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
That should be :Do suggest to Dr. Cliver to sail down along to coast into bay of Kotor
http://www.flickriver.com/places/Montenegro/Kotor/Perast/
for which poet Lord Byron said: “When Pearls of Nature were sown, it was with a full hand that they were cast on this soil”
Geoff Sharp says:
September 7, 2012 at 9:26 pm
This is because they are measuring more smaller spots
As you throw away small spots, you introduce a selection effect which invalidates your data, as simple as that. As Richard Feynman used to say: ‘the easiest one to fool is yourself’.
Bart says:
September 7, 2012 at 10:51 pm
Does it not? Looks to me that there’s a good decade or so, especially the later you go in the series, as the quality of the data improves.
Very shaky. If any lag overall, it is negative. But I have forgotten what the original point was about the lag, so perhaps help me out on that.
but within that year, it can have dramatically different climatic effects, depending on where the Earth’s axis is pointing over the year.
Sure, as everybody knows that is the cause of glaciations. But changes too slowly to have any effect on the time scale of the graph.
Venter says:
September 7, 2012 at 11:44 pm
Briggs, etc., are well qualified, known, respected and published statisticians. They have also exhibited integrity.
Their integrity has taken a nose dive with using an obsolete solar radiation curve. Briggs might be excused as not knowing anything about the sun, but Soon should know that the solar curve is not valid, so where does that leave him on the competence scale or integrity scale?
Bart says:
September 8, 2012 at 12:56 am
anyone can think of, appreciably affect the climate of the Northern Hemisphere, where most of the warming has been observed?
Over the time scale of a few centuries there is no observable changes to due to changes in tilt or orbit.
vukcevic says:
September 8, 2012 at 2:15 am
Coincidences may be, but it is what I waste my time on.
No need to waste ours as well.
Bart says:
September 7, 2012 at 11:43 pm
“Starting in about 1900, the North Pole has been tilted almost directly toward the Sun during aphelion, and conversely the South Pole has been tilted toward the Sun at perihelion, and we are only slowly moving away from that configuration in the present day.”
Could you elaborate on that. It is my understanding that present tilt is 23.5 degrees which is hardly “tilted almost directly” toward the Sun. Also, the current tilt is moving to 22.5 degrees as it has been since maximum obliquity of 24.5 degrees about 10,000 years ago.
The way the lags look, it is a tougher sell for solar radiation case in early 1900s, but easier in late 1900s. Which of course seem to me to be heretical for the AGWers. Also goes to show that any one factor only goes so far to ‘splain things
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 8, 2012 at 4:12 am
Very shaky. If any lag overall, it is negative. But I have forgotten what the original point was about the lag, so perhaps help me out on that.
Leif
The point is, as always, an attempt to explain the lack of cooling in response to the recent weaker activity. The fact that some of the mean high temperature peaks and troughs appear to precede the changes in TSI (e.g. the small uptick in ~2010) is not considered a problem. Actually it probably isn’t – not compared to some of the issues with the TSI reconstruction itself. For example, how come the mid-20th century TSI peak appears to occur before 1950 when the highest activity was recorded in ~1958. Admittedly, that would show it to have occurred around 2 decades after the peak in temperatures. Also there is an apparent trend in activity from about 1960 onwards- how come??
Dr. S. : No need to waste ours (time) as well.
Many people come here not just for the dry science, to be educated or to meet old acquaintances, but for occasional odd and unusual coincidence, otherwise why they should look at my graphs over and over again, as the stat-counter I put 2 ½ years ago shows (147,615 hits).
P.S. It looks as I am forgiven for my past indiscretions by Dr.Gavin Schmidt my erstwhile old university alumni (different generation, different degree) . My RC posts are not currently automatically demoted to the ‘Bore Hole’; perhaps Anthony should introduce one too, some of endless ‘sunspot count encounters’ would be, along my graphs of course, good candidates.
See you.
Leif “Having brought up four of them, I can tell you what that truth sounds like: “ga-ga-blu-blu-gg-gg””
Funny… at the other end are the delightful intellectual elitists and their hockey stick collective…Which sounds about the same.
Having brought up four of them, I can tell you what that truth sounds like: “ga-ga-blu-blu-gg-gg”
AGW –Skeptic “ga-ga-blu-blu-gg-gg” dialogue mums adore and some dads go nuts.
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQbYc7qLgBc& ]
vukcevic says:
September 8, 2012 at 1:17 am
Only the peak and troughs were matching between solar and global temperature/AMO since 1978. Only meant to show that when solar peak occurs temperature/AMO peak around this and when solar troughs, global temperature/AMO also trough around this. For these details covering each cycle proxy data is no good, not accurate enough. For this reason I would believe it was the solar cycle that caused these temperature and AMO peaks and troughs, but because the overall trend shown below is in opposite directions this is only the foundation in temperature/AMO larger trends. The main difference between the solar ranges and the global temperature and AMO are feedbacks particularly with ENSO/cloud albedo. Take these into account and the short-term solar trends would match much more closer. A 0.5-1.0 percent decline per decade in global albedo during the last 3 cycles can easily support the difference.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1978.83/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1978.83/trend/plot/pmod/normalise/offset:-0.4/plot/esrl-amo/from:1978.83/offset:0.2/plot/pmod/normalise/trend/offset:-0.3
I did some testing awhile back on low solar activity and the minimum temperatures recorded at individual weather stations, the idea I had was to test for spikes in minimum temperature due to site relocation or upgrades, using sunspot number as an indicator of solar activity (less sun spots equate to lower activity) I used two winter months back to back January and February of Greenwich sunspot data and Armagh minimum temperature for march.
In the example chart, winter months of low solar activity are clearly represented in the Armagh minimum temperature record as lower temperatures, when there is higher solar activity over the winter months it is also reflected in the temperature data. I believe It is reasonable to assume that all nearby weather stations would exhibit the same over all trend linked to solar activity, I know of some issues, but for the moment it is just an idea.
The interesting thing is, If this trend is found in all land surface weather station data on the planet, then it is inherent of the global temperature anomaly including the BEST. And as Solar activity precedes temperature there is no doubt about this, therefor it is the driver of the trend plus UHI.
The example chart.
The Greenwich Monthly SSN for January and February with Armagh minimum temperature for march.
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ssn-vs-min-tmp.gif
“pochas says:
When my doctor takes my temperature he looks in my ear with a heat sensing device and ignores the rest of me. According to you, he hasn’t learned anything about my temperature.”
The earth is not a human body.
The human body is heated internally, and has a thermostat.
If the human body were like the earth, the head and feet would be like ice, lterally, and the temperature over that body would be constantly varying, making the doctors job of measuring that temperature vastly harder.
Yes, your doctor HAS not learned anything about measuring temperature…of the earth.
My critisism here was that I was able to spot two glaring errors on the graph that “prooved” the point with one single glance, which shows that this article is suspect if an error can be spotted so very quickly. The graph appears to be simply cherry picking, showing whatever graphs the author happened to find that matched each other as closly as possible. If you have enough graphs by different, disagreeing people, and enough graphs of also disagreeing temperature,of enough different areas where temeprature varies compared to other areas, making a chart showing correlation is easy, just find two that look sorta alike and say “see!”, ignore the others.
Even if the premise is true, that land temperature is following solar isolation, it has little to do with global temperature. Since the oceans are where most of the solar energy falls, is absorbed, stored, and transported around the earth, ignoring it is essentially ignoring global temperature. It is as if that doctor measured your temperature at the tips of your hair. Thus even if true this idea will have little impact on global temperature. At best, this idea will only have a minor effect on your local temperature (on clear days, during daylight).
NOTE: The reason for choosing March minimum temperature is to view solar activity from the the two preceding winter months.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 8, 2012 at 4:12 am
Geoff Sharp says:
September 7, 2012 at 9:26 pm
This is because they are measuring more smaller spots
—————————————————
As you throw away small spots, you introduce a selection effect which invalidates your data, as simple as that. As Richard Feynman used to say: ‘the easiest one to fool is yourself’.
You are not concentrating, I also showed you a graph of the total solar disk darkness which has no thresholds applied.
My data stands in direct contradiction to the L&P data. I am surprised you attach yourself to this weak science, who could believe the solar magnetic strength does not follow the cycle?
Dar Dr.Svalgaard,
I respect your knowledge and capability as a solar physicist and will not argue the science with you as I lack the qualifications and knowledge to so. But I can’t accept you selectively quoting and effectively misrepresenting what I wrote. I specifically made reference to Mc.Kitrick, McIntyre and Briggs, as statisticians with qualification, experience and publication record. I made that comment with reference to discussion about Steven Mosher, in response to Poptech’s and JJ’s coments.
I did not talk about Soon or this article on solar curve.
So would you kindly acknowledge that you have made an error here in selectively quoting me out of context?
Henry@Bart & others
I think you guys are looking in the wrong corners and tilts, etc
I quote from something I picked up now:
“Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ∼12,000years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes
Alexei N. Peristykh
Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
Paul E. Damon
Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
Among other longer-than-22-year periods in Fourierspectra of various solar–terrestrial records, the 88-year cycle is unique,because it can be directly linked to the cyclic activity of sunspot formation.Variations of amplitude as well as of period of the Schwabe 11-year cycleof sunspot activity have actually been known for a long time and a ca. 80-yearcycle was detected in those variations. Manifestations of such secular periodic processes were reported in a broad variety of solar, solar–terrestrial,and terrestrial climatic phenomena. Confirmation of the existence of the Gleissbergcycle in long solar–terrestrial records as well as the question of itsstability is of great significance for solar dynamo theories. For that perspective,we examined the longest detailed cosmogenic isotope record—INTCAL98calibration record of atmospheric 14C abundance. The mostdetailed precisely dated part of the record extends back to ∼11,854 yearsB.P. During this whole period, the Gleissberg cycle in 14Cconcentration has a period of 87.8 years and an average amplitude of ∼1‰(in Δ14C units). Spectral analysis indicates in frequencydomain by sidebands of the combination tones at periods of ≈91.5 ±0.1 and ≈84.6 ± 0.1 years that the amplitude of the Gleissberg cycleappears to be modulated by other long-term quasiperiodic process of timescale∼2000 years. This is confirmed directly in time domain by bandpass filteringand time–frequency analysis of the record. Also, there is additionalevidence in the frequency domain for the modulation of the Gleissberg cycleby other millennial scale processes. Attempts have been made to explain 20thcentury global warming exclusively by the component of irradiance variationassociated with the Gleissberg cycle. These attempts fail, because they require unacceptably great solar forcing and are incompatible with the paleoclimaticrecords” end quote
It is of course in this last sentence here where the authors of that paper go off the rail because they do not understand what happens in the upper atmosphere where ozone is made with high energy coming from the sun: UV +O2 => O3. Ozone re-radiates in the 0-0.5 um range meaning more ozone means less energy coming through. So if more ozone is manufactured by some minute change in the dsitribution of the sun you get less energy and if less is made you get more energy coming through, mostly in the SH oceans (this is also where we have the ozone hole – it is then taken by currents and weather and weather systems, mostly to the NH)
This is what explains my results for maxima that I summarised from 47 weather stations all over the world. It shows that we just finished a warmer period in 1995. I can estimate this very accurately from a binominal plot, giving a correlation coefficient of 0.998. The binominal character of this plot for maxima suggests a natural warming and cooling cycle.
I have further been able to put this plot now in a sine wave and: you guessed it – the best fit is a 88 year wavelength. We are now cooling again, until about 2039, looking at energy-in cycles, not energy output, which may lag and differ a bit.
John Finn says:
September 8, 2012 at 5:36 am
Also there is an apparent trend in activity from about 1960 onwards- how come??
You should not look at the solar curve given by S&B, it is wrong. Look at the read curve I show.
vukcevic says:
September 8, 2012 at 5:41 am
but for occasional odd and unusual coincidence,
There is a certain entertainment value in your stuff [and there are also people who still go to psychic readers and soothsayers], and perhaps real science is at times too dry and prosaic.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 8, 2012 at 8:10 am
I also showed you a graph of the total solar disk darkness
It was not clear what ‘total solar disk darkness’ meant. I always thought the solar disk was rather bright, but looking at your graph, it seems clear that the sun is getting darker.
My data stands in direct contradiction to the L&P data.
Considering the fact that the L&P comes the most experienced solar observer alive [active since 1950s] with no preconceived unscientific notion to support, it should be clear which data to believe.
I am surprised you attach yourself to this weak science
I have evaluated their method, have participated in some of the measurements, know what they are doing and found other evidence [f10.7 and MPSI] that support their strong science [that you always have called it ‘weak science’ just shows your bias], so this is an easy one. There is general agreement in the SSN community that the L&P effect is real [with a healthy minority that are still holding out], see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Hudson.pdf
who could believe the solar magnetic strength does not follow the cycle?
What follows the solar cycle is the number of spots.
Venter says:
September 8, 2012 at 8:24 am
I did not talk about Soon or this article on solar curve.
So would you kindly acknowledge that you have made an error here in selectively quoting me out of context?
I thought you were on topic – the article – [but will acknowledge the possibility that perhaps you were not].
I take offense to ‘selectively’. The context was whether Briggs was competent and had integrity. As I said he can be excused because he does not know anything about the sun, but he should have done due diligence before putting his name to the use of faulty and obsolete data, and that was his sin. At least Mosher knew the solar data was no good.
HenryP says:
September 8, 2012 at 8:57 am
So if more ozone is manufactured by some minute change in the dsitribution of the sun you get less energy and if less is made you get more energy coming through
You didn’t learn anything from our discussions of this. As solar activity was high 1975 – 1995 it should produce more ozone, which according to you should prevent ‘energy coming through’, yet temperatures rose.
Dear Dr.Svalgaard,
One read through my post is enough to see that clearly it is not of this topic. It is pretty clear.
If you read my post you could clearly see that my comments about Mosher in response to JJ and Poptech were not about this article or solar data. So you did quote me selectively and that assertion of mine is correct. I beg of you to first read what I wrote and assimilate it if you want to comment on it. That’s the only way you can quote anything in full context.
Leif says
You didn’t learn anything from our discussions of this. As solar activity was high 1975 – 1995 it should produce more ozone, which according to you should prevent ‘energy coming through’, yet temperatures rose.
Henry says
It is not I that did not learn from those discussions. My results are what they are (and what they show me)
From around 1950 ozone started going down until 1995. Exactly 44 years. From 1996 ozone levels started increasing again. If more solar activity causes less ozone than so be it. That means lower solar activity causes better ozone manufacturing… Thanks for helping me out on that one, so I will remember the correct sequence solar activity /versus ozone.
I saw an interesting paper being debated at the resilient earth about sun’s influence even in the small 11 years cycle – result achieved through modelling:
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/atmospheric-solar-heat-amplifier-discovered
referring to the paper here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5944/1114.full
Amplifying the Pacific Climate System Response to a Small 11-Year Solar Cycle Forcing
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 8, 2012 at 4:12 am
“Very shaky. If any lag overall, it is negative. “
The light line of daytime highs generally lags the dark line of solar radiation, as e.g., when the downturn occurs in about 1950 in the latter, and follows in about 1960 in the former. Or, upturn occurs in the latter in about 1970 and follows in about 1980 in the former.
But, if the chart is of faulty data, the question is moot. That is your position, isn’t it? That this chart is of dubious validity in the first place? I hasten to say, I am not making a judgement myself, as I do not have any background info on the methodlogy or why it has been deemed invalid, just trying to clear the air a little. If you reject the graph in the first place, you should not be arguing over its details, as that suggests you might actually find it credible, and opens the floor for negotiations.
John Finn says:
September 8, 2012 at 5:36 am
“e.g. the small uptick in ~2010”
There is also a question as to how the data are smoothed. E.g., a running average is generally plotted in time against the midpoint, to take out phase lag and line things up in time, which is effectively a non-causal filtering operation, and spurious artifacts from the future can appear non-contemporaneously. Surely, these data must have been smoothed. Dealing with the end points, to fill out the data all the way to the present, is rather dicey.
In any case, the tiny blip near the end is an awfully slender reed upon which to hang one’s hat. And, of course, there are other processes affecting the outcome, and you can only make general conclusions about what appears to be the dominant input/output relationship. Focusing too tightly on individual blips and bobbles quickly leads you into the path of diminishing returns. IOW, the trees can vary, you have to step back and take a look at the forest.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 8, 2012 at 4:46 am
“Over the time scale of a few centuries there is no observable changes to due to changes in tilt or orbit.”
Given how widely temperatures can vary between Summer and Winter, I think such a statement requires analytical evidence. Twentieth century Global Warming, after all, is just a few tenths of a degree.
Tom in Florida says:
September 8, 2012 at 4:49 am
” It is my understanding that present tilt is 23.5 degrees which is hardly “tilted almost directly” toward the Sun.”
Sorry that my language was imprecise. What I meant was that the axis has the maximum projection along the Sun line of sight at aphelion, i.e., Summer in the NH is at aphelion.
Legatus says:
September 8, 2012 at 7:35 am
“The earth is not a human body. The human body is heated internally, and has a thermostat.”
Does not the Earth have an internal heat source? And, are temperatures not regulated by various means, including radiation to space, greenhouse gases, and cloud cover?
HenryP says:
September 8, 2012 at 8:57 am
Interesting. I am uncertain as to the provenance of the Loehle data – Leif put me onto it a while back.
Venter says:
September 8, 2012 at 9:46 am
One read through my post is enough to see that clearly it is not of this topic. It is pretty clear.
What may be clear to the author may not be clear to the reader.
So you did quote me selectively and that assertion of mine is correct.
‘Selectively’ is a negative word, I would rather say that my comment was ‘focused on the esssential point as I read it’
Let me say it again, regardless of past expertise, Briggs suffered a severe lapse of integrity by lending his name to an analysis of faulty or out-of-date solar data. At least Mosher got that right.
HenryP says:
September 8, 2012 at 10:00 am
My results are what they are (and what they show me)
“The easiest one to fool is oneself”
I suggest you do an excellent job at that.
Bart says:
September 8, 2012 at 10:54 am
But, if the chart is of faulty data, the question is moot.
Yes, it is moot of course
you should not be arguing over its details, as that suggests you might actually find it credible, and opens the floor for negotiations.
Even if faulty, correcting false impressions may help in the future for people just eyeballing curves.
John Finn says:
September 8, 2012 at 5:36 am
Given how widely temperatures can vary between Summer and Winter, I think such a statement requires analytical evidence. Twentieth century Global Warming, after all, is just a few tenths of a degree.
The effect of orbital changes has been analyzed in many places. Google will help you find some. They are very small on a century basis. It takes ~10,000 years to get into a glaciation with, say, a 5 degree drop in temperature, yielding an order of magnitude of the gradient of 5/10,000*100 = 0.05 degree per century [and we are actually now dropping]