Dr. Leif Svalgaard on the New Scientist solar max story

An article in the New Scientist says:

But Dr. Leif Svalgaard, one of the worlds leading solar physicists and WUWT’s resident solar expert has this to say:

Solar max is a slippery concept. One can be more precise and *define* solar max for a given hemisphere as the time when the polar fields reverse in the hemisphere. The reversals usually differ by one or two years, so solar max will similarly differ. The North is undergoing reversal right now, so has reached maximum. The South is lagging, but already the polar field is rapidly decreasing, so reversal may be only a year away. Such asymmetry is very common.

Here is a link to the evolution of the polar fields as measured at WSO:

http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png

And here’s data all the way back to 1966, note there has not been a crossing of the polar fields yet in 2012, a typical event at solar max:

http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png

Here is a link to a talk on this: http://www.leif.org/research/ click

on paper 1540.

Dr. Svalgaard adds:

Solar max happens at different times for each hemisphere. In the North we are *at* max right now. For the South there is another year to go, but ‘max’ for a small cycle like 24 is a drawn out affair and will last several years. To say that max falls on a given date, e.g. Jan 3rd, 2013, at UT 04:15 is meaningless.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
546 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
mike about town
September 28, 2012 3:43 am

Fascinating! I wonder if this will lead to any cooling in a few years’ time? I know Leif doesn’t believe so (or at least his typical responses on these threads lead me to believe that), but what are some other thoughts? If so, how long will it take? Should we see cooling anyways during such a low “Max” for a cycle?

spangled drongo
September 28, 2012 3:46 am
September 28, 2012 3:48 am

Why would the Sun care which way is North? (Question)

September 28, 2012 3:51 am

I do not think there is any argument about solar influence on climate. It is the only external heat source available and heat drives climate. It is not CO2, that trace gas so valuable to plants that without it we would all die PDQ.
Solar hibernation will cause temperatures to fall here. It might kick the alarmists into reality.

Edim
September 28, 2012 3:51 am

I agree that solar max is a slippery and somewhat arbitrary concept. Even solar min is, albeit less so. I disagree that the center of the plateau (the peak) has been and gone. The SC 24 is a long cycle (weak) and the peak will be around 2013-15.

September 28, 2012 4:07 am

I use solar data, then do a bit of a ‘curve matching’ with the astronomical parameters
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
to me it looks as good as SC24max (see the inset)
September SIDC SSN count will be around 60

georgi
September 28, 2012 4:20 am

New Scientist has become unreadable on climate change – pure scaremongering. We had the impression that Arctic ice was lower this summer than in the last 3 million years recently! Must be some editorial pressure.

William Ballinger
September 28, 2012 4:28 am

I guess the unanswered question is what do we expect for the next sun cycle? Is there a known period of solar activity that matches the last few cycles that can serve a guide?
Related to some previous postings, do CMEs increase or decrease in conjunction with the level of solar activity?

Ben D
September 28, 2012 4:37 am

From NS….
“Such a large asymmetry between hemispheres could be a sign of big changes ahead, says Steven Tobias, a mathematician at the University of Leeds, UK, who models what drives the sun’s magnetic field. According to his models, such a situation precedes an extended quiet phase called a grand minimum. “Changes in symmetry are more indicative of going into a grand minimum than the strength of the cycle,” he says.”
I hope he’s right, it will provide a real opportunity for the experts to gain a better understanding as to the effect the sun has on the Earth’s climate.

Joe's World(progressive evolution)
September 28, 2012 4:40 am

Anthony,
Studying the suns cycle of activity is data gathering.
Any comments are just suppositions to the data gathered.
The sun’s cycle NEVER duplicates exactly to many variables that occur such as slow down and size change over the years.

September 28, 2012 4:41 am

I do wish people would leave out the “we”! As in
” In the North we are *at* max right now.”
“We” are not at lunar max either right now or ever. Neither are “we” located on the northern hemisphere of the sun.
Come on guys, let’s have a little more scientific rigour in the way propositions are stated.

September 28, 2012 4:46 am

Very interesting Leif. Thanks.
Med venlig hilsen fra Island.
Agust

michaelozanne
September 28, 2012 4:56 am

Hi Leif
Are we saying it would be a New thing if there were Science in the “New Scientist” ? 🙂

dean_1230
September 28, 2012 5:06 am

That’ll teach me to buying that solar filter for my telescope.
Just to be clear, I bought it back in 2007…

Doug Huffman
September 28, 2012 5:09 am

Thanks Dr. S., the turning of my calendar begins my anticipation of the posting of the SSN.
Last winter was marked by little snowfall, but just previously I had to buy a roof rake to remove too much snow. What wonder will this winter bring?

Joe's World(progressive evolution)
September 28, 2012 5:10 am

Anthony,
There are many areas of science NEVER studied. But we have a consensus of the like minded to ignore anything NOT of their liking.
Compression is one area that has not been looked at which would account for the material of our sun to be able to keep producing it’s corona and spew out massive material.
Again, this is NOT data gathering and statistics.

September 28, 2012 5:16 am

It’s the New ‘s’cientist…what do you expect, accuracy?

David Ross
September 28, 2012 5:38 am

omnologos wrote:

Why would the Sun care which way is North? (Question)

He’s talking about the Sun’s North and South poles and hemispheres — not Earth’s. The Sun’s magnetic field is a lot more dynamic than Earth’s. Earth’s field flips every 200,000 to 300,000 years, the Sun every 11 years or so.

Reply to  David Ross
September 28, 2012 10:30 am

David Ross – my question is in fact…why would the Northern and Southern hemispheres of the Sun behave differently? What tells the Northern part that it is “North”, and the Southern “South”?
AFAIK gravity doesn’t care direction…

Editor
September 28, 2012 5:54 am

Yo, dudes at New Scientist. You need to spend more time reading stuff here. You did say something about Livingston and Penn, right?
Doug Huffman says:
September 28, 2012 at 5:09 am

Last winter was marked by little snowfall, but just previously I had to buy a roof rake to remove too much snow. What wonder will this winter bring?

From tracking snowfall and “snow depth days” around New England, it’s very clear that snow seasons really say very little about climate and how it’s changing. See http://wermenh.com/sdd/index.html They do say something about that particular season and the similarities and differences between here (Penacook NH) and Derry NH, 40 miles south are striking. Some years I’d have the same snow as them, other years the storm track often brought them rain and me snow.
I can say with great confidence that this winter will bring weather. I feel sorry for people who “have” to make seasonal forecasts for New England. OTOH, people who do it for sport enjoy a good challenge.

Jeff D
September 28, 2012 6:05 am

Wouldn’t it be nice to have an amateur global temperature network for the next 20 years to verify the ” Real Scientists ” data? Then again I would be happy with data from NASA or NOAA that doesn’t have someones finger on the scale.
Dr. Leif thanks for providing your input here. It does give balance to the conversation even though I personally believe that the big glowing thing in the sky does have some impact on the climate.

September 28, 2012 6:08 am

A small occasion for some, but important one for my graphs, at 13:48:33 (Friday, UK time) my stat counter recorded 150,000th visitor, who came from Columbia, Maryland, United States.
Thanks to all who followed my graphs during last 3-4 years, and my gratitude goes to Anthony and the WUWT for the hospitality and open-mindedness.

Johanus
September 28, 2012 6:34 am

It is tempting to assume that this ‘hibernation’ that Dr. Svalgaard alludes to will lead to global cooling , because the last hibernation (“Maunder Minimum”) occurred during a cooling of the climate.
But I don’t believe that we’ve seen any causal evidence of this link. The typical explanations run “It has to be solar! What else could it be?” So, not much different than the typical “CO2 causes global warming” rationale.
But just to be sure, Dr. Svalgaard, is there any causal evidence to back up the claim that solar hibernation caused the Maunder cooling?

Steven Hill
September 28, 2012 6:41 am

Learning is a constant process…..my 2 cents

September 28, 2012 6:52 am

I’m usually in disbelief at people who dismiss how important our Sun is in regulating climatic conditions here on Earth and the Solar System, when the Sun is very active it can produce a lot of energy in the form of CME’s, Solar wind and geomagnetic activity, the Earth responds with storms and higher electrical activity, more Auroras and ENSO goes positive to form El Nino and temperatures have a tendency to rise, When activity is low on the Sun geomagnetic activity and Solar wind is low and there are less or no CME’s, the Earth has less energy to form large storms and there’s less electrical activity, less Auroras and ENSO goes negative to form La Nina and temperatures have a tendency to fall. There is a complex planetary relationship with the Sun and it should never be over looked or even dismissed, I think the overall activity of an 11 year cycle plays a much larger role than when solar maximum will be reached, so far this has been a weak cycle in terms of activity.
Also, just a thought! What is the current theory (if any) on the solar wind effecting comets? could a prolonged minim and low solar wind bring comets into the solar system? The C/2012 S1 comet (‘Ison’) is on it’s way in, coinciding with recent low activity, also Comet PANSTARRS will be in the sky in march 2013. It may be worth looking into.

adolfogiurfa
September 28, 2012 6:54 am

@Vuk: Congratulations! 150,000 visitors following your graphs it´s a lot.

Bob Kutz
September 28, 2012 6:55 am

No, this study cannot be right;
Dr. James Hansen and Dr. Mike Mann conclusively eliminated the sun as a controlling factor in climate change or as having any influence on our climate at all.
Warming will proceed as our GCMs dictate!
\sarc off

Pamela Gray
September 28, 2012 6:59 am

Solar cycles are long enough to encapsulate many Earth-bound natural climate oscillations, causing some excitement surrounding possible teleconnections.
Now that you have read that statement, anyone who is nodding their head enthusiastically have fallen into the trap of correlation equaling causation. And here is the caveat. In the old days windshield wipers each had their own motors. These motors where tuned to swipe as closely as possible together. But anyone who has been in old trucks and buses will remember that over time, the blades would cycle out of sync. Not to worry. If you watched long enough, they would be back in sync, though still entirely disconnected to each other.
It is likely, during a long slow solar cycle, we will enter an Earthly cold period, but not because of any physical teleconnection to solar parameters.

Jan P Perlwitz
September 28, 2012 7:02 am

spangled drongo wrote in:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1092836

Ya must admit though, this correlation is better than ACO2:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1880/mean:12/normalise/scale:5/trend

What correlation? The correlation between two linear trends is Zero.
And why not show both time series, only the calculated long-term trends? Because someone could notice something?
What about following graph:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1960/mean:12/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1960/mean:12/normalise/scale:5/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/normalise/plot/gistemp/from:1960/mean:12/normalise/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1960/mean:12/normalise/trend/scale:5/plot/esrl-co2/from:1950/mean:12/normalise/trend
The sunspot number has been trending down since the mid of previous century, but the global temperature anomaly has been going up. No scaling factor is going to help you there. Applying a scaling factor of 5 makes is just more obvious.
Even if the 11-year solar cycle vanishes altogether and the sun activity stays at the minimum of the solar cycle, I predict global warming due to greenhouse gases will continue over the next decades, since greenhouse gases have become the dominant climate driver in the second half of the 20th century. The warming will just be delayed by a few years (by about 10 years based on mere energy balance considerations).

Jeff Alberts
September 28, 2012 7:31 am

Jeff D says:
September 28, 2012 at 6:05 am
Dr. Leif thanks for providing your input here. It does give balance to the conversation even though I personally believe that the big glowing thing in the sky does have some impact on the climate.

Who said it doesn’t??
If I may be so bold, I believe Dr. Svaalgaard says that the variability of the sun isn’t enough to account for all the “warming” in places where it has been warming, or to account for historic warming and cooling. That’s a far cry from “The sun has no impact on climate”, which is what you’re implying as his belief.

September 28, 2012 7:40 am

mike about town, you write “If so, how long will it take? ”
I dont think anyone knows, since no-one seems to understand the science behind any link between climate and the sun’s magnetic effects., L&P indicate that sunspots may disappear around 2020. The last time this happened was around 1645. The center of the LIA was around 1685.

September 28, 2012 7:59 am
September 28, 2012 8:01 am

John Marshall says:
September 28, 2012 at 3:51 am
————————————————
I doubt it. The notion that CO2 drove temperature over any significant part of geologic time is absurd, yet very intelligent people choose to believe it. The science Ph.D.s I know who are believers already say “climate change” exclusively, a font of human superstition/judgement/sacrifice that has been flowing since the beginning of history.

September 28, 2012 8:15 am

Dr. Leif Svalgaard,
We often discuss the question of whether changes in the ~11 year solar cycles on a centennial scale can be shown to provide enough energy change in the earth-atmosphere system to explain the observed global temperature changes over the same centennial period.
A common argument wrt that question discussed here at WUWT and other venues is that the solar energy changes from ~11 year cycle changes on centennial scales is at least a factor of ten too small to directly cause the observed global temperature changes.
If the sun’s energy output variation is directly insufficient to cause observed earth global temp changes then that would imply it may be a necessary contributing cause but an insufficiently large enough direct one. Leif, can you comment? Thanks.
John

Tony McGough
September 28, 2012 8:23 am

There is a conjecture (see for instance the book “The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change” by Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder) that low solar magnetic fields leave the earth open to the chilling effect of energetic cosmic rays, via the seeding of extra cloud cover.
Some experiments at CERN point to the viability of this conjecture, and are on-going. It would only take a 2% change in cloud cover to change the planet’s temperature by whole degrees centigrade, it seems.

September 28, 2012 8:33 am

Given that there are significant changes occurring at the source of Earth’s solar radiation (i.e, Sun), what does the IPCC say about it (via the FAR):
“Despite considerable effort since the TAR, uncertainties remain in the representation of solar radiation in climate models… Difficulties in simulating absorbed solar and infrared radiation at the surface leads inevitably to uncertainty in the simulation of surface sensible and latent heat fluxes,” – http://tinyurl.com/c3qox7t (link to IPCC FAR Working Group I notes).
So, then, how does the IPCC address these uncertainties in the models?
“The cosmogenic isotope records have been linearly scaled to estimate solar energy output in many climate simulations… Several new studies suggest that long-term irradiance changes were notably less than in earlier reconstructions [earlier means the TAR]… In the previous reconstructions, the 17th-century ‘Maunder Minimum’ total irradiance was 0.15 to 0.65% (irradiance change about 2.0 to 8.7 W m–2; radiative forcing about 0.36 to 1.55 W m–2) below the present-day mean… Most of the recent studies… calculate a reduction of only around 0.1% (irradiance change of the order of –1 W m–2, radiative forcing of –0.2 W m–2; section 2.7). Following these results, the magnitude of the radiative forcing… for the Maunder Minimum period is relatively small (–0.2 W m–2 relative to today),” – http://tinyurl.com/9ywez5m (link to IPCC FAR).
And in Section 9.2 of the FAR, the IPCC states, “that the amplitude of the large-scale pattern of response scales linearly with the forcing,” – http://tinyurl.com/9nd6xvj (link to IPCC FAR).
So, although the IPCC admits uncertainties abound in how to model solar radiation in the climate models, it ultimately preserves the notion of a solar constant and presumes that even if it’s not really constant, the impact from any change is too small to be relevant without invoking additional strong amplification mechanisms (e.g., aerosols). What’s troubling and often highlighted by CAGW skeptics is that this… presumption (this may be the wrong term – perhaps “fraud”) by the IPCC has been made with the full knowledge that changes in solar radiation certainly do matter and should be accounted for within the models. This has been asserted for over 15 years. But as the Climategate e-mails displayed in their open contempt for researchers linking the sun to climate change (http://tinyurl.com/bvxfcck – link to Climategate e-mail regarding the Soon and Baliunas paper), CAGW alarmists willing chose to subjectively manipulate aerosols (in defiance of Ockham’s Razor) to explain the absence of predicted warming in the solar constant models rather than address the more likely variable (solar radiation). But, mind you, they’re not the “deniers” in such an example. Yeah… right.

Eyes Wide Open
September 28, 2012 8:45 am

Jan P Perlwitz says:
September 28, 2012 at 7:02 am
“The sunspot number has been trending down since the mid of previous century, but the global temperature anomaly has been going up. No scaling factor is going to help you there
Jan, try this simple experiment at home and then get back to us.
1) Put a pot of cold water on the stove
2) Turn the burner to maximum
3) Take the temperature every 30 seconds
4) After 3 minutes,turn the burner to 3/4
5) Leave the pot on the stove for another 5 minutes taking the temperature every 30 seconds
6) Plot your results with time on the bottom axis, temperature on the left and stove setting on the right

F. Ross
September 28, 2012 8:53 am

Dr. Svalgaard:
It appears to me that your graphic “North South Solar Polar Fields [micro Tesla]” [above] is puzzling. It appears that the ghosted [South?] portion is just the mirror image of the non-ghosted [North] data. Is the South polar actually a mirror image of the North or am I just not reading the graph incorrectly?

Peridot
September 28, 2012 8:55 am

I may be on the wrong tack here but surely the CLOUD and SKY experiments very clearly showed a link between a magnetically quiet sun and cooling (muons from space ‘seeding’ low clouds which in turn lead to cooler weather). Am I misunderstanding this?

September 28, 2012 8:57 am

Johanus says:
September 28, 2012 at 6:34 am
“It is tempting to assume that this ‘hibernation’ that Dr. Svalgaard alludes to will lead to global cooling , because the last hibernation (“Maunder Minimum”) occurred during a cooling of the climate.
But I don’t believe that we’ve seen any causal evidence of this link. The typical explanations run “It has to be solar! What else could it be?” So, not much different than the typical “CO2 causes global warming” rationale.
But just to be sure, Dr. Svalgaard, is there any causal evidence to back up the claim that solar hibernation caused the Maunder cooling?”
I think the Hypothesis on this topic here http://landscheidt.wordpress.com/ is too accurate to ignore. I’m not sure the cause is sorted out yet but …
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sc24_amp.png

PeterB in Indianapolis
September 28, 2012 8:59 am

@Jan P Perlwitz:
No, sunspot number has NOT been trending down since the middle of last century. We were at a solar grand maximum which had more sunspot activity in the 1980’s and 1990’s than any previous time in the 20th century. There was an article about this right here on WUWT not too long ago. Sunspot number has been trending down since the late 1990s, NOT the 1950s as you seem to be claiming.
Also, greenhouse gases did not become, never have been, and never will be the “dominant climate driver”.

D Böehm
September 28, 2012 9:02 am

Eyes Wide Open,
You won’t convince that jamoke of anything, since his primary motivation is to keep both front feet in the public trough, along side the mendacious self-promoter James “Coal Trains of Death” Hansen.
Perlwitz opines: “I predict… The warming will just be delayed by a few years (by about 10 years…” Perlwitz doesn’t seem to understand that there has been no global warming for the past fifteen years. He should revise his ‘prediction’ to more than 15 years, to avoid appearing even more clueless than usual.
From people like Perlwitz we get problems like this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/26/nasa-giss-caught-changing-past-data-again-violates-data-quality-act

September 28, 2012 9:14 am

Jan P Perlwitz on September 28, 2012 at 7:02 am says:
The sunspot number has been trending down since the mid of previous century, but the global temperature anomaly has been going up. No scaling factor is going to help you there. Applying a scaling factor of 5 makes is just more obvious.

= = = = =
Jan P Perlwitz,
Your premise is faulty if your premise is that only TSI can possibly drive energy increases in the earth-atmosphere system and SSI cannot possibly do so.
Is that your premise?
John

F. Ross
September 28, 2012 9:18 am

Bad typing skills.
Is the South polar actually a mirror image of the North or am I just not reading the graph incorrectly?
For “incorrectly” please read “correctly.”
Thanks.

September 28, 2012 9:32 am

I would agree with Dr. S when he states that solar TSI variability is not large enough to account for periods like Maunder or MWP.
I think the most likely reality is:
– Energy in = energy out, but integrated across very long period of time
– Energy in is nearly constant and its variability can not account for natural variability in the Northern Hemisphere’s temperature of about 0.6 degrees during the last 5-6 decades
– Ratio of energy absorbed and energy reflected by oceans is the key variable.
It can be shown, at least numerically in an elementary way, that combination of the solar and the Earth’s activity (the Earth is not a passive bystander) can approximate natural variability
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
I suggest by regulating the oceanic absorption/radiation ratios through compromising integrity of the oceanic thermo-haline layers.
The required contemporaneous regulating energy comes from both the sun and the Earth, it is minute in comparison to what is required for the temperature change (analogue to the foot pressure on the car accelerator, or more appropriately to the grid voltage or base current in electronics).
Consider the 350 year long CET record:
Mid-summer temperatures (nearly constant, up-trend about 0.1C/century) due predominantly to the direct insolation
Mid-winter temperatures (average rise of about 0.4C/century) are ameliorated by the SST of the nearby Atlantic.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MidSummer-MidWinter.htm.
Any room for CO2? Very little.

Ged
September 28, 2012 9:35 am

@omnologos
Because the sun has a magnetic field, and magnetic fields have a north and a south.

Henry Clark
September 28, 2012 9:41 am

Eyes Wide Open:
Good analogy.
Just to add:
Also, the actual picture in solar activity is not a decrease over the past half-century as CAGW proponents claim. Rather:
Solar activity was relatively moderate during cycle 20 from 1964 to 1976 (the era of the global cooling scare in reality, although recently fudged temperature data hides the decline to make it appear to have happened for next to nil reason whatsoever). But then solar activity was substantially higher in cycles 21 and 22 which occurred from 1976 to 1996. That is seen, for example, in average inverted cosmic ray counts using data from http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi :
cycle 20: 1.000 for 1964-1976
(defining as baseline here)
->
cycle 21: 1.032 for 1976-1986
(more cosmic rays deflected by a stronger solar magnetic field, 3% less neutron count at monitors)
->
cycle 22: 1.032 for 1986-1996
Relative decline in solar activity occurred during cycle 23 onwards, of 1996 onwards:
cycle 23: 0.995 for 1996-2008
->
cycle 24 so far: 0.942 (where cycle 23’s figure would be 0.965 by this many months into it)
But, while influenced by other factors as well (such as the AMO), global temperatures have been at a plateau, flat to declining, from the 1998 El Nino through now:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend
———————————————————————
Tony McGough:
Yes, indeed.
Also, while that is a great book, to add some relevant fully online links:
http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/05_afdelinger/sun-climate/full_text_publications/svensmark_2007cosmoclimatology.pdf
and
http://rjes.wdcb.ru/v06/tje04163/tje04163.htm
and others.
There is a series of attempts by the CAGW movement to discredit cosmic rays having an influence ( http://www.sciencebits.com/RealClimateSlurs , http://www.sciencebits.com/HUdebate , etc.), and a particularly common one is to claim such is disproven by divergence between the cloud cover trends reported by the ISCCP at Hansen’s GISS in recent years (unfortunately publicized in climate4you.com graphs using them as a source) and that expected from GCR trends. However, http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/further-attempt-to-falsify-the-svensmark-hypothesis/ illustrates the “accidentally” uncorrected error from change in ISCCP satellite viewing angle occurring then, including a graph showing how other cloud cover trend datasets went in a different direction. 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.
I did a simple quick illustration myself of solar/GCR activity versus high-altitude specific humidity illustrating the matching four corresponding peaks each in data over the 1960s through now:
http://img218.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=27173_globalwarmingGCRsvshumidity_122_1193lo.jpg
The top is from:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericSpecificHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
The bottom is from:
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=01&startyear=1964&starttime=00%3A00&endday=30&endmonth=08&endyear=2012&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on

Henry Clark
September 28, 2012 9:48 am

EDIT:
Slight correction: The imagevenue.com link in my prior comment is broken, but this is what works instead in its place:
http://s18.postimage.org/n9nm5glc7/solar_GCRvswatervapor.jpg

adolfogiurfa
September 28, 2012 9:55 am

D Böehm: James “Coal Trains of Death” Hansen. Now you can see and hear our JH, at the official Iranian Government´s spanish TV channel:
http://www.hispantv.com/live.aspx

Tim Walker
September 28, 2012 9:59 am

Thanks for this post of the New Scientist article. A carefull reading of it and what Leif had to say and not say is very interesting. The article seems to say that the asymmetry of the solar hemispheres is possibly greater than normal for this cycle. The article specifically said, as I quote here, “Such a large asymmetry between hemishpere could be a sign of big changes ahead,” and again here, “Changes in symmetry are more indicative of going into a grand minimum than the strength of the cycle,” Leif seemed to miss that, instead he commented on the fact that cycles regularly have asymmetry.
The Doctor Leif did supply some graphs and links, unfortunately he didn’t provide a graph that showed the differences in the level of symmetry. That was unfortunate. I really hoped that he would speak to the thrust of the article. Instead he seems to have just spoken to the thrust of his own thoughts.
The writer of the article did a great job of looking at different peoples thoughts and ideas. It is a balanced article that shows interesting information and gives us some ideas of what we can look for and think about.
We do seem to be living in interesting times. I am gratefull for people like Anthony Watts and the author of this article: Stuart Clark. I look forward to whatching with others for when the other half of the solar maximum happens. I know that Anthony will keep us abreast of the news.

Olavi
September 28, 2012 10:05 am

Chances in cloudiness is the factor, TSI wont do it, Henrik Svensmark ‘s theory is partly proven allready. So cooling happens, but it is as slow as warming 50 years.

Ed
September 28, 2012 10:06 am

Going back to the source of the NS article, I’d be interesting in hearing what Leif has to say about the Tobias models. Just looking at his web page suggests a fairly technical kind of guy.
Web page:
http://www1.maths.leeds.ac.uk/~smt/

MarkW
September 28, 2012 10:06 am

Correlation does not prove causation, however it gives a good clue where to look for it.

Jeff D.
September 28, 2012 10:07 am

Jeff Alberts says:
September 28, 2012 at 7:31 am
I believe Dr. Svaalgaard says that the variability of the sun isn’t enough to account for all the “warming” in places where it has been warming, or to account for historic warming and cooling.
———————————
Then where is my premise of his belief wrong? By your account the sun plays no role in any change of climate conditions. If I was politically incorrect not to use the word change when associated with climate I apologize! I am quite sure that everyone would agree if the big yellow thing in the sky turned off tomorrow there would indeed be an impact. I do respect the work that the good Dr. does and the time he gives to educate here. This however does not change my belief that there is something more going on as it pertains to the sun than we have as yet discovered. The climate system has been to stable for to long for CO2 to have any major input on the climate system. That leaves natural cycles, asteroids / comets, vulcanism, and variability of the sun as contenders. All of which I think play a role in the mess that is climate change.

MarkW
September 28, 2012 10:09 am

Sparks says:
September 28, 2012 at 6:52 am
While a drop in the solar wind might be enough to drop the size of an orbit by a few miles, there’s no way it can change a nearly circular orbit to a highly elliptical one.

TomRude
September 28, 2012 10:13 am

OT: Anthony, I alerted you about the attempt to have the Wikipedia page about French Climatologist Marcel Leroux deleted.
Now no other than William M. Connolley has shown up!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marcel_Leroux#Marcel_Leroux
“•delete – the article has been hijacked by global warming deniers William M. Connolley (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)”
William M. Connolley is at it again.

MarkW
September 28, 2012 10:16 am

Peridot says:
September 28, 2012 at 8:55 am
The initial CERN tests showed that cosmic rays can create the seeds from which larger droplets could grow. The since the test was designed to test the seed creation part of the hypothesis, these seeds were swept from the test chamber by magnetic fields before they had a chance to grow.
The next round of tests will determine if these seeds are able to grow into cloud forming droplets.

MarkW
September 28, 2012 10:26 am

We know that while TSI does not change much from min to max in a solar cycle, however UV radiation does change by as much as 10% over the same period.
We know that UV radiation creates the ozone layer.
We know that ozone is a greenhouse gas.
If a 10% decrease in UV causes a decrease in the thickness of the ozone layer, would this in turn lead to a cooling of the planet?
Just a few days ago we had an article that speculated that a Carrington event sized CME would reduce the ozone layer and result in a 3C drop in temperatures.

TomRude
September 28, 2012 10:27 am

OT: Anthony, sorry if it is a double post, the English Wikipedia page for French Climatologist Marcel Leroux is being attacked by no other than William M. Connolley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marcel_Leroux
•delete – the article has been hijacked by global warming deniers William M. Connolley (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

September 28, 2012 10:31 am

Ged – why would the north and south parts of the _same_ magnetic field behave differently?
I am asking questions, uh, not implying anything.

george e smith
September 28, 2012 10:46 am

So the sun is just like the earth; when the ice is melting at its north pole it is growing at the south pole; pretty hot stuff if you ask me.
By the way, the photograph of that spectacular donnybrook on the sun the other day, had that weird lattice structure over in the left corner area, that looked absolutely impossible as a natural structure; more like a multiple exposure of shifted photos.
So Dr Sv, do you sunchaps have any ideas what could create such a regular looking structure in such an event ?

Jan P Perlwitz
September 28, 2012 11:03 am

Tom Murphy in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1093144,
You don’t really know what the IPCC does, do you?
You assert,

So, then, how does the IPCC address these uncertainties in the models?

So, although the IPCC admits uncertainties abound in how to model solar radiation in the climate models, it ultimately preserves the notion of a solar constant and presumes that even if it’s not really constant, the impact from any change is too small to be relevant without invoking additional strong amplification mechanisms (e.g., aerosols).

that this… presumption (this may be the wrong term – perhaps “fraud”) by the IPCC has been made with the full knowledge that changes in solar radiation certainly do matter and should be accounted for within the models.

The IPCC doesn’t do any of these things, you claim here, because the IPCC itself doesn’t do climate research or climate modeling. The IPCC report is a review report, which compiles and synthesizes the existing research as it has been published in the peer reviewed scientific literature. The IPCC can only report what’s out there.
You also seem to confuse two issues. The quote from the IPCC report in the second paragraph is about radiative transfer processes in the atmosphere and at the surface for a given solar radiation incoming at the top of atmosphere and uncertainties with respect to modeling those radiative transfer processes.
Then you ask:
So, then, how does the IPCC address these uncertainties in the models?
but the following paragraph you quote then has nothing to do with the issue of modeling correctly those radiative transfer processes. Instead, in the paragraph you quote, the IPCC report talks about the issue what the variability is of the amount of energy that is coming in from the sun at the top of the atmosphere. There, newer research is quoted that revises this variability down compared to previous research.
Then you quote:
And in Section 9.2 of the FAR, the IPCC states, “that the amplitude of the large-scale pattern of response scales linearly with the forcing,” – http://tinyurl.com/9nd6xvj (link to IPCC FAR).
which is related to the first issue again. The previous paragraph was about what the magnitude and variability of the solar forcing is. This quote here is about what the magnitude of the response is, whatever the exact number is of the magnitude of the solar forcing.
You are confusing things.

So, although the IPCC admits uncertainties abound in how to model solar radiation in the climate models, it ultimately preserves the notion of a solar constant and presumes that even if it’s not really constant, the impact from any change is too small to be relevant without invoking additional strong amplification mechanisms (e.g., aerosols).

The issue in the middle partial sentence, and the issues in the other two partial sentences are separate issues, which you wrongly link with each other. And the IPCC report doesn’t “presume” anything. It reports what is said in the (at the time of the final draft of this report) existing scientific literature. The IPCC can only report what has been published. It can’t just make up things, according how you would like to have it.

What’s troubling and often highlighted by CAGW skeptics is that this… presumption (this may be the wrong term – perhaps “fraud”) by the IPCC has been made with the full knowledge that changes in solar radiation certainly do matter and should be accounted for within the models.

The IPCC does not do models. It’s not in the business of climate modeling. How is the IPCC supposed to do this then?
Besides that, if you make such an assertion, then you should be able to answer following question: What “changes in solar radiation” and what physical mechanisms based on what scientific evidence published in what peer reviewed scientific literature should be taken into account by the research groups who actually do the climate modeling, which has not being taken into account so far, which are as important as you claim?
This has been asserted for over 15 years.
So what the “CAGW skeptics” say with respect to this matter is all only assertion then? And on what basis should mere assertion being taken into consideration? So what again should be taken into account in climate models? Something that has been made up by “CAGW skeptics”?

CAGW alarmists willing chose to subjectively manipulate aerosols

What do you mean with “willing chose subjectively manipulate aerosols”? I ask you to back up this assertion of the this allegedly sinister “manipulation” by providing evidence for it.

explain the absence of predicted warming

Such an “absence of predicted warming” exists only in your imagination. The observed temperature record has been fully within the range of the predictions from the climate model simulations of the AR4 IPCC report.
Your assertion that the solar irradiation has been assumed to be constant in the climate model simulations is false anyway. Instead, those model simulations used a variable solar input, based on data derived from measurements of this variability and from proxies.

george e smith
September 28, 2012 11:05 am

“””””…..marchesarosa says:
September 28, 2012 at 4:41 am
I do wish people would leave out the “we”! As in
” In the North we are *at* max right now.”
“We” are not at lunar max either right now or ever. Neither are “we” located on the northern hemisphere of the sun.
Come on guys, let’s have a little more scientific rigour in the way propositions are stated……”””””
In that the SUN doesn’t give a rats about maxima or minima; doesn’t even know what the hell “WE” are talking about, and neither the Aardvarks nor the mushrooms even know what it is that “WE” call the SUN; even the sun doesn’t know it is the sun; then it stands to reason that “”””…WE…””” are the ONLY entities that do give a rats about the SUN and its maxima and minima, which are all figments of our imagination that WE made up to keep people like Dr Svalgaard gainfully employed.
Then I think it is perfectly reasonable for folks like Dr Sv, in a friendly forum like this; and even in the cloisters of his professional environment and sunfellows, to talk in such jargon. Yes I know that in peer reviewed papers, he must replace four letter words like “WE”, with multisyllabic mediaeval Roman synonyms , that suit the stuffiness of formal science; but still mean pretty much the same as “WE” .
Nothing in the universe but WE or US even knows what the hell minima and maxima are; so what else could one say ?

JJ
September 28, 2012 11:19 am

Jan P Perlwitz says:
The sunspot number has been trending down since the mid of previous century, but the global temperature anomaly has been going up. No scaling factor is going to help you there.

A lag might. You do understand the concept, don’t you?
The warming will just be delayed by a few years (by about 10 years based on mere energy balance considerations).
Why, look at that. You do understand that concept.
How come you only apply the concepts you understand when doing so benefits your faith commitment to ‘global warming’?
Even if the 11-year solar cycle vanishes altogether and the sun activity stays at the minimum of the solar cycle, I predict global warming due to greenhouse gases will continue resume over the next decades, …
There, fixed that for ya. What is not occurring cannot continue. Over the last decades (about 1.7 of them so far) warming has halted. The only thing that can “continue” over the next decades is lack of warming.
I don’t see any flat spots in the previous predictions made by you fellows. Funny, that.

Tim Walker
September 28, 2012 11:22 am

Jeff D. says:
I am quite sure that everyone would agree if the big yellow thing in the sky turned off tomorrow there would indeed be an impact. I do respect the work that the good Dr. does and the time he gives to educate here. This however does not change my belief that there is something more going on as it pertains to the sun than we have as yet discovered. The climate system has been to stable for to long for CO2 to have any major input on the climate system. That leaves natural cycles, asteroids / comets, vulcanism, and variability of the sun as contenders. All of which I think play a role in the mess that is climate change.
Tim responds:
Looking at the climate record with an open and still inquisitive mind one does think the sun just might have some effect on change of our climate, more so to this point than the CO2 in our atmosphere.
As far as the Dr.’s time and effort to educate here. It is true he does give of his time to educate. He does provide some usefull information. The problem is he doesn’t consider what others think or have to say. Of course there are probably exceptions to that statement. The AGWs are trying to educate us all also. I would much rather have more people think, they have something to learn. Those are the ones that help us all learn best.

Steve M. from TN
September 28, 2012 11:25 am

Ged says:
September 28, 2012 at 9:35 am
@omnologos
“because the sun has a magnetic field, and magnetic fields have a north and a south.”
umm, probably partially correct. yes, magnetic fields have a north and south, but the Sun flips it’s poles every solar cycle IIRC. Probably just us humans had to have a way to reference the top hemisphere and the bottom hemisphere of the Sun, so we kept the same naming convention as we use here.

Robert S
September 28, 2012 11:25 am

David Ross – my question is in fact…why would the Northern and Southern hemispheres of the Sun behave differently? What tells the Northern part that it is “North”, and the Southern “South”?
….and the answer is – the Sun’s magnetic field . Also in the northern hemisphere the spots rotate in a clockwise direction and in the south in an anticlockwise direction.

D Böehm
September 28, 2012 11:31 am

I see Perlwitz is cheating the taxpayers again. I bet he posts on his blog on public time, too. And Hansen made over a thousand speeches complaining that he was being muzzled by President Bush.
Does anyone at GISS have an ounce of integrity? Judging by Perlwitz and Hansen, the answer is no.
As far as reality goes, Perlwitz makes the preposterous statement:
“…an ‘absence of predicted warming’ exists only in your imagination.”
Wrong, as usual. Just like the IPCC’s always wrong models.
Exactly why should we pay these scientific illiterates?

RobW
September 28, 2012 11:42 am

Vukcevic said:
“Thanks to all who followed my graphs during last 3-4 years, and my gratitude goes to Anthony and the WUWT for the hospitality and open-mindedness.”
Virtually every reader is here because we want to see the real data not computer models and political memes. Thanks for your input

Bart
September 28, 2012 11:52 am

Jan P Perlwitz says:
September 28, 2012 at 7:02 am
spangled drongo says:
September 28, 2012 at 3:46 am
Afraid he’s right: this “correlation” is meaningless. The trendlines are affine functions. Two affine functions can always be made scale similar because they are scale similar. One might argue, ah yes, but there is still a positive correlation. But, that is just a flip of a coin.
“The sunspot number has been trending down since the mid of previous century, but the global temperature anomaly has been going up.”
You mean, the peak SSN has been trending down. And, since the early ’90s, not mid-century. It went sharply down from the peak near 1960 to 1970, just in time for the Global Cooling scare, and trended up from that time until 2000, in tune with what has been attributed to AGW, and to the subsequent current warming hiatus.
I wrote this before reading down to see where others have made the same point, but might as well pile on to dissuade future such ludicrous commentary.
“…by about 10 years based on mere energy balance considerations…”
The Apocalypse has been delayed again, eh? Funny how that happens.

September 28, 2012 12:00 pm

george e smith says:
September 28, 2012 at 11:05 am
……
Hi George
Thanks, I had a good laugh, (I often have a chuckle at my own posts, usually on the second reading some hours later) but that was hilarious.
Ah yes ‘omnia mutantur nihil interit’.

AJB
September 28, 2012 12:05 pm

Jan P Perlwitz says, September 28, 2012 at 7:02 am
Yet another prat who draws straight lines on evolving time series. Did they teach you nothing in school?

Bart
September 28, 2012 12:05 pm

Steve M. from TN says:
September 28, 2012 at 11:25 am
“Probably just us humans had to have a way to reference the top hemisphere and the bottom hemisphere of the Sun, so we kept the same naming convention as we use here.”
Indeed. A positive rotation about a given axis is, by convention, counter-clockwise. And, most of the planets revolve counter-clockwise about the North pole axis of the Sun.

G. E. Pease
September 28, 2012 12:18 pm

In the right-hand diagram (WSO North-South) of
http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png,
a data trend fit of 2012 data plus just the last couple of months of data from 2011 currently indicates that magnetic reversal of the poles could happen late this year rather than in 2013.

September 28, 2012 12:29 pm

Guys. It’s New Scientist.
A catastrophe here, a catastrophe there… pretty soon it adds up to Armageddon.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
September 28, 2012 12:33 pm

From D Böehm on September 28, 2012 at 11:31 am:

I see Perlwitz is cheating the taxpayers again. I bet he posts on his blog on public time, too.

Ah, “communicating the science” is part of GISS’ “community outreach”. Part of “restoring public confidence” in the validity of GISS’ “work”, which is vitally necessary due to the growing and arguably overwhelming scientific evidence of GISS cooking the numbers to produce a record with an unreal amount of warming, to support the positions of the convicted activist Hansen, that human influence will cause and is causing catastrophic global climate effects (despite the predictions not coming to pass and the “work” being debunked).
And given the sterling success of GISS employee Gavin over at the ReallyRealClimate blog, it’s been proven it’s helpful to the “outreach” to have GISS people “communicating” on the clock at a blog that’s technically and legally not a part of GISS, where they can say whatever they need to towards the “restoring” without the potential legal issues arising from government accountability.
So if GISS wants to replicate a previous profitable endeavor by sending Perlwitz out into the blogosphere to fight for Climate Truth and continuing/increasing GISS funding, who are we to complain? We’re only taxpayers, it’s not like we’re allowed any say in how government runs itself. ☺

Eyes Wide Open
September 28, 2012 12:36 pm

I found this article on the solar activity vs. temperature link very informative. Chew on this Jan!
Magic sunspot number is 40! Greater than that the earth system warms, less than that it cools!
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/nailing-the-solar-activity-global-temperature-divergence-lie/

Jan P Perlwitz
September 28, 2012 12:45 pm

John Whitman wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1093189

Your premise is faulty if your premise is that only TSI can possibly drive energy increases in the earth-atmosphere system and SSI cannot possibly do so.
Is that your premise?

No, that is not a premise of mine.

davidmhoffer
September 28, 2012 12:54 pm

Jan P Perlwitz;
The “argument” is not scientifically valid. It’s nonsense. There is a difference between statistical detectability of a physical process and presence of a physical process. Lack of statistical significance, e.g., of a trend, only allows the conclusion that the process can’t be sufficiently distinguished from noise on the given time period.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well glad to see you admitting that natural variability is so large that it makes the contribution of CO2 pretty much insignificant by comparison.

Gunga Din
September 28, 2012 1:03 pm

Jan P Perlwitz says:
=================================================================
“The Sun has nothing to do with global climate until we can figure out a way to tax it.”

Bart
September 28, 2012 1:12 pm

Eyes Wide Open says:
September 28, 2012 at 12:36 pm
Wow. Nicely done. So, in the end it all boils down to, the Sun drives temperatures and temperatures drive CO2. What an unmitigated fiasco.

davidmhoffer
September 28, 2012 1:22 pm

Jan P Perlwitz;
The IPCC doesn’t do any of these things, you claim here, because the IPCC itself doesn’t do climate research or climate modeling. The IPCC report is a review report, which compiles and synthesizes the existing research as it has been published in the peer reviewed scientific literature. The IPCC can only report what’s out there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, if the IPCC “synthesizes” a report based on other reports, and the other reports turn out to be wrong, then it means only one thing: That the IPCC “synthesis” report was wrong.
Nice try Jan P Perlwitz, but this tactic simply discredits you further. You’ve presented no argument that is 100% accurate and quite beside the point. Either defend the models, or don’t. But saying that the IPCC doesn’t actually do the modelling, they just report the results, is like a mafia don claiming he doesn’t do the killing….
These are the models and results of models as reported by the IPCC, and referring to them as “their” models is perfectly valid for the purposes of this discussion. If memory serves, 18 of the 22 models used in the IPCC AR4 ensemble had no variable for TSI at all, and the forcing assumed by them for aerosols was all over the map. The best the models could do versus actual observations was (again, going from memory) about 3 degrees and the ensemble got to within 1 degree. That leaves you relying on models that have clear errors that cancel each other out to a certain extent, but combining them in that fashion results in massive error bars, making the value of the output pretty much meaingless. Further, the real world only has ONE actual value for aerosols. If all the models used the same value, only one of them would even be close, and that one only by about 3 degrees.
From this you want us to believe that the models are capable of discerning a temperature rise of 1/100 degree per year and attribute some portion of it to CO2 in an environment which you yourself just admitted has natural variability that dwarfs the CO2 signal we’re trying to measure?

D Böehm
September 28, 2012 1:27 pm

Bart,
I think this chart shows the ΔT/ΔCO2 cause and effect more clearly.
Also, GISS “adjusts” the temperature record:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/gw-us-1999-2011-hansen.gif
And Hansen is wrong again. He’s never right, is he?

richardscourtney
September 28, 2012 1:35 pm

Jan P Perlwitz:
At September 28, 2012 at 11:03 am you ask Tom Murphy

CAGW alarmists willing chose to subjectively manipulate aerosols

What do you mean with “willing chose subjectively manipulate aerosols”? I ask you to back up this assertion of the this allegedly sinister “manipulation” by providing evidence for it.

Oh! I want to answer that one! I will take any opportunity to tell anybody the answer to that one.
So, here is the answer again.
None of the climate models – not one of them – could match the change in mean global temperature over the past century if it did not utilise a unique value of assumed cooling from aerosols. So, inputting actual values of the cooling effect (such as the determination by Penner et al.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/07/25/1018526108.full.pdf?with-ds=yes)
would make every climate model provide a mismatch of the global warming it hindcasts and the observed global warming for the twentieth century.
This mismatch would occur because all the global climate models and energy balance models are known to provide indications which are based on
1.
the assumed degree of forcings resulting from human activity that produce warming
and
2.
the assumed degree of anthropogenic aerosol cooling input to each model as a ‘fiddle factor’ to obtain agreement between past average global temperature and the model’s indications of average global temperature.
More than a decade ago I published a peer-reviewed paper that showed the UK’s Hadley Centre general circulation model (GCM) could not model climate and only obtained agreement between past average global temperature and the model’s indications of average global temperature by forcing the agreement with an input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling.
The input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling is needed because the model ‘ran hot’; i.e. it showed an amount and a rate of global warming which was greater than was observed over the twentieth century. This failure of the model was compensated by the input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling.
And my paper demonstrated that the assumption of aerosol effects being responsible for the model’s failure was incorrect.
(ref. Courtney RS An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999).
More recently, in 2007, Kiehle published a paper that assessed 9 GCMs and two energy balance models.
(ref. Kiehl JT,Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity. GRL vol.. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007).
Kiehl found the same as my paper except that each model he assessed used a different aerosol ‘fix’ from every other model. This is because they all ‘run hot’ but they each ‘run hot’ to a different degree.
He says in his paper:

One curious aspect of this result is that it is also well known [Houghton et al., 2001] that the same models that agree in simulating the anomaly in surface air temperature differ significantly in their predicted climate sensitivity. The cited range in climate sensitivity from a wide collection of models is usually 1.5 to 4.5 deg C for a doubling of CO2, where most global climate models used for climate change studies vary by at least a factor of two in equilibrium sensitivity.
The question is: if climate models differ by a factor of 2 to 3 in their climate sensitivity, how can they all simulate the global temperature record with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Kerr [2007] and S. E. Schwartz et al. (Quantifying climate change–too rosy a picture?, available at http://www.nature.com/reports/climatechange, 2007) recently pointed out the importance of understanding the answer to this question. Indeed, Kerr [2007] referred to the present work and the current paper provides the ‘‘widely circulated analysis’’ referred to by Kerr [2007]. This report investigates the most probable explanation for such an agreement. It uses published results from a wide variety of model simulations to understand this apparent paradox between model climate responses for the 20th century, but diverse climate model sensitivity.

And, importantly, Kiehl’s paper says:

These results explain to a large degree why models with such diverse climate sensitivities can all simulate the global anomaly in surface temperature. The magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing compensates for the model sensitivity.

And the “magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing” is fixed in each model by the input value of aerosol forcing.
Thanks to Bill Illis, Kiehl’s Figure 2 can be seen at
http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/8167/kiehl2007figure2.png ]
Please note that the Figure is for 9 GCMs and 2 energy balance models, and its title is:
”Figure 2. Total anthropogenic forcing (Wm2) versus aerosol forcing (Wm2) from nine fully coupled climate models and two energy balance models used to simulate the 20th century.”
It shows that
(a) each model uses a different value for “Total anthropogenic forcing” that is in the range 0.80 W/m^-2 to 2.02 W/m^-2
but
(b) each model is forced to agree with the rate of past warming by using a different value for “Aerosol forcing” that is in the range -1.42 W/m^-2 to -0.60 W/m^-2.
In other words the models use values of “Total anthropogenic forcing” that differ by a factor of more than 2.5 and they are ‘adjusted’ by using values of assumed “Aerosol forcing” that differ by a factor of 2.4.
So, each climate model emulates a different climate system. Hence, at most only one of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth because there is only one Earth. And the fact that they each ‘run hot’ unless fiddled by use of a completely arbitrary ‘aerosol cooling’ strongly suggests that none of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth.
Richard

September 28, 2012 1:53 pm

I think this chart shows the ΔT/ΔCO2 cause and effect more clearly.
Also, GISS “adjusts” the temperature record:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/gw-us-1999-2011-hansen.gif
##############################
That is very misleading on your part. The temperature estimated in 1999 used
1. A different dataset
2. Different averaging code.
Of course when you use more data and employ better methods you will find that the past
cools a bit. Kinda has to.
Using all the data in its rawest form publicly available and using methods that are BLUE it’s quite easy to show that GISS is more accurate now than it used to be. Sorry, its just a fact of math.

September 28, 2012 1:55 pm

I had to google ‘Jan P. Perlwitz’ and came with :
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Affiliation: Columbia University
Very impressive, but I also came across his colleague
Dr. Jean Dickey of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena:
She said:
One possibility is the movements of Earth’s core (where Earth’s magnetic field originates) might disturb Earth’s magnetic shielding of charged-particle (i.e., cosmic ray) fluxes that have been hypothesized to affect the formation of clouds. This could affect how much of the sun’s energy is reflected back to space and how much is absorbed by our planet. Other possibilities are that some other core process could be having a more indirect effect on climate, or that an external (e.g. solar) process affects the core and climate simultaneously.
(more on the subject here: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm )
I would be interested to hear Dr. Jan P. Perlwitz’s opinion.
Dr. Perlwitz thank you for your time.

Ian W
September 28, 2012 2:02 pm

(apologies in advance to Anthony)
MarkW says:
September 28, 2012 at 10:09 am
Sparks says:
September 28, 2012 at 6:52 am
While a drop in the solar wind might be enough to drop the size of an orbit by a few miles, there’s no way it can change a nearly circular orbit to a highly elliptical one.

First it is necessary to identify what the Earth is actually orbiting. The Earth does not orbit the Sun and the Sun is not the center of the Solar System. The Sun and the Earth orbit the barycenter of the Solar System. However, the barycenter is moving due to the change in the relative position of the planets (see Rhodes Fairbridge and Landscheidt); the Earth is in an orbit around the previous position(s) of the barycenter and that orbit must alter to the new barycenter position.so the Earth’s orbit is continually altering following a modified epitrochoid pattern. Sometimes the movement pattern of the barycenter is smooth on other occasions it is rapid and changes to retrograde. These rapid changes are difficult for the Sun and the planets including Earth to follow.
What would be expected? Circulation patterns in the Sun could be disrupted as the barycenter moves through the Sun prograde or retrograde and sometimes out to more than a solar diameter away. The solar activity – including spots, CME. solar wind, magnetism may all be affected. Planetary orbits are disturbed causing changes from nearly circular (when the barycenter is relatively stable) to highly elliptical when the barycenter has moved. Chasing a moving barycenter will require velocity change, the inertia of this blob of liquid rock with a thin crust overlaid with layers of liquid and gas that we call Earth means that a velocity change may disturb or cause cracks in its thin crust – we call these earthquakes and volcanism – there will also be measurable angular momentum and length of day changes.
So back to your point. True the solar wind dropping or increasing is unlikely to change the orbit – but it may be a symptom of the orbital changes of the Sun and the planets as they orbit a moving barycenter. It may also explain why volcanism and earthquakes seem to be linked to the behavior of the Sun. This has been noted in papers from NASA and is used by Piers Corbyn of WeatherAction to forecast increased earthquake and volcanic activity.
You may not like the ideas but the hypothesis is internally consistent and fits observations.

davidmhoffer
September 28, 2012 2:07 pm

richardscourtney;
Oh! I want to answer that one! I will take any opportunity to tell anybody the answer to that one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’d encourage anyone who thinks that the models have any validity at all (this means you JPP) to read richardscourtney’s comment above in detail. This is one of the most glaring problems with the models that I can think of. I’ve seen Richard post versions of this before, and the response from the cagw community that touts models as “proof” is the sound of crickets.

Tim Walker
September 28, 2012 2:23 pm

richardscourtney says:
September 28, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Oh! I want to answer that one! I will take any opportunity to tell anybody the answer to that one.
Tim Walker responds to Richard. Wow. What a great answer. I doubt if the person asking the question you answered, will look at your answer with an opening mind and willing to see the truth. Thank you for your work. Keep doing what you can.

dearieme
September 28, 2012 2:23 pm

Can we all agree to call it New Clientist in future?

D Böehm
September 28, 2012 2:25 pm

Steven Mosher says:
“That is very misleading on your part.”
Steven, you are confused about who is doing the misleading.

jimmi_the_dalek
September 28, 2012 2:36 pm

“Dr. Leif Svalgaard, one of the worlds leading solar physicists and WUWT’s resident solar expert ” it says at the top.
And he probably is.
Except when he says that the variations in the sun’s output is not great enough to cause the variations in the climate, then nobody believes him. Odd isn’t it ?

September 28, 2012 2:38 pm

Jan P Perlwitz says:
September 28, 2012 at 12:45 pm

John Whitman wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1093189
Your premise is faulty if your premise is that only TSI can possibly drive energy increases in the earth-atmosphere system and SSI cannot possibly do so.
Is that your premise?

No, that is not a premise of mine.
= = = = = =
Jan P Perlwitz,
Then your original statement (as follows) is self contradictory in principle:

Jan P Perlwitz on September 28, 2012 at 7:02 am says:
The sunspot number has been trending down since the mid of previous century, but the global temperature anomaly has been going up. No scaling factor is going to help you there. Applying a scaling factor of 5 makes is just more obvious.

Your statement erroneously assumes that cycles with higher sunspot counts should, per se, increase earth-atmosphere system energy (via TSI) and thus increases in global temperature relative to cycles with lower sunspot counts. That presumption does not contain the evolving knowledge that cycles with lower sunspot counts can have a spectral shift in the sun’s energy (SSI) reaching earth that may actually have a net warming effect greater than cycles with higher sunspot counts.
John

Jan P Perlwitz
September 28, 2012 2:43 pm

davidmhoffer wrote
(Snip. Stop referring to people who have not commented here, or future posts will go to the spam folder. ~mod)
Well glad to see you admitting that natural variability is so large that it makes the contribution of CO2 pretty much insignificant by comparison.
I don’t say anything like this about the effect of CO2 on climate in the statement that you quote here. Either you maliciously misrepresent what I say, or you have some serious problems with understanding what you read. The quote is a generally valid statement about the difference between the statistical detectability of a physical process in a data set and the presence of the process.

September 28, 2012 2:45 pm

Jan P Perlwitz says:
September 28, 2012 at 7:02 am
Even if the 11-year solar cycle vanishes altogether and the sun activity stays at the minimum of the solar cycle, I predict global warming due to greenhouse gases will continue over the next decades, since greenhouse gases have become the dominant climate driver in the second half of the 20th century. The warming will just be delayed by a few years (by about 10 years based on mere energy balance considerations).
Thanks for posting this Jan, its much easier later when the complete opposite occurs for you (GISS) to be discredicted further than already is the case. All i see is “greenhouse gases are the dominant driver”, the CSIRO is ” virtually certain” the oceans are warming due to the CO2. But there is no proof, none whatsoever. There is no science in this, its just an assumption that these changes cannot be natural, so CO2 must be causing it.
Its getting tiresome, reading so much garbage about CO2, when there is a large disconnect between CO2 and temperatures. And your theory of a delay doesnt cut it, CO2 has increased since 1998 more than any other time, exactly the time the warming halted.
It seems obvious to anyone that solar has an influence, because if you go outside at 2am you get to see the influence in real time.

davidmhoffer
September 28, 2012 2:53 pm

Steven Mosher;
Of course when you use more data and employ better methods you will find that the past
cools a bit. Kinda has to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why? Why does it “has to”?

jimmi_the_dalek
September 28, 2012 2:59 pm

Ian W says:
“Planetary orbits are disturbed causing changes from nearly circular (when the barycenter is relatively stable) to highly elliptical when the barycenter has moved.”
That is very interesting. It explains a lot, for example why the length of a year varies, and why the equinoxes are unpredictable, and also why astronomers are completely unable, because their equations do not contain this effect, to predict the occurrences of eclipses to the nearest minute. And it explains the strange lurching I sometimes feel when I come out of a pub on Saturday evening – I now realise it is due to sudden changes in the Earth’s velocity as it tries to keep up with the barycenter. Thank you for this insight.

James Fosser
September 28, 2012 3:09 pm

Dr. Leif Svalgaard’s comments on an article in the New Scientist? I have often wondered who read that rag!

Ian W
September 28, 2012 3:23 pm

jimmi_the_dalek says:
September 28, 2012 at 2:59 pm

Jimmi – may I suggest you read a few very simple lectures on the search for extrasolar planets. Try this one for a start http://www2.astro.psu.edu/users/caryl/a10/lec21_2d.html
Perhaps read it before you have that ginger beer and lose your faculties.
And you can look at http://astro.unl.edu/naap/esp/detection.html showing the effect on the Sun.

george e smith
September 28, 2012 3:25 pm

“””””…..Bart says:
September 28, 2012 at 12:05 pm
Steve M. from TN says:
September 28, 2012 at 11:25 am
“Probably just us humans had to have a way to reference the top hemisphere and the bottom hemisphere of the Sun, so we kept the same naming convention as we use here.”
Indeed. A positive rotation about a given axis is, by convention, counter-clockwise. And, most of the planets revolve counter-clockwise about the North pole axis of the Sun………””””””
Where did you come up with that rule ? I believe by convention, Positive in the rotation vector sense is governed by the right hand rule. so you point your thumb in the positive angular rotation or velocity, or angular momentum direction and your fingers wrap around the vector direction in a clockwise direction, or the direction of a right handed screw.
Yes some trigonometry text books choose Counter clockwise as the positive direction. On the other hand, one of the very first things stated in the most definitive geometrical optics text book ever published (circa 1926) states that the direction of positive angles is clockwise. Of course it doesn’t matter which you choose, so long as you use it consistently. So if one points one’s thumb in the direction of earth’s axis, , pointing from south towards north, what direction does the earth rotate; well blow me down, I do believe it is from west to east, just as prescribed by the right hand vector rule.
Any fly fisherman knows that when you cast a fly line, you have to make the cast in such a way, that the linear momentum, and angular momentum, are both of the same sign, either both positive (forward cast) or negative (backward cast), and if you launch it with crossed up momentum signs, you get a tailing loop mess; every time..

John F. Hultquist
September 28, 2012 3:49 pm

jimmi_the_dalek says:
September 28, 2012 at 2:36 pm
“Odd isn’t it ?

What a very intriguing comment. To me this implies that you, jimmi, understand something that seems to elude everyone else – that being how “the variations in the sun’s output” cause variations in Earth’s climate. A half dozen or more ideas have been floated like helium-filled balloons at a birthday party and all seem to have been burst like having been touched with the burning candles on the cake. Please take the opportunity to state which one of the ideas you think works and explain the mechanism. You could save us all a lot of further reading and better direct all future research on the subject.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
September 28, 2012 3:59 pm

From Jan P Perlwitz on September 28, 2012 at 7:02 am:

What about following graph:
[WFT-GISTEMP LOTI-CO2-SSN*5]
The sunspot number has been trending down since the mid of previous century, but the global temperature anomaly has been going up. No scaling factor is going to help you there. Applying a scaling factor of 5 makes is just more obvious.

(Note: you have a goof on the CO₂ trend line, it should start at 1960 with the other plots instead of 1950.)
For one thing, be careful using SSN, as the SSN isn’t really the actual sunspot count, as groups count as ten spots no matter how many are really visible in any particular group, then individual spots are added in. So four visible spots with three in one group scores an 11.
Well then, by what you’ve presented, clearly it’s an inverse relationship.
WFT-GISTEMP LOTI-CO2-SSN*(-5)
Looks about as good a match to global temperatures as CO₂. So clearly the relationship is decreasing sunspots to increasing temperatures.
Without scaling and still using normalized data as you selected, clicking on “Raw data” shows GISTEMP LOTI has a slope of 0.0157099 per year, the SSN is -0.00236535 per year, so the real multiplier is −6.64168. To really match up the trend lines takes an offset to the SSN of -0.8181. Graph.
Voila, perfection.
Good job, Jan. By showing the importance of linear trend lines, and the inverse relationship, you now have all you need to do some real science.
Since lower sunspot numbers correspond with lower solar activity thus presumably lower amounts of particles from the Sun (less solar wind), and such particles could cause atmospheric nucleation thus clouds, I’d suggest seeing if declining solar activity corresponded with decreased cloud cover leading to increased insolation which lead to global warming. You might want to work with Dr. Roy Spencer who already showed how a mere 1-2% lessening of the cloud cover could account for all of the late 20th century “anthropogenic” global warming.
Don’t forget to mention my help in your Nobel acceptance speech. Unless it’s the Peace prize, which has been given to lots of unworthy morons lately, so you can take all the credit for that one.

Jan P Perlwitz
September 28, 2012 4:04 pm

richardscourtney wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1093423

None of the climate models – not one of them – could match the change in mean global temperature over the past century if it did not utilise a unique value of assumed cooling from aerosols. So, inputting actual values of the cooling effect (such as the determination by Penner et al.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/07/25/1018526108.full.pdf?with-ds=yes)

What are you talking about? This paper is not about the magnitude of the whole aerosol forcing, it’s about the magnitude of the forcing due to the indirect aerosols effect. The conclusion of the paper is that satellite derived estimates of the forcing due to the indirect effect of aerosols are too low. How is this paper supposed to support anything what you assert here about sinister “manipulations”? There nothing in there that supports your assertion.

The input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling is needed because the model ‘ran hot’; i.e. it showed an amount and a rate of global warming which was greater than was observed over the twentieth century. This failure of the model was compensated by the input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling.

That sounds about right. Aerosol exert a real forcing on climate, which is net negative, although some aerosols also exert a positive forcing. Therefore, taking aerosols out of the equation would mean that an important factor that influences climate significantly would not be taken into consideration. Climate model simulations that don’t take this effect into consideration necessarily “run hot”. That is to be expected. But where is the supposed “manipulation” here? It is correct to include aerosol forcing. Are you advocating to ignore important climate drivers willingly and totally subjectively, because you don’t like the results, when they are included?
As for the Kiehl paper:
You assert, referencing this paper:

Kiehl found the same as my paper except that each model he assessed used a different aerosol ‘fix’ from every other model. This is because they all ‘run hot’ but they each ‘run hot’ to a different degree.

and

And the “magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing” is fixed in each model by the input value of aerosol forcing.

You use the Kiehl paper for your assertion that an aerosol forcing is externally prescribed subjectively to fudge the climate response of the climate models to get an agreement with the observed global temperature variability. However, your assertion is not the same what the Kiel paper says. Instead, the Kiel paper states something else:
In many models aerosol forcing is not applied as an external forcing, but is calculated as an integral component of the system. Many current models predict aerosol concentrations interactively within the climate model and this concentration is then used to predict the direct and indirect forcing effects on the climate system.
The aerosol forcing is not prescribed in climate simulations with state of the art climate models. Aerosol forcing is calculated like the forcing by greenhouse gases is calculated, or the effect of clouds on the radiation field. Aerosol concentrations are interactively calculated and the aerosol forcing is calculated by applying Mie-theory or T-Matrix. Thus, there are feedbacks between aerosol concentrations and the forcing aerosols exert on climate.
So, you wrongly reference the Kiehl paper for your assertion that there was some sinister “manipulation” of the aerosol forcing. Once more, you use scientific publications as alleged support for your assertions, but if one does some fact checking what the papers really say then they don’t support your assertions.
You have not provided any actual evidence for the alleged sinister “manipulations” in climate model simulations using aerosol forcing.

Jan P Perlwitz
September 28, 2012 4:10 pm

D Böehm wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1093180

Perlwitz doesn’t seem to understand that there has been no global warming for the past fifteen years.

Well, D Böehm, this is a common talking point used by fake skeptics, but the endless repetition still doesn’t make it scientifically valid.
If the fact that finding a time period (15 years, 10 years, 2 weeks, 2 days, whatever) for which the increase in the temperature anomaly wasn’t statistically significant was sufficient to conclude that there was no physical process of global warming ongoing, then this would lead to absurd additional conclusions with necessity. Because following is true: For any point in time over all of Earth’s history one can find a time period between another point in time and that point in time, for which the temperature increase wasn’t statistically significant. One only has to choose the time period short enough to find temperature changes that are not statistically significant. There is always a time period, without any exception, for which this is valid. So if this is valid for any point in time then there is no point in time, not a single one, at which a process of global warming could have taken place. The same is true for global cooling. There can never have been any global cooling ever, and there never can be any global cooling in the future. There can never have been any climate change in all of Earth’s history ever, and there will never be any climate change in the future. No Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum or no ice ages. And there can’t have been any Medieval Warm Period, or any Little Ice Age. Or there can’t have been any global warming due to natural causes since the Little Ice Age. And “global cooling” announced frequently here to be right around the corner, can never ever happen.
The “argument” by D Böehm is not scientifically valid. It’s nonsense. There is a difference between statistical detectability of a physical process and presence of a physical process. Lack of statistical significance, e.g., of a trend, only allows the conclusion that the process can’t be sufficiently distinguished from noise on the given time period. It does not allow the conclusion that the process behind the suspected trend is not there.
Looking at global warming through the atmospheric temperature anomaly alone is a very narrow viewpoint anyway. Only a small fraction of the additional energy available due to the perturbation in the energy balance by anthropogenic greenhouse gases goes into the troposphere and increases the tropospheric temperature and the temperature at the surface. Most of the additional energy goes into increasing the heat anomaly of the oceans. Another part goes into melting the ice in the Arctic and Antarctic, glaciers and snow. The ocean heat anomaly continues to increase (Levitus et al, GRL, 2012; doi:10.1029/2012GL051106), and the ice is melting both in the Arctic and the Antarctic. The melting of the Arctic sea ice is accelerating. If this continues like this it won’t take long anymore, and the Arctic sea will be ice free in summer.

September 28, 2012 4:14 pm

george e smith says:
September 28, 2012 at 3:25 pm
Any fly fisherman knows that when you cast a fly line, you have to make the cast in such a way, that the linear momentum, and angular momentum, are both of the same sign, either both positive (forward cast) or negative (backward cast), and if you launch it with crossed up momentum signs, you get a tailing loop mess; every time..
= = = = = =
george e smith,
For casting a fly line, you must have a time lag after your back or forward false cast for the fly line to become approximately straight before you reverse your false cast in another direction. The key is that time lag judgment by the fisherman.
John

Jan P Perlwitz
September 28, 2012 4:14 pm

D Böehm wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1093317

I see Perlwitz is cheating the taxpayers again.

I see, D Böehm is making libelous accusations again. Someone with integrity should be able to back up accusations of wrongdoing against another person with evidence. I suppose, this is nothing one could expect from someone like “D Böehm”, though.

I bet he posts on his blog on public time, too.

What is “public time”?
D Böehm says:

Wrong, as usual.

using following link:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend
As I just have explained. One always can find a time period, in which a physical process, that reveals itself as a trend over a longer time period, can’t be distinguished from the noise. One only has to choose the time period short enough. So, showing this graphic is no scientifically valid evidence for the assertion that there is no global warming.
D Böehm also says:

Just like the IPCC’s always wrong models.

using following link:
http://www.duke.edu/~ns2002/scafetta-forecast.png
Scafetta uses the one-sigma interval of the model simulations. That is, he rejects the Null-hypothesis that the observed temperature curve belongs to the statistical population, to which the model simulations belong, with a probability of about 32% that this rejection is erroneous, assuming normal distribution.
Using 95% of the model simulations, the observed temperature curve is well within the uncertainty range of the model simulations:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
BTW: For a proper evaluation of the model skills one also would have to account for the divergence in the forcings between real world and model simulations since the year 2000. For instance, for future projections it was assumed that the solar cycle is always the same. In reality, cycle 23 had a deeper minimum, which was also more prolonged than prescribed in the model. Aerosol concentrations haven’t been necessarily the same either, comparing real world and the scenarios.

highflight56433
September 28, 2012 4:21 pm

http://cache1.intelliweather.net/imagery/IntelliWeather/sat_goes8fd_580x580_12.jpg
Pretty obvious that the ice has already arrived!!! 🙂

richardscourtney
September 28, 2012 4:22 pm

Jan P Perlwitz:
Your post at September 28, 2012 at 4:04 pm is plain wrong based on ignorance or – more probably – deliberate misrepresentation.
Your entire premise is based on your assertion which says to me

So, you wrongly reference the Kiehl paper for your assertion that there was some sinister “manipulation” of the aerosol forcing. Once more, you use scientific publications as alleged support for your assertions, but if one does some fact checking what the papers really say then they don’t support your assertions.

I did NOT “wrongly reference the Kiehl paper”. I quoted the pertinent sections of it verbatim and linked to its Figure2,. And that paper finds the same as my paper which I also referenced but my earlier paper only investigated one climate model and his investigates 9 climate models and 2 energy balance models.
I ask everybody to “do the fact checking” because – yet again – you are spouting falsehoods. Indeed, one only has to read the direct quotes in my post to see you are spouting falsehoods. Or do you wish to pretend I have misquoted? Anybody can check I have not.
Richard

davidmhoffer
September 28, 2012 4:28 pm

Jan P;
Many current models predict aerosol concentrations interactively within the climate model and this concentration is then used to predict the direct and indirect forcing effects on the climate system.
>>>>>>>>>
You really don’t get it, do you? That this represents perfectly circular reasoning? An iterative calculation done from within the model that adjusts the aerosol parameter is called what?
Adjusting a fudge factor, that’s what.
Now, back to the original point, which you seem to have completely missed. Regardless of the method used to calculate aerosol forcing, each of the models has dramatically different values. There is only one “right” number for aerosol forcing. If one of the models has it “right”, then by default, all the other models have it wrong, and that means in turn that if they get close to emulating actual observations properly, it is only because they have OTHER things wrong that get cancelled out by the wrong aerosol forcing value.
In the best case scenario, only one model can have it right. In the worst case scenario, they all have it wrong. How to tell? Make predictions and see if they come true. No, I don’t mean load the data from 1990 and run it forward to 2012 and see if they match. Once you’ve added all your adjustments from your iteratively calculated fudge factors for aerosol forcing (and others I suppose) the only possible outcome is for ALL the models to get 2012 right. That’s what fudge factors are, they are a way of matching the data you have to the theory you have.
Now make the prediction out to 2020 based only on the data and fudge factors that you have TODAY. The ONLY model that can POSSIBLY get it right is the one that is using the proper fudge factors in the first place. Since all the models use DIFFERENT fudge factors, the only possibilities are that one is right and the others wrong, or that they are all wrong.
If you’re up to a wager, I’ll take “all wrong”.

D Böehm
September 28, 2012 4:34 pm

I note that despite all the appeals to authority, and the noble cause corruption, and the argumentum ad ignorantium fallacies employed by Perlwitz, the planet has the last word. And Planet Earth — the ultimate Authority — is falsifying all of the CO2=CAGW nonsense emitted by the self-dealers at GISS.
Sea levels are not accelerating, they are decelerating. Global temperatures are on the same long term trend line that they have been on since the end of the LIA. The Antarctic has been cooling and gaining ice for decades.
Mother Earth is falsifying all the false alarms being sounded by GISS. Honest scientists would admit that, since none of their scary predictions have panned out, their CAGW conjecture is wrong.
But these self-serving bureaucrats are riding the grant and big government gravy trains, so the truth gets jettisoned. Money and position trumps honesty. Despicable.

Jan P Perlwitz
September 28, 2012 4:36 pm

D Böehm asserts in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1093419

I think this chart shows the ΔT/ΔCO2 cause and effect more clearly.

1. No, it doesn’t. Correlation does not imply causality.
2. The detrended covariability between CO2 change and temperature change on an interannual time scale does not refute logically or empirically that carbon dioxide has become the dominant climate driver in the second half of the 20th century, which causes the statistically significant long-term increase in the globally averaged temperature anomaly.

jimmi_the_dalek
September 28, 2012 4:53 pm

John F. Hultquist, I suggest you read my comment more carefully, till you understand that what I find odd is that no-one believes Svalgaard.

Bart
September 28, 2012 4:55 pm

D Böehm says:
September 28, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Sure, GISS is corrupted. But, all of the temperature sets show a pretty good match. So, no harm in hanging them by their own data.
On your chart, you see the 90 deg phase lag in CO2 clearly. This is indicative of an integration. Plotting the derivative of CO2 shows the correspondence even more clearly. Basically, since 1958, the relationship is
dCO2/dt = k*(T – To)
where k and To are constants* to be determined.
* probably actually time varying, but since 1958, constants are good enough to see the obvious relationship.
george e smith says:
September 28, 2012 at 3:25 pm
“…so you point your thumb in the positive angular rotation or velocity, or angular momentum direction and your fingers wrap around the vector direction in a clockwise direction…”
Use your other right hand. Or, get a new clock 😉

Tim Walker
September 28, 2012 4:58 pm

jimmi_the_dalek says:
September 28, 2012 at 2:36 pm
“Dr. Leif Svalgaard, one of the worlds leading solar physicists and WUWT’s resident solar expert ” it says at the top.
And he probably is.
Except when he says that the variations in the sun’s output is not great enough to cause the variations in the climate, then nobody believes him. Odd isn’t it ?
Tim says:
Whoever this jimmi_the_dalek guy is one thing for sure. He is funny. No one believes Leif? You don’t count? I suspect that you and others are happy to hear what he says about climate. Even though the good Doctor doesn’t study know all of the links of the sun to the climate. No one does. The good Doctor doesn’t even think there are links between the suns activity and the climate. Even though there are papers that have pointed out statistical evidence of links of the sun’s activity to changes in Earth’s climate. Just like Dr. Leif is when he avoids talking about glaciation that has been happening for the last few thousand years and still is. After all Antarctica is still being carved and shaped by glaciers. Just like almost all of the AGW crowd is when attempts are made at reasonable discusion. We’re told we need to be educated. I guess the good Doctor and you think you have all of the answers. I know I don’t. One thing I do know, trying to talk to (most) AGWs is a waste of time and energy. They don’t want to think.

jimmi_the_dalek
September 28, 2012 5:00 pm

I see we have the usual sterile debate going on between those who think all changes are due to CO2, represented by Jan P Perlwitz at the moment, and those who think it is all due to natural causes.
Why cannot it be both?
The temperature record looks very like a slow cycle of approximately 50-60 years, upon which is imposed a general upward trend. Different factors can have different causes.

September 28, 2012 5:00 pm

“Aerosol concentrations are interactively calculated and the aerosol forcing is calculated by applying Mie-theory or T-Matrix.”
Are real world aerosols measured? Are the measurements inputted into the models like CO2 measurements? If not, you have no leg to stand on.

Tim Walker
September 28, 2012 5:01 pm

John Whitman is making very good points.

Tim Walker
September 28, 2012 5:05 pm

D Böehm says:
September 28, 2012 at 4:34 pm
I note that despite all the appeals to authority, and the noble cause corruption, and the argumentum ad ignorantium fallacies employed by Perlwitz, the planet has the last word. And Planet Earth — the ultimate Authority — is falsifying all of the CO2=CAGW nonsense emitted by the self-dealers at GISS.
Sea levels are not accelerating, they are decelerating. Global temperatures are on the same long term trend line that they have been on since the end of the LIA. The Antarctic has been cooling and gaining ice for decades.
Mother Earth is falsifying all the false alarms being sounded by GISS. Honest scientists would admit that, since none of their scary predictions have panned out, their CAGW conjecture is wrong.
But these self-serving bureaucrats are riding the grant and big government gravy trains, so the truth gets jettisoned. Money and position trumps honesty. Despicable.
Tim replies:
Good job of pointing out the truth. Too bad some people have one hand over their eyes and the other over their ears. They do not want the truth.

D Böehm
September 28, 2012 5:09 pm

Bart,
Thanks for that interesting chart covering the past 54 years. I notice that no one ever posts a chart showing CO2 leading temperature. I wonder why that is, since they are so certain CO2 causes measurable global warming.

jimmi_the_dalek
September 28, 2012 5:23 pm

Tim Walker,
I am glad you have a sense of humour.
However, you and others appear to have an irony deficiency – I was pointing out the contrast between Dr Svalgaard being described at the top of the article as “one of the worlds leading solar physicists” and the way he is lambasted here every time he tries to tell you something. Is that not ironical?

September 28, 2012 5:27 pm

Jan P Perlwitz says:
“The IPCC doesn’t do any of these things, you claim here, because the IPCC itself doesn’t do climate research or climate modeling.”
This is semantics in that the IPCC very much does provide guidance on modeling, review the model outputs, and then interprets/reports on the result in the ARs. Yes, the IPCC does not actually run the models, but I never claimed they did. Your assertion represents the straw man fallacy.
“You also seem to confuse two issues. The quote from the IPCC report in the second paragraph is about radiative transfer processes in the atmosphere and at the surface for a given solar radiation incoming at the top of atmosphere and uncertainties with respect to modeling those radiative transfer processes.”
I fail to see the confusion. The quote references acknowledgement by the IPCC that uncertainties remain in the representation of solar radiation in climate models (i.e., should solar radiation be modeled as a constant or a variable). Naturally, then, this leads to uncertainties in the forcing associated with solar radiation throughout the transfer process including surface flux. If a starting point is incorrect, it’s likely that dependences on it will also be incorrect – possibly by magnitudes (label it the joy of forcing). Your assertion represents the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy.
“…[T]he following paragraph you quote then has nothing to do with the issue of modeling correctly those radiative transfer processes. Instead, in the paragraph you quote, the IPCC report talks about the issue what the variability is of the amount of energy that is coming in from the sun at the top of the atmosphere. There, newer research is quoted that revises this variability down compared to previous research.”
Read the section in its entirety and it’s revealed that in spite of research which reports increased variability, the IPCC favored modeling with decreased variability (i.e., a presumed solar constant), “…Solanki et al. (2004) suggested that the current level of solar activity has been without precedent over the last 8 kyr. This is contradicted by a more recent analysis linking the isotope proxy records to instrumental data that identifies, for the last millennium, three periods (around AD 1785, 1600 and 1140) when solar activity was as high, or higher, than in the satellite era (Muscheler et al., 2006).”
No rationale is presented in this section by the IPCC as to why it asserts the decreased variability other than the studies are newer. There are newer studies that confirm the increased variability detailed in the older TAR studies/models. And how else do you calculate an input variable for model use unless you study it? Thus, the reference to the rationale (or inadequacy) of the IPCC in how it addresses these uncertainties in the models – it cherry picks its favorite. Your assertion is again the straw man fallacy.
“The previous paragraph was about what the magnitude and variability of the solar forcing is. This quote here is about what the magnitude of the response is, whatever the exact number is of the magnitude of the solar forcing… You are confusing things.”
I’ll assert a straw man argument against you. I see that you’re asserting that the solar radiation magnitude and variability are independent of any solar forcing, rendering the discussion of its magnitude irrelevant. Unless you’re actually asserting that (which I don’t believe you are), you fail to confirm that the two issues – solar radiation and solar forcing – are linked intimately. If you fail to model the former accurately, it will likely affect the latter. Your assertion reflects the fallacy of begging the question.
“The issue in the middle partial sentence, and the issues in the other two partial sentences are separate issues, which you wrongly link with each other.”
Your sentence is confusing to follow. Are you asserting that the IPCC does NOT promote (as in reviews all but highlights the more likely or accepted) models that incorporate solar forcings with sufficient variability to address the absence of predicted warming?
“And the IPCC report doesn’t ‘presume’ anything.”
Hmmm… Where only one example is needed to prove the absolute of “anything” false, please note the following statement from Section 5.4.5.1, “By contrast, models often presume larger fertilisation effects: Sohngen et al. (2001) assumed a 35% NPP increase under a 2 * CO2 scenario. Boisvenue and Running (2006) suggest increasing forest-growth rate due to increasing CO2 since the middle of the 20th century; however, some of this increase may result from other effects, such as land-use change (Caspersen et al., 2000),” – http://tinyurl.com/cbc9nek (link to IPCC FAR). The IPCC, the entity that provides guidance on modeling, reviews the model outputs, and then interprets/reports on the result in the ARs, incorporates model presumptions in its compilation. As a result, the IPCC can only make presumptions where these models have been incorporated.
“The IPCC can only report what has been published. It can’t just make up things, according how you would like to have it.”
Like any accomplished debater, though, the IPCC can emphasize or promote some models and/or studies over others. These actions are even more apparent in the “nuancing” of the condensed Summary for Policymakers. You can disagree with that statement but common sense alone dictates that the complex issues detailed in the AR will lose something in the transcription – this occurs if only for the fact that the summary is not the report.
“What changes in solar radiation’ and what physical mechanisms based on what scientific evidence published in what peer reviewed scientific literature should be taken into account by the research groups who actually do the climate modeling, which has not being taken into account so far, which are as important as you claim?”
Using the reference I made regarding the treatment of the Soon and Baliunas paper, do you see their work referenced in the FAR – http://tinyurl.com/ch3e3e6 (link to IPCC FAR – References to Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis)…?
.
“So what the ‘CAGW skeptics’ say with respect to this matter is all only assertion then?
I don’t believe I asserted this – your assertion (once again) is the straw man fallacy. My concern is the nuancing of the IPCC in the Summary.
“And on what basis should mere assertion being taken into consideration?”
I believe never, but you have certainly made a number of fallacious assertions in your response to my comment. So, I’m confused as to the reason for your asking this question.
“What do you mean with ‘willing chose subjectively manipulate aerosols’? I ask you to back up this assertion of the this (sic) allegedly sinister ‘manipulation’ by providing evidence for it.”
Please refer to NOAA’s GFDL climate models (CM3 – http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/coupled-physical-model-cm3 ) and its treatment of aerosols compared to NASA’s GISS global climate models – http://tinyurl.com/cunbszb (link to NASA GISS) and incorporations of the aerosols. The models all use different variables for aerosols – a wide range of values – to produce outputs that mimic current observations. There’s nothing sinister about the variable but it is odd that the models seeming “work” yet use a number of different values.
Furthermore, it has been noted that significant uncertainties exist (in IPCC speak this permits the use of a wide-range of values) with respect to accounting for aerosol modeling in the Lessons Learned from IPCC AR4 – http://tinyurl.com/cahay9a (link to Lessons Learned from IPCC AR4).
“explain the absence of predicted warming”
In the words of Khan Noonien Singh to Admiral Kirk in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, “He tasks me! He tasks me, and I shall have him! I’ll chase him round the Moons of Nibia, and round the Antares Maelstrom, and round Perdition’s flames before I give him up! Prepare to alter course!” Please read this regarding the absence of model predicted warming – http://tinyurl.com/c7mmbbg (link to Lindzen 2007 – Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously). And please don’t assert the ad hominem fallacy in any response to the paper, rather debate the paper’s points and conclusions.
The observed temperature record has been fully within the range of the predictions from the climate model simulations of the AR4 IPCC report.”
The “observed” temperature record – Pray tell, what actually IS the observed temperature given the frequent homogenization of temperature data? I’m genuinely curious in your response to this question.
“Your assertion that the solar irradiation has been assumed to be constant in the climate model simulations is false anyway. Instead, those model simulations used a variable solar input, based on data derived from measurements of this variability and from proxies.”
So, you’re asserting the use of a changing variable for solar radiation in the different climate models. Well, as you asked of me, please provide examples for the incorporation of a changing variable in the climate models.

D Böehm
September 28, 2012 5:47 pm

Tim Walker says:
September 28, 2012 at 5:01 pm
“John Whitman is making very good points.”
I agree, and they are not being answered. Most everyone else here is making good points, too. Only one commenter is out of step.

Lia's acomin'
September 28, 2012 5:59 pm

I didn’t notice any difference between what Dr.Leif said and what NewScientist said.
And the graph upthread does look the mirror image of itself, as said already.
2pesos.

David Ball
September 28, 2012 6:01 pm

D Böehm says:
September 28, 2012 at 5:47 pm
Just wanted to point out that we are still waiting for Mosher to respond to davidmhoffer.

jimmi_the_dalek
September 28, 2012 6:02 pm

Ian W
Thank you for the those websites, particularly the animation in the second one. Though it is a pity they let the trajectory fade out over time, as you would see something very interesting if they had kept it so you could see the pattern over a very long time.
However I do in fact know something about how extraterrestial planets are detected, and when people go on about barycenters and how the sun wobbles, it leads me to say “So what”.
What is the affect of such a motion on a planet?
You say planetary orbits change from “nearly circular” to “highly eccentric”. Would you care to quantify that? How circular? How eccentric?
And you say ” there will also be measurable angular momentum and length of day changes.” OK so how much? Why does this not show up with atomic clocks (other than the occasional ‘leap second’)? Do you think fracitons of a second matter?

davidmhoffer
September 28, 2012 6:06 pm

jimmi_the_dalek
Why cannot it be both?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don’t think anyone said it wasn’t. The questions are the order of magnitude of each and the sign and magnitude of feedbacks.
I get a real charge out of people like Jan P who explain how hard it is to tease the warming signal out of the noise, yet insist that it is the dominant factor. I have no problem accepting that it exists, but anytime it is hard to find the signal amongst the noise, the logical conclusion is that the signal is too weak to be significant.

September 28, 2012 6:14 pm

Jan P Perlwitz said (September 28, 2012 at 7:02 am)
“…Even if the 11-year solar cycle vanishes altogether and the sun activity stays at the minimum of the solar cycle, I predict global warming due to greenhouse gases will continue over the next decades, since greenhouse gases have become the dominant climate driver in the second half of the 20th century. The warming will just be delayed by a few years (by about 10 years based on mere energy balance considerations)…”
The phrase I’d like to question here is this one: “…since greenhouse gases have become the dominant climate driver in the second half of the 20th century…”
Can you point to a peer-reviewed paper that gives us the day, month and year this “change-over” took place – when the climate went from natural process driven to GHG driven?
This would be helpful, for instance, if we were given a historical extreme weather event – we could attribute the cause based on that “breakpoint” date.
For example, Marble Bar Australia set a world record of most consecutive days of maximum temperatures of 37.8 degrees Celsius (100 degrees Fahrenheit) or more, during a period of 160 such days from 31 October 1923 to 7 April 1924. Since this period was BEFORE the second half of the 20th century, then it was BEFORE “greenhouse gases have become the dominant climate driver”.
Same with the most extreme tornado in recorded history (the Tri-State Tornado, which roared through parts of Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana on March 18, 1925). It holds records for longest path length (219 miles, 352 km), longest duration (about 3.5 hours), and fastest forward speed for a significant tornado (73 mph, 117 km/h) anywhere on earth. In addition it is the deadliest single tornado in United States history (695 dead).
Again, since this extreme event took place BEFORE the second half of the 20th century, then it was BEFORE “greenhouse gases have become the dominant climate driver”.
So were those events driven by CO2, or were they just weather? And if weather is supposed to get worse, why do these records still stand?

Gunga Din
September 28, 2012 6:16 pm

richardscourtney says:
September 28, 2012 at 1:35 pm
So, each climate model emulates a different climate system. Hence, at most only one of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth because there is only one Earth. And the fact that they each ‘run hot’ unless fiddled by use of a completely arbitrary ‘aerosol cooling’ strongly suggests that none of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth.
=============================================================
So the only “accuracy” any of the models have is in predicting what has already happened and then only after injecting various amounts of “freon” to cool them off until they match what has already happened?
So if Al Gore hadn’t gone on about CFCs and the Ozone “Hole” then Hansen might have actually been right?
Who’da thought it!

Jan P Perlwitz
September 28, 2012 6:42 pm

davidmhoffer wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1093616

You really don’t get it, do you? That this represents perfectly circular reasoning? An iterative calculation done from within the model that adjusts the aerosol parameter is called what?
Adjusting a fudge factor, that’s what.

According to your argument, Nature is fudged and based on circular reasoning. Aerosol concentrations in Nature change with the state of climate, e.g., soil dust emission from desert source region depends on surface wind and its variability (or surface friction velocity), soil moisture, vegetation. The aerosols in the atmosphere change the radiation balance and redistribute energy. Those changes, in turn, have an effect on the climate variables that influence aerosol emission, transport, and deposition, and the aerosol concentration. It’s called feedbacks. “Circular reasoning” everywhere in Nature.

the only possible outcome is for ALL the models to get 2012 right.

This is not possible. It is principally not possible to make predictions of an individual realization beyond a certain time horizon, since the individual realizations diverge exponentially with an arbitrary small perturbation of the initial conditions. That’s the difference between weather forecast and climate projections. Weather forecast is the prediction of an individual realization of all possible realizations in the population, starting from a given initial condition. Such a prediction is not possible beyond a predictability limit. Climate projections are predictions of the change in the statistical properties of the whole population, when the boundary conditions change. We do not predict the weather of Sep 28, 2020, or Sep 28, 2100.

Bart
September 28, 2012 6:50 pm

D Böehm says:
September 28, 2012 at 5:09 pm
“I wonder why that is, since they are so certain CO2 causes measurable global warming.”
No you don’t. But, for any who do, same reason the Wikipedia vigilantes don’t show temperature continuing to rise after 2001 in the second plot here. Because it doesn’t.

JJ
September 28, 2012 6:58 pm

Jan P Perlwitz says:
Well, D Böehm, this is a common talking point used by fake skeptics, but the endless repetition still doesn’t make it scientifically valid.

Rather, it is the scientific validity that makes it a repeated talking point. And it is valid, your statistically and scientifically ignorant caterwauling notwithstanding.
If the fact that finding a time period (15 years, 10 years, 2 weeks, 2 days, whatever) for which the increase in the temperature anomaly wasn’t statistically significant was sufficient to conclude that there was no physical process of global warming ongoing, then this would lead to absurd additional conclusions with necessity.
To the contrary, if there is NO possible time period for which a lack of statistically significant warming would falsify the ‘global warming’ hypothesis, then the ‘global warming’ hypothesis is not a scientific proposition.
It is nice to have someone from NASA GISS finally admitting to that ‘global warming’ is not a scientific position, but instead an unfalsifiable faith commitment. It is sad that this admission comes not as the result of self reflection and honesty, but as the simple by-product of your abject ignorance of both simple statistics as well as the fundamentals of the scientific method being acted upon by your arrogant beligerence. But what they hey, we sceptics are not fussy. We’ll take it.
Thanks.

September 28, 2012 7:05 pm

The thrust of Tappin & Altock’s paper which is the basis of the New Scientist article is that the peak in solar activity for SC24 may have passed. Currently SC24 is shaping up to look like SC5 and the possibility of the cycle following the GSN account of SC5 is interesting.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sc5_sc24.png
Ian W
I must point out your error in regard to the Earth axis point. There is no doubt the Earth is in direct orbit around the Sun and the Earth/Sun distances you mention are incorrect. The JPL data is very clear on this. Your other points may well be correct.

RACookPE1978
Editor
September 28, 2012 7:08 pm

Jan P Perlwitz says:
September 28, 2012 at 6:42 pm
(1) Please name ANY climate Global Circulation Model runs from ANY simulation on ANY computer ANYWHERE that yield 15 years of constant temperature while CO2 increases linearly, no volcanoes erupt, and no change in dust is input.
2) Please report ANY measured soot or aerosol levels or dust valid globally for the years between 1995 and 2012. Not simulated or modeled or assumed. MEASURED values.

D Böehm
September 28, 2012 7:13 pm

Bart,
I roll my eyes every time I see that lame spaghetti chart. It was fabricated to replace Michael Mann’s debunked hokey stick chart, but it is not nearly as visually alarming as Mann’s, which they can no longer use.
These climate charlatans always use a zero baseline chart, because it produces an alarming recent temperature spike. But that spike is a complete fabrication. It does not really exist. It is an artifact of a zero baseline chart. The steady long term rise in temperature since the LIA remains well within its long term parameters, and on the same trend line (the green line).
This chart shows the difference between the deceptive zero baseline chart and a trend chart:
http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/2681/temperaturewithrealbase.gif
As we see, there is no acceleration in global warming. It is the same natural warming trend from the LIA, and it has remained within the same parameters — whether CO2 was low or high. Thus, CO2 causes no measurable rise in temperature. Therefore, the CO2=CAGW conjecture is falsified. QED

September 28, 2012 7:21 pm

Tim Walker says:
September 28, 2012 at 4:58 pm
jimmi_the_dalek says:
September 28, 2012 at 2:36 pm
“Dr. Leif Svalgaard, one of the worlds leading solar physicists and WUWT’s resident solar expert ” it says at the top.
I think this statement needs to be qualified. There are many in the field who have written papers that refute Leif’s argument that the solar indices are flat. Some have suggested with solid evidence that his data is erroneous. Google Svalgaard and IHV to find many scientists in the solar arena that do not agree with his statements and data. You will also find the L&P data suffers from the same erroneous methodology.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/280

davidmhoffer
September 28, 2012 8:28 pm

JanP;
According to your argument, Nature is fudged and based on circular reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Really? By adusting variables in a model to match model output to Nature it proves that Nature is fudged? Wow.
JanP;
Those changes, in turn, have an effect on the climate variables that influence aerosol emission, transport, and deposition, and the aerosol concentration. It’s called feedbacks. “Circular reasoning” everywhere in Nature.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Seriously? You’re trying to justify different models having completely different values for aerosol forcing by explaining that the aerosol forcing changes over time? Duh! Of course it changes! Now, what has that got to do with different models having wildly different values for aerosol forcing?
JanP;
the only possible outcome is for ALL the models to get 2012 right.
This is not possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Really? For the record, you are stipulating that it is not possible for the models to be adjusted such that, based on input of known data, have an output that matches known data? So the darn things can’t even get it right even when they know what the answer is in advance?
JanP;
It is principally not possible to make predictions of an individual realization beyond a certain time horizon, since the individual realizations diverge exponentially with an arbitrary small perturbation of the initial conditions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I agree. I agree 100%. I assume you will make this point to your colleagues who are trying to claim that the models are not very usefull over time periods of a few decades but still try to claim that they are accurate over periods of a century?

Bart
September 28, 2012 9:23 pm

D Böehm says:
September 28, 2012 at 7:13 pm
Yep. It’s pretty sad.

Gunga Din
September 28, 2012 9:50 pm

JanP;
It is principally not possible to make predictions of an individual realization beyond a certain time horizon, since the individual realizations diverge exponentially with an arbitrary small perturbation of the initial conditions.
==========================================================
So policies and regulations and taxes based on these predictions are wasted effort. Then why promote them if they aren’t going to save us from CAGW which no model could ever say will even happen? Might there be another reason they are being promoted? You’re not stupid. Think about it.

Tim Walker
September 28, 2012 10:05 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
September 28, 2012 at 7:21 pm
Tim Walker says:
September 28, 2012 at 4:58 pm
jimmi_the_dalek says:
September 28, 2012 at 2:36 pm
“Dr. Leif Svalgaard, one of the worlds leading solar physicists and WUWT’s resident solar expert ” it says at the top.
I think this statement needs to be qualified. There are many in the field who have written papers that refute Leif’s argument that the solar indices are flat. Some have suggested with solid evidence that his data is erroneous. Google Svalgaard and IHV to find many scientists in the solar arena that do not agree with his statements and data. You will also find the L&P data suffers from the same erroneous methodology.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/280
Tim says:
I really do not know who is right in your debate, Mr. Sharp. I do think we have a better chance of finding out what is right, if less people are concerned with educating others about the facts they know they know, as Leif does and discusss the theories of each other considering and realizing they are just theories. We don’t know and let’s learn. Good luck Geoff.

September 28, 2012 10:22 pm

Geoff Sharp says:
September 28, 2012 at 7:05 pm
The thrust of Tapping & Altock’s paper which is the basis of the New Scientist article is that the peak in solar activity for SC24 may have passed. Currently SC24 is shaping up to look like SC5
The latest data shows that there is still a little bit left in SC24. Currently SC24 is shaping up to look like SC14. The data on SC5 is too poor for a meaningful comparison.

E.M.Smith
Editor
September 28, 2012 10:24 pm

For the folks wondering ‘how long it will take’ for various changes of solar cycle, the charts made by Vukcevic have been remarkably good at matching:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
I’d add about a decade for “cooling” if any comes of it as there’s a time lag from first cold water to the center of the Pacific and when it reaches Alaska… but that’s just a guess on my part.
Per TSI vs UV vs GCR vs
I’ve mentioned it a few times, but not seen anyone picking up on it, so will mention again:
There is a pretty well done exposition that explains the solar correlation with temperature change but does not require solar causality. That is lunar orbital changes. The moon moves in an orbit in “orbital resonance” with us and the planets, as does the sun. The moon has a long duration cycle ( 1800 years is one, 179 is another) and that DOES change tides on Earth (including how much cold water comes up from the Abyssal zone).
So the Sun and Moon can, because “they both go together when they go” have one causal while the other is strongly correlated.
Paper here: http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.full
My comments and speculation on it here:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/lunar-resonance-and-taurid-storms/
Leif can be quite right that “the sun doesn’t do it” and yet it can also be quite right that “the planets stirring orbits do it” and that exactly correlates with solar motions.
The lunar tidal variation is large enough to change ocean flow enough to have impact.
@jimmi_the_dalek:
Many folks do believe Leif, but are still trying to deal with the “cognitive dissonance” that the “wiggle match” shows climate changes when TSI changes. I was in that camp for a while. Took me a couple of years to “work through” to where I am now (partly due to the patience with which Leif tolerated some of my questions and kept on providing data and understanding.)
I kept on believing Leif even while I kept on believing something in planetary orbits mattered. Then I ran into that paper above. The Big Lightbulb went on.
Orbital Resonance. OUR tides move in sync with the 179 (ish) year solar cycle due to the Moon being in an orbital configuration driven by the same process.
It’s call “learning” and having a “questioning mind”. I’d rather have a single student who asks “Why?” and says “But that doesn’t fit with this!!!” than a 100 sitting stone faced and dutifully being empty headed scribes taking dictation…. I’ve taught both kinds of classes, so this isn’t hypothetical…
Being able to accept and hold “cognitive dissonance” in your head is one of the best steps to discovering things… Having “pat answers” doesn’t help…

September 28, 2012 10:25 pm

Thanks richardscourtney
That was the best info on models. Ya gotta love the people who believe in them and want to change the policies of all of civilization based on them.
**********************************************************************
@Mosher who says, “Of course when you use more data and employ better methods you will find that the past cools a bit. Kinda has to.”
I can’t speak to the “global” temps and adjustments with authority because it is not my field, but you seem to be ignoring so much information, like you have blinders on.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/01/a-comparison-of-adjusted-vs-unadjusted-surface-data/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/13/warming-in-the-ushcn-is-mainly-an-artifact-of-adjustments/
Why does it “kinda” have to cool? I understand from the statisticians around these parts that it is statistically impossible for all the past temps to go down and ones following the 60s to go up after the “experts” adjust them. That kinda hasta not be true.
******************************************************
And Jan P, who wrote, “Because following is true: For any point in time over all of Earth’s history one can find a time period between another point in time and that point in time, for which the temperature increase wasn’t statistically significant. One only has to choose the time period short enough to find temperature changes that are not statistically significant.”
This is true. So I just don’t get what you are saying. It is also true one only has to pick a time period between two points that is significant for whatever point you are trying to “prove” significant. You (we) can pick any point in time and show conclusively it is either heating or cooling depending on where we stop and start the points. We all know that. The very fact that the planet under this very thin crust is molten proves that we have been cooling for a very long time. It’s like your own argument works against you.

September 28, 2012 10:29 pm

Johanus says:
September 28, 2012 at 6:34 am
is there any causal evidence to back up the claim that solar hibernation caused the Maunder cooling?
I don’t think so, as the solar variation is much too small.
John Whitman says:
September 28, 2012 at 8:15 am
If the sun’s energy output variation is directly insufficient to cause observed earth global temp changes then that would imply it may be a necessary contributing cause but an insufficiently large enough direct one.
See above
Tony McGough says:
September 28, 2012 at 8:23 am
It would only take a 2% change in cloud cover to change the planet’s temperature by whole degrees centigrade, it seems.
It is very hard to change the cloud cover by that much. And observations show that the low clouds have not varied opposite the solar cycle.
F. Ross says:
September 28, 2012 at 8:53 am
Is the South polar actually a mirror image of the North
It is approximately a mirror image. One is positive, the other negative, and when we see one the best, the other is hidden behind the sun.
Tim Walker says:
September 28, 2012 at 9:59 am
he didn’t provide a graph that showed the differences in the level of symmetry.
You did not take the trouble, apparently, to check slides 18 and 21 of
http://www.leif.org/research/Asymmetric-Solar-Polar-Field-Reversals-talk.pdf
Tim Walker says:
September 28, 2012 at 11:22 am
The problem is he doesn’t consider what others think or have to say.
A lot of that does not bring much worth considering to the table…
Geoff Sharp says:
September 28, 2012 at 7:21 pm
Google Svalgaard and IHV to find many scientists in the solar arena that do not agree with his statements and data.
You are behind the times [again]. It takes time to turn the scientific community around, but when it happens, conversion is swift: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010JA016220.shtml

E.M.Smith
Editor
September 28, 2012 10:55 pm

@TomRude:
I’ve captured the text of the Leroux wiki here:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/marcel-leroux-wikipedia/
so if it does get deleted, it won’t go away…
I’ve read at least one of his papers and it was clearly written and insightful. I think “he has it right” on how air masses move from the north pole over the continents and what happens then.

gymnosperm
September 28, 2012 11:02 pm

Jan P Perlwitz says: (I summarize, “The atmosphere isn’t warming because the oceans are warming and melting all the ice right now”)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gymnosperm replies:
There is no mechanism for greenhouse gasses to warm the oceans. Radiation is out. Conduction is inefficient and working against the gradient. Evaporation is interesting but it is unclear whether the released energy goes to the water or the air, and since warmed things tend to rise…
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
More interestingly: What is it with geomagnetic reversals? Is there a cosmic tendency for alternating current? The sun does them regularly and often. The earth does them less often. Higher energy=shorter period? The earth does them pretty regularly too, but there have been long periods (notably in the Cretaceous} with no reversals. This was also a time of extremely fast seafloor spreading. If the earth can quit having them for a while maybe the sun can too?
Sorry for the trancendental rant, I mean free association.
Just mention it lest we get to thinking we really know what’s going on.

September 28, 2012 11:21 pm

Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.

JJ
September 28, 2012 11:33 pm

daybyday says:
And Jan P, who wrote, “Because following is true: For any point in time over all of Earth’s history one can find a time period between another point in time and that point in time, for which the temperature increase wasn’t statistically significant. One only has to choose the time period short enough to find temperature changes that are not statistically significant.”
This is true. So I just don’t get what you are saying.

Because what he is saying contains not only true statements, but also false statements supported by false reasoning.
Of course it is true that one can always pick an arbitrarily short period of time in order to give a statistically insignificant result wrt warming. From that, it does not follow that Jan & Co can turn their nose up at every period of any length that shows no statistically significant warming. For their theory of catastrophic, anthropogenic, ‘global warming’ to be valid, the earth must warm by a significant amount over some period.
And it must warm more quickly over that period than simply a statistically significant amount – enough for the warming to rise above the noise of natural variation. That is not nearly enough. It has to rise a practically significant amount. It has to rise quickly enough that it not only validates their theories’ predictions, it has to rise fast enough that it actually amounts to a real problem that people give a rat’s ass about. Right now, the surface temp records aren’t even showing a warming signal at all for periods of 12-17 years (depending on the record), let alone a statistically significant warming. A practically significant warming isn’t even in the same universe.
The reason that you don’t understand what Jan Perlwitz is saying is that what he is saying is not true. And the reason he is telling lies is that the truth is very inconvenient. Their ‘theories’ don’t make testable predictions that they are willing to document and stand behind as criteria of falsifyability. They are unwilling to make such predictions, because the earth is NOT warming at all. In order for them to rescue ‘global warming’ from the relentlessly static temps, they have to claim that ever longer periods of no warming is consistent with their theories. That requires their theories to predict a tiny little level of warming that is so small that it is drowned out by natural variability and their theories’ own enormous error bands … for increasingly longer and longer periods of time.
The problem with that, for them, is that no one is afraid of a tiny little bit of warming that can’t even be differentiated from the weather and/or error (let alone from natural climate warming) over periods that are already a generation long. And while the ‘death trains’ may run on diesel, the gravy train runs on fear…

combyne
September 28, 2012 11:41 pm

Reblogged this on Combyne's Weblog and commented:
Solar influence has always been my belief on any perceived climate change, rather than man made.

Rosco
September 29, 2012 12:07 am

If the sun isn’t the source of the extra energy warming the globe then where is it coming from because we all know that no matter how good the insulation is it cannot increase the temperature- it can merely slow the loss of temperature ?
If GHGs trap radiation then the Earth must be radiating less to space if the sun isn’t supplying the extra energy.
Then we have the interesting paradox of global warming while radiating less to space – ie global cooling !!
I don’t buy it – nothing has ever been shown to warm and radiate less – ie cool. There has to be extra energy coming into the system to cause warming. The scenario of trapping energy with the constant of the solar constant still doesn’t explain how something which is warming is supposed to radiate less – or perhaps all radiative physics theory is simply wrong ?

September 29, 2012 12:25 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 28, 2012 at 10:29 pm
“You are behind the times [again]. It takes time to turn the scientific community around, but when it happens, conversion is swift: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010JA016220.shtml
Nothing has changed. There is no flat solar floor, Lockwood continues to demonstrate this as he has for at least a decade. Others have used your faulty IHV data that once corrected shows the modulation of the geomagnetic data to match the corrected aa etc records…..no flat floor.

Jan P Perlwitz
September 29, 2012 12:36 am

Tom Murphy wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1093684

This is semantics in that the IPCC very much does provide guidance on modeling, review the model outputs, and then interprets/reports on the result in the ARs.

Please elaborate what you mean with “the IPCC very much does provide guidance on modeling, review the model outputs, and then interprets/reports on the result in the ARs.”
There is no dictatorship of “the IPCC”. Who do you mean, anyway, when you say “the IPCC”?. Modeling groups all over the world coordinate the design of the climate simulations among each other, currently in CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project).

Yes, the IPCC does not actually run the models, but I never claimed they did.

Well, you accused “the IPCC” to have “perhaps” committed “fraud” with respect to what should be taken into account when modeling climate.
In http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1093144 you said,

that this… presumption (this may be the wrong term – perhaps “fraud”) by the IPCC has been made with the full knowledge that changes in solar radiation certainly do matter and should be accounted for within the models.

Somehow one has to be at least the one who has the overall responsibility in organizing the research, even if it executed by some “subordinates” to be in the position to decide what is taken into account and what is not in the research.

I fail to see the confusion. The quote references acknowledgement by the IPCC that uncertainties remain in the representation of solar radiation in climate models (i.e., should solar radiation be modeled as a constant or a variable).

Whether the solar radiation, incoming at the top of atmosphere (TOA) is a constant or not, has nothing directly to do with problems regarding the proper modeling of transmission, emission, and absorption of the solar radiation in the system as physical processes. The variability of the incoming solar radiation at TOA is not part of the physical processes in the Earth system model. Instead, it is a boundary condition for the models.

If a starting point is incorrect, it’s likely that dependences on it will also be incorrect

If the input isn’t correct the result likely won’t be correct, either. I agree up to this point. And the likelihood that the results won’t be correct increases with the skill of the model to correctly calculate the radiative transfer processes in the system, because the likelihood of compensating errors is lower. But this is not an issue of modeling processes in the Earth system. The models take what is coming in at the model’s TOA. It would be a sun modeling issue, though. Something solar physicists have to tackle.

Read the section in its entirety and it’s revealed that in spite of research which reports increased variability, the IPCC favored modeling with decreased variability (i.e., a presumed solar constant),

“In spite” of what research published by whom, where, and when, specifically?

No rationale is presented in this section by the IPCC as to why it asserts the decreased variability other than the studies are newer.

Not just that, more important with the reasoning that “most of the recent studies (with the exception of Solanski and Krivova, 2003) come to this conclusion:
Most of the recent studies (with the exception of Solanki and Krivova, 2003) calculate a reduction of only around 0.1% (irradiance change of the order of –1 W m–2, radiative forcing of –0.2 W m–2; section 2.7). Following these results, the magnitude of the radiative forcing used in Chapter 9 for the Maunder Minimum period is relatively small (–0.2 W m–2 relative to today).

There are newer studies that confirm the increased variability detailed in the older TAR studies/models.

So you assert newer studies, which contradict the downward revision in the solar variability have been ignored in the IPCC report 2007. Which ones?

I see that you’re asserting that the solar radiation magnitude and variability are independent of any solar forcing, rendering the discussion of its magnitude irrelevant.

You see wrong. This is not what I said. But the phrasing of my statement was not precise enough either. I give you that.

Unless you’re actually asserting that (which I don’t believe you are), you fail to confirm that the two issues – solar radiation and solar forcing – are linked intimately.

Of course, they are, but you miss my point. The solar forcing is the magnitude of the change in the solar radiation, e.g., from the Little Ice Age to present day. This question concerns the input. But the question of correctly modeling the physical processes of radiative transfer in the Earth system is a different issue.

Your sentence is confusing to follow. Are you asserting that the IPCC does NOT promote (as in reviews all but highlights the more likely or accepted) models that incorporate solar forcings with sufficient variability to address the absence of predicted warming?

Loaded question. I am not going to answer it, since I don’t agree with what is presumed in the question.

“By contrast, models often presume larger fertilisation effects: Sohngen et al. (2001) assumed a 35% NPP increase under a 2 * CO2 scenario. Boisvenue and Running (2006) suggest increasing forest-growth rate due to increasing CO2 since the middle of the 20th century; however, some of this increase may result from other effects, such as land-use change (Caspersen et al., 2000),”

Are you asserting, those things have been presumed, and the assumption have been made in the referenced studies, because “the IPCC” told the researchers to do that? If not, how is this quote supposed to be proof that “the IPCC” presumes something? I only see here that presumptions and assumptions in scientific studies are being described in the IPCC report.

The IPCC, the entity that provides guidance on modeling, reviews the model outputs, and then interprets/reports on the result in the ARs, incorporates model presumptions in its compilation.

Please elaborate what you mean with “the IPCC very much does provide guidance on modeling, review the model outputs, and then interprets/reports on the result in the ARs.”
If you have done this already above you don’t need to do it here again.

Like any accomplished debater, though, the IPCC can emphasize or promote some models and/or studies over others.

Yes, this is true. And it is done, based on expert judgement, the results of some studies are assessed as more sound and relevant than others in the report. And some scientists won’t agree with those judgements of soundness and relevance.

Using the reference I made regarding the treatment of the Soon and Baliunas paper, do you see their work referenced in the FAR – http://tinyurl.com/ch3e3e6 (link to IPCC FAR – References to Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis)…?

Yes, I do. But not in the reference list of Chapter 8. Why should it have been referenced there?
This paper is referenced in Chapter 6, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-references.html
The ‘hockey stick’ reconstruction of Mann et al. (1999) has been the subject of several critical studies. Soon and Baliunas (2003) challenged the conclusion that the 20th century was the warmest at a hemispheric average scale. They surveyed regionally diverse proxy climate data, noting evidence for relatively warm (or cold), or alternatively dry (or wet) conditions occurring at any time within pre-defined periods assumed to bracket the so-called ‘Medieval Warm Period’ (and ‘Little Ice Age’). Their qualitative approach precluded any quantitative summary of the evidence at precise times, limiting the value of their review as a basis for comparison of the relative magnitude of mean hemispheric 20th-century warmth (Mann and Jones, 2003; Osborn and Briffa, 2006). Box 6.4 provides more information on the ‘Medieval Warm Period’.
(http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html)
Any other study with, what you think are significant results from research, which was ignored in the IPCC report?

I don’t believe I asserted this

You wrote:
in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1093144

What’s troubling and often highlighted by CAGW skeptics is that this… presumption (this may be the wrong term – perhaps “fraud”) by the IPCC has been made with the full knowledge that changes in solar radiation certainly do matter and should be accounted for within the models. This has been asserted for over 15 years.

That looks very much like to me that you write about assertions made by “CAGW skeptics”. BTW: What is a “CAGW skeptic” skeptical of? I know “C” is supposed to stand for “catastrophic”. I just don’t really know what statements are being rejected by “CAGW skeptics”. What is the difference between an “AGW skeptic” and a “CAGW skeptic”?

Please refer to NOAA’s GFDL climate models (CM3 – http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/coupled-physical-model-cm3 ) and its treatment of aerosols compared to NASA’s GISS global climate models – http://tinyurl.com/cunbszb (link to NASA GISS) and incorporations of the aerosols. The models all use different variables for aerosols – a wide range of values – to produce outputs that mimic current observations. There’s nothing sinister about the variable but it is odd that the models seeming “work” yet use a number of different values.

It’s not like that they all exactly matched the observed climate variability, or exactly matched each other:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-10.html
But the spread between the models becomes wider for future projections. I don’t know why that is. One possible explanation for it I could think of is that the representations of different physical processes in the model are developed and tested for present day conditions, but internal feedbacks between the model components make the spread wider with increasing distance from present day.

Please read this regarding the absence of model predicted warming – http://tinyurl.com/c7mmbbg (link to Lindzen 2007 – Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously). And please don’t assert the ad hominem fallacy in any response to the paper, rather debate the paper’s points and conclusions.

There isn’t really any point in the paper. There is no original research presented in there. I also couldn’t find the evidence in the paper for the “absence of the predicted warming”, which you had asserted. What is supposed to be the evidence in there?

The “observed” temperature record – Pray tell, what actually IS the observed temperature given the frequent homogenization of temperature data? I’m genuinely curious in your response to this question.

I do not believe you that you are “genuinely curious”. You are loading the question with ridicule toward homogenization of data. You poison the well and make clear that any argument that refers to the observation data is in vain, since you already have dismissed it. However, I wonder how you would find out then that your assertion about the alleged “absence of predicted warming” was true, if you don’t have anything to diagnose the alleged absence.

So, you’re asserting the use of a changing variable for solar radiation in the different climate models. Well, as you asked of me, please provide examples for the incorporation of a changing variable in the climate models.

For CMIP3:
ECHO-G: “Natural (solar and volcanic) forcing is implemented through temporally varying solar constant (Crowley, 2000);”
http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/model_documentation/ECHO-G.htm
GFDL-CM2.0 and GFDL-CM2.1: “Solar irradiance variations —–> SOURCE {Lean et al., 1995; Lean, personal communication, 2003; see also IPCC, 2001}. Solar variations implemented as a function of wavelength.”
http://nomads.gfdl.noaa.gov/nomads/forms/deccen/CM2.X/faq/images/solar_constanttimeseries.png
http://nomads.gfdl.noaa.gov/nomads/forms/deccen/CM2.X/faq/question_13.html
http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/model_documentation/GFDL-cm2.htm
GISS-EH and GISS-ER: solar (spectral) (Lean 2002)
http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/model_documentation/GISS-E.htm
But this was not treated uniformly by the different modeling groups. There are also examples where the solar constant was fixed.

ferd berple
September 29, 2012 12:58 am

Jeff Alberts says:
September 28, 2012 at 7:31 am
If I may be so bold, I believe Dr. Svaalgaard says that the variability of the sun isn’t enough to account for all the “warming” in places where it has been warming, or to account for historic warming and cooling.
========
There is huge variability in the sun’s magnetic field and solar wind, which influence the earth’s climate at the magnetic poles.
Thus it should be no surprise to find that the area of greatest climate change is at the magnetic poles. While on the other hand CO2 theory predicts that the area of greatest change will be the geographic poles.
Sunspot numbers are a proxy for the sun’s magnetic activity. Solar radiation does not change much in intensity, which has mislead climate science to assume that the sun doesn’t affect climate very much. Thus CO2 must be the cause.
Yet we know from the proxy records that magnetic field changes are associated with climate change. We are in a period of rapid change to the earth’s magnetic field, faster than at any time in history. Are we to believe that CO2 is changing the earth’s magnetic field?

Jan P Perlwitz
September 29, 2012 1:07 am

davidmhoffer wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1093865

Really? By adusting variables in a model to match model output to Nature it proves that Nature is fudged? Wow.

I didn’t say anything about “adjusting variables in a model to match model output to Nature”. Again, you are making things up, or you just don’t understand what I say. I explained that aerosols are interactively calculated in state-of-the-art climate models, like any other of the model variables.

Seriously? You’re trying to justify different models having completely different values for aerosol forcing by explaining that the aerosol forcing changes over time?

No, I have tried to explain, obviously in vain, why your assertion about “circular reasoning” is nonsense, or that the same would apply to Nature.

Really? For the record, you are stipulating that it is not possible for the models to be adjusted such that, based on input of known data, have an output that matches known data? So the darn things can’t even get it right even when they know what the answer is in advance?

Do you understand the difference between a statistical population and the statistical properties of the population on one hand, and, on the other hand, an individual element from this population, or in our case a single realization from all possible climate realizations?
One can’t match the outcome of an individual realization with known data from Nature beyond a predictability limit. It’s in the nature of chaotic systems like the weather. But one can match the statistical properties of the model simulations with the statistical properties of data from the real world.

I agree. I agree 100%. I assume you will make this point to your colleagues who are trying to claim that the models are not very usefull over time periods of a few decades but still try to claim that they are accurate over periods of a century?

You do not understand what climate simulations are, which are boundary condition problems, and what the difference is between climate simulations and predictions of an individual realization as an initial value problems. I said, latter is not possible beyond a certain time horizon. And it’s not decades, it’s rather days or maybe some weeks for some subsystems. But climate simulations can be made over a period of a century. To be accurate here does not refer to an accurate prediction of the chronological succession of weather events, it refers to an accurate prediction of the change in the statistical properties of the climate variables, when the boundary conditions change.

richardscourtney
September 29, 2012 1:22 am

Jan P Perlwitz:
In discussion with davidmhoffer of my post at September 28, 2012 at 1:35 pm you say at September 28, 2012 at 6:42 pm

Climate projections are predictions of the change in the statistical properties of the whole population, when the boundary conditions change. We do not predict the weather of Sep 28, 2020, or Sep 28, 2100.

I assume you are paid to tell such egregious lies.
It is a falsehood that “Climate projections are predictions of the change in the statistical properties of the whole population, when the boundary conditions change.” That could only be true if the boundary conditions were known and specified to defined accuracy and precision. And they are not.
Indeed, the main “boundary condition” varied in the models is the forcing from GHGs, mostly CO2. But, as my post explained, and I again quote Kiehl’s words for the explanation

The cited range in climate sensitivity from a wide collection of models is usually 1.5 to 4.5 deg C for a doubling of CO2, where most global climate models used for climate change studies vary by at least a factor of two in equilibrium sensitivity.

Richard

Jan P Perlwitz
September 29, 2012 2:04 am

JJ wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1094059

Because what he is saying contains not only true statements, but also false statements supported by false reasoning.

I don’t see that you quote any of the alleged “false statements supported by false reasoning”. You only assert that there were some.

Of course it is true that one can always pick an arbitrarily short period of time in order to give a statistically insignificant result wrt warming. From that, it does not follow that Jan & Co can turn their nose up at every period of any length that shows no statistically significant warming.

Yours is a strawman argument like in your other comment in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1093780
where you said:

To the contrary, if there is NO possible time period for which a lack of statistically significant warming would falsify the ‘global warming’ hypothesis, then the ‘global warming’ hypothesis is not a scientific proposition.

Your strawman arguments are based on the presumption that I would say the statement about the presence of global warming was true, even if there wasn’t any statistical significant changes in the climate variables indicative of the process of global warming. I do not say that.
The absence of statistical significance does not allow a positive statement about the absence of global warming. It doesn’t mean that the alternative hypothesis must be true.

And it must warm more quickly over that period than simply a statistically significant amount – enough for the warming to rise above the noise of natural variation.

The multi-decadal trend in more than one climate variable, indicative
for global warming, has statistically significantly risen over the
noise of natural variation of the 20th century.

That is not nearly enough. It has to rise a practically significant amount. It has to rise quickly enough that it not only validates their theories’ predictions, it has to rise fast enough that it actually amounts to a real problem that people give a rat’s ass about.

This is a political argument, which has nothing to do with the science of global warming. The scientific validity of the statements about global warming as ongoing physical process in the Earth system does not depend on what people think about whether it’s a real problem or not.

The reason that you don’t understand what Jan Perlwitz is saying is that what he is saying is not true.

You haven’t demonstrated anywhere that what I said wasn’t true. You just asserting that this was the case.

And the reason he is telling lies is that the truth is very inconvenient. Their ‘theories’ don’t make testable predictions that they are willing to document and stand behind as criteria of falsifyability.

Your assertion is a falsehood. All aspects of the physical theory behind the prediction of global warming due to greenhouse gases are testable. (I do not appreciate if someone accuses me of lying, i.e., of deliberately making factually false statements, without providing evidence for such an accusation.)

They are unwilling to make such predictions, because the earth is NOT warming at all.

Utter rubbish. There is a multi-decadal statistical significant upward trend of the surface and tropospheric temperature, ocean heat content is increasing, the ice both in the Arctic and in the Antarctic is melting, the Arctic sea ice decline is accelerating, even more than previously predicted by the climate models, sea level is rising (and lower stratospheric temperature is decreasing, which belongs also to the physics of global warming.) The assertion, Earth wasn’t warming at all, doesn’t have any scientific substance.

tallbloke
September 29, 2012 2:57 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
Tony McGough says:
September 28, 2012 at 8:23 am
It would only take a 2% change in cloud cover to change the planet’s temperature by whole degrees centigrade, it seems.
It is very hard to change the cloud cover by that much. And observations show that the low clouds have not varied opposite the solar cycle.

Recent papers from Spain and China show a decrease in cloud cover while the Sun was more than averagely active in the later C20th. So does ISCCP data from weather satellites. So does Earthshine measurements on the Lunar disc.
I’m interested to know which peer reviewed material you are relying on.
Thanks.

richardscourtney
September 29, 2012 3:16 am

Jan P Perlwitz:
At September 29, 2012 at 2:04 am you say

The assertion, Earth wasn’t warming at all, doesn’t have any scientific substance.

Strewth! Having been shown to be wrong you posit a straw man!
The discussion was about the meaning of statistical significance.
The point is that there has been no discernible global warming for at least a decade. And that fact negates the AGW-hypothesis.
1.
The most recent 10-year period shows no trend in global temperature at 90% confidence.
2.
But the previous 3 periods of 10-years each did show a warming trend at 90% confidence.
3.
Therefore, the confidence with which it can be claimed there has been recent global warming has reduced.
However, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have continued to increase so if the AGW-hypothesis were true then the confidence in observed global warming should be increasing, not reducing.
As D Boehme pointed out to you, the only valid scientific conclusion from these statistical facts is that any putative AGW is so small and insignificant that it is indiscernible because natural variation is much larger.
Richard

September 29, 2012 4:41 am

Dr. Perlwitz
I would appreciate your comment on the 350 year long differences in the mid-summer and mid-winter trends in the CET data as shown here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MidSummer-MidWinter.htm
Thanks.

RichieP
September 29, 2012 6:10 am

Why in heaven’s name should anyone trust anything Perlwitz writes here or give credit to any of his apocalypse cult’s tenets of faith?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/26/nasa-giss-caught-changing-past-data-again-violates-data-quality-act/

September 29, 2012 6:30 am

Geoff Sharp says:
September 29, 2012 at 12:25 am
Others have used your faulty IHV data that once corrected shows the modulation of the geomagnetic data to match the corrected aa etc records…..no flat floor.
It is the correct IHV that shows that aa must be corrected. Lockwood concedes that IHV is correct. As simple as that. That he cannot yet stomach the floor just shows that he does not understand how to go back before the 1830s, but Schrijver does: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf
tallbloke says:
September 29, 2012 at 2:57 am
I’m interested to know which peer reviewed material you are relying on.
e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cloud%20Cover%20and%20Cosmic%20Rays.pdf

Resourceguy
September 29, 2012 7:26 am

And what does a long drawn out solar minimum imply for temps, ocean cycles, and global warming. Answer: Absolutely nothing according to the small constant factors employed in climate models. Just move along and let the money grubber faux science consensus collect their economic rent from the scarcity of truth and feast of grants.

Lars P.
September 29, 2012 7:57 am

Are there any explanations why we have now a cooler South Hemisphere with exceeding ice in Antarctica?
At first sight it would look like the oceans started already to cool in the South with a quiet sun.
If there is an imbalance between NH and SH, the NH losing (always?) more heat then the SH this would explain the current situation with the North still losing heat accumulated in the South some time ago (how long?)?
Heat is slowly transferred to the north (what it always does?) and depending on the time lag there is the difference between the hemispheres.
How fast is heat carried to the poles and is there observed heat transfer between the SH and NH?
Obviously much more heat can be transferred to the North Pole then to the South Pole as water flows up there …

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
September 29, 2012 8:23 am

From Rosco on September 29, 2012 at 12:07 am:

I don’t buy it – nothing has ever been shown to warm and radiate less – ie cool. There has to be extra energy coming into the system to cause warming. The scenario of trapping energy with the constant of the solar constant still doesn’t explain how something which is warming is supposed to radiate less – or perhaps all radiative physics theory is simply wrong ?

Start here, where it is noted:

As climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer has pointed out his book,

“The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.”

With constant incoming energy, whether there is cooling or warming is changed by how much of the energy is allowed in, which is controlled by cloud cover. Spencer posited a mere 1-2% variation accounts for most to all of the warming blamed on “anthropogenic” causes, namely increased CO₂. At the linked piece, a peer-reviewed paper examining China reported “Significant decline in cloud cover with trend of −1.6%per decade during 1954–2005 was derived.” The authors also found the decrease wasn’t related to man-made aerosols thus likely a natural phenomenon.
Which leads to this piece: Some confirmation of Spencer’s cloud hypothesis – it is getting less cloudy and warmer at the same time:

A new paper just published in the Journal of Climate finds that global cloudiness has decreased over the past 39 years from between 0.9 to 2.8% by continent as shown in the figure below:
[graph]
The period of the study is from 1971 to 2009. The authors say that:

“Global average trends of cloud cover suggest a small decline in total cloud cover, on the order of 0.4% per decade.”

Taken together, global cloud cover decreased and average of 1.56% over this 39 year period.

So the amount of energy directed towards the Earth can remain the same, and small cloud cover variations can account for the warming (and cooling) that results.
So you are right, there is extra energy coming into the system to cause warming. But it does not have to be more energy coming at the Earth, merely that the Earth is rejecting less of that energy.
You might want to read this short piece by Dr. Spencer, A Primer on Our Claim that Clouds Cause Temperature Change. Very informative.

tallbloke
September 29, 2012 8:32 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 29, 2012 at 6:30 am
tallbloke says:
September 29, 2012 at 2:57 am
Recent papers from Spain and China show a decrease in cloud cover while the Sun was more than averagely active in the later C20th. So does ISCCP data from weather satellites. So does Earthshine measurements on the Lunar disc.
I’m interested to know which peer reviewed material you are relying on.
e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cloud%20Cover%20and%20Cosmic%20Rays.pdf

From Leif’s link:
“It is noted again that the
ISCCP lower-troposphere cloud data may not be sufficiently
reliable to detect GCR–cloud correlations.”
Leif, you need to consider the full range of literature available on cloud cover, rather than cherry picking a study which suits you purpose, which in fact admits great uncertainty in its findings. ISCCP and Earthshine both show an overall increase in albedo since ~1998.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/cloud-earthshine1.png
Note the left scale is incorrect (SKS shenanigans) The W/m^2 on the inset scale is correct.

JJ
September 29, 2012 8:41 am

Jan Perlwitz,
Sweetie, you have said this:
“If the fact that finding a time period (15 years, 10 years, 2 weeks, 2 days, whatever) for which the increase in the temperature anomaly wasn’t statistically significant was sufficient to conclude that there was no physical process of global warming ongoing, then this would lead to absurd additional conclusions with necessity.”
And that statement is absolutely false. Earlier, I explained how. You are recalcitrant, so I shall restate:
IF the catastrophic fearmongering theory of ‘global warming’ is truly a scientific proposition, THEN there exists SOME length of time for which a lack of statistically significant warming would be sufficient to conclude that said theory is false.
Those two statements are mutually exclusive. The one in bold is true. The one in italics, quoting you, is false.
Demonstrating that your statements are false is not a “strawman” argument. You misuse that term, which you apparently do not understand any better than you do Zeno’s Paradox – which fallacy the balance of that post of yours recapitulates.

September 29, 2012 8:46 am

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 29, 2012 at 8:23 am
A new paper just published in the Journal of Climate finds that global cloudiness has decreased over the past 39 years
During which time solar activity has decreased and cosmic rays have increased, further undermining the naive assertion that cosmic rays affect climate.

September 29, 2012 9:03 am

tallbloke says:
September 29, 2012 at 8:32 am
Leif, you need to consider the full range of literature available on cloud cover,
The ‘full’ literature is contradictory and is full of claims and counterclaims. In general, it is rather simple: solar activity has gone down the past several cycles, cosmic rays have gone up, and in contrast: cloud cover has gone down and temperatures have gone up.

September 29, 2012 9:07 am

tallbloke says:
September 29, 2012 at 8:32 am
“Leif, you need to consider the full range of literature available on cloud cover”.
The ‘full’ literature is contradictory and is full of claims and counterclaims. In general, it is rather simple: solar activity has gone down the past several cycles, cosmic rays have gone up, and in contrast: cloud cover has gone down and temperatures have gone up.
One way out of that pickle and saving the cosmic ray hypothesis is to assume that AGW has overwhelmed the GCR-effects. Is that what you advocate?

JJ
September 29, 2012 9:28 am

Jan Perlwitz,
Turning to the rest of your rubbish, in turn:
The multi-decadal trend in more than one climate variable, indicative or global warming, has statistically significantly risen over the noise of natural variation of the 20th century.
Well, that isn’t demonstrable. But even if it were, the salient point is that the “multi-decadal trend” in the primary indicative climate variable (spatially average surface temperature) is built upon decades that cannot possibly have been influenced by anthropogenic CO2, and that trend is not holding up for the most recent period of more than a decade – when the effects of anthropogenic CO2 should be increasing.
This is a problem, and you know it. It only remains to be seen how long the lack of warming will continue, and what ad hoc fixes to the ‘global warming’ narrative will have to be made to rescue it from the relentless pounding of the facts.
Santer attempted to stave off the obvious by putting out his “17 years to know” paper last year, but we are rapidly approaching that length of no warming. He will likely have to begin making labored reference to the fact that he said a minimum of 17 years. But that is going to get people wondering just how many decades of low or no warming we will have to experience before you guys are willing to admit that your scary stories are wrong.

davidmhoffer
September 29, 2012 9:42 am

JanP;
Your last reply to me was of the form of debate which I have come to call “when you don’t know what you are doing, do it in excrutiating detail”. You make assertions in excessively long paragraphs laboriously composed of words seemingly chosen to showcase your ponderous vocabulary. When called to task for false logic, your rebuttal rests upon some subset of your original assertion and ignores the valid points made against your remarks in their context as a whole. Throw in a few drive by shots about others not understanding the material, and you imagine that you have somehow scored some points in this debate.
Sadly, you’ve done the opposite. You’ve demonsrated that the only way you can debate the various assertions made in this thread is by muddying the waters, avoiding direct discussion of salient points, and shouting that others are not understanding the points you are making. The problem Janp, is that you aren’t making any. You’d rather argue tiny technicalities of the manner in which things have been phrased than engage honsetly on the matters of substance.
You are proof, JanP, of exactly what skeptics complain most about. That you and people like you don’t want to debate the science. As soon as some actual science gets on the table, out comes a 600 word paragraph that says nothing specific and can be construed later as meaning anything convenient that you need it to mean at the time. This thread is loaded with examples of same.
(I have a vision in my head now of JanP counting the words in each paragraph he wrote to see if any of them are 600 words or more, as in his mind demonstrating that none of them are defeats my argument)

tallbloke
September 29, 2012 9:57 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 29, 2012 at 9:07 am
tallbloke says:
September 29, 2012 at 8:32 am
“Leif, you need to consider the full range of literature available on cloud cover”.
The ‘full’ literature is contradictory and is full of claims and counterclaims. In general, it is rather simple: solar activity has gone down the past several cycles, cosmic rays have gone up, and in contrast: cloud cover has gone down and temperatures have gone up.
One way out of that pickle and saving the cosmic ray hypothesis is to assume that AGW has overwhelmed the GCR-effects. Is that what you advocate?

The literature I pointed you to doesn’t even mention GCR’s. This is something you have overlaid on the purpose of my question.
However, I note that:
1) Total albedo has increased since the turn of the millenium according to ISCCP and Earthshine data. Surface temperature has since stabilised and ocean heat content has fallen slightly. This during a period in which the airborne fraction of co2 has increased some 15%.
2) It is entirely possible that there is a GCR-cloud connection but that has been opposed by other factors which affect cloud cover, e.g. meridionality of jet streams, humidity etc.
3) Although the peak amplitudes of the solar cycles fell slightly over the 1960-2003 period, the cycles were historically high and cloud cover did diminish. Since the Sun went quiet after 2003 cloud levels have increased again. Your analysis fu is weak today. Or is it that your pro AGW propaganda fu is strong?

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
September 29, 2012 9:58 am

From Leif Svalgaard on September 29, 2012 at 8:46 am:

During which time solar activity has decreased and cosmic rays have increased, further undermining the naive assertion that cosmic rays affect climate.

I was wondering if you’d pounce. I didn’t bring in Svensmark myself, just Dr. Spencer’s work on cloud variation and supporting evidence, so debate that.
I can also see the downward trend in TSI, and note how small it would appear when graphed from y=0.
With the TSI change so small, I argued from a constant solar output basis as such a small variation can be covered within the cloud variation changes.
If TSI would be the greater influence, or at least significant enough compared to the cloud cover variation to merit mention, then enlighten me.
As to Svensmark, which I didn’t mention, you appear to be jumping quickly into “Debunker in Chief” mode when it appears his work may possibly be referenced. From when you promptly made the first comment at that second WUWT piece and Anthony’s reply there, and as gathered from the comments below, you’re doing yourself no favors with out-of-hand dismissals without examining what is actually being said.

Jan P Perlwitz
September 29, 2012 10:37 am

vukcevic wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1094393

Dr. Perlwitz
I would appreciate your comment on the 350 year long differences in the mid-summer and mid-winter trends in the CET data as shown here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MidSummer-MidWinter.htm
Thanks.

What is there to comment? The positive trend, which can be calculated for the shown temperature time series, seems to be larger in winter than in summer in magnitude. There is nothing else that can be concluded from the graphics.

Steve P
September 29, 2012 11:10 am

Dr. Svalgaard,
Do you have an opinion or conjecture about what does drive climate cycles?
Thank you

September 29, 2012 11:24 am

tallbloke says:
September 29, 2012 at 9:57 am
1) Total albedo has increased since the turn of the millenium according to ISCCP and Earthshine data.
It seems that when it suits your argument, ISCCP is all the sudden reliable enough. In any case, the graph you show does not exhibit any solar cycle variation as it should.
2) It is entirely possible that there is a GCR-cloud connection but that has been opposed by other factors which affect cloud cover, e.g. meridionality of jet streams, humidity etc.
Special pleading. The issue was whether the recent data support a GCR-cloud connection and they don’t.
3) Although the peak amplitudes of the solar cycles fell slightly over the 1960-2003 period, the cycles were historically high and cloud cover did diminish. Since the Sun went quiet after 2003 cloud levels have increased again.
From http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/20/spencers-cloud-hypothesis-confirmed/ we learn that “A new paper just published in the Journal of Climate finds that global cloudiness has decreased over the past 39 years”
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 29, 2012 at 9:58 am
you’re doing yourself no favors with out-of-hand dismissals without examining what is actually being said.
I’m not seeking favors, just telling how it is. I’ll repeat: During which time solar activity has decreased and cosmic rays have increased, further undermining the naive assertion that cosmic rays affect climate

September 29, 2012 11:31 am

Steve P says:
September 29, 2012 at 11:10 am
Do you have an opinion or conjecture about what does drive climate cycles?
On the very long time scale [which does not apply to the present situation], climate is driven by variations in solar insolation in combination with drift of the tectonic plates and volcanism.
On human time scales, I don’t think any single cause can be singled out. Any sufficiently complex system can have internal, natural cycles and climate seems to fit that bill.

Jeff Alberts
September 29, 2012 11:36 am

ferd berple says:
September 29, 2012 at 12:58 am
I was merely stating what I believed to be Dr. Svalgaard’s position. This was in response to someone who stated a strawman “the sun has no impact on climate”.

JJ
September 29, 2012 11:41 am

Jan P Perlwitz says:
“That is not nearly enough. It has to rise a practically significant amount. It has to rise quickly enough that it not only validates their theories’ predictions, it has to rise fast enough that it actually amounts to a real problem that people give a rat’s ass about.”
This is a political argument, which has nothing to do with the science of global warming.

What an odd statement, coming from an author of the paper titled ” Dangerous human-made interference with climate: A GISS modelE study. “ Given that the title and content of that paper was intended to demonstrate that CAGW is a real problem that people should give a rat’s ass about, I take it that paper was “a political argument which has nothing to do with the science of global warming.”
Tell me, did you still accept your ‘scientist’ pay for that political work? Uh-huh.
‘Global warming’ is highly poiticized ‘science’. It’s ‘scientific’ claims are political from top to bottom. Your very position as a ‘scientist’ is wholly dependent on funds sourced from politicians. That funding is proportional to the scariness of the stories you tell, and the number of people you can convince to believe them. And that is why you are here. That you are present to make such assinine comments invalidates them.
The reality is that you “post normal scientists” do not even attempt to distinguish between your science and your politics except when making disingenuous arguments as you do here. You stump for IPCC. You publish political papers in scientific journals. Thus you need warming of practical significance – scientifically and politically. Specifically, you need the magnitude that your scientific theory predicts and upon which your political machinations are predicated. Of course, that makes the false assumption that there is a “the magnitude” that your theory predicts. As you say above (with an impressively straight face):
The observed temperature record has been fully within the range of the predictions from the climate model simulations of the AR4 IPCC report.
You don’t have a predicted magntude. You have a range of predicted magnitudes. And that range is wider than the range of Holocene temp variation. And even given that laughably large window, actual temps are currently slamming squarely into the sill you guys called “Year 2000 Constant Concentrations” even though atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had 12 years of unabated increase since then.
Currently, temps are skipping along the lower error band of the AR4 scenario (B1) whose total predicted warming (<2C by 2100) is typically given as the alamists' desired mitigation target. That lower bound of the B1 error band also skirts below the threshhold (<1C by 2100) of your "Dangerous" paper, and the likely path we are actually on given current info is solidly below that. It is about time you guys started dealing with that honestly.

D Böehm
September 29, 2012 11:43 am

As I showed in my post above (September 28, 2012 at 7:13 pm), there is no acceleration in the natural global warming trend since the LIA. None.
Vukcevic’s charts posted on September 29, 2012 at 4:41 am confirm the steady natural warming trend. There is no measurable effect from CO2, or from any other GHG’s, despite Perlwitz’ false assertions to the contrary. Those are merely self-serving assertions of a rent seeker, they are not empirical facts.
Vuk’s charts show what the alarmist crowd glosses over: that global warming happens in winter, and at the higher latitudes, and at night. Global warming is a desirable outcome for every thinking person. Millions of acres would be open to agriculture in places like Siberia, Canada, Alaska and Mongolia. Warmth means more evaporation, thus more precipitation to water crops. And the planet has been considerably warmer during the Holocene, with no ill effects:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
Ignore the wild-eyed arm waving by self-serving climate alarmists. The global climate right now is in one of the most stable, unchanging, beneficial centuries ever recorded. When we take a common sense look at the recent climate, we see this:
http://butnowyouknow.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/globa-mean-temp.gif?w=469&h=427
Rational people want more warmth, just as they want inexpensive energy. Warmth is good; cold kills. The trumped up catastrophic AGW scare has no empirical measurements to confirm that there is any AGW, much less CAGW. There may be some minuscule warming from CO2, but it is so small that it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes. And since any putative AGW is too small to measure, there are lots of better ways to spend our tax dollars.

September 29, 2012 12:05 pm

D Böehm says:
September 29, 2012 at 11:43 am
And the planet has been considerably warmer during the Holocene, with no ill effects:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png

And the variation seen is clearly not related to orbital changes, solar activity, or CO2.

Bart
September 29, 2012 12:21 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 29, 2012 at 9:03 am
“…solar activity has gone down the past several cycles…”
Based on what? I don’t see this measure or this one having gone down until perhaps just recently in the last decade. In fact, it very much appears to me that temperatures have effectively correlated with the amplitude of the signals. Basically, temperature is the demodulated amplitude of an AM signal with an 11 year period carrier wave.
On these two:
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 29, 2012 at 9:58 am
“I can also see the downward trend in TSI…”
Jan P Perlwitz says:
September 29, 2012 at 10:37 am
“The positive trend…”
When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Trends, guys? For complex nonlinear signals? Are you serious? The EE inside of me is writhing in agony.

September 29, 2012 12:25 pm

Jan P Perlwitz says:
September 29, 2012 at 10:37 am
What is there to comment? The positive trend, which can be calculated for the shown temperature time series, seems to be larger in winter than in summer in magnitude. There is nothing else that can be concluded from the graphics.
Dr. Perlwitz
Thank you for your prompt reply.
Perhaps I should be more explicit and rephrase the question :
1. How would the AGW theory explain the mid-summer temperatures having absolutely flat trend for 350 years of the CET records.
2. How would the AGW theory explain the mid-winter temperatures having absolutely even rising trend for 350 years of the CET records.

Dr. Perlwitz, If the AGW theory is a true theory and not just hypothesis then any exceptions needs to have an explanation.
Your colleague Dr. Schmidt also failed to explain how it is that the most important contemporary climate theory (accepted by the great majority of the world wide academia) may not be applicable to the worlds longest and the most accurate temperature records.
Dr. Perlwitz failure of one NASA expert to explain the above, could be an accident, but a failure of two NASA experts is not boding well for the AGW (I am inclined to call it) hypothesis.
Dr. Perlwitz you have to try harder, climate science you represent expects that from you and Dr. Schmidt.
An explanation does exist, but it contravenes the principles on which the AGW hypothesis is postulated.
Declining to respond publicly would be a reasonable step to take, but I would still appreciate to hear your reasoning.
Thank you for your time.

Jan P Perlwitz
September 29, 2012 12:35 pm

The predictions I have made here are on the table. I expect that a statistically significant global warming is going to continue over the next decades, caused by further increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from anthropogenic emissions. Global cooling is not happening, and I don’t see it to be right around the corner. If there was global cooling over the next decades instead, despite further increase in greenhouse gases, and this global cooling was in contradiction to my scientific understanding of the climate system and what the relative importance of various climate drivers (like anthropogenic greenhouse gases, natural aerosols from volcanoes, anthropogenic aerosols, solar forcing, ozone, land use …) is and what the amplitude of natural variability is on the same time scales, which is in agreement with what is currently accepted by mainstream climate science, I would have to revise my scientific understanding of the physics in the system and come to the conclusion that greenhouse gases weren’t as important as I have been thinking, after all. So far, I don’t see any indication in the empirical data at all, though, that would indicate this was the case.
And here is an additional prediction. At some point within the next 20 years, I’m going to tell you here: “I told you so!” Arctic sea ice will likely have disappeared during summer by then.
So, mark this thread.
What must be fulfilled so that the ones of you who negate that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have become the dominant climate driver on a multi-decadal and centuries time scale, or who announce that there will be global cooling instead of global warming, even with further increasing greenhouse gases, are willing to admit to have been wrong? Is there anything that you would accept as a falsification of your beliefs?

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
September 29, 2012 12:39 pm

From Leif Svalgaard on September 29, 2012 at 11:24 am:

I’m not seeking favors, just telling how it is. I’ll repeat: During which time solar activity has decreased and cosmic rays have increased, further undermining the naive assertion that cosmic rays affect climate

And I’ll reiterate: I didn’t mention Svensmark. I was talking about Dr. Spencer’s work, and Dr. Spencer isn’t working on a cosmic ray to climate connection. Review Dr. Spencer’s primer on his hypothesis, Svensmark only gets a one line ‘it’s also mentioned’ note as a possible cause of cloud cover variation, that’s it.
If you want to thrash out Svensmark and GCR theory with Tallbloke, fine with me. Why do you keep “debunking” me when I didn’t mention it?
Unless you’re referring to when I was playing with Jan over his playing with linear trends on graphs. No Svensmark or GCR’s there either.

September 29, 2012 12:47 pm

Bart says:
September 29, 2012 at 12:21 pm
“…solar activity has gone down the past several cycles…”
Based on what?

On what I tell you. There are long-term variations of the order of 100 years http://www.sidc.be/html/wolfaml.html
The maxima of this variation have generally been near the mid-century, while the minima have been around the century marks.
Perhaps you should educate the EE inside of you.

Jan P Perlwitz
September 29, 2012 12:51 pm

vukcevic wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1094858
I am not going to reply to your ad hominem remarks.

Dr. Perlwitz, If the AGW theory is a true theory and not just hypothesis then any exceptions needs to have an explanation.

I don’t really know what you think what the “AGW theory” is and what you think what the central statements of the theory are, but you seem to think that the CET temperature series was in contradiction to the theory, which I think is the correct scientific basis, and only explainable with an alternative hypothesis, since you write,

An explanation does exist, but it contravenes the principles on which the AGW hypothesis is postulated.

Please could you elaborate to what central statements of the theory, about which you think is mine, the CET temperature record is supposedly in contradiction?

Bart
September 29, 2012 1:01 pm

Bart says:
September 29, 2012 at 12:21 pm
“Basically, temperature is the demodulated amplitude of an AM signal with an 11 year period carrier wave.”
Excuse me, the carrier wave has a period of ~22 years. It is rectified by the absorption of energy, and then low pass filtered by the Earth’s thermal time constants. Just like in a crystal radio.

Bart
September 29, 2012 1:03 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 29, 2012 at 12:47 pm
It’s the same data I linked to. Perhaps you should avoid the snark, after I have humbled you so many times in the past (though, to be fair, I don’t think your massive ego allowed you to realize you had been pwned), and pay attention to what I have said.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
September 29, 2012 1:05 pm

From Bart on September 29, 2012 at 12:21 pm:


kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 29, 2012 at 9:58 am
“I can also see the downward trend in TSI…”

When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Trends, guys? For complex nonlinear signals? Are you serious? The EE inside of me is writhing in agony.

Are you fond of internecine warfare? Leif mentioned the long-term declining solar activity, there’s a long-term declining trend in TSI showing it. Mountains, molehills, etc.

Christoph Dollis
September 29, 2012 1:10 pm

Hi Anthony,
Could you make it a policy that your guest authors include a signature line at the end or their posts with their biographical information, in whatever way they choose to present it? I’m curious what Dr. Svalgaard’s training is in and while I’m sure it’s suitable and I’ll find it soon, it would save me a step.
I feel this is similar to the point you made the other day that all articles on scientific papers should cite the paper itself so people can find it easily.

Bart
September 29, 2012 1:12 pm

Bart says:
September 29, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Cue Leif screaming “It’s an 11 year cycle!” in 3-2-1…
The 11 year cycle is the rectified energy output of the 22 year Hale cycle, which is the period required for the Sun to return to its previous state.

Christoph Dollis
September 29, 2012 1:13 pm

Oh, silly me. I just realized he didn’t write this article: you did about his work. Still, it would be helpful in general.

September 29, 2012 1:14 pm

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 29, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Why do you keep “debunking” me when I didn’t mention it?
I’m not specifically ‘debunking’ you, just making a comment on the GCR-hypothesis.
Bart says:
September 29, 2012 at 1:03 pm
It’s the same data I linked to
Then you should have no problem recognizing the long-term behavior of solar activity, but apparently you have
I have humbled you so many times in the past
Very many people take special joy of trying to [and believing in] humble me, you are no exception.

Bart
September 29, 2012 1:14 pm

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 29, 2012 at 1:05 pm
“Are you fond of internecine warfare?
No, actually, I am trying to help you avoid fighting on a battleground of your opponent’s choosing. Trend lines work when there is a trend. This signal has to be demodulated before you can start applying trending analysis.

Bart
September 29, 2012 1:17 pm

I must go have a life. My silence for the rest of the day should not be interpreted as concession of any kind.

davidmhoffer
September 29, 2012 1:38 pm

JanP;
Please could you elaborate to what central statements of the theory, about which you think is mine, the CET temperature record is supposedly in contradiction?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How about you explain the CET in the context of your own wording regarding the effects of CO2?
That’s the problem with having a discussion with you. You never drive a stake in the ground as to what it is you are claiming in the first place, and then you bleat endlessly about your comments being misrepresented or taken out of context, or whatever other excuse happens to be handy.
So please state, in plain English, what you believe the effects of increasing CO2 are, and how they are commensurate with the CET temperature records.
BTW, you have still failed to provide a direct answer to the issues brought up by richardscourtney regarding the broad range of values used for aerosol forcing amongst the various models, the inability of the models to make a prediction that has been born out by future observations, you’ve not provided a cogent answer to the point that natural variability makes it so hard to isolate the warming signal from CO2 that no rational person would conclude anything other than it is so small as to be insignificant, and you cannot seem to see how your own statement that:
“It is principally not possible to make predictions of an individual realization beyond a certain time horizon, since the individual realizations diverge exponentially with an arbitrary small perturbation of the initial conditions.”
pretty much falsifies the value of the models in the first place. But I’ll put all those failures on your part aside (and yes, I know that you think you’ve answered those questions, but what you have done is just arm waving) if you’ll just explain in your own words what the effects of CO2 are and how they are part of the CET graphs Vuc has provided to you.

September 29, 2012 1:44 pm

Jan P Perlwitz says:
September 29, 2012 at 12:51 pm
Dr. Perlwitz
I didn’t think that asking to try harder, or to say that both Dr. Schmidt and you failed to explain startling contradiction to the AGW hypothesis re the CET is as suggested ad hominem remarks but if so I do apologize.
So let us keep to the science:
Dr. Perlwitz here is graph showing the world longest and the most accurate temperature record:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MidSummer-MidWinter.htm
what is plain in the above graph is:
1. the 350 years long record of the CET the mid-summer temperatures has no rising trend, but one would be expected, at least since 1950s if ‘the GHG factor’ was active.
2. the 350 years long record of the CET the mid-winter temperatures has an even rising trend, going back to 1660s, but that would not be expected, at least not before say 1860s, some 200 years later, and continue at same rate post 1860 if ‘the GHG factor’ was active.

From the above it can be concluded that both the CET’s mid-summer temperatures and mid-winter temperatures are not subject to the ‘the GHG factor’ i.e. contravene AGW hypothesis, unless of course there is a plausible explanation.
Dr. Perlwitz , if the AGW hypothesis is NOT about ‘the GHG factor’ contributed by men since 1860s than I apologize for wasting your time.
Thanks again.

richardscourtney
September 29, 2012 2:24 pm

Jan P Perlwitz:
I had not thought you would manage to beat your own record for the most blatant statement of pseudoscience posted on WUWT, but I congratulate you on your breaking that record in your post at September 29, 2012 at 12:35 pm.
You write

What must be fulfilled so that the ones of you who negate that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have become the dominant climate driver on a multi-decadal and centuries time scale, or who announce that there will be global cooling instead of global warming, even with further increasing greenhouse gases, are willing to admit to have been wrong? Is there anything that you would accept as a falsification of your beliefs?

Firstly, your unjustified and unjustifiable assertion that “that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have become the dominant climate driver on a multi-decadal and centuries time scale” needs to be substantiated by you because it is pure, superstitious belief. We scientists only need to point out that the null hypothesis applies and, therefore, we reject your superstitious assertion.
Secondly, predictive capability is a prerequisite of falsifiability in science. Therefore, those who postulate that cooling effects will overcome warming effects need to predict cooling: otherwise, it would not be possible to show whether their postulate is wrong.
Similarly, AGW-proponents predicted warming which has not happened. The “committed warming” predicted in the AR4 for the first two decades of this century has disappeared. But you and others who predicted that warming refuse to acknowledge nature has shown you were wrong.
Clearly, there is nothing you would accept as a falsification of your superstitious beliefs.
Richard

Jan P Perlwitz
September 29, 2012 2:31 pm

Here is one I have still wanted to address:
John Whitman wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1093498

Then your original statement (as follows) is self contradictory in principle:

No, it’s not. You asked me whether a certain absolute statement was my premise for a statement about energy balance changes I made. I’m open to alternative hypotheses that explain changes in the energy balance, though. Thus, it’s not my premise. It doesn’t mean those alternative hypotheses must be per se right.
Your statement erroneously assumes that cycles with higher sunspot counts should, per se, increase earth-atmosphere system energy (via TSI) and thus increases in global temperature relative to cycles with lower sunspot counts.

Since TSI is the total solar irradiance reaching the top of the atmosphere (TOA) it is per se right, that the radiative energy coming from the sun reaching Earth, is higher at times of the maximum of the solar activity cycle than at times of the minimum.

That presumption does not contain the evolving knowledge that cycles with lower sunspot counts can have a spectral shift in the sun’s energy (SSI) reaching earth that may actually have a net warming effect greater than cycles with higher sunspot counts.

But the radiative energy in any partial spectrum reaching TOA from the sun can’t be larger than TSI. It always will be a fraction of TSI. Thus, the only possible explanation that such a spectral shift during low solar activity has the same or a larger globally averaged effect on the energy balance at surface and in the troposphere than the difference in the TSI between solar maximum and minimum, leading to the same or a larger net warming effect, globally averaged, would have to be some amplification mechanism, which decreases Earth albedo or increases the warming effect of components in the atmosphere with a greenhouse effect during times of low solar activity. What else?
Thus, if you say that there was evolving knowledge that this was the case, what scientific papers are you referencing where the evidence is being provided that there was such a mechanism with such an effect on the global energy balance?

tallbloke
September 29, 2012 2:59 pm

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 29, 2012 at 12:39 pm
If you want to thrash out Svensmark and GCR theory with Tallbloke, fine with me. Why do you keep “debunking” me when I didn’t mention it?

Actually, I’m in the same boat as you. I didn’t mention it either, but Leif is determined to deflect any discussion of the EMPIRICALLY OBSERVED drop in cloud cover by dragging Svensmark’s HYPOTHESIS into the discussion. It’s obviously a tactic, because he knows the ~1.6% drop in cloud cover since 1971 fells AGW on the spot. You can be sure Perlwitz will studiously ignore it too.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00280.1

davidmhoffer
September 29, 2012 3:31 pm

David Ball says:
September 28, 2012 at 6:01 pm
D Böehm says:
September 28, 2012 at 5:47 pm
Just wanted to point out that we are still waiting for Mosher to respond to davidmhoffer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A response from Mosher would be even more suprising than JanP having an actual logical discussion involving facts, logic, and science. But, we can be optimists…. provided that our egos can stand being repeatedly disappointed.

ferd berple
September 29, 2012 3:37 pm

Jan P Perlwitz says:
September 29, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Your statement erroneously assumes that cycles with higher sunspot counts should, per se, increase earth-atmosphere system energy (via TSI) and thus increases in global temperature relative to cycles with lower sunspot counts
============
Sunspot numbers are not a proxy for TSI. They are a proxy for solar magnetism and solar wind, both of which vary greatly. .
Climate science assumes that the only solar measure to affect climate is TSI. Since TSI is relatively constant the argument is then presented that the sun doesn’t much affect climate. This is confirmation bias, readily accepted because it fits the CO2 hypothesis.
However, this ignores the large variability in the effects of the solar wind and magnetism and their role in cloud formation, atmospheric ionization and ozone production, all of which significantly affect climate.
Climate science is so caught up in radiation that they can’t see the forest for the trees. TSI at TOA is a meaningless measure – there is no energy absorbed at TOA. The measure that is important is TSI at BOA, which is controlled by the magnetic properties of the sun. BOA is where the action is, it is where the energy actually gets absorbed by the oceans.

September 29, 2012 3:38 pm

tallbloke says:
September 29, 2012 at 2:59 pm
the EMPIRICALLY OBSERVED drop in cloud cover by dragging Svensmark’s HYPOTHESIS into the discussion. It’s obviously a tactic, because he knows the ~1.6% drop in cloud cover since 1971 fells AGW on the spot.
It also kills the GCR-hypothesis. Both GCR and AGW are dead as causes of climate change. Perhaps you still do not believe that AGW is dead and see AGW as a way of rescuing the GCR-hypothesis. I, for one, do not. Perhaps you should cut-n-paste that statement into your collection of quotes to bring out at appropriate times.

D Böehm
September 29, 2012 3:45 pm

Perlwitz says:

If there was global cooling over the next decades instead, despite further increase in greenhouse gases, and this global cooling was in contradiction to my scientific understanding of the climate system and what the relative importance of various climate drivers (like anthropogenic greenhouse gases, natural aerosols from volcanoes, anthropogenic aerosols, solar forcing, ozone, land use …) is and what the amplitude of natural variability is on the same time scales, which is in agreement with what is currently accepted by mainstream climate science, I would have to revise my scientific understanding of the physics in the system and come to the conclusion that greenhouse gases weren’t as important as I have been thinking, after all.

That just pushes the prediction out by “decades”. Convenient, huh? He believes he’s right — but without any empirical evidence to support his belief, and despite Planet Earth falsifying catastrophic AGW for the past 15 years. So now he’s predicting the future decades out.
Now let’s pretend it’s fifteen years ago, and we were reading the Perlwitz prediction above. Would he admit in 2012 that he was flat wrong?
Not a chance. It’s confirmation bias all the way down.
Where do we get a refund?

ferdberple
September 29, 2012 3:48 pm

D Böehm says:
September 29, 2012 at 11:43 am
Rational people want more warmth, just as they want inexpensive energy. Warmth is good; cold kills.
==============
Here is my challenge to Jan P Perlwitz:
Stand naked on any point on the globe. Unless that point happens to be a tropical jungle near the equator you will die of exposure over time, no matter how much food you eat. Almost any other place on earth is fatal to human beings without technology to keep us alive.
The nonsense that the planet is going to become too warm for humans is exactly that, nonsense. The greatest concentration of life on the planet is at the equator. This falls off towards the poles. If the planet was too warm for life, then we should see less life at the equator and more towards the poles.
We do not, which is clear evidence that the planet is a long way from being too warm. Warming is nothing to be feared. It will have a net beneficial effect, allowing life to exist further towards the poles than is now possible.

tallbloke
September 29, 2012 4:01 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 29, 2012 at 3:38 pm
tallbloke says:
September 29, 2012 at 2:59 pm
the ~1.6% drop in cloud cover since 1971 fells AGW on the spot.
It also kills the GCR-hypothesis.

Hmm, the logic fu is still looking shaky there Leif.
You seem to think a downward trend over 39 years means cloud couldn’t have started increasing again over the last decade.
Fail.

ferdberple
September 29, 2012 4:03 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 29, 2012 at 3:38 pm
Both GCR and AGW are dead as causes of climate change.
===============
Whether there is merit in GCR is not really very important to most people, because no one is proposing to seriously disrupt our economies based on GCR. It is simply an academic curiosity, that threatens no one outside those dependent on government funding.
AGW however is being used as a basis to support hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes, largely funneled to benefit folks that feed off the AGW tit, and thus have a conflict of interest in presenting evidence for and against.
I would have a much easier time believing GISS and Jan P Perlwitz if their incomes were not tied in any fashion to AGW research. The problem with research is that if there is no problem to be solved, there is little justification for funding.
Climate scientists would be much better employed as ditch diggers if AGW is dead, and since most would rather remain scientists than dig ditches, they have a vested interest in promoting the notion that AGW is not dead.

Jan P Perlwitz
September 29, 2012 4:04 pm

vukcevic wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1094944

From the above it can be concluded that both the CET’s mid-summer temperatures and mid-winter temperatures are not subject to the ‘the GHG factor’ i.e. contravene AGW hypothesis, unless of course there is a plausible explanation.

I asked you to elaborate to what central statements of the theory the CET temperature record was in contradiction, if you make such an assertion. Just repeating the assertion that it was in contradiction isn’t really for what I asked you. How am I supposed to reply, if you don’t tell me, because I wouldn’t know what the alleged contradiction is supposed to be.

David Ball
September 29, 2012 4:10 pm

davidmhoffer says:
September 29, 2012 at 3:31 pm
I can take it. I hadn’t expected anything else. A small part of me is hoping Mosher is a mole for our side, but just a small part.

September 29, 2012 4:25 pm

tallbloke says:
September 29, 2012 at 4:01 pm
You seem to think a downward trend over 39 years means cloud couldn’t have started increasing again over the last decade.
If you pick a time interval short enough [since yesterday, perhaps], you can find anything you like. Considering that climate is usually defined over intervals of 30 years you have a predefined choice of time span that is of interest. I see that you do not challenge my suggestion that you include AGW as a one of the excuses for the fail of the GCR-hypothesis, interesting…

Jan P Perlwitz
September 29, 2012 4:26 pm

richardscourtney wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1094970

Firstly, your unjustified and unjustifiable assertion that “that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have become the dominant climate driver on a multi-decadal and centuries time scale” needs to be substantiated by you because it is pure, superstitious belief.

Considering that the IPCC Report 2007 compiled and synthesized the state of knowledge about Earth’s climate system, including the role of greenhouse gases in it and all the scientific evidence for it, which has been accumulated over decades of scientific research, published in many hundreds peer reviewed studies, I can call your statement nothing else than a statement of extreme ignorance.
When are you going to study the scientific literature? You can start with the IPCC report, because it’s overall a very good compilation of the available scientific papers,, although only until 2007. A new report is going to be published next year. You can work through all the peer reviewed papers referenced at the end of each chapter in the report.
The truly superstitious and religious ones are the ones who reject any results from scientific research, as soon as those are in contradiction to the own preconceived political or ideological views. For instance, that would be creationists (or followers of the “intelligence design” crap) with respect to the biological sciences, or people like you with respect to climate science.

The “committed warming” predicted in the AR4 for the first two decades of this century has disappeared.

You are endlessly repeating the same falsehoods. I’m not going to reply to it anymore, because it just would be a repetition of my previous replies.

September 29, 2012 4:28 pm

ferdberple says:
September 29, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Whether there is merit in GCR is not really very important to most people,
but seems to be very important in their fight against AGW. To wit, their belief in [or at least, lip-service to] the mechanism.

September 29, 2012 5:03 pm

Jan P Perlwitz
Nice job in hijacking a thread on solar activity to rattle on about greenhouse gasses being the dominant driver of temperature. I’ve had a quick read through your blog and I have noticed how you have Insulted and actively encourage insults of how unscientific people who are comment on WUWT. Your behaviour can be likened to a spoiled child throwing his toys about in a tantrum because he didn’t get his own way. Grow up! The thread is about “Dr. Leif Svalgaard on the New Scientist solar max story” Not about you! You made it about you when you went off topic, being a very unpleasant and distracting character making a big scene. I don’t know you but your attitude stinks BTW Thanks for showing the world just how much of a snotty know-it-all type of bully you really are. If there’s one thing I dislike, it would be Bullies. You nasty little piece of work!! Grrrr! 🙂

Jan P Perlwitz
September 29, 2012 5:15 pm

davidmhoffer wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1094937

How about you explain the CET in the context of your own wording regarding the effects of CO2?

I don’t really know what you want from me. The CET time series can’t be explained solely with CO2. CO2 isn’t the only factor that determines the temperature record anywhere. This is true for the globally averaged temperature anomaly. That is even more true for individual locations like Central England, where local factors can play a role, or regional changes like changes in the circulation patterns. And I don’t know all the factors for specific locations.
But I don’t see what the alleged contradiction to the theory, which is asserted, is supposed to be.

You never drive a stake in the ground as to what it is you are claiming in the first place,

I reject this claim. I have made many clear statements what my views are. You apparently just can’t deal with them, and you don’t know how to refute them, although you don’t like them, because they contradict your preconceived views.

So please state, in plain English, what you believe the effects of increasing CO2 are,

So you want me to explain how the whole climate system works? In a comment here? How long is this comment supposed to be? You already complaint that I had become too wordy.
Why don’t you read the IPCC report? Then you know what my views are. Essentially. And you can criticize them using scientific arguments, if you don’t agree with the scientific arguments laid out there.

BTW, you have still failed to provide a direct answer to the issues brought up by richardscourtney regarding the broad range of values used for aerosol forcing amongst the various models,

What is the question? I have addressed the aerosol issue in models in my reply to Tom Murphy. The aerosol forcing has a relatively large spread between the models because that’s the range of uncertainty regarding this forcing.

the inability of the models to make a prediction that has been born out by future observations,

I don’t understand this statement. We don’t have observations from the future.

you’ve not provided a cogent answer to the point that natural variability makes it so hard to isolate the warming signal from CO2 that no rational person would conclude anything other than it is so small as to be insignificant,

What are you talking about? Your statement is just not true. The signal is very clear for a multi-decadal time scale. The signal to natural variability ratio is large on such a time scale. A recent scientific reference for this is Santer et al, JGR, (2011), doi:10.1029/2011JD016263.

“It is principally not possible to make predictions of an individual realization beyond a certain time horizon, since the individual realizations diverge exponentially with an arbitrary small perturbation of the initial conditions.”
pretty much falsifies the value of the models in the first place.

Why do predictions of changes in the statistical properties of climate variables, i.e., the average weather and its variability, in the future due to changing climate drivers have no value? Ask, for instance, the insurance industry what they think about your assertion.

Jan P Perlwitz
September 29, 2012 5:38 pm

D Böehm wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1095057

He believes he’s right — but without any empirical evidence to support his belief,

Empirical evidence is plentiful. But anyone who refuses for political or ideological reasons to make him/herself knowledgeable about the matter, e.g., by reading the scientific literature where the evidence is provided, will never know the evidence, and will continue to claim there was “no evidence”. The use of dubious, non-scientific sources to maintain the world view, which is threatened to be shattered by the results from real scientific research is complementary to the rejection of the scientific sources.

F. Ross
September 29, 2012 5:44 pm

ferdberple says:
September 29, 2012 at 4:03 pm

I would have a much easier time believing GISS and Jan P Perlwitz if their incomes were not tied in any fashion to AGW research. The problem with research is that if there is no problem to be solved, there is little justification for funding.

[+emphasis]
Amen to that thought!
Re: Climate scientists as ditch diggers …
1st rule of holes and all that.

Jan P Perlwitz
September 29, 2012 5:51 pm

Sparks wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1095138

Nice job in hijacking a thread on solar activity to rattle on about greenhouse gasses being the dominant driver of temperature.

Why are you faulting me? You have to admit that everyone has been piling on me, after I replied to some initial comment here. Why don’t you blame them? Most of my following comments were in reply to people who piled on me. And I haven’t even been able to answer to all of them, which has been very hurtful. And now you pile on me, too, and you promptly triggered another reply by me. What can I do?

tallbloke
September 29, 2012 6:17 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 29, 2012 at 4:25 pm
tallbloke says:
September 29, 2012 at 4:01 pm
You seem to think a downward trend over 39 years means cloud couldn’t have started increasing again over the last decade.
If you pick a time interval short enough [since yesterday, perhaps], you can find anything you like. Considering that climate is usually defined over intervals of 30 years you have a predefined choice of time span that is of interest.

Except the decade in question is a decade not a day, and the decade happens to include the sun going quiet, and cloud increasing, consistent with the Svensmark Hypothesis.
I see that you do not challenge my suggestion that you include AGW as a one of the excuses for the fail of the GCR-hypothesis, interesting…
Heh. It was too ludicrous to reply to. And I already got you to state that the AGW hypothesis is a dead dog, remember? 😉
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 29, 2012 at 3:38 pm
Both GCR and AGW are dead as causes of climate change.

Cut’n’pasted to the file. My work here is done. 🙂

Jan P Perlwitz
September 29, 2012 6:20 pm

richardscourtney wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1094167

I assume you are paid to tell such egregious lies.

I am not telling lies. You are making a malicious accusation. Or provide the evidence for your accusation, according to which I was lying.
I think you are absolutely clueless with respect to climate simulations.

It is a falsehood that “Climate projections are predictions of the change in the statistical properties of the whole population, when the boundary conditions change.” That could only be true if the boundary conditions were known and specified to defined accuracy and precision. And they are not.

Logic fail. The question to what accuracy the boundary conditions are known doesn’t have any relevance for the question how climate simulations are conception-ally designed and set up.
There are two types of numerical integrations in the field of meteorology/climate. Initial value problems and boundary value problems. Weather forecasts with numerical weather prediction models are initial value problems. The weather forecast simulations are started from a set of initial conditions that are derived from measurements and assimilated. The data that comprise the set of initial values should be the best possible approximation of the real world. 100% accuracy is not possible here either, though. Starting from those initial conditions, the purpose is to predict the future chronological succession of weather events, i.e., one single trajectory from all possible trajectories weather can follow, as accurately as possible.
In contrast, climate simulations start from an arbitrary set of initial conditions, e.g., a standard atmosphere setup. If one wants to carry ensemble climate simulations, the initial conditions are randomly perturbed. It guarantees that each individual realizations from the ensemble takes a different path, even though the boundary conditions are exactly the same for all ensemble members.
Already by this setup, it is clear that there is no purpose here to match the exact chronological succession of weather events in the real world with climate simulations. The models are run, for instance to some equilibrium state for 1XCO2, 2XCO, 4XCO to study how the climate variables in the model statistically change for different CO2-concentrations. Or for climate simulations to reproduce the historical climate and for future predictions, state-of-the-art Earth system models, with various coupled components, are run into equilibrium for a fixed set of boundary conditions, e.g., as control simulations for pre-industrial times. Those simulations take many hundreds or thousands of model years, until the equilibrium is reached, at least approximately. It’s a pure boundary condition problem that is being numerically integrated here. The climate variables can only be statistically described for such a problem. Then, if one wants to study climate change, one branches off simulations from the control simulation. In the branched off simulations, the boundary conditions are allowed to vary with time, and it is still a pure boundary condition problem that is being numerically solved. Then the statistics of the changed climate are compared with the statistics of the control simulations. Similarly, it doesn’t make any sense to compare the exact chronological succession of events in climate simulations with the chronological succession of events in the real world. Only comparisons based on statistics between climate simulations and real world are really meaningful to evaluate the skill of a climate model to reproduce past or present climate.

Indeed, the main “boundary condition” varied in the models is the forcing from GHGs, mostly CO2. But, as my post explained, and I again quote Kiehl’s words for the explanation
The cited range in climate sensitivity from a wide collection of models is usually 1.5 to 4.5 deg C for a doubling of CO2, where most global climate models used for climate change studies vary by at least a factor of two in equilibrium sensitivity.

And how exactly does the fact that different models have different climate sensitivities to a doubling of CO2, refute my statement that climate simulations, e.g., for CO2-doubling, are boundary value problems, which are being numerically solved? There is no logic here in your quoting of this statement from the Kiehl paper.

Jan P Perlwitz
September 29, 2012 6:22 pm

JJ wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1094623

IF the catastrophic fearmongering theory of ‘global warming’ is truly a scientific proposition, THEN there exists SOME length of time for which a lack of statistically significant warming would be sufficient to conclude that said theory is false.
Those two statements are mutually exclusive. The one in bold is true. The one in italics, quoting you, is false.

No, your assertions are false.
In my statement,
If the fact that finding a time period (15 years, 10 years, 2 weeks, 2 days, whatever) for which the increase in the temperature anomaly wasn’t statistically significant was sufficient to conclude that there was no physical process of global warming ongoing, then this would lead to absurd additional conclusions with necessity.
the key word is “sufficient”. The true statement is, it is not sufficient just to find a time period for which the change in the temperature anomaly is not statistically significant to make the positive statement that there was no process of global warming ongoing. The assertion, e.g., made by “D. Boehm”, is that it was sufficient to find such a time period. I have demonstrated that the claim, it was sufficient, leads to absurd conclusions with necessity, since one can always find a time period for which this is fulfilled for any point in time. It’s reductio ad absurdum that I applied to show that “D. Boehm’s” assertions are scientifically invalid. In contrast, you applied strawman arguments to “refute” my statement, by asserting a proposition, which I allegedly made, but which I haven’t put forward.
When you say, “there exists SOME length of time for which a lack of statistically significant warming would be sufficient to conclude that said theory is false.”, then this is not the same argument as put forward by “D. Boehm”, which I have refuted by reductio ad absurdum. In your statement, an additional proposition has been included, which must be fulfilled as necessary condition. The additional, necessary condition is that the time period of no statistical significance was long enough. Not just that one could find a time period without statistical significance. But if you assert, some specific time period was long enough to conclude there wasn’t any global warming ongoing, then you would have to give a scientific reasoning why this specific time period was long enough. Just postulating a time period as long enough, out of convenience to support your preconceived beliefs, would not be a sufficient scientific reasoning.

JJ
September 29, 2012 6:23 pm

Jan P Perlwitz says:
“And the reason he is telling lies is that the truth is very inconvenient. Their ‘theories’ don’t make testable predictions that they are willing to document and stand behind as criteria of falsifyability.”
Your assertion is a falsehood. All aspects of the physical theory behind the prediction of global warming due to greenhouse gases are testable.

My assertion is not false. I didn’t say your theories can’t make testible predictions. I said they don’t. Feel free to make some. Then stand by them . This last bit would include holding to all components of the prediction, including:
1) the limited scope of the parameters you choose to define the prediction, and
2) the breadth of the error bands you have to invoke to demonstrate “consistent with”
I shall not hold my breath awaiting the day when the above are practiced by the people who pull the “projection is not prediction” routine every time one of their predictions is shown to be untenable.
(I do not appreciate if someone accuses me of lying, i.e., of deliberately making factually false statements, without providing evidence for such an accusation.)
Yeah, but you likely don’t care for it much when you are called out for ignorantly making factually false statements, either. So, your sensibilities aren’t of much use in deciding which way to respond to your smarmily delivered factually incorrect statements.
The evidence for accusation of deliberate falsehood is the fact that you make false statements and frequently use false reasoning here, of the sort that a person who holds your position should have the knowledge and skills to avoid as mistakes. Deductive logic doesn’t demand that conclusion, but parsimony suggests it.
You could negate that circumstance, by owning up to your errors when they are pointed out to you – another event for which I will not postpone respiration in anticipation. You tend to double down with fingers firmly planted in ears, as you are doing now.

Jan P Perlwitz
September 29, 2012 6:36 pm

JJ wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1095214

My assertion is not false. I didn’t say your theories can’t make testible predictions. I said they don’t.

This assertion is refuted by the fact that all the statements that build the theory of climate are tested against data from the real world.

davidmhoffer
September 29, 2012 6:37 pm

dmh
How about you explain the CET in the context of your own wording regarding the effects of CO2?
JanP
I don’t really know what you want from me. The CET time series can’t be explained solely with CO2.
REPLY: Oh. So CO2 isn’t the dominant factor after all? Or it just isn’t the dominant factor in that region? Gee, I thought dominant meant DOMINANT!
JanP
But I don’t see what the alleged contradiction to the theory, which is asserted, is supposed to be.
REPLY: Since you won’t give us a straight answer as to what your theory is, we really have no idea what you do or don’t mean about just about anything you say. But you were pretty clear that CO2 is currently the dominant (your words, not mine) factor in climate, yet when someone produces a 350 year temperature record called CET you claim there are other factors, and that you don’t even know whaty they are. If you don’t know what the other factors are for THIS region, then you don’t know what the other factors are for ANY region, and hence, you cannot claim to know what the dominant factors globally are.
dmh
You never drive a stake in the ground as to what it is you are claiming in the first place,
JanP
I reject this claim. I have made many clear statements what my views are. You apparently just can’t deal with them, and you don’t know how to refute them, although you don’t like them, because they contradict your preconceived views.
REPLY: About the only claim that you have made is that CO2 is the dominant factor in climate…. except in the region represented by the CET, and you claim to not know why. But you claim to know it is true everywhere else.
dmh
So please state, in plain English, what you believe the effects of increasing CO2 are,
JanP
So you want me to explain how the whole climate system works? In a comment here? How long is this comment supposed to be? You already complaint that I had become too wordy.
Why don’t you read the IPCC report? Then you know what my views are. Essentially. And you can criticize them using scientific arguments, if you don’t agree with the scientific arguments laid out there.
REPLY: I have read IPCC AR4. It is what convinced me to become a skeptic in the first place. But since you have advised that this is more or less representative of your views, I would like to draw your attention to IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 2, specificaly 2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing which ranks no less than 14 factors and the LOSU (Level of Scientific Understanding) of each of them. Of the 14 factors listed, only LLGHG are credited with a “high” level of scientific understanding. Stratospheric and Tropospheric Ozone are ranked as “medium”. Direct Aerosols and Surface Albedo (land use) are ranked “medium to low”. Stratasopheric water vapour from CH4, cloud albedo (all aerosols), surface albedo (black carbon), persistant linear contrails, solar irradiance, volcanic aerosols, stratospheric water vapour from other than CH4, tropospheric water from irrigation, aviation induced cirrus, cosmic rays, and “other surface effects” are all rated either “low” or “very low”.
So I take it Dr JanP, that as you have stipulated to the IPCC reports being representative of your views, that you are stipulating to the fact that when it comes to earth’s radiative balance we actually know very little about most of the factors and so have no idea at all how CO2 stacks up against them? Sorry, but that’s what the IPCC report you claim represents your views actually says. (Ain’t it a bi*ch when it turns out that some of us great unwashed can actually read?)
dmh
BTW, you have still failed to provide a direct answer to the issues brought up by richardscourtney regarding the broad range of values used for aerosol forcing amongst the various models,
JanP
What is the question? I have addressed the aerosol issue in models in my reply to Tom Murphy. The aerosol forcing has a relatively large spread between the models because that’s the range of uncertainty regarding this forcing.
REPLY: Thanks for admitting that the range of uncertainty regarding this forcing is very large. Since we are so uncertain as to the proper value, we cannot claim that CO2 dominates it, can we? More to the point however, the range of uncertainty of the value of aerosol forcing is quite a bit larger than the range of uncertainty when model results are compared to each other. In other words, the model results having a lower range of uncertainty when compared to each other than the range of values being used for aerosol forcing is proof positive that aerosol forcing values are being used to introduce adjustments that cancel out other errors in the models. In other words, they are being used exactly as the fudge factor richardscourtney claims. Is this were not true, if the values were simply best estimates, our expectation would be that the broad range would cause the model outputs to diverge instead of converge.
dmh
the inability of the models to make a prediction that has been born out by future observations,
JanP
I don’t understand this statement. We don’t have observations from the future.
REPLY: You know very well what I mean. Model outputs that were run in 1980, when compared to today’s temps, were wrong. Model outputs from 1990 when compared to todays temps were wrong. Model outputs from 2000 when compared to today’s temps were wrong. Model ouputs from just a few years ago failed to predict the current lack of warming. At no point have any of the models made predictions a decade or two or three out and then been proven right ten or twenty or thirty years later. Yet you continue to claim there is a reason to believe that what they predict ten or twenty or thirty years out from now is accurate.
dmh
you’ve not provided a cogent answer to the point that natural variability makes it so hard to isolate the warming signal from CO2 that no rational person would conclude anything other than it is so small as to be insignificant,
JanP
What are you talking about? Your statement is just not true. The signal is very clear for a multi-decadal time scale. The signal to natural variability ratio is large on such a time scale. A recent scientific reference for this is Santer et al, JGR, (2011), doi:10.1029/2011JD016263.
REPLY: And yet, here we are, with no warming for 15 years and Santer now claiming 15 years isn’t the right time frame, it is really 17 years. Or is is 19 now? Ooops, I thought you said CO2 was dominant. Yet no warming at the highest levels of CO2 we have ever had. And we don’t understand why, because according to the IPCC (and hence by your own assertion, you) there are feedbacks and other factors that we don’t yet understand which are clearly as large or larger. Hence your claim that CO2 is dominant just doesn’t hold up.
JanP
“It is principally not possible to make predictions of an individual realization beyond a certain time horizon, since the individual realizations diverge exponentially with an arbitrary small perturbation of the initial conditions.”
dmh
pretty much falsifies the value of the models in the first place.
JanP
Why do predictions of changes in the statistical properties of climate variables, i.e., the average weather and its variability, in the future due to changing climate drivers have no value? Ask, for instance, the insurance industry what they think about your assertion.
REPLY: By your own assertion that your views are in accordance with the IPCC, it is clear that of the variables considered by the IPCC, almost all have either a low or a very low Level of Scientific Understanding. As a consequence, any statistical properties forecast (predicted, projected, use any term you wish) based on those poorly understood factors produces a model result of no particular value and cannot be relied upon for decision making of any sort. The insurance industry deals with this matter simply by being smart enough to not offer insurance products in such circumstances.
The insurance industry, Dr JanP, is smart enough not to make a fool’s bet. If they haven’t good quality properties upon which to base their model, they choose not to make a fool’s bet. The problem here Dr JanP, is that you are making a fool’s bet, but you are doing it with my money, not yours. You want to throw my virgins into your volcanoe. You cannot understand the danger, the damage, and the billions of lives that will be lost if you make the bet that you want us to. All you can see is the billions of lives you think will be saved based on climate models that have repeatedly failed to produce results born out by observation over time and which are based on properties affecting earth’s radiative energy balance which you admit to having a poor understanding of, and which you admit can only result in model outputs with error variances so large as to be meaningless. Yet still you insist on making that bet.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
September 29, 2012 6:42 pm

Wow. After two days of fine passive-aggressive dancing and non-replies, Jan Perlwitz, GISS employee, tries to pull the “Woe is me, everyone hates me, everyone is picking on me” defense, said reason being “They just can’t stand that I’m smarter and know more than them!”
Right after dropping a load about the IPCC report being such great peer-reviewed science, after all we’ve learned about all the “grey literature” thrown in from activist groups, with the slanted-for-political-purposes writing and rewriting.
He’s going to be another of those pricks who comes here and stirs things up just so he can run back to his and other blogs and say how those mean ignorant anti-science deniers treated his so badly and kept trying to shut him up, isn’t he?

September 29, 2012 6:49 pm

tallbloke says:
September 29, 2012 at 6:17 pm
the decade happens to include the sun going quiet, and cloud increasing, consistent with the Svensmark Hypothesis.
Not at all consistent: http://www.leif.org/research/Cloud-Cover-GCR-Disconnect.png
Heh. It was too ludicrous to reply to.
It is no more ludicrous than the other excuses you come up with, so you still include AGW as a possible excuse.
“Both GCR and AGW are dead as causes of climate change”
good to see that you agree.

Bart
September 29, 2012 7:00 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 29, 2012 at 1:14 pm
“Then you should have no problem recognizing the long-term behavior of solar activity, but apparently you have.”
Not I. Peak in ~1970: about 100. Peak in ~1980: about 150. Conclusion: increasing activity, leading to acceleration in global temperature.
Peak in ~1990: about 150. Conclusion: SSN holding steady, temperatures continue to rise. Behavior up to 2000: consistent with behavior in previous two cycles. Conclusion: holding steady, temperatures continue to rise.
It is not until about 2000 that there is a break in the pattern since the pre-1970 low which, not coincidentally, was the previous era of temperature stabilization.
Peak in ~2000: about 100. Conclusion: activity declining, expect temperature advance to stall.
Temperatures after ~2000: stalled.
So, we have four decades over which solar activity can tell us reliably which direction temperatures are headed, yet you insist that there is no correlation. Otnay ootay ightbray, if you know what I mean.

george e smith
September 29, 2012 7:00 pm

“””””…..John Whitman says:
September 28, 2012 at 4:14 pm
george e smith says:
September 28, 2012 at 3:25 pm
Any fly fisherman knows that when you cast a fly line, you have to make the cast in such a way, that the linear momentum, and angular momentum, are both of the same sign, either both positive (forward cast) or negative (backward cast), and if you launch it with crossed up momentum signs, you get a tailing loop mess; every time..
= = = = = =
george e smith,
For casting a fly line, you must have a time lag after your back or forward false cast for the fly line to become approximately straight before you reverse your false cast in another direction. The key is that time lag judgment by the fisherman……John Whitman says:
September 28, 2012 at 4:14 pm
george e smith says:
September 28, 2012 at 3:25 pm
Any fly fisherman knows that when you cast a fly line, you have to make the cast in such a way, that the linear momentum, and angular momentum, are both of the same sign, either both positive (forward cast) or negative (backward cast), and if you launch it with crossed up momentum signs, you get a tailing loop mess; every time..
= = = = = =
george e smith,
For casting a fly line, you must have a time lag after your back or forward false cast for the fly line to become approximately straight before you reverse your false cast in another direction. The key is that time lag judgment by the fisherman……”””””
Well I don’t do much, if any, false casting, that just wastes time and effort so the fish has gone bye bye by the time you decide to cast to it.
And you don’t need any more time than it takes for the line to unroll and turn over the leader and fly; after that it will drop on the ground, if you wait any longer.

D Böehm
September 29, 2012 7:06 pm

Mr Perlwitz says:
“…all the statements that build the theory of climate are tested against data from the real world.”
For a ‘scientist’, Mr Perlwitz cannot seem to understand scientific terminology. There is no “theory of climate”. There are conjectures and hypotheses. But a theory must be able to make testable, consistent and accurate predictions. As we see, no models are capable of accurate forecasting unless the error bars are so gigantic that the result is meaningless.

Bart
September 29, 2012 7:11 pm

And, peak at ~2010: about 50. Conclusion: significant decline, expect temperatures to start dropping soon.

davidmhoffer
September 29, 2012 7:12 pm

JanP
Then, if one wants to study climate change, one branches off simulations from the control simulation. In the branched off simulations, the boundary conditions are allowed to vary with time, and it is still a pure boundary condition problem that is being numerically solved. Then the statistics of the changed climate are compared with the statistics of the control simulations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There’s your problem. You’ve arrived at a simulation that when run over thousands of years arrives at some approximation of current conditions. You then make the assumption that by changing a given input such as 2X CO2, you can run the simulation forward in time and arrive at an approximation that is valid for the future.
The error you are making is in your assumption that there are no OTHER input properties to a given set of boundary conditions that, when run forward in time, wind up approximating current conditions. In fact, we have evidence that other value of input properties DO result in a an approximation of current conditions. We know this for the very reason that richardscourtney keeps on pointing out to you. The fact that inputs for aerosol forcing between models have a dramaticaly broader range than the model outputs themselves, is de facto evidence that the models are dependent upon input factors that are WRONG.
This being the case, the combination of input factors, which we know to be wrong for (at a minimum) all except one of the models, we can have NO CONFIDENCE AT ALL in their results projected into the future.

Bart
September 29, 2012 7:17 pm

D Böehm says:
September 29, 2012 at 7:06 pm
I kind of expect him/her to come back with the old standby “Apparently you don’t understand science.” Which makes me think of my favorite Dilbert cartoon.

george e smith
September 29, 2012 7:24 pm

“””””…..Bart says:
September 28, 2012 at 4:55 pm
……………………………..
george e smith says:
September 28, 2012 at 3:25 pm
“…so you point your thumb in the positive angular rotation or velocity, or angular momentum direction and your fingers wrap around the vector direction in a clockwise direction…”
Use your other right hand. Or, get a new clock ;-)…..”””””
Well Bart, When I point MY right hand thumb at an analog clock face, I find that MY right hand fingers DO curl around that thumb direction in the usual clockwise direction.
So Why would I be looking at a clock face from INSIDE the clock. The only other explanation for your conclusion, could be that you are choosing as the right hand, what some primitive people use to wipe their rear end; In the West we use paper instead.

Jan P Perlwitz
September 29, 2012 7:25 pm

kadaka (KD Knoebel) wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1095241

Right after dropping a load about the IPCC report being such great peer-reviewed science, after all we’ve learned about all the “grey literature” thrown in from activist groups, with the slanted-for-political-purposes writing and rewriting.

We are talking about Volume 1 of the IPCC Report, “The Physical Science Basis”. It is obvious that your “argument”, with which you dismiss the IPCC Report, is based on hearsay without you bothering to do any fact checking. The assertion about all the “grey literature” allegedly thrown in is not true for this volume. Each chapter of this volume is based on a few hundred papers from peer reviewed scientific journals.
You are free to check for yourself:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

September 29, 2012 7:34 pm

Bart says:
September 29, 2012 at 7:00 pm
So, we have four decades over which solar activity can tell us reliably which direction temperatures are headed, yet you insist that there is no correlation.
Your assertion is much too naive [you should listen to the EE in you] as your other suppositions of solar activity. The climate system has large inertia and will respond [if at all] only to the longer-term evolution of solar activity as given by the century-scale ‘swells’. Even if you allow shorter responses you still find a disconnect and no correlation, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Lockwood-2447-60.pdf
“Here we show that over the past 20 years [by now 25], all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.”
“The thermal capacity of the Earth’s oceans is large and this will tend to smooth out decadal-
scale (and hence solar cycle) variations in global temperatures, but this is not true of centennial variations”
You are way out of your depth here.

george e smith
September 29, 2012 7:54 pm

“””””…..Bart says:
September 29, 2012 at 1:12 pm
Bart says:
September 29, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Cue Leif screaming “It’s an 11 year cycle!” in 3-2-1…
The 11 year cycle is the rectified energy output of the 22 year Hale cycle, which is the period required for the Sun to return to its previous state. “””””
Well Bart, you seem to be full of avant garde definitions. Most people would regard any cycle as the period required to return to the same state; not to some previous different state. So just how does one “rectify” energy ? Are you sugesting, that there are energies where you have to add more energy just to get to NO energy at all ?

September 29, 2012 8:03 pm

Jan P Perlwitz says:
September 29, 2012 at 5:51 pm
“Why are you faulting me? You have to admit that everyone has been piling on me, after I replied to some initial comment here.”
You made the initial and conscious decision to raise a controversial issue concerning greenhouse gasses being the dominant driver of temperature, wrong thread, wrong topic. You haven’t shown any courtesy to the wide variety of opinions here and have been dominantly vocal throughout. It seems as tho even from early on, your intentions were to disrupt what is actually a very interesting topic.
“Why don’t you blame them?”
I actually read Anthony Watts blog regularly and have become familiar with many of the readers and the variety of opinions they have, I think it would have been reasonable for you to a least engage with the readers here on topic instead of jumping in off the deep end, besides there are discussions on greenhouse gasses here too.
“And I haven’t even been able to answer to all of them, which has been very hurtful. And now you pile on me, too, and you promptly triggered another reply by me.”
It does seem that you made an incredible effort to answer (or dismiss) all of them, including being able to post some very unfair deceptive (hurtful?) articles about WUWT on your blog and encourage comments about how unscientific it’s readers are, which after I read prompted my response. (like I’ve nothing better to do! well actually I don’t, so your in luck).
“What can I do?”
Ha! [self snip] /jk

Bart
September 29, 2012 8:03 pm

george e smith says:
September 29, 2012 at 7:24 pm
Well, Geo, that’s the convention. Google, e.g., “counterclockwise positive rotation” for confirmation. You’ll find many references, such as this. For the clock, you point your thumb normal to the clock face coming out of the clock, and the clock hands move opposite your fingers wrapping around it, so the rotation is negative (clockwise).

Henry Clark
September 29, 2012 8:09 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 29, 2012 at 9:03 am
In general, it is rather simple: solar activity has gone down the past several cycles, cosmic rays have gone up, and in contrast: cloud cover has gone down and temperatures have gone up.
To present the actual data in contrast, with readily verifiable links, so some readers may get over naivety about Svalgaard:
Under increased (not decreased) solar activity with more GCR deflection, average cosmic ray flux went down (not up) a substantial 3% from cycle 20 (1964-1976) through cycle 21 and the cycle 22 ending in 1996.
The late 1970s through part of the 1990s, the heart of the anthropogenic global warming scare’s basis, was a time of substantially increased average solar activity (and reduced GCR flux reducing shading cloud cover) compared to the time of the global cooling scare before it. The El Nino in the late 1990s is when global temperatures peaked, being afterwards at most approximately flat to declining subsequently through now (2012), as seen at http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend
Cycle 23 from 1996 to 2008 later corresponded to about 0.5% more average cosmic ray flux than cycle 20, but the magnitude of the smaller difference there contrasts to the preceding. Only very recently has cosmic ray flux started to get much above the levels of cycle 20.
Solar cycle 20: October 1964 to June 1976 = 6180.84 average measured neutron count
Solar cycle 21: June 1976 to September 1986 = 5991.43 average measured neutron count
(showing cycle 21 had 96.9% of the cosmic ray index of cycle 20, 1.032x the inverted cosmic ray count, with increased solar activity deflecting more cosmic rays and decreasing GCR flux)
Solar cycle 22: September 1986 to May 1996 = 5991.56 average measured neutron count
Solar cycle 23: May 1996 to December 2008 = 6213.57 average measured neutron count
No appeal to sunspot number trend claims can truly counter what the neutron monitor data shows for cosmic ray counts having primarily gone down (not up) during the heart of the global warming scare, as expected under GCR theory, for the neutron counts are a more direct indicator of GCR flux.
The preceding figures are shown respectively by:
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=10&startyear=1964&starttime=00%3A00&endday=01&endmonth=06&endyear=1976&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=06&startyear=1976&starttime=00%3A00&endday=01&endmonth=09&endyear=1986&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=09&startyear=1986&starttime=00%3A00&endday=01&endmonth=05&endyear=1996&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=05&startyear=1996&starttime=00%3A00&endday=01&endmonth=12&endyear=2008&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
The fraction of cycle 24 from December 2008 through now is of 6549.4 average neutron count, corresponding to a substantial rise in GCR flux and decline in solar activity relative to cycle 20. However, the past few years are a far cry from the past several decades or the past several solar cycles.
With this having been pointed out repeatedly before, Svalgaard already knows this, but he follows the standard strategy that blatant and shameless repetition of a claim often enough gets many naive people to fall for it (while occasionally throwing in a superficial one-liner against CAGW if posting on WUWT, of never any serious argument against it but getting the naive to auto-trust).
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 29, 2012 at 6:49 pm
http://www.leif.org/research/Cloud-Cover-GCR-Disconnect.png
Debunked before.
GISS-ISCCP junk.
As a prior post of mine earlier in this thread remarked:
There is a series of attempts by the CAGW movement to discredit cosmic rays having an influence ( http://www.sciencebits.com/RealClimateSlurs , http://www.sciencebits.com/HUdebate , etc.), and a particularly common one is to claim such is disproven by divergence between the cloud cover trends reported by the ISCCP at Hansen’s GISS in recent years (unfortunately publicized in climate4you.com graphs using them as a source) and that expected from GCR trends. However, http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/further-attempt-to-falsify-the-svensmark-hypothesis/ illustrates the “accidentally” uncorrected error from change in ISCCP satellite viewing angle occurring then, including a graph showing how other cloud cover trend datasets went in a different direction. 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.
I did a simple quick illustration myself of solar/GCR activity versus high-altitude specific humidity illustrating the matching four corresponding peaks each in data over the 1960s through now:
http://s18.postimage.org/n9nm5glc7/solar_GCRvswatervapor.jpg
The top is from:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericSpecificHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
The bottom is from, inverted:
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=01&startyear=1964&starttime=00%3A00&endday=30&endmonth=08&endyear=2012&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on

Bart
September 29, 2012 8:14 pm

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 29, 2012 at 7:34 pm
“The climate system has large inertia and will respond [if at all] only to the longer-term evolution of solar activity as given by the century-scale ‘swells’.”
Again betraying your lack of experience with dynamic systems. Things start changing immediately. The lag is in the steady state. But, because the inertia is large, the near term response is essentially an integration. And, there you go.
You really ought to be more cautious when venturing outside your area of expertise. You keep making these outlandish statements which, frankly, would subject you to ridicule in knowledgeable circles.

Bart
September 29, 2012 8:36 pm

george e smith says:
September 29, 2012 at 7:54 pm
“Well Bart, you seem to be full of avant garde definitions.”
Pretty standard, actually. Every undergraduate EE knows that full-wave rectification of a sine wave doubles the frequency (halves the period) of the fundamental harmonic. It’s because of the trig identities sin(x)^2 = 0.5 – 0.5*cos(2x), cos(x)^2 = 0.5 + 0.5*cos(2*x).
Leif and I have been through this conversation before. The PSD of the SSN shows four main peaks with periods of 10 years, 10.8 years, 11.8 years, and 131 years. These four peaks are expected when the SSN is a rectification of a process with major harmonics at 20 years, and 23.6 years.
A pretty decent stochastic model of the SSN can be constructed from the absolute value of two lightly damped oscillators driven by wideband random processes (idealized as “white” noise). Simulation of this model produces data similar to what we observe.
Leif should get himself a Kalman Filter expert. Using a model such as this, he could obtain optimal estimates of future solar activity with associated error bounds. But, it’s a subject he doesn’t know much about, so he assumes it is unimportant.

September 29, 2012 8:48 pm

Bart says:
September 29, 2012 at 8:36 pm
The PSD of the SSN shows four main peaks with periods of 10 years, 10.8 years, 11.8 years, and 131 years. These four peaks are expected when the SSN is a rectification of a process with major harmonics at 20 years, and 23.6 years.
Indeed, we have been over this nonsense before. You have the physics all wrong. The solar cycle is not “the absolute value of two lightly damped oscillators driven by wideband random processes (idealized as “white” noise)”.
subject you to ridicule in knowledgeable circles.
Most certainly not. Only in the pseudo-science circles you frequent.

September 29, 2012 8:57 pm

Bart says:
September 29, 2012 at 8:36 pm
A pretty decent stochastic model of the SSN can be constructed from the absolute value of two lightly damped oscillators driven by wideband random processes (idealized as “white” noise).
You m