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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Bart says:
September 29, 2012 at 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:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/nailing-the-solar-activity-global-temperature-divergence-lie/
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, thank you for referring to my original work. I have been explaining ocean inertia to Leif for the last four years. It’s something engineers have no problem with, but computer programmers like Leif and the other climate modellers seem to struggle on. Also, he is in denial of it when it doesn’t suit his argument, and promotes it when it does. In short, he is utterly inconsistent in this matter. Not very scientific is it?
I suggest that you don’t allow him to soak up too much of your time with this kind of horse-play, I need your help on more important projects than banging you head against Leif’s wall of studied misunderstanding.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 29, 2012 at 6:30 am
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
More attempts to confuse. The only consensus is that that aa record needs a small adjustment pre 1957. Lockwood, Finch, Rouillard, Mursula, Martini, Clilverd, Nevanlina to name a few agree that your IHV construction is flawed and the amended geomagnetic values still show the ramp up from the Maunder Minimum. No floor.
The Schrijver paper is model based and directed at TSI, a different argument separate from the geomagnetic record and hardly conclusive.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 30, 2012 at 1:09 am
Lockwood, Finch, Rouillard, Mursula, Martini, Clilverd, Nevanlina to name a few agree that your IHV construction is flawed and the amended geomagnetic values still show the ramp up from the Maunder Minimum.
The consensus is that IHV is correct. You are thinking of older papers before consensus was reached. The geomagnetic data only goes back to the 1840s, so a ‘ramp up’ from the Maunder Minimum is not ‘shown’ in the geomagnetic values.
The Schrijver paper is model based and directed at TSI
The paper estimates the open magnetic flux which is directly related to the geomagnetic record and is very conclusive.
Bart says:
September 30, 2012 at 12:47 am
You don’t realize that is precisely equivalent to what your guys are doing. Except they’re only modeling a single mode
You should take the time to study their paper to see how wrong you are.
vukcevic wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1095493
I apologize that I just dismissed your previous comment, since you indeed had written a little bit more about where you see the contradiction, compared to your first comment. I could have answered to that.
I am going to reply to the supposed paradox now:
This propositions has the underlying assumption greenhouse gases were the only factor that could influence the temperature trend in Central England, at least since 1950. The underlying assumption is false.
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.(see graph in the link above)
Again, this proposition has the underlying assumption that greenhouse gases were the only factor, which could have an effect on the temperature trend in Central England. The underlying assumption is false.
1. No one says greenhouse gases were the only factor that influence the temperature record, except “skeptics” who use this alleged proposition as strawman argument to assert contradictions between empirical data and climate theory where there are none.
Globally averaged, greenhouse gases have become the dominant climate driver, which drives global climate change on a multi-decadal and century time scale, only during the second half of the 20th century. And “dominant” does not mean the only one. Other climate drivers are still important also nowadays. One can’t explain recent global climate variability without greenhouse gases. But one can’t explain it without, e.g., solar forcing and forcing by aerosols, either. And on an interannual time scale, internal natural variability like the one related to ENSO can mask the effect of any of the climate driver to a large degree. As for drivers with a positive forcing, greenhouse gases and solar forcing had about the same magnitude, at the mid of the 20th century, after greenhouse gases had risen from about 280 ppm in pre-industrial times to about 310 ppm in 1950. During historical times, before humans started to blow greenhouse gases and industrial aerosols in the atmosphere in a large scale, solar forcing in combination with natural aerosols (e.g., stratospheric aerosols from volcanic eruptions) were the dominant climate drivers. So, after the Little Ice Age, an explanation of climate change, as it is seen in empirical data, is not possible without taking those natural forcings into account.
2. No one says, the response of the climate system to an increase in the greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere is globally uniform, like when greenhouse gases increase temperature will just increases by the same magnitude at every location on Earth, except “skeptics” who use this alleged proposition as strawman argument to assert contradictions in the climate theory where there are none.
Even though greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been increasing, since the start of the industrialization, and the globally averaged temperature anomaly has been increasing, local and regional changes can be different from the global average. There are regions on Earth where the temperature hasn’t changed much. There are some regions where there has been even some cooling. Globally averaged, the temperature response to a perturbation of the global energy balance due to increasing greenhouse gases, everything else equal, is not very complicated. Impose a positive perturbation, temperature goes up in the troposphere and at surface, and down in the lower stratosphere. However, this is only true for the global average. Such a perturbation also leads to complex dynamical responses of the climate system. So the temperature response can vary a lot between different locations and regions. In a region like Central England, the temperature variability is strongly influenced by the variability of the Northern Hemispheric circulation patterns. Those circulation patterns determine where energy is transported from low latitudes to high latitudes. It is not exactly clear how those change in response to an increase in the greenhouse gas concentration, or to a change in some other climate drivers, for the matter of fact, look like. If there is some shift in the circulation patterns it can have a large effect on specific regions. I also think it is quite possible that changes in the mid- and high-latitude circulation patterns are much more influenced by the variability in the solar activity, e.g., the 11-year solar cycle, through dynamic stratosphere-troposphere coupling, than the globally averaged energy balance. There is some empirical evidence for that.
Additionally, another factor that has a much stronger effect on regional climate variability than on the global climate variability are aerosols, since aerosols have a large spatial and temporal variability. Regions with high industrialization are regions where aerosol effects have played a strong role in climate variability since the 19th century.
In summary, if one wants to understand the temperature record in a small region like in Central England, it needs a careful investigation, because several different factors are in play, which also can vary during different time periods. I haven’t done such an investigation for the Central England region, so I can’t give you a specific answer what caused the specific temperature changes in Central England at different time periods. The linear trend through the whole record is just a mathematical construct. It doesn’t tell you anything about attribution. And the linear trend calculated over the whole period also doesn’t tell you anything whether there has been an acceleration in recent decades or not. Applying a linear fit on a time series will always give you a linear result. At least, one would have to do the linear trend analysis for partial time periods to see whether there are changes between those.
There isn’t any “paradox”, and there isn’t any contradiction of the empirical data from Central England to the theory, which is seen by mainstream climate science as the valid scientific explanation for how the Earth system works. It is only in contradiction to something what you and other “skeptics” have made up in their heads, which seems to be a combination of some distorted fragments of the actual theory and free inventions.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 30, 2012 at 4:53 am
“The consensus is that IHV is correct”
I have only seen the opposite. You will have to provide the evidence to suggest otherwise.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 30, 2012 at 7:04 am
I have only seen the opposite.
Centennial changes in the heliospheric magnetic field and open solar flux: The consensus view from geomagnetic data and cosmogenic isotopes and its implications
Authors: Lockwood, M.; Owens, M. J.
Publication: Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 116, Issue A4, CiteID A04109 , 2011:
Svalgaard and Cliver (2010) recently reported a consensus between the various reconstructions of the heliospheric field over recent centuries. This is a significant development because, individually, each has uncertainties introduced by instrument calibration drifts, limited numbers of observatories, and the strength of the correlations employed. However, taken collectively, a consistent picture is emerging. We here show that this consensus extends to more data sets and methods than reported by Svalgaard and Cliver, including that used by Lockwood et al. (1999), when their algorithm is used to predict the heliospheric field rather than the open solar flux.
richardscourtney wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1095471
That is what Mr. Courtney asserts.
And here an actual quote from the IPCC Report 2007:
The widespread change detected in temperature observations of the surface (Sections 9.4.1, 9.4.2, 9.4.3), free atmosphere (Section 9.4.4) and ocean (Section 9.5.1), together with consistent evidence of change in other parts of the climate system (Section 9.5), strengthens the conclusion that greenhouse gas forcing is the dominant cause of warming during the past several decades. This combined evidence, which is summarised in Table 9.4, is substantially stronger than the evidence that is available from observed changes in global surface temperature alone (Figure 3.6).
(from Section 9.7, “Combining Evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change”, of the IPCC Report 2007, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-7.html, bold emphasis by me)
So much for Mr. Courtney’s falsehood, he, I suspect deliberately, disseminates in his statement quoted above.
After the falsehood above by Mr. Courtney, he seems to quote something that is coming from somewhere else. However, Mr. Courtney omits to provide a proof of source for the quote. There must be a reason for it.
The quote is as follows:
The nearest that any IPCC Report comes to that is in its AR4 (2007) where it says in its Chapter 2.4 titled “Attribution of climate change”
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.[8] This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations” (Figure 2.5). {WGI 9.4, SPM}
I ask Mr. Courtney, What is the source of this quote?
There is no Chapter 2.4 in the IPCC Report 2007 titled “Attribution of climate change”. Chapter 2 is about “Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing”, and Section 2.4 is titled “Aerosols”:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2.html
Figure 2.5 shows “Hemispheric monthly mean N2O mole fractions (ppb)…”:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3-3.html
Although Mr. Courtney disseminates falsehoods about the content of the IPCC Report 2007 and provides a quote with statements about a chapter in the IPCC Report that is about something else than what is claimed in the quote, he asserts to read the scientific literature. Really!
Mr. Courtney also seems to increasingly lose his countenance.
May I deconstruct the Perlwitz? Thank you:
Perlwitz says: “Globally averaged, greenhouse gases have become the dominant climate driver, which drives global climate change on a multi-decadal and century time scale, only during the second half of the 20th century.”
Fact: there is no empirical, testable scientific evidence to support that baseless assertion. It is only an assertion, and it has no scientific evidence supporting it.
Next, Perlwitz asserts: “No one says greenhouse gases were the only factor that influence the temperature record, except “skeptics” who use this alleged proposition as strawman argument to assert contradictions between empirical data and climate theory where there are none.”
Totally wrong. In fact, the opposite is true: there is no scientific evidence showing that CO2 has any effect on global temperature. However, there is ample scientific evidence showing that temperature changes cause changes in CO2. As usual, Perlwitz is conflating cause and effect. Further, Perlwitz insists on labeling his baseless assertion as “theory”, when it is only a conjecture; an opinion.
Finally, Perlwitz continually uses quotation marks around scientific skeptics. Skeptics are the only honest kind of scientists, so Perlwitz attempts to denigrate honesty. Perlwitz is a climate alarmist propagandist. He has no scientific evidence showing that CO2 has any effect on global temperatures. But his employment depends upon his baseless assertions. So he emits them here, hoping to convince the credulous. Readers should decide for themselves whether Perlwitz is a climate alarmist propagandist, or an honest scientist.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
“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.
From that comment and others you have made here, it is very apparent that you do not understand what “scientific substance” is.
When I was at university, we had a sign on the wall of the grad students bullpen that read “The Plural of Anecdote is not Data”. Statements like that of yours is why: To remind budding researchers that the scientific method is not some “preponderance of facts” exercise. People who forgot that would tend to do what you have done here. You have made an incomplete list of misleadingly stated and often false “facts” from which you proceed to draw an illogical conclusion. That is not how science is done. It is how politics is done.
Similarly, above the door to my first Physics class lecture hall was a bronze plaque that carried a quote from French polymath Henri Poincaré:
“Science is built up of facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house.”
Perhaps if your educationally formative years had provided such influences, you would not be comfortable saying such apallingly unscientific things as this:
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.
Clearly false. If there is such a thing as a theory of climate, then that theory can only be tested on the whole. It is not a bad idea to test the individual components while constructing a theory, but that is not at all sufficient. The theory must make robust and comprehensive testable predictions. And it must pass those tests. ‘Climate science’ does not do this. It could. It does not.
Instead, it blusters and bluffs as you do here. The two explanations for this are ignorance and deceit. You get offended when I pick. How about you tell us which (both?) it is?
Friends:
I am addressing this to you all although it answers falsehoods from Jan PP. I write because the subject is of central importance to all the issues which Jan PP has avoided.
In his post at September 30, 2012 at 12:13 am Jan PP replies to my statement saying
by saying
Before explaining the issue, I point out that Jan PP claims I have made “falsehoods” but cites none because I have made none. Also, Jan PP has not replied to this point about “committed warming” at all in this thread or – to my knowledge – anywhere. The issue is as follows.
The IPCC AR4 WG1 Report says in several places that
The succinct quotation I have provided here is from Section TS.5.1 titled ‘Understanding Near-Term Climate Change’. It can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-5-1.html
The statement is considered so important a prediction that the IPCC bolds the text I have quoted.
Emissions have fallen “within the range of the SRES marker scenarios” and there has been “absence of large changes in volcanic or solar forcing”. So,
the clear prediction is 0.2°C per decade over the two decades starting at 2000.
More than half the period has elapsed and no discernible warming has happened. Indeed, the trends in global temperature data sets have been near flat or negative.
Clearly, the “Committed climate change” “of about 0.1°C per decade” “due to atmospheric composition in the year 2000” has NOT happened over the last decade. And the additional “expected” warming of 0.1°C per decade from “emissions” since 2000 has not happened, either.
This is a lot of missing “committed climate change” over the last decade. It is equivalent to a quarter of the global warming of 0.8°C observed over the entire twentieth century.
However, it could be argued that the IPCC prediction was for the trend over the first two decades after 2000 and a rise in temperature over the latter decade could result in the predicted “committed warming”. Such a rise would be extraordinary and is probably a physical impossibility because of the thermal capacity of the oceans. Such a rise in global temperature could occur, for example,
(a) by an instantaneous rise of more than 0.4°C now which is sustained until year 2020 (this instantaneous rise would more than half the global warming of 0.8°C observed over the entire twentieth century)
or
(b) a linear rise in global temperature from now of more than 0.8°C before the end of 2020 (this rise would be similar to the entire the global warming of 0.8°C observed over the entire twentieth century).
The “committed warming” predicted in the AR4 for the first two decades of this century has disappeared from the first of those decades: it is an ex-parrot. That is not a “falsehood” but is an empirical fact. And JanPP is spouting yet another of his lies when he says addressing the issue would “just would be a repetition of [his] previous replies”.
Richard
From Jan P Perlwitz on September 30, 2012 at 7:40 am:
That’s because he’s referring to the Synthesis Report, which does have “2.4 Attribution of climate change”.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-4.html
I found that out in ten seconds by Googling “ipcc attribution of climate change”, on dial-up.
Perhaps someday you can achieve a similar level of online computing proficiency, and can successfully avoid looking like a screaming idiot hurling baseless accusations at innocent people.
JJ wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1095760
I’m not going to dignify your ad hominem with which you have come up in response to factual statements by me, by replying to it.
You write:
Says who? You? The Commission for Normatives of Theory Testing?
Like global temperature increase, increase in ocean heat content, melting of the ice in the Arctic and in the Antarctic etc. as system responses to an increasing greenhouse gas concentration?
The fact that the catastrophes predicted in the 1980’s have shown no sign of eventuating will lead most to suspect that Hanson’s empire is built on quicksand. You can’t fool all of the people all of the time. A cacophony of lies will not serve except to disgrace the liars.
And Leif, the abstract for the paper you cited above contains the text “Steinhilber et al. (2010) have recently deduced that the near-Earth IMF at the end of the Maunder minimum was 1.80 ± 0.59 nT which is considerably lower than the revised floor of 4nT proposed by Svalgaard and Cliver. [snip] Hence the average open solar flux during the Maunder minimum is found to have been 11% of its peak value during the recent grand solar maximum. “
There appears to be no real difference between Perlwitz and Lewandowsky.
JanP
Like global temperature increase,
REPLY: FLAT FOR 15 YEARS
increase in ocean heat content,
REPLY: ARGO BUOYS SHOW DECLINE
melting of the ice in the Arctic
REPLY: LIKE IT DID IN THE PAST BEFORE CO2 CONCENTRATIONS INCREASED
and in the Antarctic etc.
REPLY: THE ANTARCTIC JUST SET A RECORD HIGH FOR ICE
as system responses to an increasing greenhouse gas concentration?
REPLY: Of your four points, all four are wrong!
Jan P Perlwitz says:
September 30, 2012 at 6:49 am
……………
Dr. Perlwitz,
Thank you for your very long answer, but I will summarize it as:
1.the CET’s 350 year long summer temperature record has no rising trend because there is something in the Central England region operating that just happens to equal and reverse any GHG effect since the 1860s.
2. the CET’s 350 year long winter temperature record has uniform rising trend because there is something in the Central England region operating that just happens to equal and reverse any GHG effect since the 1860s .
Since as it happens that you never investigated the CET, you have no idea what that something could be.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1095703
Dr. Perlwitz, thanks again and I really do appreciate your sense of humor.
I’d like to congratulate Dr P on his last few responses which actually have some substance to them versus the cat and mouse game he was playing earlier. Doesn’t make him right, but he’s at least engaging in a discussion.
richardscourtney asserts in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1095773
Is it? The temperature anomaly averaged over the last decade is 0.22 K (in the GISS surface temperature analysis) higher than in the decade before. The average temperature anomaly over the last decade (1991-2000) of the previous century is 0.331 +/- 0.133K, the average temperature anomaly of the first decade of this century (2001-2010) is 0.554 +/- 0.061K.
Dr P,
Your response to Vuckevic boils down to redefining the word “dominant” and admitting that natural variability can overwhelm CO2’s effects and, to defining CET as regional and thus not necessarily representative of global temperatures.
Thank you for the first admission.
As for the second matter, could you please comment on the work of Keith Briffa who presented a handful of trees from Siberia as being representative of the temperature of the whole world over the past 1000 years?
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 30, 2012 at 4:53 am
“You should take the time to study their paper to see how wrong you are.”
There is more than one way to skin a cat, Leif, and more than one way to expand the dynamics of a PDE in terms of its eigenstates, and represent them in a set of ODE state equations. Whether the chosen states mimic the evolution of something resembling a physically distinct variable, or some superposition of them, does not really matter. All that matters is that the system description be “output equivalent” to within some degree of accuracy. In many practical problems, it is advantageous to adopt a “restricted complexity” approach, in which variables with limited observabillty, and therefore low sensitivity to the output, are not actively estimated in the filter. Taking such things into consideration, my approach is precisely equivalent to what your guys are doing, only more robust, and likely to yield better results. Recognizing the modulation of particular harmonics with respect to one another opens up an avenue for minimizing the dimension of the state vector, with attendant benefits in accuracy and robust performance.
There are a number of other relatively simple things your fellows could do to dramatically improve their results. But, since you are apparently convinced of my technical inadequacy, phfft – let them find out for themselves. The history and successful application of empirical modeling for such problems is vast. If it didn’t work, many of the practical technologies you take for granted wouldn’t work, either. So, jump up on that high horse if it pleases you – Rosinante makes a fine mount.
In any case, the question at hand is, are the SSN data strongly correlated with terrestrial temperatures? I think Roger “Tallbloke” and others have amply demonstrated that they are. In fact, denying it requires a special kind of hubris in which you distrust even the information provided by your own eyes. There are those who bend the hypothesis to support the facts, and those who bend the facts to support the hypothesis. The alarmist cohort is decidedly of the latter persuasion – witness Perlwitz’ pretzel-like contortions in this thread. You are choosing, in this instance, to follow that path as well. Well, rotsa’ ruck with that.
tallbloke says:
September 30, 2012 at 1:08 am
“I suggest that you don’t allow him to soak up too much of your time with this kind of horse-play…”
It is tiresome. It’s amazing how people will rationalize to avoid confronting what is sitting right in front of their eyes. Younger scientists and engineers tend to get wrapped up in their equations, and start to believe they are more real than what their senses tell them. In fields such as mine, where getting things wrong can cost lives, you always in the end have to be able to perform sanity checks based on what you can see and discover directly by looking at the data. Then, you can be assured that the heavy machinery of the mathematics and algorithms is working properly. Climate scientists (and, ahem… others) have the luxury that there is no such harsh and immediate penalty waiting to exact a price if they get things wrong. And, they can always slough off their inattention to detail with a casual “oh, we were just following the best science at the time.”
Anyway, nice job.
pochas says:
September 30, 2012 at 8:45 am
And Leif, the abstract for the paper you cited above contains the text “Steinhilber et al. (2010) have recently deduced that the near-Earth IMF at the end of the Maunder minimum was 1.80 ± 0.59 nT which is considerably lower than the revised floor of 4nT proposed by Svalgaard and Cliver. [snip] Hence the average open solar flux during the Maunder minimum is found to have been 11% of its peak value during the recent grand solar maximum. “
There is disagreement on the Maunder Minimum flux, but that does not detract from the agreement covering the interval where we have actual data [rather than modeled inference] namely 1835-2012, which was the issue [if IHV and IDV were correct or not].
The low value for the Maunder Minimum is based on this Figure from their paper: http://www.leif.org/research/Lockwood-Flux-MM.png which shows the anomalous Steinhilber data point [lower left]. In a recent paper the same authors, Owens and Lockwood [JGR VOL. 117, A04102, doi:10.1029/2011JA017193, 2012] conclude: “that the CME rate observed during recent solar cycle minima is also the CME rate that existed throughout the Maunder Minimum” which in turn suggests that the magnetic field was also the same.
Mr Perlwitz:
September 30, 2012 at 7:40 am you ask and assert
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2.html
I answer, the chapter and statement which you dispute exist are in the AR4 Synthesis Report and can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-4.html
Your quote from Chapter 9.7 is correct. Thankyou for bringing it to my attention.
See, it is easy to learn if provided with information and to thank others when they provide it. You would start to be a scientist if you were to do the same.
Importantly, it would have helped if you had cited your quotation (and provided the link as you now have) so we could have discussed your interpretation (i.e. exaggeration) of it.
The IPCC says and you cite
You assert that the quotation you have now provided equates to your statement at September 29, 2012 at 12:35 pm. saying
You may be right that the IPCC intended what you say, but that is not what they say. And what you say is already falsified by nature.
Any effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gases as a climate driver has been overwhelmed by other climate driver(s) over the last decade and a dominant effect cannot be overwhelmed.
Richard
Jan P Perlwitz says:
September 30, 2012 at 9:03 am
“The temperature anomaly averaged over the last decade is 0.22 K (in the GISS surface temperature analysis) higher than in the decade before”
But, it hasn’t moved, while CO2 continues to rise. You might make points with such a gambit in a forum of average lay people. Here, it makes you look ridiculous and shady.
Bart says:
September 30, 2012 at 9:12 am
Recognizing the modulation of particular harmonics with respect to one another opens up an avenue for minimizing the dimension of the state vector, with attendant benefits in accuracy and robust performance.
The problem is that the Sun is not a dampened oscillator in the sense you use the term. But I see that reality cannot sway you, so will let that rest.
In any case, the question at hand is, are the SSN data strongly correlated with terrestrial temperatures? I think Roger “Tallbloke” and others have amply demonstrated that they are.
If we go that route, recent work has shown that there has been no long-term trend in the SSN the last 300 years, I believe some people are claiming that there is an upward trend in temperatures. On a shorter time scale, the solar indicators and temperatures vary in opposite directions as we have discussed.
richardscourtney says:
September 30, 2012 at 9:18 am
“…a dominant effect cannot be overwhelmed…”
That pithy tautological admonition belongs in a book of quotes somewhere. Or, high up on the wall of the reconstituted GISS after the fall.