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:
Geoff Sharp says:
February 8, 2012 at 6:39 pm
Is anybody else gobsmacked with the abject stupidity of that statement?
Oh, I get it–we’re supposed to laughing so hard we’re all rolling on the floor without recollection. Yup, I get it.
Tying to follow here but very confused. Earth just got out of a solar minimum and temperatures might have taken a little wobble but are still trending up. Jim Hansen says solar not the “dominant-driver” of warming. To Richard Verney’s point == isn’t that the proof? What is the issue here??!!!
So Leif, what are we to make of the Abdussamotov paper? His calculations estimate a TSI change of around 2.65 Wm-2 assuming cycles 25 and beyond drop off into a Dalton or Maunder type minimum. If we are talking about wavelengths that get into solar IR, visible and UV, the energy density of these is larger than IR, and solar shortwave is absorbed to much deeper depths in the ocean than IR energy is by the time it is absorbed and converted to heat.The respone time to warming or cooling by the oceans is obviously much shorter for solar variation than IR. There are also four distinct water vapor bands in the solar IR wavelengths ranging from 700-1200 nanometers that would heat atmospheric water vapor.
The negative feedbacks referencing water vapors optical depth from even small changes in TSI causing a greater amplification of cooling by unspooling the water vapor optical depth and increasing OLR in the earths infrared makes a lot of sense to me as a meteorologist. I think you are making a mistake to conclude small changes in TSI at the solar wavelengths don’t much matter.
Joachim Seifert says:
February 8, 2012 at 6:12 pm
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 orbital parameters change slowly over tens of thousands of years and need not be taken into account in models on the time scale of centuries. The day-to-day changes are fully accounted as Steven Mosher pointed out in another thread http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/07/nasa-climate-model-shows-plants-slow-global-warming-by-creating-a-new-negative-feedback-in-response-to-increased-co2/
steven mosher says:
December 8, 2010 at 10:40 am
“do their climate models rotate at at? Do they vary their distance from the sun annually? ”
DAFS : do a search. This code has been available for years now. The code browser
is very nice and people should do more reading and less speculation. I cannot be the only person on WUWT who knows how to read code. It’s only 100K or so LOC
doesnt take very long.
SUBROUTINE ORBIT (OBLIQ,ECCN,OMEGT,DAY,SDIST,SIND,COSD,LAMBDA) 1,1
!@sum ORBIT receives the orbital parameters and time of year, and
[…]
!@+ returns the distance from the sun and its declination angle.
RETURN
END SUBROUTINE ORBIT
Nicola Scafetta says:
February 8, 2012 at 5:08 pm
So, your behavior just further proves your personal prejudice and biases.
I do indeed have a strong bias against poor science.
By adding that last slide, Lean herself is moving toward my direction.
The last slide was a bit of mockery… of poor West and his ilk
When will you stop to be unfair?
Fairness has nothing to do with it. Bad science must always be opposed.
Chuck Wiese says:
February 8, 2012 at 7:35 pm
So Leif, what are we to make of the Abdussamotov paper?
since it is based on an extrapolation of a decrease that didn’t even happen, not much can be made of his paper. Of course, if the paper supports somebody’s an agenda, that person will make the most of the paper [at his peril, but perhaps he doesn’t care].
RockyRoad says:
February 8, 2012 at 7:31 pm
Oh, I get it–we’re supposed to laughing so hard we’re all rolling on the floor without recollection. Yup, I get it.
I am not sure I understand your point?
I commented on an eariler thread about a little ‘experiment’ I did several years ago. Using a compass (needle type) I played around with it on my car. I did the same thing again a couple of days ago. Holding the compass a couple of inches off the hood it remained reasonably accurate. As I move it to the edge of the hood and the edge of the car the needle aligned with the edge of the metal. It was the same effect that I had noticed years ago. The magnetic lines were dramatically altered at the edge.
Thoughts to ponder:
(1) Would the same effect occur with regards to the tetonic plates?
(2) Would altering the magnetic field over a relative short period of time on a much larger scale, Earth, be important?
(3) Would the Earth, in a sense, act as a capacitor of sorts with the potential ‘charge’ being held by magnetic fluxes?
(4) If these magnetic fluxes were to undergo change could it impact / cause earthquakes or volcanos?
So many questions.
Leif:
The last slide was a bit of mockery… of poor West and his ilk
===========
“poor”? That’s a bit rich.
That fallacy is called “appeal to ridicule.”
It is a very popular fallacy. But popular doesn’t mean scientific.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 8, 2012 at 7:52 pm
“The last slide was a bit of mockery…”
=============
Define “a bit”, then I would ask why she would include “mockery” in her presentation, it seems rather unprofessional, and misleading enough for a post ???
God help us all.
Khwarizmi says:
February 8, 2012 at 8:22 pm
It is a very popular fallacy. But popular doesn’t mean scientific.
But claiming 69% for and 70% against is scientific in your opinion?
eyesonu says:
February 8, 2012 at 8:10 pm
So many questions. [about magnetic fields]
The magnetic field exerts a VERY weak force, so none of the effects you mention are important for earthquakes and the like.
“If I were to hide out on the sea,
you’d be whisperin’ from the westerlies.” — Lights
u.k.(us) says:
February 8, 2012 at 8:25 pm
it seems rather unprofessional, and misleading enough for a post ?
My take on it [I was there] is that all she wanted to do was to show some of the [from her point of view] absurdness of the reporting. The sun cult is a rabid as the AGW cult; just look at some of comments here. True skepticism is the poorer because of this.
No blank sun, see http://spaceweather.com/
Leif Svalgaard says: “But claiming 69% for and 70% against is scientific in your opinion?”
Leif, you should read my papers before criticizing them. Unfortunately, you are not sufficiently honest to be fair. You are just interested in defaming and distort the facts. You should joint the “team” before that it is too late!
As I said above, in my papers the calculations are done by adopting both ACRIM and PMOD as the exstreme cases.
In my papers published before 2008, the results is that if we use ACRIM with its increasing trend it was found that up to 70% of the warming since 1850 could be solar induced, which leaves to the antropogenic component the 30%.
If one uses PMOD with its decreasing trend, the sun could csause 30-40% of the warming, which means that human could have caused 60-70% of the warming since 1850
So, there is no contraddiction in the statement about the 69% for and 70% against. The two estimates refers to the two extreme cases.
Unfortunately, you are filled with prejudices, so I do not expect that you apologize.
However, my explanation will surely help the readers of this blog to better realize your lack of fairness and that nobody should trust what you say.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 8, 2012 at 9:44 pm
=================
Thanks Leif, I knew you were there, and appreciate the reply and your participation.
I am saddened that the good Dr. Lean, has somehow left us with so many interpretations to be made.
It can be hard to keep up.
Nicola Scafetta says:
February 8, 2012 at 10:25 pm
better realize your lack of fairness and that nobody should trust what you say.
I think that the folks here are capable of making up their minds without your help [and without my help]. Your attempts to make this a personal vendetta fall flat, although you may a few sycophants out there.
The real issue with TSI is not how it has varied the last 20 years, but how it has varied the last 110 years or 300 years. There are good reasons to assert that TSI now is on par with TSI a century ago and that solar activity in the 20th century was similar that that in the 18th. Your numerological curve fitting should then also lead you to the conclusion that climates should be equal as well. But I think we have discussed all that at great length before and there seems little justification to try to hijack this thread too.
u.k.(us) says:
February 8, 2012 at 10:41 pm
I am saddened that the good Dr. Lean, has somehow left us with so many interpretations to be made.
As always people will choose an interpretation that supports their own agendas and ignore the rest.
Eric Priest had a good recent overview of the bleeding edge of solar physics:
http://iaus286.iafe.uba.ar/Charlas/Monday1/1-Eric%20Priest/Mendoza.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 8, 2012 at 11:02 pm
“As always people will choose an interpretation that supports their own agendas and ignore the rest.”
==============
Now you’re into politics, and speaking truth.
The scientific elite, trying to convince to the unwashed masses, that they can’t stop the funding any time they want.
In this complex case, I suggest that the best test of one’s scientific credibility is the degree to which one can accurately predict future global temperatures.
How many of you are prepared to go on record with your best estimate?
Let’s use the decade from begin 2001 to end 2010 as a reference and UAH satellite Lower Troposphere temperatures; you may revise this multiple-choice answer list if you wish:
In the decade from 2021 to 2030, will average global temperatures be:
1. Much warmer than the past decade (similar to IPCC projections) ?
2. About the same as the past decade?
3. Moderately cooler than the past decade?
4. Much cooler than the past decade (similar to ~~1800 temperatures, during the Dalton Minimum) ?
5. Much much cooler than the past decade (similar ~~1700 temperatures, during to the Maunder Minimum) ?
Ladies and Gentlemen, faites vos jeux!
Nicola?
Leif?
Anthony?
Joe?
I would appreciate an answer from anyone who chooses to respond.
I promise not to take all the results and average them (like the IPCC allegedly does with climate model outputs).
My assumptions:
Changes in atmospheric CO2 are an insignificant driver of global temperature.
Changes in Solar output have a significant influence on global temperature, probably through some amplifier effect such as proposed by Svensmark.
I say:
1. 0% probability of occurrence
2. 20%
3. 40%
4. 25%
5. 15%
In summary, I say it is going to get cooler, with a significant probability that it will be cold enough to negatively affect the grain harvest.
I’d like to be wrong in my outlook – bring on the global warming – we can live with that.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 8, 2012 at 3:46 pm
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’.
Hi doc. Nice to have you back.
I just deal with data as published, the rest is matter of interpretation.
After a few days the field is back where it was.
Apparently not here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.htm
on the other hand the amateur snoops should ‘mind their own business’ and keep out of the what is already ‘the settled science’.
I am thinking our scientists have very little knowledge of old Sol. That the L.I.A. occurred when people were actually observing the sun and found to their dismay that it was on holidays with no spots.
Scientists say the TSI doeth not vary much, I say to them in all earnestness keep looking, for whatever. some thing in the suns behaviour caused the L.I.A.
All those years with little or no sun spots and a mini ice age would tend to suggest that the sun has every thing to do with our climate, after all, it is our one and only power station?
How any one could think that the sun is like a 100 watt bulb that is unvarying is beyond belief, science is yet to explain gravity, magnetism, electricity and the light spectrum not to mention matter and they wish us to believe they understand the sun, good grief!!
If the sun is responsible for 69% of temperature where does the 31% come from? Since the sun is the only source of heat available, ignoring the small geothermal input, I recon it is responsible for 100%.
Dan says:
February 8, 2012 at 12:02 pm
……….
Hi Dan
Thanks.