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.
ferd berple says:
September 29, 2012 at 12:58 am
I was merely stating what I believed to be Dr. Svalgaard’s position. This was in response to someone who stated a strawman “the sun has no impact on climate”.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
“That is not nearly enough. It has to rise a practically significant amount. It has to rise quickly enough that it not only validates their theories’ predictions, it has to rise fast enough that it actually amounts to a real problem that people give a rat’s ass about.”
This is a political argument, which has nothing to do with the science of global warming.
What an odd statement, coming from an author of the paper titled ” Dangerous human-made interference with climate: A GISS modelE study. “ Given that the title and content of that paper was intended to demonstrate that CAGW is a real problem that people should give a rat’s ass about, I take it that paper was “a political argument which has nothing to do with the science of global warming.”
Tell me, did you still accept your ‘scientist’ pay for that political work? Uh-huh.
‘Global warming’ is highly poiticized ‘science’. It’s ‘scientific’ claims are political from top to bottom. Your very position as a ‘scientist’ is wholly dependent on funds sourced from politicians. That funding is proportional to the scariness of the stories you tell, and the number of people you can convince to believe them. And that is why you are here. That you are present to make such assinine comments invalidates them.
The reality is that you “post normal scientists” do not even attempt to distinguish between your science and your politics except when making disingenuous arguments as you do here. You stump for IPCC. You publish political papers in scientific journals. Thus you need warming of practical significance – scientifically and politically. Specifically, you need the magnitude that your scientific theory predicts and upon which your political machinations are predicated. Of course, that makes the false assumption that there is a “the magnitude” that your theory predicts. As you say above (with an impressively straight face):
The observed temperature record has been fully within the range of the predictions from the climate model simulations of the AR4 IPCC report.
You don’t have a predicted magntude. You have a range of predicted magnitudes. And that range is wider than the range of Holocene temp variation. And even given that laughably large window, actual temps are currently slamming squarely into the sill you guys called “Year 2000 Constant Concentrations” even though atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had 12 years of unabated increase since then.
Currently, temps are skipping along the lower error band of the AR4 scenario (B1) whose total predicted warming (<2C by 2100) is typically given as the alamists' desired mitigation target. That lower bound of the B1 error band also skirts below the threshhold (<1C by 2100) of your "Dangerous" paper, and the likely path we are actually on given current info is solidly below that. It is about time you guys started dealing with that honestly.
As I showed in my post above (September 28, 2012 at 7:13 pm), there is no acceleration in the natural global warming trend since the LIA. None.
Vukcevic’s charts posted on September 29, 2012 at 4:41 am confirm the steady natural warming trend. There is no measurable effect from CO2, or from any other GHG’s, despite Perlwitz’ false assertions to the contrary. Those are merely self-serving assertions of a rent seeker, they are not empirical facts.
Vuk’s charts show what the alarmist crowd glosses over: that global warming happens in winter, and at the higher latitudes, and at night. Global warming is a desirable outcome for every thinking person. Millions of acres would be open to agriculture in places like Siberia, Canada, Alaska and Mongolia. Warmth means more evaporation, thus more precipitation to water crops. And the planet has been considerably warmer during the Holocene, with no ill effects:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
Ignore the wild-eyed arm waving by self-serving climate alarmists. The global climate right now is in one of the most stable, unchanging, beneficial centuries ever recorded. When we take a common sense look at the recent climate, we see this:
http://butnowyouknow.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/globa-mean-temp.gif?w=469&h=427
Rational people want more warmth, just as they want inexpensive energy. Warmth is good; cold kills. The trumped up catastrophic AGW scare has no empirical measurements to confirm that there is any AGW, much less CAGW. There may be some minuscule warming from CO2, but it is so small that it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes. And since any putative AGW is too small to measure, there are lots of better ways to spend our tax dollars.
D Böehm says:
September 29, 2012 at 11:43 am
And the planet has been considerably warmer during the Holocene, with no ill effects:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
And the variation seen is clearly not related to orbital changes, solar activity, or CO2.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 29, 2012 at 9:03 am
“…solar activity has gone down the past several cycles…”
Based on what? I don’t see this measure or this one having gone down until perhaps just recently in the last decade. In fact, it very much appears to me that temperatures have effectively correlated with the amplitude of the signals. Basically, temperature is the demodulated amplitude of an AM signal with an 11 year period carrier wave.
On these two:
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 29, 2012 at 9:58 am
“I can also see the downward trend in TSI…”
Jan P Perlwitz says:
September 29, 2012 at 10:37 am
“The positive trend…”
When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Trends, guys? For complex nonlinear signals? Are you serious? The EE inside of me is writhing in agony.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
September 29, 2012 at 10:37 am
What is there to comment? The positive trend, which can be calculated for the shown temperature time series, seems to be larger in winter than in summer in magnitude. There is nothing else that can be concluded from the graphics.
Dr. Perlwitz
Thank you for your prompt reply.
Perhaps I should be more explicit and rephrase the question :
1. How would the AGW theory explain the mid-summer temperatures having absolutely flat trend for 350 years of the CET records.
2. How would the AGW theory explain the mid-winter temperatures having absolutely even rising trend for 350 years of the CET records.
Dr. Perlwitz, If the AGW theory is a true theory and not just hypothesis then any exceptions needs to have an explanation.
Your colleague Dr. Schmidt also failed to explain how it is that the most important contemporary climate theory (accepted by the great majority of the world wide academia) may not be applicable to the worlds longest and the most accurate temperature records.
Dr. Perlwitz failure of one NASA expert to explain the above, could be an accident, but a failure of two NASA experts is not boding well for the AGW (I am inclined to call it) hypothesis.
Dr. Perlwitz you have to try harder, climate science you represent expects that from you and Dr. Schmidt.
An explanation does exist, but it contravenes the principles on which the AGW hypothesis is postulated.
Declining to respond publicly would be a reasonable step to take, but I would still appreciate to hear your reasoning.
Thank you for your time.
The predictions I have made here are on the table. I expect that a statistically significant global warming is going to continue over the next decades, caused by further increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from anthropogenic emissions. Global cooling is not happening, and I don’t see it to be right around the corner. If there was global cooling over the next decades instead, despite further increase in greenhouse gases, and this global cooling was in contradiction to my scientific understanding of the climate system and what the relative importance of various climate drivers (like anthropogenic greenhouse gases, natural aerosols from volcanoes, anthropogenic aerosols, solar forcing, ozone, land use …) is and what the amplitude of natural variability is on the same time scales, which is in agreement with what is currently accepted by mainstream climate science, I would have to revise my scientific understanding of the physics in the system and come to the conclusion that greenhouse gases weren’t as important as I have been thinking, after all. So far, I don’t see any indication in the empirical data at all, though, that would indicate this was the case.
And here is an additional prediction. At some point within the next 20 years, I’m going to tell you here: “I told you so!” Arctic sea ice will likely have disappeared during summer by then.
So, mark this thread.
What must be fulfilled so that the ones of you who negate that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have become the dominant climate driver on a multi-decadal and centuries time scale, or who announce that there will be global cooling instead of global warming, even with further increasing greenhouse gases, are willing to admit to have been wrong? Is there anything that you would accept as a falsification of your beliefs?
From Leif Svalgaard on September 29, 2012 at 11:24 am:
And I’ll reiterate: I didn’t mention Svensmark. I was talking about Dr. Spencer’s work, and Dr. Spencer isn’t working on a cosmic ray to climate connection. Review Dr. Spencer’s primer on his hypothesis, Svensmark only gets a one line ‘it’s also mentioned’ note as a possible cause of cloud cover variation, that’s it.
If you want to thrash out Svensmark and GCR theory with Tallbloke, fine with me. Why do you keep “debunking” me when I didn’t mention it?
Unless you’re referring to when I was playing with Jan over his playing with linear trends on graphs. No Svensmark or GCR’s there either.
Bart says:
September 29, 2012 at 12:21 pm
“…solar activity has gone down the past several cycles…”
Based on what?
On what I tell you. There are long-term variations of the order of 100 years http://www.sidc.be/html/wolfaml.html
The maxima of this variation have generally been near the mid-century, while the minima have been around the century marks.
Perhaps you should educate the EE inside of you.
vukcevic wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1094858
I am not going to reply to your ad hominem remarks.
I don’t really know what you think what the “AGW theory” is and what you think what the central statements of the theory are, but you seem to think that the CET temperature series was in contradiction to the theory, which I think is the correct scientific basis, and only explainable with an alternative hypothesis, since you write,
Please could you elaborate to what central statements of the theory, about which you think is mine, the CET temperature record is supposedly in contradiction?
Bart says:
September 29, 2012 at 12:21 pm
“Basically, temperature is the demodulated amplitude of an AM signal with an 11 year period carrier wave.”
Excuse me, the carrier wave has a period of ~22 years. It is rectified by the absorption of energy, and then low pass filtered by the Earth’s thermal time constants. Just like in a crystal radio.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 29, 2012 at 12:47 pm
It’s the same data I linked to. Perhaps you should avoid the snark, after I have humbled you so many times in the past (though, to be fair, I don’t think your massive ego allowed you to realize you had been pwned), and pay attention to what I have said.
From Bart on September 29, 2012 at 12:21 pm:
Are you fond of internecine warfare? Leif mentioned the long-term declining solar activity, there’s a long-term declining trend in TSI showing it. Mountains, molehills, etc.
Hi Anthony,
Could you make it a policy that your guest authors include a signature line at the end or their posts with their biographical information, in whatever way they choose to present it? I’m curious what Dr. Svalgaard’s training is in and while I’m sure it’s suitable and I’ll find it soon, it would save me a step.
I feel this is similar to the point you made the other day that all articles on scientific papers should cite the paper itself so people can find it easily.
Bart says:
September 29, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Cue Leif screaming “It’s an 11 year cycle!” in 3-2-1…
The 11 year cycle is the rectified energy output of the 22 year Hale cycle, which is the period required for the Sun to return to its previous state.
Oh, silly me. I just realized he didn’t write this article: you did about his work. Still, it would be helpful in general.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 29, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Why do you keep “debunking” me when I didn’t mention it?
I’m not specifically ‘debunking’ you, just making a comment on the GCR-hypothesis.
Bart says:
September 29, 2012 at 1:03 pm
It’s the same data I linked to
Then you should have no problem recognizing the long-term behavior of solar activity, but apparently you have
I have humbled you so many times in the past
Very many people take special joy of trying to [and believing in] humble me, you are no exception.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 29, 2012 at 1:05 pm
“Are you fond of internecine warfare?”
No, actually, I am trying to help you avoid fighting on a battleground of your opponent’s choosing. Trend lines work when there is a trend. This signal has to be demodulated before you can start applying trending analysis.
I must go have a life. My silence for the rest of the day should not be interpreted as concession of any kind.
JanP;
Please could you elaborate to what central statements of the theory, about which you think is mine, the CET temperature record is supposedly in contradiction?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How about you explain the CET in the context of your own wording regarding the effects of CO2?
That’s the problem with having a discussion with you. You never drive a stake in the ground as to what it is you are claiming in the first place, and then you bleat endlessly about your comments being misrepresented or taken out of context, or whatever other excuse happens to be handy.
So please state, in plain English, what you believe the effects of increasing CO2 are, and how they are commensurate with the CET temperature records.
BTW, you have still failed to provide a direct answer to the issues brought up by richardscourtney regarding the broad range of values used for aerosol forcing amongst the various models, the inability of the models to make a prediction that has been born out by future observations, you’ve not provided a cogent answer to the point that natural variability makes it so hard to isolate the warming signal from CO2 that no rational person would conclude anything other than it is so small as to be insignificant, and you cannot seem to see how your own statement that:
“It is principally not possible to make predictions of an individual realization beyond a certain time horizon, since the individual realizations diverge exponentially with an arbitrary small perturbation of the initial conditions.”
pretty much falsifies the value of the models in the first place. But I’ll put all those failures on your part aside (and yes, I know that you think you’ve answered those questions, but what you have done is just arm waving) if you’ll just explain in your own words what the effects of CO2 are and how they are part of the CET graphs Vuc has provided to you.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
September 29, 2012 at 12:51 pm
Dr. Perlwitz
I didn’t think that asking to try harder, or to say that both Dr. Schmidt and you failed to explain startling contradiction to the AGW hypothesis re the CET is as suggested ad hominem remarks but if so I do apologize.
So let us keep to the science:
Dr. Perlwitz here is graph showing the world longest and the most accurate temperature record:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MidSummer-MidWinter.htm
what is plain in the above graph is:
1. the 350 years long record of the CET the mid-summer temperatures has no rising trend, but one would be expected, at least since 1950s if ‘the GHG factor’ was active.
2. the 350 years long record of the CET the mid-winter temperatures has an even rising trend, going back to 1660s, but that would not be expected, at least not before say 1860s, some 200 years later, and continue at same rate post 1860 if ‘the GHG factor’ was active.
From the above it can be concluded that both the CET’s mid-summer temperatures and mid-winter temperatures are not subject to the ‘the GHG factor’ i.e. contravene AGW hypothesis, unless of course there is a plausible explanation.
Dr. Perlwitz , if the AGW hypothesis is NOT about ‘the GHG factor’ contributed by men since 1860s than I apologize for wasting your time.
Thanks again.
Jan P Perlwitz:
I had not thought you would manage to beat your own record for the most blatant statement of pseudoscience posted on WUWT, but I congratulate you on your breaking that record in your post at September 29, 2012 at 12:35 pm.
You write
Firstly, your unjustified and unjustifiable assertion that “that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have become the dominant climate driver on a multi-decadal and centuries time scale” needs to be substantiated by you because it is pure, superstitious belief. We scientists only need to point out that the null hypothesis applies and, therefore, we reject your superstitious assertion.
Secondly, predictive capability is a prerequisite of falsifiability in science. Therefore, those who postulate that cooling effects will overcome warming effects need to predict cooling: otherwise, it would not be possible to show whether their postulate is wrong.
Similarly, AGW-proponents predicted warming which has not happened. The “committed warming” predicted in the AR4 for the first two decades of this century has disappeared. But you and others who predicted that warming refuse to acknowledge nature has shown you were wrong.
Clearly, there is nothing you would accept as a falsification of your superstitious beliefs.
Richard
Here is one I have still wanted to address:
John Whitman wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1093498
No, it’s not. You asked me whether a certain absolute statement was my premise for a statement about energy balance changes I made. I’m open to alternative hypotheses that explain changes in the energy balance, though. Thus, it’s not my premise. It doesn’t mean those alternative hypotheses must be per se right.
Your statement erroneously assumes that cycles with higher sunspot counts should, per se, increase earth-atmosphere system energy (via TSI) and thus increases in global temperature relative to cycles with lower sunspot counts.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 29, 2012 at 12:39 pm
If you want to thrash out Svensmark and GCR theory with Tallbloke, fine with me. Why do you keep “debunking” me when I didn’t mention it?
Actually, I’m in the same boat as you. I didn’t mention it either, but Leif is determined to deflect any discussion of the EMPIRICALLY OBSERVED drop in cloud cover by dragging Svensmark’s HYPOTHESIS into the discussion. It’s obviously a tactic, because he knows the ~1.6% drop in cloud cover since 1971 fells AGW on the spot. You can be sure Perlwitz will studiously ignore it too.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00280.1
David Ball says:
September 28, 2012 at 6:01 pm
D Böehm says:
September 28, 2012 at 5:47 pm
Just wanted to point out that we are still waiting for Mosher to respond to davidmhoffer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A response from Mosher would be even more suprising than JanP having an actual logical discussion involving facts, logic, and science. But, we can be optimists…. provided that our egos can stand being repeatedly disappointed.