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 Svalgaard says:
December 21, 2011 at 12:21 pm
[Nicola Scafetta says: December 21, 2011 at 12:06 pm]
My reconstruction is admittedly crude. The much more accurate ones by Kopp and Lean, Chapman, Preminger, Krivova, and Ulrich show no differences. ACRIM is simply not good enough be base any conclusions about climate on, which makes moot all your papers on that.
At the time of my reconstruction [~2007] most scientists thought that the sun’s open flux was a proxy for the ‘background field’ which was also thought to be a proxy [at least in part] of TSI. So my reconstruction was a mixture of sunspot [i.e. facular] data and open flux [on the declining branch], as you can see here:
http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-TSI-Reconstruction.png
Since the HMF went down a lot at the end of SC23, so would TSI. Explaining the too low value for 2007.
This assumption was likely premature [if not wrong]. Improved measurements by SORCE/TIM showed that the open flux has little to do with TSI, rather [as also found by Ulrich and Chapman] the surface magnetic field [sunspots, faculae, network] is the determining factor [explaining 92% of the TSI variation]. This means that at all minima [when solar activity disappears] TSI would be the same. This would also apply to the Maunder Minimum and other Grand Minima.
M.A.Vukcevic says:
December 21, 2011 at 12:40 pm
– Global warming extreme.
– Two scientists lost in a time warp.
These questions are actually important. That Nicola just trashes around driven by his agenda does not detract from the impact of resolution of the issues.
Leif, I do not have any agenda.
I simply interpret the data that we have, and in my opinion the data despite their errors point toward a larger secular variability of the TSI and solar activity in general than your model suggest.
I am quite uncomfortable with your TSI model that shows a larger trending variability during the last two decades than during the period 1700-1990. In 2007 your TSI is below the minimum in 1700 and below the minima of the Dalton minima. This is very unlikely.
“At all minima TSI would be the same”. This is a too strong assumption in contraddiction with the Berillium records and numerous other records etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Activity_Proxies.png
The data do not show that TSI minima are all the same. Very likely TSI presents a secular trending up to 1 W/m^2 .
You must interpret the MWP and LIA and current Warm period, which your solar model would not be able to interpret.
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 21, 2011 at 8:01 pm
I simply interpret the data that we have, and in my opinion the data despite their errors point toward a larger secular variability of the TSI and solar activity in general than your model suggest.
You are looking at the data set with the worst stability and the largest errors, so no wonder your results are unreliable.
I am quite uncomfortable with your TSI model that shows a larger trending variability during the last two decades than during the period 1700-1990. In 2007 your TSI is below the minimum in 1700 and below the minima of the Dalton minima. This is very unlikely.
I have explained that the 2007 point probably is in error, so that should make you more comfortable. And as you correctly pointed out earlier, but have forgotten now, two decades are two short to determine a trend. And it is really not my model. See e.g. Scrijver et al. http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf The issue is whether there are long-term trends over and above solar activity and none have been observed and on theoretical grounds none is expected.
The data do not show that TSI minima are all the same. Very likely TSI presents a secular trending up to 1 W/m^2 .
You do not specify over which time period,but I’ll assume you mean since the Maunder Minimum and are talking about the values at minimum. There is no evidence for such a trend at all. On the contrary, there is good evidence for no change at minima. If we assume that during the Maunder Minimum, TSI was stuck at its minimum value, then the average over the 70 years would be about 1 W/m2 lower than the average over the last 30 years [for which we have actual data]. This is 0.07% and would result in a temperature change of 1/4 of that or 0.02% which of T=289K would mean deltaT=0.05K. Even if you double that [as some would like to do because of unspecified ‘feedback’] you would still have only a 0.1K change. This I can live with.
“At all minima TSI would be the same”. This is a too strong assumption in contradiction with the Berylium records and numerous other records etc
The data leads us to that conclusion. The cosmic ray record has calibration problems which we’ll address at the ISSI workshop. As Webber and Higbie point out http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.2675.pdf “We have made other tests of the correspondence between the 10Be predictions and the ice core measurements which lead to the same conclusion, namely that other influences on the ice core measurements, as large as or larger than the production changes themselves, are occurring. These influences could be climatic or instrumentally based” and “Indeed this implies that more than 50% of the 10Be flux increase around, e.g., 1700 A.D., 1810 A.D. and 1895 A.D. is due to non-production related increases!”
One of the problems in the interpretation of the cosmic ray record is the concept of the ‘modulation potential’. This concept was defined in the 1960s under the assumption that the heliosphere was spherically symmetric, which today we know is invalid for low solar activity.
You must interpret the MWP and LIA and current Warm period, which your solar model would not be able to interpret.
Of course not, because it is a myth that the large changes during these periods are due to solar changes. But some people like to believe in comfortable myths. If you take a good look at slide 20 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf you can convince yourself that there is no correlation between Loehle’s temperature reconstruction and Steinhilber’s TSI reconstruction over the past 2000 years. You can find wiggles that correspond, but you can find as many that do not.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 21, 2011 at 9:20 pm
If we assume that during the Maunder Minimum, TSI was stuck at its minimum value
This may actually be a bad assumption, see e.g.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004-Berggren.pdf
“[16] In conclusion, our 10Be data from NGRIP provides a new archive that is strongly needed for identifying temporal and spatial variability of 10Be deposition over Greenland, thereby enabling more accurate solar activity reconstructions. Comparison over several centuries of our data with earlier data from Dye-3 indicates that despite the existence of local noise and some differences prior to the mid-16th century, the regional nature of the 10Be signal in ice cores is confirmed. The good long-term agreement between 10Be variations in both cores reflects a regional response to production and climate changes, but the disagreements in the earlier parts of the two records suggest that 10Be should be measured in ice cores from locations with non-complex ice flow regimes. 10 Be deposition is anti-correlated to solar activity over the 11-year Schwabe solar cycle, and correlated to neutron monitor data. Periodicity in 10 Be during the Maunder minimum reconfirms that the solar dynamo retains cyclic behavior even during grand solar minima. We observe that although recent 10Be flux in NGRIP is low, there is no indication of unusually high recent solar activity in relation to other parts of the investigated period.”
Webber & Higbie [loc cit] concludes:
“When the first detailed 10Be measurements from polar ice cores were reported (e.g., Beer,
et al., 1990) there was the hope that this ice core data could provide a “monitor” of past solar activity as it effects cosmic ray intensities incident on the Earth, in much the same way as neutron monitors are used to monitor this solar activity in the modern era (Beer, 2000). This “concept” with its 1:1 correspondence between 10Be production and 10Be in ice cores, has since been used extensively to interpret historical 10Be ice core data in terms of changes in heliospheric conditions and their effect on cosmic ray intensities incident on the Earth. Our results show that, given our current understanding (or lack of it) of the correspondence between 10Be production, sunspot numbers and the 10Be observed in ice cores,this is really not a reliable “concept” to use for historical extrapolation. The sunspot number itself remains the best indicator of cyclic (11 year) solar activity after ~1700 A.D.”
Leif,
all your arguments are based on hypotheses that were considered unlikely yesterday and that tomorrow may be rejected as well. All your simplistic theories assume a constant core activity, for example. If the core varies by only 0.1 W/m^2 it would have huge effects on the convective zone.
About the agreemet between the climate record and the solar records you need to study my papers, the papers referenced there and my booklet:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_change_cause.pdf
Read section 4 and look at figure 6 for the reconstruction of the climate patterns via all forcings since the MWP. You need also to give a look at page 32, 33, 34 and the other pages as well.
You analysis in your presentation is so so. It does not discuss the error in the proxy and you pick up only those proxy models that may presents problems without discussing the problems that they contain. For example, you do not understand that paleoclimatic reconstructions before 1000AD are very poor and need to be careful discussed. You just point to some disagreement without careful analysis and conclude that innumerable studies pointing toward a strong solar-climate interactions are miths
Your way of arguing is ideological and superficial, it is not a genuine way to study nature.
Your way of arguing is oversemplistic and you are just disregarding a huge litterature more or less as Mann’s Hochey Stick reconstruction disregarded a huge litterature about the existence of MWP and LIA. So, your model is unlikely.
Your model does not explain anything in the same way Mann’s Hochey Stick temperature reconstruction did not explain anything. It just mixed things randomly. It was just a tool for supporting the IPCC AGW theory, and that it is why it was promoted in our days often by abusing the peer review process for not letting alternative theories and models to be published and to develop. And this dishonesty and abuses exist also in solar physics, as you know very well.
Wait, and you will see that the things will change soon. In the history of science, simplistic theories that do not explain anything are always rejected before or later, do not worry.
“This is 0.07% and would result in a temperature change of 1/4 of that or 0.02% which of T=289K would mean deltaT=0.05K. ”
You do not understand how the cloud system work, don’t you? The real effect is 10 times that, at least. Read my paper with an open mind, the calculations are reported and are very clear. Read section 7 with an open mind and with some honesty.
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 22, 2011 at 8:18 am
All your simplistic theories assume a constant core activity, for example. If the core varies by only 0.1 W/m^2 it would have huge effects on the convective zone.
Any variations in the core will be washed out on a time scale less than the diffusion time through the radiative interior.
About the agreemet between the climate record and the solar records you need to study my papers
Since all of those hangs on a flawed TSI, the ‘findings’ will not matter.
It does not discuss the error in the proxy
Nobody knows what the errors in any proxy are, and most people [incl. you] don’t know what the errors in direct measurements are. Only this year did Willson acknowledge some of the problems with ACRIM.
and you pick up only those proxy models that may presents problems without discussing the problems that they contain
My proxy stands on its own and does not rely on or use any other, so the problems other proxies may have are of little concern. I picked up ACRIM [is one on my list], what problems do you advocate ACRIM has, so it shouldn’t be on my list?
conclude that innumerable studies pointing toward a strong solar-climate interactions are myths
especially yours as it builds on problematic data and unfounded assumptions.
just disregarding a huge literature
most of which is junk
Your model does not explain anything
1: it is not my model, it is also that of Kopp, Lean, Chapman, Schrijver, etc
2: there is no need to explain as there is no large effect to be explained.
And this dishonesty and abuses exist also in solar physics, as you know very well.
Rigorous review is always needed to weed out sub-standard papers. The authors of such papers always cry foul, as you know very well.
simplistic theories that do not explain anything are always rejected before or later
As Mark Twain said: “it is not what you know that gets you into trouble, but what you know that ain’t” . And I have no theory on this. Observations show that TSI does not vary between minima, so any reconstruction that assumes that it does must be discarded. This was explained very clearly by Lean. I do not engage in theorizing on this, just in getting the data right.
“deltaT=0.05K. ”
The real effect is 10 times that at least
If so, the solar cycle effect every 11 years should be 1K at least, which is isn’t.
Read my paper with an open mind
No mind, no matter how open, can find the paper of value as it builds on discredited data. Your mind shouldn’t be so open that the brain falls out…
Have you considered that both of you may be wrong.
Forget the TSI, follow the magnetic indices.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-GMF.htm
My paper is nearly ready, on line after Christmas.
M.A.Vukcevic says:
December 22, 2011 at 10:18 am
Have you considered that both of you may be wrong.
Forget the TSI, follow the magnetic indices.
Nice example of curve fitting. You show strong AGW-effect(? or UHI?) after 1990.
The magnetic indices also follow TSI to an accuracy at least as good as your curve fitting,
e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-vs-HMF.png so you cannot separate the two.
Leif,
a scientific discussion requires the honesty of understanding and not twisting the position and the argument of an interlocutor. Unfortunately, you do not seem to have such an intellectual honesty and continuously twist things to mislead the readers of this blog. People who are really interested in understand things will read the relevant papers with an open mind.
Do not worry. Nobody, at the end, will believe your theory that does not explain anything.
You essentially claim that everybody that disagree with your position is wrong. And your position are based on a solar model that you yourself have declared to be simplistic. We will see.
Well, Leif, Merry Christmas!
Vukcevic, please send your paper to a scientific journal!
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 22, 2011 at 11:58 am
a scientific discussion requires the honesty
You use that word a lot. I take offense to being described as dishonest. Perhaps you should wash your mouth out with soap.
You essentially claim that everybody that disagree with your position is wrong.
Goes both ways, methinks. Since you disagree with me, you must think I’m right, following your logic here.
And your position are based on a solar model that you yourself have declared to be simplistic.
Simple is not the same as simplistic. A simple argument shows the essential point. The simplicity comes from not assuming a secularly varying background for which there is no evidence. Kopp, Lean, Chapman, Schrijver et al seem to agree with me here. Actually, this plot shows the crux of the argument in a nutshell: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-vs-HMF.png
We will see
Even when we see, I have a feeling that you will not change your [open] mind, but rather blame the data or the dishonest scientists that produce said data.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 22, 2011 at 11:12 am
…..
All data, except the CET of course, are from your files, so you should be able to reproduce it easily. The fact that TSI follows GMF indices is not disputed, it is also fact that the TSI and GMF indices (directly or Svensmark) are insufficient to swing the temperatures to excess of 1-1.5 degree C. There is also fact that the temperature on occasions disconnects from GMF as well as precedes it. The 10Be records (GISP, NGRIP & Dye data) are far too unreliable.
Only natural force capable of the effect is the NAP
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP-SSN.htm
Post 1990 isn’t the AGW or the UHI, it is something for you scientists to work out why geomagnetic indices would drop down long before the last minimum.
It isn’t good science to either ignore or dismiss something which is not fully understood; to the contrary all unknowns should be pursued vigorously.
M.A.Vukcevic says:
December 22, 2011 at 12:25 pm
The fact that TSI follows GMF indices is not disputed
You should spread confusion by called it GMF, when you mean HMF.
Only natural force capable of the effect is the NAP
any effect along those lines is even smaller than that of TSI, so can be disregarded.
it is something for you scientists to work out why geomagnetic indices would drop down long before the last minimum.
Just shows that your ‘effect’ is spurious.
It isn’t good science to either ignore or dismiss something which is not fully understood; to the contrary all unknowns should be pursued vigorously.
It is good science to dismiss spurious correlations. Scientists would follow up something that is solid or plausible, otherwise the matter is justifiable ignored.
M.A.Vukcevic says:
December 22, 2011 at 12:25 pm
The fact that TSI follows GMF indices is not disputed
You should NOT spread confusion by called it GMF, when you mean HMF.
Dr.S
Yes, meant the HMF not GMF (g&h are next to each other on the keyboard and the alphabet, perhaps not accidentally, Gaea and Helios) that was rather obvious. What is not obvious and what you should know about, but alas escapes you, it is the NAP. It is NOTHING to do with any of the solar or magnetic components (as far as the science understands it) despite degree of apparent correlation. As I said many times before it is the North Atlantic Ocean currents regulator.
MC&HNY to both of you.
“The simplicity comes from not assuming a secularly varying background for which there is no evidence. Kopp, Lean, Chapman, Schrijver et al seem to agree with me here. Actually, this plot shows the crux of the argument in a nutshell: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-vs-HMF.png ”
You assumption is baseless. We simply do not have enough satellite data for determine it with precision. Is is not “simplicity” but “simplistic”. You are essentialy reconstructing TSI from sunspot number record that for physical reason is constrained in such a way to present the minima all close to a zero level.
In your own figure http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-vs-HMF.png
The only read data are TIM (green points) and do not agree at all with your or Dora’s model. The three green dots between 6 and 8 are clearly below your lines with slope 1. Tim would imply a much lower trend (with slope about 0.5 instead of 1) and/or a non linear relation between TSI and the observed B values that you are not taking into account in your model.
So your own figure disproves your model and Dora’s model at the same time!
A secular varying background is implicit in the ACRIM composite and other data from Be10 and C14 records. The secularly varying background can also be indirectly deduced from MWP, LIA and current warm period.
You need to disprove the existence of a secularly varying background, not start claiming that those people who assume its existence based on argument rooted on the data that we have, are all wrong simply because your model do not show such a secularly varying background for the simple reason that your model is constructed with the assumption that such secularly varying background does not exist. Yours is nothing but circular logic.
Your circular reasoning is based on the following steps:
1) let us first assume that the TSI secularly varying background does not exist.
2) let us build aTSI model based on the assumption #1. The model shows only a 11-year solar cycle almost perfectly equal to the sunspot number record with no significant rending among the minima.
3) The model built as in #2 does not show any significant secularly varying trend in the minima.
4) So, I, the Leif the Great, have proved that those who claim the existence of such a secular variation in TSI must be wrong. Thousands of studies that have shown a correlation between solar proxy and temperature records must be rejected because of Leif’s model.
Don’t you see your circular logic? You are starting with the assumption that the TSI secularly varying background does not exist!
As I said, you are not proving anything, but only stating your initial ssumptions!
M.A.Vukcevic says:
December 22, 2011 at 12:25 pm
The fact that TSI follows GMF indices is not disputed
We have aa or ap back to 1844 and HMF back to 1836, so there is no reason to stop in ~1930 in your firrst Figure. Redo the Figure back to 1844.
M.A.Vukcevic says:
December 22, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Yes, meant the HMF not GMF
Sloppiness is a poor excuse.
it is the NAP. It is NOTHING to do with any of the solar or magnetic components (as far as the science understands it) despite degree of apparent correlation. As I said many times before it is the North Atlantic Ocean currents regulator.
So what has NAP to do with the topic of this thread?
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 22, 2011 at 1:37 pm
The only real data are TIM (green points) and do not agree at all with your or Dora’s model.
Added ACRIM, and all TSI’s agree within their uncertainty. ACRIM is worst [of course], so its agreement could be totally spurious.
Tim would imply a much lower trend (with slope about 0.5 instead of 1) and/or a non linear relation between TSI and the observed B values that you are not taking into account in your model.
TIM is the best we have so a smaller slope [which is a bit dubious considering the small number of points] is just fine.
The secularly varying background can also be indirectly deduced from MWP, LIA and current warm period.
There is your circular reasoning again.
1) let us first assume that the TSI secularly varying background does not exist.
This is not an assumption, but is deduced from the data we have. E.g. http://www.leif.org/research/GC31B-0351-F2007.pdf and http://www.leif.org/EOS/2010GL045777.pdf
2) let us build aTSI model based on the assumption #1.
Building on the data presented above we build a model based on sunspot number only, because the data shows that only the surface magnetic fields contribute to TSI [92%]
3) The model built as in #2 does not show any significant secularly varying trend in the minima.
Because there isn’t any.
4) So, I, the Leif the Great, have proved that those who claim the existence of such a secular variation in TSI must be wrong. Thousands of studies that have shown a correlation between solar proxy and temperature records must be rejected because of Leif’s model.
You got it, finally!
As Hoyt & Schatten in their book ‘The role of the Sun in Climate Change’ has this to say about the thousands of papers: “Unfortunately, none of these studies is definitive in either proving or disproving the sun/climate connection”…”furthermore, many papers demonstrate poor statistical analysis, are too enthusiastic in their conclusions, or are repetitive”. Recognizing yourself here?
Leif,
Hoyt and Schatten do not agree with you in anything. They clearly believe in a secular TSI trending.
You are very good in twisting and distorting the work of everybody for your purpose, don’t you?
Hoyt and Schatten were simply saying that the secular trending of the TSI is uncertain, not that it does not exist and that it does not agree with the secular trending of the temperature.
Moreover, Hoyt has several times wrote me and appreciated my work.
In this figure you can see Hoyt and Schatten’s TSI model against the temperature reconstruction
and the matching is good enougth
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/sunspot_demise_fig4.png
This is a comparison among all proposed TSI model and your model is by far the flattest one
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/FancierColors.png
You model is nothing but the sunspot number record linearly recalibrated into TSI irradiance units W/m^2, which is extremely unlikely
You are essentially using a function very similar to the type:
Leif’s TSI= constant_1 * sunspotnumber + constant_2
Merry Christmas, Leif! (hoping that it will make you a better boy)
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 23, 2011 at 5:56 am
Hoyt and Schatten do not agree with you in anything. They clearly believe in a secular TSI trending.
Hoyt does surely. Schatten not.
This is a comparison among all proposed TSI model and your model is by far the flattest one
Of course, as it must be, because there is no secular trend. Cf. http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf “[24] If the 2008–2009 solar magnetic activity is indeed similar to the Maunder Minimum level as we argue here, then it would appear that drivers other than TSI dominate Earth’s long‐term climate change.” You should nor call these ‘models’ as they are ‘reconstructions’.
You model is nothing but the sunspot number record linearly recalibrated into TSI irradiance units W/m^2. You are essentially using a function very similar to the type:
Leif’s TSI= constant_1 * sunspotnumber + constant_2
Precisely, as that follows from the fact that TSI is 92% described by surface magnetic fields [ “The sunspot and faculae model accounts for 92% of the irradiance variance that TIM observes” http://www.leif.org/EOS/2010GL045777.pdf ], of which the sunspot number is a reasonably good proxy: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-vs-SSN.png