Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. writes about a new paper from Nicola Scafetta.:
A new paper has just appeared
Nicola Scafetta 2011: A shared frequency set between the historical mid-latitude aurora records and the global surface temperature. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics In Press doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2011.10.013
This paper is certainly going to enlarge the debate on the role of natural climate variability and long term change.
The abstract reads [highlight added]
Herein we show that the historical records of mid-latitude auroras from 1700 to 1966 present oscillations with periods of about 9, 10–11, 20–21, 30 and 60 years. The same frequencies are found in proxy and instrumental global surface temperature records since 1650 and 1850, respectively, and in several planetary and solar records. We argue that the aurora records reveal a physical link between climate change and astronomical oscillations. Likely in addition to a Soli-Lunar tidal effect, there exists a planetary modulation of the heliosphere, of the cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth and/or of the electric properties of the ionosphere. The latter, in turn, has the potentiality of modulating the global cloud cover that ultimately drives the climate oscillations through albedo oscillations. In particular, a quasi-60-year large cycle is quite evident since 1650 in all climate and astronomical records herein studied, which also include a historical record of meteorite fall in China from 619 to 1943. These findings support the thesis that climate oscillations have an astronomical origin. We show that a harmonic constituent model based on the major astronomical frequencies revealed in the aurora records and deduced from the natural gravitational oscillations of the solar system is able to forecast with a reasonable accuracy the decadal and multidecadal temperature oscillations from 1950 to 2010 using the temperature data before 1950, and vice versa. The existence of a natural 60-year cyclical modulation of the global surface temperature induced by astronomical mechanisms, by alone, would imply that at least 60–70% of the warming observed since 1970 has been naturally induced. Moreover, the climate may stay approximately stable during the next decades because the 60-year cycle has entered in its cooling phase.
The highlights listed in the announcement of the paper read
► The paper highlights that global climate and aurora records present a common set of frequencies. ► These frequencies can be used to reconstruct climate oscillations within the time scale of 9–100 years. ► An empirical model based on these cycles can reconstruct and forecast climate oscillations. ► Cyclical astronomical physical phenomena regulate climate change through the electrification of the upper atmosphere. ► Climate cycles have an astronomical origin and are regulated by cloud cover oscillations.
========================================================
Dr. Scafetta writes in and attaches the full paper in email to me (Anthony) this week saying:
I can forecast climate with a good proximity. See figure 11. In this new paper the physical link between astronomical oscillations and climate is further confirmed.
What the paper does is to show that the mid-latitude aurora records present the same oscillations of the climate system and of well-identified astronomical cycles. Thus, the origin of the climatic oscillations is astronomical what ever the mechanisms might be.
In the paper I argue that the record of this kind of aurora can be considered a proxy for the electric properties of the atmosphere which then influence the cloud cover and the albedo and, consequently, causes similar cycles in the surface temperature.
Note that aurora may form at middle latitude or if the magnetosphere is weak, so it is not able to efficiently deviate the solar wind, or if the solar explosions (solar flare etc) are particularly energetic, so they break in by force.
During the solar cycle maxima the magnetosphere gets stronger so the aurora should be pushed toward the poles. However, during the solar maxima a lot of solar flares and highly energetic solar explosions occurs. As a consequence you see an increased number of mid-latitude auroras despite the fact that the magnetosphere is stronger and should push them toward the poles.
On the contrary, when the magnetosphere gets weaker on a multidecadal scale, the mid-latitude aurora forms more likely, and you may see some mid-latitude auroras even during the solar minima as Figure 2 shows.
In the paper I argue that what changes the climate is not the auroras per se but the strength of the magnetosphere that regulates the cosmic ray incoming flux which regulate the clouds.
The strength of the magnetosphere is regulated by the sun (whose activity changes in synchrony with the planets), but perhaps the strength of the Earth’s magnetosphere is also regulated directly by the gravitational/magnetic forces of Jupiter and Saturn and the other planets whose gravitational/magnetic tides may stretch or compress the Earth’s magnetosphere in some way making it easier or more difficult for the Earth’s magnetosphere to deviate the cosmic ray.
So, when Jupiter and Saturn get closer to the Sun, they may do the following things: 1) may make the sun more active; 2) the more active sun makes the magnetosphere stronger; 3) Jupiter and Saturn contribute with their magnetic fiend to make stronger the magnetic field of the inner part of the solar system; 4) the Earth’ magnetosphere is made stronger and larger by both the increased solar activity and the gravitational and magnetic stretching of it caused by the Jupiter and Saturn. Consequently less cosmic ray arrive on the Earth and less cloud form and there is an heating of the climate.
However, explaining in details the above mechanisms is not the topic of the paper which is limited to prove that such kind of mechanisms exist because revealed by the auroras’s behavior.
The good news is that even if we do not know the physical nature of these mechanisms, climate may be in part forecast in the same way as the tides are currently forecast by using geometrical astronomical considerations as I show in Figure 11.
The above point is very important. When trying to predict the tides people were arguing that there was the need to solve the Newtonian Equation of the tides and the other physical equations of fluid-dynamics etc. Of course, nobody was able to do that because of the enormous numerical and theoretical difficulty. Today nobody dreams to use GCMs to predict accurately the tides. To overcome the issue Lord Kelvin argued that it is useless to use the Newtonian mechanics or whatever other physical law to solve the problem. What was important was only to know that a link in some way existed, even if not understood in details. On the basis of this, Lord Kelvin proposed an harmonic constituent model for tidal prediction based on astronomical cycles. And Kelvin method is currently the only method that works for predicting the tides. Look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide-predicting_machine
Figure 11 is important because it shows for the first time that climate can be forecast based on astronomical harmonics with a good accuracy. I use a methodology similar to Kelvin’s one and calibrate the model from 1850 to 1950 and I show that the model predicts the climate oscillations from 1950 to 2010, and I show also that the vice-versa is possible.
Of course the proposed harmonic model may be greatly improved with additional harmonics. In comparison the ocean tides are predicted with 35-40 harmonics.
But this does not change the results of the paper that is: 1) a clearer evidence that a physical link between the oscillations of the solar system and the climate exists, as revealed by the auroras’ behavior; 2) this finding justifies the harmonic modeling and forecast of the climate based on astronomical cycles associated to the Sun, the Moon and the Planets.
So, it is also important to understand Kelvin’s argument to fully understand my paper.
…
This work is the natural continuation of my previous work on the topic.
Nicola Scafetta. Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate
oscillations and its implications. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics Volume 72, Issue 13, August 2010, Pages 951-970
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682610001495
Abstract
We investigate whether or not the decadal and multi-decadal climate
oscillations have an astronomical origin. Several global surface temperature
records since 1850 and records deduced from the orbits of the planets
present very similar power spectra. Eleven frequencies with period between 5
and 100 years closely correspond in the two records. Among them, large
climate oscillations with peak-to-trough amplitude of about 0.1 and 0.25°C,
and periods of about 20 and 60 years, respectively, are synchronized to the
orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn. Schwabe and Hale solar cycles are
also visible in the temperature records. A 9.1-year cycle is synchronized to
the Moon’s orbital cycles. A phenomenological model based on these
astronomical cycles can be used to well reconstruct the temperature
oscillations since 1850 and to make partial forecasts for the 21st century.
It is found that at least 60% of the global warming observed since 1970 has
been induced by the combined effect of the above natural climate
oscillations. The partial forecast indicates that climate may stabilize or
cool until 2030–2040. Possible physical mechanisms are qualitatively
discussed with an emphasis on the phenomenon of collective synchronization
of coupled oscillators.
=======================================================
The claims here are pretty bold, and I’ll be frank and say I can’t tell the difference between this and some of the cycl0-mania calculation papers that have been sent to me over the last few years. OTOH, Basil Copeland and I looked at some of the effects of luni-solar on global temperature previously here at WUWT.
While the hindcast seems impressive, a real test would be a series of repeated and proven short-term future forecasts. Time will tell.
Leif, thank you for the links!
“Your response may not survive peer-review. And in any case, TSI has nothing to do with the matter at hand, which is the poor quality of your paper.”
Do not be so unfair.
On the contrary, if a referee will claim that your comment should not be published, I will ask the editor to publish it in any case, together with the referee comment, of course.
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 17, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Do not be so unfair.
Fairness has nothing to do with the poor quality of your paper, which stands or falls on its own merit or demerit.
On the contrary, if a referee will claim that your comment should not be published, I will ask the editor to publish it in any case, together with the referee comment, of course.
Such requests are usually not granted and you may want to avoid further embarrassment and damage to your reputation.
Leif, you are very sure of yourself in everything, don’t you?
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 17, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Leif, you are very sure of yourself in everything, don’t you?
Only about things I’m an expert on, such as aurorae, the sun, and geomagnetic activity.
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 17, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Leif, you are very sure of yourself in everything, don’t you?
Only about things I’m an expert on, such as aurorae, the sun, and geomagnetic activity.
Talking about expertise, you may be interested in this announcement
http://www.japaninfoswap.com/blog/index.php?/archives/405-guid.html
You might even sign up to learn something.
Leif,
I gave a look at the workshop in Japan.
I did not know that you are an expert in solar-climate relations. You have never published anything in the field. What are you going to say? Are you going to talk about your advanced and revolutionary TSI model?
I gave a look at your TSI reconstruction
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20(Reconstructions).txt
It appears that according to you the TSI was almost flat from 1700 and 2000. However in 2007.5 it had a huge decrease at 1365.35 W/m^2 that makes your TSI in 2007.5 far the lowest point since the Maunder Minimum in 1700 when TSI was far higher at 1365.47 W/m^2
Are you absolutely sure that your TSI is correct?
See, if you would like that I come to the workshop you need to ask them to reimbourse all expenses for the trip or you may kindly offer to pay.
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 18, 2011 at 4:03 pm
What are you going to say? Are you going to talk about your advanced and revolutionary TSI model?
Other people, e.g. Schrijver et al. have signed on to that, so I don’t need to do this. My talking point will be that at any solar minimum the Sun relaxes to the same state [ignoring the residual effect of a few sunspots] with the same magnetic field, the same TSI, the same cosmic ray modulation. You can learn more here: http://www.leif.org/research/Historical%20Solar%20Cycle%20Context.pdf or here http://www.leif.org/research/IAUS286-Mendoza-Svalgaard.pdf or here http://www.leif.org/research/GC31B-0351-F2007.pdf [this was the poster just next to yours]
It appears that according to you the TSI was almost flat from 1700 and 2000. However in 2007.5 it had a huge decrease at 1365.35 W/m^2 that makes your TSI in 2007.5 far the lowest point since the Maunder Minimum in 1700 when TSI was far higher at 1365.47 W/m^2
I have no idea what you are talking about. My reconstruction stopped in 2007 with a value only a tenth of a Watt different than in 1700. You are incoherent. ‘Far higher’? A tenth of a Watt…. Huge decrease?
See, if you would like that I come to the workshop you need to ask them to reimbourse all expenses for the trip or you may kindly offer to pay.
Everybody pays for themselves as is normal for scientific conferences. Did LASP pay for you to come to Sedona?
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 18, 2011 at 4:03 pm
I did not know that you are an expert in solar-climate relations. You have never published anything in the field.
Climate is the average weather over a long interval, say 20-30 years. Back in the 1970s I was co-author of a series of papers in Science, Nature, and other prestigious journals that revived the Sun-Weather-Climate field. The specific effect was called the Vorticity-Area-Index Effect. See e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/255539a0.pdf and http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/280845a0.pdf and many others, too numerous to mention. Some papers by others who were inspired by our findings include http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/255539a0.pdf and http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/275200b0.pdf and many others. Unfortunately, the effect proved spurious as all sun-weather-climate effects eventually do, and the excitement and the numerous conferences flowing from that eventually died. Brian Tinsley still believes the effect is real. Markson had some ideas about influences on atmospheric electricity http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/273103a0.pdf and so on. The original discovery papers can be found on ADS: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973Sci…180..185W http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974JAtS…31..581W and http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979Sci…204…60W
BTW, one of other authors was Walter Orr Roberts, the founder of NCAR. I worked with him at NCAR for a time in 1973-74. I have a background in Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, having studied and worked at the Danish Meteorological Institute in the 1960s. So, I do know what I’m talking about. More homework you should have done.
Leif,
“It appears that according to you the TSI was almost flat from 1700 and 2000. However in 2007.5 it had a huge decrease at 1365.35 W/m^2 that makes your TSI in 2007.5 far the lowest point since the Maunder Minimum in 1700 when TSI was far higher at 1365.47 W/m^2
I have no idea what you are talking about. My reconstruction stopped in 2007 with a value only a tenth of a Watt different than in 1700. You are incoherent. ‘Far higher’? A tenth of a Watt…. Huge decrease?”
Sorry Leif, that is exactly what I said. In 1700 your TSI 1365.47 W/m^2 and in 2007.5 it was 1365.35 W/m^2
The difference was 0.12 W/m^2 with the value in 2007 below the value during the Maunder minimum.
The 0.12 W/m^2 difference cooling in 2007 is a huge change considering that your TSI is practically flat and always above 1365.47 before 2000
Leif, you have said above “So, I do know what I’m talking about.”
Yes, I do agree with you. 🙂
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 18, 2011 at 5:55 pm
Sorry Leif, that is exactly what I said. In 1700 your TSI 1365.47 W/m^2 and in 2007.5 it was 1365.35 W/m^2. The difference was 0.12 W/m^2 with the value in 2007 below the value during the Maunder minimum.
The 0.12 W/m^2 difference cooling in 2007 is a huge change considering that your TSI is practically flat and always above 1365.47 before 2000
Not only should you have done more homework, you also need a course in arithmetic. Firstly, 1700 is coming out of the Maunder Minimum [SSN=5], not in the depth of it [SSN=0]. Secondly, 0.12 W/m2 is less than one tenth of the solar cycle variation, so it is not huge. If the solar cycle variation due to TSI is, say 0.15K [which I think is twice the actual value, but I’ll throw you that bone], then the cooling due to 0.12 W/m2, would be 0.01K, not particularly huge. Thirdly, TSI is not flat, it has a 1.5 W/m2 solar cycle variation. No huge changes anywhere. Fourthly, the uncertainty on any reconstruction is certainly more than 0.1 W/m2 anyway. E.g. even the ‘observed’ ACRIM TSI is wrong by up to 0.5 W/m2 at times. And PMOD is off by 0.25 W/m2 [talking into account the constant difference of 4.5 W/m2] due to the precision aperture not being in the optimal place, and the erroneous assumption that a non-exposed radiometer does not degrade, among other factors.
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 18, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Leif, you have said above “So, I do know what I’m talking about.”
Yes, I do agree with you. 🙂
You just didn’t know it. Now you do.
See, Leif.
You need to explain the LIA and the MWP and the other climatic patterns. There is no way to get those temperatures with your flat TSI which would imply mumtidecadal and secular temperature changes of the order of 0.01 K, as you say.
So, I would say that your TSI reconstruction is by far the less realistic TSI reconstruction proposed in the scientific litterature.
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 18, 2011 at 7:30 pm
You need to explain the LIA and the MWP and the other climatic patterns. There is no way to get those temperatures with your flat TSI which would imply mumtidecadal and secular temperature changes of the order of 0.01 K, as you say.
The Sun has nothing to do with this. That is the obvious conclusion, see: http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
So, I would say that your TSI reconstruction is by far the less realistic TSI reconstruction proposed in the scientific literature.
The literature is full of wrong reconstructions, starting with Hoyt and Schatten’s, then Lean 2000, Wang, Krivova, etc. Note that all of those have slowly ‘flattened’ out with time, see http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-recon3.png culminatin=g with mine and with Preminger’s and Schrijver et al. The usual riposte to this is that people say it is not TSI, but magnetic field, cosmic rays, UV, planets, Unknown unknowns, etc in heir panic and desperation to invoke the sun after all. By saying ‘realistic’ you are assuming what you want to show, thus using a circular argument.
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 18, 2011 at 4:03 pm
What are you going to say?
Here is the Abstract I have submitted [I may change it at any time]
Title: ‘The long-term variation of solar activity’
Abstract:
In his famous paper on the Maunder Minimum, Eddy (1976) conclusively demonstrated that the Sun is a variable star on long time scales. Lockwood et al. (1999) provided further insight to the nature of such long-term change by using geomagnetic activity indices to show that the Sun’s open magnetic flux underwent significant – factor of two – changes during the course of the last century. The Lockwood et al. study reinvigorated the field of long-term solar variability and brought space data into play on the topic. After a decade of vigorous research based on cosmic ray and sunspot data as well as the geomagnetic activity however, an emerging consensus reconstruction of solar wind magnetic field strength has been forged for the last century. This is a significant development because, individually, each method has uncertainties introduced by instrument calibration drifts, limited numbers of observatories, and the strength of the correlations
employed. The consensus reconstruction shows reasonable agreement among the various reconstructions of solar wind magnetic field the past100 years. New magnetic indices open further possibilities for the exploitation of historic data. Reassessment of the sunspot series and new reconstructions of solar Total Irradiance also contribute to our improved knowledge (or at least best guess) of the environment of the Earth System, with obvious implications for climate debate and management of space-based technological assets.
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 18, 2011 at 4:03 pm
What are you going to say?
Here is an overview of current thinking, problems, wishes, and confusion: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Discussion_20111007_Schrijver.pdf
“The literature is full of wrong reconstructions, starting with Hoyt and Schatten’s, then Lean 2000, Wang, Krivova, etc.”
It does not appear to be very difficult to add “Svalgaard” to that long list. 🙂
So, you are going to say that the sun does not have any influence on the climate, because its variability according to your “flat-sun” model would imply changes on the secular scale of just 0.01 K. And that the TSI in the minimum in 2007 was at its lowest minimum since 1700 “far” below the minimum in 1700 (during the Maunder minimum) and during the minima of the Dalton minimum. Right?
However, you have missed to make the above important and extraordinary finding explicit in your abstract, although.
I suspect that if your TSI model is correct, the only way to explain climate changes, then, is to stress at the maximum a direct planetary influence about which I also talk in my paper as an extreme hypothesis 🙂
So, why don’t you offer to pay the travel for me so that I can come?
Or you may suggest them to invite me.
I am not joking, Leif. I really do not have your economical resources. Be nice for once.
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 19, 2011 at 5:35 am
“The literature is full of wrong reconstructions, starting with Hoyt and Schatten’s, then Lean 2000, Wang, Krivova, etc.”
It does not appear to be very difficult to add “Svalgaard” to that long list. 🙂
You will have noticed that they all are converging on mine.
And that the TSI in the minimum in 2007 was at its lowest minimum since 1700 “far” below the minimum in 1700 (during the Maunder minimum) and during the minima of the Dalton minimum. Right?
Except that the 1700 values is not far below 2007 [or 2008] and 1700 is not ‘during’ the Maunder minimum. The correct statement is that at all minima, TSI has the same value [subject to minor fluctuations caused by residual sunspots]. The direct observed values since 1978 bears this out, now that PMOD has been shown not to be any lower than during 1996. Your ‘far below’ is just nonsense, not worthy of a serious scientist.
However, you have missed to make the above important and extraordinary finding explicit in your abstract, although.
was implicit in “new reconstructions of solar Total Irradiance”. We have been saying this for years now and the community is taking notice.
I suspect that if your TSI model is correct, the only way to explain climate changes, then, is to stress at the maximum a direct planetary influence about which I also talk in my paper as an extreme hypothesis 🙂
Not at all. Any sufficiently complex system undergoes random, internal fluctuations, see e.g. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/ELIS-complexity.pdf
Note that Judith Lean points out that long-term changes in TSI have not been detected and doubts that they occur. I grant that this is controversial, which is why we are having workshops to address those issues: http://www.leif.org/research/Svalgaard_ISSI_Proposal_Base.pdf
So, why don’t you offer to pay the travel for me so that I can come? Or you may suggest them to invite me
I don’t think you can bring anything of value to the workshop, so it will be hard to justify an invitation. But, you could make an effort yourself [$2000 is a small price to pay] to further your education in Sun-Climate relations.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 18, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 18, 2011 at 4:03 pm
What are you going to say?
Here is an overview of current thinking, problems, wishes, and confusion: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Discussion_20111007_Schrijver.pdf
~
What a mess..
Question..hmm somewhat related..
What affect do thunder storms have on geomagnetic indices?
See article below
NASA’s Fermi Catches Thunderstorms Hurling Antimatter into Space
01.10.11
..”Even though Fermi couldn’t see the storm, the spacecraft nevertheless was magnetically connected to it,” said Joseph Dwyer at the Florida Institute of Technology in Melbourne, Fla. “The TGF produced high-speed electrons and positrons, which then rode up Earth’s magnetic field to strike the spacecraft.”
The beam continued past Fermi, reached a location, known as a mirror point, where its motion was reversed, and then hit the spacecraft a second time just 23 milliseconds later. Each time, positrons in the beam collided with electrons in the spacecraft. The particles annihilated each other, emitting gamma rays detected by Fermi’s GBM..
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/fermi-thunderstorms.html
Carla says:
December 19, 2011 at 6:45 am
What a mess..
The Frontier always is
What affect do thunder storms have on geomagnetic indices?
None.
Carla says:
December 19, 2011 at 6:45 am
What affect do thunder storms have on geomagnetic indices?
None, but the travel of waves caused by lightning along the field lines has been known for almost a century:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistler_(radio)
Carla says:
December 19, 2011 at 6:45 am
What affect do thunder storms have on geomagnetic indices?
None, unless the magnetometer or the observer is struck by lightning 🙂
At any given time there is about 1800 thunderstorms going on.
“You will have noticed that they all are converging on mine.”
not really, none of them agrees with you. Moreover Shapiro is proposing the opposite of what you claim. See here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/new-solar-reconstruction-paper-suggests-6x-tsi-change-than-cited-by-the-ipcc/
Leif, your model does not explain absolutely anything by your own admission. Carla is right: what a mess you are going to say in Japan!
Solving a physical problem with a statement such as “Any sufficiently complex system undergoes random, internal fluctuations” proves only that your model does not explain anything and that you have no clue of what you are saying or of the phenomena under study.
Lean’s model contains a naive error of physics as I pointed out many times. Essentially she claims that the climate responds linearly to the forcings, which is clearly false, so she does not get the appropriate trendings. You need to read my papers to educate yourself. For example
N. Scafetta, “Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change,” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 71 1916–1923 (2009), doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2009.07.007.
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/ATP2998.pdf
Nicola Scafetta and Bruce J. West, ‘‘Reply to comments by J. Lean on “Estimated solar contribution to the global surface warming using the ACRIM TSI satellite composite”, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, doi:10.1029/2006GL025668. (2006).
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2006GL025668.pdf
So, are you going to offer the 2000$ for my trip to Japan?
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 19, 2011 at 8:03 am
not really, none of them agrees with you. Moreover Shapiro is proposing the opposite of what you claim.
Of course one would not expect perfect agreement. What is important is that they are converging to a flatter curve. The Shapiro proposal has not found general acceptance and has many problems as we shall discuss. The biggest being that half of the change has taken place since 1900, and we know that the Sun’s magnetic field and UV emission back then is just what it is today.
Leif, your model does not explain absolutely anything by your own admission.
Because there is nothing to explain. The Sun does not modulate the climate.
Solving a physical problem with a statement such as “Any sufficiently complex system undergoes random, internal fluctuations” proves only that your model does not explain anything and that you have no clue of what you are saying or of the phenomena under study.
Because there is nothing to explain.
Lean’s model contains a naive error of physics as I pointed out many times. Essentially she claims that the climate responds linearly to the forcings, which is clearly false, so she does not get the appropriate trendings.
The climate response is irrelevant for TSI reconstruction. Using the forcing would be circular reasoning. As you are doing in the papers you cite.
So, are you going to offer the 2000$ for my trip to Japan?
No, as you do not bring anything of value to the discussion.
Leif,
as you have clearly stated you think that the sun has “zero” effect on the climate and there is “nothing to explain” in any case. So, your point of view is that workshops like that you will be attending, which would like to address solar-climate influences, are totally useless and just a waste of time and money.
Don’t you think that such your position is quite extremist with so many other people thinking otherwise? Not even the IPCC is so extremist like you.
A discussion implies people with different ideas that compare the alternative theories in their capability of interpreting reality. So, you should promote people with different ideas instead of promoting only yourself and people (very few indeed) who think like you.
Whether or not my contribution will be of value, should be decided by the scientific community, don’t you think?
So, by offering the 2000$ for my trip who will give a very good example of open mind. So that even if your theories will be found to be unlikely, people there might still thank you for having allowed my partecipation. I may update my talk given in Japan last year invited by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.
About circular reasoning, please note that your reasoning is based on the assumption that TSI variations are implicit in the solar magnetic field alone, which may not be the case.
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 19, 2011 at 10:19 am
as you have clearly stated you think that the sun has “zero” effect on the climate and there is “nothing to explain” in any case. So, your point of view is that workshops like that you will be attending, which would like to address solar-climate influences, are totally useless and just a waste of time and money.
No, it is not useless to discuss the issues. And there are people [e.g. Svensmark] with a different opinion.
Don’t you think that such your position is quite extremist with so many other people thinking otherwise? Not even the IPCC is so extremist like you.
You have to go where the data takes you, like it or not. Your argument is like saying that smoking is healthy because millions of people smoke.
A discussion implies people with different ideas that compare the alternative theories in their capability of interpreting reality. So, you should promote people with different ideas instead of promoting only yourself and people (very few indeed) who think like you.
That is why some of those people are represented. Now, there are some people who are so much on the fringe that it is not worth considering them. You will note that in the Japan Workshop, the SSN workshop, and the ISSI workshop, all relevant and valid views are represented.
Whether or not my contribution will be of value, should be decided by the scientific community, don’t you think?
No, some vetting up front is always done. E.g. by editors and conference organizers. And the scientific community generally takes a rather dim view of what you are peddling.
So, by offering the 2000$ for my trip who will give a very good example of open mind.
I do not have an open mind because the data are such a hard constraint that one does not the luxury to disregard them on the pretext of open-mindedness.
So that even if your theories will be found to be unlikely, people there might still thank you for having allowed my participation.
Only if you could contribute something of value, which I don’t think you can, so people would blame me for diluting the discussion with fluff.
I may update my talk given in Japan last year invited by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.
We do not need a rehash of old, tired talks. And it is not my decision whom to invite. Anybody is free to register to attend.
About circular reasoning, please note that your reasoning is based on the assumption that TSI variations are implicit in the solar magnetic field alone, which may not be the case.
The 0.1% variation of TSI depends on the magnetic field as evidenced by the very close fit of observed TSI to observed magnetic activity, the remaining 99.9% does not. Since the energy generated in the core takes ~250,000 years to diffuse out through the radiative zone, variations of a time scale much shorter than that are completely washed out. And as I pointed out no variations yet have been observed. To say that in order to explain the climate variations we see, TSI must vary accordingly is the circular reasoning you employ in your papers.