium probably ensures the composition equilibrium.

John Whitman
July 5, 2010 9:56 am

Gail Combs says:
July 5, 2010 at 8:45 am

vukcevic says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:50 am
That would be fine if it is only possible solution….

____________________________________________________________
I think most of us agree there is not “one solution” but several independent and dependent variables that contribute to changes in the climate. You have identified one of those variables. If there was one dominant independent variable it would be very obvious. I am not including the ocean oscillations because they are dependent not independent variables.
Come to think of it the Sun/cosmic rays, the Earth’s eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession, volcanoes and possibly the earth’s geomagnetic field are the only independent variables I can think of. CO2 is certainly not an independent variable. A point everyone seems to forget.

Gail Combs,
Perhaps there is a “one solution” which is a “unified forcings/feedbacks theory” I am paraphrasing Einstein’s “unified field theory” attempt in theoretical physics.
Do we know enough to say there cannot be a “one solution” composed of many components? I could not say that.
John

July 5, 2010 10:00 am

tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 9:17 am
uses this tired and inaccurate argument about diminishing peak amplitudes of solar cycles when you know full well they are not the whole story.
1) they are the whole story
2) I was commenting on Feht: “I know it because I lived through about five of these cycles, and observed the climate.”
Then from C23 max there has been a steep drop back to 1900 TSI levels and low and behold, the planet cooled not long after.
We are indeed back to 1900 levels, but the TSI reconstructions we were discussing [e.g. your beloved Hoyt & Schatten] for 1900 are much lower [and therefore likely in error] and that is the point. The planet cooled? The past ten years have been the warmest recorded, but, of course, you can always hope the next ten years will drop to 1900 levels.
And there has not been a ‘steep’ drop. Just the expected drop from solar max to solar min. There is no firm evidence that TSI this minimum is any lower than previous minima, see e.g. http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session1/1.07_Dewitte_TSI.pdf

July 5, 2010 10:06 am

Gail Combs says: July 5, 2010 at 8:45 am
I think most of us agree there is not “one solution” but several independent and dependent variables that contribute to changes in the climate. You have identified one of those variables.
I hope so, have added some more details (as a lead up to a short article) you may be interested to see.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm

Enneagram
July 5, 2010 10:17 am

John
Tim L says:
July 5, 2010 at 9:46 am
… the the sun is a heat source, it is a power source, it powers up the earth. think this way, is your re fridge hot inside or cold?John
Tim L says:
July 5, 2010 at 9:46 am
This is very very good, you have to get past the old idea the the sun is a heat source, it is a power source, it powers up the earth. think this way, is your re fridge hot inside or cold? it is powered up by plugging it into a power source

Chemically pure common sense!, but the problem is nobody dares to say he/she is seeing the wire connecting to the power source, though magnetism is produced by electrical fields. That is forbidden by the Holy Inquisition of Post Normal Science.

July 5, 2010 10:17 am

tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 9:17 am
Then from C23 max there has been a steep drop back to 1900 TSI levels
The conclusions from the 2010 SORCE workshop might enlighten you:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session7/7.05_Woods_Summary.pdf e.g. slide 2. The 200 ppm lower comes from PMOD which likely is not calibrated correctly, see: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/posters/Poster%20Presentations/Poster_Svalgaard_PMOD_TSI.pdf
For perspective 200 ppm is 0.02%

Steven mosher
July 5, 2010 10:20 am

BarryW says:
July 5, 2010 at 5:09 am
Mosh
“I agree with you up to a point, but when you can hit parameters that match ten times in a row as opposed to the CO2 modeling with has to jump though hoops to even get close I find it a compelling argument.”
That’s why I note that this numerology is more interesting than other numerology.
WRT C02 “modelling”. I’ll take this as an inexact reference to GCMs. As far as models go GCMs Kick the BEJESUS out of any of these “toy” approaches. I don’t tire of asking:
1. How well does this model hindcast the past.
2. how well does this model predict precipitation.
etc..
The point being a GCM attempts to simulate the entire climate process. The model above does ONE THING. it shows that regime “shifts” are aligned. That’s it. No predictions about precipitations, about temperature LEVELS, etc. The other issue is one of falsifiability.
“Your UHI comment is also off base since it affects the trend, not the steps. I’d like to see the algorithm applied to a detrended data set.”
I’m not so easily convinced. The other issue is that the instructions for the program ( its been two years since I played with it ) suggested using variance when the measures were means from zero. In short, use variance when your dealing with an anomaly series. Somebody can go check the instructions. In any case, regime shift analysis is not a magic wand. It doesnt answer the basic fundamental question of “HOW” how do changes in this, product changes in that. It can give you a PATH for investigation, but it’s nothing more than that.
Finally, I’m ever amused by people who want to
1. Say there is no warming, and then try to explain the warming seen in the record
to the sun.
2. Say the record cannot be accurate to .1C and then embrace analysis that depends
upon detecting shifts of .1C

Gail Combs
July 5, 2010 10:24 am

Innocentious says:
July 5, 2010 at 8:54 am
The real problem is that ‘temperatures’ correlate with CO2 rise and no matter how much it is shown that there is not a constant correlation, or question whether we are measuring temperature correctly it is almost impossible to separate the one from the other at this point in time. Perhaps that is all we need in the end, another century of observation to truly understand the role of CO2. In the meantime we will just have to put up with people who are on the gravy train.
______________________________________________
You are making the assumption that CO2 is an independent variable driving temperature. There is plenty of data from many sources that show it is not. To name just two:
As temperature rises you get more plant growth. The higher the temp AND CO2 the more absorbed by plants and the faster they grow, lowering the amount of CO2.
As the temperature rises the amount of CO2 that can be absorbed by water decreases.

Rich
July 5, 2010 10:25 am

If you’re an R fan you can do this yourself at home.
Install the package “strucchange”. Download Hadcrut3 (http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly) and make a time-series object of it. Then run ‘breakpoints’ with h=0.05 (because the best solution is 13 segments). You’ll get much the same answers as above but also back to 1850. Unlike the one above, though, you get confidence intervals for the break points. They’re really tight for all the points after 1900. And the only parameter to tweak is the minimal segment size so you get a definite best model. I guess regime change algorithms will do fundamentally the same things but I find it interesting that two different methods give very similar answers.
I’ve got a picture but no idea how to include it.

Steven mosher
July 5, 2010 10:36 am

hi tallbloke
“Has it occurred to Steven Mosher it might just be that the parameters fit the data because Alan Cheetham has zoomed in on the correct parameter values?”
There is no such thing as the correct parameters for detecting regime shifts. Just take a look at the underlying approach and you’ll see that’s its a form of data mining. In the end you cannot attribute any confidence to the overall result. It’s an investigative tool.
WRT the numerology insult. Of course numerologists will be insulted. But people who understand that science depends upon explanation will not be offended.
two sets of numbers are shown to have some sort of “similarity”. they “line up”. they “track each well”, they “correlate.” That’s an observation about NUMBERS.
Its’ not a physical theory. A physical theory would propose a mechanism and be testable. The numerology games of finding similarities between time series is a wonderful hobby. I find it amusing that people who claim the climate is too chaotic to predict or understand, will gladly accept a huge oversimplification if it matches their preconceptions about the role of the sun.
So, just to recap. The regime change approach gives you a place to START real science. It’s not a physical theory. without a physical theory its just numerology. Fun with numbers.

Doug S
July 5, 2010 10:42 am

idlex says:
July 5, 2010 at 6:30 am
idlex, I like the way you’re approaching the problem. The model you describe for the input/output energy for the CO2 molecules is just the way I visualize the situation. The little computer simulation you describe would likely be just the first step in a long model simulation because from what I’ve read here, the feedback or secondary effects from CO2 re-radiation are the real drivers of overall global temperatures.
One thing that sticks in my mind is the fairly recent NASA images of CO2 in the atmosphere being “clumpy”. The images created show CO2 concentrations looking like floating hot dogs in the sky. These images make me think that drawing a Gaussian surface around the distinct clumps of CO2 and then assuming an evenly distributed re-radiation from the Gaussian surface would imply that a smaller percent of the energy would be directed back toward the earths surface. The majority of the energy leaving the surface would miss the earth and be lost to space. The devil will be in the details i.e. feedbacks.

Steven mosher
July 5, 2010 10:54 am

Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:55 am
Steven mosher says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:41 am
Why is it when the sun influencing climate comes up it is shot down? The earth is in the sun’s atmosphere. Changes in the sun must make for changes on the earth. It doesn’t make sense that it would have no effect.
***************************************************************
Excellent point. I don’t, and leif does not, argue that the sun has No influence. That’s just a strawman.
1. Changes in the sun must make for changes on the earth.
This is so vague as to be “untestable” Which changes? that’s the first question.
The second question is the “MUST” question. There is no LOGICAL NECESSITY.
you have a reasonable assumption that changes there MAY lead to changes here.
The proper way to proceed is to establish a testable hypothesis.
2. It makes perfect sense that some changes would have no effect. Drop a ball
from your rooftop. measure the time to impact. Now change the mass of the ball.
That change should have an effect right?
So just to be clear. It seems perfectly reasonable to assume that some changes in the sun will lead to changes in the climate here. The issue is this. There is a difference between:
A. Observing an interesting relationship between two sets of data. A nice hobby.
B. Constructing a physical theory based on laws of physics that allows you to
EXPLAIN and QUANTIFY how changes in one time series produces changes in the other.
“A” is numerology. Sometimes good science starts with numerology. It never ENDS with numerology. It ends with B.
So, I see some interesting numbers in this post. Maybe somebody will create a physical theory that spits out predictions about the climate from this interesting fact about numbers.
(Leif will get this.) These types of ‘studies’ are merely and soley studies about ‘numbers’ and not what those numbers represent. That’s why I call them numerology. Because they are literally ABOUT NUMBERS.
REPLY: Mosh is right. Without the physical mechanism, the cause and effect becomes numeric speculation. All sorts of science began by finding patterns of numbers in data, quantifying it, and then proposing and finally proving a physical mechanism. This is no different. However, some other work is going to have to be done to establish the physical mechanism. While it would be tempting to imagine a giant Hurst Helios gear-shifter, it is much more nuanced than that 😉 – Anthony

Flavio Feltrim
July 5, 2010 10:56 am

It’s a “little cooling” in figure 3 since 2005?
http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/bering_status_overview.html
Interesting, isn’t? Would be a shift?

rbateman
July 5, 2010 11:04 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
July 5, 2010 at 10:00 am
The Sunspot activity is slipping behind 1900. Just like your SC19 vs SC24 graph, SC23 came in lower and SC24 goes out lower than the 1900’s episode. This falling behind behavior has been a hallmark consistency of SC24.
The planet is in the process of cooling right now.
The bad thing is that certain scientists made a deal with the devil as far as the weather records go, so the compromised HADcrut3 will have to do.
When the climate records are searched out and put right (talk to Dr. Curry), then we will have a much better chance at answering global questions. In the meantime, we have the doctored climate records we have, not the ones we wish were not spoiled or sold for profits.

Dave
July 5, 2010 11:06 am

Mosh>
Do you always have to be so forthright? I see you popping up all over the place, and whilst you generally have a point, you also generally insist on smashing people over the head with it instead of discussing it politely. Standard MO in all these debates, though – you’re hardly alone. Please try not to do it, and we’ll all benefit.
I agree with you that ‘numerology’ is technically accurate, but it’s akin to calling someone ‘fat’ to their face. You may need to refer to their size, but there are ways to say it that don’t rub people up the wrong way.
The point for discussion is of course how much weight to put on this matter at this stage. On the basis solely of this one article, there’s no more than a ‘dig here’, but it’s interesting to see how these results came into being.
My personal opinion, based on little evidence bar a strong hunch, is that these graphs are too good to be true, and so if they show either that there is an incredibly strong correlation between solar activity and climate, or that the research tool will bring out pretty results appropriate for any theory you care to run through it, then I find the latter far more plausible in context, especially considering the unreliability of Hadcrut.

phil
July 5, 2010 11:07 am

I know this is a bit off topic, but why are we showing the HADCRUT Global Temp anomaly of the Hadley Center??? Its obvious that Graph has been adjusted (Manipulated) over, and Over again, Mainly Before The Sattelite Era so why are we Using it to compare solar anomalies that could Match up better without the adjustments?? Maybe I’m Missing Something HUGE, and If so, I’m Sorry for Acting Like a complete Idiot.
Cheers,
Philly

July 5, 2010 11:17 am

Steve mosher (1:41): “it it became clear that I could tune the thing to fit my assumptions. Hint: if he set the cuttoff length at 11 instead of 10 the trick would have been too obvious.”
The cutoff length by definition does affect the results – that’s because the cutoff limit causes it to ignore any regimes shorter than the defined cutoff limit. Choosing a cutoff that is longer than solar cycles will by definition prevent the solar cycles from being identified. Using 11 instead of 10 makes only a slight change – in the 1914 – 1930 time frame when the solar sysles are weaker.
View this to see the effect of the cutoff length and noise parameters: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/RegimeParams.htm

July 5, 2010 11:21 am

Re: Use of Hadcrut3 data: I tend to use the “official” data as much as possible. Even though it is adjusted and manipulated, using it removes the potential criticisms of selecting a data set to match the desired outcome.
REPLY: Supposedly HadCRUT is being “reworked” as a result of Climategate. You’ll be able to run it again when/if it becomes available. Weather balloon data might be another choice in the meantime. – Anthony

July 5, 2010 11:29 am

Dave (11:06): “these graphs are too good to be true, and so if they show either that there is an incredibly strong correlation between solar activity and climate, or that the research tool will bring out pretty results appropriate for any theory you care to run through it”
The Hadcrut3 data is easily downloaded from the link in the article; the algorithm is easily downloaded from its link in the article. Anyone can easily experiment with this. Use the algorithm right “out of the the box” (i.e. without adjusting anything) and you will see virtually the same results (only difference is in the 1914-1930 time frame when the solar cycles are weaker). Add their recommended noise filter and you get the results I have described. Try it. (Also see my previous response to mosher about the cutoff length.)

Stephen Wilde
July 5, 2010 11:43 am

tallbloke:
Some stuff here about the jets having been in different latitudinal positions during the LIA:
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html
“During the LIA, there was a high frequency of storms. As the cooler air began to move southward, the polar jet stream strengthened and followed, which directed a higher number of storms into the region. At least four sea floods of the Dutch and German coasts in the thirteenth century were reported to have caused the loss of around 100,000 lives. Sea level was likely increased by the long-term ice melt during the MWP which compounded the flooding. Storms that caused greater than 100,000 deaths were also reported in 1421, 1446, and 1570. Additionally, large hailstorms that wiped out farmland and killed great numbers of livestock occurred over much of Europe due to the very cold air aloft during the warmer months. Due to severe erosion of coastline and high winds, great sand storms developed which destroyed farmlands and reshaped coastal land regions. Impact of Glaciers
During the post-MWP cooling of the climate, glaciers in many parts of Europe began to advance. Glaciers negatively influenced almost every aspect of life for those unfortunate enough to be living in their path. Glacial advances throughout Europe destroyed farmland and caused massive flooding. On many occasions bishops and priests were called to bless the fields and to pray that the ice stopped grinding forward (Bryson, 1977.) Various tax records show glaciers over the years destroying whole towns caught in their path. A few major advances, as noted by Ladurie (1971), appear below.”
There are also ships logs showing storms well equatorward of those seen during the past 50 years and the Viking settlements in Greenland suggest the polar jet well poleward at that time.
So, lots of bits of data from a wide range of sources and evidence that the ITCZ was similarly involved so here’s a google search result for your use.
http://search.orange.co.uk/all?q=ITCZ+Little+Ice+Age&brand=ouk&tab=web&p=searchbox&pt=home_web&home=false&x=27&y=17

July 5, 2010 11:44 am

Leif (8:17: “At least try to get the facts straight: The reversal of the polar fields at the maximum of the even-numbered cycles results in the alignments, thus half a cycle before the offset.”
Not sure what facts you are referring to. If you look at the figure showing the longitudinally averaged solar magnetic field from 1975 – 2010 you can see when the field is polarized and when it starts its trend to reversal (i.e. the maximum subspot area occurs when the field is reversing at the suns equator).

July 5, 2010 11:58 am

Regarding the empirical aspect of this reasearch (since numerology is an inappropriate term here if you actually look up its definition)
Science is often empirical – starting with observations of a phenomenon. The lack of a known mechanism does not invalidate the observations.
If we had longer-term observations of various parameters (such as coronal mass ejections or magnetic clouds) we might be able to get closer to the mechanism.
A study of solar magnetic clouds during 1994 – 2002 by Wu, Lepping & Gopalswamy, “Solar Cycle Variations of Magnetic Clouds and CMEs” http://www.scostep.ucar.edu/archives/scostep11_lectures/Pap.pdf states: “The average occurrence rate is 9 magnetic clouds per year for the overall period (68 events/7.6 years). It is found that some of the frequency of occurrence anomalies were during the early part of Cycle 23: 1. Only 4 magnetic clouds were observed in 1999, and 2. An unusually large number of magnetic clouds (16 events) were observed in 1997 in which the Sun was beginning the rising of Cycle 23

July 5, 2010 12:04 pm

Steven mosher says:
July 5, 2010 at 10:36 am
I find it amusing that people who claim the climate is too chaotic to predict or understand, will gladly accept a huge oversimplification if it matches their preconceptions about the role of the sun.
But, but: D.A. claims it’s so simple that anybody can do it [even he].
Alan Cheetham says:
July 5, 2010 at 11:44 am
Leif (8:17: “At least try to get the facts straight: The reversal of the polar fields at the maximum of the even-numbered cycles results in the alignments, thus half a cycle before the offset.”
Not sure what facts you are referring to.

Read the article. It claims “The onset of an odd-numbered sunspot cycle (1977-78, 1997-98) results in the relative alignment of the Earth’s and the Sun’s magnetic fields” which is incorrect. But, perhaps, inaccuracies don’t matter much in this debate.

Gail Combs
July 5, 2010 12:04 pm

Flavio Feltrim says:
July 5, 2010 at 10:56 am
It’s a “little cooling” in figure 3 since 2005?
http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/bering_status_overview.html
Interesting, isn’t? Would be a shift?
___________________________________________________________
Am I missing something here???
The article says:
”In the past, the Bering Sea was known for large differences in weather conditions from year-to-year. Change in the last five years is characterized by the persistence in warm ocean temperatures and lack of sea ice in the southern Bering Sea. Without sea ice, the ocean can absorb more solar energy and provides resistance to ice formation in the following winter. There may be additional warm ocean temperatures brought by currents from the Gulf of Alaska. The changes in the Bering Sea are part of a large regional climate change from Siberia eastward to northern Canada. Thus, while it is impossible to predict future climate, the balance of the evidence suggests a continuation of current conditions. “
Yet the referenced graph shows the maximum (and minimum) temperatures has DECREASED for the last four years. Don’t they even bother to look at their own graphs?

July 5, 2010 12:07 pm

Alan Cheetham says:
July 5, 2010 at 11:58 am
A study of solar magnetic clouds during 1994 – 2002 by Wu [..] “An unusually large number of magnetic clouds (16 events) were observed in 1997 in which the Sun was beginning the rising of Cycle 23”
unusual? for the short interval 1994-2002? What other rising cycles were there in 1994-2002 to compare with to make the statement that 1997 was unusual?

rbateman
July 5, 2010 12:13 pm

phil says:
July 5, 2010 at 11:07 am
You can always use this formula (and the idea of sorting according to solar cycle lengths) to check on your local climate area data. Data which you can check out by careful comparison with provenance.
After all, the most important piece of climate is where you live.

Amino Acids in Meteorites
July 5, 2010 12:14 pm

Enneagram says:
July 5, 2010 at 10:17 am
magnetism is produced by electrical fields
You are saying this is the mechanism?

July 5, 2010 12:21 pm

Alan
I think it is an interesting analytical tool but as a hypothesis is a non starter.
I would like to see it backdated to 1650, we got sunspot numbers andthe Met Office CETs data.
As you can see here (bottom graph)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETlmt.htm
there was a very sharp jump in temperatures from 1685 to 1700 with no sunspots to speak off, no ‘gears to be shifted’.
In contrast period from 1740 to near 1900, there is a lot of solar activity, ‘plenty of gears’, but CETs barely moved relative to the late 1600’s and the early and late 1900’s.
For credibility you have to come up with something covering at least the known data range, not to mention the transfer mechanism!

Enneagram
July 5, 2010 12:30 pm

Follow the money or follow the Sun?…That’s the question!☺

wayne
July 5, 2010 12:31 pm

Gail Combs says:
July 5, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Yet the referenced graph shows the maximum (and minimum) temperatures has DECREASED for the last four years. Don’t they even bother to look at their own graphs?

Like they want you to accept the very opposite to the facts right before your eyes, but…
I SEE FOUR LIGHTS!

Amino Acids in Meteorites
July 5, 2010 12:36 pm

Steven mosher says:
July 5, 2010 at 10:54 am
So just to be clear. It seems perfectly reasonable to assume that some changes in the sun will lead to changes in the climate here. The issue is this. There is a difference between:
A. Observing an interesting relationship between two sets of data. A nice hobby.
B. Constructing a physical theory based on laws of physics that allows you to
EXPLAIN and QUANTIFY how changes in one time series produces changes in the other.

This explanation has a different feel to it then just calling it numerology. I think it was 1:30 am when you posted the numerology comment so at that hour you may not have wanted to expound. But now with this comment I can see I agree with you much more than I did last night.
Anthony’s explanation helped clear it up too:
REPLY: Mosh is right. Without the physical mechanism, the cause and effect becomes numeric speculation. All sorts of science began by finding patterns of numbers in data, quantifying it, and then proposing and finally proving a physical mechanism. This is no different. However, some other work is going to have to be done to establish the physical mechanism. While it would be tempting to imagine a giant Hurst Helios gear-shifter, it is much more nuanced than that 😉 – Anthony

July 5, 2010 12:51 pm

Leif (12:04): Thanks for the clarification of what you were referring to. You are correct: the onset of an odd-numbered solar cycle does not “result” in the relative alignment of the fields. I have changed the original to state that the onset of an odd-numbered cycle “occurs” during the relative alignment (which is obvious from the two figures showing magnetic fields).

Amino Acids in Meteorites
July 5, 2010 12:58 pm

I am wondering if the IPCC had 1976 in mind when they used a proxy of solar activity that showed no increase in activity instead of the instrumental which did:
“Nicola Scafetta, PART 1, on which solar data set to use, the IPCC was incorrect”

Amino Acids in Meteorites
July 5, 2010 12:59 pm

“Nicola Scafetta, PART 2, on which solar data set to use, the IPCC was incorrect”

Enneagram
July 5, 2010 1:01 pm

What if someone dares to provide such asked “mechanism”? Will it be accepted or rejected as blasphemous?

July 5, 2010 1:03 pm

Leif (12:07): If you think the Wu et al study is invalid, state why.
rbateman (12:13): I am not saying magnetism is “the mechanism” for these “regime shits”. But it could be the initiator of the process which gets propagated by an as yet undefined mechanism.

July 5, 2010 1:19 pm

I happened to catch a story in the German online Sueddeutsche Zeitung today about a brand new Max Planck Institute study on the earth’s CO2 cycle. I was writing a post about it and, much to my frustration, the story disappeared after being up only an hour or so. The report concluded that CO2 feedbacks from additional warming were exaggerated.
http://pgosselin.wordpress.com/2010/07/05/max-plank-institute-especially-alarmist-scenarios-are-unrealistic-oops-german-newspaper-takea-it-off-its-website/
I don’t know why the SZ would take it down. (It was awfully damn inconvenient).

July 5, 2010 1:39 pm

Vuk (12:21): Regional data sets (such as CET) will likely produce different temperature regimes since not all areas of the globe respond in the same way.
There seems to be some confusion about what this work is.
I did not propose a hypothesis in terms of a mechanism for all “global warming”.
I did not propose that these solar events (onset of solar cycle) are the only source of climate variation.
I observed that there is a definite correspondence between the onset of solar cycles and changes in temperature regime. I observed that this correspondence appeared to exist (see: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/SolarCycleHadcrut3.jpg)
Then I discovered there was regime shift identification software and used it to examine that hypothesis (that temperature regimes correspond to solar cycles in the 20th century). This indeed appears credible.
I am not saying all warming / cooling events are caused by this. These observations show that the onset of solar cycles result in a temperature shift.
The observations are a beginning and hopefully the mechanism will be discovered (because CO2 as a major driver of these events does not seem credible even though there is a defined mechanism).

Amino Acids in Meteorites
July 5, 2010 1:48 pm

Aldi says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:48 am
Circulation. Less(or more) output from the sun changes the air and water circulations(their extends I would think). The same way as heating water in a pot would create movements in the water by exciting the molecules.
Could it be waves on the ocean surface that would have a different effect than calm, flat water?

Gail Combs
July 5, 2010 1:50 pm

Enneagram says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:01 pm
What if someone dares to provide such asked “mechanism”? Will it be accepted or rejected as blasphemous?
____________________________________________
Tallbloke has been working on it. see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/27/the-beauty-of-a-near-spotless-sun/#comment-418872

Amino Acids in Meteorites
July 5, 2010 1:52 pm

Aldi says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:48 am
Willis Eschenbach gave a nice presentation on the physics of of wind, waves, and ocean. Variations in energy from the sun could have a varying effect on wind, waves, and ocean. Plausible?
“Willis Eschenbach, PART 1, negative feedback, the physics of wind, waves, and ocean”

Amino Acids in Meteorites
July 5, 2010 1:53 pm

“Willis Eschenbach, PART 2, negative feedback, the physics of wind, waves, and ocean”

tallbloke
July 5, 2010 1:54 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
July 5, 2010 at 10:00 am
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 9:17 am
uses this tired and inaccurate argument about diminishing peak amplitudes of solar cycles when you know full well they are not the whole story.
1) they are the whole story

No They’re not.
Once again:
although the amplitudes have diminished over cycles 21-23 they were short cycles with steep ramps which kept the average sunspot numbers high compared to the C20th average.
And in any case, as Rob Bateman pointed out, this study uses sunspot areas not numbers.
Or have you shrunk those in the wash so they are all the same size too?

Dave
July 5, 2010 1:54 pm

Alan Cheetham>
“The Hadcrut3 data is easily downloaded from the link in the article; the algorithm is easily downloaded from its link in the article. Anyone can easily experiment with this.”
I didn’t mean to imply that I in any way distrust the reported results. It’s just that they imply a flawed algorithm (or temperature dataset) more strongly than a ground-breaking and incredibly strong correlation between solar activity and climate. The results are just too neat to be credible, because they imply such a strong correlation as to be unbelievably obvious – and yet everyone’s missed it up until now. In fact, the correlation shown graphically is so clear and direct that there’s no room for any damping factors – it acts like a switch.
It seems far more plausible to me that solar activity is directly affecting Hadcrut temperature measurements than so closely correlating to actual climate.
Basically, this article is very interesting, and there are three possible explanations: bad algorithm, bad data, or a genuine very strong correlation. The first seems unlikely – the algorithm seems to be working ok, going by the naked eye. The second is very plausible. The third is possible, but relatively unlikely. It seems to me that what’s been found here is a new factor for which Hadcrut needs to be adjusted.

kramer
July 5, 2010 1:56 pm

@ Leif Svalgaard, July 5, 2010 at 10:00 am
Leif wrote: “We are indeed back to 1900 levels, but the TSI reconstructions we were discussing [e.g. your beloved Hoyt & Schatten] for 1900 are much lower [and therefore likely in error] and that is the point. The planet cooled? The past ten years have been the warmest recorded, but, of course, you can always hope the next ten years will drop to 1900 levels.
Leif, the suns rays are strongest around 12 noon while the hottest part of the day is around 3pm. Just curious, if the sun were to all of a sudden output TSI at say 10% higher and stay at that level, how long would the delay be before the earth fully warmed up from the additional energy?

Ed Barbar
July 5, 2010 2:00 pm

I wonder what would happen if the regime change program were applied to the corrections of ground temperature stations to their actual values? It would be interesting to see whether the program identifies any “regime changes” there.

July 5, 2010 2:04 pm

Enneagram says:July 5, 2010 at 10:17 am
magnetism is produced by electrical fields
Yep
There are lots of electric currents over the Arctic Ocean, even got names, and some are very strong
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC.htm
You can find out more here, if so inclined:
http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/gem/tutorial/2002Zaharia.pdf

Phil M2.
July 5, 2010 2:09 pm

Leif Svalgaard
And there has not been a ‘steep’ drop. Just the expected drop from solar max to solar min.
Suffering from a little snow blindness Leif? Most of us are experiencing the ‘expected solar drop’ and it seems quite unexpected for everyone else but you. I have just bought a nice diesel genny in case the ‘expected drop’ continues and we get snowed in again. You seem to be an odd fellow, knowledgeable yet obviously biased and clinging to the hope of a resumption of the warming trend. Can’t see that myself, I think the cooling will see me out and the warming is gone for good, at least in my lifetime.
I would like to see you re-invent yourself as a non-warmist to get a serious opinion on the solar minimum and the realistic cooling effects on the climate. Lets hope that the shackles that you work within will be discarded soon.
Phil M2.

July 5, 2010 2:10 pm

Bob Tisdale (1:30): “the upward shifts in 1925 and 1986/87 occurred at even cycles and they are approximately the same magnitude as the other lesser shifts that occurred at odd cycles”
I believe there are multiple cycles involved in the overall climate change (each likely with a different source). The (approx.) 11/22-year solar/Hale cycle is examined here. There is also a (approx.) 60-year cycle with as yet unknown cause. When the even-numbered cycles are on a descending part of the 60-year cycle they cause a temperature decrease. When they are on an ascending part of the 60-year cycle (including the years you mention) they cause an increase. This can be seen in this figure: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/SolarCycleHadcrut3.jpg
The 60-year cycle is examined here: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/SixtyYearCycle.htm
There are obviously longer cycles involved as well.

BarryW
July 5, 2010 2:19 pm

Steven mosher says:
July 5, 2010 at 10:20 am

I’ll take this as an inexact reference to GCMs.

Your right I was being imprecise saying CO2 model instead of GCM.

The point being a GCM attempts to simulate the entire climate process. The model above does ONE THING. it shows that regime “shifts” are aligned. That’s it. No predictions about precipitations, about temperature LEVELS, etc. The other issue is one of falsifiability.

Yes but I don’t really classify this as a model, it’s the correlation of two data sets with the implication that they may be related. Try running the program on noise and see if you can get the two to line up. To me this indicates there are serious flaws in the GCMs.
Who says there is no warming? The question is the amount, location, and causation.

A. Observing an interesting relationship between two sets of data. A nice hobby.
B. Constructing a physical theory based on laws of physics that allows you to
EXPLAIN and QUANTIFY how changes in one time series produces changes in the other.

I think you’re pushing it a little too hard. Seeing the correlation and being able to PREDICT that an outcome based on that correlation is part and parcel to science (there’s your falsifiability). Whether the underlying mechanism is understood may take a while.

R. Gates
July 5, 2010 2:22 pm

Doug S. said:
“The devil will be in the details i.e. feedbacks.”
____________
Indeed…it always is. And in a chaotic system such as Earth’s climate, those detail will remain unpredictable. Though some seem very confused on this point, as they confuse Chaotic systems with random or stochastic processes. At some point, the smallest of change will break equalibrium, and the system will seak a new point of equalibrium (i.e. a regime or attractor). We’ve added 30% more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere since since the industrial revolution. Those who think that CO2 will only produce some logarithmic effect forever, would think that we could add 2,000% more without an effect, but this is not the way a chaotic system works…eventually the climate will seek a new point of equalibrium (or points of equalibrium along the way). We have evidence of a new “regime” or attractor in the Arctic being set up in the Dipole Anomaly.

tallbloke
July 5, 2010 2:24 pm

Steven mosher says:
July 5, 2010 at 10:54 am
nice hobby.
numerology.
Maybe somebody will create a physical theory that spits out predictions….
REPLY: Mosh is right. Without the physical mechanism, the cause and effect becomes numeric speculation. – Anthony

Numerology used in this context is a pejorative term. However, not to worry, I can usually find a humorous way to turn insults back to hold the mirror up to their owners.
Here’s what Dynamologist Leif Svalgaard and his cheerleader Anna V say about the requirement for a mechanism for his own pet theory on a different website
Anna V says
Data do not need a physics mechanism to be valid. The physics will come in time.

Nice article of faith there Anna.
Leif Svalgaard says:
There are three reasons I believe L&P (Livingstone and Penn) is important and [as good science] is telling us something about the Sun:
1) The L&P data themselves
2) The increasing discrepancy between the sunspot number and the F10.7 flux since ~1990
3) The existence of significant cosmic ray modulation during the Maunder [and other Grand Minima] even though few spots were seen.
L&P provides an explanation for 2) and 3). If we discount L&P then we have three puzzles rather than one. For this reason, L&P is a good working hypothesis and commands attention. Time will tell if we can turn the hypothesis into a theory backed up with a mechanism, in which case we have learned something important about the Sun. Giving up the possibility of learning something is bad science.

Amen.
Now, if Steven Mosher or Leif Svalgaard or Anna V ever actaully angaged in a reasonable discussion about how it is ocean heat content has been rising since the fifties when the sun got really active, and started dropping again when it got quiet, I might be a bit more respectful. But since they avoid the subject like the plague, I’ll just giggle a bit at their display of rank hypocrisy when they throw other peoples ideas out because of “no mechanism”.
The reason there has been a growing discrepancy between the F10.7 flux and sunspot numbers snce the 90’s is because they are not linearly correlated
There may well have been modulation of the cosmic ray caused 10Be deposition during the Maunder Minimum, but this tells us nothing about their absolute levels.
Now Dynamology is a nice and well paid hobby for some, but it has singulary failed to predict anything useful about the sun’s output in the immediate future, as evidenced by the Dynamologists varying predictions ranging from ~40SSN to 180SSN for solar cycle 24.
That’s numerdynamology for you. We’ll be seeing how good Leif’s prediction of 70SSN is against my prediction of 40SSN soon. But I won’t be using an ‘adjusted’ sunspot number that include Livingstone and Penns invisible spots or SIDC’s tiny Tims to test them.

richcar 1225
July 5, 2010 2:25 pm

I personaly like this JPL paper that correlates historic auroral correlations as a sunspot proxy with the Pharaoh’s record of the Nile water level.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=1319
The authors believe there is a link between variations in the ultravilot spectrum of the sun and Phases of the NAO.
Certainly the most striking event associated with the current solar minimum has been the extreme negative AO and NAO which last winter resulted in the jet streams diving greatly to the south. There have recently also been impressive auroral displays.

Richard Sharpe
July 5, 2010 2:27 pm

Phil M2. says on July 5, 2010 at 2:09 pm

Leif Svalgaard
And there has not been a ‘steep’ drop. Just the expected drop from solar max to solar min.
Suffering from a little snow blindness Leif? Most of us are experiencing the ‘expected solar drop’ and it seems quite unexpected for everyone else but you. I have just bought a nice diesel genny in case the ‘expected drop’ continues and we get snowed in again. You seem to be an odd fellow, knowledgeable yet obviously biased and clinging to the hope of a resumption of the warming trend. Can’t see that myself, I think the cooling will see me out and the warming is gone for good, at least in my lifetime.
I would like to see you re-invent yourself as a non-warmist to get a serious opinion on the solar minimum and the realistic cooling effects on the climate. Lets hope that the shackles that you work within will be discarded soon.
Phil M2.

I do not think Leif is a warmist of any sort. Rather, he seems to me to struggle mightily against pseudo-scientific beliefs like the hollow sun stuff, the barycenter stuff and the belief that it is all due to sunspot variation, etc.

idlex
July 5, 2010 2:34 pm

Thanks for your replies to my question.
phlogiston says: July 5, 2010 at 8:08 am:
Longwave (IR) radiation within the very narrow window that interacts with CO2 can interact in 2 ways: (1) absorption resulting in heat energy deposition, or (2) scattering (absorption-re-emission) at a (presumably) random angle.
If all interactions are type 1 heat depositing, then CO2 absorbs all photons within about 10 m, and thus the saturation argument, CO2 cannot be a factor in atmosphere heat.
However for longwave IR to penetrate a long distance through the atmosphere, most interactions must be of the scattering (absorption-re-emission) type, resulting in a diffusive movement of IR photons.

Why do you give figure of 10 m for type 1 absorption? Is that the wavelength? Does the same figure apply to type 2 absorption? How near does a photon have to get to a CO2 molecule to be absorbed?
I started out thinking that that what was going on was your type 1 absorption, and the carbon dioxide heated up and radiated this heat away. But all the descriptions I’ve come across describe the process as your type 2 absorption, and I don’t think that this necessarily entails heating. The photon is absorbed, and then shortly afterwards it’s re-emitted in some random direction. This led me towards the football analogy. Otherwise I’d have tried to think about the atmosphere as made up of black body radiators.
I understand your reasoning about the atmosphere being less dense higher up, and so less likely to absorb rising photons. But most of the stuff I’ve read seems to be saying that more photons go downward than go upward.
Doug S says: July 5, 2010 at 10:42 am
idlex, I like the way you’re approaching the problem. The model you describe for the input/output energy for the CO2 molecules is just the way I visualize the situation. The little computer simulation you describe would likely be just the first step in a long model simulation because from what I’ve read here, the feedback or secondary effects from CO2 re-radiation are the real drivers of overall global temperatures.
I’ve already written a very simple simulation of a patch of earth which absorbs solar radiation, conducts it below ground, and re-rediates to space from its surface. But my model had no atmosphere, and I’ve been wondering how to put in a simple atmosphere. And this led me to get puzzled about the fraction of IR emitted by the atmosphere that went upwards and downwards. I somehow doubt I’ll ever get to look at secondary feedbacks (e.g. CO2 release from oceans).
Anyway, I’m glad nobody’s told me that my simulation model was a non-starter.

Stephen Wilde
July 5, 2010 2:43 pm

tallbloke said :
“Now, if Steven Mosher or Leif Svalgaard or Anna V ever actaully angaged in a reasonable discussion about how it is ocean heat content has been rising since the fifties when the sun got really active, and started dropping again when it got quiet, I might be a bit more respectful.”
I’ve already done that.
When the sun is more active the energy flux from stratosphere to space increases so that the stratosphere cools, the inversion at the tropopause weakens, the polar oscillations turn more positive, the jets move poleward, albedo falls because there is less reflection from the clouds, cloud amounts in the equatorial regions fall as the cloud bands move poleward and more solar energy enters the oceans.
Are there any recent (in the last 50 years) observations (not flawed historical records or proxies) that do not fit that scenario ?
When the sun is less active the process is reversed.

July 5, 2010 2:55 pm

Alan Cheetham says: July 5, 2010 at 2:10 pm
There is also a (approx.) 60-year cycle with as yet unknown cause.
Any astronomer will tell you that the every third conjunction of two largest planets with strongest magnetospheres happens every 59.577 years at approximately the same heliocentric longitude (actually back-shifted by 5 degrees).
If you for some reason think that solar activity is caused by an electro-magnetic feedback between the sun and the magnetospheres, than intensity of this feedback will vary due to asymmetry of heliosphere.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
You are welcome to browse through some of the formulae and graphs :
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GandF.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC-CETfiles.htm

tallbloke
July 5, 2010 2:57 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
July 5, 2010 at 2:43 pm (Edit)
tallbloke said :
“Now, if Steven Mosher or Leif Svalgaard or Anna V ever actaully angaged in a reasonable discussion about how it is ocean heat content has been rising since the fifties when the sun got really active, and started dropping again when it got quiet, I might be a bit more respectful.”
I’ve already done that.

And I’ve responded to your posts. None of the big hitters have though. We’ll have a nip of grog and sing some shanties to while away the loneliness.

KBW
July 5, 2010 2:59 pm

Comparison of the current with previous cycles suggests that sunspots are forming at lower latitudes than previously. Has anyone done an analysis of this?

rbateman
July 5, 2010 3:03 pm

R. Gates says:
July 5, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Adding another 100-150 ppm C02 to the previous level has no more effect than counting Tiny Tim Sunspots does to the Sunspot Area Measurements. I do not say that either addition has no effect, just that the effects of those additions are not significant.

July 5, 2010 3:10 pm

Stephen Wilde says: July 5, 2010 at 2:43 pm
When the sun is more active the energy flux from stratosphere to space increases so that the stratosphere cools, the inversion at the tropopause weakens, the polar oscillations turn more positive…
There is one more literally ‘down to earth’ explanation (with 150 year of data track record and strong correlation) for the polar oscillations:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm

DirkH
July 5, 2010 3:17 pm

Thank for the Eschenbach videos! Willis, great lecture.
The next generation of climate models will have spatial resolutions of <10km and this will allow them to simulate thunderstorms:
http://www.physorg.com/news180371126.html
This might render the projections of older climate models invalid. (Hmmmm… science settled, eh, BBC?)

Maud Kipz
July 5, 2010 3:37 pm

Rich says:
July 5, 2010 at 10:25 am

If you’re an R fan […] I’ve got a picture but no idea how to include it.

It makes me happy to see another fan of R here. It always hits me as bad science to see scientific software that depends on the proprietary, expensive, and not very reliable Microsoft Excel.
For your pictures, you can output them to files with “png()” or “pdf()”, and then upload them to a site for image sharing.

Gail Combs
July 5, 2010 3:47 pm

KBW says:
July 5, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Comparison of the current with previous cycles suggests that sunspots are forming at lower latitudes than previously. Has anyone done an analysis of this?
_________________________________
Check out the Layman’s sunspot count website towards the bottom of the page: http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50

Harry Lu
July 5, 2010 3:48 pm

Gail Combs says: July 5, 2010 at 8:24 am
Despite Willis’s faith in the CO2 data, I do not believe CO2 is homogeneous through the atmosphere, that the rise is linear, or that the measurements in the early days at Mauna Loa (1950′s thru 1970′s) are accurate.

Unless you are calling all data gatherers liars or incompetents then this plot shows a world wide level of CO2 which is more or less homogeneous.
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/3694/co2manytrends.png

Steven mosher
July 5, 2010 4:12 pm

Amino:
“This explanation has a different feel to it then just calling it numerology. I think it was 1:30 am when you posted the numerology comment so at that hour you may not have wanted to expound. But now with this comment I can see I agree with you much more than I did last night.”
ya sorry, I’m assuming that most people are going to get my shorthand for things we have discussed many many times.

Steven mosher
July 5, 2010 4:29 pm

tallbloke:
“Now, if Steven Mosher or Leif Svalgaard or Anna V ever actaully angaged in a reasonable discussion about how it is ocean heat content has been rising since the fifties when the sun got really active, and started dropping again when it got quiet, I might be a bit more respectful. But since they avoid the subject like the plague, I’ll just giggle a bit at their display of rank hypocrisy when they throw other peoples ideas out because of “no mechanism”.”
For people to have a reasonable discussion the first prerequisites would be a clear statement of the issue. “the sun got really active” is not a clear statement. the sun got “quiet” is not a clear statement. When we look at our understanding of how the Sun provides energy to the earth that clear understanding is reflected in TSI data.
The units are kw/sqmeter. Think on that.
WRT throwing other peoples ideas out. Without a mechanism there is no IDEA to throw out. there is only this: a mere observation about numbers. This set of numbers is like that set of numbers. That’s not an explanation. It’s not even an idea.
It’s an observation.

Richard Sharpe
July 5, 2010 4:39 pm

Steven mosher says on July 5, 2010 at 4:29 pm

tallbloke:
“Now, if Steven Mosher or Leif Svalgaard or Anna V ever actaully angaged in a reasonable discussion about how it is ocean heat content has been rising since the fifties when the sun got really active, and started dropping again when it got quiet, I might be a bit more respectful. But since they avoid the subject like the plague, I’ll just giggle a bit at their display of rank hypocrisy when they throw other peoples ideas out because of “no mechanism”.”
For people to have a reasonable discussion the first prerequisites would be a clear statement of the issue. “the sun got really active” is not a clear statement. the sun got “quiet” is not a clear statement. When we look at our understanding of how the Sun provides energy to the earth that clear understanding is reflected in TSI data.
The units are kw/sqmeter. Think on that.

Unless the Yellowtail Merlot has gotten the better of me, I think you mean W/m^2, ie watts per square meter.

1DandyTroll
July 5, 2010 4:45 pm

@Steven Mosher
‘For people to have a reasonable discussion the first prerequisites would be a clear statement of the issue.’
The first prerequisite will always be a proper forum. That’s why the Greek made ’em, and the Roman made use of ’em, and the church banned ’em.
The Internets, only, mass-produced ’em, what ever. :p

Brad
July 5, 2010 4:45 pm

We already know that the sun influences global temp as it has been shown that the temp does change in a measurable way as sunspot lows, versus sunspot highs. If this si true, as is shown in this paper:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090827141349.htm
THEN, eve larger changes, like those pointed out here, or as occurred in the Maunder Minimum, will lead to even greater changes. You papers stating otherwise are just wrong in my opinion.

James F. Evans
July 5, 2010 4:57 pm

Dr. Leif Svalgaard, July 5, 2010 at 10:00 am, wrote: “The past ten years have been the warmest recorded…”
In your opinion.
There is a lot of data that contradicts that assertion.
But hey…keep pitching for those invites to conferences where the organizers want “cover” for the AGW propaganda.
In that sense, you’ve been a good little lap dog.
Maybe, they’ll give you an award for peddling “the Sun doesn’t matter” hogwash.
AGW is a hoax.
And there are many folks who drank the Kool-Aid…or did their part to get other people to drink the Kool-Aid.
Most of us, here, were smart enough to drop the Kool-Aid cup in the waste basket…a long time ago.

Editor
July 5, 2010 5:55 pm

Alexander Feht says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:17 am
“If I remember correctly, there is a self-appointed “world’s foremost Solar scientist,” very popular among some people frequenting the WUWT site, who repetitiously proclaimed that anybody asserting any connection between Solar cycles and climate changes is not worthy of any consideration, since the Sun cannot affect climate, period.
I also recall that one of the moderators, residing in San Francisco, has been very supportive toward this prominent scientist, to the deplorable extent of certain editorial bias in his favor. ”
Actually, the moderators of WUWT are for the most part agreed that nonsense like “Iron Sun” theories are phlogiston and don’t belong here. That is distinctly different from discussions about the solar influence on Earth climate. We welcome Leif here and his comments because unlike most AGW scientists, he is generally civil and happy to answer questions about his discipline, for the same reason we welcome Judith Curry here. We can disagree with their opinions about solar influence on climate (and I and others do) without attacking them or resorting to nonsense.
WUWT tries to help educate the layman and the interested professional without attacking or demeaning either. The systemic problems that led to the arrogance and elitism behind the CRUtape Letters email authors, and part of that is the politicization of science on both ends of the spectrum. Modern politics seeks to force change via dialectical conflict of polarization and alienation of the opposition. That isn’t how science is supposed to work, and when it does we all are harmed.
We are as skeptical of claims of AGW as we are of long disproven theories like the geocentric universe, steady state universe, spontaneous generation, phlogiston, Piltdown Man, Lamarckianism, Lysenkoism, and yes, iron sun and electric universe. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Derek B
July 5, 2010 6:25 pm

One obvious problem with the algorithm is that it insists on interpreting everything as regime change. It does not allow for concurrent steady trends. So, suppose we accept that the correlation implies a tendency for higher temperatures when the sun’s field is one way up and lower when it’s the other way. The next step would be to extract the long term average of that relationship and subtract that as appropriate from the temperature graph. This should produce a clearer picture of the long term trend.

R. Farr
July 5, 2010 6:46 pm

The smoking gun. Wow. Do a cross correlation between the datasets and see what that number it – it must be very close to 1.0

July 5, 2010 7:00 pm

BBk wrote: “The implication is that temperature is an indirect effect. He correlated with PDO, implying that the sun drives PDO (changes in upper atmosphere causing shifting weather patterns, etc) which in turn changes temperature.”
Please supply a paper that describes the mechanism(s) by which the PDO changes global temperatures. As far as I’ve found, there are none. The PDO lags ENSO and is dependent of ENSO on all timescales, according to Newman et al. The reason for the periodic difference between ENSO and the PDO appears to be a shift in Sea Level Pressure, in the form of the North Pacific Index (NPI):
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/04/is-difference-between-nino34-sst.html

oneuniverse
July 5, 2010 7:22 pm

idlex :The photon is absorbed, and then shortly afterwards it’s re-emitted in some random direction.
There’ll also be collisions with other molecules, which will lead to a kinetic redistribution of the absorbed energy – a rise in the gas temperature.
The mean free path of air at sea level is about 0.1 μm, increasing linearly with the inverse of atmospheric pressure. At the same time, air molecules possess speeds of ~100-500 m/s. Therefore on average a collision will take place every half a nano-second or so.
I haven’t found a reference for the IR absorption-to-emission time(s) for CO2 yet – if they’re longer than half a nano-second, and assuming the above calculations are correct, there’ll be a significant number of these collisions.

Steven mosher
July 5, 2010 7:32 pm

@ richard sharp.
Thanks for the sharp eyes

timheyes
July 5, 2010 7:35 pm

This is interesting, but (leaving aside the issue of the accuracy of adjusted/homogenised temperature records):
1) The temperture “regime shifts” appear to happen before the increasing sun spot numbers manifest themselves in general. This implies a very high senstivity of the temperature record to the mechanism which generates sun spots.
2) The sun spot number maxima do not seem to correlate to the tempertature maxima/minima or curve shape. This implies that there is little sensitivity of the temperature record to sun spot number. If we accept that sun spot number is dependent on the sun spot generating mechanism in 1), then 2) contradicts 1).
3) The magnitude and direction (positive or negative) of the “regime shifts” with respect to the last “regime shift” value is not predicted by the sun spot data. Sometimes the shift is greater than the previous shift, sometimes less and sometimes the same.
4) The senstivity of “regime shift” to sun spot cycle alluded to in 1) appears to suggest an almost “instantaneous” effect on temperature in the time-frame of solar cycles which makes the data look too good to be true.
For these reasons Willis et. al. who require some mechanism as well as the observed correlation are correct.
On a final note. The temperature graphs look like absolute temperatures rather than anomalies but I couldn’t tell from the article. Maybe I missed it.

idlex
July 5, 2010 7:54 pm

There’ll also be collisions with other molecules, which will lead to a kinetic redistribution of the absorbed energy – a rise in the gas temperature.
Not sure I agree about that. CO2 only captures photons of a particular wavelength/frequency. I think the same is true of the oxygen and nitrogen which make up most of the atmosphere.
The model I’m imagining is one in which there’s effectively only CO2 in the atmosphere, because all other gas molecules are transparent.
Furthermore, I’m not sure whether the absorption of a photon results in a rise in temperature. If the absorption of a photon by a CO2 molecule just kicks an electron into a higher orbit, or ‘stretches’ bonds between atoms, I don’t see that this necessarily entails a temperature rise. Not all gains in energy translate into gains in temperature.
But that’s just my guess.
And I’ve been wondering too how long CO2 holds onto a photon, and haven’t seen a figure for it yet.

Graeme W
July 5, 2010 8:02 pm

Harry Lu says:
July 5, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Gail Combs says: July 5, 2010 at 8:24 am
Despite Willis’s faith in the CO2 data, I do not believe CO2 is homogeneous through the atmosphere, that the rise is linear, or that the measurements in the early days at Mauna Loa (1950′s thru 1970′s) are accurate.
Unless you are calling all data gatherers liars or incompetents then this plot shows a world wide level of CO2 which is more or less homogeneous.
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/3694/co2manytrends.png

If anything, that graph (though it only covers a few years) proves Gail’s point. While all the sites show a similar overall trend, the absolute levels shown at the various sites vary at any give time vary. They are certainly not homogeneous — there’s too much variance between them to say they are.

Bernd Felsche
July 5, 2010 8:27 pm

Anthony:

Some people cite scientists saying there is a “CO2 control knob” for Earth.

Many others conclude that they are talking about Rajenda Pachauri. 🙂

phlogiston
July 5, 2010 8:42 pm

@ Steve Mosher
Without a mechanism, there is no IDEA to throw out, there is only this: a mere speculation about numbers.
Are you thus elevating “Argumentum ad ignorantium” to the status of a law of science?
In a chaotic-nonlinear system, rejecting a corellation based hypothesis on the basis of incomplete knowledge of mechanism is even more risky and challenging.
As mentioned above, reductionist fixation on mechanism can lead to the related epistemological disorder, “argumentum ignarus res” or argument in defiancce of facts. In this pathology, so much faith is placed in a mechanism (and in the simplicity of the mechanism’s opeation in the real world) that an ensuing hypothesis is stubbornly believed in spite of substantial evidence to the contrary. CAGW is a good example of this.

phlogiston
July 5, 2010 9:20 pm

@ idlex
I agree with your point about heating probably not being the predominant interaction (although if it was it would completely negate CAGW :-). I’m discussing this in an arm-waving way, I’m not as well acquainted with the physics of IR photons and CO2 as I am with x-rays and photoelectric absorption / Compton scattering.
One point I wanted to make however was that CAGW theorists cannot “have their cake and eat it”. You cant have both absorption / re-emission and heating, due to energy conservation. If (hypothetically) the (CO2 band) IR interactions were all of the type that deposit heat energy, then it has been shown (sorry no reference!) that this CO2 absorbed IR would not penetrate more than 10 m through air. Due to the IR photon energy not being infinite.
But if the interaction is instead absorption followed by re-emission at the same energy (I haven’t yet checked if this is possible) which we could abbreviate rather loosely as diffusion, then the IR photon keeps its energy after millions of interactions; however it cant heat anything. You cant take heat energy from the IR photon and have your photon continuing to propagate.
The paramecium analogy, together with the atmosphere’s spherical geometry as mentioned by tallbloke and others, means that IR diffusive radiation will be more up than down. (I’m puzzled by how CAGW proponents try o argue the reverse).

July 5, 2010 9:42 pm

Alan Cheetham says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Leif (12:07): If you think the Wu et al study is invalid, state why.
I think I already did. To state that a single year [1997] in the short interval 1994-2002 is ‘unusual’ is perhaps a misunderstanding of what ‘unusual’ means. You can only claim this on the basis of a much longer time base. Perhaps the real problem is not Wu et al. but you who boldened their statement and thereby made it stronger than what they meant, which was that 1997 was higher than any other of the other nine years 1994-2002. If that had been the past 50 years or so, that would have been ‘unusual’.
James F. Evans says:
July 5, 2010 at 4:57 pm
“The past ten years have been the warmest recorded…”
In your opinion. There is a lot of data that contradicts that assertion.

Like this from Dr. Spencer: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/02/june-2010-temperature-cooling-a-bit-as-el-nino-fades/
Most of us, here, were smart enough
Pardon my observation, but you don’t come across like that. Hide it too well.

July 5, 2010 10:03 pm

tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 2:24 pm
angaged in a reasonable discussion about how it is ocean heat content has been rising since the fifties when the sun got really active, and started dropping again when it got quiet
A prerequisite for reasonable discussion is that you get your facts straight, which this plot http://i48.tinypic.com/14e6wjn.gif shows you have not.
The rest of your post is just rambling. Including this gem:
The reason there has been a growing discrepancy between the F10.7 flux and sunspot numbers snce the 90′s is because they are not linearly correlated
They do not need to be linearly correlated [which indeed they are not] as long as they are correlated with a suitable non-linear function. The number 1, 2, 3, 4, etc and their squares 1, 4, 9, 16, etc are not linearly correlated, yet have a perfect correlation [through the function y = x^2].

tallbloke
July 5, 2010 11:25 pm


Steven mosher says:
July 5, 2010 at 4:29 pm
For people to have a reasonable discussion the first prerequisites would be a clear statement of the issue. “the sun got really active” is not a clear statement. the sun got “quiet” is not a clear statement. When we look at our understanding of how the Sun provides energy to the earth that clear understanding is reflected in TSI data.
The units are kw/sqmeter. Think on that.

Hi Steven,
as Jack Eddy knew, and as Anthony posted here a while back, the relationsip between the suns energies (plural) is very very very complex. The reductionist attempt to describe the suns outputs (plural) solely in terms of a single metric ‘TSI’ is an attempt to provide a simple metric we can use in calculations but it has the unfortunate side effect of limiting the terms of debate when people of a reductionist bent try to impose it as the sole or sufficient metric in framing the debate about the sun-earth relationship. It is a useful tool in the scientists toolbox, but not a complete answer to understanding.
This is why I choose deliberately vague terms like ‘more active’ and ‘quieter’ etc. It is in recognition of the fact that we don’t yet understand the effect of the sun’s various energies (the quantities of which vary semi-independently). But although we don’t yet understand their effects sufficiently to quantify and provide fully explained mechanisms, we do have empirical observations which show that the sun’s energies (plural) affect the climate in various ways not reflected by a simple single metric which only accounts for Watts or Joules of energy per area. There are chemical interactions in the atmosphere. There are biotic effects on photosynthesis which in turn affect the oceans opacity etc etc.
So in summary, I’m grateful to Leif and his colleagues for providing a useful metric which has limited application in understanding the sun-earth relationship, but I will fight tooth and nail against attempts to limit the terms of the debate solely to this single metric. The various solar wavelengths have different effects on different parts of the earth’s climate system. Then there is the solar wind and it’s various particle types to consider too.
There are no simple answers to any questions about climate. Climate is complex, and hypotheses about what might be important cannot be ruled in or out on the basis of simple metrics which don’t tell the whole story about the phenomena they lump together in order to quantify.

Dave F
July 5, 2010 11:26 pm

The elephants missing from the room:
What is the physical basis for the averaging treatment of temperature?
What is the physical mechanism for the effect of these regime changes on this average?
What are the pitfalls of this analysis? I am sure the author does not claim it is perfect, so what are the weaknesses? If it is perfect, why is it?
Otherwise, this entire conversation is raising the bush by lowering its surroundings.

Stephen Wilde
July 5, 2010 11:39 pm

tallbloke said:
“And I’ve responded to your posts. None of the big hitters have though. We’ll have a nip of grog and sing some shanties to while away the loneliness.”
Yes you have and I’m grateful for that.
Leif has responded elsewhere but cannot accept solar changes having any effect on the upward energy flux although he did refer me to a link which supports a possible mechanism.
Bob Tisdale has responded elsewhere but objects to my suggestion that PDO is caused by influences other than ENSO and I think you have crossed swords with him on that same point.
All I can do is keep pointing out the validity of my suggestions as more data comes in over time. There is insufficient historical data of the right kind to provide evidence to the required scientific standard at present but it sure as hell fits what we see on an ongoing basis and lots of papers are coming out that are consistent with my ideas.
If ongoing observations suddenly go well adrift of what I would expect without a good reason then and only then would I desist.
I’m currently watching out to see if the polar oscillations are capable of going heavily positive with poleward shifting jets in the absence of either or both of a positive PDO and a more active solar surface. That would be the most obvious falsification of what I say though there are also other possible falsifications such as the stratosphere going back to a cooling mode whilst the solar surface remains quiet.

tallbloke
July 5, 2010 11:59 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
July 5, 2010 at 10:03 pm
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 2:24 pm
engaged in a reasonable discussion about how it is ocean heat content has been rising since the fifties when the sun got really active, and started dropping again when it got quiet
A prerequisite for reasonable discussion is that you get your facts straight, which this plot http://i48.tinypic.com/14e6wjn.gif shows you have not.

Wash your windows Leif, the corrected version in that blinkometer shows exactly what I said. The OHC has been falling since 2003, the peak of solar cycle 23, just as I told you.
The vertical axis of the graph you present is labelled as “heat content”, but since it starts in 1955 at -3×10^22J I would guess (though I really shouldn’t have to) that the axis really represents “heat content anomaly”. After all, the ocean can’t contain a negative amount of heat can it?
But how is it decided where the zero line of the ‘anomaly’ is? Anomalous relative to what?
Another question it would be nice to have an answer to is what the total ocean ‘heat’ content is. Then we could get some idea of how much it has heated up in percentage terms over the period of record. If we make the assumption that heat content is related to sea surface temperature, and take the SST at some arbitrary time to be the ideal climate temperature that fluctuations from are to be regarded as ‘anomalies’, then we can see how much things have warmed up.
Let’s say we take the zero line of HADcru’s SST’s, which match dates around 1940 and 1980. According to their measurements, the ocean surface has warmed about 0.3C from there to the peak of global warming. The average SST is around 17C or 289K. So taking a roughly linear dropoff in temperature down to the thermocline, we get an approx 0.15K warming of the upper 700m of the worlds oceans on average.
TSI varies around 0.1% over the solar cycle, and maybe by around that over the 1930-2000 period? And it is amplified at the surface by a drop in cloud cover from 1980-1998 according to ISCCP data. Those empirical observations are backed up by Nir Shaviv’s work on using the oceans as a colorimeter.
0.15K is approximately 0.05% of 289K
There’s your solar/albedo caused global warming.
It’s so simple I must have made a big mistake somewhere, so please correct me, I’m always ready to learn.

July 6, 2010 12:03 am

tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 11:25 pm
The reductionist attempt to describe the suns outputs (plural) solely in terms of a single metric ‘TSI’
You do not understand [or you ignore or downplay] that just about every solar indicator correlates [or anti-correlates] with TSI [except the temperature of the quiet sun which is constant] so that single metric incorporates all the other things. We use TSI as the benchmark mainly because that is where the energy is [the others are many orders of magnitudes smaller]. The only solar indicator where we have actually found a climate effect is for TSI: The solar variation in TSI causes a ~0.1K variation in temperature [I think everyone in the field agrees with that]. You took Jack Eddy’s name in vain, but even he argued in his seminal papers that a variation of TSI was the likely cause of climate variation. He later [e.g at Dinner Speech at SORCE 2003 http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/sns/2003/sns_dec_2003.pdf ] realized that TSI did not vary enough and that there simply was not enough variation in the incoming energy to account for significant climate change.

Steven mosher
July 6, 2010 12:09 am

Hi Tallbloke
“Hi Steven,
as Jack Eddy knew, and as Anthony posted here a while back, the relationsip between the suns energies (plural) is very very very complex. The reductionist attempt to describe the suns outputs (plural) solely in terms of a single metric ‘TSI’ is an attempt to provide a simple metric we can use in calculations but it has the unfortunate side effect of limiting the terms of debate when people of a reductionist bent try to impose it as the sole or sufficient metric in framing the debate about the sun-earth relationship. It is a useful tool in the scientists toolbox, but not a complete answer to understanding.”
I’m not convinced it’s as complex as you assume. I don’t see anything I said as limiting debate. I am merely pointing this out. When you have term like TSI expressed in watts on the left hand side the hopes of having a right hand side of the equation with the proper terms is greatly increased. But if you start with something like “number of sun spots” on the left, you can see what a challenge this will be to get the right hand side to work out. What’s missing is the MECHANISM.. that thing which will turn “numbers of spots” ( in reality nothing more than a COUNTING convention) into a measure of temperature. The KEY is being able to put your ideas into a TESTABLE equation. That means numbers. That means units. All else is arm waving. Science is REDUCTIONIST in its very structure as we attempt to REDUCE complex data into a form that is expressable by equations that quantify over physical entities.
“This is why I choose deliberately vague terms like ‘more active’ and ‘quieter’ etc. It is in recognition of the fact that we don’t yet understand the effect of the sun’s various energies (the quantities of which vary semi-independently). But although we don’t yet understand their effects sufficiently to quantify and provide fully explained mechanisms, we do have empirical observations which show that the sun’s energies (plural) affect the climate in various ways not reflected by a simple single metric which only accounts for Watts or Joules of energy per area. There are chemical interactions in the atmosphere. There are biotic effects on photosynthesis which in turn affect the oceans opacity etc etc.”
No empirical OBSERVATION can SHOW how the suns “energies” “affect” the climate. Causation is never OBSERVED. causation is hypothesized to explain the observations. Chemical “intereactions” and “biotic” effects are likewise vague.
Now, I’m not EXCLUDING other effects the radiation from the sun might have.
Not at all. What I’m saying is that those arguments need to be made clearly, precisely, with equations. And yes terms should balance. no magical transformations of meters per second into joules.
“So in summary, I’m grateful to Leif and his colleagues for providing a useful metric which has limited application in understanding the sun-earth relationship, but I will fight tooth and nail against attempts to limit the terms of the debate solely to this single metric. The various solar wavelengths have different effects on different parts of the earth’s climate system. Then there is the solar wind and it’s various particle types to consider too.”
Very simply. If you don’t provide clear exposition there is no “debate” there are just two people talking at cross purposes. One requesting clarity and equations so that science can be done and the other objecting to the scientific method. that’s not a debate. What is the solar wind?
“There are no simple answers to any questions about climate. Climate is complex, and hypotheses about what might be important cannot be ruled in or out on the basis of simple metrics which don’t tell the whole story about the phenomena they lump together in order to quantify.”
I’m not ruling out ANY hypothesis you have offerred. I can’t. you havent offered a hypothesis. You’ve offered up a platitude. Climate is complex. we can’t rule out many things about the sun. Here is the point. You actually have to articulate a position so that we can decide to rule it IN or rule it OUT. Your position amounts to this. We can’t rule out ^%**t%^*G^ about the sun. Well, of course not. We can’t rule it out because you haven’t said anything. You’ve merely said, that something could be said.
Write the equations. Predict some outcomes. That’s sciencing.

July 6, 2010 12:21 am

tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 11:59 pm
Wash your windows Leif, the corrected version in that blinkometer shows exactly what I said. The OHC has been falling since 2003, the peak of solar cycle 23, just as I told you.
The peak was in 2000. And you are just looking at minor wiggles. And the minimum since 1955 was at solar max year 1969. And then there is the tired old fact that OHC increased all the while solar activity was decreasing from 1980 on.
The vertical axis of the graph you present is labelled as “heat content”, but since it starts in 1955 at -3×10^22J I would guess (though I really shouldn’t have to) that the axis really represents “heat content anomaly”. After all, the ocean can’t contain a negative amount of heat can it?
But how is it decided where the zero line of the ‘anomaly’ is? Anomalous relative to what? read more here [where you have posted without worry]:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/05/more-on-ocean-heat-content-and-recent-revisions-to-the-data/
Another question it would be nice to have an answer to is what the total ocean ‘heat’ content is.
This was also discussed and links given for the worriers.
It’s so simple I must have made a big mistake somewhere, so please correct me, I’m always ready to learn.
Since your ‘calculation’ doesn’t make sense as it does not use the same time intervals for your various inputs, it cannot be corrected, so you will [again] learn nothing.
And all the sudden, good ole TSI is good enough for your calculation…

tallbloke
July 6, 2010 12:27 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
July 6, 2010 at 12:03 am (Edit)
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 11:25 pm
The reductionist attempt to describe the suns outputs (plural) solely in terms of a single metric ‘TSI’
You do not understand [or you ignore or downplay] that just about every solar indicator correlates [or anti-correlates] with TSI [except the temperature of the quiet sun which is constant] so that single metric incorporates all the other things.

No it doesn’t. UV has fluctuated significantly compared to the TSI and UV has important effects on the upper atmosphere chemically, and on the sea surface biota chemically. It’s not a matter of simple wattage. We don’t yet know how important (or not) these factors are, but anything which affects ozone production changes the greenhouse scenario, and anything which affects the opacity of the sea surface changes the OHC scenario.
Also, the solar wind varies anomalously with respect to TSI, and empirical evidence shows that the air temperature is affected by the speed of the solar wind.

tallbloke
July 6, 2010 12:37 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
July 6, 2010 at 12:21 am (Edit)
Since your ‘calculation’ doesn’t make sense as it does not use the same time intervals for your various inputs, it cannot be corrected, so you will [again] learn nothing.

Your refusal to engage with simple maths is duly noted. It’s the usual copout. You know you’re cornered with this simple calculation, and I expect the ducking and weaving to continue indefinitely.
And all the sudden, good ole TSI is good enough for your calculation…
Like I said, although it’s not the whole biscuit, it’s a useful tool in the box and I’m grateful to those who provide the metric.

Editor
July 6, 2010 12:37 am

Stephen Wilde said
“All I can do is keep pointing out the validity of my suggestions as more data comes in over time. There is insufficient historical data of the right kind to provide evidence to the required scientific standard at present but it sure as hell fits what we see on an ongoing basis and lots of papers are coming out that are consistent with my ideas.”
Have you got a succinct definitive post/article on your idea that you can point me towards?
tonyb

tallbloke
July 6, 2010 1:00 am

Steven mosher says:
July 6, 2010 at 12:09 am
Hi Tallbloke
Now, I’m not EXCLUDING other effects the radiation from the sun might have.
Not at all. What I’m saying is that those arguments need to be made clearly, precisely, with equations. And yes terms should balance. no magical transformations of meters per second into joules.
Write the equations. Predict some outcomes. That’s sciencing.

Sure, I just did that and got stonewalled by Mr quantitative scientist. He could have said, well, the TSI variation over the 1940-2003 period was this, so it will affect your calculation by that. Look at what I got instead:
“Since your ‘calculation’ doesn’t make sense as it does not use the same time intervals for your various inputs, it cannot be corrected, so you will [again] learn nothing.”
“Cannot be corrected”. Really???
Here it is again, I even put a question mark by the TSI figure to invite correction from his nibs:
“Let’s say we take the zero line of HADcru’s SST’s, which match dates around 1940 and 1980. According to their measurements, the ocean surface has warmed about 0.3C from there to the peak of global warming around 2000. The average SST is around 17C or 289K. So taking a roughly linear dropoff in temperature down to the thermocline, we get an approx 0.15K warming of the upper 700m of the worlds oceans on average.
TSI varies around 0.1% over the solar cycle, and maybe by around that over the 1930-2000 period? And it is amplified at the surface by a drop in cloud cover from 1980-1998 according to ISCCP data. Those empirical observations are backed up by Nir Shaviv’s work on using the oceans as a colorimeter.
0.15K is approximately 0.05% of 289K
There’s your solar/albedo caused global warming.
It’s so simple I must have made a big mistake somewhere, so please correct me, I’m always ready to learn.”

Stephen Wilde
July 6, 2010 1:27 am

“Have you got a succinct definitive post/article on your idea that you can point me towards?
tonyb”
Here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/06/a-new-and-effective-climate-model/#comments

Stephen Wilde
July 6, 2010 2:07 am

tallbloke said:
“TSI varies around 0.1% over the solar cycle, and maybe by around that over the 1930-2000 period? And it is amplified at the surface by a drop in cloud cover from 1980-1998 according to ISCCP data. Those empirical observations are backed up by Nir Shaviv’s work on using the oceans as a colorimeter.
0.15K is approximately 0.05% of 289K
There’s your solar/albedo caused global warming.”
I like that approach in that it seeks to link the tiny variations in solar output to similarly tiny changes in ocean energy content that then have an apparently disproportionately large effect on observed climate.
I think that the apparent ‘disproportionality’ is simply a function of our smallness in the scheme of things combined with the huge scale of the difference in the energy carrying properties of oceans and air.
A tiny change in the rate of oceanic energy release will put a substantial poleward pressure on the air circulation system thus causing latitudinal climate shifts that result in substantial (from our puny perspective) changes in day to day weather in the regions below that have changed their positions relative to the nearest components of the air circulation system.
However I do have a concern about the lack of correlations over individual solar cycles but that can adequately be dealt with by oceanic lag times and the time it takes for the air circulation to respond to changes in rates of energy release from the oceans.
The pattern is in my opinion very clear on 500 year timescales, reasonably clear on multidecadal timescales over 30 years but obscured by internal system noise and lag times on lesser timescales.
Nor is the pattern solely ocean regulated because the response of the air to an oceanic warming or cooling lacks consistency in terms of scale hence the need to introduce another influence from above that sometimes supplements and sometimes opposes the oceanic effect on the air circulation.
The only way that the pressure distribution in the troposphere can be altered from above is via changes in the intensity of the inversion at the tropopause and that is a consequence of changes in stratospheric temperatures.
Thus what we need is any solar effect that is capable of affecting stratospheric temperatures in the required direction i.e. we need a cooling stratosphere to induce poleward shifts in the jets and a warming stratosphere to induce an equatorward movement.
The trouble is that that is the opposite of what we normally expect. A more active sun should warm the stratosphere but in fact it seems that it does not. To explain stratospheric cooling when the sun is more active as during the late 20th century one has to propose a non natural cause reversing the expected ‘natural’ warming. Thus the concern about CFCs destroying ozone and the idea that CO2 was reducing the energy flow from troposphere to stratosphere.
Logic is forcing me to question both scenarios and the climate feature that is most significant is that latitudinal shift in all the air circulation systems beyond normal seasonal variability.
Unless that major cyclical feature is explained then no climate hypothesis or any climate model has any validity. I think I am the first to try to work it into a coherent overview

idlex
July 6, 2010 2:42 am

phlogiston
One point I wanted to make however was that CAGW theorists cannot “have their cake and eat it”. You cant have both absorption / re-emission and heating, due to energy conservation.
Not from the same photon, for sure.
I’ve simply been reporting what I’ve read – which always seems to describe the interaction of photons and CO2 as one of absorption and re-emission. It doesn’t seem implausible to me that one photon might be absorbed and re-emitted, and another photon might have a heating effect. It’s just that what I’ve been reading seems to say that there’s just one interaction, not two. Nevertheless other people (perhaps even most people) speak of IR emitted by the earth’s surface being absorbed in the atmosphere and “warming” it.
Maybe I should go ask the guys over at Realclimate. After all, they’re the ones who think something like this is happening. Does Realclimate have a fundamental physics section that explains IR interaction with CO2?

Editor
July 6, 2010 2:45 am

Stephen Wilde
Thanks for the link. I have read the article and it all sounds common sense. Personally I think we know far far less about the climate than we believe we do.
Your suggestion #21 from that thread was of particular interest as I am currently researching an article on the LIA as evidenced by instrumental records backed up by contemporary observations.
There is no doubt that the period 1650 to 1698 was generally cold but even then there were some notably warm periods. In the succeeding years, particularly the 30 year period from 1700, there was notable warmth and a substantial ‘bounce’ of temperatures thereon from warm to cold and back again. The term LIA is misleading after 1698-the cold really became interludes rather than remained an ‘age.’
Does your theory presuppose a continually cold period or can it accommodate an era when the temperatures ‘bounced around’ and showed great variabilty, although in general winters became warmer?
tonyb

July 6, 2010 3:05 am

Stephen Wilde wrote: “Bob Tisdale has responded elsewhere but objects to my suggestion that PDO is caused by influences other than ENSO…”
Of course the PDO is influenced by variables other than ENSO. You’re either misrepresenting or misunderstanding what I’ve written to you and posted on in the past. I’ve shown that the difference between the PDO and ENSO is likely caused by variations in Sea Level Pressure in the form of the North Pacific Index (NPI):
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/04/is-difference-between-nino34-sst.html
And due to gyre spin-up and the multiyear persistence of SST anomalies in the Kuroshio Extension, it is likely aerosols from explosive volcanic eruptions also influence the PDO.
And let me clarify my reply since you bounce between uses of the PDO. This response assumes you’re referring to the PDO as the pattern of North Pacific SST anomalies, north of 20N, the widely accepted definition, and not a generic basin-wide phenomenon.

July 6, 2010 3:23 am

Alan Cheetham you replied, “There is also a (approx.) 60-year cycle with as yet unknown cause. When the even-numbered cycles are on a descending part of the 60-year cycle they cause a temperature decrease.”
The assumption you’re making is that the (approx.) 60-year cycle persists back in time beyond the instrument temperature record. Paleoclimatological reconstructions of the AMO suggest it does not:
http://i47.tinypic.com/ekkhuc.png
From this post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation-index.html

idlex
July 6, 2010 3:37 am

Steve Mosher July 6, 2010 at 12:09 am
When you have term like TSI expressed in watts on the left hand side the hopes of having a right hand side of the equation with the proper terms is greatly increased. But if you start with something like “number of sun spots” on the left, you can see what a challenge this will be to get the right hand side to work out. What’s missing is the MECHANISM.. that thing which will turn “numbers of spots” ( in reality nothing more than a COUNTING convention) into a measure of temperature. The KEY is being able to put your ideas into a TESTABLE equation. That means numbers. That means units. All else is arm waving. Science is REDUCTIONIST in its very structure as we attempt to REDUCE complex data into a form that is expressable by equations that quantify over physical entities
Rather a lot of “science” these days seems to be missing the mechanism. Event A takes place, followed by event B, and next thing you know A is said to cause B, even though the causal mechanism is not understood.
AGW seems to be a bit like this. CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing, and the earth’s temperature has been increasing too, so one “causes” the other. But what’s the mechanism? To their credit they have a candidate mechanism, which is that CO2 absorbs IR emitted from the surface of the earth and re-emits it back (the subject of the side discussion I’ve been having here). But the mechanism is disputed.
A lot of modern epidemiology seems to be the same. e.g. smoking “causes” lung cancer. But the causal mechanism is vague, and disputed. Similarly obesity “causes” premature death. And so on. In many cases no mechanism at all is suggested.
“Science” of this sort might be said to be incomplete. It’s not good, solid science that you can use as the bricks and mortar to build further science. It’s a kind of science that’s still waiting for its mechanism to be added. It’s science which requires a leap of faith that the mechanism will be discovered one day. And the longer this faith is needed, the deeper that faith must be. And this is how you get “true believers” of one sort or other. They are people who have been waiting a very, very long time for the missing mechanism to show up, and most likely it never will.
And since we seem to have more and more of this sort of incomplete “science”, we have more and more true believers in all sorts of things.

oneuniverse
July 6, 2010 3:45 am

idlex: Furthermore, I’m not sure whether the absorption of a photon results in a rise in temperature.
My strictly casual understanding was that a collision following a photon absorption (before the molecule has had time to emit) redistributes the absorbed energy as kinetic energy amongst the colliding molecules. So if this is the case, collision before emission increases the temperature of the gas.
I also seem to remember reading that lab experiments by Neils Bohr determined that the vibrational energy of the molecule doesn’t increase after photon absorption, rather the internal energy is altered by a change in electron levels, which is reset once a photon is absorbed.
I may be mistaken – I don’t have a reference either, so perhaps collisions have no effect in this regard and the absorbed energy is retained across collisions.
If anyone has a link to the standard texts or reference material covering these questions, I’d be very grateful. I’ll have a look in the Britannica this evening.

oneuniverse
July 6, 2010 3:47 am

My last post contained at least one error:
“which is reset once a photon is absorbed”
should be
“which is reset once a photon is emitted”

July 6, 2010 4:32 am

tallbloke replied, “I’m not sure where you’re going with that one either, do you think those factors and nothing else account for the variability of the OHC anomalies of the Atlantic over the period of record?”
No, I don’t think the factors I wrote and nothing else account for the variability of OHC anomalies of the North Atlantic. As you are aware, the South Atlantic is the only basin where heat transport is from the pole to the tropics, so the North Atlantic OHC is impacted by the South Atlantic OHC. North Atlantic also has exaggerated Cloud Amount anomalies variations.
http://i50.tinypic.com/294ihsk.jpg
But the 2005 peak of North Atlantic OHC appears to coincide with the peak of the North Atlantic SST anomalies, and in turn the peak of the AMO, which is why I would attribute the recent decline in North Atlantic OHC to AMO/AMOC.
And other than the variables I’ve listed so far, what other factors are you suggesting account for the variations in North Atlantic OHC?

July 6, 2010 4:39 am

Basil replied, “Here the mechanism is straight-forward: the broader amplitudes are governed by variations in TSI, and the frequencies are related to the solar cycle and the lunar nodal cycle.”
Please explain how the lunar nodal cycle would cause variations in global temperatures.

Stephen Wilde
July 6, 2010 5:03 am

tony b asked:
“Does your theory presuppose a continually cold period or can it accommodate an era when the temperatures ‘bounced around’ and showed great variabilty, although in general winters became warmer?”
I envisage lots of shorter term bouncing around because of the interplay of two independently varying influences on the air circulation systems sometimes supplementing and sometimes offsetting one another. One also sees wide regional variations in the short term despite any global trend. That’s why I say that the pattern only becomes really clear on the 500 year timescale with shifts such as those from MWP to LIA to date.

Tom in Florida
July 6, 2010 5:04 am

This has been one interesting thread but perhaps it is time to put out a roster of the players and their field of expertise along with a very short statement of their main view on the sun-earth relationship. It would certainly help me keep track of who is coming from what angle during technical discussions.

idlex
July 6, 2010 5:05 am

oneuniverse wrote:
My strictly casual understanding was that a collision following a photon absorption (before the molecule has had time to emit) redistributes the absorbed energy as kinetic energy amongst the colliding molecules. So if this is the case, collision before emission increases the temperature of the gas.
I also seem to remember reading that lab experiments by Neils Bohr determined that the vibrational energy of the molecule doesn’t increase after photon absorption, rather the internal energy is altered by a change in electron levels, which is reset once a photon is absorbed.

Point is, as you said earlier, that there can’t be both. You can’t store the photon energy in the CO2 molecule to be released later as a photon of the same energy AND have the photon energy increase the vibrational kinetic energy of the molecule as well.
We might maybe think of molecules as springs. Sometimes a photon hits a spring and compresses it and its energy gets stored as potential energy in the compressed spring. This potential energy isn’t transferred to adjacent springs. Other times, maybe, a photon hits a spring sideways and doesn’t compress it, but increases the kinetic energy of the spring (which can then be transferred to adjacent springs). Conservation of energy means it can’t do both.

Stephen Wilde
July 6, 2010 5:27 am

“Bob Tisdale says:
July 6, 2010 at 3:05 am
Stephen Wilde wrote:
“Bob Tisdale has responded elsewhere but objects to my suggestion that PDO is caused by influences other than ENSO…”
Bob Tisdale replied:
“Of course the PDO is influenced by variables other than ENSO.”
That begs the question as to whether it is ultimately caused by influences other than ENSO. That it may also be influenced by other variables is taken as a given.
I use the term PDO in the general sense that has entered common currency but I am aware of the more restricted definition that you use.
I consider that something other than ENSO creates the PDO via the ENSO process. It does so by gradually altering the relative strengths of El Nino and La Nina over time.
I propose that the main underlying cause is changes in the winds above the equatorial oceans as they respond to latitudinal shifts in the global air circulation systems as per my hypotheses. Those air circulation shifts being the result of an interplay between oceanic and solar cycles.
So the PDO is caused by underlying oceanic cycles modified by solar cycles which move the air circulation systems to change the winds and induce ENSO.
It would then follow that PDO would be a statistical artifact of ENSO as you aver but that does not derogate from the seperate chain of causation.

Gail Combs
July 6, 2010 6:19 am

#
#
Tom in Florida says:
July 6, 2010 at 5:04 am
This has been one interesting thread but perhaps it is time to put out a roster of the players and their field of expertise along with a very short statement of their main view on the sun-earth relationship. It would certainly help me keep track of who is coming from what angle during technical discussions.
_____________________________________________
Google their names, and you can get a pretty good feel for who they are and where they are coming from. Many have links so you can click on the name and see their website. Otherwise you need to read a lot and have a good memory.
Generally most have a degree in Science, Engineering or Math or a lot of practical experience using math and logic on the job. The site stats show a higher proportion of older males with a graduate degree compared to the norm. (the no degree crowd has increased since Climategate and Monbiot’s call to arms for CAGW trolls) http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wattsupwiththat.com

oneuniverse
July 6, 2010 6:44 am

idlex: Point is, as you said earlier, that there can’t be both. You can’t store the photon energy in the CO2 molecule to be released later as a photon of the same energy AND have the photon energy increase the vibrational kinetic energy of the molecule as well.
If the photon’s absorbed energy is redistributed as kinetic energy, if such an event can occur, then there wouldn’t be a corresponding photon emission.
re: rate of emission
From Enc.Britannica : “For many excited states of atoms, the average time before the spontaneous emission of a photon is on the order of 10^−9 to 10^−8 second.”
That’s at about the same order as the collision rate of atmospheric molecules.
We need the emission time for CO2, though – I haven’t found it yet.
The general equation for the probability of a transition to a different energy state in unit time is apparently given by Fermi’s Golden Rule, just in case anyone has all the parameter values at hand..

July 6, 2010 6:50 am

tallbloke says:
July 6, 2010 at 1:00 am
TSI varies around 0.1% over the solar cycle, and maybe by around that over the 1930-2000 period? And it is amplified at the surface by a drop in cloud cover from 1980-1998 according to ISCCP data. Those empirical observations are backed up by Nir Shaviv’s work on using the oceans as a calorimeter.
The reason this cannot be corrected is that you have not made a definitive statement by “maybe by around that over the 1930-2000 period”. What does that mean? that TSI in 2000 is 0.1% higher than in 1930? Then you switch to a different period 1980-1998 and make the argument that TSI is amplified by a by a drop in cloud cover. Well, first you’ll have to show that TSI changed the cloud cover. And then quantify by how much. A change in albedo by 0.005 corresponds to a temperature change of 0.5K.
The ISCCP shows the cloud cover, temperatures, and albedo here http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/climanal1.html and the changes do not match any TSI/solar activity related changes. You can, of course, claim that their data isn’t any good, but then you can’t in the same breath use them as long as they fit [which they actually do not] your purpose.
So, as I said, there is not enough meat and precision in your ‘calculation’ to replicate it, let alone correct it.

July 6, 2010 6:54 am

Stephen Wilde says:
July 6, 2010 at 5:27 am
Logic is forcing me to question both scenarios and the climate feature that is most significant is that latitudinal shift in all the air circulation systems beyond normal seasonal variability.
The same criticism of tallbloke’s ‘calculation’ applies to you. You have no numbers, no equations, no quantifications.

gary gulrud
July 6, 2010 7:24 am

” “Twenty times more solar particles cross the Earth’s leaky magnetic shield when the sun’s magnetic field is aligned with that of the Earth compared to when the two magnetic fields are oppositely directed””
Nice tidbit.

Basil
Editor
July 6, 2010 7:33 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
July 6, 2010 at 6:54 am
Stephen Wilde says:
July 6, 2010 at 5:27 am
Logic is forcing me to question both scenarios and the climate feature that is most significant is that latitudinal shift in all the air circulation systems beyond normal seasonal variability.
The same criticism of tallbloke’s ‘calculation’ applies to you. You have no numbers, no equations, no quantifications.

So? He has a theory, and a testable one at that. If (indicative mode) the data to fully assess the theory are not currently available, that is not itself a reason to discredit it. I should think that you, of all people, know how hard it can be to develop the sensors needed to test theories. Now if you think there is some deductive flaw in the theory that justifies rejecting it out of hand, do tell us. Otherwise, it seems as though you are just being glib.

Stephen Wilde
July 6, 2010 7:37 am

“Leif Svalgaard says:
July 6, 2010 at 6:54 am
Stephen Wilde says:
July 6, 2010 at 5:27 am
Logic is forcing me to question both scenarios and the climate feature that is most significant is that latitudinal shift in all the air circulation systems beyond normal seasonal variability.
The same criticism of tallbloke’s ‘calculation’ applies to you. You have no numbers, no equations, no quantifications.”
I have something far better. A logical coherence describing and linking varied observations, according with ongoing events and hopefully providing some predictive skill and all without any obvious abuse of the basic laws of physics.
I do not accept your assertion that the laws of physics necessarily prevent changes in the energy flux from Earth to space as a result of solar surface variability. One can only explain observations if such variability does occur.
The history of science is replete with over confident assertions such as yours which were often maintained for decades in the face of observational evidence to the contrary until eventually the diehards were brought to a realisation of their arrogance.

gary gulrud
July 6, 2010 7:42 am

““For many excited states of atoms, the average time before the spontaneous emission of a photon is on the order of 10^−9 to 10^−8 second.” ”
Not the same class of interaction, orbit exitation versus bond-length vibration. Good luck with finding that CO2 absorption does not increase heterogenous gas temperature linearly(or nearly so).

July 6, 2010 7:46 am

gary gulrud says:
July 6, 2010 at 7:24 am
“Twenty times more solar particles cross the Earth’s leaky magnetic shield when the sun’s magnetic field is aligned […]”
Nice tidbit.

Yes, but hardly relevant as the solar magnetic field’s north-south component [the one that aligns with the Earth’s field] seen at Earth varies at random from hour to hour, see e.g. the red curve here: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/MAG_SWEPAM_7d.html
So, it is misleading to talk about the ‘sun’s magnetic field’ in this connection as what we see at Earth is not the large-scale solar field but a very irregular, strongly fluctuating field, varying from hour to hour, minute to minute.

Doug S
July 6, 2010 9:17 am

oneuniverse says:
July 6, 2010 at 6:44 am
The general equation for the probability of a transition to a different energy state in unit time is apparently given by Fermi’s Golden Rule, just in case anyone has all the parameter values at hand.
Very interesting oneuniverse, thanks for passing this along. Reading through the material I found the General expectation value formula particularly interesting:
General expectation value = initial wave function x (some operator function) x final wave function integrated over the volume under consideration.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/fermi.html
If I understand the basics of this correctly we would expect the energy transfer from CO2 other systems to decrease with altitude in the atmosphere due to decreasing densities. The more important piece of the puzzle is to define the operator function that couples CO2 to other neighboring systems. Would you agree that if a temperature variable is found in the denominator of the operator function, then we would expect a negative feedback mechanism and conversely if temp variable is found in the numerator then a positive feedback mechanism would occur. It seems to me that to satisfy the CAGW alarmist theories we must have the temp variable in the numerator to get the runaway heating positive feedback shown in the hockey stick.

Doug S
July 6, 2010 9:31 am

Typing too fast
s/b
If I understand the basics of this correctly we would expect the energy transfer from CO2 to other systems to decrease with altitude in the atmosphere due to decreasing densities.

tallbloke
July 6, 2010 9:38 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
July 6, 2010 at 6:50 am (Edit)
tallbloke says:
July 6, 2010 at 1:00 am
TSI varies around 0.1% over the solar cycle, and maybe by around that over the 1930-2000 period? And it is amplified at the surface by a drop in cloud cover from 1980-1998 according to ISCCP data. Those empirical observations are backed up by Nir Shaviv’s work on using the oceans as a calorimeter.
The reason this cannot be corrected is that you have not made a definitive statement by “maybe by around that over the 1930-2000 period”. What does that mean? that TSI in 2000 is 0.1% higher than in 1930? Then you switch to a different period 1980-1998 and make the argument that TSI is amplified by a by a drop in cloud cover. Well, first you’ll have to show that TSI changed the cloud cover. And then quantify by how much. A change in albedo by 0.005 corresponds to a temperature change of 0.5K.
The ISCCP shows the cloud cover, temperatures, and albedo here http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/climanal1.html and the changes do not match any TSI/solar activity related changes. You can, of course, claim that their data isn’t any good, but then you can’t in the same breath use them as long as they fit [which they actually do not] your purpose.
So, as I said, there is not enough meat and precision in your ‘calculation’ to replicate it, let alone correct it.

Thanks for the more thorough criticism Leif. That’s more useful to me. I’ve got a discussion about it going on my blog, and it’s proving fruitful. There has been a great link posted to a thorough examination of ocean heat content measurement.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/help-needed-with-global-warming-maths/

tallbloke
July 6, 2010 9:44 am

Bob Tisdale says:
July 6, 2010 at 4:32 am (Edit)
tallbloke replied, “I’m not sure where you’re going with that one either, do you think those factors and nothing else account for the variability of the OHC anomalies of the Atlantic over the period of record?”
No, I don’t think the factors I wrote and nothing else account for the variability of OHC anomalies of the North Atlantic. As you are aware, the South Atlantic is the only basin where heat transport is from the pole to the tropics, so the North Atlantic OHC is impacted by the South Atlantic OHC. North Atlantic also has exaggerated Cloud Amount anomalies variations.
http://i50.tinypic.com/294ihsk.jpg
But the 2005 peak of North Atlantic OHC appears to coincide with the peak of the North Atlantic SST anomalies, and in turn the peak of the AMO, which is why I would attribute the recent decline in North Atlantic OHC to AMO/AMOC.
And other than the variables I’ve listed so far, what other factors are you suggesting account for the variations in North Atlantic OHC?

Hi Bob,
Whatever it is that caused increasing cloudiness from 1998 would have to be a contender for an important role I would have thought.
Respect
Rog

July 6, 2010 10:22 am

Basil says:
July 6, 2010 at 7:33 am
Now if you think there is some deductive flaw in the theory that justifies rejecting it out of hand, do tell us. Otherwise, it seems as though you are just being glib.
We have discussed this ad nauseam on other threads
Stephen Wilde says:
July 6, 2010 at 7:37 am
The history of science is replete with over confident assertions such as yours which were often maintained for decades in the face of observational evidence to the contrary until eventually the diehards were brought to a realisation of their arrogance.
It seems to me that your assertions are far more confident than mine [“I have something far better”, “logical coherence”, etc], so you may fall victim to the above…

July 6, 2010 10:24 am

tallbloke says:
July 6, 2010 at 9:38 am
Thanks for the more thorough criticism Leif. That’s more useful to me.
You can always count on fair, unbiased, scientifically correct, and useful criticism from me. It is there for the taking.

R. Craigen
July 6, 2010 10:53 am

Steven (Mosher), I think you are overselling the “nothing to see here meme” based on your observations about evil code. Perhaps this is data-massaging code, and perhaps in general its conclusions are worth little or at least subject to great skepticism. However, unless I seriously misunderstand this particular experiment, any “massaging” that happened in this analysis of temperatures was blind — i.e., without reference to the eventually correlated solar data. So, regardless of how much hanky-panky may lie behind the handling of the code, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the correlation revealed is quite genuine. Had the regime-shift analysis permitted intervention related to this outcome I would have been happy to dismiss it outright, but I don’t think that can be done here. If you are right about this particular algorithm, then we should regard this piece as a good argument for a similar analysis to be done by a more robust method. I’d lay good money on the same outcome resulting.
As far as needing a mechanism, this is just silly. Correlation is correlation; either it’s genuine or not. As for causation, in general it’s dubious to draw that conclusion from mere correlation, but in this case we must argue either that the correlation is an enormous coincidence or that there must be an element of causation, whose direction is pretty certain. No mechanism is required for this. A great deal of scientific knowledge about correlated phenomena does not hinge upon knowledge of mechanisms. Psychology, for example, would be void if we required detailed knowledge of all the processes intermediate between fundamental brain chemistry and cognitive states. Nobody could design planes if we required complete solutions to the differential equations describing the mechanisms of turbulence needed in airfoil design. It suffices to know how to correlate controllable variables with outcomes. Knowledge of mechanisms commonly comes long after knowledge of laws concerning the behavior of related variables.

idlex
July 6, 2010 11:03 am

Popped over realclimate to try to get their take. Response was:
Ray Ladbury says:
6 July 2010 at 8:15 AM
idlex, one thing you are missing is that most CO2 molecules relax not by emitting a photon by by colliding with, say a Nitrogen, molecule and imparting the extra energy to that molecule. You can look at this in terms of equipartition. The IR flux from the warmer surface excites much of the CO2–much more than would be excited at thermal equilibrium at the temperature of the atmospheric layer where the photon is absorbed. To move toward equilibrium, the CO2 then has to impart energy to the surrounding gas. Make sense?

And that in turn brought a response:
Gilles says:
6 July 2010 at 11:03 AM

Ray : “The IR flux from the warmer surface excites much of the CO2–much more than would be excited at thermal equilibrium at the temperature of the atmospheric layer where the photon is absorbed.”
actually if the medium is optically thick , the IR flux has a characteristic radiation temperature from the location where it was emitted, that is around one mean free path away. It may be not “much more” if the optical depth is high enough (the order of magnitude is ∆T = l.grad T = grad T .h/tau ) ; it can be a small difference for high tau , but it insures the gradual transfer of heat from one layer to another one. That’s the essence of diffusion approximation.
The fact that the energy of a photon is most often transferred by collisions to other molecules does not really matter, since it means that collisions can also excite molecules that will sometime emit a photon – both process cancel exactly in LTE. In thermal equilibrium, there is no net “heating” in the sense that the atmosphere would gain temperature, the temperature is steady on average everywhere. This is really a transport process, heat flows throughout the atmosphere but without temperature variation. Locally, absorption and emission do cancel exactly : only the DIRECTION of photons is slightly anisotropic : a little bit more photons come from the lower, hotter layers and a little bit less from the upper, colder ones. They are reemitted isotropically, so the budget is slightly positive outwards and negative inwards , but vanishes when integrated on all directions. The net result is a transport outwards.

Stephen Wilde
July 6, 2010 11:05 am

Leif,
You shifted the ground.
“no numbers, no equations, no quantifications” is what you referred to.
“A logical coherence describing and linking varied observations, according with ongoing events and hopefully providing some predictive skill and all without any obvious abuse of the basic laws of physics.” is what I contend is far better.
Though both would be nice in an ideal world but in the absence of data beggars cannot be choosers as Basil points out.
Nonetheless I have said several times that there are lots of ways to falsify my propositions. It’s just that the world is refusing to cooperate in the way you would like (so far at least).
And we have discussed it ad nauseam elsewhere but all that that nausea amounts to is a belief on your part that solar variability cannot possibly affect the upward energy flux from Earth to space.
In my opinion that is not good enough because the temperature of the stratosphere clearly changes cyclically and not in a way that correlates well with changes in energy flux only from below.
Introducing the issue of CFCs and anthropogenic CO2 to explain away that observation and at the same time to blame it on humans is looking weaker the longer we see negative polar oscillations with more equatorward jets, a warming stratosphere (since the late 90s), a quiet sun, increasing albedo and a cessation of global warming (if not yet a clear fall) all happening simultaneously and all being the reverse of the late 20th century trends.
Lots to go wrong there for my hypotheses and when it does I’ll be the first to acknowledge it.
I might try to explain it away though but only if there are reasonable alternative explanations for any diversion from my expectations. I won’t be going for arcane explanations to salvage it.

July 6, 2010 11:07 am

R. Craigen says:
July 6, 2010 at 10:53 am
Correlation is correlation; either it’s genuine or not. As for causation, in general it’s dubious to draw that conclusion from mere correlation, but in this case we must argue either that the correlation is an enormous coincidence or that there must be an element of causation, whose direction is pretty certain.
This hangs on how good the correlation is. If the correlation coefficient [over a sufficiently large number of independent data points – and there are established ways of deciding what is needed] is high enough, e.g. 0.99, then no mechanism is needed a priori [and one has an incentive to go find one]. If the correlation is poor, e.g. 0.5, then you do not have an ‘enormous’ coincidence and without a theory there is not much one can do. With a good theory [e.g. physically viable] a poor correlation can be accepted, just showing that there are other factors at work. But this does not carry over to the case of no mechanism. So, it all depends on the goodness of the correlation and [this is most important] on the number of degrees of freedom.

John Whitman
July 6, 2010 12:16 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
July 6, 2010 at 11:07 am

R. Craigen says:
July 6, 2010 at 10:53 am
Correlation is correlation; either it’s genuine or not. As for causation, in general it’s dubious to draw that conclusion from mere correlation, but in this case we must argue either that the correlation is an enormous coincidence or that there must be an element of causation, whose direction is pretty certain.

This hangs on how good the correlation is. If the correlation coefficient [over a sufficiently large number of independent data points – and there are established ways of deciding what is needed] is high enough, e.g. 0.99, then no mechanism is needed a priori [and one has an incentive to go find one]. If the correlation is poor, e.g. 0.5, then you do not have an ‘enormous’ coincidence and without a theory there is not much one can do. With a good theory [e.g. physically viable] a poor correlation can be accepted, just showing that there are other factors at work. But this does not carry over to the case of no mechanism. So, it all depends on the goodness of the correlation and [this is most important] on the number of degrees of freedom.
—————-
Leif and R. Craigen ,
Ahhhhh, don’t stop at mentioning “number of degrees of freedom!! This looks like a very useful dialog for my continuing effort to understand. Please go on.
John

July 6, 2010 12:20 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
July 6, 2010 at 11:05 am
Leif, You shifted the ground.
Such mutterings are just sophisticated debating technique [you a lawyer, by chance?] and do not bring anything to the table.
“no numbers, no equations, no quantifications” is what you referred to.
“A logical coherence describing and linking varied observations, according with ongoing events and hopefully providing some predictive skill and all without any obvious abuse of the basic laws of physics.” is what I contend is far better.

If your prediction cannot be [or is not] quantified in some way, it cannot be compared with what happens and a skill score cannot be evaluated.
Though both would be nice in an ideal world but in the absence of data beggars cannot be choosers as Basil points out.
In the absence of data you cannot assert anything at all.
It’s just that the world is refusing to cooperate in the way you would like (so far at least).
The ‘world’ will only pay attention to numbers, not to hand waving, no matter how coherent the waver thinks he is.
Introducing the issue of CFCs and anthropogenic CO2 to explain away that observation
Explain ‘away’ is inappropriate as those issues do explain the observations [per my daughter-in-law Signe who knows more about this than you and I combined, http://www.leif.org/EOS/nature04746.pdf or would want to know]. The ‘away’ bit is only if you don’t like the result.

gary gulrud
July 6, 2010 12:21 pm

“The fact that the energy of a photon is most often transferred by collisions to other molecules does not really matter, since it means that collisions can also excite molecules that will sometime emit a photon ”
In a discussion of CO2 I find this a bit of a gloss without mention of the relative emissivities-the warm surface is 1000 times that of CO2, and H2O vapor, twice that of CO2 and, moreover, having a broad spectrum of possible emission frequencies rather than a discrete few.
In sum, CO2 heats the surrounding gas in the presence of IR flux(incoming or outgoing) but at it’s low partial pressure may thereafter be ignored.

July 6, 2010 12:32 pm
Enneagram
July 6, 2010 1:07 pm

Stephen Wilde says:
This is for you:
http://www.rexresearch.com/piccardi/piccardi2.pdf

Maud Kipz
July 6, 2010 1:49 pm

Reinforcing Steven’s earlier comment:

Steven mosher says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:41 am
Alexander.
WRT the algorithm in question. you might take a look at it. I downloaded it a couple years ago and turned some people onto it over at CA. after playing around with it it became clear that I could tune the thing to fit my assumptions. Hint: if he set the cuttoff length at 11 instead of 10 the trick would have been too obvious. By diddling
the noise parameter and the p value you can make all sorts of pretty pictures. […]

The problem with this analysis is that a statistical model that assumes constant regimes is fitted to the HadCRUT3 data which has a long term linear trend (real or “adjusted”, it doesn’t matter). The residual sum-of-squares will always be improved by splitting a region into two smaller regions that are each flatter than the whole. This process will go on until the cutoff is reached. That cutoff is set at 10 years, which is roughly the length of the solar cycles that Alan is trying to align the temperature data to.
A more careful analysis would allow a linear trend within each region (the cause could be changes in TSI, random walk, feedbacks, etc.). I did that analysis. To avoid overfitting, I picked the set of breakpoint locations that minimized BIC. Ignoring the AR1 component that is undeniably there in the climate data, four breakpoints are identified: 1864, 1907, 1945, 1963. Adding in 1 year lagged data to correct for autocorrelation, a single breakpoint is identified: 1963.
Both of these fits, but especially the simpler one, look more faithful to the data than the one that Alan proposes. ANOVA proves that they are both better fits than Alan’s model (p < 0.001). This shouldn't be much of a surprise, since it's easier to fit a trend with one sloped line than with even a bunch of horizontal lines.
As always, the code for my analysis is available. Feel free to criticize, correct, or extend it.

Stephen Wilde
July 6, 2010 2:05 pm

Enneagram :
I don’t think that is for me. Sounds too much like homeopathy.
Leif :
So you aver that at all times the upward energy flux from Earth to space is wholly unaffected by solar variability ?
and that the only source of variations in upward flux is internal Earth system variability ?
and that therefore any temperature changes in the stratosphere are wholly due to changes occurring below with no room at all for such changes being effected or affected by changes occurring above ?
I find that very hard to believe in a universe where everything is in constant motion. Such assertions are extraordinary and require extraordinary evidence. Please supply it.

Maud Kipz
July 6, 2010 2:09 pm

@Enneagram,
From the chapter you posted:

Why is it that natural water drunk at a spring is more effective from a medical point of view than the same water bottled and aged? Why is natural water so different from a medical point of view in spite of the fact that the difference in chemical composition reveals nothing in particular? […] Today we are beginning to speak of changes in the biological properties of water due to the heating and subsequent cooling of the water, which does not return to its previous state from a biological standpoint […]

Why did you post this? It looks like homeopathy quackery.

Stephen Wilde
July 6, 2010 2:21 pm

Leif,
I like Signe’s paper. It appropriately expresses the levels of uncertainty and recognises the natural components in ozone variability. It avoids the normal alarmist contentions that the observed changes were solely or even primarily anthropogenic so she is excluded from my critical comments.
What her paper is notable for is in acknowledging a failure to clearly demonstrate any measurable distinction between ozone depletion or ozone recovery from anthropogenic as compared to natural causes.
Thus the CFC/ozone depletion issue suffers from the same defects that you find so damning against me namely “no numbers, no equations, no quantifications”.
My observation that the observed changes in ozone quantities could have been overwhelmingly from natural causes remains standing as a potential explanation.

Stephen Wilde
July 6, 2010 2:26 pm

Whoops, I should have said no ‘meaningful’ numbers equations or quantifications. There is a lot of numbers but nothing that actually resolves what we need to know namely the relative contributions of all the influences on ozone quantities.

July 6, 2010 3:27 pm

Stephen Wilde: I have come to believe that you intentionally use terms as you see fit, and not as is generally accepted, to confuse those who read your comments and to make it difficult (impossible) for those who wish to debate a topic with you since your understandings, representations, and uses of terms are constantly shifting.
Example: You replied, “I use the term PDO in the general sense that has entered common currency but I am aware of the more restricted definition that you use.”
What does “PDO in the general sense” mean, Stephen? A basin wide phenomenon? The low frequency, multidecadal component of ENSO? The “restricted definition” I use is the one that is accepted, Stephen. Here’s a link to the JISAO definition:
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
Here’s a link to the Wikipedia definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation
Here’s one NOAA webpage that defines it that same way:
http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fed/oeip/ca-pdo.cfm
Please define the way in which you use PDO, and then google scholar “Pacific Decadal Oscillation” and provide links to studies that use it in the same way that you use “PDO in the general sense that has entered common currency”. You’ve got 67oo plus papers to sort through so you should be able to come up with a few.
You wrote, “I propose that the main underlying cause is changes in the winds above the equatorial oceans as they respond to latitudinal shifts in the global air circulation systems as per my hypotheses. Those air circulation shifts being the result of an interplay between oceanic and solar cycles.”
And without data to support your proposal, you’re speculating, which is a nice way of saying you’re guessing.

Maud Kipz
July 6, 2010 3:33 pm

R. Craigen says:
July 6, 2010 at 10:53 am

Steven (Mosher), I think you are overselling the “nothing to see here meme” based on your observations about evil code. […] any “massaging” that happened in this analysis of temperatures was blind […] regardless of how much hanky-panky may lie behind the handling of the code, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the correlation revealed is quite genuine. […] If you are right about this particular algorithm, then we should regard this piece as a good argument for a similar analysis to be done by a more robust method. I’d lay good money on the same outcome resulting.

Steven’s point in his first post is that the choice of algorithm and minimum segment length determine the outcome. A model that thinks segments have constant temperature is going to keep chopping up a temperature record that shows a linear trend, until it is stopped by the cutoff. Alan’s analysis actually stop short of this, but this only happens because 1957–1967 and 1967–1977 happen to have the same means and any other split of 1957–1977 violates the minimum segment length. I don’t (and can’t) deny a solar effect, but I think it mostly fine-tunes where the segment boundaries lie on the scale of one or two years.
The above is just my interpretation, but in an earlier comment I describe the more robust analysis. In summary, the solar correlation disappears. There’s still a lot of room for improvement, using a method that explicitly handles some measure of what the sun is doing.

July 6, 2010 3:35 pm

tallbloke: You replied, “Whatever it is that caused increasing cloudiness from 1998 would have to be a contender for an important role I would have thought.”
Does this mean we’re done arguing? I’m not sure I got my money’s worth.
The ISCCP data is hotly contested, as you’re aware, due to missing data over the Southern Indian Ocean prior to 1998, and due to the influence of volcanic aerosols.
Regards

tallbloke
July 6, 2010 4:41 pm

R. Craigen says:
July 6, 2010 at 10:53 am
Knowledge of mechanisms commonly comes long after knowledge of laws concerning the behavior of related variables.

Ding Ding.
Still true for Newtonian gravity after 400 hundred years. And some of the ‘laws’ around it are pretty much approximate ad hoc mathematical happenstance too.
We have much to learn.

tallbloke
July 6, 2010 4:46 pm

Bob Tisdale says:
July 6, 2010 at 3:35 pm (Edit)
tallbloke: You replied, “Whatever it is that caused increasing cloudiness from 1998 would have to be a contender for an important role I would have thought.”
Does this mean we’re done arguing? I’m not sure I got my money’s worth.
The ISCCP data is hotly contested, as you’re aware, due to missing data over the Southern Indian Ocean prior to 1998, and due to the influence of volcanic aerosols.

I would argue longer, but I took milady out for her birthday dinner and I’m in no fit state.
Palle et al provide an independent take on cloudiness from the end of ’98, but unfortunately, not before. Clever idea, measuring earthshine onto the moon. Not such a good idea partaking of too much of the moonshine on the Earth though… hic.

oneuniverse
July 6, 2010 4:53 pm

Doug S
July 6, 2010 at 9:17 am
Reading through the material I found the General expectation value formula particularly interesting:
[..]
If I understand the basics of this correctly we would expect the energy transfer from CO2 other systems to decrease with altitude in the atmosphere due to decreasing densities. The more important piece of the puzzle is to define the operator function that couples CO2 to other neighboring systems

Doug, it’s not a classical mechanical equation – the operator function is a quantum operator, and the density p refers to density of quantum states.
(This is actually the topic of a historic paper “The Quantum Theory of the Emission and Absorption of Radiation” P. A. M. Dirac 1927)
With respect to CO2, in my understand, as the atmospheric density decreases with altitude, one would expect the number of collisions to decrease, increasing the potential emitting time of excited CO2 molecules before a collision occurs.. Therefore, per photon absorption, the probability of a kinetic transfer, rather than an emissive one, would be expected to decrease.

July 6, 2010 5:18 pm

Stephen Wilde: You wrote, “Nonetheless I have said several times that there are lots of ways to falsify my propositions.”
Please detail the ways in which you believe your conjectures can be falsified.

sky
July 6, 2010 5:30 pm

Heuristic “regime shift” algorithms are a simplistic crutch for those unprepared to do serious physical or phenomenological signal analysis.

July 6, 2010 5:45 pm

Bob Tisdale says (July 6, 3:23 am):
“The assumption you’re making is that the (approx.) 60-year cycle persists back in time beyond the instrument temperature record. Paleoclimatological reconstructions of the AMO suggest it does not”
Thanks for the links Bob. I read the Gray et al 2004 paper you linked to. It states: “We present a tree-ring based reconstruction of the
Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) which demonstrates that strong, low-frequency (60–100 yr) variability in basin-wide (0–70N) sea surface temperatures (SSTs) has been a consistent feature of North Atlantic climate for the past five centuries.”
The paleo reconstruction conducted in that paper uses tree ring proxies from various locations in southeast US, northern and southern Europe and the Middle East, where the temperature data do not match the AMO. Combining these different cycles results in the masking of individual cycles. I don’t think this is a very robust reconstruction of the AMO.
Take a look at pages 52 and 53 here, referencing work by the same authors, where they show the tree ring proxies at several locations in the US (and most of these areas have a strong correlation to the AMO). What you will see is that the 60 year cycle is persistent back to 1600, although it occasionally shifts by 30 years. (And they state: “Strong evidence for multidecadal (30-70 yr) persistence and cross-regional synchrony”)

idlex
July 6, 2010 6:13 pm

P.S. Don’t anybody tell anybody that I visited Realclimate today. Cos I might start losing my Scep Cred.
Ta.

idlex
July 6, 2010 6:26 pm

And, after all the debate, both here and and on Realclimate, I’ve come to the conclusion that my original Photon Football idea is actually a pretty good model. Because the number of photons re-emitted is equal to the number of photons absorbed, even if there’s a bit of bouncy-bouncy in between photon absorptions and emissions.
I’ll start work on it in the morning, if there isn’t any World Cup football to watch.
Unless Leif tells me that Germany aren’t going to win the World Cup…

oneuniverse
July 6, 2010 7:55 pm

gary gulrud
July 6, 2010 at 7:42 am
Gary – some kind of reference or link would be welcome.

July 6, 2010 8:12 pm

There seems to be a misunderstanding of what a regime shift algorithm does.
Maud Kipz (July 6, 1:49pm) says: “The residual sum-of-squares will always be improved by splitting a region into two smaller regions that are each flatter than the whole. This process will go on until the cutoff is reached.”
And (July 6, 3:33pm) ” A model that thinks segments have constant temperature is going to keep chopping up a temperature record that shows a linear trend, until it is stopped by the cutoff.”
A regime shift algorithm is not a linear trend algorithm. See http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/RegimeParams.htm – the last 2 examples show analyses using a cutoff length of 4. The algorithm does not chop it up smaller and smaller as Maud says.
Your (Maud) “more robust” algorithm is a slope-based algorithm (not a regime-based algorithm) – these are two different things. And apparently it missed the slope change at 1878. This figure plots your identified slope change points as well as the 1978 slope change: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/SlopeChange.jpg on the HadCrut3 anomaly data.

Roger Carr
July 6, 2010 8:19 pm

idlex says: (July 6, 2010 at 3:37 am) And since we seem to have more and more of this sort of incomplete “science”, we have more and more true believers in all sorts of things.
A profound observation, idlex; rather stunning in the simplicity of expression used to highlight a great truth which the world would do well to heed and think on.

Doug S