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.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 1, 2012 at 9:39 am
“Nothing about IHV being erroneous.
—–
The senile grandpa statements keep coming. Nevanlinna has always been in complete opposition to your erroneous IHV construction.
———
You have not demonstrated the truth of your statement that Nevanlinna forced me to “adjust your own derived method of measurement because it was found erroneous by your peers”.
Nevanlinna’s papers suffer from the same problem as aa, because he appends his data to the low end of aa. What matters is the acceptance of IHV/IDV of the geomagnetic community. Here is an excerpt from a recent IAGA publication endorsing our work http://www.leif.org/research/IHV-IDV-Indices-IAGA.png
So, now that we have disposed of your false claim about Nevanlinna, you can go on the your next false claim, please.
I note that you are stooping to the same level as Bart. Very telling, don’t you think?
Nothing about erroneous?? I have at least three occasions where your peers in print have called your data and methods erroneous. Let us first look at the full Nevanlinna account then move on.
The full text reads:
Mayaud’saa-index belongs to the K-index family (Ran-
garajan, 1989). It is determined from two hemispherically
antipodal observatories in England and Australia, giving per-
haps the simplest global index free from local time varia-
tions. The importance of the aa-series as a proxy tool in
solar-terrestrial studies lies in its long duration (since 1868
until present) and in the high degree of homogeneity (Clil-
verd et al., 2002). Note, however, the criticism introduced
by Svalgaard et al. (2003) concerning the secular trend of the
aa-series in the 20th century, that have been claimed to be
erroneous. Recent proofs of the usefulness of the aa-index
series have been given, for example, by Cliver et al. (1998),
Stamper et al. (1999), Lockwood et al. (1999), and Lock-
wood (2003). They utilized the aa-index series in studies
of long-term trends in the solar flux and solar irradiance in
connection with the Earth’s global temperature changes.
Nevanlinna is a long time fan of the aa record and when using the term erroneous he says “that have been claimed”. Have is plural and the aa record is singular so he is clearly directing this at Svalgaard et al.
Mursula and Martini have produced many papers showing the erroneous data and methods with your IHV(2004) construction. In 2005 they write:
The effect of calibrating the sampling change in the
way described above leads to larger values for the
centennial increase. By far the largest relative effect
to the centennial change in IHV-raw due to calibrat-ing the sampling change was found for CLH/FRD
where the increase was only 6% (Mursula et al., 2004,
see Table II in) before calibration but 27% after cal-ibration.
This change is even larger in IHV-cor in-dices which was 6% before and 30% after calibration.
It is interesting to note that, before calibration, the CLH/FRD IHV series was exceptional in
depicting by far the smallest increase of all stations
and that, based on this exceptionally weak increase
at CLH/FRD, (Svalgaard, 2004) erroneously claimed
that there was no increase in geomagnetic activity
during the last 100 years.
I dont think it gets much clearer than this. They attack the data sampling and also the use of the cherry picked mid latitude stations in your 2004 paper (can we get a copy of your 2004 paper?). They like others correct your erroneous data and find that the IHV now more closely follows the aa geomagnetic data. The centennial trend is observed, no flat floor.
In 2009 Mursula, Usoskin and Yakovchouk devote an entire paper to your erroneous use of the rY data where you attempt to iron flat another record (SSN). While the Ry record is related to IHV they do state the corrections needed to your IHV(2004) values.
based on the geomagnetic aa index it was
derived (Lockwood et al., 1999) that the strength of the
heliospheric magnetic field was more than doubled during
the last century, in agreement with a solar magnetic field
model and the observed sunspot numbers (Solanki et al.,
2000, 2002). The increasing centennial trend found in
solar and geomagnetic activity is further supported by
studies using cosmogenic isotopes ( Usoskin et al., 2003;
Solanki et al., 2004 ).
Despite this consistency, some doubt was raised on the
centennial increase in geomagnetic activity. Introducing a
new index of geomagnetic activity, the so-called IHV
(inter-hour variability) index, Svalgaard et al. (2004)
claimed that there is no long-term increase during the
20th century. However, it was shown soon thereafter
that when the effect of the changing data sampling
method in the early century is taken into account, the
IHV indices of all studied stations show a clearly
increasing centennial trend ( Mursula and Martini, 2006).
The centennial increase was recently further verified using
a novel Ah index which is a closer proxy than IHV to the
traditional K-based indices like Kp/Ap, and aa (Mursula
and Martini, 2007a, b ; Martini and Mursula, 2008).
They later go to say in relation to rY:
In this paper we examine the method used by
Svalgaard (2007) and demonstrate that the rY values do
not indicate that the observed Rz
values are under-estimated. (In this paper we concentrate on Wolf
numbers, leaving the analysis of Rg
values for a separate study.)
Rather, the results obtained by Svalgaard (2007)
are largely induced by the arbitrary and erroneous
detrending of the rY series, which enhances the sunspot
activity based on the rY series in the 19th century relative
to more recent times. We also show that the relation
between annually averaged rY values and sunspots is
greatly seasonally dependent, so also inherently inhomo-
geneous. Therefore, claims of need for a significant
revision of sunspot activity in the 19th century are not
founded.
So I dont think we can do away with the “erroneous” term. There are many hundreds of pages collected over a decade that need to be properly collated in relation to your 2004 IHV claims. I will do this and present the results in due course which will hopefully shine some light for the general public, who for the most part in this forum take your rhetoric as fact.
You have been trying to iron flat the geomagnetic, TSI and SSN records to support your claim ” The Sun doesn’t do it”. This is agenda driven science at its worst.
Leif Svalgaard wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1097585
Look at the bright side. Now the number of things you don’t know is Infinite minus 1.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 1, 2012 at 7:14 pm
Fine. Don’t take my advice. Your loss.
The old guard are still clinging onto their outdated “solar crap shoot” theory that is incapable of predicting future solar cycles. There are methods using oscillating principles that very effectively hindcast past SSN and the longer Holocene proxy record, so far these methods are nailing SC24. I have produced a 200 year solar cycle forecast based on these principles that is at present right on track, the rest will be judged by future researchers.
The solar powerwave once understood is a great example of a solar oscillator.
A word of warning to Bart. While Vuk is a likable fellow, I must point out his equation was predicting a high Hathaway style SC24 in the early days.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 1, 2012 at 9:04 pm
As I stated at: October 1, 2012 at 5:30 pm
“An advanced method would be able to do a lot more…”
Vuk’s on the right track. But, these are not wholly deterministic cycles. Incorporating the states of the oscillations into a Kalman filter, with modeled process noise allowing for small stochastic amplitude and phase modulation, and running it backwards and then forwards over the known data to prime it, would create a robust predictor with propagated covariance to provide error bars. It is essential that a sufficiently full and accurate modal expansion be used for the state space – single mode models won’t cut it – and system identification methods need to be used to determine accurate covariance weighting parameters.
Can we drop the gratuitous insults? It does not good for anyone’s arguments. Mostly it makes the person tossing insults look childish and a bit dim. I doubt that is really what you wanted as an effect…
Geoff Sharp says:
October 1, 2012 at 9:04 pm
“The solar powerwave once understood is a great example of a solar oscillator.”
I recall discussing this on other threads. I firmly agree with those who say the only way gravity can influence things is through tidal forces. And, the tidal forces, while not absolutely infinitesimal, are quite small. I think it is a long shot.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 1, 2012 at 8:43 pm
Let us first look at the full Nevanlinna account then move on.
“Note, however, the criticism introduced by Svalgaard et al. (2003) concerning the secular trend of the aa-series in the 20th century, that have been claimed to be erroneous.”
Nevanlinna is a long time fan of the aa record and when using the term erroneous he says “that have been claimed”. Have is plural and the aa record is singular so he is clearly directing this at Svalgaard et al.
He is saying that we [Svalgaard et al.] claimed that aa is erroneous. This has been accepted by later workers. Nevanlinna thanks me for useful comments on his manuscript, so both he and I knew what was being said and meant.
Mursula and Martini have produced many papers showing the erroneous data and methods with your IHV(2004) construction.
“The effect of calibrating the sampling change in the way described above leads to larger values for the centennial increase.”
This was discovered by us and we made M&M aware of this. In paragraph [50] of http://www.leif.org/research/2007JA012437.pdf we note “At our urging, Mursula and Martini [2006] came to the same conclusion”
I dont think it gets much clearer than this.
As you can see you got this backwards.
They attack … the use of the cherry picked mid latitude stations in your 2004 paper
There was no cherry picking. Our original paper was using CLH/FRD because there was a year of overlap [1957] between CLH and FRD allowing firm cross-calibration. And one should only use mid latitude stations in any case.
(can we get a copy of your 2004 paper?).
It is #130 on http://www.leif.org/research/
It may have escaped your attention that the 2004 paper is obsolete and has been replaced by http://www.leif.org/research/2007JA012437.pdf
IHV now more closely follows the aa geomagnetic data.
We show that IHV is a very good approximation to aa, provided that aa is corrected first [by 3 nT before 1957].
The centennial trend is observed
There is, of course, no ‘centennial trend’, aa and IHV increased until mid-century then decreased again back to where they were a hundred years ago.
no flat floor.
Again, you have this completely wrong. The ‘floor’ is the value when all solar activity has stopped. This has only occurred twice [in 1901-1902 and 2008-2009]. Even a small amount of activity at solar minimum increases aa and IHV above the floor value.
In 2009 Mursula, Usoskin and Yakovchouk devote an entire paper to your erroneous use of the rY data where you attempt to iron flat another record (SSN). While the Ry record is related to IHV they do state the corrections needed to your IHV(2004) values.
Their paper is moot as the 2004 paper has been superseded by the 2007 paper.
They later go to say in relation to rY:
Rather, the results obtained by Svalgaard (2007) are largely induced by the arbitrary and erroneous detrending of the rY series
They don’t know what they are talking about. rY should be detrended as shown by Cnossen et al. (2012). http://www.leif.org/EOS/2012JA017555.pdf
They write “[38] We also estimate changes in the Sq amplitude from 1910 to 2010 based on the scaling relations we found. This gives increases of 2.0–2.4, 3.0–4.7, and 1.3–2.0 nT, or 7.2–9.2, 6.2–6.8, and 6.3–6.8% in the northward, eastward, and downward Sq amplitude components, respectively. These values are slightly larger than the average upward trend of 1.3 nT/century reported by Macmillan and Droujinina [2007] or the 2.45 nT/century increase in the eastward component reported by Svalgaard [2009], but smaller than the trends of 4.8–8 nT/century reported by Elias et al. [2010]. Bearing in mind that actual trends are likely to vary from place to place, it appears that changes in dipole moment could make a significant contribution to long-term changes in Sq amplitude.
[39] Svalgaard [2009] noted that in particular the eastward component of the daily Sq variation is a useful indicator of solar activity, and may be used as a tool to calibrate the long-term sunspot number record. Clearly, if geomagnetic data are to be used in this way, the effects of the decreasing dipole moment on Sq variation must be considered and corrected for.
BTW, at the SSN meeting last May, Mursula gave a paper “From Saul to Paul” retracting his misguided ideas about the rY correction [in face of Cnossen’s paper].
in relation to your 2004 IHV claims. I will do this
The 2004 paper has been obsolete for 5 years and you will only make an even bigger fool of yourself by doing that.
You have been trying to iron flat the geomagnetic, TSI and SSN records to support your claim ” The Sun doesn’t do it”.
Since there is now widespread support for our work [the ‘consensus’], it would seem that your violent opposition “is agenda driven nonsense at its worst”.
JanP;
Wow, that’s some response to richardscourtney. What do I have to do to get that kind of detailed response? I observe that you began arguing that GHG’s are currently the dominant factor in climate, and have come full circle to argue that the lack of warming over the past 15 years or so is a product of natural variability drowning out the warming signal. Is “dominant” the word you wish to stick to?
I’d appreciate an answer as well to my other questions, which I reproduce here for your reference:
1. If you dismiss the CET as being regional, you must also dismiss Keith Briffa’s tree ring study which is based on a few trees from Siberia. Yes or no?
2. As you first claimed that IPCC AR4 WG1 was a good representation of your views on the science, but you now claim not in all cases, what is your position on WG1 Chapter 2, Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing, which clearly states that of 14 factors Level of Scientific Understanding is “Low” or “Very Low” for 9 of them, and only a single one is well understood. Do you agree with them on this? Yes or no?
3. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the various models in the IPCC ensemble use similar forcing values for all factors except aerosol forcing. For aerosol forcing, the values used diverge wildly from model to model, but the end result is that the model outputs converge. This demonstrates that aerosol forcing is not being estimated by the scientists or the data, but is being used as a fudge factor to bring the model results into closer agreement with one another. Yes or No?
Bart;
Why should I? It’s not my job
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You claim to have a certain skill. You can either demonstrate the skill or the audience draws their own conclusions regarding your claim.
davidmhoffer says:
October 1, 2012 at 10:37 pm
Draw whatever conclusion you like. I’ve given evidences. I’ve explained with extraordinary patience. You can look up everything I’ve told you. You can do the analysis yourself with the information I’ve provided. If you cannot, or refuse to, please tell me why I should care.
BTW – I’ve tried to understand why you got so worked up over my comparing Leif to a befuddled old man because of his apparent inability to follow a linear line of argument. I figure, either you’ve had to deal with a tragedy in your family (who hasn’t?) or you think I was making fun of Leif for being old. Well, I’m at least as old as Leif, and if I’m one of the “lucky” ones, I’ll end up in a Home somewhere soon enough, drooling and expiring in a cloud of effluvia myself. We all face that. Death is part of Life. You deal with it, and you move on. It’s not going to stop just because you tiptoe around it. For the record, my Grandad and I were very close. But, he’d have cuffed me one if I’d gone all mawkish on him.
JJ wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1097616
Then your conclusion from the “Zero” trend is logically wrong. The warming is a physical process. Trend is just a statistical measure. Not being able to get a statistically significant trend over a time period allows only the conclusion that a trend could not be measured, and a warming is not detectable. Non detectability of warming over a time period is not the same as absence of warming, because you can’t logically exclude the possibility, from just looking at the data from the limited time period, that the warming is only masked by noise and the trend becomes statistically significant when the time period is longer. You can’t have warming and no warming at the same time. A statement and its negation can’t be true at the same time.
BTW: Global warming isn’t just atmospheric warming. Global warming is heat accumulation in the troposphere, oceans, land, cryosphere, due to a perturbed radiative balance by greenhouse gases. Tropospheric warming isn’t the most important aspect of this heat accumulation. Heat accumulation in the oceans is, since most of the additional energy from the perturbed radiation balance goes directly into the oceans.
You cite me:
And my request was to provide the scientific arguments for what makes the difference between the 16 years back then and the recent 15 years of “flat” temperatures, so that recent 15 years were evidence that global warming “stopped”, although back then it was just a temporary wobble due to internal natural variability.
Your answer:
It only requests that the responded accepts that there had been a statistically significant temperature increase from a diagnostic point of view. No agreement with respect to attribution or the whole theory required. Anyone who claims global warming “stopped”, “ceased” has accepted such an increase. Something that hasn’t been there in the first hand, can’t stop.
The null hypothesis? Your statement presumes that there was a predefined Null hypotheses, the one and only one. Who has determined what the Null hypothesis is? God? I don’t believe in god.
The Null hypothesis is always a matter of a subjective choice in science. There is no such thing as an objective Null hypothesis. Where should such an objective Null hypothesis come from?
Of course, you are free to have any arbitrary opinion about this. Like about anything and its opposite.
However, the assertion is usual the one that the recent 15 years of “flat” temperatures scientifically proved that there was no global warming, or falsified the climate theory, which predicts global warming. And this is a positive statement, not just a speculation it could be this or that. The ones who make such a statement have the burden of proof, or at least the burden to make a scientific argument.
What are the falsification criteria for an asteroid trajectory? Uncertainty bounds. What if the asteroid trajectory moves outside those bounds? Does this outright falsify the whole astrophysics or theory of relativity?
The question is not precise enough. You have to think about what exactly is “the theory”. Generally speaking, I say if the temperature behaves in a way that is not explainable within the current theory, then my theory has a serious problem. But not every divergence of the temperature from the model predictions would fulfill that. Model predictions are not the theory. Models are not the theory. Such a divergence could come from anthropogenic emission scenarios, which could be different in reality compared to what was prescribed for the model predictions. Not a problem of the models, not a problem of the theory. Or, for instance, we enter a period with massive volcanic explosions, blowing large amounts of reflecting aerosols in the stratosphere, which have a strong cooling effect. Real world forcing would be quite different from what was prescribed in the model simulations, temperature would diverge downward from the predictions. This would not falsify the theory, since it is fully explainable within the theory. If it wasn’t I wouldn’t do it right now. It only would falsify those specific model simulations, caused by the different boundary conditions, compared to the real world forcing.
So, when we validate the model simulations and compare real world data to the model simulations, such effects (e.g., the divergence of solar forcing from what was prescribed for the future projections in the simulations) have always be taken into consideration before jumping to conclusions.
Having said that, if there is still no statistically significant temperature increase (after correcting for any divergence in the forcings between real world, e.g., solar forcing, and what was prescribed in the models) in the year 2020, then I would have to scratch my head, and think about whether something is seriously wrong with my understanding of the climate system. It doesn’t mean the whole theory must be wrong. There could be some aspects wrong. I wouldn’t jump to conclusions, like anthropogenic greenhouse gases weren’t climate drivers. I very much doubt radiation and atmosphere physics is wrong with respect to that. My best, but I don’t think likely candidate for the possibility causing such a flat trend are modes of ocean variability that we haven’t understood or even known yet, making natural variability larger than we thought. All the physics with respect to climate drivers could still be right in this case, nevertheless it would mean we have some serious lack of understanding regarding important aspects of the climate system.
There is no such prediction that the increase must be exact 0.2 K/decade.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 1, 2012 at 9:55 pm
Since there is now widespread support for our work [the ‘consensus’], it would seem that your violent opposition “is agenda driven nonsense at its worst”.
I think you might be getting a little carried away. By revising down your IHV and IDV values and the Lockwood camp moving theirs up slightly there is some consensus between these two groups only from now to 1900. Lockwood is still very much in doubt of the floor value as is Steinhilber, Usoskin, Solanki, Cliver, Clilverd, Mursula, Martini, Nevanlinna etc to name a few. The consensus for last century which is now revealed in your own work is that the HMF baseline values rose from 1900 to 1960 then dipped, rose again to 1990 and then began its decline. If the PDO is taken into consideration the temperature trend follows nicely.
There is still considerable work that needs to be performed on the IHV data before 1900.
davidmhoffer wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1097723
Being as noisy as him? Calling me “a liar” as often as he does? 😉
No, that is not quite correct. I said “climate driver”. Did I say “factor” anywhere? I doubt it. “Factor” is not specific enough. If I said “factor” at some point I misspoke. Usually I say “climate driver”. Greenhouse gases have become the dominant climate driver on a multi-decadal and centuries time-scale. Internal natural variability is not a climate driver, it’s a factor/aspect in the climate system, but not a driver. A climate driver is an external forcing. Internal variability belongs to what is driven. So there is no contradiction, and I still say what I said before.
First you have to show me that he claimed a few trees from Siberia were representative for the global (or Northern Hemisphere) climate. If he did I would like to see his argument for why this was the case, because I don’t see what argument could be made for it. Did he? Where?
Yes, I do. I understand this as a statement about the understanding of the physics or chemistry behind it. It doesn’t mean that the uncertainty range of the forcings, from a purely diagnostic point of view, is minus Infinite to plus Infinite.
I’m not going to reply to that. I have argued about this in more than one comment, and the arguments had progressed already. Now you just jump back to the initial assertion. The thread has become recursive here. I’m not playing this game.
One of the marvels of WUWT is that one is encouraged to examine questions such as, “Is Gloopy Soup an Oscillator?”
I think it is really; the heat is the forcing element, encouraging bubbling, and gravity the restoring force, as it pushes soup into the place the bubble came from. Although it comes to a natural end, when all the soup has boiled off. As our Sun will one fine aeon.
As for reeds blowing in the wind (getting a bit Biblical here) – plainly an oscillating rod, prodded intermittently by a varying wind.
And: we must distinguish between being wrong on the one hand, and lying (intending to deceive) on the other. I am often wrong, but attempt never to lie,
Mr Perlwitz:
I am writing to reply to your extremely long but evasive and self-indulgent missive at October 1, 2012 at 6:27 pm.
In this thread you have lied again and again. At October 1, 2012 at 2:01 am I wrote to explain some of those lies, and at October 1, 2012 at 8:07 am you wrote a diatribe in supposed rebuttal of the facts I had stated. My response to that was at October 1, 2012 at 2:40 pm and it began by saying;
And your reply (to which I am responding) is a ridiculous claim of my being illogical when you write
Bollocks!
My statement was of facts – not of assertion and/or argument – and I had demonstrated those facts in my post at October 1, 2012 at 2:01 am earlier. The facts are
1. You lied repeatedly
and
2. anybody with access to the internet can read my post at October 1, 2012 at 2:01 am.
It is no wonder that your statements on this thread are so devoid of logic when you proclaim you do not know the difference between evidenced fact and logic.
You follow that inanity with this
JJ answered that at October 1, 2012 at 8:03 pm and his response is so good – and so restrained – that I cannot better it. He wrote
You then ask me
Clearly, you have reading comprehension difficulties because I repeatedly explained that. For example, in the post you claim to be answering I quoted you having said
and I replied
Your response to that was to write
Therefore, I replied
You said IPCC “science” was your understanding of the “science”, you claim the recent 15-year temperature stasis has no relevance, I point out that the IPCC explains the recent stasis is different from any previous similar stasis, and you respond that you don’t accept that IPCC “detail” is “science”.
Let me recap. So far in this post I have only addressed your introductory remarks but I have already explained that your post says:
You don’t know what constitutes an evidenced fact.
You don’t understand logic.
You don’t understand logical fallacies.
You often state falsehoods but say those statements are “mistakes”.
You don’t apologise for those mistakes.
You don’t understand what you have written so need to have it explained to you.
You don’t understand what others write so need to have it explained to you.
You claim your understanding of climate “science” is as stated by the IPCC but refute the predictions of IPCC “science”.
You ‘change your tune’ when it is shown you made a false statement.
And then you write this
Firstly, I have not been “malicious”. Indeed, I have been very gentle with you considering your lies, deceits and obfuscations.
Secondly, I have NOT “lost” any “scientific argument” with you. On the contrary, despite repeated requests from me and others you have yet to address my first post in this thread (at September 28, 2012 at 1:35 pm) which explained how all (except perhaps one) of the climate models emulates a different climate system from that of the real Earth. You have “lost” every scientific argument you have had with me and with others in this thread.
Thirdly, nothing you wrote was “twisted” by anybody. It was quoted and addressed in the terms you stated.
It seems that in addition to your claims about yourself which I have listed, your assertions of “maliciousness”, “lost scientific arguments” and “twisted words” are assertions by you that you are delusional.
You then go on to disputation with JJ and he has rebutted those specious assertions so I need not give further answer to them.
And you follow that with more delusional assertion when you write
I shall assume you wrote this as another of your self-proclaimed frequent “mistakes” which has been induced by your difficulties with reading comprehension. In fact, you repeatedly tried to dispute my evidence which I clearly stated in my post at September 30, 2012 at 8:33 am.
You then provide another of your lies (or should that be “mistakes”) when you write
It is not true that I have “chosen to ignore” anything. The uncertainty range does not alter my point about the “committed warming” in any way because +/- 20% of nothing is nothing. The uncertainty range is an irrelevance and I chose to not be side-tracked into discussion of irrelevance. Simply, there is and was nothing (both literally and metaphorically) for me to “refute”.
And you continue
The IPCC draws a “the single realization”: argue with them about that, not me. I accepted it because YOU said the IPCC represents your view of the “science” so I was addressing your view.
Importantly, this goes to the heart of my point about all (except at most one) of the models NOT modelling the climate system of the real Earth. It seems you are now agreeing this but you claim that ‘average wrong = right’.
Yes, I said – indeed, I quoted – that in my explanation at September 30, 2012 at 8:33 am.
And you continue saying
There is nothing for me to “refute”. You are claiming that GHGs are “dominant” but now you claim they have recently been overwhelmed by changes in “solar forcing”. This is a direct statement by you that you are wrong. I cannot think why you would suggest I could want to refute it.
You continue
Bart,
I’ve followed you in several threads on several blogs, and you follow a consistant pattern. You being by mentioning that you are an EE, then follow that with comments about having designed actual instrumentation that actually works, and demanding that your opinion be accepted on that basis. When it is isn’t, you begin hurling insults. Thread after thread the pattern is the same. Your behaviour is boorish, rude, insulting, ugly, and uncalled for. The attempt in you last comment to suggest that I am reacting to you out of some deep seated pychological scar is the most egregious of these tactics. You were over the line of civil discourse and I called you on it as did others. This has nothing to do with me and everything to do with your poor behaviour.
As to the technical merits of your argument, I’ve followed them. I think you are wrong, and so I challenged you to put a verifiable prediction on the table. You have refused, cited rather flimsy excuses, and attempted to turn the discussion to my pychological background. You resemble the climate alarmists in this regard. You site your “credentials”, become all bluster and anger when someone won’t bow to your opinion, and when asked for a verifiable prediction, full of excuses.
And you do it all from an anonymous identity.
‘Nuff said.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 2, 2012 at 12:45 am
Lockwood is still very much in doubt of the floor value as is Steinhilber, Usoskin, Solanki, Cliver, Clilverd, Mursula, Martini, Nevanlinna etc to name a few.
They will come around as they have for the other things. That is what we have the ISSI workshop for. We have good data back to 1835 and the floor value has been observed to be 4 nT [and only reached twice]. What goes before is conjecture. A hint of what is to come may be the conclusion of Owens and Lockwood:
“the CME rate observed during recent solar cycle minima is also the CME rate that existed throughout the Maunder Minimum” JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 117, A04102, doi:10.1029/2011JA017193, 2012 suggesting [to me] similar solar magnetic field
BTW, Steinhilber et al. has a un-physical negative floor value… and Clilverd, Mursula, Martini, Nevanlinna don’t mention any floor values.
There is still considerable work that needs to be performed on the IHV data before 1900.
Since the floor is derived from IDV, not IHV you may be a bit confused. In any case, work is ongoing to further extend and solidify both IDV and IHV back to the 1830s.
Jan P Perlwitz:
In your post addressed to JJ at October 2, 2012 at 12:21 am you ask
Moderators:
My two recent posts included ‘open quotation’ where they should have provided ‘closed quotation’. In each case the erroneous formatting instruction was the final formatting instruction in the post.
I apologise for these errors and request that you correct them if they are likely to affect formatting of subsequent posts in the thread.
Sorry.
Richard
REPLY: I can’t determine where the blockquotes might go, so I leave them uncorrected. I suggest you simply submit new corrected comments and I’ll delete the old ones – Anthony
There is something odd about HMF-B (IDV ?) measurements before and after start of the space age (ground /satellite measurements ?).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HMF-JT.htm
Perhaps Dr. Svalgaard may wish to comment.
Min – Max of HMF and June coincidence should be of some interest to those interested in the natural variability.
Dr. Perlwitz dismisses external variability (puts it on a par with noise), well he couldn’t be more wrong, but as I see from flow of the discussion he is wrong on numerous other processes. He has insurmountable problem of replacing his beliefs with a knowledge, it could be done but for Dr. Perlwitz unlikely.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 2, 2012 at 6:08 am
“BTW, Steinhilber et al. has a un-physical negative floor value…”
You say un-physical but the isotope record at least is a single source of data that is not corrupted by the unlimited variables that exist in the geomagnetic record. It is painfully obvious the solar position right now is in a different league to a Maunder type event so we are not getting close to testing the water of a deep grand minimum. Your mate Cliver in a paper this year points this out even suggesting a zero state could be possible during a Maunder event, with a much lower nT reading than the 3.9 values recorded recently.
I don’t think we will have a Maunder type event for many hundreds of years so the floor question might not be resolved until then, the biggest take away message is that current conditions are very mild on the grand minima scale, to think today’s values apply to a Maunder type event might leave one open to ridicule.
richardscourtney wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1097984
I am not going to reply to everything by Mr. Courtney’s, most of what he wrote is a lot of noise, diversion, and ad personam drivel anyway, only to some factual assertions.
Mr. Courtney asserts:
Is Mr. Courtney delusional or is he just making things up? We are in the year 2012. The IPCC Report was published in 2007, the final draft was from 2005 or 2006. How can the IPCC Report have said anything about the “recent 15-year temperature stasis” and how it was different compared to “previous similar stasis”?
Mr. Courtney linked to this page of the IPCC Report:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-5-1.html
There is not a single word there about how the “recent stasis” was different to “previous similar stasis”. Mr. Courtney is lying or he has to provide the quote where the IPCC Report says anything like this.
This was one apparent lie by Mr. Courtney.
Concerning my statement, about the uncertainty range of the “committed warming” and the predictions in the IPCC-Report,
And the IPCC doesn’t say it must be exact 0.2 K/decade. It says about 0.2 K/decade, of which about 0.1 K/decade are committed. As one can see from the figure, there is an uncertainty range, also for the committed increase
he replies:
It’s about the uncertainty ranges of the “committed warming” and the scenario predictions, provided in the IPCC Report. Is Mr. Courtney claiming now, the values for the “committed warming” or the scenario predictions stated in the IPCC Report were “nothing”? Didn’t he assert before it was 0.1 K/decade and 0.2 K/decade, respectively? And even if the values for the “committed warming” and the scenario predictions, provided in the IPCC Report, had been 0 K/decade, the uncertainty range still would be a temperature range around this Zero, instead of “nothing”. It becomes more and more clear to me that Mr. Courtney doesn’t have any clue with respect to statistical metrics. He doesn’t know what he is talking about regarding statistics. Therefore he produces these kind of nonsense statements like the one quoted here.
Also following statement by Mr. Courtney points to this:
Here is the Figure ones more, about which Mr. Courtney claims the lines drawn there were just a “single realization”:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-ts-26.html
The Figure is on the same page from above:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-5-1.html
And what does it say in the caption of the Figure?
Figure TS.26. Model projections of global mean warming compared to observed warming. Observed temperature anomalies, as in Figure TS.6, are shown as annual (black dots) and decadal average values (black line)…Multi-model mean projections from this report for the SRES B1, A1B and A2 scenarios, as in Figure TS.32, are shown for the period 2000 to 2025 as blue, green and red curves with uncertainty ranges indicated against the right-hand axis…
It says multi-model mean projections. There is no possibility of a doubt that the lines for the model simulations in the graphic are the average over all the simulations done with multiple models, instead single realizations.
Thus, Mr. Courtney is lying when he says, “The IPCC draws a ‘the single realization'” or he doesn’t know the difference between a single realization from all possible realizations of a statistical population on one hand and, on the other hand, the average of a sample of the statistical population, or the mean of the statistical population. Here I tend to go with that Mr. Courtney is just incompetent in statistics. I suspect he didn’t understand a single word about what I wrote in my previous comments about the difference between a single realization and the average of a sample, and what the mistake is when one compares the average with the single realization and, because the single realization diverged from the average, claims the average was wrong.
Mr. Courtney quotes a statement by me:
In reality, at least solar forcing has decreased in the previous decade. Some predict it is going to decrease further in the next years. This has to be taken into account also, when doing an honest comparison between the prediction from the IPCC Report and real world data.
He replies with a statement that he very likely would have called a blatant lie, if I had done this with one of his statements:
I said and say greenhouse gases have become the dominant climate driver on a multi-decadal and centuries time scale. Nowhere, neither in my statement quoted here or anywhere else, did I say anything about greenhouse gases have “recently been overwhelmed by changes in ‘solar forcing'”.
I say it has to be “taken into account” when comparing model simulations with real world data, because the model simulations prescribed always the same solar cycle for their future part. Where does Mr. Courtney see an “overwhelmed” in my statement, when I say “solar forcing” has decreased? Since when does “decreased” means the same as “overwhelmed”? He is making this totally up.
Mr. Courtney seems to be a proven liar, according to his own criteria.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
“No. JJ understands that there is no warming over any period when the trend is zero. Goes to the definition of “trend”.”
Then your conclusion from the “Zero” trend is logically wrong.
No. MY conclusion is that “trend” has a meaning and I apply it. The conclusion that you attempt to put in my mouth is not my conclusion. Stop telling lies.
It only requests that the responded accepts that there had been a statistically significant temperature increase from a diagnostic point of view. No agreement with respect to attribution or the whole theory required. Anyone who claims global warming “stopped”, …
Must have first accepted that ‘global warming’ had started. If on the other hand, the warming and flat and cooling periods are assumed to be the result of natural variation, your question is nonsensical, for the reasons previously stated.
Something that hasn’t been there in the first hand, can’t stop.
Yes, exactly. I think that we can both agree that natural variation was there in the first hand, and remains. You assert that there was something else present during both of the 15 year periods you refer to – ‘global warming’. You are the one with something to prove.
The null hypothesis? Your statement presumes that there was a predefined Null hypotheses, the one and only one.
No. With respect to our discussion, the null hypothesis is the null hypothesis with respect to the assertion that there exists what you conceive of as a dominant, anthropogenic, CO2 driven effect: ‘global warming’. The null hypothesis being that there does not.
Who has determined what the Null hypothesis is?
Science. Logic.
God? I don’t believe in god.
What an odd thing to say in the context of this discussion.
However, the assertion is usual the one that the recent 15 years of “flat” temperatures scientifically proved that there was no global warming, or falsified the climate theory, which predicts global warming.
Rather than ginning up another strawman, how about you stick to what I have actually said? I have made no such assertion. I have asked you questions.
Given that you clearly hold your own conceptualization of ‘global warming’ to be a scientific proposition, what are your falsification criteria for temps?
What are the falsification criteria for an asteroid trajectory? Uncertainty bounds. What if the asteroid trajectory moves outside those bounds? Does this outright falsify the whole astrophysics or theory of relativity?
At some point, such incidents would be taken to falsify that theory of asteroid trajectories, irrespective of the implications to larger fields of understanding. Similarly, ‘global warming’ may fall without threatening quantum mechanics or the laws of thermodynamics.
How long can global average surface temps remain flat before you admit your theory is bust?
The question is not precise enough.
Yes it is.
Having said that, if there is still no statistically significant temperature increase (after correcting for any divergence in the forcings between real world, e.g., solar forcing, and what was prescribed in the models) in the year 2020, then I would have to scratch my head, and think about whether something is seriously wrong with my understanding of the climate system.
I did not ask you for the period over which lack of warming would make you scratch your head and ask the question “Is ‘global warming’ theory wrong”. I asked you for the period over which lack of warming would cause you to answer that question with a definitive “Yes”.
Is the ~25 year period that you have stipulated sufficient for that, or not? If not, please revise your answer.
How long would they have to rise at less than the 0.2C/decade rate predicted by the low end of your scenarios before you will accept that you are wrong?</b
There is no such prediction that the increase must be exact 0.2 K/decade.
Duh. Hence my question. Please answer it.
And this one as well:
How much can they drop, before you will come to that conclusion?
Anthony:
In response to my pointing out my formatting errors, you kindly write
I see no need to put you to all that trouble. However, in case there are people who cannot see where I made the formatting mistakes I inform as follows.
In my post at October 2, 2012 at 4:01 am I wrongly input a ‘open quotation instead a of a ‘close quotation’ after JPP’s sentence saying.
“He can’t do it, because the temperature record is not outside the uncertainty range:”
And before my statements saying,
“OK. First, and for sake of argument, let us accept that the predicted 0.2°C rise over the last decade did occur but cannot be discerned because of uncertainty in the measurement data.”
Then, in my post at October 2, 2012 at 6:44 am I wrongly input a ‘open quotation instead a of a ‘close quotation’ after JPP’s sentence saying.
“Where should such an objective Null hypothesis come from?”
And before my sentence saying,
“Your questions display such a fundamental lack of understanding of the scientific method that your ignorance of their answers probably goes a long way to explaining your behaviour in this thread.”
Sorry.
Richard