Are secular correlations between sunspots, geomagnetic activity, and global temperature significant?

recent climate change is wholly contained in the long‐term trends we removed in order to
“We lost our watch in the dark over there, but we are looking for it under the lamp post here because the light is so much better.”
What is it with people throwing away the low frequency signal and analyzing the noise?

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 15, 2011 at 11:00 am
A phenomenological correlational analysis, such as that used here, is not effective for testing hypotheses when the data record a superposition of different signals. Physics is required to separate their sum.
I think this is an important assertion that many commenters here should heed.

Indeed. You’re not going to get a particularly high correlation coefficient between ‘global temperature’ and any one factor (well, not one that could plausibly relate to climate anyway…). Combining and applying weighting to numerous factors (using physics and indeed chemistry and biology) might get you a lot closer to a high r-value.

Leif Svaalgard.
“A phenomenological correlational analysis, such as that used here, is not effective for testing hypotheses when the data record a superposition of different signals. Physics is required to separate their sum. ”
Something I have taken to heart since the first time I read your comments on Climate Audit a few years ago. One of the major issues is the assumption that the magnitude of CO2 forcing is a high as estimated and as uniformly distributed as estimate. That does not appear to the the case, specifically in the Southern Extent, which means that smaller variation may have larger impacts. Something I have been looking into, the matters of scale.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2011/11/thermodynamic-layer-convergence-and.html
This is just one of the odd thermodynamic relationships that makes some solar mechanisms more plausible. Still not enough for proving any of the cyclomainia, but it does make things more interesting.

I need to respectfully disagree with Ed_B’s statement:
A hypothesis can be tested by using it to make predictions, and when(if) the predictions are observed as true, then the hypothesis is validated.
Actually such an event simply means that the hypothesis has not been disproven. Some other factor completely outside the model may be the actual driver of events. Given enough time, and thousands of comfirmed predictions I may begin to accept the hypothesis as true, but that’s just me.

The issue is the timeframe, you need to go back much further to the Maunder to realy see the forest for the trees. Of course, the problem is there was more volcanism then so the correlation may never be proven.
Questions: Did they correct for volcanism? Atmospheric aerosols?

Isn’t this a straw man? Svensmark’s claim is that solar cycle length, not sunspot number, is linked with climatic changes.

So all of the figures and arguments presented here:
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part6_SolarEvidence.htm
are what, incorrect? Irrelevant? Lies? Myths? Fake?
I mean seriously, why screw around looking for second order correlations in detrended data, effectively looking to see if FLUCTUATIONS in solar activity are drivers of temperature. The FIRST ORDER correlation is already overwhelmingly convincing, especially when compared to the monotonic, boring, trivially fluctuating CO_2 concentration.
Here’s a good one. Apply precisely — and I do mean precisely — the same method of detrending to CO_2 concentration vs global temperature and look for a signal. The CO_2 is a monotonic, approximately exponential curve and by the time you remove this trend there isn’t anything left but a tiny annual fourier component.
On the other hand, there is significant direct correlation between both the length and the strength of the solar cycles and global temperature, one that stretches all the way back to the LIA. Even the primary local/chaotic climate drivers, e.g. ENSO, appear to be more or less slaved to the solar cycle.
rgb
rgb

“”Leif Svalgaard says:November 15, 2011 at 11:29 am
“Nicola Scafetta says: November 15, 2011 at 11:21 am
In the last two papers the climate is actually accurately reconstructed using astronomical cycles”
It is precisely that sort of papers the article warns about.””
Not really Leif, not really. Time series analysis and data mining are serious disciplines in all scientific fields. That paper trivializes the issue.
In my papers I decompose all natural signals (Solar, anthropogenic, volcano, ENSO, lunar) as it should be done and my models are tested on forecasting capabilities backward and forward for decades and up to centuries. Of course not all issues are fully understood yet, that is why it is called “scientific research”.
Dear Leif, I have a proposal given the fact that you are so smart. Why don’t you propose your own model and show us your performances in interpreting climate change?

William,
There are plenty of mechanisms without having to resort of Stieging new ones. Changes in wind velocity at the ocean surface improve conductive heat loss. The Solar UV change both reduces Ozone production and reduces short wave absorption below 10 meters. In conjunction with the UV change greater than expected, the near infrared change was a little bit smaller surprise, but interesting. Why, a change in the ratio of the atmospheric absorption and the deeper ocean absorption has a greater cooling impact than either by itself. So solar variation doesn’t have the butt to warm much, but it has nearly twice the capacity to cool. Timing though is everything. The ocean tends to buffer shorter time period solar variation. A longer minimum should allow sufficient cooling to be noticeable. We haven’t been through an extended minimum, so we don’t know if or how much it may impact. One thing though is obvious to me, global temperature averages for only a hundred years are not enough to draw conclusions.

I always thought that the clear correlation was not between temperature and sunspot number, but temperature and sunspot cycle length.
And dIdn’t Richard Tol go ballistic last week over a paper for comparing trends using “detrended” data?

@Leif,
“This works only when the waves are non-interacting.”
That’s a very true point.

Leif Svalgaard says: November 15, 2011 at 12:23 pm says
“No, just advocates using proper techniques, good data, and valid physics.”
Let me know if I understood well your reasoning. One writes a paper using by purpose improper techniques, improper data and no physics at all, and conclude that that is not the way to study climate changes. Is that a great scientific/phylosophical discovery, Leif? What does that paper adds to the science, Leif? Disprove something? No, it doesn’t because nobody uses the same extremely naive methodologies, but you perhaps. Proves something new or propose new revolutionary thecniques? nope! Everybody understands that there is the need to look for “proper techniques, good data, and valid physics”. That is what “scientific research” is all about.
About the other points, Leif, read my papers better. Some tests for forecasting capabilities (within certain limits, of course) have been made. The future will tell, and the models can be improved, of course.
Again, I invite you to tell us your interpretation of climate change. Is “The climate changes all the time for many reasons” all what you know or are able to do? Does that means that people should not study the issue because you have no clue about how to try to address it? Should that mean that if somebody does not come out with a “full” and “complete” theory of climate change, what he does is not science?
See, Leif, scientific research is a dynamic and always evolving discipline, Science is not just about reading accepted results on textbooks alone.

Leif,
Where is Mars in all of this. It would be useful to correlate Martian temperatures with terrestrial temperatures. Has this been undertaken?

Leif:
Are secular correlations between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature statistically significant?
[Moderator’s Note: Site policy requires a valid e-mail address. Please comply. -REP]

I agree Leif…not much use trying to find a connection between a variable that is composed of many variables, as they will often cancel each other out, and a real variable connection can be easily lost in the bulk variable signal

I didn’t believe in physics until I actually went to one.

Slight correction for those people who mentioned solar cycle length. The temperature record correlates with previous solar cycle length not current solar cycle length – where there isn’t a correlation.
With a bit of spreadsheeting anyone can see the relationship. Here is a graph for the CET and HadCRUT v3 since 1854.
Filtering the data and correcting for volcanic eruptions will give a tighter correlation (eg see David Archibald’s website), but even a raw graph like this, done in a couple of hours, shows it.
I find it interesting that Love et al have ignored this well known correlation when they are obviously aware of the work of Dr Friis-Christensen, who they cite.

Correlation and causation 101
The mighty XKCD

M.A.Vukcevic says:
Robert Brown says:
I have an intriguing alternative hypothesis that may or may not be able to explain why the sun’s activity appears to be significant predictor of multicentury heating and cooling trends; one of these days I’ll sit down to work out the numbers to see if it works…
“I have done it already, and numbers do work
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm
compare orange, red and dark blue curves.”
Only two remarks. First, I complement you on your clearly demonstrated ability to read my mind. Indeed, I almost didn’t type this reply because I am so certain you already know what I’m thinking.
Second, my intriguing hypothesis actually includes using some “physics” — you know, things like maxwell’s equations, mechanics, stuff like that. It strikes me that there may be an additional source of actual heating that has been neglected so far (as far as I’ve been able to tell) that was once upon a time considered to be a cosmologically important heating process in the early solar system. I do not know, however, if the current orders of magnitude support the hypothesis. It would explain a whole lot of the anomaly (if true/reasonable) without recourse to indirect e.g. feedback modulation or trying to squeeze more energy out of direct insolation than is there to be squeezed.
To be honest, I couldn’t tell what you were demonstrating with your orange, red, and blue curves, or where the polynomial functions you wrote down came from. If you are asserting that you can fit the smoothed data with a nonlinear curve, well, that is hardly a surprise — so can I, hand me a pencil. If the curve has some physics behind it, well, hard to tell, isn’t it?
rgb

As I mentioned at the Santa Fe meeting – comparing solar proxies and global temperature may not be the best thing to do. Since some solar forcings appear to have stronger effects restricted to certain areas… E.g. the UV effect on the climate in N- Europa, GCR over certain part of the ocean etc. etc.. Some people find a better correlation of one look at more local temperature records. I think this need to be look at at in more detail… in a more systematic way

As a child in these matters, it seems to me that any correlation with sunspot numbers, etc. (or Malenkovich-influenced insolation changes) might be with CHANGE in Global temperature rather than actual global temperature (which to my simple mind represent an accumulation of historic heat inputs or losses). Apologies if someone has already made such a comment, and I have failed to understand the terminology.

A phenomenological correlational analysis, such as that used here, is not effective for testing hypotheses when the data record a superposition of different signals. Physics is required to separate their sum.
Well, then, that’s the problem with this analysis. There are lots of different signals/forcings (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-5.html), each with it’s own time history (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/), and as the article says, you need to go to the physics and measurements (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf) to separate them.
However, Anthony’s statement that this “New paper by Love et al suggests no prominent role for solar‐terrestrial interaction in global climate change” doesn’t match up. The only thing the paper is saying is that a “phenomenological correlational analysis” is the wrong tool.

Robert Brown says:
November 15, 2011 at 1:42 pm
…
The basic point is that from the beginning, AGW enthusiasts have based most of their argument on “It’s getting warmer! CO_2 is increasing! Therefore the latter causes the former.” This truly is absurd. Correlation is not causality, as you (Lief) seem to be implying with your airplane example and of course I agree.
—————————–
Not so! The AGW argument is “CO2 causes warming (as per physics from Tyndall and Arrhenius onwards)! CO2 is increasing! It’s getting warmer! Therefore the correlation of the second and third confirm that the first and second are the cause of the third.” Or something like that.

I thought the science was settled? Apparently more work is required

To Robert Brown.
One very different explanation for Gravity complete with mathematics can be found at http://www.milesmathis.com
In short when you let go of an apple and it drops to the ground, it didn’t drop to the ground. It in fact stayed exactly where it was when you let go and it didn’t move, instead, the Earth and everything on it moved / expanded at sufficient rate to make it seem as if the apple was attracted to the Earth.
An uncomfortable theory, I grant you, though some of his other stuff eg. the obliquity of different planets in our solar system and orbits get him a closer match to the observed situation than conventional physics.
It’s certainly mind opening stuff.
Way beyond the comprehension of people who think that all of climate history started in 1975.

So where does CERN’s CLOUD project and it’s preliminary results stand w.r.t. this report? CLOUD seemed to have found correlation between solar activity and cloud cover, and herefore albedo and therefore surface temperatures.

Agree with Nicholas Scafetta that the paper is very simplistic ….. its like like testing a hypothesis that the reason I get fat is because I eat too much, while ignoring other factors like my lifestyle, diet, excersise routine, genetics etc etc. The truth is in the middle.
What is encouraging though is that it is abundantly clear that the ‘science’ is very far from settled and that all these ideas are now being tested and discussed, whether simplisticaly or not. Only this way will the scientifioc truth be found and like almost everything, its bound to be somewhere in the middle.

Thank youi Dr. Svalgaard for putting this in the public domain. It will take more than one read to digest. I appreciate your sharing of your knowledge and research.

So there is a not significant correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature and a not significant temperature increase, when we take UHI out of it very little, if any, indeed. So it is possibly very much related after all.

Dennis Nikol got to the key point: the Global Temperature…
From the abstract:
“Treated data show an expected statistically significant correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, Pearson ρ < 10^−4, but correlations between global temperature and sunspot number (geomagnetic activity) are not significant, ρ = 0.9954, (ρ = 0.8171). In other words, straightforward analysis does not support widely‐cited suggestions that these data record a prominent role for solar‐terrestrial interaction in global climate change."
To think that the global temperature value -obtained by what means, meaning what exactly?- represents the climate is simply naive at best. This is the trick here. Noise indeed!

I just wonder what would happen if the same technique is used to test whether the IPCC climate models agree with the temperature. Do they agree with the data? That would be the real test because the IPCC GCMs are supposed to reproduce the temperature
A far better test comparing the astronomical harmonic model vs. the GISS ModelE is done in Figure 9 in
N. Scafetta, “Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications”. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 72, 951–970 (2010), doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2010.04.015
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf
If Leif likes this Love et al.’s paper where the Staw Man Fallacy is so evident, it is clear that he does not understand time series analysis and data mining thecniques.
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions.[1] To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2] Generally, the straw man is a highly exaggerated[citation needed] or over-simplified version of the opponent’s original statement, which has been distorted to the point of absurdity. This exaggerated or distorted statement is thus easily argued against, but is a misrepresentation of the opponent’s actual statement.

As my Daddy said “BULLSH*T BAFFLES BRAINS”

How about Spearman’s Rho? Anybody consider that?

“identify an anthropogenic affect on climate.”
I guess that means Gaia cries :[ when she thinks about humans.

The paper shows that there is no statistically significant evidence for this in the data we have.

Simply put, the problem is “the data we have”. In the data that they were using, there is not significant solar change. By significant, I mean Dalton or Maunder minimum sized changes. The moderating influence of the oceans stored heat means that any smaller and shorter solar change is going to be overwhelmed by that stored heat (or cold), thus, any small change will be invisible. What we need to really tell if the sun causes climate changes is a period of quiet sun similar to at least a Dalton Minimum. There is a prediction that we are in the first solar cycle of just such a change. If so, we will know for certain by say, 2035.
Simply put, this paper is irrelevant to tell us if the sun can cause significant change since during it’s time frame there was no significant solar change that is large enough or long enough to overcome the moderating influence of the oceans so that we can see it. All this paper can say is that small and short solar changes cause no significant climate change in the short term. The claim of this paper is far larger than it’s actual science can show.
For this paper to really be able to make it’s claim, that solar variance causes climate variance, it needs to include a longer period of time, one that includes the Dalton Minimum at the least. If adequate records exist of solar variability and climate before their cut off date, and they did not use them, than I must assume that the whole purpose of this paper is to disprove the idea that anything except CO2 causes climate change, by deliberately excluding the data they know will show that their main premise is false. Does such data exist?
Since the data period this paper is limiting itself to does not include a period of solar change great enough to cause a climate change big enough to be certain of, I can only say that the conclusion this paper gives is .not proven (“.no prominent role for solar-terrestrial interaction”). Without prominent solar changes, we are not going to get prominent “solar-terrestrial interaction”.

Trying to show that solar output is not related to global temperature without including ocean oscillations like the PDO is a standard AGW strawman trick.
Anyone that subscribes to this trick is not trustworthy and is most likely pushing the AGW barrow.

“”””” dallas says:
November 15, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Robert Brown Said, “It strikes me that there may be an additional source of actual heating that has been neglected so far (as far as I’ve been able to tell) that was once upon a time considered to be a cosmologically important heating process in the early solar system.”
That is interesting. Space does have a temperature and the energy of photons are unique to the temperature to the sourc. “””””
Not so: The energy of photons has nothing to do with the Temperature of the source. The spectral distribution (as a function of the wavelength or frequency, or energy if you prefer) may depend on the source Temperature, but the energy does not (first order). So there might be secondary effects, such as Temperature broadening of spectral lines due to the Doppler effect. but , primarily the Temperature can determine the number of photons having some specific energy, but the energy of the photons themselves is not Temperature dependent.

Nicola Scafetta (November 15, 2011 at 5:41 pm) wrote:
“If Leif likes this Love et al.’s paper where the Staw Man Fallacy is so evident, it is clear that he does not understand time series analysis and data mining thecniques.
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions.[1] To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2] Generally, the straw man is a highly exaggerated[citation needed] or over-simplified version of the opponent’s original statement, which has been distorted to the point of absurdity. This exaggerated or distorted statement is thus easily argued against, but is a misrepresentation of the opponent’s actual statement.”
—————————
Concur.

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 15, 2011 at 6:33 pm
I’m sorry, Leif Svalgaard. When you reply to me in a negative way and out of context, I know YOU are wrong, You have interested your self with various comments within this discussion (as described above) It’s a discussion!
Answer with substance please 🙂 , I don’t mind starting from scratch, which every scientist should be doing every second squared, I will NOT tolerate your insolence, err, either! You left me hanging instead of discussing what we are genuinely interested in, it deprived me of an intellectual insight, FOR SHAME!! 🙂

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 15, 2011 at 7:56 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
November 15, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Trying to show that solar output is not related to global temperature without including ocean oscillations like the PDO is a standard AGW strawman trick.
———————————————-
So you are saying that since the ocean PDO is the dominant determinant of global temperatures, solar output can only be related to the residual variation after PDO has been removed. Does make some sense.
It is just a matter of working out the residual. During times of grand minima extra solar factors responsible for jet stream changes could increase that residual.

It seems to me, if the data is being analyzed by day, month, or year, and, if the data correlation is not aligned, for example, sunspot-data, geomagnetic-data, or global-temperature data if offset due to the chenical or physics processes, then, this type of analysis is worthless and misses the mark.

Leif Svalgaard says:
Always going after the person, eh… [again]
———-
Oh my. Having read thru all of the comments, the richness of the irony in Mr. Svalgaard’s attempted criticism here is almost too much to bear. To see someone who’s repeatedly gone “after the person” as much as Mr. Svalgaard has done here, then trying to chastise others for simply replying-in-kind, immediately makes one think of a comedy skit on Saturday Night Live.

My paper published in E&E shows a remarkable correlation between the drift of the magnetic poles and global temperatures over a similar period. Additionally my statistics were checked by an independent researcher. You can download the paper from my website.
http://www.akk.me.uk/Climate_Change.htm
I could not identify the mechanism so would appreciate any comments.

Anybody that thinks the sun doesn’t affect climate is either a fool or a charlatan ot both !
Anybody that thinks the “solar constant” is constant is either a fool or a charlatan ot both !
Anybody who thinks that the solar insolation is one quarter of the “solar constant” is either a fool or a charlatan ot both – what happened to the other three quarters !
Anybody who thinks the temperature on the Earth would be minus 18 centigrade “without greenhouse gases” while knowing the moon reaches ~120 centigrade during the lunar day (as predicted by Stefan-Boltzman for ~1368 W/sq m) is either a fool or a charlatan ot both !
I have no doubt the sun can fry us (unlike the measly 342 w/sqm allowed in the “energy budget”) but our atmosphere and oceans moderate the power – I find it inconceivable that a trace gas has much effect. I was taught the water cycle was the most important factor and when I compare the proven physical properties of water to the proven physical properties of CO2 I bet the multiphase, latent heat energy absorbing water molecule is so much more significant than a trace gas which is 50 to 60 times less abundant than the vapour phase of water and completely insignificant compared to the liquid phase.
What is it today that people seem to want tobelieve in doomsday – I want to get on with life not worry over some completely unlikely scenario.
Did the dinosaurs suffer from hotter temperatures and “climate change” or disruption or whatever sill new name they come up with next ? I think they lasted millions of years without succumbing to increased temperature induced climate catastrophes.

Well.. if this has not turned into the most entertaining dog-fight that I have ever spent my lunch time on (in Hout Bay, Cape Town)…
I have absolutely no dog in this fight, but come on guys.. give Leif a break. He is only human (although he may dispute that statement) and from what I can see, loving this rather lightweight paper merely constitutes indulging in a little confirmation bias. In all the many moons I have spent lurking on these threads I have never NOT known Leif to come out with guns blazing at the mere mention of more solar influence than the 0.1 degree (or whatever) so frequently quoted. Personally I love and appreciate deeply having my humble mind opened to the more interesting and promising lines of reasoning and research relating to the possible (probable?) influences of the solar system and cosmos on the conditions of our existence. Thanks to all…

The is usual CAGW meme, after all it is on the roundup to Durban.
By coincident I have started to build a computer model describing the climate using similar possible climate forcing signals. The purpose I have is to identify possible forcing agents and their magnitudes. I like building computer models BTW.
Of course if I get any meaningful results I will publish it together with a description and with the computer code. This of course is not a standard practice used by today’s climate scientists.

William says:
November 15, 2011 at 11:46 am
“Solar activity, together with human activity, is considered a possible factor for the global warming observed in the last century. However, in the last decades solar activity has remained more or less constant while surface air temperature has continued to increase, which is interpreted as an evidence that in this period human activity is the main factor for
global warming.”
A pot of water on a stove continues to rise in temperature even if the flame is held constant. I’m not saying that the sun is a flame or the ocean a vessel of water. Do I really need to?
Solar activity rose to a sustained high level in the latter half of the twentieth century. This period of solar activity is called “The Modern Maximum”.
Obviously Leif’s detrending removed the signal of interest. His analysis wouldn’t find the flame under a pot of warming water either because both the flame and temperature rise are trends and detrending removes them.
Leif did a bang up job of showing how not to do something. Sort of like showing that using a flyswatter is not the way to pound nails into wood. I fail to see how this “paper” increases our knowledge of the world just as pointing out that a flyswatter won’t work as a hammer doesn’t increase our knowledge of carpentry.

M.A.Vukcevic says:
November 16, 2011 at 12:24 am
“If specific data records are examined closely there are irrefutable links between geomagnetic and the temperature data. This can be found easily in data relating to middle and high latitudes data for the Atlantic regions of the Northern Hemisphere, which due to volatility of its magnetic field is far more sensitive to the solar disturbances, than it is case for the more stable southern hemisphere.”
Per my usual when I see something I wasn’t aware of [my emphasis] I check it out. The act of so doing led to this web page produced by The British Geological Survey:
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/education/earthmag.html
The Earth’s Magnetic Field: An Overview
I must say my knowledge of the earth’s magnetic field was quite deficient in detail. I mean I knew the magnetic pole wandered and there were periodic reversals but other than that I though it was a featureless thing with smooth consistent field lines from north to south pole like the classic lines in iron filings on a sheet of paper with a bar magnet on it.
Thanks for inspiring me to learn more. I was particularly intrigued by figure 7 which is a graph of the rate of change of declination from 1900 to 2010 and how this bears an eerie resemblance to the AMDO. Methinks there might be more here related to climate variation than is commonly thought.
I must say that was quite educational.

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 16, 2011 at 5:20 am
There is a small 0.1 degree change related to solar activity.
This statement really doesn’t look good and severely exposes you to questioning. You are very aware of other solar influences that are currently being evaluated that provide a far greater range than the TSI only variant you peddle relentlessly (TSI also being subject to inconsistencies). You should recognize the science is not settled in this area and not make such grand statements that look to support the AGW crowd..

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGHP_en___US455&ie=UTF-8&q=%22modern+maximum%22+solar
The only one questioning the modern maximum appears to be Leif and his questioning evidently hasn’t risen above the bar of passing peer review.
Naturally he must attempt to discredit the observations. This is typical of those who find their pet computer models to be more compelling than reality thus when reality disagrees with the model then there must be something wrong with the observations of the real world because the fantasy world just can’t be incorrect.
Pfffffffffffffffffffft!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111
FAIL

@ Leif 11/15 10:57am
Differencing is an effective method of removing trend from a time series.
Yes it does. Differencing is a High-Pass, Low-Cut Filter. It preserves high frequency (short period) and attenuates (to disregard and discard) low frequency (long period) signal.
This provides a clearer view of the true underlying behavior of the series.
Is that your view? It is clearly false if the true underlying behavior includes low frequency processes that slowly vary over long-periods, like climate or solar signals.
Differencing is a kin to listening to music with the treble maxed the mid range off and the woofer unplugged. Discard the baseline, smother the melody and bring out the hiss of the recording.

It is also possible to filter a series such that the low-frequency variations are reduced and the high-frequency variations unaffected. This type of filter is called a high-pass filter. Detrending is a form of high-pass filtering: the fitted trend line tracks the lowest frequencies, and the residuals from the trend line have had those low frequencies removed. – David M. Meko

Good reference: Dr. Meko has an excellent set of notes on line for his class:
GEOS 585A, Applied Time Series Analysis, with a main page at http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/~dmeko/geos585a.html

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 16, 2011 at 8:14 am
“The normal procedure is the talk about research at conferences and seminars to get a feeling for how solid a finding is.”
I’ve been to a million of them. Except for the few most interesting presentations which are the main draw for the whole dog & pony show it’s a real snooze fest. Literally a snooze fest because most people are recovering from the free food and booze in the nightly after-parties. You’d pick up a stack of papers for each presentation that might possibly be of interest and plan on looking it over when you got back home. Invariably you never looked at the crap again with the sure knowledge that you’d miss nothing important because the important stuff graduates from the conference circuit. As usual I’ll hold off until your criticism of the inconvenient sunspot data that appears in every introduction to solar physics in the world is embraced by a larger audience. You’re an outlier in no man’s land as far as I’m concerned trying to win hearts and minds on a goofy blog of all places. This isn’t really the place for it unless you’re an amateur and have no other outlet or what you’re peddling is crap that your peers in more professional venues won’t waste their time on. Given you’re not an amateur that leaves a pretty short list of reasons why you’re pushing it on blogs.

“”””” Leif Svalgaard says:
November 15, 2011 at 8:53 pm
George E. Smith; says:
November 15, 2011 at 8:20 pm
the sun only heats us by 0.1 deg, then I guess I must be wrong about that.
just silly. “””””
NO Dr Svalgaard; NOT silly at all; simply making a point.
It WAS you who said that the sun’s influence on earth climate was less than 0.1 deg C, NOT me.
I’m well aware that during a typical solar sunspot cycle, or half cycle depending on how you want to characterize it, the observed value of the TSI changes by about 0.1% peak to peak. If one simply calculates the change in the mean “black body” Temperature of earth, that should result from a 0.1% change in TSI, the result would be 0.025%. Transposing that to the supposed mean global surface Temperature of 288 K, would yield a 72 mdeg C change in Temperature; which is certainly less than your 0.1 deg C.
Now I am NOT claiming that such a simple calculation gives a correct result of a 0.1% change in TSI; it simply ignores ALL of the possible climate system feedbacks that might accompany a change in TSI; such as a change in cloud cover or a change in atmospheric water vapor, or any other change such as a CO2 change due to an ocean Temperature change..
You have stated many times; and I totally believe your assertion, that nobody has ever detected such a 70 millidegree global Temperature cycle that accompanies the 11 year or 22 year solar cycles; so I have never asserted that changes in TSI materially affect global climate CHANGES.
But I DO assert that the entire earth climate system IS driven, and powered by a nearly constant input of radiant energy from the sun, at a rate of about 1362 Watts per square meter; based on a recently published NASA revised value. Now I don’t really care whether TSI is 1368 or 1366, or 1362, or even my old history book value of 1353 Wm^-2 for the solar power input rate; but it certainly is NOT 342 or thereabouts Wm^-2 as is claimed by Trenberth et all and the whole climate science community.
And yes I do know that the area of a circle is pi R^2 while that of a sphere is 4pi R^2. The point is that energy input to a portion of the earth surface at a rate of 1362 Wm^-2 for a portion of the 24 hour day, WILL NOT produce the same local result, as a continuous 24 hour input of energy at a 342 Wm^-2 rate.
For a start, an input power of 1362 Wm^-2 to an icy surface could melt that ice even if the local air Temperature is less than zero deg C; whereas a power of 342 Wm^-2 will not, so the climatic result is quite different.
Also during the day, land Temperatures in some tropical regions such as equatorial deserts, can be as high as +60 deg C (even +90) and that will result in almost twice the power density of the LWIR emittance from such surfaces during the day; resulting in much greater cooling rates that would result from a constant 342 Wm^-2 and a resultant 288 K or thereabouts surface Temperature.
So my point is that solar TSI DOES drive the earth climate system (entirely); and I have NEVER said or implied, that small changes in TSI are or have caused CHANGES IN EARTH CLIMATE.
Such changes might, just as Svensmark’s cosmic or solar charged particle changes might affect cloud formation (to some extent); but I’ve never asserted that such changes are significant; just interesting; but maybe not observable in the data.
Well I also don’t believe that “the data” properly represents the true picture of such climate variables as the true mean global surface Temperature; the sampling regimen is laughable.
If so-called “climate scientists” actually observed the changes that occur in the ground (ocean) level solar incident power density(or irradiance), that result form changes in the system, such as CO2 abundance, H2O atmospheric content, cloud cover percentage, and geographical distribution, they might actually be able to construct some believable model for the system. But starting from the point that the sun plays no role in earth climate; well that is “just silly”.

“”””” George E. Smith; says:
November 15, 2011 at 8:02 pm
“”””” dallas says:
November 15, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Robert Brown Said, “It strikes me that there may be an additional source of actual heating that has been neglected so far (as far as I’ve been able to tell) that was once upon a time considered to be a cosmologically important heating process in the early solar system.”
That is interesting. Space does have a temperature and the energy of photons are unique to the temperature to the sourc. “”””” “””””
dallas says:
November 15, 2011 at 8:55 pm
George E. Smith, No actually. The lower temperature reduces the size and intensity of the spectrum.
“”””” Space does have a temperature and the energy of photons are unique to the temperature to the sourc. “””””
“”””” energy of photons “””””
Well from Max Planck’s relation; photon energy = h (Planck’s constant) x (nu (Greek letter for ferquency)), or you can use E = hc/(lambda (another Greek letter for wavelength)).
Neither Planck’s constant (h) nor photon wavelength or frequency is a function ot Temperature (of anything) let alone Temperature of the source (or sourc).
Also photon energy is not synonymous with the spectrum of some (presumably) thermal source of radiant energy.
WORDS HAVE MEANING; specially in science; so use the correct words, and you’ll get the correct meaning.

In addition it should be also note, that there is an essential decreasing of solar flare activity, since the middle of 1970s , i.e after the end of solar cycle 20th. It could be clear follow no only by GOES satellite data , but also in solar radiobursts in whole MHz and GHz range between 30- 15000 MHz. On the other hand after 1975 the sunspot activity is predominly in the south solar hemisphere, while during the period 1940-1975/86 it is predominanntly in the northern one. The south assymetry has remain at least up to 1994 and ,may be,, during the whole solar cycle 23. Both these circumstances are related to warming periods in the past. So, it seems by this one that the recent warming after the mid of 1970s is related rather to the conditions on the Sun during the last decades of 20th century as to an additional terestrial sorce oof warming.

“”””” Leif Svalgaard says:
November 16, 2011 at 12:19 pm
George E. Smith; says:
November 16, 2011 at 11:23 am
the sun only heats us by 0.1 deg, then I guess I must be wrong about that.
just silly.
NO Dr Svalgaard; NOT silly at all; simply making a point.
YES, silly as you and most people would know that was meant was the effect of the variation of solar output over a cycle.
would yield a 72 mdeg C change in Temperature; which is certainly less than your 0.1 deg C.
My number [as you should also know] was clearly an order of magnitude estimate. “””””
Well Dr Svalgaard, I’m not trying to raise a donnybrook with you, over some semantics.
For starters, my citation of the 72 mK change in BB Temperature for a 0.1% p-p cycle in TSI, was not haggling over your figure (0.1 deg). On the contrary, I was entirely agreeing with your 0.1 deg estimate. You have in the past cited the very same 72 mK number, and it’s close enough to 0.1 deg given that there is no real reason to suppose that, the calculated BB Temperature change would persist in the climate Temperature; because of all the feedbacks that would pile on and smother that effect..
Where I disagree with the story, is that changes in the surface collected fraction of the TSI (mostly stored in the ocean); due to changes in atmospheric water vapor and cloud cover and distribution certainly do have a noticeable change in the climate, whereas the normal sunspot cycle change in TSI of 0.1% would not. And that change in solar energy gathered seems to be totally ignored by the climate crowd, who simply can’t think of applying the feedback to the actual (solar) driving source.
But I regard you as the expert (and I DO mean that); so I’m not quibling about minuiae.

Since when is a correlation above .8, much less above .95 not significant?

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 16, 2011 at 1:53 pm
The total energy in these parts is small, so their larger variation does not have much effect. You are advocating judging changes in Bill Gates’s wealth by the
Same old lame argument. The 16% EUV variance that has substantial influence on the outer atmosphere and ozone is a chemical reaction and not requiring any energy input which you well know but continue to push your barrow.

Geoff Sharp says: November 16, 2011 at 11:09 pm
“Leif Svalgaard says:November 16, 2011 at 1:53 pm
Same old lame argument. The 16% EUV variance that has substantial influence on the outer atmosphere and ozone is a chemical reaction and not requiring any energy input which you well know but continue to push your barrow”.
=============================
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 390 ppmv (0.039%)
Ozone (O3) 0.0 to 0.07 ppmv (0 to 7×10−6%)
to use the standard wuwt phrase
Wow, Just Wow!
Are you daring to suggest that O3 at concentrations ~10^4 less than CO2 (which according to many here has no effect) is modifying the climate. Wow!
Or are you again suggesting another mystic effect of O3? Please describe why CO2 has no effect and O3 has massive effect.
to help you here is wiki:
The annual global warming potential of tropospheric ozone is between 918-1022 tons carbon dioxide equivalent/tons tropospheric ozone. This means on a per-molecule basis, ozone in the troposphere has a radiative forcing effect roughly 1,000 times as strong as carbon dioxide. However, tropospheric ozone is a short-lived greenhouse gas, which decays in the atmosphere much more quickly than carbon dioxide. This means that over a 20 year horizon, the global warming potential of tropospheric ozone is much less, roughly 62 to 69 tons carbon dioxide equivalent / tons tropospheric ozone.[24]
BUT do you beleive in the “green house” effect of gasses in the atmosphere.

Leif, I should have added that it is easier to supply less energy to the surface, since clouds reflect and absorb. An increase in cloud cover would have a greater impact than a decrease in cloud cover. One extra Watt absorbed by clouds would be one less Watt absorbed by the surface which would have a 2W impact on the surface. Water vapor also influences the amount of atmospheric absorption in the near infrared. A 0.5W increase would have a 1W increase at the surface. Once allowing for the time constants of the absorbing media, the impact of 0.1K plus the 0.05K can have a 0.3 surface temperature impact on cooling and only a 0.15K impact on warming. Don’t cha just hate nonlinear relationships 🙂

dallas says:
November 17, 2011 at 7:45 am
“Leif, I should have added that it is easier to supply less energy to the surface, since clouds reflect and absorb. An increase in cloud cover would have a greater impact than a decrease in cloud cover. One extra Watt absorbed by clouds would be one less Watt absorbed by the surface which would have a 2W impact on the surface.”
WTF?
First of all clouds don’t absorb they reflect. Second of all it’s not two Watts it’s less than one Watt.
If there are 200 Watts hitting the cloud and it reflects one Watt the ground receives 199W. If the cloud goes away the ground receives 200W. That’s a difference of one Watt to the surface, not two.
But it’s actually worse than that the ground albedo is more that 0%, sometimes far more, so the extra Watt that the surface receives is partially reflected anyhow so the full extra Watt doesn’t get fully absorbed in any case.

So it is pure coincidence that the historic turning points in the global temperature curve perfectly coincide with every third solar cycle minimum? The years are 1878, 1912, 1944, 1976 and whatever year we decide was the end of solar cycle 23 and start of solar cycle 24? See diagram at http://www.energiminnesfonden.se/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74:klimatet-och-solcyklerna&catid=44:frittfram&Itemid=71 .

Leif, you say:
“If the PDO has a sequence of 30-yr interval alternating between warm and cold, and the sunspot cycle is close to 10 years, then three cycles would fit in each interval, so no surprise that they do.”
Sure thing. But what are the odds that the temperature turning points come exactly at solar minimums? After all, there are thirty years to choose from, so I would put the odds at 1:30 myself. Isn’t that at least a tiny bit significant :-)?