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:
If there is a connection between visibility of spots and earth’s temperature, Livingston and Penn help me understand the large, and sparse sunspots during the Maunder Minimum. But why were those large, sparse spots primarily southern hemispheric?
===============================
@ur momisugly Leif Svalgaard says: February 8, 2012 at 10:44 pm “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.”
You need to read my papers. It is evident that you are trying to defame. It is hard to be honest, for you, isn’t it?
In my papers I have used only ACRIM and PMOD, but also the major TSI proxy reconstructions by Lean and Solanky. And my reconstructions are maded for centuries. Your flat TSI is not believed by anybody but yourself. Not even the IPCC believes your solar model made of a linear rescaling ofthe sunspot number series without any backgroud solar irradiance variation variation.
About my papers, just go to my web-site and/or look here
Nicola Scafetta, and Bruce J. West, “Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the NH surface temperature records since 1600.” J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S03, doi:10.1029/2007JD008437 (2007).
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf
N. Scafetta, “Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change,” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 71 1916–1923 (2009), doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2009.07.007
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/ATP2998.pdf
About the latest paper with a possible forecast for the future. Look here
N. Scafetta, “Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation climate models” Journal of Atmospheric
and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, in press. DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2011.12.005.
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta_models_comparison_ATP.pdf
Nicola Scafetta says:
February 9, 2012 at 7:51 am
Your flat TSI is not believed by anybody but yourself.
Figure 3 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf
The “uniform 0.1K” solar narrative is razed by observational data.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Spc.htm
I don’t have a problem looking at graphs
but please let us be clear on what we are looking at:
a) title?
b) x?
c) y/
Sorry. just to be a bit clearer on my last post
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Spc.htm
the title does not correspond with years on the x
there is nothing on the y
I don’t know waht is SSN and I don’t know what we are looking at
‘
Hi Henry
From the website linked to your name I assume you are in SA. That makes it a fascinating coincidence, since in less than an hour my daughter (recent graduate from Oxford) will be boarding flight to Jo’burg, on a working visit to the Cullinan Diamond Mines, with two weekends at the Kruger Park. Here are some details relating to your question:
Title it should be something as ‘Sunspot and the global temperatures spectral analysis output comparison’ since the graphs represent spectral analysis output for 3 variables;
– Sunspot number (shown in green) data from: http://sidc.oma.be/DATA/monthssn.dat
– Land and Ocean global temperatures (blue colour) from: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
– Land only global temperature (red colour) from: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt
X-axis: Spectral response in engineering is usually given as a frequency graph of components, but where frequency is very, very low as in this case, it is given as a period corresponding to the frequency (T = 1/F), so you get a reasonable number, here expressed in years.
Since the GISS temperature data is only available since 1880, in order to use a fair comparison I used Sunspot number data also from 1880 only.
For this period of time strongest component for the SSN is about 10.5 years which may sound as a bit strange considering that it is usually assumed to be ~ 11 years, but that is what the analyser comes up with.
To get clearer view I split graph in two portions, 6-13 and 17-29 years where the most of frequencies are concentrated. Further up there are more components but solar spectrum response falls off rapidly, so it’s of a less importance.
For a data set of limited length the reliability of the analysis becomes questionable ( here data is 130 years long, so I would consider anything with period above 40 years not reliable), there are good reasons for this but rather complex.
Y-axis is a non-dimensional number, sometimes 0-1 or 1-100, sometimes as 0-100%, depending on the software, but value is not particularly important since you are comparing relative values (sometime power, others just intensity or correlation with an ideal sine-wave).
I do not put any numbers since they are most of time meaningless, just show relative value of the relevant components.
I hope that is of some help.
Well, Cullinan Diamond Mines, is 40 km east from where I live. I know exactly where she is going. Kruger Park is where we all go for holidays (if you want to see some game)
I am afraid the explanation of the graph is not yet too clear to me.
The only thing I understand now from your graph is that sunspot activity seems to cause cooling?
If that be true, then somehow, sunspot activity must cause more clouds.
Dr. Svalgaard, your presentation was an outstanding aid in understanding how measurement instrument and process changes over time may affect perceptions about what trend did or did not exist, particularly for a layperson, albeit well-educated. I would assume, however, that the same excellent analysis should be done of all the other measurements that are relevant to weather and climate, such as temperature, particularly any such measurements that are proxies and no actual direct measurements. If the same level of analysis were done on these measures that you did on sunspots, etc., I suspect we would wind up where we should, which is recognizing that we have very little fully trustworthy data and the most trustworthy is for incredibly short periods of time in the scheme of things. Temperature, being the most important, is an excellent example of lack of trustworthy data. Systematic comprehensive temperature taking, using exactly the same methods and instruments, and taken uniformly over land and water and at various heights and depths of each, is still nonexistent. Coverage and process have improved recently, but not for any truly extended period of time. Therefore, I would find it just as hard to accept a supposed increase in the Earth’s “temperature”, whatever that means, as you found it to accept that solar activity had actually increased in recent decades. To take any kind of remedial steps, with potentially unknown consequences, in the absence of better data and better hypothesis about causation, feedbacks, etc., seems very foolish. So I would hope that the main effort climate scientists should be making is to set up systems to gather good useful data which can support a better understanding of the overall climate system, which is by every account incredibly complex.
Or, when the cycle changes (magnetic polar solar change?) it does the opposite, causing warming?
Leif Svalgaard says:
Figure 3 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf
———————————————————————-
Oh, THEY expect a Maunder type minimum, while the Met Service just published a statement, that we may run into a Dalton type minimum with 92% probability. Where do solar scientists agree and where not ?
HenryP says:
February 9, 2012 at 11:06 am
……………
The way I see it, global temperature changes respond to solar magnetic cycle which has period around 22 years which is twice the sunspot cycle period , and do not react to any significant degree to the TSI (total solar irradiance) changes associated with 11 year cycle, so Dr. Svalgaard may have a point about 0.1 degree change due to the SSN.
Problem with the magnetic cycle effect is the non-existence of a viable physical process acceptable to the science to account for the corresponding temperature changes.
Leif Svalgaard says:
My own presentation shows that it is possible to add enough explanatory text so people can follow the presentation. In [weak] defense of Lean, I’ll point out that the presentation was not for a general audience, but for scientists actively studying the topic and thus already familiar with a lot of the background. .
Reality check, Leif – over on her blog, Judith Curry says:
“Svalgaard’s ppt file is less easy to interpret in stand alone form, with little text, but I reproduce his conclusions here:”
She finds Lean’s slide show easier to interpret than yours. Must be a Judy thing, we wouldn’t understand ;^)
HenryP says: February 9, 2012 at 10:47 am
…………..
hi again
I think you may benefit from reading on the spectral analysis, it is somewhat complex subject to start, but once it is understood, its basics are really simple.
Take SSN data
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
this is something happening in a ‘time domain’, i.e. changes with time.
Spectral analysis process changes data from a ‘time domain’ to a ‘frequency domain’.
Now imagine above graph as a sound you here from someone playing piano, that is also in time domain, however the keyboard is arranged in the ‘frequency domain’, each key plays always just one note (frequency), regardless when it is hit during piece played.
So, a piano keyboard represents a frequency domain of any music ever composed for, or played on a piano.
Now think of sun as having basically just two keys, middle C or C4 (261.6Hz), represented by sunspot cycle with 11 year period, and the other key ‘small C’ or C3 (130.8Hz) half the frequency-twice the period (octave lower) now represented by the twice as long magnetic 22 year cycle.
The green lines here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Spc.htm
are then analogues to C4 and C3 piano keys, so we have achieved a transformation of something that changes in time, to something which doesn’t.
There is much that falls into place when one realises that weather and climate simply represent changes in the rate of energy flow through a part of the system (the troposphere) and not any change in system energy content or equilibrium temperature.
To the extent that atmospheric gases slow down the rate of energy flow from surface to space there is a speeding up of all the other energy transfer processes that serve to speed it up again just as much for a zero or near zero net effect on system energy content.
Sources of solar irradiance variability are spectral dependent, which is much more difficult to measure than TSI. Spectral variations are seen on the 27 day solar rotation cycle and also on the 11 year sunspot cycle.
Solar cycle irradiance modulates:
• stratospheric vortex
• tropospheric circulation
• NAO (solar min) AO (solar max)
What’s on offer:
• Decadal trends in solar irradiance are not yet detectable from uncertainties caused by instrument instabilities in observations: historical irradiance reconstructions are very uncertain
• Natural influences, including solar irradiance variations, alter Earth’s surface temperature, atmosphere and ozone.
• Natural influences and anthropogenic influences have different strengths in the stratosphere relative to the surface
• Surface temperatures will continue to increase Lower stratospheric temperature will remain at about current levels Total ozone will increase, exceeding 1980 levels as soon as 2025
• Current understanding assumes that climate response to solar radiative forcing is thermodynamic
• Empirical evidence suggests it is dynamic, rather than (or as well) as thermodynamic
• Irradiance decrease from 1996 to 2008 solar minimum claimed to produce global cooling . . . but decrease in PMOD and ACRIM composites is instrumental in modelling climate
• Irradiance increase from 1986 to 1996 solar minimum claimed to produce 20-30% of recent global warming . . . but increase in ACRIM composite is instrumental in modelling climate.
There is significant uncertainty with solar reconstructions, and the interpretation of satellite measurements since 1980. There isin the baseline measurements across different satellite systems.
While this uncertainty seems generally acknowledged in the solar community, the concern is that the CMIP climate model experiments for the IPCC uses only one solar reconstruction.
The IPCC has framed the climate change problem in the context of anthropogenic forcing, There has been far too little emphasis on understanding the sun and solar-climate interactions.
For what’s it worth, I’m in Dr Scafettas’ camp.
I think it’s very important to note Judith Lean’s position on the role of the sun and climate change. She seeks to find the most accurate percentage of attribution of climate change to various forcings and in no way denies the role of anthropogenic forcing, nor indeed, the increasing influence of anthropogenic forcing in the later part of the 20th century versus the early part. For her it is a question of putting a fine point of understanding on the mechanisms behind solar influences, so that greater certainty can be given when contrasting the role of the sun versus anthropogenic and other factors.
She certainly would not agree with the statement: “It’s (just the sun) stupid”, as she fully understands that humans are playing a role in altering Earth’s climate.
R. Gates says:
February 9, 2012 at 4:08 pm
“For her it is a question of putting a fine point of understanding* on the mechanisms behind solar influences, so that greater certainty* can be given when contrasting the role of the sun versus anthropogenic and other factors.”
She could have noted that the AO and AAO have a direct response to trends in solar wind speed, and that ENSO has an inverse response (consistently), and that they are all externally forced. You can largely ignore TSI when you know that.
“”R. Gates says:
February 9, 2012 at 4:08 pm She certainly would not agree with the statement: “It’s (just the sun) stupid”, as she fully understands that humans are playing a role in altering Earth’s climate.””
How long have you had the ability to read minds? I have now instructed my mind, to divert from any of your future comments, as reading them causes a dumbing down of intelligence.
To Leif Svalgaard ….. you state:
“…….quote: (1) The orbital parameters change slowly over tens of thousands of years and (2) need not be taken into account in models on the time scale of centuries. The day-to-day changes are fully accounted……..”….
….. I am incredibly amazed, how a scientist can repeat this absolute nonsense [because this
concerns only the 5 Keplerian elements…but…NOT PERTURBATION PARAMETERS] …
This is lower than high school level….. either we take our time and get to the bottom of subject or stay shallow on the surface, which also your exchange with Nicola proves….. too bad the low level of your knowledge……unexpected to me….therefore,
……. a little extra help is necessary to broaden your knowledge:
(1) This slow change concerns ONLY theoretical 2-D ellipse calculations with 5 Keplerian
elements and your proposed data for
the distances Sun-Earth are given in NASA JPL Horizons….. your wonderful
Earth-Sun distance list are NOT measurements (!) and most of all: Leaving completely
unconsidered:
Orbital oscillations, perturbations, ligations, Librations and the J_2-motions…..
(2) …. You should know this NASA list is NOT the REAL TRAJECTORY and you can see
this as well by the “Formal definition of 1 AU”, given by the International Astronomical Union
(IAU) of 1 AU: “1 AU is defined as the radius of an UNPERTURBED circular orbit that a
massless body would revolve about the Sun……etc”…. but the Orbit is PERTURBED,
too bad for the IPCC/Warmists……
(3) The wrong IPCC/AGW/Warmist/Your views cannot be upheld: It is necessary to calculate
the annually changing ORBITAL PARAMETERS of Perturbations, Osculations, Librations,
J_2-motions as enumerated above…..
I am quite certain, that you either have never heard of those and that you will not be able
to give sizes, dimensions, periods of these orbital perturbation parameters….
……………….you just repeat nonsense of AR4, wg1, chapter 6, 2 and 9, while the IPCC
error complaint TSU already agreed to my view…..
Sorry, no better opinion possible….if you had anything substantial to add to point (3) I would
be very obliged….
JS
Ulric Lyons says:
February 9, 2012 at 5:12 pm
She could have noted that the AO and AAO have a direct response to trends in solar wind speed, and that ENSO has an inverse response (consistently)
Supporting evidence for this statement Ulric?
Markus Fitzhenry says:
February 9, 2012 at 5:26 pm
“”R. Gates says:
February 9, 2012 at 4:08 pm She certainly would not agree with the statement: “It’s (just the sun) stupid”, as she fully understands that humans are playing a role in altering Earth’s climate.””
How long have you had the ability to read minds? I have now instructed my mind, to divert from any of your future comments, as reading them causes a dumbing down of intelligence.
——–
A quick selection of just a few of her latest paper would quickly tell you that mind reading is not necessary.
Manfred says:
February 9, 2012 at 11:25 am
Oh, THEY expect a Maunder type minimum, while the Met Service just published a statement, that we may run into a Dalton type minimum with 92% probability. Where do solar scientists agree and where not ?
No, they do not expect a Maunder type minimum. What they said was that the current minimum was not any deeper that the Maunder minimum, specifically “Therefore, the best estimate of magnetic activity, and presumably TSI, for the least-active Maunder Minimum phases appears to be provided by direct measurement in 2008-2009”. The Met Service are not solar scientists.
JJ says:
February 9, 2012 at 1:28 pm
She finds Lean’s slide show easier to interpret than yours. Must be a Judy thing, we wouldn’t understand ;^)
Likely because Lean’s is closer to Curry’s own field.
Joachim Seifert says:
February 9, 2012 at 5:35 pm
your proposed data for the distances Sun-Earth are given in NASA JPL Horizons
Which are the best available and include the perturbations, etc from all the planets, moons, and all the larger asteroids and are of very high accuracy [meters] and are based on all available measurements and continuously updated as new data becomes available. Consult: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons
Leif,
wonderful, the JPL data, including perturbations….. but, but:
the data of JPL Horizons are NOT employed in IPCC AR4 wg1-chapt 2, 6 and 9 analyses…..
and therefore the perturbations are missing and, see chapt 2 of Mr. Forster: We all “assume”
a “Invariance of the orbit”!! … ???……. Is this “IPCC warmist science” to continue assuming and assuming and rejecting orbit research [TSU error reply: “no ACTION warranted”]
Please read more accurately……
In order to deprive the orbit its due RF, the IPCC uses the old-fashioned Belgian stuff,
based on Berger, A, 1978, and of orbit RF deniers, the, in due course advanced
vice-presidente Ypersele, then Goosse, Cruzifix, Bertrand, Loutre etc….
……. Further: your relevance milleniums quote for glacial times….quote taken from chapter 6,
there even more rigid : “SOLELY” the “eccentricity”.!!….
They TSU replied to my complaint about “Solely”: “Solely” because the simulation study “solely” used Bergers 1978 eccentricity parameters and nothing more” [no perturbations, librations, osculations of the orbit…they were all left out….AGW says Hallo!]
…..This was all done on purpose in order to oversell CO2……but this will not
continue, because they cannot hide the truth anymore, just continue with arrogance combined
with ignorance, as they do…..and climate villains as Mr. Cruzifix inflates himself in his blog as a great, true scientist, to whom student may come with humble questions but he will never look
into another blog for advances in science….. he knows everything….I heard this before…..
Make sure you dont associate with the wrong kind of “”Scientists”” because this word slowly
loses its brilliance…..JS
R. Gates says:
February 9, 2012 at 4:08 pm
She certainly would not agree with the statement: “It’s (just the sun) stupid”, as she fully understands that humans are playing a role in altering Earth’s climate.
———————————————————————–
She would then be the only person on the planet with this ability, perhaps besides R.Gates.
Why don’t we then shut down the IPCC and their satellite institutes and just ask Lean or Gates if there is a problem ?
Allan MacRae says: February 9, 2012 at 12:36 am
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?
__________________________________________________________
So far, none of you have accepted my challenge.
It’s all very nice to argue about the infinite number of arcane details within this complex subject, but why not provide your best estimate of the important bottom line?
If you don’t like the way I worded the question above, then please change it.
Will the next few decades be warmer, about the same, or cooler?
If you have no opinion, based on all your work, that also is worth noting.
___________________________________________________________
I say there is no probability of more warming in the next few decades, since Earth is at the plateau of a natural warming cycle, and global cooling, moderate or severe, is the next step.
It is notable that those such as the IPCC team who predict catastrophic global warming have had to invent reasons (and fabricate data) to support their cases and hindcast their deeply flawed computer models – for example, inventing alleged (and non-existent) aerosol data to explain the global cooling that occurred from ~1945-1975. Expect more phantom aerosols to suddenly materialize as global cooling resumes.
These IPCC arguments have no scientific basis – they are religious dogma, that say: “Since we KNOW that the manmade increase in atmospheric CO2 is a dangerous driver of Earth’s temperature, then there MUST BE an explanation such as aerosols to explain the cooling.”
Furthermore, when confronted with the fact that CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales, they say it MUST BE a feedback effect. There is a much simpler explanation.
The IPCC arguments also assume that the Uniformitarian Principle has been rescinded, and Occam’s Razor can safely be ignored (but just for them).
Allan,
in temp forecasting, we are 4: You, Nicola Scafetta, the Russian Abibullov and me
in Amazon.de ISBN 978-3-86805-604-4 (In German)
The booklet concerns Earth’s orbit perturbations and Librations, because the real
Earth’s trajectory is not the mathematically calculated mean progressive path but
rather a ligation spiral flight around this orbital path…..
Looking into this…. the forecast until 2100 is undisputably clear…temps are going down ..
Greetings
JS
Allan MacRae says:
February 10, 2012 at 7:55 am
…………
I don’t do predictions, only use extrapolations, these can be used for far more accurate forecasts based purely on numerical analysis of the historical data.
You can see some here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Fc.htm