From the The Washington Times – By Willie Soon and William M. Briggs
Scientists have been studying solar influences on the climate for more than 5,000 years.
Chinese imperial astronomers kept detailed sunspot records. They noticed that more sunspots meant warmer weather. In 1801, the celebrated astronomer William Herschel (discoverer of the planet Uranus) observed that when there were fewer spots, the price of wheat soared. He surmised that less light and heat from the sun resulted in reduced harvests.
Earlier last month, professor Richard Muller of the University of California-Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project announced that in the project’s newly constructed global land temperature record, “no component that matches solar activity” was related to temperature. Instead, Mr. Muller said carbon dioxide controlled temperature.
Could it really be true that solar radiation — which supplies Earth with the energy that drives our climate and which, when it has varied, has caused the climate to shift over the ages — is no longer the principal influence on climate change?
Consider the accompanying chart. It shows some rather surprising relationships between solar radiation and daytime high temperatures taken directly from Berkeley’s BEST project. The remarkable nature of these series is that these tight relationships can be shown to hold from areas as large as the United States.
This new sun-climate relationship picture may be telling us that the way our sun cools and warms the Earth is largely through the penetration of incoming solar radiation in regions with cloudless skies. Recent work by National Center for Atmospheric Research senior scientists Harry van Loon and Gerald Meehl place strong emphasis on this physical point and argue that the use of daytime high temperatures is the most appropriate test of the solar-radiation-surface-temperature connection hypothesis. All previous sun-climate studies have included the complicated nighttime temperature records while the sun is not shining.
Read more: SOON AND BRIGGS: Global-warming fanatics take note – Washington Times
HenryP says:
September 9, 2012 at 8:46 am
HenryP says:
I admit to having a slightly mixed reaction to this comment. On the one hand I appear to be iassociated with one of the foremost solar scientists over the past 40 years. On the other hand, however, I seem to be accused of having a financial interest in promoting the lack of solar influence on variations in the earth’s global energy balance.
Henry, I think there are a few things you should be aware of:
1. I don’t know Leif and I’ve never met him but, as an interested ‘amateur’ I have read much of what he’s written. His research and conclusions are, by far, more convincing than any others I’ve read.
2. I am not a proponent of CAGW and have challenged both Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt numerous times on the RC blog. I took Michael Mann to task on the ‘hide the decline’ issue several years before the ‘climategate’ revelations.
3. Leif Svalgaard is a solar scientist. If the sun really was as influential as some people suggest then Leif’s subject of interest would gain a level of importance far greater than it currently has. Why on earth would he wish to play down the role of the sun?
4. I’ve looked at your global temperature analysis (the one you keep pushing) – and it’s totally flawed. You use just 47 stations but don’t explain why, i.e. why not use 60, 70, ..or 100. Of those 47 stations – 6 are in South Africa. I’ll leave you to work out what percentage of the world’s surface area contains ~12% of your station sample.
Poptech says:
September 9, 2012 at 4:25 pm
You appear to have a problem with a particular poster on this blog, i.e. Steve Mosher. The central point of your argument appears to be that Briggs is a super-duper, top drawer, 24-carat statistician while Mosher is a total duffer. This may well be true. However, reading back, it looks as though Steve Mosher simply stated that Briggs (& Soon) had used “obsolete data”.
The fact is that Briggs (& Soon) used obsolete data., so Mosher was right.
Have you anything relevant to contribute to this ongoing discussion?
”Sunspots” is a bigger con than tree-rings (Fake Skeptic’s con).
Sun-flares were discovered over 100y ago; by blocking the sun with cardboard – then monitoring the flares in the crown. Unfortunately, the flares noticed in the crown affect the area where the earth would be in 6 months, minus 8minutes. The flares that come in 8 minutes to the earth were impossible to observe, because of the glare.
For the first time was powerful enough filter made; to ”discover for the first time that there are SUNSPOTS” … was about 2005-6. Then, by using the misleading GLOBAL temperature charts – the swindlers filled up for when they think was sunspots; for the last 500years – to support the misleading temp charts – then they made it to became official. If anybody believes that: there was so stupid people then; to look at the sun and get blind in minutes – just to collect data for the contemporary shonky climatologist from both camps – you better visit a shrink. Sunspots CON is used by the Fake Skeptics – it suits the Warmist (they will not expose the con) but is good enough for the Warmist; to know that they are in a company of bigger liars than themselves.
The function of UV has nothing to do with heat. Leif will always point towards the small part UV plays in TSI but is less eager to discuss the chemical interactions in the atmosphere that are a direct result of UV variation. The lower parts of the UV spectrum have a 100% variation over the cycle.
The are many accredited scientist’s working on the ozone/climate link and they all recognize the role of UV. The UV graph for SC24 shows the dire position of UV compared with previous cycles.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/EUV.png
http://www.usc.edu/dept/space_science/sem_data/SEM%20Data%20Graphs/SEM_1996-2010.jpg
The TSI issue looks to be based on the discrediting the GSN record. The current attack is based on the improper group conversion factor of Wolf’s sunspot record. Wolf used a threshold which meant many of the smaller groups were not counted, the assumption is that H&S did not allow for this, but if we look at the H&S data they are very much aware of Wolf’s counting practice which is stated. I think there is more to come in this area.
Poptech says:
Poor JJ, Mosher still has worthless science and statistical credentials …
With respect to questions of scientific knowledge, all credentials are worthless.
Your persistence on this means this information is clearly not widely known, …
No it doesn’t. There is no logical connection between the two. Your ability to reason is very limited.
What exactly are my credentials?
Meaningless to this discussion.
I have never published them online for privacy reasons but I can assure you I have never pretended to be a climate scientist or a statistician only what I actually am a computer analyst.
LOL. A computer analyst that cannot reason. Thank you for providing such a stunning example of the utter irrelevance of “credentials”.
“Brillinger’s credentials make Briggs look like an ambitious third grader.”
I find this statement to be based on pure idiocy and see nothing to support it.
I bow to this overwhelming demonstration of your superior qualifications vis a vis the subject of “pure idiocy”.
We will then find out how much of an effect people actually knowing his scientifically and statistically worthless credentials has on how people take his “arguments”.
If the people are like you, it may have quite an effect. Simple minds are easily led around by ad hominem, ad vericundium, and other fallacious arguements. That is the primary reason why ‘global warming’ is as accepted as it is, both among the general population as well as the “credentialed scientists”. Guys like Stephan Lewandowsky make entire careers out of figuring out how to manipulate such sloppy thinking to achieve political ends. Perhaps you missed your calling. He is currently working on a system that works at the intersection of ad hominem, ad vericundiam, and ad populum. He may need a couple of lab rats to test it on …
Geoff Sharp says:
September 9, 2012 at 7:45 pm
Beyond even that, how about even more energetic photons, e.g., solar X-rays? These appear to vary quite a bit, and we can’t have been measuring them for very long. And, then what about gamma rays?
And, of course, all this ties in with the Svensmark hypothesis which, last I heard, was holding up well. Some researchers have claimed that consideration of this effect allows reconstruction of the Earth’s climate over the past 1,000,000 years. The authors tantalizingly assert that:
BTW, with due respect to JJ, whose inputs I often value, and Poptech, your argument has run its course. To put it as delicately as possible, I think the rest of us have already decided how much weight to put on Mosher, Briggs, et al. for ourselves, and do not really care about your personal grudge match.
John Finn says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/06/soon-and-briggs-global-warming-fanatics-take-note-sunspots-do-impact-climate/#comment-1074671
Henry says
John,I am sorry, it appeared to me that you were challenging the crititcs/sceptics by siding with Leif. I followed the discussions with Geof and Leif, also on another blog , which you may have missed.
As to my sample being biased, I can say that I actually put a lot of thought into getting it representative.
1) longitude is not important, as earth turns every 24 hours.So that argument of yours falls away.
2) latitude is very important to get a global representative sample. I had to get a fair balance of NH and SH samples
3) seeing that 70% of earth is water, I also considered that 70% of my sample should be at sea or in sea and 30% inland.
4) Unlike most other datasets that only look at means (average surface temps), I included maxima and minima. In the end that was a wise deicision because had I relied on means only, I would have been none the wiser.
The only bias I will admit to is that I chose my samples of surface weather stations based on whether or not a (more or less) complete daily record was present, of automatic temperature recording since 1973 or 1974.
Either way, if you look at other datasets, even UAH, and try to put the data into some kind of fit, you get no correlation. Which is why we always see a “trendline” being shown as creative. With correlation coefficients of less than 0.4, you cannot decide on that, which way it will go.
You can imagine how stunned I looked at my graph for the decelaration of maximum temperatures, finding a parabolic fit (binominal) with a correlation coefficient of 0.998.
No doubt, you can carry on and do more stations, but I do not need to that anymore. I know what I needed to know.
I am not “pushing” my results. I am a hobbyist with no financial interests. I am just curious to find the right explanation for my results. Like right now, I think there is an ozone connection, as a few others here apparently have also realised.
Bart says:
September 9, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Secondly, each UV photon carries orders of magnitude more energy than an IR photon, or even a visible light photon.
No, not ‘orders’ of magnitudes, only about one order of magnitude, and there are orders of magnitudes fewer of them.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 9, 2012 at 7:45 pm
The lower parts of the UV spectrum have a 100% variation over the cycle.
But since there are so few of those photons, they don’t matter much
the assumption is that H&S did not allow for this
Not the assumption, but careful analysis which even Schatten acknowledges is correct.
Bart says:
September 9, 2012 at 9:28 pm
solar X-rays? These appear to vary quite a bit… then what about gamma rays?
As you go to so short wavelengths there are so few photons that they don’t matter.
And, of course, all this ties in with the Svensmark hypothesis which, last I heard, was holding up well.
Actually not: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cloud%20Cover%20and%Cosmic%Rays.pdf
Actually not: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cloud%20Cover%20and%20Cosmic%20Rays.pdf
JJ, you have yet to demonstrate you have the ability to reason and certainly not the intellect to comprehend an argument. If credentials have no effect on scientific arguments then we shall find out. Credentials are highly valued in society for many legitimate reasons and ignoring this with hand waving techniques only shows you really do not comprehend why certain people’s arguments are not taken seriously. You can keep fighting this futility while no one listens to you, certainly not the general public. Like I said I will make sure everyone knows of his scientific and statistically worthless credentials.
Bart:
Good links.
Although Dr. Svensmark is in Denmark, I’m not surprised to see those 2010 cosmic ray papers were by authors mostly Ukrainian for the institutions employing them and presumably essentially funding the research, a little like what my last post was remarking on with regard to Russian (and other non-Western) sources versus Western environmental research institutions in recent years.
—————————————
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 9, 2012 at 10:38 pm
Actually not: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cloud%20Cover%20and%20Cosmic%20Rays.pdf
That is based on inaccurate average cloud cover trends over the final years claimed by the ISCCP at Hansen’s GISS, including the graph in figure 2 (and for practical purposes the one in figure 1 too) being exactly that debunked in http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/further-attempt-to-falsify-the-svensmark-hypothesis/
As was said to someone else in my previous post at September 9, 2012 12:30am earlier in this thread:
You’ve probably encountered before the propaganda being pushed by CAGW proponents everywhere of claiming cloud cover trends in the past several years went the opposite direction of what cosmic ray theory would imply, but always look at the source of any cloud cover trend chart, as even those on climate4you.com are based on inaccurate data from the ISCCP headquartered at Hansen’s GISS. Like the Cryosphere Today “data”, the situation is not that such data is well-funded and widely distributed in “public education” *despite* its falseness but rather *because* of its very convenient falseness. Read http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/further-attempt-to-falsify-the-svensmark-hypothesis/ on the “accidentally” uncorrected error from change in ISCCP satellite viewing angle occuring then, including the graph showing other cloud cover trend datasets going the opposite direction then. The latter [are less divergent from] the picture suggested by albedo trends ( http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/albedo.png ).
Hansen’s GISS (and the ISCCP headquartered at it) is a compromised untrustworthy source in general; a quick smoking gun illustration with temperatures is http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/fig1x.gif versus http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.gif where the former shows shows the 5-year mean of U.S. temperature in the high point of the 1980s was 0.4 degrees Celsius cooler than such in the 1930s but the latter is fudged to make the same less than 0.1 degrees Celsius apart. When people happily flock to employment at such an institution’s climate departments even now and rise to the top in the current political climate, fitting in, to expect them to be unbiased would be like expecting Greenpeace leadership to be unbiased.
Such is part of a series of orchestrated dishonest tricks trying to publicly discredit any effect of cosmic rays on clouds at all cost:
http://www.sciencebits.com/RealClimateSlurs
http://www.sciencebits.com/HUdebate
[ http://www.sciencebits.com/SloanAndWolfendale ]
and so on
… plus more but keeping the requoting here more concise than would be the case if requoting the whole post.
EDIT to my prior comment of a moment ago:
Where this was written:
the graph in figure 2 (and for practical purposes the one in figure 1 too) being exactly that debunked in http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/further-attempt-to-falsify-the-svensmark-hypothesis/”
actually should just read:
the graph in figure 2 being exactly that debunked in http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/further-attempt-to-falsify-the-svensmark-hypothesis/
since the graph in figure 1 is a different less relevant topic.
This small edit does not matter for the overall point but still needed to be fixed to nitpick-proof this.
Henry@Henry Clark
I don’t have the time now to go through all ur references in your post
but do you think that Svensmark’s theory can explain my results?http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/06/soon-and-briggs-global-warming-fanatics-take-note-sunspots-do-impact-climate/#comment-1074407
if so, how? (remember that I have noted that warming and cooling periods follow each other on an ac-wave, most probably with a wavelength of ca. 88 years)
@Poptech
“Credentials matter and I see no reason to begin to consider statistical arguments from someone who does not even have the basic qualifications to be making these arguments.”
This is not an ad hom, it is a fact: you are lost in the Kingdom of Names.
Did you know that ALL fields of scientific endeavour were started and expanded by people with NO qualification whatsoever in that field?
The worst, the lowest value criticism of an argument is that ‘that speaker has no standing to make any comments – ignore him because he does not have the necessary paper qualification to open his mouth.’ What utter rubbish.
It is the argument of the self-appointed elite. Note the difference between a helpful professor and a pitiless Pharisee as you read these pages from around the planet.
Praised be to WUWT for providing the un-annointed masses with the links, the logical explanations, the sources, the charts, the encouragement and the platform to turn anyone who truly perseveres into a Climate Scholar.
I know virtually nothing about statistics other than the basic things I need to process my lab data and show it is acceptably precise. But I know that principle component analysis is not to be used the way it was in MBH98, and why, and why the hockey stick chart is false.
If you cannot liberate yourself from an affection for the Kingom of Names, you are in danger of being trapped forever in the Prison of Self. Never turn aside a willing seeker. If the discussion turns pedantic because people ‘need to catch up’ either help or seek additional enlightenment elsewhere.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 9, 2012 at 10:37 pm
“No, not ‘orders’ of magnitudes, only about one order of magnitude, and there are orders of magnitudes fewer of them.”
Orders of magnitude with IR, greater than an order of magnitude average for visible.
“As you go to so short wavelengths there are so few photons that they don’t matter.”
It does not necessarily follow. And, there is a thresholding phenomenon – UV and higher can initiate reactions the others cannot, no matter their number.
“Actually not”
Henry Clark @ur momisugly September 9, 2012 at 11:46 pm has good input on this. Be wary of discounting Russian mathematicians. They were forced to keep up with Western computer-aided research during the Cold War through shear application of intellect, and accomplished incredible feats of the mind.
Bart says:
September 10, 2012 at 9:36 am
Orders of magnitude with IR, greater than an order of magnitude average for visible.
The energy is inversely proportional to the wave length, so the typical UV that is involved in the production of ozone with a wave length of 200 nm has energy which is 550 nm [peak of visible]/200 nm = a bit over 2 larger, which is not ‘order’ of magnitude. Typical IR is 2000 nm, so 2000/200 is not ‘orders’ of magnitude. Below 200 nm and above 2000 nm the number of photons decreases strongly. Advice: when in a hole, stop digging.
It does not necessarily follow. And, there is a thresholding phenomenon – UV and higher can initiate reactions the others cannot, no matter their number.
The reactions don’t matter if the intensity is low as the result of any reaction depends on the concentration. Same advice as above.
Be wary of discounting Russian mathematicians. They were forced to keep up with Western computer-aided research during the Cold War through shear application of intellect, and accomplished incredible feats of the mind.
They are also more prone to flights of fancy. [I have lived and worked for a time in the Soviet Union during the Cold War].
Zee Henrich’g g’h’g’has found you out heir Leif. Un zee Bart.
For the benefit of some: /sarc off
Bart says: “The variation in insolation may average out over a year, but within that year, it can have dramatically different climatic effects,”
You hit upon something that I have been pondering, since I read tallbloke’s “Been ironing the data a bit more Leif?” comment.
Given, the complexity of the Earth’s climate – the smoothing of data (ironing out of wrinkles) could mask the effects that varying data does have have on some other factor that effects the Earth’s climate. Like say, ignoring the difference between night and day, ironing the data to where there is no warming and cooling effect – ultimately eliminating air convection currents. Similarly, imagine trying to model the effects of the Ocean on coral, coral inhabitants (fish), and beach areas if one were to measure water currents (flow and direction), then smooth out the surging of water currents, or model the effects of ocean waves, but do so as a consistent flow.
With climatologists AGW models already simplified when compared to the complexity of Mother nature; the smoothing of input data as a part of processing results in further overt simplification in the models. The end result being bad modeling of the real world.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 10, 2012 at 9:53 am
“…typical UV that is involved in the production of ozone …”
Why constrain it so? Typical UV is 10 PHz. Typical visible, less than 1 PHz. Infra-rad, just over 1 THz. What was that you said about digging?
“The reactions don’t matter if the intensity is low as the result of any reaction depends on the concentration.”
“Low” is a relative term. Without a standard against which to compare, it is virtually meaningless. Again, there is a threshold phenomenon at play. Reactions go from off to on. A small percentage change can result in huge increases in activity.
I’m not opposing you so much as demanding that you provide objective standards of evidence. Breezy dismissals of a subjective nature are not persuasive.
“They are also more prone to flights of fancy.”
And, just plain flights. Who ferries astronauts to the ISS these days? It is not merely churlish to deny a group of people recognition for their accomplishments, it is also foolhardy when they may one day once again assume an adversarial role.
Darren Potter says:
September 10, 2012 at 10:32 am
“The end result being bad modeling of the real world.”
But, the mathematics work out so beautifully.
That is how you end up with a theory that is not even wrong.
Poptech: “Credentials matter and I see no reason …”
Perhaps, if you are seeking paper potential versus requiring proven ability.
Bart says:
September 10, 2012 at 10:48 am
Why constrain it so? Typical UV is 10 PHz. Typical visible, less than 1 PHz. Infra-rad, just over 1 THz.
The constraints are given by Nature. Here is the solar spectrum: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Radiation-Spectrum.png
The UV involved in any quantity is between 200 and 300 nm. I was generous using 200 nm. The IR at 2000 nm is where CO2 is strongly absorbed. Below 200 nm and above 2000 nm there is very little incoming energy. If you look at the heating caused by absorption and reactions you see clearly where the action is http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Heating-UV.png
What was that you said about digging?
It seems you did not follow my advice.
“Low” is a relative term. Without a standard against which to compare, it is virtually meaningless.
The objective standard is the amount of energy involved which is weel-researched and known.
I’m not opposing you so much as demanding that you provide objective standards of evidence. Breezy dismissals of a subjective nature are not persuasive.
As you can see there are no ‘breezy dismissals’, and that you are not persuaded is your loss.
It is not merely churlish to deny a group of people recognition for their accomplishments
The Russians’ research is ‘broader’ than ours. The top is higher and the bottom is [much] lower. Picking something from the bottom and saying it is good because the top is better, is typical of polemics but not conducive to understanding and progress.
“from areas as large as the United States.” But, not larger? So, the way I read this is if I cherry pick some data of certain areas I produce the graph as above but if I take the global land mass it does not.
We correctly agrue that warming in only the artic or England or Timbuktu does not mean the earth is warming. Why does a correlation in the US equate to proof.
Since when does correlation equal causation. I expect better from articles on WUWT.
Forgot to mention, finding zero component/correlation in temperatures to that big ball of fire in the sky by BEST, is to me a prima faciae evidence that you screwed up your temp measurements, statistics, adjustments or all of the above. Logic would seem to dictate that changes in energy reaching the surface would have some effect on the energy at the surface. But, then again as I’ve said before temperature is NOT a unit of energy nor a measurement of energy, it does even correlate to energy. Heat of a block of ice for proof around 0C energy and temperature don’t correlate.