The fact that there’s a scientific workshop discussing the solar-climate relationship at all, especially when doomsayers like Hansen say there’s no solar connection, should tell you something.
I got a chuckle out of the final slide in Dr. Judith Lean’s presentation. First the workshop program:
The 2nd Nagoya Workshop on the Relationship between Solar Activity and Climate Changes
16-17 January, 2012 | Noyori Conference Hall, Nagoya University (Nagoya, Japan)
Session I: Opening and Keynote Talk (Chair: Kanya KUSANO)
- Judith LEAN (Naval Research Laboratory, USA)
Session II: Solar & Heliospheric Activity (Chair: Kanya KUSANO)
- Leif SVALGAARD (Stanford Univ., USA)
- Munetoshi TOKUMARU (Nagoya Univ., Japan)
- Ayumi ASAI (Kyoto Univ., Japan)
Session III: Cosmic Ray and its Influence (Chair: Kimiaki MASUDA)
- Martin BODKER ENGHOFF & Henrik SVENSMARK (National Space Institute, Denmark)
- Hiroko MIYAHARA (Univ. of Tokyo, Japan)
- Shigeo TOMITA (Univ. of Tsukuba, Japan)
==============================================================
Here’s the Judith Lean presentation: Variations in Solar Irradiance and Climate. WUWT is prominently referenced on slide #23.
But the final slide is what really caught my attention, because I was surprised to see what is in the upper right corner:
I asked Dr. Svalgaard via email:
With the end slide, saying “It’s the sun stupid” I wonder how well she was received?
He replied:
She’s an authority on this and was well received.
Well allrighty then.
Footnote: While I can’t be sure if someone said it before me, or if Dr. Lean got the phrase from me (I did reference her 2000 solar irradiance graph) the phrase “It’s the Sun, stupid” first appeared on WUWT on April 6th, 2007:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I see Leif and friends have had the historical data on the ironing board again, smoothing out the wrinkles.
Given the error bars inherent in the TSI measurement of the last 30 years, and the uncertainty in the use of the geomagnetic field to calibrate the deeper heliomagnetic past, I’d say all options are still open. Especially considering we know so little about effects such as joule heating in the outer reaches of the atmosphere and the effect it may have on the radiative balance of our planet.
Anyone who tells you that they are sure the Sun has little effect on Earth’s climate variation deserves the full sceptical treatment.
Given that the average surface temperature may have only changed 1.5C between little ice age and modern warm period, it wouldn’t take much solar variation to account for all of it, given that 1.5C is a ~0.5% change in absolute temperature terms. We do know with certainty that solar output changes 0.1-0.13% during the 11 year cycle. We know that the effect of the Sun’s variation is amplified by feedbacks such as cloud albedo and ozone levels. Researcher’s pooh poohed by Phil Jones and his cargo cash cult followers have discovered other interesting amplification mechanisms too.
For example:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/n-f-arnold-solar-modulation-of-transport-processes-in-the-winter-middle-atmosphere/
Carla says: February 8, 2012 at 1:04 pm
…………..
Hi Carla
I am sure that the Interstellar Magnetic Field must be an important component in the chain of the interplanetary magnetic events.
M.A.Vukcevic says:
February 8, 2012 at 11:35 am
It should be:
“It’s the MAGNETIC sun stupid”
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Spc.htm
___________________________________________
This is a valid point, but the chart you link shows a cycle closer to 20.5 years, maybe 21 years at the most as a mean for the last 130 years or so.
However, I believe there could be a longer-term influence perhaps with a lead-time of about 45 to 50 years. If sunspot activity peaked around 1950, why did temperatures only peak around 1998? Has anyone investigated this over 130 years or more?
Nicola Scafetta says:
February 8, 2012 at 1:27 pm
where it is clearly proven that solar activity could count between 40% and 70% of the warming since 1850 according to whether PMOD or ACRIM total solar irradiance are used.
Unfortunately, neither of those is any good for this.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
February 8, 2012 at 1:34 pm
There may be hope, as the next round of models will include the variation of the sun’s output over its spectrum, not only as TSI.
Current models do consider the spectral variation, not only TSI.
tallbloke says:
February 8, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Anyone who tells you that they are sure the Sun has little effect on Earth’s climate variation deserves the full sceptical treatment.
But the Sun has a 0.1C effect
Given that the average surface temperature may have only changed 1.5C between little ice age and modern warm period, it wouldn’t take much solar variation to account for all of it, given that 1.5C is a ~0.5% change in absolute temperature terms.
It would take a 2% change in solar variation, which is ~20 times the cycle change.
Always keep in mind: J. Lean’s forecast for the temp in 2014 is 0.14 C temp INCREASE compared
to 2010…..this with knowledge of a true specialist on solar cycles and other solar activities!
…… Therefore, the Sun produces 70% of this forecast increase…..(is clear) and this forecast
0.14 C-temp increase will take place IN SPITE of energy HIDING both 1. in the pipeline (did not escape Hansens eyes) and 2. on the bottom of the oceans (according to studies of 1. NASA GISS and of 2. NASA JPL)……
…… which clearly means that the Sun will strongly PERFORM and OUTPERFORM, and not getting weak and tired until 2014……..therefore the exact forecast of global temps by specialist LEAN….!
No problem….if no spots, then we with have a good solar spotless performance….. this can be proven with satellite data of TIM V7-0702 ( please compare in tables/text, link: www. LISIRD-LASP) and just pick daily
measured values…. they are about 1 W/m2 higher than 6 years ago, for example….
JS
@ur momisugly Leif: “Unfortunately, neither of those is any good for this.”
Leif still does not get the point of my fair choice of using PMOD and ACRIM alternative scenarios. It is to give a range, Leif. Your model falls between.
My 2009 paper I reference above is discussed here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/18/scafetta-on-tsi-and-surface-temperature/
Please, Leif, look at the pictures. By using your record I would get something between case [C] and [B].
Doug Cotton says: February 8, 2012 at 2:23 pm
This is a valid point, but the chart you link shows a cycle closer to 20.5 years, maybe 21 years at the most as a mean for the last 130 years or so.
Hi Doug
If you take another look at the SSN spectral composition
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Spc.htm
you can see that the SSN peak is at 10.5 years, while the temperature peaks are at 21 years exactly twice.
But the SSN runs at 11 years?
Not exactly, the sun moves its average period every 100 or so years, take a look at the 200 year response at http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm
found towards the end of the webpage, you will note that the sun changes average rate of oscillation between 19th and 20th century (periods of these two peaks were verified with Dr. Svalgaard some time ago during an exchange of views on a WUWT thread.
I also wrote about this some time ago at the tallbloke’s talkshop; the effect can be clearly seen if the sunspot cycles are displayed in a polar diagram instead of the usual deCartesian.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Sg.htm
Nicola Scafetta says:
February 8, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Please, Leif, look at the pictures. By using your record I would get something between case [C] and [B].
It is not only the TSI-record that you misuse, the rest of your papers are just curve fitting at times on astrological basis and at times to flawed data [e.g. the auroral data]. “Frankly, my dear” I don’t place any value on any of them, but so what, there are hundreds of nonsense papers out there [several hyped on this very blog] so you are in ‘good’ company. And you can always chalk it up to my not understanding anything.
Carla says:
February 8, 2012 at 12:13 pm
……….. Didn’t Dr. S. explain to us a few times that when the north solar pole is positive, we see more reconnection events at earth.
Precisely. It is the geomagnetic storms that do the work in shifting the Earth’s magnetic field, one step at the time:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.htm
and for the rest: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
M.A.Vukcevic says:
February 8, 2012 at 3:08 pm
you will note that the sun changes average rate of oscillation between 19th and 20th century
The sun is not an ‘oscillator’ and it it were it couldn’t change period that abruptly.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 8, 2012 at 12:14 pm
… Partly [I think] because there is a strong feeling that in order to explain ‘global warming’ people need the sun to vary [sort of circular argument]….
———————————-
1. I thought the issue is not TSI, not magnetic field variation.
2. In Hiroko MIYAHARA’s presentation, pages 2 and 3, cosmic rays (described through C14, Be10) and temperatures proxies show spectacular correlation almost coherence. How does that match with your opinion ?
M.A.Vukcevic says:
February 8, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Precisely. It is the geomagnetic storms that do the work in shifting the Earth’s magnetic field, one step at the time
This is total nonsense [as opposed to usual nonsense]. The storms are not ‘shifting the Earth’s magnetic field’. They briefly populate the ring-current causing a temporary very small change [less than 1%] in the combined field at the surface. After a few days the field is back where it was. Any longer-term changes you see are due combined yearly and secular changes [the latter originating in the core of the Earth].
Oh my Lord! I saw the graph of solar wind flow pressure on slide 12 of Dr Tokumaru’s presentation and thought,”That looks familiar. That looks like one of my slides.” And so it is, from 2009: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/09/solar-wind-flow-pressure-another-indication-of-solar-downtrend/
Dr Tokumaru recycled a graph of mine on WUWT from three years ago! This has many implications. Firstly, the science on WUWT is good enough to be served up at international conferences, even years later. Instead of making their own update, scientists would rather use WUWT graphics because of their authenticity. Secondly, WUWT is running world climate science now. No international conference has any standing unless there is a reference to WUWT’s guidance. This imposes a great responsibility on us all. The leadership role of this blog means that we must strive to do the best science and the best grahics, and keep them up to date, because we will see them again.
The solar wind flow pressure has been doing some interesting things, so I will send in an update soon.
What is more flattering? The Daily Mail plagiarising my Solar Cycle 25 graph for 16 million readers, or being present in spirit at Nagoya? I think I will take a couple of days to decide that.
David Archibald says:
February 8, 2012 at 3:46 pm
Instead of making their own update, scientists would rather use WUWT graphics because of their authenticity.
No, simply because it is easier to ‘lift’ a Figure that is already there.
Manfred says:
February 8, 2012 at 3:45 pm
2. In Hiroko MIYAHARA’s presentation, pages 2 and 3, cosmic rays (described through C14, Be10) and temperatures proxies show spectacular correlation almost coherence. How does that match with your opinion ?
apart from the hockey stick on slide 4 I don’t see any that is relevant.
“The fact that there’s a scientific workshop discussing the solar-climate relationship at all, especially when doomsayers like Hansen say there’s no solar connection, should tell you something.”
No climate scientist, least of all James Hansen, says that there is no solar connection.
To SOLAR CONNECTION:
This is where you, and many more, need additional insight and where you are wrong:
The TSI concerns the SOLAR OUTPUT calculated for a fixed distance of 150 Mio km….
but.,…. the distance Sun Earth varies from day to day with 1. the advance of the planet Earth in
its orbit and 2. contains substantial trajectory LIBRATIONS (oscillations/perturbations,ligation, osculation)……
And point 2. is NOT contained in any of all AGW GCM models….thus ALL wrong….
.Orbital trajectory librations produce substantial radiative forcing (“RF”)
and Hansen, the IPCC AR4 and all Warmists [recognize they exist] but refuse
to investigate and quantify them because they [know and] are afraid of public presentation
of other substantial warming sources, in order to claim this orbital RF as an CO2-effect…..
If you read German, please see ISBN 978-3-86805-604-4….transparently
written and unrefuted/unrefutable, since only based on hard core facts…
JS author
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 8, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Manfred says:
February 8, 2012 at 3:45 pm
2. In Hiroko MIYAHARA’s presentation, pages 2 and 3, cosmic rays (described through C14, Be10) and temperatures proxies show spectacular correlation almost coherence. How does that match with your opinion ?
apart from the hockey stick on slide 4 I don’t see any that is relevant.
————————————————–
I can’t follow here. Even if anyone would cherrypick data, they would never ever get such a correlation without causation, except it is a cheat. But again, these are papers from good universities and Heidelberg among the best.
Shaviv has this data as well
http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate
@ur momisugly Leif Svalgaard says: February 8, 2012 at 3:17 pm
Leif, if there is a curve fitting that is Lean linear regression model that assumes that that the forcing functions are direct temperature constructors without any physical procesing from the climate system, by example through the heat capacity of the climate.
In my papers I take into account such physical properties, while Lean does not.
So, your behavior just further proves your personal prejudice and biases. By adding that last slide, Lean herself is moving toward my direction. When will you stop to be unfair?
tallbloke says:
February 8, 2012 at 2:18 pm
////////////////////////////
Based upon present knowledge, it does appear difficult to argue that changes in TSI during the course of the last century has had a significant effect on temperatures during that period. As far as changes in solar irradiance is concerned, it is changes in cloudiness which would have by far the greatest effect on how much solar energy reaches the ground/oceans. Whether solar cycles or other unknown activities in some way drives changes in cloudiness is a moot question.
If the sun does go quiet for an extended period and assuming no significant volcano activity, we will get a chance to see whether there may be some correlation between a quiet sun and cooling temperatures.
At this stage, it is too early to call.
Rich, spots or no spots…. if it were the spots which cause warming, we would be in a
Maunder minimum with minimum spots and bitter cold of more than 2.5 C less in GMT as in the
17 Cty…..forget the spots…..
the real driver is oscillations of the Earth’s orbit: The Earth’s trajectory contains
planetary Librations (see Wikipedia for the Moon), which vary the distance Sun-Earth, and
which is being kept secret at all cost by the IPCC…they put their mails as “Classified” and
refuse astronomical advice and expertise, as the IPCC TSU replied a few weeks ago onto my AR4 error submission….
The orbit is the place to search and find find the source of global warming and of global warming
standstill since 2001…..
JS
I am so praying for global warming.
That cold stuff is a real stinker.
Before the full brunt of cold will get you, the Warmists will pull the money out of your
pocket which you actually will need to be prepared…..
……somebody said once: No new taxes…no gas/electricity price hike….
But Warmists will empty out your pockets and will not feel sorry if their hype does not
materialize….. they can always put it off into the distant future and claim they are
ahead of their times instead of admitting, they are the real climate villains…
….. to be locked up if you will do good for mankind….too bad….
JS
This is just another excuse to promote more AGW propaganda on WUWT, I wonder if Anthony was slightly tricked? The Sun has no effect on climate and the PDO is just the same…. this mantra is what we seem to get from some of the guest posters.
Meanwhile the Sun is basically blank and the PDO negative while Europe is experiencing the big freeze of 2012.
REPLY: Really? Sheesh! Geoff you really need to get your conspiracy theories outta your noggin. I got a link, and made one email exchange, and I decided today would be the right day to publish it. No pressure to publish at all. -Anthony
M.A.Vukcevic says:
February 8, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Carla says: February 8, 2012 at 1:04 pm
…………..
Hi Carla
I am sure that the Interstellar Magnetic Field must be an important component in the chain of the interplanetary magnetic events.
=============
@ur momisugly M.A.Vukcevic
“It’s the magnetic sun”. I believe that this will one day come to pass as accepted science.
It’s the magnetic sun from one point of relativity. When multiple ‘views’ are taken in the grand association of things universally they must each be viewed from the relative perspective being observed. For example, the Interstellar Magnetic Field or fluxes from that or even cosmic winds we are not aware of, may have an effect on the sun, causing changes in the sun’s magnetic field. A perspective of relativity closer to earth would likely reveal that the sun’ magnetic field / solar eruptions or changes thereof has an effect on the Earth’s magnetic field. Yet another perspective of relativity would be the effects on the Earth would / could be observed as a result of these changes in the magnetic fluxes and lines / directions of these. There are powerful forces holding the universe together. These don’t stop just for us here on planet Earth, whether one would choose to believe it or not..
The exchange between, and comments of, the solar physicists Leif Svalgaard, Nicola Scafetta and David Archibald are entertaining and enlightening. If I wasn’t a sceptic I would suggest we follow usual practice, form a committee of experts to review the literature, have bureaucrats write a summary, and then declare the matter settled ex cathedra.
Anthony says:
REPLY: Really? Sheesh! Geoff you really need to get your conspiracy theories outta your noggin. I got a link, and made one email exchange, and I decided today would be the right day to publish it. No pressure to publish at all. -Anthony
I am not blaming you Anthony….just making an observation. That observation is that there is an under current at WUWT working hard to put out certain fires. All good in a forum of scientific free speech.
So Anthony, when do the “Its the sun, stupid!” T-Shirts go on sale?
M.A.Vukcevic says:
February 8, 2012 at 3:26 pm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
================
Is there a coincidence that the two NH regions of increased strength in the magnet field vertical height are both on seperate and large land masses One that could be viewed as North and South America, the other being Europe, Asia, and possibly Africa combined. Seperated by vast oceans of salt water.
View the tetonic plate lines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Plates_tect2_en.svg ). To the south (from a relative perspective of the Earth) there is the Antarctic plate isolated by oceans (at least as far as land mass is concerned) and the magnetic pole is stable as far as location. To the north artic region there are two geographic locations where there is variability with regards to the magnetic pole flux, if you will. Just a curious observation on my part.