Dr. Leif Svalgaard on the New Scientist solar max story

Geoff Sharp says:
October 2, 2012 at 7:41 am
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.
Regardless, a negative value for the field strength is unphysical.
And the isotope record is heavily influenced by a host of other variables than just the solar field. The climate and general circulation of the Earth’s atmosphere are two very important unknowns with a large influence.
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.
It may pain you a lot, but there are good reasons for suggesting a coming Maunder Minimum. More important than a suggestion are the assessment by Schrijver et al. that TSI and the open flux during the MM were comparable to the 2009 minimum, and by Owens and Lockwood that the CME rate during the MM was comparable to that in 2009. A good working hypothesis is that solar activity did not disappear during MM and that the dynamo was working as usual, but that the solar magnetic field did not assemble into visible spots as the L&P data suggest may be happening again: http://www.leif.org/research/Disappearance-of-Visible-Spots.pdf . of course, only time will tell [and soon to boot]
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.
Ed is basing that on the assumption that the polar fields went to zero during the MM. The vigorous modulation of GCRs during the MM argues strongly against a zero polar fields.
to think today’s values apply to a Maunder type event might leave one open to ridicule.
Valid scientific arguments never leaves one open to ridicule, a good example is Eddy’s paper on the MM. Scientists do not think in terms of ridicule and the like. Pseudo-scientists do.

vukcevic says:
October 2, 2012 at 7:28 am
There is something odd about HMF-B (IDV ?) measurements before and after start of the space age (ground /satellite measurements ?).
What is odd? That the CET correlation breaks down recently?
Congratulations, you may just have proven AGW as your CET has gone up recently while HMF has gone down to its floor value also reached around 1900.

davidmhoffer says:
October 2, 2012 at 4:44 am
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. You’re not exactly a paragon of patience and restraint.
I hurl insults when I am insulted. Especially when someone unqualified in my field impugns my professional qualifications, as Leif has repeatedly in this thread. You’ve fallen for his bluster. That’s your problem. I’m not going to quit remunerative application of my skills and build a 747 in my back yard to prove to David M. Hoffer that man can, indeed, fly. Sorry, I’m just funny that way.

The slugfest with Perlwitz is an object lesson in futility. As long as you guys fight him/her on a battleground of his or her own choosing, it’s going to be a bloody war of attrition. There will be no winners.

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 2, 2012 at 9:19 am
Actually, your qualifications are not applicable. At least, not yet. Until you gain more insight into what is actually going on, and can bring your dynamical models in line with it, you will continue floundering around. I would have been more than happy to work with you, gratis. I could have been the Lorentz to your Einstein, instead of the Mozart to your Salieri. That’s a missed opportunity for you to consider the problem in an interdisciplinary fashion. Too bad.

Bart says:
October 2, 2012 at 9:34 am
The slugfest with Perlwitz is an object lesson in futility. As long as you guys fight him/her on a battleground of his or her own choosing, it’s going to be a bloody war of attrition. There will be no winners.
>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, obviously we should get into a slugfest with him over at RC, that would be better?
Other than the “lie” word being thrown around way too much right now (Jan, Richard, you could both dial it back) you may have noticed that there’s some actual science being discussed here and there in the back and forth? You’d rather have Hansen and Mann making unchallenged pronouncements to the media while we just act as an echo chamber over here for our side?
I cannot think of anything BETTER than having someone of JanP’s stature and prominance duking it out on this forum.

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 2, 2012 at 10:07 am
Well then, since we all know that science always moves forward by consensus, you must be right, and I must be delusional. Sorry to have wasted your time and mine.

Bart says:
October 2, 2012 at 10:24 am
Well then, since we all know that science always moves forward by consensus, you must be right, and I must be delusional. Sorry to have wasted your time and mine.
Your understanding of science is incorrect. Science moves forward by reasoned disagreements that eventually get resolved and become the bedrock upon which further progress depends and upon which Engineering must rest as well.
You may be right about the delusional bit, though, and about wasting time.

To return to the science and the topic for this post, the September sunspot number data from SIDC are now out. The smoothed sunspot number for September was 66.8 compared with 66.9 for August.
http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-24-Smoothed-Adj-2.png compares SC24 with SC14 with the minima epochs lines up. The thin pink curve is the official SSN, while the heavy red symbols are the SSN adjusted upwards by 20% to match the calibration of the SSN after 1945. For the first time in SC24 the smoothed SSN has not increased, another sign that we are entering the maximum phase. But just as in SC14, the maximum might well be drawn out over several years.

Jan P Perlwitz wrote in: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1094122 :
My apologies on the delay in responding – travel and field work occupied my time in between. And I did not intend for the response to be so long. However, I see you’ve been busy.
Certainly, Jan, you seem to have “longevity on the stoop” – model speak for persistence and endurance (that’s fashion model and not climate model). I’ll let you have the last word, as I don’t intend to reply to your response, if any, but certainly will read one.
“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.’”
This is what the IPCC means (my opinion is irrelevant) regarding its involvement with climate models:
“This paper summarizes the discussions and conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Expert Meeting on Assessing and Combining Multi Model Climate Projections… It seeks to briefly summarize methods used in assessing the quality and reliability of climate model simulations and in combining results from multiple models. It is intended as a guide for future IPCC Lead Authors as well as scientists using results from model intercomparison projects. This paper provides recommendations for good practice in using multi-model ensembles for detection and attribution, model evaluation and global climate projections as well as regional projections relevant for impact and adaptation studies. It illustrates the potential for, and limitations of, combining multiple models for selected applications. Criteria for decision making concerning model quality and performance metrics, model weighting and averaging are recommended. This paper does not, however, provide specific recommendations regarding which performance metrics to use, since this will need to be decided for each application separately,” – http://tinyurl.com/9koknlg (link to IPCC summary paper on climate models).
“There is no dictatorship of ‘the IPCC’. Who do you mean, anyway, when you say ‘the IPCC’?”
The term “IPCC” means just that – the Panel as detailed in its Governing Principals – http://tinyurl.com/2o4948 (link to IPCC Principals Governing IPCC Work). However, the Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors represent the the final word on the nuancing of their respective sections of the AR. These individuals represent the gatekeepers of the ARs. While the actual assessments may involve hundreds and even thousands of researchers, the final synthesis is limited to a handful of authors. Then again, I never claimed a dictatorship at the IPCC; I believe that is your term. You do, indeed, have a fondness for the straw man fallacy.
“TM: Yes, the IPCC does not actually run the models, but I never claimed they did.
“JPP: Well, you accused ‘the IPCC’ to have ‘perhaps’ committed ‘fraud’ with respect to what should be taken into account when modeling climate.”
To the extent that the IPCC hosts meetings which seek to, “Summarize methods used in assessing the quality and reliability of climate model simulations and in combining results from multiple models,” an argument exists that if a likely variable (e.g., changing solar radiation) is not recommended for modeling consideration than fraud (breach of confidence for gaining an unfair advantage) may be alleged. The unfair advantage is control of the model input to ensure it supports the desired nuancing.
“’In spite’ of what research published by whom, where, and when, specifically?”
As stated in my response, read the section in its entirety for the referenced research or studies (i.e., Solanki et al. 2004):
“More recent studies utilise physics-based models to estimate solar activity from the production rate of cosmogenic isotopes taking into account nonlinearities between isotope production and the Sun’s open magnetic flux and variations in the geomagnetic field (Solanki et al., 2004; Muscheler et al., 2005). Following this approach, Solanki et al. (2004) suggested that the current level of solar activity has been without precedent over the last 8 kyr. “
“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…”
Recall the nuancing? Now revise the above to read, “Most of the recent studies [reviewed by the IPCC for referencing in the AR],…” Most does not mean all, and although the IPCC referenced the previous Solanski paper as an exception, this was not the only exception yet the IPCC drafted the statement as if it were. Kirvova and Solanski (2008) even published a paper summarizing the recent advances in modeling of solar irradiance variations on time scales longer than a day, which did include several “exception” papers not included in the FAR, although they had been published during the AR’s review time period – http://tinyurl.com/8d2zwbh (link to Kirvova and Solanski, 2008).
“So you assert newer studies, which contradict the downward revision in the solar variability have been ignored in the IPCC report 2007. Which ones?”
If you’re interested, here are several and please note that “recent” doesn’t imply better with respect to a study – Björck et al. (2001) – http://tinyurl.com/9q3p35u ; Haigh (2002) – http://tinyurl.com/8msrq6g ; and – Swingedouw et al. (2010), newer but interesting – http://tinyurl.com/8vrq92u (all links to respective papers).
“You see wrong. This is not what I said. But the phrasing of my statement was not precise enough either. I give you that.”
No, you read wrong. I indicated that this was my deliberate assertion of a straw man argument – not unlike the several you had advanced against me in your response. It was a deliberately-loaded question.
“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.”
To the extent that the IPCC relies on presumptive models in the AR, the IPCC’s summary (at least with respective to where the presumptive models are referenced) is also presumptive. Recall that my example provided a contradiction to your bold assertion that, “…{T]he IPCC report doesn’t ‘presume’ anything.” If it includes presumptive models in its review, then the IPCC can but only presumes “things” as part of its summary.
“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.”
And again, this is where the IPCC influences the nuancing of the AR. The Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors are but a handful of people compared to the researchers providing input to the section. A number of issues (internally- and externally-identified) were identified with respect to the process of drafting the ARs (e.g., Ross McKitrick’s report entitled “What is Wrong with the IPCC? Proposals for a Radical Reform “ – http://tinyurl.com/cpj8f5c – link to the same). You may agree or disagree with these issues; I suspect, though, that you disagree, which is a matter of opinion and not scientific discussion. Researchers are human and prone to confirmation bias, as demonstrated repeatedly in the Climategate e-mails – http://tinyurl.com/9mtzl2x (link to Tom Nelson blog with sample listing). Even if you want to assert that the e-mails are quoted out of context, it’s discouraging (and unprofessional) to read climate experts detail schoolyard-like bullying against other climate experts.
“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 ”
Where:
(1) the post’s focus is on the absence of a changing solar radiation variable in the climate modeling (and Chapter 8 discusses the same) and
Given:
(1) that Soon and Baliunas (2003) asserted that, “The widespread geographical evidence [in their paper]supports the existence of both the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period, and should serve as useful validation targets for any reconstruction of global climate history of the last 1000 yr,” – http://tinyurl.com/8l6enhc (link to Soon and Baliunas paper) and
(2) climate modeling (when used for hindcasting) often fails to achieve the validation targets noted by Soon and Baliunas – http://tinyurl.com/8as7enb (link to Lohmann et al. 2012)
Proposed climate model validation targets should be referenced in the chapter on climate modeling. Perhaps, I am asking too much of the IPCC, given where a reference to the paper had already been made in another chapter?
“Box 6.4 provides more information on the ‘Medieval Warm Period’.”
Thank you for providing the link; I had forgotten about this discussion in the FAR.
“Any other study with, what you think are significant results from research, which was ignored in the IPCC report?”
There are several but this is a topic that could host its on discussion. The focus here is on the climate models and not the IPCC ARs.
“TM: I don’t believe I asserted this…
“JPP: ‘‘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’?”
I indicated that CAGW skeptics are concerned (to the point of emphasizing) that climate models fail to reference a changing solar radiation variable and include instead a constant solar radiation variable. A more realistic solar radiation variable is the desired variable. The basis for that concern can be found in the post itself, as summarized by Dr. Leif Svalgaard (who references published papers on the concern via the links provided by him, as well as his defense throughout this thread).
For me, I am skeptical about whether anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has catastrophic results for the global climate. Catastrophic can be defined as extremely harmful for humanity and the planet. I do not doubt that the global climate is warming with respect to a global mean temperature anomaly (however you want to define it), but I think it unlikely that such change (1) will alter the planet significantly beyond expected natural variability and (2) alterations, if measurable, are best addressed through result adaptation rather than source prevention. There are a number of qualitative and quantitative reasons for my skepticism but (indeed) this is a topic that could host its on discussion.
And while I do not profess to be an AGW skeptic, I presume the difference between that and a CAGW skeptic is that the former is skeptical about whether anthropogenic carbon dioxide is a driver for global climate warming with respect to a global mean temperature anomaly. However, such skepticism typically involves how the anomaly is defined or calculated and is the result relevant to climate change.
“It’s not like[ly] that they all exactly matched the observed climate variability, or exactly matched each … 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.”
There is a wide-range associated with the aerosols variable in the climate models – far more so than is observed either by direct measurement or extrapolation. A likely conclusion is that this variable is being used (i.e., adjusted) by the climate modelers to ensure that model outputs align with observational data, which (if true) casts serious doubts on the forecasting abilities of the climate models. And if the forecasting abilities of the climate models are questionable (i.e., the feedback variables are inaccurate), where does that leave the notion of a 2-4.5 deg C increase with 3 deg C being the best guess for CO2 doubling – http://tinyurl.com/9xvdy69 (link to the FAR discussion in Chapter 10 on temperature mean)?
In fact, Assuming the FAR’s compiling of the climate models is correct (and hindcasting works), the global mean temperature for the past 110 years should be + 1.6-3.2 deg C. And yet, the observed temperature for the same time period is (at worst) 1 deg C. What’s up with that (pun intended)? Oh, right, “[D]ifferent 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.” Which means…? The models aren’t overly accurate.
“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 Lindzen paper was referenced not as an initial research paper but rather as a compilation (similar to the ARs) discussing the apparent uncertainties of climate models, which predict warming but Nature fails to produce it (e.g., Trenberth’s infamous travesty on missing heat – http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=6351 link to Trenberth e-mail Climategate thread). The paper highlighted the work of Lee et al. (2007), which reviewed the inability of the NSIPP, GEOS-5, GFDL AM2, and SNU atmospheric general circulation models to align predicted, tropospheric warming with observational data – http://tinyurl.com/94o2coq (link to Lee et al., 2007).
“I do not believe you that you are ‘genuinely curious’. You are loading the question with ridicule toward homogenization of data.”
No, I was (and still am) genuinely curious as to your position on the multiple homogenizations of the official temperature data sets. Common sense dictates that the more you modify them, the less the data resemble the actual measurements (error bars and all). Rather than changing the data to allow them to apply to larger presumed temperature grids, accommodations should be made for the recording inaccuracies. While not quite “fabricated”, the data here are distorted extensively by the homogenization process itself, unless you can explain why they are not – thus, my curiosity.
“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.”
One can compare the published outputs of past climate models with archived and current temperature data sets. In fact, it’s been done with not so impressive results attributed to the climate models – http://tinyurl.com/9xwch4r (link to Anagnostopoulos et al. 2010).
Your apologic stance is admirable, Jan, but I fear you are like the Little Dutch Boy trying to place as many thumbs and fingers in the dyke before it fails massively. Personally, I regard the climate models as the largest exposure for those promoting global warming alarmism. But rather than respond constructively to legitimate criticism of the models, a number of the associated researchers have mounted a subjective defense (and in some cases a quasi-religious defense along the lines of persecution like Drs. Hansen and Mann ) instead of an empirical testing. That’s not science – period.

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 2, 2012 at 11:48 am
“Advice from the professional ‘Joe the Plumber’ look-a-like”
So, you have inside info that Joe is a bad guy? Or just, you know, far, far beneath you, and therefore fair game for your withering contempt, whether justified or no? Do you treat all working men and women with such disdain? If so, I hope the pipes never burst in your palace.