Teaming up with Jo Nova to answer The Team down under: “Professor Sherwood is inverting the scientific method”
Guest post by Alec Rawls
My leak of the draft IPCC report emphasized the chapter 7 admission of strong evidence for solar forcing beyond the very slight variance in solar irradiance, even if we don’t know the mechanism:
The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link.
One of the fifteen lead authors of chapter 7 responded that the evidence for one of the proposed mechanisms of solar amplification, GCR-cloud, indicates a weak effect, and proceeded as if this obviated the IPCC’s admission that some such mechanism must be having a substantial effect:
[Professor Steven Sherwood] says the idea that the chapter he authored confirms a greater role for solar and other cosmic rays in global warming is “ridiculous”.
“I’m sure you could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the opposite – that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible,” he told PM.
Sherwood uses theory—his dissatisfaction with one theory of how solar amplification might work—to ignore the (admitted) evidence for some mechanism of solar amplification. Putting theory over evidence is not science. It is the exact definitional opposite of science (see Feynman snippet above).
Since Sherwood is Australian, it seemed a visit Down Under was due, so Jo Nova and I teamed up to issue a reply on her website.
Jo knows Sherwood
Here is Jo Nova’s take on Sherwood’s shenanigans:
The IPCC are now adding citations of critics (so they can’t be accused of ignoring them completely), but they bury the importance of those studies under glorious graphic art, ponderous bureacrat-speak, and contradictory conclusions.
When skeptics point out that the IPCC admit (in a hidden draft) that the solar magnetic effect could change the climate on Earth, the so-called Professors of Science hit back — but not with evidence from the atmosphere, but with evidence from other paragraphs in a committee report. It’s argument from authority, it’s a logical fallacy that no Professor of Science should ever make. Just because other parts of a biased committee report continue to deny the evidence does not neutralize the real evidence.
Alec Rawls pulls him up. Sherwood calls us deniers, but the IPCC still denies solar-magnetic effects that have been known for 200 years. This anti-science response is no surprise from Sherwood, who once changed the colour of “zero” to red to make it match the color the models were supposed to find. (Since when was red the color of no-warming? Sure you can do it, but it is deceptive.) That effort still remains one of the most egregious peer reviewed distortions of science I have ever seen. — Jo
Earlier this week Nova posted about Sherwood’s glowing support for recent claims that the IPCC’s predictions of global warming have been accurate. Obviously Sherwood needs to take a closer look at the Second Order Draft which, in particular the following graph (SOD figure 1.4 on page 1-39, with a hat tip to Anthony):
Absolutely NOT falsified says Sherwood, but guess what he thinks IS falsified?
Steve Sherwood, Co-Director, Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales said the paper showed “that if you take natural year-to-year variability into account in any reasonable way, the predictions are as close as one could reasonably expect.”
“Those who have been claiming ad nauseum that the climate models have been proved wrong, should read this paper, even though for most of us it is not very surprising,” said Dr Sherwood, who was not involved in the Nature Climate Change paper.
“Though there is no contrarian analogue to the IPCC, individual contrarians have made predictions over a similar time frame that the warming would stop or reverse. The data since then have probably falsified many of those predictions (which the deniers continue to make today).”
Predictions that warming would stop have been falsified? By what? By the fact that, according to HadCRUT4, there has been no statistically significant warming for 16 years? Falsification in Steve Sherwood’s dictionary: “whatever preserves Steve Sherwood’s presumptions.” Just what we’d expect from a definitional anti-scientist.
My own response to Sherwood gets into the back-story on the Second Order Draft. Readers might be interested to know that the SOD admission of substantial evidence for solar amplification seems to be in response to my submitted comments on the FOD. I had charged them with, you guessed it, inverting the scientific method. That’s why Sherwood, in pretending that the new admission never happened, is also inverting the scientific method. He’s reverting to the FOD position. Well, some of his co-authors are apparently not willing to go there any more, and hopefully they will speak out.
My guest post at Jo Nova’s:
Professor Steven Sherwood inverts the scientific method: he is an exact definitional anti-scientist
My submitted comments on the First Order Draft of AR5 accused the IPCC of committing what in statistics is called “omitted variable fraud.” As I titled my post on the subject: “Vast evidence for solar climate driver rates one oblique sentence in AR5.”
How vast is the evidence? Dozens of studies have found between a .4 and .7 degree of correlation between solar activity and various climate indices going back many thousands of years, meaning that solar activity “explains” in the statistical sense something like half of all past temperature change (citations at the link above).
Solar activity was at “grand maximum” levels from 1920 to 2000 (Usoskin 2007). Might this explain a substantial part of the unexceptional warming of the 20th century? Note also that, with the sun having since dropped into a state of profound quiescence, the solar-warming theory can also explain the lack of 21st century warming while the CO2-warming theory cannot.
Now take a look the radiative forcing table from any one of the IPCC reports, where the explanatory variables that get included in the IPCC computer models are laid out. You will see that the only solar forcing effect listed is “solar irradiance.” In AR5 this table is on page 8-39:
Why is the solar irradiance effect so tiny? Note that Total Solar Irradiance, or TSI, is also known as “the solar constant.” When solar activity ramps up and down from throwing wild solar flares to sleeping like a baby, TSI hardly varies a whit. That’s where the name comes from. While solar activity varies tremendously, solar irradiance remains almost constant.
This slight change in the solar radiation that shines on our planet is known to be too small an energy variation to explain any substantial change in temperature. In particular, it can’t begin to account for anything near to half of all past temperature change. It can’t begin to account for the large solar effect on climate that is evidenced in the geologic record.
Implication: some other solar effect besides TSI must also be at work. One of the solar variables that does vary when solar activity ramps up and down, like solar wind pressure, must be having some effect on climate, and this is certainly plausible. We in-effect live inside of the sun’s extended corona. When the solar wind is going full blast the earth’s immediate external environment is rather different than when the solar wind is down, and even if we don’t know the mechanism, we have powerful evidence that some solar effect other than the slight variation in TSI is driving global temperature.
This is what the IPCC admits in the Second Order Draft of AR5, which now includes the sentence in bold below (page 7-43, lines 1-4, emphasis added):
Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.
Sherwood’s response is to consider only one possible mechanism of solar amplification. He looks at the evidence for Henrik Svensmark’s proposed GCR-cloud mechanism and judges that the forcing effect from this particular mechanism would be small, then concludes that a greater role for the sun in global warming is “ridiculous.”
Hey Sherwood, read the added sentence again. It says that the evidence implies the existence of “an amplifying mechanism.” Presenting an argument against a particular possible mechanism does not in any way counter the report’s new admission that some such mechanism must be at work. (Guess he didn’t author that sentence eh? Since he doesn’t even know what it says.)
Sherwood is trying to use theory—his dissatisfaction with a particular theory of how solar amplification might work—to dismiss the evidence that some mechanism of solar amplification must be at work. The bad professor is inverting the scientific method, which requires that evidence always trump theory. If evidence gives way to theory it is not science. It is anti-science. It is the exact opposite of science.
The new sentence was added specifically to avoid the criticism that the authors were inverting the scientific method
My submitted comments on the First Order Draft ripped the authors up and down for inverting the scientific method. They were all doing what Sherwood is doing now. Here is the same passage from the FOD. It lacks the added sentence, but otherwise is almost identical (FOD page 7-50, lines 50-53):
“Many empirical relationships or correlations have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system, such as SSTs in the Pacific Ocean (Meehl et al., 2009), some reconstruction of past climate (Kirkby, 2007) or tree rings (Dengel et al., 2009). We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol- and cloud-properties.”
The first sentence here, citing unspecified “empirical relationships” between cosmogenic isotopes (a proxy for solar activity) and “some aspects of the climate system” is the only reference in the entire report to the massive evidence for a solar driver of climate. Not a word about the magnitude of the correlations found, nothing about how these correlations are much too strong to possibly be explained by the slight variance in solar irradiance alone, and almost nothing (“many”) about the sheer volume of studies that have found these correlations. And that’s it: one oblique sentence, then the report jumps immediately to looking at the evidence for one proposed mechanism by which solar amplification might be occurring.
The evidence for that particular mechanism is judged (very prematurely) to indicate a weak effect, and this becomes the implicit rationale for the failure of the IPCC’s computer models to include any solar variable but TSI. Readers of the FOD have no idea about the mountain of evidence for some solar driver of climate that is stronger than TSI because the report never mentions it. A couple of the citations that were included mention it (in particular, Kirkby 2007, which is a survey paper), but the report itself never mentions it, and the report then goes on to ignore this evidence entirely. The enhanced solar forcing effect for which there is so much evidence is completely left out of all subsequent analyses.
In other words, the inversion of the scientific method is total. In the FOD, the authors used their dissatisfaction with the GCR-cloud theory as an excuse for completely excluding the vast evidence that some mechanism of enhanced solar forcing is at work. Theory was allowed to completely obliterate and remove a whole mountain of evidence. “Pure definitional anti-science,” I charged.
At least one of the co-authors seems to have decided that this was a bridge too far and added the sentence acknowledging the evidence that some mechanism of solar amplification must be at work. The added sentence declares in-effect, “no, we are not inverting the scientific method.” They are no longer using their dissatisfaction with a particular theory of how enhanced solar forcing might work as a ruse to pretend that the evidence for some such mechanism does not exist.
So good for them. In the sea of IPCC dishonesty there is a glimmer of honesty, but it doesn’t go very far. TSI is still the only solar effect that is included in the “consensus” computer models and the IPCC still uses this garbage-in claim to arrive at their garbage-out conclusion that observed warming must be almost entirely due to the human release of CO2.
One of the reason I decided to release the SOD was because I knew that once the Steven Sherwoods at the IPCC realized how the added sentence undercut the whole report they would yank it back out, and my submitted comments insured that they would indeed realize how the added sentence undercut the whole report. Now sure enough, as soon as I make the added sentence public Steven Sherwood publicly reverts to the FOD position, trying to pretend that his argument against one proposed mechanism of solar amplification means that we can safely ignore the overwhelming evidence that some such mechanism is at work.
We’ll find out in a year or so whether his co-authors are willing to go along with this definitional anti-science. Evidently there is at least some division. With Sherwood speaking up for the FOD position, any co-authors who prefer the new position should feel free to speak up as well. Come on real scientists, throw this blowhard under the bus!
In any case, it is good to have all of them stuck between a rock and a hard place. They can invert the scientific method and be exact definitional anti-scientists like Steven Sherwood, or they can admit that no one can have any confidence in the results of computer models where the only solar forcing is TSI, not after they have admitted strong evidence for some mechanism of solar forcing beyond TSI. That admission is a game changer, however much Sherwood wants to deny it.
He piles on with more of the same at the ridiculous “DeSmog Blog” (as if CO2 is “smog”), and is quoted front and center by the even more ridiculous Andrew Sullivan. Sherwood has become the go-to guy for the anti-science left.
The two dozen references documenting strong correlations between solar activity and various climate indicies
Jo wanted to include references so I sent along the list of citations that I had included in my FOD comment. Worth seeing again I think:
Bond et al. 2001, “Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene,” Science.
Excerpt from Bond: “Over the last 12,000 years virtually every centennial time scale increase in drift ice documented in our North Atlantic records was tied to a distinct interval of variable and, overall, reduced solar output.”
Neff et al. 2001, “Strong coherence between solar variability and the monsoon in Oman between 9 and 6 kyr ago,” Nature.
Finding from Neff: Correlation coefficients of .55 and .60.
Usoskin et. al. 2005, “Solar Activity Over the Last 1150 years: does it Correlate with Climate?” Proc. 13th Cool Stars Workshop.
Excerpt from Usoskin: “The long term trends in solar data and in northern hemisphere temperatures have a correlation coefficient of about 0.7 — .8 at a 94% — 98% confidence level.”
Shaviv and Veizer, 2003, “Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?” GSA Today.
Excerpt from Shaviv: “We find that at least 66% of the variance in the paleotemperature trend could be attributed to CRF [Cosmic Ray Flux] variations likely due to solar system passages through the spiral arms of the galaxy.” [Not strictly due to solar activity, but implicating the GCR, or CRF, that solar activity modulates.]
Plenty of anti-CO2 alarmists know about this stuff. Mike Lockwood and Claus Fröhlich, for instance, in their 2007 paper: “Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature” (Proc. R. Soc. A), began by documenting how “[a] number of studies have indicated that solar variations had an effect on preindustrial climate throughout the Holocene.” In support, they cited 17 papers, the Bond and Neff articles from above, plus:
Davis & Shafer 1992; Jirikowic et al. 1993; Davis 1994; vanGeel et al. 1998; Yu&Ito 1999; Hu et al. 2003; Sarnthein et al. 2003; Christla et al. 2004; Prasad et al. 2004; Wei & Wang 2004; Maasch et al. 2005; Mayewski et al. 2005; Wang et al. 2005a; Bard & Frank 2006; and Polissar et al. 2006.
The correlations in most of these papers are not directly to temperature. They are to temperature proxies, some of which have a complex relationship with temperature, like Neff 2001, which found a correlation between solar activity and rainfall. Even so, the correlations tend to be strong, as if the whole gyre is somehow moving in broad synchrony with solar activity.
Some studies do examine correlations between solar activity proxies and direct temperature proxies, like the ratio of Oxygen18 to Oxygen16 in geologic samples. One such study (highlighted in Kirkby 2007) is Mangini et. al. 2005, “Reconstruction of temperature in the Central Alps during the past 2000 yr from a δ18O stalagmite record.”
Excerpt from Mangini: “… a high correlation between δ18O in SPA 12 and D14C (r =0.61). The maxima of δ18O coincide with solar minima (Dalton, Maunder, Sporer, Wolf, as well as with minima at around AD 700, 500 and 300). This correlation indicates that the variability of δ18O is driven by solar changes, in agreement with previous results on Holocene stalagmites from Oman, and from Central Germany.”
And that’s just old stuff. Here are four random recent papers.
Ogurtsov et al, 2010, “Variations in tree ring stable isotope records from northern Finland and their possible connection to solar activity,” JASTP.
Excerpt from Ogurtsov: “Statistical analysis of the carbon and oxygen stable isotope records reveals variations in the periods around 100, 11 and 3 years. A century scale connection between the 13C/12C record and solar activity is most evident.”
Di Rita, 2011, “A possible solar pacemaker for Holocene fluctuations of a salt-marsh in southern Italy,” Quaternary International.
Excerpt from Di Rita: “The chronological correspondence between the ages of saltmarsh vegetation reductions and the minimum concentration values of 10Be in the GISP2 ice core supports the hypothesis that important fluctuations in the extent of the salt-marsh in the coastal Tavoliere plain are related to variations of solar activity.”
Raspopov et al, 2011, “Variations in climate parameters at time intervals from hundreds to tens of millions of years in the past and its relation to solar activity,” JASTP.
Excerpt from Raspopov: “Our analysis of 200-year climatic oscillations in modern times and also data of other researchers referred to above suggest that these climatic oscillations can be attributed to solar forcing. The results obtained in our study for climatic variations millions of years ago indicate, in our opinion, that the 200- year solar cycle exerted a strong influence on climate parameters at those time intervals as well.”
Tan et al, 2011, “Climate patterns in north central China during the last 1800 yr and their possible driving force,” Clim. Past.
Excerpt from Tan: “Solar activity may be the dominant force that drove the same-phase variations of the temperature and precipitation in north central China.”
Saltmarshes, precipitation, “oscillations.” It’s all so science-fair. How about something just plain scary?
Solheim et al. 2011, “The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24,” submitted astro-ph.
Excerpt from Solheim: “We find that for the Norwegian local stations investigated that 30-90% of the temperature increase in this period may be attributed to the Sun. For the average of 60 European stations we find ≈ 60% and globally (HadCRUT3) ≈ 50%. The same relations predict a temperature decrease of ≈ 0.9°C globally and 1.1−1.7°C for the Norwegian stations investigated from solar cycle 23 to 24.”
Those two dozen there are just the start. Scafetta hasn’t even been mentioned. (Sorry Nicola.) But there is a lot in those 24.
some other solar effect besides TSI must also be at work. One of the solar variables that does vary when solar activity ramps up and down, like solar wind pressure, must be having some effect on climate, and this is certainly plausible. We in-effect live inside of the sun’s extended corona.
In the decade, we have figured out how to derive solar wind properties from the geomagnetic record. The bottom line is that the solar wind in the 20th century has not been significantly different from that in the 19th and 18th centuries. Neither has solar UV. In particular solar activity [and solar wind] at present is very much like it was a century ago. So the Sun has not varied enough to cause a significant climate influence, regardless of all the papers mentioned.
To which list of recent sun-climate linking scientific papers, I’d add these, from Herschel, one of the greatest astronomers & physicists (discoverer of Uranus & infrared radiation) ever, & an 18th century Mexican antecedent:
http://longstreet.typepad.com/thesciencebookstore/2012/02/william-herschel-adam-smith-sunspots-and-wheat.html
http://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/rmfe/v54n2/v54n2a18.pdf
It would seem self-evident that the variable sun exerts more influence on terrestrial climate than the fluctuations of a trace gas, the atmospheric concentration of which lags ocean temperature.
Dr. J. Dickey from NASA-JPL (see link below) thinks there is more to the sun-climate relationship than the TSI. I was at a point of abandoning my ‘wayward’ crack-pot geomagnetic idea, when I came across her article. That was the inspiration to put together a draft for an article on the subject, which greatly irks with and apparently made the ‘flat sun’ expert loose his cool.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
(Alec I’ll be in touch once you had well deserved break from all the pressure).
Wow! My hat off to you on this rebuttal.
Regarding falsification, here it is from the Warmists’ own mouths. Look at the graph above for the lack of warming and look below at 15 years and 17 years and the model errors. The panic has set and they think people are not looking.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109
Dr. Svalgaard:
Solar magnetic flux has fluctuated significantly in recent decades.
http://www.agu.org/journals/abs/2002/2001JA000503.shtml
This, combined with the obvious correlation between C & Be isotopes & the Little Ice Age during the Maunder & Dalton sunspot minima, strongly suggest to me a significant & arguably controlling solar influence. In any case, the evidence for this influence, both observed & derived experimentally at CERN & in other lab tests, constitutes actual scientific practice, as opposed to government-funded “consensus”, anti-scientific GIGO models based upon demonstrably false assumptions.
There are a lot of studies (including mine of course) that show a strong correlation between solar and climate records for centuries and millennial.
People usually state that the sun did not vary much to produce the change, but this is not correct. The truth is that it is not know how much TSI changed last centuries. TSI proxy models used in the GCM (e.g. Lean’s model) are based on specific observable that are unable to properly recnstruct the background solar radiation, which is what causes the multidecadal/secular millennial trending.
So, it is not known how much TSI changed during the centuries.
In this case the only way to proceed is to use the methodology adopted in my papers. That is a careful study of the harmonics to deduce a driving process. My papers demonstrate that both climate and solar activity present common harmonics, which are characteristic of the solar system oscillations. Thus, the origin of these harmonics in the climate system can be ultimately associated with solar/astronomical mechanisms. The harmonic can be used to reconstruct grand part of the climate variability, and also forecast it.
The approach of the IPCC to ignore the empirical studies and promote the highly reductionist approach applied in the GCMs, which do not reconstruct the climate variability (as also demonstrated in my papers), is surely contrary to the scientific method.
Please, contact hem and let them to know about the empirical studies.
lsvalgaard says:
December 16, 2012 at 2:28 pm
“So the Sun has not varied enough to cause a significant climate influence, regardless of all the papers mentioned.”
That still leaves the solar-magnetic strength, Leif. What about that?
Judith Curry covered this well a few months back,
http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/27/effects-of-solar-variability-on-climate/
Looks like some, so called, scientists still have there fingers in there ears while shouting “NO, NO, NO” over and over when it comes to looking at anything outside of their CAGW toy box…
Dr. Svalgaard:
Apologies for posting wrong link, although that one (no doubt from colleagues known to you), does point out that effects near earth could differ.
Has this 1999 study, with follow on papers, been IYO opinion found false?
http://www.ukssdc.ac.uk/wdcc1/papers/nature.html
Personally, I’m sticking with Herschel until I can see conclusive evidence against his insight & the sunspot cycle correlation.
Lief, I’m having a bit of difficulty with that. Which one are you asserting:
* All of the independent papers cited, by different authors — and note that there are quite a number of them, using different proxies, tied to different phenomena — discover a statistical relationship between things that are usually correlated with solar state and climate variables that is accidental or otherwise mistake? This seems — unlikely. In the literal meaning of the term in statistics.
* All of the papers cited are deliberately misrepresenting the evidence to arrive at a predefined conclusions, basically cherrypicking or engaging in some other sort of confirmation bias? If so, this is a very serious charge — not that it isn’t made fairly regularly in the direction of scientists who are labelled “warmists” by skeptics. I think you’d have to back this up in some way other than just saying “it can’t be the sun therefore you are lying”. In fact, I’d think you have to do this on a case by case basis, since they use different proxies correlated with different effects.
Indeed, I don’t know how you could tell what solar state was in the 19th century without the use of some of the proxies, given the probable unreliability and variability of naked eye observations and their probable correlation with things that no instrumentation existed to detect, such as cosmic radiation rates, but it would be very interesting to see how you support the assertion that you can be certain that things like sunspot counts can be correlated with all aspects of relevant solar state over their entire record, or what other variables or e.g. radioactive proxies you invoke — clearly distinct from those in the papers above, that seem to span the entire Holocene and beyond — you use to support the assertion.
* There is some other proximate cause that explains both the correlation between things that appear to be varying or are believed — incorrectly, according to you — to be varying with the sun and the observed variations in rainfall, temperature, the southerly drift of calved icebergs before they melt? Something that modulates (say) the Earth’s magnetic field directly and hence produces the effect but that is actually independent of solar state? If so, would you care to state a hypothesis that is more specific than “something else” is causing the apparent correlation determined by (one hopes) good faith statistical analysis on the part of a rather largish number of independently working scientists publishing on entirely different things?
Bear in mind that I’m not a “warmist”, not a “denier”, but that I do want to see things stated clearly. One of the three things above seems as though it must be true — a lot of people working in good faith who are somehow in error, a lot of people working in bad faith who are deliberately in error, or a secondary cause such that the first is true but it does not matter because there is some other ignored proximate cause for the variations in climate observed in correlation with e.g. radiometric proxies.
When you assert that it can’t be the sun, are you also asserting that there is no actual correlation with radioactive proxies commonly associated with solar state (whether or not the papers claim that there was), or something beyond that?
rgb
I haven’t read all of this leaked document, but from a skeptic that looks at this science with an open mind; this document has what the warmist want to see, and just enough to get the skeptics excited. In the end; I believe the parts that excite the skeptics will be rewritten or removed by the final draft.
Scientifically the way to deal with this is to say that there is a possibility of a solar forcing amplification effect, although we don’t know the cause we can bound it’s effect and come up with ways to disprove or bound the effect with experiments or more data. The incorrect way to deal with it is to say that we don’t understand how it could happen that solar has more than a minimal effect so we will discount it until proven wrong. That’s wrong. They have uncertainty about the causes of temperature forcings. None of the “assumed” relationships are acting like they should. In spite of the fact they can create models without a solar amplification that explain the temperature record for a certain period of time, our understanding of these things is so naive that it is critical that the IPCC and scientists in general allow for what is not known and be studiously working to eliminate those uncertainties with experiments and science. That’s the scientific method.
When we predict something like the Higgs Boson we don’t assume that our science is right. We have lots of alternative theories being brewed, we have skeptical scientists, we have experiminents dedicated to finding if our theory is correct. Scientists don’t proclaim its existence until there is a 6 sigma level of certainty. In climate “science” the models based on unproven assumptions are taken as data that is proven virtually. They say things like 99% certainty, 95% certainty when we know of no basis for making such claims of certainty.
The IPCC in the fourth IPCC report used the models fitting to temperature records that were adjusted to proclaim they had bounds on natural variability. This allowed them to conclude they actually knew what caused the warming because they knew what other things could do and none could account for the temperature record. They had explanations for the variations from a straight AGW curve. Therefore they felt confident to reduce their uncertainty but since we have 16 years of zero trend in temperature and because there is no explanation for this variation the basis for their confidence has disappeared and needs to be reassessed. Given the variation in the last 15-16 years it is clear “something” is not in their models or in their ideas of what forcings can happen naturally. Therefore we have to presume that there is at least the possibility that some of the forcing in the previous period observed was not because of AGW.
Reblogged this on sainsfilteknologi and commented:
IPCC AR5
Dr. Scafetta:
Besides solar magnetic flux mentioned above, what about the precise wavelength & energy composition of the total irradiance? While the total energy doesn’t vary much, there could be an effect from distribution within that total of UV, visible colors & IR frequencies. Also, characteristics of the atmosphere could affect the effects of the entering TRI at various altitudes, such as ozone prevalence.
It is the height of hubris (& self-interested greed & ideological motivation) to assume that we understand enough about climate to claim CO2 as the primary driver. (Absurd, IMO.) Look how much has been learned about this science in its infancy just in the past 20 years.
Climatology is at about the same level of development now as biology in 1812, chemistry & geology in 1712, physics in 1612 & astronomy in 1512 (when Copernicus secretly had already convinced himself that the earth goes around the sun, but dared not publish). The CO2 hypothesis is to climatology as phlogiston is to chemistry & special creation to biology.
and even if we don’t know the mechanism, we have powerful evidence that some solar effect other than the slight variation in TSI is driving global temperature.
Could El Ninos and La Ninas be influenced by the changes of the solar wind speed? See:
http://snag.gy/UtqpX.jpg
When the wind speed is low such as 1998 and 2010, we had El Ninos, but when the wind speed is high, such as 1989 and 2000, we had La Ninas.
(This is from the following at Dr. Spencer’s site: Ulric Lyons says:
December 14, 2012 at 4:14 PM
El Nino unforced? I don’t think so. Check for the big drops in solar wind speed in 1997 and 2009: http://snag.gy/UtqpX.jpg)
….a lot of people working in bad faith who are deliberately in error…..
Yes I believe this part of your comment, one has to look no further and the endless stream of grant money to prove CAGW is real – and throw in the climategate emails for good measure.
Fraud walks the hallow halls.
Sometimes I get this gnawing feeling that the experts might be wrong, and the average, illiterate Joes might be right when they say “it’s the Sun stupid”. You see, the average Joes don’t know a damned thing about solar science – they are just guessing. Sometimes the simplest explanations fly right past the experts. Only time will tell. Just food for thought.
rgbatduke says:
December 16, 2012 at 3:08 pm
Something that modulates (say) the Earth’s magnetic field directly and hence produces the effect but that is actually independent of solar state?
I did analysis of the Earth’s magnetic field frequency spectrum, at the boundary between outer core and the mantle (based on data from Jackson-ETHZ and Bloxham-Harvard University). It shows identical main component to that of solar magnetic cycle at 21.3 years (RGB se page 14), in addition the bi-decadal change of the Earth’s magnetic field at the south pole has high correlation with the solar variability
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
milodonharlani says:
December 16, 2012 at 3:00 pm
Has this 1999 study, with follow on papers, been IYO opinion found false?
http://www.ukssdc.ac.uk/wdcc1/papers/nature.html
Yes: http://www.leif.org/research/Reply%20to%20Lockwood%20IDV%20Comment.pdf
rgbatduke says:
December 16, 2012 at 3:08 pm
Indeed, I don’t know how you could tell what solar state was in the 19th century without the use of some of the proxies
That argument cuts the other way too. If I can’t tell because they are all so unreliable, then nobody can. And there are not that many proxies of solar activity. Everybody uses the same ones or obsolete [and perhaps carefully picked] versions of same. Try this: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-Past-Present-and-Future-Notes.pdf
DirkH says:
December 16, 2012 at 2:55 pm
That still leaves the solar-magnetic strength, Leif. What about that?
That is what all the proxies ‘measure’, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric%20Magnetic%20Field%201835-2010.pdf
Regarding falsification, here it is from the Warmists’ own mouths. Look at the graph above for the lack of warming and look below at 15 years and 17 years and the model errors. The panic has set and they think people are not looking.
Personally, I think it is just great. We have only 33+ years of satellite data, being more than generous. Before 1997, temperatures were nearly flat. After 1998, temperatures were nearly flat. Almost all of the warming observed in the satellite record is associated with a single discrete event, the 1997-1998 El Nino! Try to find an anthropogenic cause for this El Nino, and you’ve got an argument. Without one, you are waving your hands a rather lot because the curves associated with CO_2 concentration and the actual 33 year record look nothing alike! Nor do the CO_2 concentration curve against the temperature for the last 100 years. Or 500 years. Or 1000 years. Or 10,000 years. On a 100,000 year timescale, they do look alike, but CO_2 lags temperature in a well-understood way.
Also, as they stretch the interval out to 17 years it gets to be more difficult to get the signal they require. In fact, it is rather plausible to think that they will need a strong El Nino this year to get a temperature bump large enough to restore anything like the rise rate predicted as a “anthropogenic warming signal” in seventeen years, or for that matter in eighteen years. The ENSO meter is near-neutral and dropping — it looks like the latest “El Nino” may have already happened and if so, been a serious dud. If so, there is probably going to be at least 3-4 years before another chance emerges (who knows, since ENSO is highly irregular) and well within that time frame solar cycle 24 will have peaked and be on the downhill side (again, if it hasn’t peaked already). One has to wonder — respectfully of course — if the lack of strong El Nino is at all related to the weak solar cycle, and whether or not the succession of La Nina’s are at all responsible for the lack of warming, with the little observed in coincidence with El Nino strength such as it is.
But it is early to read anything into the data either way. Ten years, seventeen years, thirty four years — these are “days” as far as climate variation is concerned. Wake me when we get to half-centuries of reliable data on both the atmosphere, the sun, and the ocean at depth and truly globally, all at the same time. That would be in about forty more years (we’ve barely started as far as the oceans are concerned, although we have satellite based global SSTs for somewhat longer than we’ve had anything at all globally at depth).
rgb
Both CO2 and Earth’s magnetic fields were mentioned. Arctic is as good place as any, if not better since there is something called ‘polar amplification’, i.e. where the warming is at its steepest. I did a comparison:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CO2-Arc.htm
The choice is yours.
Dr. Svalgaard:
Thanks for your slide show link.
To me there appears to be a decadal sunspot activity (however measured) correlation with global temperature, as in your slide 8. The cycle centered on 1970 corresponds with the cold winters I remember from the late ’60s & early ’70s (before, during & after attending your present institution) & the current cycle, with sideways trending temperature, as measured by various book-cooking agencies, but in fact probably actually declining.
Alec Rawls says:
‘Hey Sherwood, read the added sentence again. It says that the evidence implies the existence of “an amplifying mechanism.” Presenting an argument against a particular possible mechanism does not in any way counter the report’s new admission that some such mechanism must be at work. (Guess he didn’t author that sentence eh? Since he doesn’t even know what it says.)
Sherwood is trying to use theory—his dissatisfaction with a particular theory of how solar amplification might work—to dismiss the evidence that some mechanism of solar amplification must be at work. The bad professor is inverting the scientific method, which requires that evidence always trump theory. If evidence gives way to theory it is not science. It is anti-science. It is the exact opposite of science.’
Not just the science holding up here, it’s the words. And for an oldie who’s a words person rather than a numbers person, that’s deeply satisfying.
One of the best Gotchas I’ve enjoyed for a long, long time.
Thanks Alec and Jo.
Is there an update available for Nicola Scafetta’s Global Temp predictions ?
Alec: My leak of the draft IPCC report emphasized the chapter 7 admission of strong evidence for solar forcing
The only place I can see this touched upon is chapter 8. Perhaps you should read the Report again.
First rule of climate ‘science’ when the models and reality differ in value its reality which is in error , once you understand you can see how Sherwood and co can say what they do .
milodonharlani says:
December 16, 2012 at 3:24 pm
Besides solar magnetic flux mentioned above, what about the precise wavelength & energy composition of the total irradiance? While the total energy doesn’t vary much, there could be an effect from distribution within that total of UV, visible colors & IR frequencies. Also, characteristics of the atmosphere could affect the effects of the entering TRI at various altitudes, such as ozone prevalence.
You have a valid point – UV varies quite a lot. That affects ozone production in the stratosphere. If UV varies but TSI is “almost constant” then something else must be varying out-of-sync with UV to keep TSI the same.
lsvalgaard says:
December 16, 2012 at 3:31 pm
“That is what all the proxies ‘measure’, e.g. ”
Thanks! Great resource!
The “some” we are looking for is under our feet in the form of 2 million cubic miles of fissionable material under high temperature, high pressure and variable particle bombardments. The “total” part of TSI is near constant, but the frequency of output and volume of cosmic rays vary directly with solar activity. One defect in the GCR-cloud hypothesis is the origin of the 3 micron feedstock of SOx in the atmosphere necessary for the 50 micron nucleation process. The two by-products of Earth’s variable fission rate are heat and elemental atoms. These elemental atoms quickly form elemental compounds, including the needed SOx feedstock, the 97% of natural occuring CO2 and a host of other gases. The inert gas, Radon, has a half-life of 3.8 days, cannot form any compounds and is only produced by nuclear decay. Radon release rates spike just prior to Earthquakes. This links solar and Galactic cosmic rays to climate and tectonics allowing finally the discussion of a Unified Earth Science Theory.
The annual number of geomagnetic storms has taken a sharp plunge:
http://1.2.3.12/bmi/www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/image022.jpg
As posted on WUWT June 21st 2009, quote of the week was from Jack Eddy:
“Were God to give us, at last, the cable, or patch-cord that links the Sun to the Climate System it would have on the solar end a banana plug, and on the other, where it hooks into the Earth—in ways we don’t yet know—a Hydra-like tangle of multiple 24-pin parallel computer connectors. It is surely at this end of the problem where the greatest challenges lie.”
Solar science is not settled so how can anyone say that the sun does not have an effect on climate?
Reasons why l think there is a strong link between the jet stream and climate change.
1 The more the jet stream fluctuates, the more there is a risk of increased cloud cover.
2 The more there is a increase in the wave movement of the jet to the north and the south, the better it is at moving both warm and cold air between the poles and the tropics.
To put it in simple terms “lt turns up the atmosphere’s air conditioning”.
3 There is a close match of the perveiling winds and the ocean currents. Which suggests to me that any change in the perveiling winds cause by a change in the jet over the longer term, will also have a large impact on the ocean currents as well.
Two big factors that would effect the climate.
lts with the jet stream is where l would be looking to see if there is a link with sun activity.
Bob Shapiro says:
December 16, 2012 at 4:00 pm
Is there an update available for Nicola Scafetta’s Global Temp predictions ?
*************************
yes, here
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model_1
I for one have no idea if solar variations of any kind do anything at all, or if something else does. What I do know is that Alec Rawls original point seems accurate. While we may not know exactly what the root cause is, we do know that there is variability in the system that has a root cause we aren’t taking into account. Here’s a snippet from Ch11 on the models that I regard as a case in point:
“While there is high agreement that the initialization consistently improves several aspects of climate (like North Atlantic SSTs with more than 75% of the models agreeing on the improvement signal), there is also high agreement that it can consistently degrade others (like the equatorial Pacific temperatures).”
Now the fact of the matter is that when you tweak a model to make it more accurately resemble one parameter, and as a consequence it becomes less accurate for another, there can be no other conclusion but that the model has got one or more things wrong. This is precisely the problem! The evidence is clear on a small matter like this that there is at LEAST one thing, and probably many things, that the models are doing wrong or are missing altogether. At the risk of arguing from ignorance, I just can’t think of another explanation for that kind of behaviour. When you couple the ignorance (which might be entirely my own, perhaps there is a logical explanation) with all the variability that the climate models clearly CAN’T explain but which seems correlated in one way or another with so many other factors, it becomes less important in my mind to determine exactly which one or ones are the root cause and which are consequences of root cause or accidents of correlation. What IS important is to recognize that there is overwhelming evidence that there ARE factors that the models do NOT account for and which contribute to their inability to produce results commensurate with observations.
Mans com’s and remote sencing mostly lye in the microwave frequency bands and the IPCC have left out the effects this has on the atmosphere This link shows how reactive CO2 is to microwave frequencies http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrUqR0LO7k8&NR=1 only about 1000 watts @ 2.4 ghz It’s my belief that adding electrical energy (electrons) through the process of or com’s and remote sensing is adding that hidden energy to the atmosphere So the real fight going on is between the oil industry and the electronic industry Democracy V Technocracy Cheers
Jimbo says:
December 16, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Sometimes I get this gnawing feeling that the experts might be wrong, and the average, illiterate Joes might be right when they say “it’s the Sun stupid”. You see, the average Joes don’t know a damned thing about solar science – they are just guessing. Sometimes the simplest explanations fly right past the experts. Only time will tell. Just food for thought.
==================================================
Most of us ” illiterate Joes” haven’t a clue about all of the science.
But we do know that we should at least CONSIDER things other than co2
MostlyHarmless said (December 16, 2012 at 4:19 pm) in response to milodonharlani (December 16, 2012 at 3:24 pm)
“…You have a valid point – UV varies quite a lot. That affects ozone production in the stratosphere. If UV varies but TSI is “almost constant” then something else must be varying out-of-sync with UV to keep TSI the same…”
And you’d be right. There has been a satellite studying the SPECTRAL irradiance since 2003 – called the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE). One of the instruments is called the SIM – Spectral Irradiance Monitor.
It has seen wild fluctuations in spectral breakdown while the TSI remained constant.
As a matter of fact, look at this link: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/index.html for the data, and here: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solarcycle-sorce.html, and you’ll see that they made just the point you did.
“…Some of the variations that SIM has measured in the last few years do not mesh with what most scientists expected. Climatologists have generally thought that the various part of the spectrum would vary in lockstep with changes in total solar irradiance.
However, SIM suggests that ultraviolet irradiance fell far more than expected between 2004 and 2007 — by ten times as much as the total irradiance did — while irradiance in certain visible and infrared wavelengths surprisingly increased, even as solar activity wound down overall…”
Have any of the visiting solar scientists looked into the spectral irradiance angle?
lsvalgaard says: December 16, 2012 at 4:10 pm
Alec: My leak of the draft IPCC report emphasized the chapter 7 admission of strong evidence for solar forcing
“The only place I can see this touched upon is chapter 8. Perhaps you should read the Report again.”
Pretty sad Leif. I used to think you were an intelligent man worth listening to. But your petty insignificant side seems to show through too often.
Mathematically, solar effect on temperature can be calculated. However, intrinsic variation noise buries what comes after the Solar equal sign.
I still await serious consideration of Bob Tisdale’s oceanic theory to the same extent I await the fruition of the Livingston and Penn solar theory. Both are exciting and reasonable. Both potentially shatter consensus paradigms. And neither have anything to do with each other. Which is even better. Why shatter one when you can shatter two?
These are very exciting times for nerds like me.
Jimmy Haigh says:
December 16, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Solar science is not settled so how can anyone say that the sun does not have an effect on climate?
Works the other way too. How can you say that it does when the science is not settled?
Richdo says:
December 16, 2012 at 5:46 pm
“The only place I can see this touched upon is chapter 8. Perhaps you should read the Report again.”
Pretty sad Leif.
I, for one, wasted time trawling through chapter 7. That nobody picked this up may show how few have actually bothered checking what the Report said. Did you read chapter 8?
yup
taxed says
“lts with the jet stream is where l would be looking to see if there is a link with sun activity.”
Daily Arctic Oscillator index against daily solar wind speed is where I would look for such linkage.
Did you just now figure that out, Leif???? Surprised you didn’t mention it in your first post as you “wasted time trawling through chapter 7.” hmmmm?
A-midst the argument, tender and savory venison stew awaits me with warm crusty bread washed downed with a wonderful winter Widmer Brothers winter brew, whilst a Christmas Carol tickles the eye and ear of an Irish lass hunkered down for a northwest blizzard.
I’m done! Blood pressure too high. Good night.
Richdo says:
December 16, 2012 at 5:46 pm
================
Say what you will.
Now, say it again with data.
Like I said. AR5 is [snip].
IPPC is [snip].
UN is [snip].
XD
I have just written a post on this, and have tried to convert the points made by Alec in a simple form that laymen can understand. In other words, I would like to make the argument a little more accessible and ‘digestible’….
http://newzealandclimatechange.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/the-leaked-ipcc-report-the-suns-influence/
However, as someone who is not familiar with the details of the forcings science, I may have it wrong. Comments on the post would be welcome, in particular, if I have it wrong. There are many who post here will understand this question better than me, and corrections/amplifications etc. would be welcome.
The adjustments in the solar record that Leif has been advocating have no significant bearing on the role of the sun in 20th century warming. If he is right then 20th century solar activity was merely high rather than very high. So what? Given the overwhelming evidence for a powerful solar driver of climate, eighty years of high solar activity could easily account for the modicum unexceptional warming of the 20th century.
The reason Leif thinks that the sun can’t explain 20th century warming has nothing to do with his proposed adjustments to the solar record. Leif’s problem is that he consistently fails to account the hysteresis created by the size of the ocean heat sink. As he commented on another of my posts:
In Leif’s mind the intervening 80 years of high solar activity should have no effect on planetary temperature. If the sun were driving temperature then temperature would always be the same for a given level of solar activity.
NOT! How can anybody fail to understand that the oceans store heat? Leif: it’s like thinking you can turn the flame on a pot of water up to high for five minutes and then when you turn the flame back down to low that the temperature will be the same as it was before you turned the flame up. If it isn’t, if instead the water has warmed, you think that proves that the flame did not heat the water. Holy cow man.
Leif is not the only climate-related professor who makes obvious mistakes about ocean equilibration. As I have been documenting for a couple of year now, ALL of the “consensus” scientists are making some variety of Leif’s mistake. They are all making grossly untenable assumptions about ocean equilibration.
Leif of course is a consensus unto himself, until everyone comes over to his side. Sorry buddy, but it’s not going to happen on this one.
lsvalgaard says:
December 16, 2012 at 2:28 pm
“In the decade, we have figured out how to derive solar wind properties from the geomagnetic record. The bottom line is that the solar wind in the 20th century has not been significantly different from that in the 19th and 18th centuries. Neither has solar UV. In particular solar activity [and solar wind] at present is very much like it was a century ago. So the Sun has not varied enough to cause a significant climate influence, regardless of all the papers mentioned.”
There is an ambiguity in what you say. One wants to ask if you are claiming that each of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries varied in the same way, in effect showing a repeating pattern, or if you are claiming that all three centuries were equally boring with none of them showing a significant change within the century. Only the second will support your conclusion.
However, if it is true that you have seen no significant variation over the last three centuries, does that not give you reason to question your science?
My impression of the behavior of the climate system is that it is very close to the point of tipping into ice age, and that therefore the climate system cools easily (frighteningly easily) and is slow to warm. If we were actually right at the tipping point then the climate would react immediately and irreversibly to any cooling influence. Close to the tipping point it merely reacts very quickly to cooling influences and recovers only slowly and grudgingly once those cooling influences are removed.
Having different timescales for cooling and warming events explains how on the one hand the climate can react on a short time scale to the various solar minima and yet on the other hand seems to warm only slowly once those solar minimum periods end.
Leif – I do find your argument that the late 20th century may not have been a grand solar maximum convincing. So does this then remove the possibility of any solar cause for 20th century warming? Not necessarily. If the timescale for warming is long enough then 20th century warming can be viewed as merely a continuation of the recovery from the LIA superimposed on the usual noise inherent in any chaotic system.
If this picture is right however then we should beware as the response to the new emerging solar minimum is likely to be rapid and severe.
Very well said, Alec Rawls. Keep their feet to the fire. The IPCC has always been a top down organization that accepts without question the textbook version of the general principles relevant to climate science and that casts a blind eye to empirical research. Yes, they have inverted the scientific method time and again. If they have empirical studies that are not explained by mainstream principles then they just ignore them.
There is not a person in the IPCC who has the temperament of a scientist. That is why Svensmark and Kirkby drive them mad. The real science of Svensmark and Kirkby will take decades to produce well confirmed hypotheses but the folks from the IPCC demand actionable results immediately.
Alec Rawls says:
December 16, 2012 at 6:27 pm
eighty years of high solar activity could easily account for the modicum unexceptional warming of the 20th century.
there has not been 80 years of high solar activity. There has been 40 years. And there were such periods in the 18th and 19th centuries too. The thermal inertia of the oceans introduces a lag of, what, 10 years or so. People who plot solar activity and climate don’t show any or only a short lag. Just think of the Cosmic Ray enthusiasts, or Soon, or most of the papers you cited, e.g. Solheim et al. 2011, “The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24”. It would be wonderful if the Sun was responsible: would solve our funding problems immediately.
The ‘climate’ scientists at UNSW think that they are the center of the climate change universe which is at odds with the Manncentric view of the climate change universe.
Makes me feel dirty to be Australian with these clowns running around.
lsvalgaard;
The thermal inertia of the oceans introduces a lag of, what, 10 years or so. People who plot solar activity and climate don’t show any or only a short lag.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Huh? Quick back of the envelope…. 1 w/m2 would need 22 years to raise the top 700 meters of ocean by one degree. And that’s assuming 100% efficiency which tends not to happen in the real world. I’d think lag times in the range of a century or more would make more sense? Am I missing something here?
rgb.
“Bear in mind that I’m not a “warmist”, not a “denier”, but that I do want to see things stated clearly. One of the three things above seems as though it must be true — a lot of people working in good faith who are somehow in error, a lot of people working in bad faith who are deliberately in error, or a secondary cause such that the first is true but it does not matter because there is some other ignored proximate cause for the variations in climate observed in correlation with e.g. radiometric proxies.’
These are not the only cases. Take the Solheim paper as an example ( the paper predicting a large drop in temps over the balance of cycle 24. Here you see a common error that get repeated over and over again in solar papers. There are an infinite number of climate variables and combinations thereof. They select ( who knows how) looking at temperatures in Norway, and Europe. They start to play with solar cycle length data. They canvas various ways others have looked for correlations and failed to find them. various ways of smoothing the data, not smoothing, all of these are bites at the statistical apple. Through a variety a decisions ( all untested ) then happen upon a relationship between one particular manipulation of a solar parameter (cycle length) and another selection of climate parameter. That is neither good faith or bad faith. That is hunting for a relationship until you find one. I cant even begin to calculate the “bites” at the statistical apple. Torture data long enough as they say.
Without any theory driving the selection of solar parameters or discipline in selecting the climate parameters I amd shocked that there are only dozens of papers purporting to find “correlations”
You can look at lake levels ( pick any lake) river levels, ocean cycles, global temps, regional temps, detrended temp, Ohc, tree rings, you name it. On the solar side you can look at sun spots, UV, cycle length, planet orbits, solar wind, smooth these, detrend them, accumulate them perform hundreds of operations on both sides of the correlation and guess what. you WILL find correlations, you MUST find correlations and not because something is there to find. You must find them because there is no limit to the operations you can perform on the solar data and no limit to the subclasses of climate parameters you can select. Again, I am shocked given human ingenuity that there are MORE papers.
There are some simple tests in my mind that I apply to all these papers.
1. Do they try to explain more than one climate variable. the climate is not defined by temperature. To compete with other explanations they need to show some measure of skill with
two or more global metrics.
2. Did they use all the data in model construction or hold out a good portion for verification.
3. Do they have a physical mechanism
4. Did they properly account for all their failed “bites” at the apple.
I havent found a paper that passes this simple set of test. But I can, if given time, find a correlation between the number of land falling hurricanes and some solar metric. easy peasy.
Or the MXD of certain trees in some region of the world and some other solar metric.
Monkeys and typewriters.
What the solar proponents need to do to be taken seriously is propose testable hypothesis.
“we think THIS parameter matters for the following physical reason” propose tests
in advance and then do the test. Lets take GCR. There you actually have a proposed mechanism. More GCR is more clouds. When I asked Solar proponents to suggest at test for the effect after Forbush events ( I found no effect on clouds ) I got silence. Nobody wants to propose and live by a test of their ideas.
History will not treat the anti-sun cause of warming and cooling very kindly. It seems most obtuse that our star would be ruled out of the climate-change picture so confidently. Ultimately, we will burn up and all the carbon on earth will be oxidized with the sun’s final show. I trust we won’t be measuring the rise in CO2 that will be most dramatic as the cause.Gee it would be irony indeed if our resident solar expert were to be the last to find the sun much more interesting than currently thought. We have to be careful to hold off on the natural tendency for us old guys to become dinosaurs.
davidmhoffer says:
December 16, 2012 at 7:50 pm
lag times in the range of a century or more would make more sense? Am I missing something here?
You are missing that the papers cited by Alec don’t operate with lags that long. Rather 0-10 years.
Gary Pearse says:
December 16, 2012 at 7:57 pm
Gee it would be irony indeed if our resident solar expert were to be the last to find the sun much more interesting than currently thought.
The real irony is that I am the first to find the sun much more interesting than currently thought. Almost all my work goes in the direction of showing that ‘traditional’ solar variations are wrong and that the Sun is up to something very interesting, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Another-Maunder-Minimum.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/Disappearance-of-Visible-Spots.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Petaluma–How%20Well%20Do%20We%20Know%20the%20SSN.pdf (slide 19)
But it is very hard to change people’s preconceived notions [including yours].
lsvalgaard says:
December 16, 2012 at 7:58 pm
davidmhoffer says:
December 16, 2012 at 7:50 pm
lag times in the range of a century or more would make more sense? Am I missing something here?
You are missing that the papers cited by Alec don’t operate with lags that long. Rather 0-10 years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Fair enough, but I wasn’t asking the question in terms of the papers Alec cited. I was asking more in the context of a lag time with a time constant of say 20 to 100 years. Full lag would then be 100 to 500 years. (I have no justification for those numbers, just pulling them out of…. my hat…but they seem a lot more reasonable to me than 0-10 years).
Would a lag on those sorts of time scales provide a better correlation to solar data (other than TSI)?
What about the new understanding of how the Van Allen belts work? Could this be another natural climate driver?
“Throughout the brief early life of the two-year mission, energetic events and ejections of plasma from the sun caused dramatic changes in the radiation belts that, for the first time, were observed by twin spacecraft within the belts. “The sun has been a driver of these systems more than we had any right to expect,” says Daniel Baker, ..”
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/rbsp/news/belt-dynamics.html
davidmhoffer says:
December 16, 2012 at 8:15 pm
Fair enough, but I wasn’t asking the question in terms of the papers Alec cited. I was asking more in the context of a lag time with a time constant of say 20 to 100 years. Full lag would then be 100 to 500 years. (I have no justification for those numbers, just pulling them out of…. my hat…but they seem a lot more reasonable to me than 0-10 years).
Almost nobody finds correlations with that sort of lag.
Would a lag on those sorts of time scales provide a better correlation to solar data (other than TSI)?
We really don’t have any on that long time scales. The cosmic ray data people are claiming good correlations without such lags. Let me ask Alec: for your 12 papers, what are the lags considered? I’m looking for 12 numbers.
Now, of course, with variable lags, and different lags for warming a cooling [with the lags determined from the correlations] anything can be made to fit anything, e.g. cannot be falsified.
lsvalgaard says:
December 16, 2012 at 8:24 pm
Let me ask Alec: for your 12 papers, what are the lags considered? I’m looking for 12 numbers.
Sorry, the 24 papers, so I’m looking for 24 numbers.
Werner Brozek says:
“Could El Ninos and La Ninas be influenced by the changes of the solar wind speed?”
Be careful Werner….
Don’t link solar activity with ENSO or you’ll have Bob Tisdale to deal with. 🙂
Susan Fraser says:
December 16, 2012 at 8:21 pm
What about the new understanding of how the Van Allen belts work? Could this be another natural climate driver?
No, we just have a better understanding of how the belts are formed and maintained. This does not help on what effect [if any] they have. The Dst index which describes the currents in the belts goes back more than a century, and that has not changed.
Mosher, if only you applied those fine principles to climate scientists, not just solar scientists…
A minor issue i see in this whole mess is the excitation of molecules and the frequency at which they vibrate. The Sun is essentially a huge ball of gas tipping back and forth from a solid state to a gas state. The reaction of fusion causes the gas and the solid to vibrate at differing wave lengths.
in a cooling phase the UV spectrum would be very low as the fission reaction would be teetering very near the solid mass and thus vibrating more slowly. In an excited state the sun would be closer to a full gaseous state and UV would be at much higher spectrum levels as the vibrations would be faster.
These two states and the resulting magnetic strength change coupled with the solar wind can have massive impact on the earth as a whole. UV radiation is absorbed in the first three meters of the sea and on land. Any change in the wave length, while not changing the total TSI, would have an effect on the mass it passes through or lands on. So its the waves length and the receiving matter that can create the change in absorption.
Anyone who understands how fiber optics work and how certain impurities affect differing wave lengths can put the 1+1 and get 2. The suns output may not change in total but how it is output is vibrating and how it affects the receiving mass can.. impurities in the air and water will also have an effect. But CO2 allows full passage with little attenuation so its not even a concern.
lsvagaard;
We really don’t have any on that long time scales. The cosmic ray data people are claiming good correlations without such lags.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well I’m not going to dig up thermo texts that I haven’t touched in 3 decades, but time constants of less than 20 years just don’t pass the WAG test for me. But then start thinking it through, and itz worse than that. If there were various changes in energy flux at various frequencies, they don’t all get absorbed at one depth, nor across the water column in a uniform manner. Each frequency would be smeared across some portion of the water column, and a different portion for each frequency. Plus, the time constant would vary with the temperature of the water at the point of absorption. Then you have water currents and other processes smearing the whole thing around even more.
So…. I gotta say, calculating a time constant for that would be almost impossible to describe mathematically and it would take every super computer on the planet a few decades to crunch through the numbers. Then, assuming you got a time constant larger than the solar cycle, how would you even begin to correlate the two? You’d need millions of years of data and who knows how much compute power. I don’t think this one can be solved!
On the other hand, I can’t see where changes in energy flux at high frequencies in particular would NOT affect temps on some time scale. More upper end SW and less lower end has got to make a difference in terms of amount of energy absorbed into the system, and as importantly, at what depth. Darned if I can think of a way to possibly quantify and correlate it though.
Bill H says:
December 16, 2012 at 9:10 pm
The Sun is essentially a huge ball of gas tipping back and forth from a solid state to a gas state. The reaction of fusion causes the gas and the solid to vibrate at differing wave lengths.
No, the Sun is an almost perfect gas throughout and at all times.
implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link
The amplifier may be biological, forest fires for example. Biological cycles are known to synchronize with solar cycles.
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/443/2/sinclair.1993.am.nat.sunspo.pdf
davidmhoffer says:
December 16, 2012 at 9:17 pm
Well I’m not going to dig up thermo texts that I haven’t touched in 3 decades, but time constants of less than 20 years just don’t pass the WAG test for me.
Tell that to all the people who claim oh so significant solar-climate correlations with little or no lag, e.g. this one [which we discussed at length a while ago here at WUWT]: http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-Not.png
Personally I don’t care, because I don’t think the Sun is a major driver, but Alec and his ilk need a lesson, so go get’em.
Leif says:
Ten years or a bit less is a common estimate for the response time of the well-mixed upper ocean layer (100 or 200 meters), but that isn’t the end of the story. As the top layer warms up it transfers heat to the next deeper ocean layers. If a high level of forcing persists these next deeper layers will continue to warm on the time scale of multiple decades to multiple centuries. This warming will reduce the temperature differential between the upper and deeper layers, causing there to be less and less heat loss over time from the upper to the deeper layers, causing the upper layer to continue to warm on the time scale of multiple decades to multiple centuries.
Alec Rawls says:
December 16, 2012 at 9:34 pm
Ten years or a bit less is a common estimate for the response time of the well-mixed upper ocean layer (100 or 200 meters), but that isn’t the end of the story.
I was looking for 24 numbers… but, OK, those are hard to come by. Suffice it to say that the papers you cited operate with a short lag [10 yr or less] and totally ignore the centuries involved until the ‘end of story’ is told. So, I don’t think I should be faulted doing the same.
lsvalgaard says:
December 16, 2012 at 2:28 pm
So the Sun has not varied enough to cause a significant climate influence, regardless of all the papers mentioned.
+++++++++
BS. Pure anti-science. It has not varied in the parameters you have mentioned. It has varied quite a bit in the parameters you have not mentioned and perhaps even more in the parameters you have not measured and are not even aware of.
The crux of the matter is that you and and every scientists on earth know very little about the sun. However, you believe you know almost everything there is to know about the sun.
What percentage of everything there is to know about the sun do you estimate you know today? Do you estimate you know 50% of everything there is to know? I estimate that while you may indeed know more than me, you and I know pretty close to 0.0000000% of what there is to be discovered in total.
Whew! I’m tired, so I’ll pack it in for the night to rest up to read THIS debate carefully. It looks like a dandy. Only on WUWT. G’night.
lsvalgaard says:
December 16, 2012 at 8:50 pm
Susan Fraser says:
December 16, 2012 at 8:21 pm
What about the new understanding of how the Van Allen belts work? Could this be another natural climate driver?
No, we just have a better understanding of how the belts are formed and maintained. This does not help on what effect [if any] they have. The Dst index which describes the currents in the belts goes back more than a century, and that has not changed.
Van Allen discovered them in 1958 And not a century ago http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/history/2012/08/going-nuclear-over-the-pacific/ They got more then they barganed for with Star-fish prime Scientist got it wrong big time, just goes to show a theory isn’t worth the paper it’s written on until it’s put into practice were the results are concluded .
Here’s a thought, When NASA calls of a shuttle launch because of bad weather Is it because of what we see from the ground or is it the conection to bad weather at ground level and the levels off radiation in the Van Allen Belts ? And I wounder if they use HAARP to open a hole ?
Since the solar spectrum seems to be the greatest bit of variability, I wonder if how dependent ocean absorption is on spectrum. For example, does Ultraviolet penetrate to a deeper depth than visible? Does more UV get absorbed than visible? Vice versa? Is there a correlation in spectral changes and magnetic flux changes? For example, a slight decrease in cloud cover combined with a slight increase in absorption might impact climate in a measurable way even if TSI is constant.
ferd berple says:
December 16, 2012 at 9:56 pm
It has varied quite a bit in the parameters you have not mentioned and perhaps even more in the parameters you have not measured and are not even aware of.
Such as?
The crux of the matter is that you and and every scientists on earth know very little about the sun.
But the sun nuts that push the sun as the cause of climate change, seem to know enough to do so, or do they push the sun without knowing anything about it? Would you call THAT science; ascribing something to an unknown mechanism operating on stuff we don’t know anything about.
jmorpuss says:
December 16, 2012 at 10:23 pm
“he Dst index which describes the currents in the belts goes back more than a century, and that has not changed.”
Van Allen discovered them in 1958 And not a century ago
But the currents and magnetic effects on the ground have been known and monitored for more than a century, and that is the important bit. Van Allen discovered the belts of particles that was already long before thought to exist.
Steven Mosher says:
December 16, 2012 at 7:53 pm
“Nobody wants to propose and live by a test of their ideas.”
There is one; Henrik Svensmark.
Interesting that the author claims that some scientists are making an “appeal to authority” and then cites a (debunked) article in that renowned peer reviewed journal “The Daily Mail” in support of his own arguments.
True scientist: “If there is a correlation, there may be a mechanism that explains it. If we don’t understand this mechanism; let’s try to find it — isn’t this what science is all about?”
Leif Svalgaard: “If I don’t understand a mechanism of correlation, it doesn’t exist. And there is no correlation. Anybody who sees a correlation in a correlation is a nut. Period. Science is what the textbook says. Not in the textbook, out of mind. Everybody who thinks differently is a nut. Because I am The Self-Appointed Foremost Solar Scientist in the world. To prove it, I have hundreds of links to My Own Impeccable Graphs and Plots Impeccably Interpreted by Myself. Nuts to you!”
So if you can not propose a mechanism to drive the theory based on direct observations, one needs to “shutup about it”
I seem to remember another argument similar to this in the 1500’s. Something about orbits.
As a mechanism could not be shown to drive the orbits as observed, One was told to “shutup about it”!
Steven Mosher says:
December 16, 2012 at 7:53 pm
“…Here you see a common error that get repeated over and over again in solar papers. There are an infinite number of climate variables and combinations thereof. They select ( who knows how) looking at temperatures in Norway, and Europe. They start to play with solar cycle length data. They canvas various ways others have looked for correlations and failed to find them. various ways of smoothing the data, not smoothing, all of these are bites at the statistical apple. Through a variety a decisions ( all untested ) then happen upon a relationship between one particular manipulation of a solar parameter (cycle length) and another selection of climate parameter. That is neither good faith or bad faith. That is hunting for a relationship until you find one. …”
—————————————
That is uninformed nonsense.
1. lsvalgaard wrote at December 16, 2012 at 3:29 pm exactly the opposite:
“And there are not that many proxies of solar activity. Everybody uses the same ones or obsolete [and perhaps carefully picked] versions of same.”
2. And beyond that these peaks are not local, they can be seen at various places around the world at the same time.
Source is this German TV discussion with Prof. Mangini, from Heidelberg University
http://www.phoenix.de/sixcms/detail.php?id=138001&template=d_ph_videostream_popup&format=4&transfer=2
I have translated the relevant parts:
Mangini:
Beyond that, there is an effect such as the natural climate variability, as we see from our archives for the last thousands of years.
And this natural climate variability is, according to the material I research, much bigger than I read or see from these IPCC reports, that means, there is larger natural variability than reported there. Natural climate variability is variability without any changes of CO2 in the atmosphere.
What I do not like in this IPCC report is, that it generates the impression, that we already understand the climate and we do not.
I can tell you, we do have a project just started with the DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) and the project’s name is Interdynamic [or similar could not understand it well].
It is an Emphesis Project (Schwerpunktprojekt) with almost all German climate scientists oder geologists who work on climate issues, and it is about understanding the varaibility in the Holocene in the last 10000 years and the causes for this variability. Other main issues are understanding the archeological consequences of this variability on our anchestors.
Question: So you say we did have warmer times and colder times within those 10000 years ?
Mangini: Yes, what we see from our data is indeed, that within 300 years it can go up and down, relatively or very fast, and there is variability in the temperature between 1 and 3 degrees, and I am very conservative here, it may well be within that range.
Rahmstorf interrupting: locally
Mangini: No, it is not local. We see this from the Alps up to Norway, all correlated and synchronous.
Rahmstorf interruptung: This is local for me.
Mangini: North-Atlantic synchronous, China synchronous, Chile synchronous, they are all synchronous, this is the great thing about stalagmites, because, as we can date them so well, we really see those peaks happening at all places at the same time.
We have been working for about 10-15 years intensively on stalagmites and we even got now a research group from the DFG in Heidelberg to extract precipitation and temperature from stalagmites from the signals we see in them.
Stalagmites grow layer upon layer and every layer is approximately 1 year and you can, if you measure the stable isotopes in a stalagmite, extract a formation over the growth period of a stalagmite. Stalagmites can be dated very well, there a many stalagmites, spread over all continents and these are very beautiful archives.
Many comments mention lag between solar input and temperature changes. Principal lag that can be defined is 15 years, and it is lag between Arctic atmospheric pressure and the equatorial & mid latitude Atlantic’s SST.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAO-AMO-GSO.htm
The above lag equates to the lag between the earth’s Core Angular Momentum changes and changes in the LOD (paper by Hide and Dickey on torsional oscillations of the Earth’s core-mantle system)
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/13763/1/00-0133.pdf
This points directly to geomagnetic input into Arctic disturbing the Earth’s field and trough fluid dynamics is fed back into oceans, mainly the Atlantic.
The above delay gives a certain degree of predictability,which indicates a downturn in the N. Atlantic SST and consequently N. Hemisphere’s temperatures:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Fc.htm
Judging by the article and comments over at skepci I would say that there is some deep discomfort amongst the ordinarily certain. The approach there has been to shift the whole focus away from “even though we aren’t sure of the mechanism the sun is having a climatic effect on Earth” to debating Svensmark in a great amount of detail. Plus of course all the usual ad hom stuff.
For a site that calls itself skeptical it is quite odd that they have no wish to even puzzle about what the amplifying effect could be. In fact they just offer a blunt rejection of any solar effect. A bit sad really as Dana just opines that the offending sentence will be removed in due course.
There are several models reported by the IPCC.
Time for a meta analysis and combine the studies into one, and compare against the actual.
1. The uncertainty is reduced because the variance will be reduced.
2. Even better, it shows the consensus. Can’t argue with the consensus can we?
Ho hum, even more a scientific disaster.
Theory, predict, test, and fail.
“But the sun nuts that push the sun as the cause of climate change, seem to know enough to do so, or do they push the sun without knowing anything about it? Would you call THAT science; ascribing something to an unknown mechanism operating on stuff we don’t know anything about.”
Lsvalgaard, there’s nothing wrong with noticing and studying correlations between various ‘proxies’ for solar activity and global climate and even speculating about the mechanisms. I thought that it’s not controversial that the various cold periods of the last ~1000 years are associated with the periods of lower solar activity (minimums called Oort, Wolf, Spörer, Maunder…). There’s also the modern maximum, do you dispute that?
The average solar cycle frequency was much lower (longer average cycle) in the 19th century than in the 20th century (shorter average cycle). Now the frequency started decreasing again – after the two very strong/short cycles (21 and 22), the frequency dropped and SC 23 was much longer (~12.5 years). The SC 24 seems to be very weak too, will probably end up even longer than SC 23. The warming stopped and the scene seems to be set for very rapid cooling. I think the cooling is VERY likely and it will kick in properly at the latest after the SC 24 starts declining (~2014/15). Let’s see who will be right.
lsvalgaard says:
December 16, 2012 at 2:28 pm
“So the Sun has not varied enough to cause a significant climate influence, regardless of all the papers mentioned.”
Is it just me on this blog who is getting REALLY bored with this mantra, expressed ad nausiam, that implies that ‘since I know everything there is to know about the subject, there cannot be anything going on if I don’t understand it’ ?
Just goes to strengthen my own fundamental wariness of too many formal qualifications and too widely held repute.
May I suggest in my humble ignorance, having intently watched this and many similar debates unfold, that, whatever Dr Svalgaard may contend, there is stuff going on that he does not understand. Power to those with minds sufficiently open to explore.
I have to say: When I submit a scientific paper for publication and one of the reviewers misunderstands my meaning for a key point, what do I do? (This has happened to me and it’s a common occurrence). Of course, I work hard on the revised paper to be absolutely clear. Right now Rawls is arguing with Sheffield (the author) about the meaning of what Sheffield wrote. You have to admit that the summary and conclusions clearly say that solar variation is small to have caused the recent increase in the earth’s temperature.
Normally, a reviewer, such as Rawls, would simply point out in his review for the authors that he found a contradiction between a section of the text and the stated conclusions. It’s now the author’s (Sheffield’s) obligation to make sure that the possible confusion,ambiguity and/or error is fixed for the final draft. Recent estimates of solar forcing are small and do not correspond with recent warming–at least that is what recent scientific publications say. Just disagreeing in a blog is meaningless. You need to present data in a peer-reviewed scientific article. He said, she said kind of arguments are meaningless in science. You have to reanalyze the original publications and, if necessary, the original data.
Ok. Reading further down the comments I note that I am seemingly not alone in my frustration. Others have waxed more eloquently…
Total Mass Retain says:
December 16, 2012 at 11:50 pm
“Interesting that the author claims that some scientists are making an “appeal to authority” and then cites a (debunked) article in that renowned peer reviewed journal “The Daily Mail” in support of his own arguments.”
You patently cannot look past your prejudice and even read and comprehend the content of the article in the Mail. The article cites the data contained in HadCRUT4 and it is that to which the author is referring. You and your colleagues will not even start to sway me to your position in this debate until you cease and desist from such infantile soundbites and back up you claims with facts.
RES
BillD:
Having read your post at December 17, 2012 at 3:27 am I conclude that it says only two things; viz.
1. Information does not exist unless it is published in a peer-reviewed paper.
and
2. Therefore, Rawl’s criticism does not exist so the AR5 can be amended to ensure his point is not included.
Please confirm that I have understood you or, alternatively, correct my understanding, because what I understand to be your two points are each a denial of science.
Richard
Edim says:
December 17, 2012 at 2:54 am
There’s also the modern maximum, do you dispute that?
As a matter of fact, yes. http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
For a layman it is rather involved, but I conclude that since “the science is settled” there is no room for any uncertainty. As the science is not settled after all, it is an omission for the IPCC not to explore vigorously any alternative explanation of the warming to 1998 and the standstill since then. Imagine the mayhem if the IPCC issue an AGW loaded AR5 in 2014 (?) and temperatures have continued to flatten out to 17 or 18 years length. This would effectively prove that Santer’s 17 years are up and the CO2 thesis as driver of AGW has been falsified. Imagine if concurrently Santer issues a hastily peer reviewed paper pushing the natural variation limit out to 20 or 22 years to keep the AGW “circus” going for another few years in the hope at there will be warming again (and more importantly) acceleration to that warming to get near the 3 degrees C by the end of the century. Interesting times ahead. Personally I have difficulties in understanding that the Sun can be so constant in its effect on Mother Earth over centuries and longer as claimed by IPCC but that is just a “gut” feeling.
taxed says:
December 16, 2012 at 4:49 pm
“2 The more there is a increase in the wave movement of the jet to the north and the south, the better it is at moving both warm and cold air between the poles and the tropics.”
It is my understanding that the movement of the jet stream north and south is the RESULT of the battle between cold and warm air masses and therefore is not the cause of such movement. Please correct me if that is wrong.
Why is there never a discussion about Hadley Cell circulation? Isn’t that the major cause of surface climate differences?
Total Mass Retain says:
December 16, 2012 at 11:50 pm
“Interesting that the author claims that some scientists are making an “appeal to authority” and then cites a (debunked) article in that renowned peer reviewed journal “The Daily Mail” in support of his own arguments.”
OK, don’t listen to the Daily Mail, don’t listen to The Guardian, don’t listen to Skeptical Science, don’t listen to WUWT, don’t listen to anybody’s opinion. Opinion is irrelevant when the data is readily available and you can decide for yourself. Here’s a link to a tool hosted by an impartial website that will plot graphs from whatever time series you input and from whatever data source you choose (HADCRUT, BEST, etc). So you can analyse the data yourself. It does seem that the temperatures have stopped increasing, but don’t listen to me, investigate yourself.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/
I was reading an article that graphed the current temperature data. The article was from the early 1970s. In that article the temperature at the end of the period was just slightly warmer than the early 1900s. In addition, there was no UHI effect contemplated at that time. Therefore, it is distinctly possible that the 20th century really wasn’t all that much warmer than the 19th. So, Leif may be correct, but instead of supporting the idea that the Sun has little effect it leaves the question open.
Without all the temperature adjustments it’s very possible the 1930s were just as warm as the 2000s and we are likely to start cooling exactly like it did 60-70 years ago. However, since the Sun is behaving differently we will have a great opportunity to discover whether that makes a difference. If it’s gets a lot cooler than I think the question will have been answered. Especially for those who believe CO2 provides at least a little warming.
BillD
It is through the blogosphere that the shoddy science of the Sheffield’s gets demolished. I”m sure you are aware of Climate Audit and the others. Peer review does not work in climate science except as a filter to admit pro-AGW studies and screen out contrary views. So the normal scientific process is perverted in climate science. I quote you:
“Just disagreeing in a blog is meaningless. You need to present data in a peer-reviewed scientific article. He said, she said kind of arguments are meaningless in science. You have to reanalyze the original publications and, if necessary, the original data.”
You are full of it. The pretense of using tree rings as a viable paleo-temperature proxy has been demolished on blogs, not in the peer reviewed literature. This demolishment is an accomplished fact and such studies are now being abandoned except by the die-hards. Blogs have been the force that have exposed the dubious science that underpins the whole of AGW theory, and allows the issues to be aired. Most climate scientists share an ideological motive and are incapable of conducting a critical review of their comrade’s studies. The blogs have corrected this glaring deficiency of climate science.
And ” reanalyze….. the original data.” must be a joke. Where were you when Steve McIntyre and others tried to obtain original data? Have you not heard of the notorious FOI battles or Climategate?
It seems that there is a simple ‘formula’ to predict global climate.
Global climate is equal to the solar tide functions of the planets plus the terrestrial spectra of ONI (Ocean Nina Index).
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/had4_minus_oni.gif
This is to recognize from the time intervals of low ONI values, when the reconstruction of the global climate is excellent.
CO2 is a dead horse
V.
I look at the data and present what I find.
We don’t need to go further back than 1900 to show conclusively that sun controls the climate. From the sunspot and geomagnetic data it is absolutely clear that the by far largest part of the 1920-1950 and 1980-present warming and 1950-1970s cooling is due to solar activity.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
The Excel file calculation emailed to Dr. Svalgaard made him denounce it as :
What you describe is a perfect example of fake data, selected and made up to fit the best, based on invalid physics. That you call the ‘data’ is deceptive in the extreme.
Then Dr. S. proceeded with salvo of questions, which of course are pointless if what he said few hours earlier is either true or what he himself actually thought of the calculations.
It appears to be more a strong indication that the carefully constructed ‘sun has nothing to do with it’ edifice is crumbling down.
I appreciate that Dr. Brown made a point about the Earth’s magnetic field changes as point worth considering:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/a-rebuttal-to-steven-sherwood-and-the-solar-forcing-pundits-of-the-ipcc-ar5-draft-leak/#comment-1175089
since that is one of the main premises in my article, still only known to five scientists
Responses are: Dr. S. very negative, one positive, two neutral and one no reply.
Tom in Florida
Hi
Yes the Polar jet is the zone where the warm and cold air meet.
Now if the jet stream forms a neat circle around the NH then it limits the amount that both warm and cold air can move to the north or the south. But if the jet makes a more wave like pattern to the north and the south, then this increases the rate of which both the warm and the cold air can flow to the north and the south.
RobertInAz says:
December 16, 2012 at 10:37 pm
Since the solar spectrum seems to be the greatest bit of variability, I wonder if how dependent ocean absorption is on spectrum…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Graph 1
Graph 2
Keith AB says:
December 17, 2012 at 1:54 am
….For a site that calls itself skeptical it is quite odd that they have no wish to even puzzle about what the amplifying effect could be…..
_______________________________________
“Skeptical Science” was named that to round up any of the sheeple herd that might get curious and stray. It has nothing to do with Skepticism or with Science and everything to do with promoting Propaganda aka ‘The Message’
BillD says:
December 17, 2012 at 3:27 am
I have to say: When I submit a scientific paper for publication and one of the reviewers misunderstands my meaning for a key point, what do I do? (This has happened to me and it’s a common occurrence). Of course, I work hard on the revised paper to be absolutely clear. Right now Rawls is arguing with Sheffield (the author) about the meaning of what Sheffield wrote….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Stop right there. Sheffield is not THE author, he is AN author.
The sun is estimated to have a lifetime on the order of 10 billion years. We have accurate data for maybe 100 of those years. In human terms that is the equivalent to about 30 seconds out of a human lifetime.
From 30 seconds of data from a human lifetime, how accurate a picture of that person’s past, present and future could be compiled? Now add a second person, the earth, and 30 seconds of data from its lifetime. Predict how the two will interact over their lifetimes.
Are we to believe that the earth-sun combination is somehow less complex and more predictable, that our knowledge is somehow more complete about the sun and earth than it is about our own species?
Richard M says:
December 17, 2012 at 5:22 am
I was reading an article that graphed the current temperature data. The article was from the early 1970s. In that article the temperature at the end of the period was just slightly warmer than the early 1900s. In addition, there was no UHI effect contemplated at that time. Therefore, it is distinctly possible that the 20th century really wasn’t all that much warmer than the 19th…..
___________________________________-
A rather interesting alternate view of 20th C climate by decade
Graph of Climate Boundaries
I just don’t see a Solar function capable of being involved in long term measurable (outside the noise of intrinsic variation) temperature trends. If Tisdale is right, then you must look at whether or not Solar functions are capable of forcing a series of El Nino’s (which bring a variable pattern of warm temperatures to land and thus sensors) AND slowing release of ocean heat such that the next El Nino continues to force heat onto land surfaces. Temperatures are forced upon us by weather. Temperature trends are forced upon us by weather pattern variations stuck at a certain set of parameters. Therefore, any such extrinsic driver, be it CO2 or Solar, must be capable of driving weather away from normal variations and into a direction it does not want to go. Imagine how much energy that must take! I just don’t see Solar or CO2 having that much potential energy to override intrinsic weather trends and drive a trend up OR down outside of the whims of nature.
REPLY: Look at UV and phytoplankton response. Huge sea surface albedo change is the result – Anthony
“RES says:
You patently cannot look past your prejudice and even read and comprehend the content of the article in the Mail.”
You do have a good line in unintended irony, don’t you?
“The article cites the data contained in HadCRUT4 and it is that to which the author is referring.”
So why didn’t he refer to the original peer reviewed data and analysis rather than a tabloid publication renowned for find reason, any reason, to cast doubt upon the science?
“You and your colleagues will not even start to sway me to your position in this debate until you cease and desist from such infantile soundbites and back up you claims with facts.”
More irony. If it’s “the sun stupid” someone has to explain why the 40% rise in CO2 over the past 150 years hasn’t done what the laws of physics says it must do: retain heat. Infantile soundbites from the deniers doesn’t change that basic problem. Neither does cherry picking dates to show the warming has “stopped”: you still have to explain why it hasn’t warmed.
“Graham W says:
OK, don’t listen to the Daily Mail, don’t listen to The Guardian, don’t listen to Skeptical Science, don’t listen to WUWT, don’t listen to anybody’s opinion. Opinion is irrelevant when the data is readily available and you can decide for yourself. Here’s a link to a tool hosted by an impartial website ”
How about this impartial website: http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/
And you do realise that anyone can put anything on the web. So, what makes you decide that you trust some of that content in preference to others? I’ll tell you what makes me trust some; Those that follow the scientific method and the laws of physics are more likely to be trustworthy than those that don’t. And the fact you don’t agree with the consequences of those is not prima facie evidence that the scientific method has broken down or been corrupted. Neither is “candid” correspondence between scientists (read the Double Helix for past examples or the correspondence between Newton, Hooke and Leibnitz).
We already know that long-term climate is tightly correlated w/the Milankovitch cycles. If there was any other significant, independent “forcing”, that correlation would be disrupted & decreased. It isn’t.
Milankovitch cycles don’t control short-term changes (LIA & MWP). But those brief changes are minor in the ice-core records — wait until there is a Heinrich, D/O, or Bond event. Now you’re talking big changes. What causes those? Don’t know, but I seriously doubt they are caused by internal solar changes — there’s no evidence for 1500 yr or otherwise, internal solar cycles. The relative localization in the N Atlantic of the D/O, Bond events suggests a major ocean-current shift there, perhaps eventually influencing much of the globe (thru ice/albedo positive-feedback?), like the onset or end of a glacial cycle.
Bottom line, other than the causes for Heinrich, D/O & Bond events & the already established Milankovitch cycles, I find the other postulated causes increasingly uninteresting and irrelevant — GCR effects, lunar tides, internal solar cycles of any length, CO2, etc, etc.
lsvalgaard says:
“But the sun nuts that push the sun as the cause of climate change, seem to know enough to do so, or do they push the sun without knowing anything about it? Would you call THAT science; ascribing something to an unknown mechanism operating on stuff we don’t know anything about.”
Surely the Sun nuts are those that solely focus on TSI as a means to dismiss solar forcing, and then delay many others from looking in the right direction for the best correlations. Which shows the effectiveness of such propaganda, as the best correlations were staring everyone in the face years ago with the history of the geomagnetic aa index.
I call science being thorough, and examining all solar metrics in respect to atmospheric teleconnections as it will answer many unknowns in such phenomena. And more importantly, examining the solar-planetary linkages, as that will pose some of the most important questions, and give the best clues as to the nature of solar activities and their variations.
How many drafts of this article did you write before publishing? this is the purpose of a full review process. To iron out flaws and check correctness. maybe next time you should publish a first draft of an article and see if you talk in circles. I don’t expect you to publish this comment because it probably doesn’t support your cause.
you broke the terms of the review. shame on you.
Dr. S:
Whom do you consider sun nuts? Svensmark? Kirkby?
Did you happen to attend Dr. Kirkby’s presentation at SLAC (where he worked, 1972-84, before going to CERN) in January 2012? It’s unfortunately not available on Youtube, but there is this from April 2011:
He could not then present all his data, as pre-release is a big no-no with Nature. After his paper was published in Aug 2011, he could provide his findings in detail.
Speaking of SLAC, they used to (years ago) have a good Website on cosmic rays, but it has now apparently been taken down as politically incorrect. The old link takes you to a generalized research category page.
Is it your opinion that solar magnetic flux does not affect cosmic rays reaching earth, that these particles don’t affect cloud condensation nuclei, or that these phenomena occur, but have no appreciable or negligible effect on terrestrial climate (or that of other solar system bodies)?
Please also kindly state your opinion on possible climatic effects of the recent finding that while TSI remains nearly constant, UV can fluctuate significantly & opposite to visible & IR spectra. Sorry if you have already done so.
Thank you.
Total Mass Retain says:
So how about explaining the following?
1. The length of the arctic Melt season is DECREASING link
2. The fall (October) snow cover is INCREASING link
3. Why isn’t this listing of all the exceptional winter weather never covered in the MSM but CAGW/warm weather is always hyped? link
4. Why are all the ‘corrections’ to the actual temperature data ALWAYS UP for recent data and DOWN for past data? link 1 and link 2 and link 3
5. The 1990 -2000 decade is close to the average for the 20th C but the 1970’s are way colder link 1 and link 2
6. The number of daily US temperature readings over 40C, recorded at all 595 HCN stations continuously active since 1900 shows the above climate boundry graph is not ‘off’ link
7. So does the US Heat Wave Index link
Total Mass Retain:
Your post at December 17, 2012 at 6:55 am indicates that your skull has failed to retain its contents.
I won’t bother to refute all your post – it only contains nonsense – but, as illustration, I will address this copy-and-paste from some warmunist propaganda blog.
I don’t know if the Sun is responsible for observed climate changes or not. But I do know your post consists entirely of ignorant and irrational nonsense.
There has been no “cherry picking dates to show the warming has “stopped”.”
The present time is now. And over the most recent 16 years there has been no change in global temperature discernible at 95% confidence while atmospheric CO2 concentration has continued to increase.
That gives warmunists a problem. It doesn’t give a problem to those who doubt warmunist claims.
Warmunists claim increased atmospheric CO2 concentration causes global warming. They need to explain why their predictions of warming have failed. Those who are sceptical of warmunist claims don’t need to explain anything.
And the laws of physics do NOT say CO2 must “retain heat”. A CO2 molecule absorbs an IR photon by rising to a higher rotational or vibrational state. It then discharges by emitting another photon or collisionally. It seems you are unaware that the IR absorbtion of CO2 in the atmosphere is constrained to only two narrow bands with almost all being in the 15 micron band. These bands are so near to saturation that they only increase their absorbtion by band broadening.
Think of light (i.e. visible radiation) entering a room through a window. If you put a layer of dark paint over the window then much light is absorbed by the paint and, therefore, does not enter the room. Add another layer of paint and more light is absorbed by that layer, but not as much as by the first layer. Similarly for each additional layer of paint.
The IR emitted from the Earth’s surface is trying to pass the ‘window’ of the atmosphere to enter space. Adding more CO2 to the air is like adding more paint on the window that has seven layers of the paint. Each unit addition of CO2 has less absorbtion than the previous unit addition: this reducing effect is logarithmic.
So, at present levels of atmospheric CO2 increases to the CO2 have no significant effect on global temperature. Also, the feedbacks in the climate system are negative. Therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be probably too small to discern because natural climate variability is much, much larger. This concurs with the empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity.
Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of
Idso from surface measurements
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satelite data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1 .0deg.C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected (just as the global warming from UHI is too small to be detected). If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).
To date there are no discernible effects of AGW. Hence, the Null Hypothesis decrees that AGW does not affect global climate to a discernible degree. That is the ONLY scientific conclusion possible at present.
Richard
The even more simple argument is this.
Science is theorise, predict, and test.
We have the theory. The graph contains the predictions. We can do a meta analysis (take a consensus from the predictions). We then find the actual temperatures are outside the range predicted by the consensus. Hence the theory is falsified.
I guess it don´t matter at all to talk about all past potential solar warming/cooling events. Now is now and the current situation have to be addressed. We need to know whats going on now. I can´t see how several of the papers describing past events would shed any light on the current warming. With less CO2 etx drivers in the atmosphere solar forcing absolutely can have a larger impact. But for now It just does not add up. Research will continue of course, but it does not seem to be the likely cause at all.
ferd berple: Interesting and also a relevant thought. Here is a continuation of that thought. Lets say we first get 30 s to see a shoeshine garbage picking street child in back alley New Delhi and then 30 s to see a upper class New Delhian rolex and stuff. I guess 30 s would really say a lot right there and then. Of course “wohoo” can happen to the first child and “dang” can happen to the second and roles are changed. But how likely is that?
Kind of aside, but still solar related, the newest emerging sunspot-group on the southern hemisphere looks quite close to the solar equator. Getting closer to “max”. The ~11 yr solar cycle doesn’t affect climate IMO, but I do find it interesting in of itself….
Total Mass Retain:
Who is saying that rising CO2 has no effect on atmospheric temperature? No one other than warmists, who make such statements and attribute them to skeptics. The science, on which every educated person agrees, indicates that the effect of this CO2 warming is SMALL, roughly about 1 degree C for a doubling of CO2, all else being equal. Of course, almost nothing else is equal, so the net effect may be more or less than one degree, and that is where the debate lies. So knock it off with the strawman arguments. No one here doubts the physics of CO2 warming. If your science is so robust, you shouldn’t need to resort to such tactics.
(PS Is your handle from ‘Close to the Edge’ by Yes? Fantastic classic Rock!)
ferd berple says:
December 16, 2012 at 9:56 pm
lsvalgaard says:
December 16, 2012 at 2:28 pm
…….
What percentage of everything there is to know about the sun do you estimate you know today? Do you estimate you know 50% of everything there is to know? I estimate that while you may indeed know more than me, you and I know pretty close to 0.0000000% of what there is to be discovered in total.
========================
You’re old school. The “Consensus Church” is certain of everything that’s infallibly pronounced by the Cardinals of Climate Change. /sarc
Seriously, CliSci needs a little of the sort of humility you articulated, in order to avoid wasting time on pet hypothesis tainted by political ideology.
Steven Mosher says:
December 16, 2012 at 7:53 pm
“3. Do they have a physical mechanism
.
.
.
What the solar proponents need to do to be taken seriously is propose testable hypothesis.
“we think THIS parameter matters for the following physical reason” propose tests
in advance and then do the test. Lets take GCR. There you actually have a proposed mechanism. More GCR is more clouds. When I asked Solar proponents to suggest at test for the effect after Forbush events ( I found no effect on clouds ) I got silence. Nobody wants to propose and live by a test of their ideas.”
Science is both process and product. The products are well confirmed physical hypotheses. The processes consist of empirical research undertaken in accordance with scientific method. We often confuse process and product when we talk about science. The IPCC’s charter gives it a bias in favor of products and against process. The IPCC is to survey the literature and report results. What it reports are confirmed hypotheses but not research in process.
Your emphasis on physical mechanisms and your criticisms of GCR (Svensmark and Kirkby) illustrate the bias in favor of product. Svensmark or Kirkby might have well confirmed hypotheses in years or decades but the empirical research that each is undertaking amounts to an impeccable example of scientific method in practice. To criticize them for not having well confirmed physical hypotheses at this time is simply to push the IPCC’s bias in favor of products over process. However, this bias leaves much of the interesting science on the IPCC’s cutting room floor.
As long as you are demanding “mechanisms” of scientists you are implicitly demanding well confirmed hypotheses; that is, you are demanding products. Of course Svensmark and Kirkby have some ideas about the mechanisms that they pursue but neither has conducted anything near the amount of research that can nail down a mechanism. There might be no testable hypotheses for years or decades yet their science is impeccable.
What you and the IPCC must do is become aware of the importance of process. To do that you need to embody explicit descriptions of scientific method at work in practice. Svensmark and Kirkby offer excellent examples for you to cut your teeth on.
The confusion between process and product has made all claims about consensus ambiguous. When you say that there is consensus among climate scientists, are you saying that it is a consensus about what research is worthwhile (process) or about what physical hypotheses are well confirmed (product)? To the genuine scientist, the products are well known and boring; everything interesting is found in empirical research.
The scientist who insists that TSI tells us everything we need to know about the influences of sun on earth might be entirely correct as regards the products of his science but has chosen to ignore the processes of his science.
total mass retain:
“deniers” is an offensive term. Please do not use it. We call ourselves skeptics.
Also, “infantile soundbites from the deniers” is perjorative and unnessary if you really wish to discuss issues of science.
You keep saying “laws of physics”. Well those same laws tell us that once saturation is reached, the effect of CO2 is much diminished. So there is an explanation for the temperature record of the last sixteen years, given in terms which you respect. But now you say that is cherry-picking. Well, stick around for ten more years, because the warming will not resume. It may turn cooler, but not warmer. The climate models are a collossal failure, and that failure is due to the misapplication of your cherished laws of physics. And please, do not thank me for furthering your understanding. I would do it for anyone.
beng says:
December 17, 2012 at 7:06 am
….wait until there is a Heinrich, D/O, or Bond event. Now you’re talking big changes. What causes those? Don’t know, but I seriously doubt they are caused by internal solar changes — there’s no evidence for 1500 yr or otherwise, internal solar cycles….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Not exactly true.
This does not mean that solar is the only possibility under consideration as you have correctly pointed out.
I think that last sentence is the real take home comment. “…can be seen to contain the evidence of combined forcing mechanisms, whose relative influences varied during the course of the Holocene….” This is what the IPCC is ignoring.
Leif says:
As I noted before, Leif has a lot of good company, including a lot of good scientists like Solanki, who are also overlooking the basics of ocean equilibration, so I don’t blame anybody for being misled.
Solanki made just the argument Leif was thinking of here. Because the strong solar correlation he found was strongest with about a 7 year lag, he said he had no evidence that longer term elevations in solar activity would cause longer term warming, but that is not correct. If high solar activity causes warming in the short term that IS evidence that it will also cause warming in the long term, just as the solar warming of the day is evidence that lengthening solar insolation will also warm the season.
The difference is that in the case of the seasons we can directly observe this warming in response to increased forcing on a repeated basis so we don’t NEED to infer the longer term effect from the shorter term effect. With variations in solar activity the pattern is erratic and it is obscured by two other signals that are relatively powerful on the decadal time scale: volcanic activity and the effect of ocean oscillations. That makes it hard to read the temperature forcing effects of longer term changes in solar activity in the paleo record, but the strong short term correlation does provides evidence that such longer term temperature forcings would also be going on.
****
Gail Combs says:
December 17, 2012 at 8:29 am
****
Appreciate the info & effort, Gail. Lots to look at….
Leaked IPCC report reaffirms dangerous climate change
‘A draft of a major report on climate change, due to be published next year, has been leaked online. Climate-sceptic bloggers have seized on it, claiming that it admits that much of global warming has been caused by the sun’s variability, not by greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, THE REPORT SAYS NOTHING OF THE KIND.
The report was leaked by Alec Rawls, who signed up to be an expert reviewer of the next report – something anyone can do. Rawls posted the latest draft of the report’s first section on his website. It was swiftly picked up by bloggers critical of mainstream climate science, such as ANTHONY WATTSs of Watts Up With That and JAMES DELINGPOLE [hahahahahahahah…], who writes for the UK’s Daily Telegraph newspaper.
Climate scientists are lining up to debunk this claim, and to explain that the bloggers have simply got it wrong. “They’re misunderstanding, either DELIBERATELY or otherwise, what that sentence is meant to say,” says solar expert Joanna Haigh of Imperial College London.
Haigh says that if Rawls had read a bit further, he would have realised that the report goes on to largely DISMISS the evidence that cosmic rays have a significant effect. “They conclude there’s very little evidence that it has any effect,” she says.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23005-leaked-ipcc-report-reaffirms-dangerous-climate-change.html
milodonharlani says:
December 17, 2012 at 7:38 am
Whom do you consider sun nuts? Svensmark? Kirkby?
The sun nuts are people who proclaim the dominance of the Sun in controlling the climate based on a priory assumptions and without considering [or ignoring] the evidence or advocate the Sun simply as an antidote to CO2, or people who say “we don’t know anything about the sun, so how can we deny that the Sun is doing it”. The ‘cosmic ray effect’ has been shown not to be significant as chapter 8 correctly points out: “However there is high confidence (medium evidence and high agreement) that the GCR-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of cloud condensation nuclei or their change over the last century or during a SC in a climatically-significant way (Erlykin and Wolfendale, 2011; Harrison and Ambaum, 2010; Snow-Kropla et al., 2011).”
Is it your opinion that solar magnetic flux does not affect cosmic rays reaching earth, that these particles don’t affect cloud condensation nuclei, or that these phenomena occur, but have no appreciable or negligible effect on terrestrial climate (or that of other solar system bodies)?
The latter
Please also kindly state your opinion on possible climatic effects of the recent finding that while TSI remains nearly constant, UV can fluctuate significantly & opposite to visible & IR spectra.
The fluctuations in UV [stemming from the same source as variations of TSI – the sun’s magnetic field] would tend to follow the same pattern as TSI. We have a good proxy record of solar UV going all the way back to 1722 [when the effect was discovered by George Graham]. UV creates and maintains the ionosphere. Dynamo action creates a current up there causing a magnetic field variation that we can measure on the ground. Such measurements show us that there has been no long-term changes [since 1722] in the overall level [i.e. apart from the repeating solar cycle].
Carter quotes another self-serving alarmist on cosmic rays, saying that “there’s very little evidence that it has any effect”. However, there is NO empirical evidence showing that CO2 has ANY effect on temperature. None.
Now, AGW may exist, but if so the effect is so minuscule that it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes. CO2 is a minor third-order forcing that is swamped by much larger first-order and second-order forcings.
As far as global temperatures are concerned, the effect of CO2 was completely saturated at much lower concentrations, and any further increase has no effect — as the planet is currently demonstrating. So while there may be ‘little’ evidence that cosmic rays have an effect, there is NO evidence that more CO2 has any effect. CO2=AGW is simply an evidence-free conjecture.
Alec Rawls says:
December 17, 2012 at 8:54 am
That makes it hard to read the temperature forcing effects of longer term changes in solar activity in the paleo record, but the strong short term correlation does provides evidence that such longer term temperature forcings would also be going on.
How many of your 24 papers deal with the paleo record? Here are the Global Temperatures [well, a couple of reconstructions] the past 2000 years compared to solar activity [derived from cosmic ray record]: http://www.leif.org/research/Global-Temperatures-2000-yrs.png
I don’t see anything supporting your claims.
Actually, I see in that graph a cumulative effect where higher cosmic rays do seem to correlate with rising temperatures and declining cosmic rays eventually seem to correlate with trends downward in temperature. I have also seen charts over hundreds of thousands of years which show very clear correlations.
http://motls.blogspot.mx/2004/09/sunspots-correlations-with-temperature.html?m=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Paleo-cosmic_flux.svg
While nobody seems to have the correlation frankly this correlation is in the right direction, ie the cosmic ray changes precede the temperature change and it is consistent over many time periods in a way that seems impossible to be a coincidence. There is no obvious connection like with co2 where we know that co2 causes the oceans to outgas and ingest more co2 when temps go up or down respectively. The fact that co2 always lags the change in temperature and this known factor means we really don’t know what effect co2 has on temperature because the whole thing could simply be a sympathetic reaction to climate change. Whereas with cosmic rays its unclear how this correlation of the sun and the earth could work backwards, ie the earth effect cosmic rays. It seems this relationship clearly is one-way and independent so it’s correlation is surprising whereas the co2 correlation is a known property of the ocean.
This is all very simple and I am amazed that we have to go through such contortions and decades of contentious arguing, because of this blatant attempt to obfuscate the obvious:
Did the climate change periodically over the last 4,000 (and more) years? Yes
Did the CO2 change to any significant degree over all but the last 100 of those 4,000 years? No
Therefore, something else must be operating that produces significant climate change!
A small child could understand this.
Up til now, (and still ‘officially’) the IPCC has pretended that there is nothing other than CO2 (and other lessor man-made gasses) producing significant climate change. Therefore, the IPCC is wrong with the science. The National Academies are wrong with the science. The AMS (American Meteorology Society) is wrong with the science. Until they acknowledge the obvious truth that there is at least one other major player in climate change, they are all obviously wrong! If you accept the two statements above, there is no other possible conclusion. If you deny either statement, you are denying the overwhelming evidence, and your position is not one of science. There is no requirement to know what that something else is in order to know that it exists (which is an often used strawman argument). Pretending that it does not exist because we don’t know exactly what it is (still the official IPCC stance), is delusional.
End of story.
Patience with mental illness will often resort to ‘projection’ in order to survive in their own version of reality. Projection is the practice of accusing someone else of an issue that you have, perhaps in an attempt to divert the deserved criticism. I am not saying that warmists suffer from mental illness, but they have used a form of ‘projection’ when labeling CAGW skeptics as climate change deniers. Of course, most skeptics have never denied climate change, only the magnitude of the proposed human impact on the ever-changing climate. But warmists MUST deny all significant climate change before the 20th Century in order to hold their current beliefs. That is a huge denial of climate change; several orders of magnitude greater than the denial of which skeptics are falsely accused.
@ Total Mass Retain
“More irony. If it’s “the sun stupid” someone has to explain why the 40% rise in CO2 over the past 150 years hasn’t done what the laws of physics says it must do: retain heat. Infantile soundbites from the deniers doesn’t change that basic problem. Neither does cherry picking dates to show the warming has “stopped”: you still have to explain why it hasn’t warmed.”
Actually, we don’t have to explain why it hasn’t warmed. That’s totally the domain of your lot, you have to explain why it hasn’t warmed in the context of continued of C02 rises.
So, come on, why hasn’t it, is it simple physics or isn’t it?
What mechansim do you postulate for it not warming?
What could possibly have almost exactly counter balance the warming that we should have experienced?
We’re waiting…………….
Where the extra water vapour, where’s the “definitely” positive feedbacks, where’s the heat?
beesaman at 2:59 pm linked to this Judith Curry discussion on a draft NAS publication The effects of solar variability on Earth’s climate: A workshop report. This is prepublication and can still be downloaded for free. A quick scan reveals this is very readable.
Gail was kind enough to link to the ocean absorption information for incoming solar here and here. The key takeaway for me is that the visible spectrum is the most heavily absorbed by the ocean. UV & IR tail off very quickly. This article describes the incoming solar spectrum. About 49% of incoming solar is in the IR spectrum. Maybe Anthony could put these relatively static graphs at the bottom of the solar page.
AR5 assigns a radiative forcing impact to CO2 of 1.5 W/M**2 and about 0.04 W/M**2 to Solar irradiance. The solar attribution is positive and on the same order as aircraft contrails. Figure C2 in the NAS report (33 year TSI record) appears to show a min to max range of as much as 5 W/M**2 (including outliers).
As indicated above, not all watts are created equal. The IR watts resulting from greenhouse gases do not penetrate the ocean. Incoming solar watts are more likely to penetrate the ocean to depth and contribute, for example, to ENSO.
From my perspective, the following elements are in place for an increased role for solar influences on our energy budget dynamics.
– AR5 assigns essentially zero impact of solar variability to radiative forcing.
-Solar is much more effective in ocean heating than greenhouse gas IR.
-The impact of small changes in TSI and spectrum on cloud cover is apparently unknown. For example, if a reduction in TSI is accompanied by an increase in cloud cover, than the TSI impact would be amplified.
-We only have accurate TSI measurements for the satellite era whereas the AR5 solar impact attribution goes back to 1750.
Carter:
Your post on this thread is another copy-and-paste from some warmunist blog of the same meaningless talking points which were refuted when posted on another thread of WUWT.
Please explain why you have posted those refuted points again on this thread.
Richard
.
Leif. I don’t think you are covering all the bases here.
If a solar event or cycle can influence the high latitude jetstreams, so that they move in an equatorial direction, you can generate a mini-Ice Age without any change in TSI.
This is what we have experienced in the last three years in northern Europe, with jetstreams running through the Med (instead of through the English Chanel) and resulting very cold winters. If you can imagine this or more happening for a whole decade, the worldwide temperatures as measured above 45 degrees of latitude may well cool substantially. Tropical areas may be doing something completely different, but I am not sure that 18th century science and meteorology was too interested in tropical regions.
.
Silver Ralph says:
December 17, 2012 at 9:52 am
If a solar event or cycle can influence the high latitude jetstreams
There is no good evidence of that…
Leif.
Just as a matter of interest – how does the neutrino flux change, with the change in Sunspots?
RobertInAz says:
December 17, 2012 at 9:40 am
From my perspective, the following elements are in place for an increased role for solar influences on our energy budget dynamics.
– AR5 assigns essentially zero impact of solar variability to radiative forcing.
Zero impact of solar variability is in place for an increased role for solar influences???
Silver Ralph says:
December 17, 2012 at 9:57 am
Just as a matter of interest – how does the neutrino flux change, with the change in Sunspots?
It does not. Neutrinos are created in the core of the Sun [and escape the Sun in a couple of seconds] while sunspots are the product of processes occurring nearer the surface.
Haigh did exactly what Sherwood did. She is basicly lying to the world about what the added sentence says, claiming that it is about GCR-cloud effects, which she thinks can be dismissed, when the sentence clearly admits evidence for SOME mechanism of enhanced solar forcing, even if we don’t know what that mechanism is. Claiming that the evidence for any particular mechanism suggest that that particular mechanism would be weak does nothing to counter the admission of strong evidence for SOME such mechanism that is operating more powerfully.
As this post points out, this sentence seems to have been added in direct response to my FOD criticism of this misdirection that Sherwood and Haigh are using: it inverts the scientific method. They can’t use their dissatisfaction with with the GCR-cloud theory as an excuse for ignoring the evidence that some such mechanism is at work. That is putting theory over evidence, which is the definition of anti-science.
Amazing to me that after reading this post someone can cite as a rebuttal Haigh doing the exact same thing the post expose as anti-scientific.
lsvalgaard;
Zero impact of solar variability is in place for an increased role for solar influences???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My reading of Ch11 is that they are forecasting (predicting, projecting, whatever the word of the day is) a maximum of -0.1 degrees C for a Maunder type minimum. So they are on the one hand admitting that there is an effect (which is a reversal from AR4) but on the other claiming it is small.
They have several “get out of jail free” cards built into Ch11, this, I think is one of them. By allowing that the effect exists at all, they can now say they under estimated it if they don’t get the warming they expect. They use the same excuse with aerosols.
http://www.leif.org/research/Another-Maunder-Minimum.pdf
page 18,
http://www.cmiae.org/Resources/glaciers-lichens.php
Sunspot numbers and retreating glaciers, there were 4 very active cycles prior to 1887, a large melt to 1898, three smaller cycles to about 1910 and a smaller melt and on we go. If it wasn`t the sun wot caused it what was it.
lsvalgaard says: December 17, 2012 at 10:03 am Zero impact of solar variability is in place for an increased role for solar influences???
What I mean here is the role AR5 assigns for solar forcing since 1750 is so tiny even a small change in our understanding of the physics has a potentially large impact on the relative importance of solar vis-a-vis, for example CO2. This must be an exciting time for solar physicists as the planet’s temperature remains stable while the solar cycle is quiet in spite of continued increases in GHG concentrations. You guys must have been very popular at AGU.
I’ve commented quite infrequently on this blog – more of a lurker but I wanted to say this for a long time and since solar stuff is on the table.
First of all the more subtle message in Alec’s release of the draft and contention that it was a game changer may have missed a lot of people. Here in the SOD is now achapter concerned with solar effects on climate and in which people have performed experiments to see if their theories were correct. Then the authors seem to say “well it’s insignificant” and then cling to the CO2 theory that has even less empirical evidence to back it up. That’s sounds more like belief than balance.
Now I am a physicist by training (doctorate in Material science) and I have worked with plasma engines for space for nearly ten years. I am an experimental scientist first and foremost. I’m also from Northern Ireland, Belfast in fact so I don’t like to mess around with fluff. I like to get to the point.
So for all those CO2 theory lovers here is the central question: where has the effect of shining 4 and 15 micron light onto a surface at 15 degrees in the presence of a representative convecting atmostphere ever been performed?
This test would show what happens with the famous back radiation idea. Never mind all the MODTRAN and that guff. Where has the experiment being done? The closest I have come to finding one is for agriculture where FIR (Far Infra Red) is used to heat strawberries. Turns out blowing hot air over them was better.
This experiment or characterisation is fundamental to the idea of forcing. Another assumption is that a surface will somehow absorb the reflected IR (at the same frequency that it is emitting) and somehow change its internal energy so that it can “balance” the increase of absorbed radiation. Reflected radiation is not the same as inhibited radiation (as in if an IR filter was used to prevent emission). Though in theory emission eventually balances absorption the real life situation needs to be tested.
What I suggest will happen is that “back-radiated light” is simply weakly scattered and reflected back, like a very weak laser effect. After a few ping pongs with Co2 the net effect is loss to scattering and the energy is dumped into the first few metres of atmosphere. Maybe the wind blows a but stronger.
I believe this may happen as most surfaces are not black bodies meaning they do not have to emit radiation following the ideal black body curve. Stars don’t do this. In fact the Kurutz model from the 80s used atomic emission lines in stars to better bound the photosphere temperature because black body physics wouldn’t cut it. Even look at the Sun. The spectrum does not follow a black body exactly. But also strictly speaking it is the intergrated area under a frequency curve that determines the total energy released so there is no need to “raise” the temperature of a body. The spectrum may change to accommodate if it is energetically favourable to do so. The least energy thing to do i.e. the laziest, is to scatter the energy as loss, local heating whatever rather than raise the surface temperature internally (first metres of the surface). Also as convection does a much better job at energy transference this loss could be absorbed into atmosphere dynamics.
But like I said do the fundamental IR experiment first and see what happens.
And so onto the Sun
There seems to be a bit of confusion as to what the Sun can and can’t do. In terms of dumping energy onto the Earth the Sun’s energy doesn’t need to vary by that much at all (less than 1%) to have an effect provided the Earth is already distributing its energy in a non-random way.
Let me explain. In plasmas, most notably discharge plasmas for space engines, there is an effect where a small change on primary power (less than 1%) causes the plasma current oscillations to shift from random noise to coherent acoustic oscillations (which are dictated by geometry and other coupling factors). Literally it looks like the plasma just switches. In particular with Kaufman engines (which have an internal electrical circuit – plasma cathode to anode ring) at low ac frequencies the anode current reads the same as the power supply. At kHz it can be up to 10 times as much in peak to peak oscillations.
Another related effect is that this transition to acoustic oscillations from random is influenced by the input spectrum itself. Especially the high frequency aspects. Small changes to the higher frequency register can result in the acoustic oscillations occuring at higher or lower input powers. In general, Acoustic oscillations are favoured by the plasma as it is becomes energetically efficient to oscillate rather than randomly vibrate when power is increased.
Lastly, the transition frequenty resembles a Cantor Dust. In that bunches of oscillations appear that when zoomed up show periodicities similar to the global bunch. When power is increased these bunches come together such that the oscillation pattern becomes more like a sine wave and has better consistency; conversely if the power is dropped groups of oscillation packets are further spaced out until it become white noise again.
Now this is just an analogy but if this is what the climate does it implies that if the Earth’s climate is in the acoustic oscillation phase, then a quieter Sun may cause the ENSO to be less symmetric. Or it could mean one severe event followed by 5 or more calm ones. It also could mean transition regions between rising warmth and then falling cold against a backdrop of slowly increasing temperature (due to the exit from the LIA). This could occur rather than a steadier rise as ENSO dumps more energy in shorter time compared to more even periodicity in which the ENSO oscillations are more regular.
Or it could mean something else, I don’t know. Bob Tisdale is the man for that.
If this mechanism is what is happening, then there should be a correlation between ENSO periodicity, strength and total energy and the amount of energy from the Sun. As the Sun increases ENSO becomes more regular; as it wanes ENSO becomes irregular but the total energy only slightly decreases, seeing at the total energy from the Sun has decreased slightly. The signature will be the bunching and eventual disappearance of the ENSO into random noise. Similar to the input power to a plasma.
This is conjecture but to reiterate the lack of a 4 and 15 micron back radiation experiment isn’t. That’s a gaping hole in the role that CO2 plays in the climate.
Jim Clarke says:
December 17, 2012 at 9:12 am
“Patience with mental illness will often resort to ‘projection’ in order to survive in their own version of reality. Projection is the practice of accusing someone else of an issue that you have, perhaps in an attempt to divert the deserved criticism. I am not saying that warmists suffer from mental illness, but they have used a form of ‘projection’ when labeling CAGW skeptics as climate change deniers. Of course, most skeptics have never denied climate change, only the magnitude of the proposed human impact on the ever-changing climate. But warmists MUST deny all significant climate change before the 20th Century in order to hold their current beliefs. That is a huge denial of climate change; several orders of magnitude greater than the denial of which skeptics are falsely accused.”
=======================================
Jim:
What you described is called Skeptical Science Syndrome. This is a fairly new form of mental illness, but one that needs to be addressed soon. Even tho its spread seems to be contained, and has a downward bias to the trend, it is still an extremely serious illness and if allowed to flair, could result in man’s destruction.
Alec Rawls says:
December 17, 2012 at 10:21 am
Haigh did exactly what Sherwood did. She is basicly lying to the world about what the added sentence says, claiming that it is about GCR-cloud effects, which she thinks can be dismissed, when the sentence clearly admits evidence for SOME mechanism of enhanced solar forcing, even if we don’t know what that mechanism is
The Assessment says:
7.4.5.1 Correlations Between Cosmic Rays and Properties of Aerosols and Clouds
Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link.
It is clear that they are talking specifically about observations of cosmic rays and clouds and nothing else. They point out that TSI does not account for these observations and that therefore other mechanisms must be invoked if these observations hold up, thereby linking their discussion to the reality of the correlation, but in no way accepting the reality. You are WAY overinterpreting the statement. Haigh and Sherwood simply point out what the issue at hand is [also specified by the title of the section “Correlations Between Cosmic Rays and Properties of Aerosols and Clouds”]. Implying anything else is wishful thinking.
Alec Rawls :
Amazing to me that after reading this post someone can cite as a rebuttal Haigh doing the exact same thing the post expose as anti-scientific.
===========================================================================
Don’t be amazed. This is standard tactics with such scientists. They see themselves not as scientists but as participants in the “Guerilla War Against Climate Change”, in the words of Joelle Gerghis, PhD and paleo-climate researcher of the Universiry of Melbourne. This is the mentality that predominates with many of the would-be scientists of the AGW crowd. They are not so concerned with science as they are with propaganda. Ideological truth, yes, but the weight of rigorous science is against them, so they have learned how to finesse scientific truth.They are used to getting by with such tactics, and they league together when an opportunity to obfuscate appears, embracing each other and chanting the same mantra. They seek safety in numbers and they would never dare engage in a public discussion of the issues with skeptics because they would be exposed.
The “some” we are looking for is under our feet in the form of 2 million cubic miles of fissionable material under high temperature, high pressure and variable particle bombardments. The “total” part of TSI is near constant, but the frequency of output and volume of cosmic rays vary directly with solar activity. One defect in the GCR-cloud hypothesis is the origin of the 3 micron feedstock of SOx in the atmosphere necessary for the 50 micron nucleation process. The two by-products of Earth’s variable fission rate are heat and elemental atoms. These elemental atoms quickly form elemental compounds, including the needed SOx feedstock, the 97% of natural occuring CO2 and a host of other gases. The inert gas, Radon, has a half-life of 3.8 days, cannot form any compounds and is only produced by nuclear decay. Radon release rates spike just prior to Earthquakes. This links solar and Galactic cosmic rays to climate and tectonics allowing finally the discussion of a Unified Earth Science Theory.
Or — and I’m just throwing this out there — this is complete and utter crap. Seriously, would you learn just the teensiest bit of nuclear physics — I’m talking stuff at the level of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_physics and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_binding_energy, not even at the level of a real physics textbook — before you throw pseudo-scientific manure into the cosmos?
Visit the second of these two sites. Look at the “Nuclear binding energy per nucleon” curve that is its only figure. Note well that fission does not make any oxygen or carbon. Nuclear decay — not fission — does produce a tiny bit of helium 4 (from alpha decay in the Actinide series).
Read the first of these two sites, and observe that the heavy elements were all produced in supernovae, and that (for that matter) it takes a second generation star, usually, to cook up carbon and oxygen in the first place. You might want to get a decent book on Astronomy and learn about nucleosynthesis, the production of metals in stars (where metals does not mean what you think it means) and so on.
Second, once you’ve mastered enough nuclear physics to learn that you should never, ever, talk about it again on any sort of public list, you might look at the measurements of temperature gradient in the Earth’s crust. Those measurements suffice to pretty much determine the rate at which the Earth is generating heat internally from the plain old boring heat equation, certainly within a factor of two or three. The rate of heat production — mostly from nuclear decay processes including fission, you do get that much right — is orders of magnitude too small to be relevant to the Earth’s temperature.
In the meantime, you do make me really, really tired. You’re a poster child for our failed educational system. But at any time you can quit — just go back to school, buy some real physics textbooks, sit down, and instead of just making stuff up that sounds nifty and plausible do some math backed by actual measurements. Then be mousy quiet, as perhaps then you’ll finally come to realize how very much you need to learn to be able to participate in a discussion like this as an adult.
In the meantime, your handle “Faux Science Slayer” is a complicated oxymoronic joke, however good it makes you feel about yourself.
rgb
davidmhoffer says:
December 17, 2012 at 10:25 am
My reading of Ch11 is that they are forecasting (predicting, projecting, whatever the word of the day is) a maximum of -0.1 degrees C for a Maunder type minimum. So they are on the one hand admitting that there is an effect (which is a reversal from AR4) but on the other claiming it is small.
It is obvious that there is solar activity related effect of a tenth of a degree, but that does not make the Sun the dominant driver of climate. In fact, Jupiter is.
lsvalgaard says:
December 17, 2012 at 9:11 am
You say
Here are the Global Temperatures [well, a couple of reconstructions] the past 2000 years compared to solar activity [derived from cosmic ray record]: http://www.leif.org/research/Global-Temperatures-2000-yrs.png
I don’t see anything supporting your claims.
And I say
There is strong link between solar and geomagnetic changes spanning more than three centuries http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
In addition:
Here are 130 years of data for solar activity and the temperatures instrumental records, both the best the science has. Data shows conclusively that sun is almost certain source of the climate’s natural variability.
Lets make it clear: when I say what data shows, it is the sunspot data and data in a file by Jackson and Bloxham that I have used.
I have no preconceived favored idea what the operating mechanism might be, but probability of it being accidental must be extremely low
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
D Böehm says:
‘ there is NO evidence that more CO2 has any effect. CO2=AGW is simply an evidence-free conjecture.’ unless you include this as one part of the jig saw that is AGW!
Thought provoking article and comments. Somebody (or more than one) published an article on the fact that other planets are heating up so, it isn’t just earth being affected by the sun (and, if not the sun, then what? Surely humanity’s contribution to carbon build up/climate warming trend is not impacting other planets… carbon tax will have how much impact on a hot, future-earth reality?
FAO richardscourtney
‘Your post on this thread is another copy-and-paste from some warmunist blog’ Newscientist is not some warmist blog! It is a genuine magazine publishing scientific data and facts!
‘Please explain why you have posted those refuted points again on this thread’ I wasn’t aware I had! Because are they not moded for repeat posts? But where ever myths are spread, it is the duty of every right thinking person to challenge them and to show them up for what they are, just myths, by giving valid links to the true science.
Carter says:
“…it is the duty of every right thinking person to challenge them and to show them up for what they are, just myths, by giving valid links to the true science.”
Let us know when you start posting links to ‘true science’.
If you believe that silly video provides any scientific evidence of anything, you are beyond help. The guy even believes we’re not currently in an Ice Age. He probably never heard of an interstadial. You should at least try to find someone who has a modicum of scientific understanding. That video was just the usual Chicken Little-style running around in circles, arm-waving and shouting, “CO2! CO2! Don’t you understand?? CO2 is going up! EEK!!”
The recent rise in CO2 has been entirely harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. No global harm due to anthropogenic CO2 has ever been verified per the scientific method, and agricultural output is booming due to the rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2.
Finally, you have no understanding of the Null Hypothesis. But most readers here know that current climate parameters, including temperature, have been routinely exceeded during the Holocene, when CO2 levels were much lower. Any person of average intelligence can see that CO2 has no measurable effect on temperature. As CO2 steadily rises, temperatures have stalled for the past 16 years.
logiclogiclogic says:
December 17, 2012 at 10:33 am
“Actually, I see in that graph a cumulative effect where higher cosmic rays do seem to correlate with rising temperatures and declining cosmic rays eventually seem to correlate with trends downward in temperature. I have also seen charts over hundreds of thousands of years which show very clear correlations.
http://motls.blogspot.mx/2004/09/sunspots-correlations-with-temperature.html?m=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Paleo-cosmic_flux.svg“
Those are good. For shorter timeframes as well and more recent years, the following are illustrative too:
http://s13.postimage.org/ka0rmuwgn/gcrclouds.gif
and
http://s10.postimage.org/l9gokvp09/composite.jpg
(click to enlarge)
As illustrated in the first graph, using non-ISCCP data after the satellite orbit change skewing of the post-2004 period ( http://tinyurl.com/a8lhzz7 ) is important, such as the CERES illustration when zooming in on the 2000-2010 period.
Shorter solar cycles tend to be more intense. Wikipedia is mostly a terrible source on climate topics as there are particularly hardcore propagandists at work there (unsurprisingly targeted since exceeding even WUWT in viewership), but solar cycle lengths are one of the quantities hardest to fudge in revisionism, so even they can not conceal how the average solar cycle length over 1902 to 1996 was 10.5 years, compared to 11.6 years over the prior century from 1798 to 1902 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_cycles ).
More specifically, there was major rise in solar activity during the first part of the 20th century, followed by a dip by cycle 20 in the 1960s-1970s which was the period of the global cooling scare (with substantial cooling seen in the data of the time like http://tinyurl.com/cxo4d3l before later revisionism). Then there was high solar activity and high deflection of GCRs in cycles 21-22 from 1976-1996 during the global warming scare like http://s10.postimage.org/l9gokvp09/composite.jpg illustrates. After cycle 22 ended in the late 1990s, average global temperatures peaked in the late 1990s with the El Nino then, and, relative to such, have been flat to declining through now when looked at through satellite temperature data ( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend ).
OK, off the subject a bit:
Only that all this effort and work had gone into something useful and needed.
I blame air-conditioning, made them into people who know little of their and our sun.
lsvalgaard says:
December 17, 2012 at 9:11 am
Here are the Global Temperatures [well, a couple of reconstructions] the past 2000 years compared to solar activity [derived from cosmic ray record]: http://www.leif.org/research/Global-Temperatures-2000-yrs.png
I don’t see anything supporting your claims.
————————————————-
2 questions and 3 issues:
Questions
1. Do cosmic ray records differ at different places ?
2. Is the cosmic record the same record used by Bond et al 2001 ?
http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/bond-et-al-2001.gif
Issues:
1. Averages should be over at least 1 full PDO/AMO cycle to minimize other natural variability. A 30 years average may instead maximize this shorter term “noise”. I think Mangini uses 200 years averages, thus averaging over 3 cycles.
2. Mangini explains deficiencies of Moberg (and similar) reconstructions as follows:
“The smaller amplitude is obvious, since Moberg’s reconstruction, resulting from a stack of several different archives with independent age control, looses amplitude as a consequence of the uncertainty in the ages of the single curves. In contrast, the temperature record from SPA 12 with an extremely good age control and with a better than decadal resolution of 18O, gives insight into temperature variations that were not recorded in other archives.”
http://www.uibk.ac.at/geologie/pdf/spa12.pdf
That means extrema are flattened and smeared due to poor age control.and varying quality of proxies.
3. Mangini says (see above December 17, 2012 at 12:46 am) that his speleotheme results instead (which correlate and are “synchronous” with Bond et al 2001) also correlate with other results in “Norway, North Atlantic, China, Chile, Turkey”. “They are all synchronous, this is the great thing about speleothemes , because, as we can date them so well, we really see those peaks happening at all places at the same time.” “Speleothemes can be dated very well, there a many stalagmites, spread over all continents and these are very beautiful archives.”
Bottom line: If you average cosmic rays over longer times and produce a high precision temperature record from high quality data as described by Mangini, peaks correlate synchronously with cosmic rays and correlate synchronously at very different locations.around the earth.
lsvalgaard says:
“It is obvious that there is solar activity related effect of a tenth of a degree, but that does not make the Sun the dominant driver of climate. In fact, Jupiter is.”
Jupiter (and other planets) might affect the Sun but that only makes it an indirect (How big?) driver.
Jupiter is, at its closest approach almost 3 times as far away as the Sun and it being a celestial body with a mass one-thousandth that of the Sun, how can it be the DOMINANT driver of climate on Earth?
RobertInAz says:
December 17, 2012 at 10:34 am
This must be an exciting time for solar physicists as the planet’s temperature remains stable while the solar cycle is quiet in spite of continued increases in GHG concentrations.
Not at all, only if you are a true believer (which I’m not)
vukcevic says:
December 17, 2012 at 10:58 am
There is strong link between solar and geomagnetic changes spanning more than three centuries
A spurious correlation is not a ‘strong link’. First, the ‘sunspot number’ you show [converted to TSI – why?] is not what solar activity has looked like. There has been no trend over the last three centuries. Second, the magnetic field at the south pole has nothing to do with the sunspot number or with the temperature in the Northern Hemisphere.
RobertInAz says:
December 17, 2012 at 10:34 am
This must be an exciting time for solar physicists as the planet’s temperature remains stable while the solar cycle is quiet in spite of continued increases in GHG concentrations.
Not at all, only if you are a true believer (which I’m not)
vukcevic says:
December 17, 2012 at 10:58 am
There is strong link between solar and geomagnetic changes spanning more than three centuries
A spurious correlation is not a ‘strong link’. First, the ‘sunspot number’ you show [converted to TSI – why?] is not what solar activity has looked like. There has been no trend over the last three centuries. Second, the magnetic field at the south pole has nothing to do with the sunspot number or with the temperature in the Northern Hemisphere.
Other_Andy says:
December 17, 2012 at 11:45 am
Jupiter is, at its closest approach almost 3 times as far away as the Sun and it being a celestial body with a mass one-thousandth that of the Sun, how can it be the DOMINANT driver of climate on Earth?
Because Jupiter over thousands of years slowly change the orbit of the Earth and those changes [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles ] control the Glaciations we have during an Ice Age.
Manfred says:
December 17, 2012 at 11:41 am
1. Do cosmic ray records differ at different places ?
Yes, as the deposition rate of 10Be and 14C depends on the climate which is different at different places. There is poor correlation between records from different places
. Is the cosmic record the same record used by Bond et al 2001 ?
No, new data becomes available all the time, see: http://lwww.leif.org/EOS/2–9GL038004-Berggren.pdf [also relevant to your first question]
Your issues: if you torture the data enough you can see anything you want.
lsvalgaard;
It is obvious that there is solar activity related effect of a tenth of a degree, but that does not make the Sun the dominant driver of climate. In fact, Jupiter is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Could you expand on the Jupiter thing? My presumption is that you are talking about Jupiter’s effects on Earth’s orbit?
Manfred says:
December 17, 2012 at 11:41 am
1. Do cosmic ray records differ at different places ?
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.2675
http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4989
“comparing the two separate ice core measurements. In fact, the cross correlation between the two ice core measurements, which should be measuring the same source, is the lowest of all, only ~0.2. These values for the correlation coefficient are all indicative of a “poor” correlation”
Manfred says:
December 17, 2012 at 11:41 am
2. Is the cosmic record the same record used by Bond et al 2001 ?
No, new data becomes available all the time, see: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004-Berggren.pdf [also relevant to your first question]
davidmhoffer says:
December 17, 2012 at 12:15 pm
Could you expand on the Jupiter thing? My presumption is that you are talking about Jupiter’s effects on Earth’s orbit?
Obviously
lsvalgaard says:
December 17, 2012 at 11:52 am
A spurious correlation is not a ‘strong link’. First, the ‘sunspot number’ you show [converted to TSI – why?] is not what solar activity has looked like. There has been no trend over the last three centuries. Second, the magnetic field at the south pole has nothing to do with the sunspot number or with the temperature in the Northern Hemisphere.
Well, I say that is good for a laugh
When correlation is good
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
It must be spurious
When correlation is even better
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
It is fake data, deceptive in the extreme
Forget dozen papers, just two simple graphs are about to bring down whole of the carefully constructed ‘sun has nothing to do with it’ edifice.
Doc time for change of strategy, and Maunder minimum is unlikely, Dalton yes, as another ‘spurious correlation’ or was it ‘numerology’ suggests:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
Thanks for all your help in failing to discredit any of above three, the Denning-Kruger diagnosis was also helpful too, have to find out a bit more about it.
Over to Ulric Lyons and Nicola Scafetta, I am off to have an early Xmas drink.
vukcevic says:
December 17, 2012 at 12:30 pm
When correlation is good…
It must be spurious
When correlation is even better …
It is fake data, deceptive in the extreme
Your comment is not responsive to the issues.
lsvalgaard says:
December 17, 2012 at 12:01 pm
….
No, new data becomes available all the time, see: http://lwww.leif.org/EOS/2–9GL038004-Berggren.pdf [also relevant to your first question]
Your issues: if you torture the data enough you can see anything you want.
—————
Thank you for theinformation.
The link appears to be not working.
My issues: I would expect, there is not much wiggle room with high resolution high quality data such as speleothemes. Such data speaks for itself. I see torture in your 30 years average and your mixed quality proxy temperature reconstruction though.
From the Table of Radiative Components shown above.
Does anyone REALLY believe that surface albedo changes have a net cooling effect?
REALLYY, REALLY. Concrete macadam, deforestation, plowing…….
lsvalgaard says:
December 17, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Manfred says:
December 17, 2012 at 11:41 am
1. Do cosmic ray records differ at different places ?
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.2675
http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4989
——————————–
Thank you for that as well.
“Usoskin, et al., 212 2009, have suggested that the solar (production) signal may dominate the 10Be concentration 213 signal only on time scales longer than ~100 years while shorter term 10Be concentration 214 measurements are greatly affected by local climate.”
I think, this is also not relevant for speleothemes using d18O. There should be no climatic effect on isotope ratio deposition rates.
Manfred says:
December 17, 2012 at 1:09 pm
The link appears to be not working.
Check a comment a bit later
lsvalgaard says:
December 17, 2012 at 12:28 pm
davidmhoffer says:
December 17, 2012 at 12:15 pm
Could you expand on the Jupiter thing? My presumption is that you are talking about Jupiter’s effects on Earth’s orbit?
Obviously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Getting Leif to expand on something is an art form unto itself 😉
Leif, at what timescales do you suggest these effects are observable given the data available. Millions of years? thousands? hundreds? decades?
Manfred says:
December 17, 2012 at 1:13 pm
I think, this is also not relevant for speleothemes using d18O. There should be no climatic effect on isotope ratio deposition rates.
Well, the total, global production of 10Be is 55 gram/year. The isotope is transported by wind, etc from production to deposition, so climate effects are possible.
davidmhoffer says:
December 17, 2012 at 1:23 pm
Leif, at what timescales do you suggest these effects are observable given the data available. Millions of years? thousands? hundreds? decades?
Check slide 19 of http://www.leif.org/research/On-Becoming-a-Scientist.pdf
Or use the ppt version to see animations:
http://www.leif.org/research/On-Becoming-a-Scientist.ppt
davidmhoffer says:
December 17, 2012 at 1:23 pm
Leif, at what timescales do you suggest these effects are observable given the data available. Millions of years? thousands? hundreds? decades?
Check slide 18 of http://www.leif.org/research/On-Becoming-a-Scientist.pdf
I gave this talk to school children in Hokkaido, Japan
@Reef Swindlegard
I can’t help but notice you seem to be arguing from a position of higher authority and greater understanding, but I haven’t seen any convincing arguments from you other than a citation war. That said, I am not saying the solar supporters have it all figured out but I want to ask you a test question for objectivity purposes.
Many global warming alarmists equate the denial of the 300% positive feedback fairy with denying evolution. Dr. Svaalgard, do you admit that the belief in transitionals fossils is a leap of faith? I’m sorry but anybody who thinks that a whale came from a land mammal is a fool. Dr. Svaalgard, the pictures drawn of transitional fossils are based on leaps of faith, correct? If not, how do you test it? It’s really nice to draw a fossil of animal nobody has seen and make it look like another animal, but that in itself proves nothing. That you and your colleagues have created a consensus that the past 6 billion years of climate is irrelevant is an opinion. The hard fact is, earth is almost always warmer and averages higher atmospheric co2 concentrations than we have today. It’s really just ignorance. We have a group of liberal elites who think they’ve unlocked the secrets hidden for billions of years in the span of just 2 centuries.
“In the decade, we have figured out how to derive solar wind properties from the geomagnetic record. The bottom line is that the solar wind in the 20th century has not been significantly different from that in the 19th and 18th centuries. Neither has solar UV. In particular solar activity [and solar wind] at present is very much like it was a century ago. So the Sun has not varied enough to cause a significant climate influence, regardless of all the papers mentioned.”
dr. lumpus spookytooth, phd. says:
December 17, 2012 at 1:38 pm
I’m sorry but anybody who thinks that a whale came from a land mammal is a fool.
Yes, you have lots to be sorry about.
@lsvalgaard
just curious, do you think the radiative forcing chart is complete? I’m not a scientist sir but to think that they aren’t going to be adding 5 more variables to that chart seems to be a bit denialist to me.
dr. lumpus spookytooth, phd. says:
December 17, 2012 at 1:38 pm
The hard fact is, earth is almost always warmer and averages higher atmospheric co2 concentrations than we have today.
And yet over those billions of years, the Sun was much less radiant than today, so a cooler sun compensated for by higher CO2 would explain the warmer Earth [according to you].
Here is what science says: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011RG000375.pdf
“[1] For more than four decades, scientists have been trying to find an answer to one of the most fundamental questions in paleoclimatology, the “faint young Sun problem.” For the early Earth, models of stellar evolution predict a solar energy input to the climate system that is about 25% lower than today. This would result in a completely frozen world over the first 2 billion years in the history of our planet if all other parameters controlling Earth’s climate had been the same. Yet there is ample evidence for the presence of liquid surface water and even life in the Archean (3.8 to 2.5 billion years before present), so some effect (or effects) must have been compensating for the faint young Sun. A wide range of possible solutions have been suggested and explored during the last four decades, with most studies focusing on higher concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, or ammonia. All of these solutions present considerable difficulties, however, so the faint young Sun problem cannot be regarded as solved.”
…
“[131] Given the continued interest this important topic enjoys, the next decade might bring us closer to finally answering the question of how water on early Earth could have remained liquid under a faint young Sun, certainly one of the most fundamental questions in paleoclimatology.”
dr. lumpus spookytooth, phd. says:
December 17, 2012 at 1:38 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dr. Svaalgard is a Solar Physicist. http://www.leif.org/research/
However there are other PhD Physicists who also comment here.
Dr R. Brown: http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/
Dr. Nicola Scafetta http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/
for example.
It’s my belief that the climate change/ global warming debate will continue to go back and forwards until the realities regarding Weather Modification are exposed There are many people that think man hasn’t the power or tech’s to interact with the atmosphere Well what sort of weather modification can be created by doing this. http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/31/64/49/PDF/angeo-16-1212-1998.pdf
http://www.weathermodification.com/projects.php Clients and projects
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3436120/UN-1976-Weather-Weapon-Treaty Why bother if it can’t be done.
And do you see a link to heating and free electron release by this process http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/5/2/3 What changes are made to the energy of the Tropopause This pathway is open 24/7 We us electrical energy (watts) to push the data and the electrons are released as waste (pollution) into the atmosphere Hence a more energenic atmosphere.
John
FAO D Böehm
‘The recent rise in CO2 has been entirely harmless’
So how do you explain this?
Please go back and read Jim Clarke at 9:12 AM who begins, ” This is all very simple and I am amazed that we have to go through such contortions and decades of contentious arguing, because of this blatant attempt to obfuscate the obvious:
Did the climate change periodically over the last 4,000 (and more) years? Yes
Did the CO2 change to any significant degree over all but the last 100 of those 4,000 years? No
Therefore, something else must be operating that produces significant climate change!
A small child could understand this.” Read the rest!
If you disagree with the above, let’s hear it. I want to add some science history to his argument that understanding the mechanisms for other forcings is not required. It is utter nonsense for climate scientists, climate modellers, or the IPCC to claim that CO2 is the dominant forcing because the mechanism of other forcings (or even the forcing itself) is unknown. This is among other things, an argument from ignorance and would be laughable in any science that was not dominated by a modelling mentality. Understanding mechanisms is neither required nor historically pre-requisite to scientific understanding. For example, Newton did not understand gravity and was absolutely clear about his lack of understanding and frustration for same, but that did not prevent his mathematical and observational genius from discovering many of the effects of the mechanism he did not understand. The understanding (theory) of gravity came much later as part of Einstein’s relativity theories. Another example. Darwin is the giant in my field, and his observational genius, inferences about causality, (and courage) are carefully explained in one of the best written, carefully crafted, and modest (in the sense of proposing all alternative explanations and asking others to do their best to invalidate his theory). Darwin acknowledged in all his books and writings that he did not understand the mechanism whereby natural selection was transmitted from one generation to the next. Ironically, Gregar Mendel published his discoveries in 1866 but they went largely went unrecognized until much later.
The book to read is The Origen of Species, published 1859, even today a refreshing look at how data and evidence are the building blocks of hypotheses (models), how hypotheses are invalidated by non-confirming evidence, and how ignorance of the mechanism is no excuse for ignoring the or forcing itself.
lsvalgaard says:
December 17, 2012 at 11:52 am
“A spurious correlation is not a ‘strong link’. First, the ‘sunspot number’ you show [converted to TSI – why?] is not what solar activity has looked like. There has been no trend over the last three centuries”
I agree that we need to be careful when we look at various factors as if you look at enough of them you will find correlations and most will indeed be spurious.
Vukevic does post a correlation, there is no doubt about that. However, only time will tell whether is it spurious. It probably is as just looking for correlations, then attempting to theorise about them is not really the way you should go, though he may have got lucky.
The main point of this thread though is that it is possible to have a correlation without being to be able to show or prove the process.
You obviously believe that the ‘Milankovich Cycles’ are responsible for our glacial and inter glacial periods in the current ice age.
You believe this. not because the process by which the small changes in TSI drive these has been proven but because the correlation is so tight. Milankovich himself knew that the calculated changes were far to small to achieve the effect it had to be some other connected feedbacks or processes in the Earth’s climate system that were the deciding factors. To date we have only hypotheses about these processes, nothing has been absolutely proven.
This is the point! Science accepts that tiny overall changes in the energy received from the Sun can drive significant climate change.
Seeing as Climate Science and accurate measurements are in their infancy we are not in a position to reject all correlations that have no process proof behind them.
I remain skeptical and so should all true scientists. I will certainly consider correlations, outwith proof but they had better be tight, like the Milankovich Cycle before I become a true believer. CO2 doesn’t even correlate to temperatures for the majority of the time since we have had fairly accurate temperature measurements.
Certainly increased CO2 increases the Radiative Forcing on the Earth. However, what is the long term effect of increased RF?
. Check the Earth’s temperature about 500 million years ago, when most of our major climatic processes were established, life on land, plate tectonics, similar atmosphere etc and then check what has happened to the temperature since, with an increase of about 65 Wm2 at the TOA.
Alan
Carter:
Your post addressed to D Böehm at December 17, 2012 at 2:28 pm shows you have reading comprehension problems.
D Böehm said,
“The recent rise in CO2 has been entirely harmless”.
He did NOT say,
“Kevin Trenberth has been entirely harmless”.
Richard
dr. lumpus spookytooth, phd. says:
December 17, 2012 at 2:03 pm
just curious, do you think the radiative forcing chart is complete? I’m not a scientist sir but to think that they aren’t going to be adding 5 more variables to that chart seems to be a bit denialist to me.
We add what we know about, and there are likely millions more with ever-decreasing size [and relevance].
dr. lumpus spookytooth, phd. says: December 17, 2012 at 1:38 pm
I’m sorry but anybody who thinks that a whale came from a land mammal is a fool.
_____________________________________________
Que? You do jest, surely.
So why do whales have a pelvis eh?
Perhaps female whales think that a pelvis with no legs looks kinda sexy, and this drove the evolution of a whale’s pelvis. Perhaps the whale has always longed to be a land animal, and is willing itself, bit by bit, to grow a pelvis and some legs. Or was this proto-pelvis a 21st century evolutionary response, so that whales would have somewhere to clip their mobile ‘phones onto?
http://www.darwinisdead.com/HMPBK02.JPG
Please do enter the civilized world at any time of your own choosing, but preferably before entering congress or running for the presidency. We have had enough of those jokers on either side.
.
Doug Allen says:
“Therefore, something else must be operating that produces significant climate change!”
1. Define “significant”
2. Learn about the climate Null Hypothesis
3. Accept the fact that the planet has been much warmer during the Holocene, when CO2 was much lower
Then draw your conclusions based on science, not on wild-eyed hand waving.
Carter says: December 17, 2012 at 2:28 pm
‘The recent rise in CO2 has been entirely harmless’
So how do you explain this? (Crop yields will decrease with greater warming.)
____________________________________
A warmer climate, if we have one, does not seem to worry US crop yields.
http://www.agbioforum.org/v12n2/v12n2a02-f1-lence.jpg
A warmer climate, if we have one, does not seem to worry UK, French or Egyptian crop yields.
http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/graphs_tables/update92_yields.PNG
A warmer climate, if we have one, does not seem to worry Asian rice yields.
http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/SE-Asia-rice-yields.JPG
In fact, grain production seems to love more CO2.
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/WheatandWarming1.png
.
But Alarmist Warmists never were good with data. Give this data to the CRU, and they will soon get it to decline, they are good at that sort of thing.
Doug Allen says:
December 17, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Therefore, something else must be operating that produces significant climate change!
Every complex enough non-linear system has internal stochastic fluctuations, this probably includes the Earth’s climate system. If you deny this and claim the cycles are in the Sun, then you have just moved the focus. Now you would have to explain why the Sun has all those [long-term] cycles. Again, those might just be internal stochastic fluctuations. Possibly both the Sun and the Earth have such ‘cycles’. The observed solar variations do not seem energetic enough to make themselves felt in our climate, and may not even be needed as the Earth has it own ‘cycles’.
Alan Millar says:
December 17, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Vukevic does post a correlation, there is no doubt about that. However, only time will tell whether is it spurious.
For once, what he claims to the the sunspot number is already wrong. Recent work [see slide 8 of http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Petaluma–How%20Well%20Do%20We%20Know%20the%20SSN.pdf ] shows that there is no long-term trend over the past three hundred years, so no need to ‘let time tell’.
Ha.
Well, its good to see that no sun nut had the stones to step up and make a prediction about the relationship between forbush events and cloudiness. Man I tortured that data looking for something for quite a while. Nada. Nothing. No effect.
Maybe i should add a lag? maybe smooth it? maybe divide the GCR by the mass of Jupiter and add the square root of sunspots and wham.. I find a correlation. And because I’ve found a correlation I am then justified in saying ” look! this is how science operates. You make a correlation happen and then you ask for funding to discover the mechanism. The mechanism is simple. you tortured the data in countless ways until you found something.. a correlation to glaciers, to lake levels, to local temps, to global temps, To CET, to the ring widths of trees, to plankton, to the size of hail stones, to diurnal range, blah blah blah. There is so much we dont understand about the sun, it must be the cause. Hey i dont understand women, maybe they are the cause of global warming.
Saying that there is so much we dont understand about the sun is not science. it is a statment about our ignorance. Pointing at our ignorance as an explanation is not science. Playing with data to manufacture correlations with no hint of a possible mechanism is self delusion.
lLsvalgaard,
Are you D Boehm under a different handle? Please read what I wrote, and what I quoted.
ferd berple says (to lsvalgaard):
> I estimate that while you may indeed know more than me, you and I know pretty close to 0.0000000% of what there is to be discovered in total.
A somewhat sad and totally inevitable consequence of learning is that your frontier with the unknown expands and ties itself in weirdly shaped knots. This realisation, when it first occurs, scares most people, especially those who have invested heavily in their learning or have well-defined goals.
lsvalgaard says:
December 17, 2012 at 3:26 pm
For once, what he claims to the the sunspot number is already wrong. Recent work [see slide 8 of http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Petaluma–How%20Well%20Do%20We%20Know%20the%20SSN.pdf ] shows that there is no long-term trend over the past three hundred years, so no need to ‘let time tell’.
I must admit I have not checked out his quoted sources but he says one of his graphs uses your TSI data.
Again he uses a scale on his graphs which completely overemphasises the scale of change in TSI.
It annoys me when people do this and it is just as common, if not more so, on the alarmist side.
People should be honest. There is no way the miniscule change in RF can be the cause of the observed temperature change on its own. If he doesn’t have a physical theory to back it up he should be honest and say so and just put it out there as a unproven correlation. Nothing to be ashamed of in my opinion, Milankovitch’s tiny changes are unproven but noone thinks he is an idiot. Only trouble with this is, is that even if he is correct it will take centuries to produce a sufficiently tight correlation to be generally accepted a la Milankovitch, unless he can come with a physical theory to back it up in the meantime.
Seems like most people want the adulation immediately and again I am mainly pointing the finger at alarmist scientists not Vukevic.
Alan
Mosh:
Your description sounds like AGW theory.
lsvalgaard says:
December 17, 2012 at 2:08 pm
“A wide range of possible solutions have been suggested and explored during the last four decades, with most studies focusing on higher concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, or ammonia. All of these solutions present considerable difficulties, however, so the faint young Sun problem cannot be regarded as solved.”
I have not seen any mention of the Moon’s effect on the early Earth. The tidal effects on the crust not to mention ocean tides that where 100s of feet in height. The must have been a large amount of water vapor present from these effects.
Jim Arndt
Doug Allen,
Sorry, at first I read Clarke’s comment as yours. My mistake, and I agree with your response.
Doug Allen says:
December 17, 2012 at 3:38 pm
Please read what I wrote, and what I quoted. …
how ignorance of the mechanism is no excuse for ignoring the or forcing itself
Darwin documented carefully and extensively his findings and the conclusions he drew from those. The same cannot be said for the current crop of sun enthusiasts. True, there are thousands of papers out there, but none of them is convincing to the degree of Darwin. If they were, we would not have this discussion. Now, I’ll grant that for some people [about half of Americans – e.g. lumpus spookytooth] Darwin did not prove a thing, so what does that do to your argument?
Jim Arndt says:
December 17, 2012 at 4:13 pm
I have not seen any mention of the Moon’s effect on the early Earth.
Then you did not even read the link I provided. Go there again and check paragraph [125]
Gene Selkov says:
December 17, 2012 at 3:54 pm
A somewhat sad and totally inevitable consequence of learning is that your frontier with the unknown expands
A somewhat marvelous consequence is that you can help push that frontier further out, i.e. widen what is known.
Silver Ralph says:
December 17, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Carter says: December 17, 2012 at 2:28 pm
‘The recent rise in CO2 has been entirely harmless’
So how do you explain this? (Crop yields will decrease with greater warming.)
Silver Ralph: You have to remember that folks such as Mr. Carter or Peter Sinclair suffer from Skeptical Science Syndrome. We can only recommend that they see a qualified optometrist very soon, as the print and image world are very blurry to them.
You have shown increased yields of major food crops throughout the world. This is a factual increase as WASDE reports confirm this supply and demand trend.
Alan Millar says:
December 17, 2012 at 3:55 pm
I must admit I have not checked out his quoted sources but he says one of his graphs uses your TSI data.
Not the one he showed
People should be honest.
But he is not
Seems like most people want the adulation immediately and again I am mainly pointing the finger at alarmist scientists not Vukevic
Vuk has an immense dose of self-adulation
Steven Mosher
The mechanism is simple. you tortured the data in countless ways until you found something.. a correlation to glaciers, to lake levels, to local temps, to global temps, To CET, to the ring widths of trees, to plankton, to the size of hail stones, to diurnal range, blah blah blah. Playing with data to manufacture correlations with no hint of a possible mechanism is self delusion.’
Indeed it is and the world leading experts in this are Mann and ‘the Team’ done in the name of ‘the cause ‘ and supported in such acts by those to who ‘the cause’ cannot and should not be challenged given its ‘self evident truth ‘
lsvalgaard says:
December 17, 2012 at 4:20 pm
“Then you did not even read the link I provided. Go there again and check paragraph [125]”
That was my point but it only refers to heat generation from the crust and not how the tidal effects from the ocean could have caused the ice not to form or creating more water vapor. Also the rotation of the earth was faster then causing more tidal effects. I think the issue of a large amount of methane is the most plausible since the creation of O2 was later to remove the methane while the sun was getting brighter.
Jim Arndt
Steven Mosher says:
December 17, 2012 at 3:35 pm
Quite! – except that pretty much everything you wrote applies EQUALLY to the AGW mantra and IPCC science!
I personally don’t give a wet slap what the final outcome is – science is science and cannot be fecked with in the final analysis (although we know that many try!) – though I’d rather that my gut feelings that CO2 is relatively insignificant is shown as correct in the final ‘proof’ but in the meantime drastic action based on flawed or incomplete science is morally wrong.
Anybody spouting the precautionary principal crap, etc – is living in a dream world – until facts and PROOF are shown, any action is dangerous, indeed, potentially ‘fatal’ if you take it to extremes such as crazy geoengineering!
If you really want to be precautionary – why are these same folk not advocating complete removal and destruction of all weapons? after all, weapons DO kill people, and that’s really not nice! (yet allowing them to keep breathing and keeping them warm using whatever fossil fuels available is far more wrong, according to the alarmists!)
Honestly, sometimes I despair at the obvious idiocy of mankind and worse, the ability of a few individuals to be allowed to influence the lives of so many without so much as a ‘by your leave’.
Silver Ralph says:
December 17, 2012 at 9:52 am
“If a solar event or cycle can influence the high latitude jetstreams, so that they move in an equatorial direction..”
Again, the solar wind speed and its effects on the AO and NAO. Look at the low velocity in the last few seasons: http://snag.gy/FY1mH.jpg
jimarndt says:
December 17, 2012 at 4:57 pm
Also the rotation of the earth was faster then causing more tidal effects.
Then you might find this paper [published a couple days ago] of interest:
“Faint young Sun problem more severe due to ice-albedo feedback and higher rotation rate of the early Earth”
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2012GL054381.pdf
Leif, interesting comment about Earth’s cycles (and I use that word “cycle” VERY loosely). My hunch is that we will know that we are in a cycle when we are in it and not before if these cycles turn out to be unpredictable events, with unpredictable severity, and of unpredictable duration. I believe this is what Tisdale postulates. If this turns out to be the case, no supercomputer will be able to predict what we should do with tax dollars from now till 50 years hence.
That said, my grandma seems to have been more like the super computers than I would have guessed. She always, and I mean always, prepared for the worst case scenario. One afternoon trip in late July or early August up the canyon to pick huckleberries meant just-in-case packing for at least two nights and three days in the wilderness under frigid cold weather conditions. The essential difference? She was loath to tell someone else that is what THEY should do.
lsvalgaard says:
December 16, 2012 at 9:23 pm
Bill H says:
December 16, 2012 at 9:10 pm
The Sun is essentially a huge ball of gas tipping back and forth from a solid state to a gas state. The reaction of fusion causes the gas and the solid to vibrate at differing wave lengths.
No, the Sun is an almost perfect gas throughout and at all times.
++++++++++++++++++++++
A fission reaction must have at its core a solid or semi-solid mass of expended material. As the fission reaction progresses the burned particles (bonded) are pulled to the magnetic center. As they get closer to this center the pressures break many of the bonds and the molecules rise back to the surface. This circulation causes sun spots and surface mixing.
The reaction has seasons. The solar cycle is the culmination of a set of seasons. As a cycle builds the excitement level of the gas is increasing leaving little of the center. During maxima the core begins to slow and thicken slowing the flows to the surface and as the expended gases coagulate The pressures begin to build which break the bonds of the molecules. this is minimum and as more molecules break bonds the cycle begins again. The progression of sun spots is essentially bubbles from the last cycle rising to the surface. As the sun rotates and gravity reacts with them, they pull to the magnetic center.
My point is simple. While the output of the fission reaction is fairly stable the wavelengths of UV radiation and the magnetic influences on the earth change significantly. its the differing wavelengths produced that are the key to how this all works on earth.
It is simply the absorption on the surface of the earth which causes heating or cooling of our climate. Lower UV bands carry less total heat to the surface of the earth. Higher UV bands carry higher levels. Lower UV levels bounce off sea water while higher levels penetrate and warm algae and other particles in the water. (not unlike a dark fiber reacts to a high UV laser)
I have read most of your work and agree on some points but I also have major concerns with areas such as this. in example; A dark fiber optic line, when the right wavelength is used, can double the transmission length.using the same total power over a clear optic path. In general as the wave length lengthens (slows) the total distance covered shortens with the same amount of power. The sun can remain fairly consistent but minor changes can have massive effects at distance.
Bill
Bill H says:
December 17, 2012 at 7:35 pm
A fission reaction must have at its core a solid or semi-solid mass of expended material. As the fission reaction progresses the burned particles (bonded) are pulled to the magnetic center…., etc
No Bill, that is not the way it works. And BTW, the Sun is using fusion, not fission, and is a gas throughout. The rest of your comment is generally wrong as well.
What is truly astonishing to me and is evident is that none of the authors, reviewer and the political staffs at the IPCC and UNFCC possess the ability to comprehend the lectures of Richard P. Feynman.
Had this been Not The Case, then the IPCC would never have authored nor posted their Principal #2 of their ‘Defining Statement.’
Let us read,”The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.”
Wow ! The presumptions of the assertions of this statement are to me mindless ! Ha !
I laugh.
That phrase, “application of particular policies” is I would say defining to the IPCC and UNFCC !
I posit that in the minds of the UN, UNFCC and IPCC, Humans are Guilty !
Rising CO2 in the atmosphere is due to … Humans.
Rising CO2 causes temperature to … rise !
Rising CO2 causes more extreme weather !
Rising CO2 causes … Droughts …. Floods … Rising Coastal Sea Levels … Lowering Coastal Sea Levels … CLOUDS … Clear Sky … the crash of the Hong Kong Stock Market … babies with blue eyes.
Yes. It is true. The writers, reviewers and editors of the IPCC AR5 do not have the ability to comprehend … i.e. comprehension … in any language !
Were Richard P. Feynman here today … he would be a very lonely soul.
Our world is a chaos, a Babylon … billions of voices crying out … none heard … and none understood.
The ultimate end that the IPCC seeks is the killing on a global scale of … humans … homo sapiens.
Why ?
In the mind of the IPCC, Climate changes because of humans … to stop climate change … kill humans ! Simple.
The events in Connecticut give assurance to the IPCC and the UNFCC and the UN that they HAVE chosen the correct path … kill humans … reduce climate change. Simple.
No doubt that the staff at the IPCC and UNFCC were dancing in the halls when news of the killings reach them !
Their ‘Model’ is justified, validated and verified.
Bonne Appatite IPCC.
Steven Sherwood’s big problem is that down in Australia, blood circulation runs the other way, so his brain is running oxygen starved and CO2 rich….
Anthony wrote
quote
Look at UV and phytoplankton response. Huge sea surface albedo change is the result.
unquote
I’ve been unable to tease out the results of enhanced UV on the overall phytoplankton community: does DMS change? If so there might be a UV up –> DMS response –> cloud change signal which is correlated with, but not caused by cosmic rays. It might not be sufficiently rapid in its response to show up after a Forbush event, though, and I’m not sure if the direction of the response is correct. I’ll think about it.
JF.
For rgbatduke
Re a previous thread
Please check http://marinas.com/view/inlet/1668_Beaufort_Harbor_Inlet_NC_United_States and admire the second image. Do you see it?
Also, re why the blip: see http://i39.tinypic.com/2igd1mr.jpg Why the blip?
I am researching the absence of ‘rainbow’ interference fringes in films of thickness 5* 10^-10 m, one of your other points. I think I’ve got an idea which might be relevant…
JF
If the Sun is such a constant tell me why NASA’s own Sun observation satellite is called the Solar DYNAMICS Observatory? Which thanks to a great link on this site has the most awesome single webpage on the Internet http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/SDO_Self_Updating_6.htm just a few days watching this you will soon realise the Sun is anything but constant.
The TSI varies by ~1W/sq m over the Solar Cycle http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png this doesn’t sound like a lot but for argument sake lets say just 0.4W/sq m of that difference is the amount that makes it to ground level (Cloud cover, ground incidence to the Sun, Aerosols, Albedo etc)
The Earths surface is 510,072,000,000,000 sq m of which it presents 1/2 to the Sun constantly 😉
So the difference is 255,036,000,000,000 * 0.4W= 102TW/h
For a bit of perspective on a really cold day in the UK Winter the electricity demand gets up to 76GW/h
So that difference (that apparently makes no difference !) is enough to power the UK in Electricity 1342 times over during it’s worst case scenario (and that’s just the difference over the Solar Cycle)
..and living in the UK… I wouldn’t want to have to pay that Electricity Bill 🙂
It’s like turning on 51 Billion 2KW fan heaters over 5.5 years and then turning them off again over the next 5.5 years – and you tell me this doesn’t make a difference
and then throw in the “Unknown TSI amplifier” which I have an inkling might just be http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/research/CLOUD-en.html 😉
and there you have it. We should have enjoyed those lovely days in the late 20th Century when the Sun was more active, instead of jumping up and down claiming “We’re all doomed”. The outlook is not good http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/
Which you can see reflected here http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/graphs/HadCET_graph_ylybars_uptodate.gif from http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html
The Sun is a constant – Pah!
Dave
lsvalgaard says:
December 17, 2012 at 4:28 pm
A spurious correlation is not a ‘strong link’. First, the ‘sunspot number’ you show [converted to TSI – why?] is not what solar activity has looked like. There has been no trend over the last three centuries. Second, the magnetic field at the south pole has nothing to do with the sunspot number or with the temperature in the Northern Hemisphere.
Dr. Svalgaard and Alan Millar
Look at the link
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
Here are brief answers:
1. because it is about solar magnetic field as IPCC quoted
“ TSI reconstruction by Wang, Lean, and Sheeley is based on a flux transport model to simulate the long-term evolution of the closed solar magnetic flux”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-7-1-2.html
2. Dr. Svalgaard conveniently bypassed correlation quoted against his own data as stated in the same article further down, in the same article.(see graph 4) reproduced here,
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LS-TSI.gif
shows even better correlation than with Wang &Lean. “Alternatively the most recent reconstruction of TSI by Dr. L. Svalgaard (Stanford University) offers TSI reconstruction with a near zero up-trend since 1700. Comparing the Svalgaard’s TSI data with the Antarctic’s MF (after re-trending to match the trend of the Svalgaard’s reconstruction of y = 0.0007x) for period 1700 to date shows also good correlation.”
3. Second, the magnetic field at the south pole has nothing to do with the sunspot number or with the temperature in the Northern Hemisphere.
Magnetic field at south pole is a indelible part of the Earth’s magnetic dipole. The other is in the north pole. And what we have there: best ever correlation between the geomagnetic field and the Arctic (Northern Hemisphere) temperatures:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CO2-Arc.htm
Self adulation: oh yes, indeed, very often expressed in various ways, often shown by condescending attitude to the other ordinary mortals. I made numerous mistakes and correct errors in calculations if found. Opinions are different matter.
Vukcevic has been described by Dr. S as: astrologer, pseudo-scientist, posting nonsense, cyclo-maniac, man of superior ignorance, ‘danger to society’, suffers from Denning-Kruger mental aberration, and when all that fails most recently ‘his data are fake and he is a fraud’.
Could a person of such failures possibly suffer from self adulation, possibly.
It is a bit of a game in the field of science, so as we find far too often, those on the loosing end when unable to disprove the facts, resort to personal deformation attacks, but that really doesn’t bother me in slightest.
On further reading I noticed that some other comments are made:
2. Scale is exaggerated, hence he is dishonest:
For personal (visual) reasons I always present large graphs with curves filling the most of the available space.
Don’t see what is dishonest about that, but again you are entitled to your opinion, I am not going to change the way I do it, since I consider it is important that the detail is visible.
Alan Millar says:
December 17, 2012 at 3:55 pm
I must admit I have not checked out his quoted sources but he says one of his graphs uses your TSI data.
Not the one he showed
I just downloaded Svalgaard’s TSI from
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20(Reconstructions).txt
and updated the graph, if there were any differences I hope they are now eliminated.
Here is updated Svalgaard’s TSI graph
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LS-TSI.gif
I think correlation is pretty good despite protestations of it being spurious
Graph taken from: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 17, 2012 at 11:50 am
A spurious correlation is not a ‘strong link’. First, the ‘sunspot number’ you show [converted to TSI – why?] is not what solar activity has looked like. There has been no trend over the last three centuries. Second, the magnetic field at the south pole has nothing to do with the sunspot number or with the temperature in the Northern Hemisphere.
I attempted to answer above but the post never appeared
Here it is again:
1. because it represents solar magnetic flux variations
:” A new reconstruction of solar irradiance based on a model of solar magnetic flux variations (Y. Wang et al., 2005),.” IPCC
2. Earth’s magnetic field as found at the south pole is representative of one half of the indelible magnetic dipole, the other half is found in the Arctic (Northern Hemisphere).
Arctic temperature change has close correlation to the average magnetic field found there:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CO2-Arc.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
So if you put two above links together it could be assumed (correctly or otherwise) that solar magnetic field has direct input into the temperature variability, further reinforced by
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
not to ignore:
Jean Dickey of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena:
“One possibility is the movements of Earth’s core (where Earth’s magnetic field originates) might disturb Earth’s magnetic shielding of charged-particle (i.e., cosmic ray) fluxes that have been hypothesized to affect the formation of clouds. This could affect how much of the sun’s energy is reflected back to space and how much is absorbed by our planet. Other possibilities are that some other core process could be having a more indirect effect on climate, or that an external (e.g. solar) process affects the core and climate simultaneously.”
In the article the Alec is a bit free with the term “theory” when what he really means is “hypothesis”.
The original “guess” is the hypothesis. This is challenged by experiment or evidence and if the latter does not agree with the hypothesis then the hypothesis falls at the first hurdle. A theory is what you get after your hypothesis agrees with experiment.
Dear Mr. Sad-something-something,
Your comments have crossed the line in my opinion. They not only appear to be quite empty of substance, you mix tragedy from one universe with that of a separate and unconnected universe to the detriment of both. A fool is soon known by his words. Your first comment convinced me of that. I hope your last comment above is truly your last here.
I guess belief trumps data. Once again I am flabbergasted by the willingness of armchair climate/weather enthusiasts to throw in this and that unknown solar amplifier, or worse, to ascribe tilt and rotation of the EARTH (reference to the winter cold mentioned above) to solar variation. The math involved in your various solar theories is worse, WAY worse then that used for CO2 and its water vapor “amplifier” (cough-cough) dialed-in constant. You do what you hate the most in the opposition. How pray tell can that be better?
****
davidmhoffer says:
December 17, 2012 at 12:15 pm
Could you expand on the Jupiter thing? My presumption is that you are talking about Jupiter’s effects on Earth’s orbit?
****
David, surely you understand this. Jupiter tugs alittle at Earth each conjunction. The effect is tiny, but my WAG is that it’s not insignificant after 100s of millions of yrs. After all, Jupiter pushed the outer planets outward (via orbital resonance w/Saturn) while itself drifting a bit inward over the solar-system lifetime.
vukcevic says:
December 18, 2012 at 1:49 am
Here is updated Svalgaard’s TSI graph
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LS-TSI.gif
I think correlation is pretty good despite protestations of it being spurious
Comparison shows precisely why it all is spurious [made up, dishonest, etc]:
http://www.leif.org/research/Spurious-Vuk.png
The increase in TSI on the left is an artifact from using the flawed Group Sunspot Number, yet it ‘matches’ the real increase of magnetic field at the South Pole. Removing the real trend in Bz is claimed to match TSI with the artificial trend removed and to yield ‘and even better correlation’.
The Earth’s field comes from the core of the Earth [which is effectively a superconductor at the frequencies of solar magnetic fields] and cannot be influenced by magnetic fields of the Sun, so there are physical reasons for the ‘correlation’ being spurious.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 17, 2012 at 11:50 am
Second, the magnetic field at the south pole has nothing to do with the sunspot number or with the temperature in the Northern Hemisphere.
==========
A mass of iron circling a much more massive rotating ball of plasma. The ball of plasma having an immense and variable magnetic field and associated stream of charged particles, but has no effect on the ball of iron circling within. Luckily the electric motor and generator were discovered before science made this great leap backwards.
Pamela Gray says:
December 18, 2012 at 6:37 am
I guess belief trumps data…..…….
Hi Ms. Gray
I’ll go by the data. There are some odd things about the summer and winter temperatures in the heart of the old colonial power:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MidSummer-MidWinter.htm
Not certain why but worth noting.
BTW, from today the climate scientists have a new geographical reference ‘Queen Elizabeth Land’ in the Antarctica.
ferd berple says:
December 18, 2012 at 7:24 am
A mass of iron circling a much more massive rotating ball of plasma. The ball of plasma having an immense and variable magnetic field and associated stream of charged particles, but has no effect on the ball of iron circling within
So far, you are largely correct. The details are wrong: the magnetic field is not immense [10,000 times smaller than the Earth’s] and the solar wind is electrically neutral.
Luckily the electric motor and generator were discovered before science made this great leap backwards.
Heat the motor to a temperature above the Curie point [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curie_temperature ] and it will no longer work.
Deb Baker, lead author from UCL Mullard Space Science Laboratory, says: “Solar wind is an outflow of million-degree gas and magnetic field that engulfs the Earth and other planets. It fills the entire solar system and links with the magnetic fields of the Earth and other planets. Changes in the Sun’s million-mile-per-hour wind can induce disturbances within near-Earth space and our upper atmosphere and yet we still don’t know what drives these outflows.
Julian Flood says:
December 17, 2012 at 9:02 pm
“I’ve been unable to tease out the results of enhanced UV on the overall phytoplankton community: does DMS change? If so there might be a UV up –> DMS response –> cloud change signal which is correlated with, but not caused by cosmic rays. It might not be sufficiently rapid in its response to show up after a Forbush event, though, and I’m not sure if the direction of the response is correct. I’ll think about it.”
While not focused on UV, there are illustrations of measured aerosol and cloud cover changes following increases and major Forbush decreases in cosmic rays, within the first image link in my comment of December 17, 2012 at 11:29 am:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/a-rebuttal-to-steven-sherwood-and-the-solar-forcing-pundits-of-the-ipcc-ar5-draft-leak/#comment-1175822
I’d encourage reading the whole comment and looking at all the images in it since it fairly concisely counters propagandist falsehoods on a number of topics and much of the big picture (where I don’t have time to make countless posts per thread but often aim for at least one). However, the specific examples are Figure 10 and Figure 12 towards the bottom of http://s13.postimage.org/ka0rmuwgn/gcrclouds.gif (click to enlarge). Furthermore, see the source referenced there for Dr. Calder’s lengthier discussion and illustrations of the decrease in aerosols & cloud cover observed in the atmosphere after strong Forbush decreases:
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/do-clouds-disappear/
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/do-clouds-disappear-2/
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/do-clouds-disappear-3/
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/09/10/do-clouds-disappear-4/
lsvalgaard says:
December 18, 2012 at 7:50 am Heat the motor to a temperature above the Curie point [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curie_temperature ] and it will no longer work.
=========
not correct. Here is what your link says:
In physics and materials science, the Curie temperature (Tc), or Curie point, is the temperature at which a ferromagnetic or a ferrimagnetic material becomes paramagnetic on heating;
So, heating an electric motor that uses permanent magnetic will stop the motor. It will not stop a motor that uses electromagnets, except of course by burning off the insulation on the wires.
What this means in the case of the earth is that you cannot self-induce a magnetic field in the earth’s core, because the molten core must be paramagnetic. You need an external magnetic field or electric current to induce the earth’s magnetic field.
lsvalgaard says:
December 18, 2012 at 7:16 am
…
Who is massaging the data I have no idea, Wang, Svalgaard , IPCC, or an unknown zombie.
I have shown both graphs since there are two sets of data, you sort it out with your peers, who is right who is wrong is nothing to do with me..
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
I come here with few graphs to show what I found in data from respectable data bases with occasional guess what it might mean.
I do not come here to be continuously insulted, but if that makes your science more credible, by all means curry on, bothers me not.
The solar magnetic field extends well beyond the Sun itself. The magnetized solar wind plasma carries Sun’s magnetic field into the space forming what is called the interplanetary magnetic field.[72] Since the plasma can only move along the magnetic field lines, the interplanetary magnetic field is initially stretched radially away from the Sun. Because the fields above and below the solar equator have different polarities pointing towards and away from the Sun, there exists a thin current layer in the solar equatorial plane, which is called the heliospheric current sheet.[72] At the large distances the rotation of the Sun twists the magnetic field and the current sheet into the Archimedean spiral like structure called the Parker spiral.[72] The interplanetary magnetic field is much stronger than the dipole component of the solar magnetic field. The Sun’s dipole magnetic field of 50–400 μT (at the photosphere) reduces with the cube of the distance to about 0.1 nT at the distance of the Earth. However, according to spacecraft observations the interplanetary field at the Earth’s location is around 5 nT, about a hundred times greater.[81] The difference is due to magnetic fields generated by electrical currents in the plasma surrounding the sun.
lsvalgaard says:
December 18, 2012 at 7:50 am
The details are wrong: the magnetic field is not immense [10,000 times smaller than the Earth’s] and the solar wind is electrically neutral.
=====
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field
The intensity of the (earth’s) field is greatest near the poles and weaker near the Equator. ..The field ranges between approximately .. 0.25–0.65 G. By comparison, a strong refrigerator magnet has a field of about 100 G.[13]
In other words, a refrigerator magnet has a magnetic field more than 100 times stronger than the earth’s magnetic field. No need to worry about the earth’s magnetic field protecting us from the hazards of space. All we do is hold a fridge magnet pointed towards the sun to shield the earth from the solar wind.
Make sure to point the fridge magnet the right way. The magnetic field is aligned so that it only extends on the fridge side. The other side of the magnet the field cancels itself out.
ferd berple says:
December 18, 2012 at 8:08 am
You need an external magnetic field or electric current to induce the earth’s magnetic field.
There are electrical currents in the core to maintain the Earth’s field, but the skin depth at the core surface is so shallow that external induction is not possible [does not penetrate into the core].
vukcevic says:
December 18, 2012 at 8:09 am
I do not come here to be continuously insulted, but if that makes your science more credible, by all means carry on, bothers me not.
It is abundantly clear that you are immune to learning. You spreading pseudo-science bothers me and diminishes the credibility of WUWT.
ferd berple says:
December 18, 2012 at 8:14 am
However, according to spacecraft observations the interplanetary field at the Earth’s location is around 5 nT, about a hundred times greater.
Good to see you are learning about the Sun and the solar wind and have verified that the solar wind field is 10,000 times weaker than the Earth’s field [50,000 nT at the surface] and a million times weaker than the core field.
lsvalgaard says:
December 18, 2012 at 7:16 am
Comparison shows precisely why it all is spurious [made up, dishonest, etc]:
http://www.leif.org/research/Spurious-Vuk.png
Even if your TSI reproduction is the correct one, you are, as a true scientist wrong to reject possibility that the composite Earth’s magnetic field variability (solid blue curve) could have long term multi-millennial decaying component (dotted blue line)
http://www.leif.org/research/Spurious-Vuk.png
and a shorter term, multi-decadal variability (green curve)
That is precisely why you should not instantly declare it all as spurious [made up, dishonest, etc], because you don’t like what you see.
No need for an apology, I am getting used to it.
ferd berple says:
December 18, 2012 at 8:26 am
In other words, a refrigerator magnet has a magnetic field more than 100 times stronger than the earth’s magnetic field. No need to worry about the earth’s magnetic field protecting us from the hazards of space. All we do is hold a fridge magnet pointed towards the sun to shield the earth from the solar wind.
Pleasing to see that you are learning about magnets. Keep it up. The fridge magnet would be very useful if you could make as big as the Earth.
vukcevic says:
December 18, 2012 at 9:08 am
you are, as a true scientist wrong to reject possibility that the composite Earth’s magnetic field variability (solid blue curve) could have long term multi-millennial decaying component (dotted blue line)
First problem: ‘composite’
Second: South pole is not representative of whole Earth’s magnetic field. The secular variation is different at other places. There is nothing special about the South Pole.
Third: There is nothing wrong with the secular variation data, it it the correlation with the sunspot number (TSI) that is spurious. The decaying component would not match the errors in the Group Sunspot Numbers.
This is addressed to
Dr. Svalgaard and
Alan Millar
who concluded ‘vukcevic is dishonest’
I have updated my web page with the following clarification
“If the Svalgaard TSI reproduction is eventually shown to be the correct one, graph would demonstrate that the composite Earth’s magnetic field variability (solid blue curve) has a long term multi-millennial decaying component (dotted blue line) and a shorter term, multi-decadal variability .(green curve).”
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
Anyone glancing at Svalgaard’s TSI and geomagnetic field variability could have concluded so in matters of seconds.
Some also may conclude that your comment is out of place. Good day to both of you.
vukcevic says:
December 18, 2012 at 9:56 am
Some also may conclude that your comment is out of place.
The comment should be in the same place as your spurious claims.
lsvalgaard says:
The comment (vukcevic is dishonest) should be in the same place as your spurious claims.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
I cannot prove what data shows is caused by sun, planetary configuration or another mutual driver.
Dr. Jean Dickey of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena:
or that an external (e.g. solar) process affects the (Earth’s) core and climate simultaneously.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20110309.html
You can not disprove what data shows !
I will stick to a civilized exchange and the facts as data show.
You do as you wish….
Solar cycle length and climate.
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html
vukcevic says:
December 18, 2012 at 10:26 am
You can not disprove what data shows !
‘shows’ is your subjective judgement and that can be disproved easily. There is nothing special about the South Pole. If one absolutely wants to compare two unrelated times series, it would make more sense to use the location of the magnetic pole. Granted that that pole moves around a bit, but one can pick a point in the general neighborhood of its wanderings, e.g. 65S, 138E. Then compute the secular variation [using two sources: the IGRF from 1900 and GUFM from 1590]. Then compare with two TSI series: the one I would advocate and the ‘official one’ from IPCC’s AR5 leaked report. Here is the result: http://www.leif.org/research/Spurious-Vuk2.png
You whole thing has now fallen apart.
lsvalgaard says:
December 18, 2012 at 12:49 pm
………
One would expect better from a top solar scientist.
Magnetic field (if affected by sun directly, not planetary configuration) would be caused by geomagnetic activity, in the area that is practically observed by the southern Aurora’s oval
Coordinates you are using 65S,138E for your graphs are outside the Aurora oval
Aurora is not exactly concentric with the pole but it is close enough, which I’ve just recorded and added to my website
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
so no one else would repeat your mistake.
Your graphs are nonsense, but I shall attribute to your ignorance rather than desire to deceive, which you are so anxious to stick to my name. You have failed again, and I shell not respond any more to your comments.
Time for another celebratory Xmas drink.
Cheers all.
PS
Position of the south geomagnetic pole (blue) 1900.0-2015.0 estimated from the 11th Generation IGRF is shown here (Fig.2)
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/education/poles.html
Geomagnetic pole (see text) is not at the same coordinate location as the south dip pole.
vukcevic says:
December 18, 2012 at 9:56 am
“This is addressed to
Dr. Svalgaard and
Alan Millar
who concluded ‘vukcevic is dishonest’”
I never said you were dishonest.
I said I wish people would use a realistic scale on their graphs.
The scale you use on your TSI graphs give the impression that the miniscule changes in TSI represented by said graphs could be sufficient, on their own, to be directly responsible for the observed temperature changes. I don’t believe you think that that is possible if you do say so.
I think you are saying that there is some, as yet undiscovered or unproven, connected physical processes driving the change, a la Milankovitch.
If so be upfront (honest!) and label your graphs as unproven correlations.
Your graphs do show a correlation but you do not have any proven theory to back it up. If you do not, then you can only rely on the closeness of the correlation to have it accepted a la Milankovitch. However in the absence of a mechanism and due to the timescales involved it would take centuries for this to happen.
I think Dr Svaalgard is being very hard on you. You do have a correlation, involving very small changes in TSI, though there is no physics to back it up. He has no problem in accepting the Milankovitch Cycles as a significant climate driver even though this involves small changes in TSI which also remain unproven as to how they operate with the Earth;s climatic processes even though there are hypotheses out there.
You have to accept that no informed scientist is going to accept your conclusions based on such a short correlation unless you have some acceptable proof as to mechanism.
You may be right but we won’t b able to accept that for a few hundred years assuming your correlation continues to hold up.
I admire the effort you put into your work by the way.
Alan
vukcevic says:
December 18, 2012 at 2:23 pm
Coordinates you are using 65S,138E for your graphs are outside the Aurora oval
The Magnetic Pole Is the point on the Earth’s surface where the direction of the Earth’s magnetic field is vertical. You acknowledge that by plotting the Z [vertical] component. The ‘pole’ position depends on the altitude. The aurora comes from far out in the magnetosphere so are organized by the dipole [‘corrected geomagnetic latitude’]. At the surface and below the true pole is where the field is vertical. As you are postulating that the solar changes propagate inwards, the place where the field is vertical is the more appropriate. In any case, my exercise demonstrates that the ‘correlation’ depends on at which point on the Earth you measure the secular variation. The South pole is not special at all.
<i. I shell not respond any more to your comments
That would be a very welcome change. Hope you can keep it up.
Alan Millar says:
December 18, 2012 at 5:04 pm
You have to accept that no informed scientist is going to accept your conclusions based on such a short correlation unless you have some acceptable proof as to mechanism.
It is worse than that. The ‘correlation’ comes about by matching a real trend [at a rather arbitrary point] to an artificial trend caused by a flaw in the Group Sunspot Number. I may be hard on Vuk, but such is science. There is no kindness in weeding out wrongs. There are very good physical reasons why the correlation is not even plausible, in spite for being promoted incessantly.
vukcevic says:
December 18, 2012 at 2:46 pm
Geomagnetic pole (see text) is not at the same coordinate location as the south dip pole.
And is not the same as the South Pole either. Using the geomagnetic pole, the correlation is equally bad: http://www.leif.org/research/Spurious-Vuk3.png
Care was taken to take the slowly changing position of the pole into account.
Alan Millar says:
December 18, 2012 at 5:04 pm
……….
You may have misunderstood whole thing, the TSI has no effect on the geomagnetic field. Small changes in the TSI are assumed to be due to the close magnetic flux, etc. etc. etc. …. If you wish to see different graphs, please do go ahead and plot them to your preferencies.
Dr, Svalgaard is again firing blanks all over the place, trying to scare ‘nasty little predator’ , and in the process making even more mistakes. The movement of the geomagnetic pole is miniscule across period of two decades (bi-decadal change), in comparison to movement of the dip needle pole, as you can see from the link
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/polesfig2.jpg
I am not scientist, have no interest in the flat sun, variable sun, CO2 or anything else, and do not follow any agenda or anyone’s instructions. I look at the data and show what I find, you and others can read into it or not, whatever you like.
Dr. Dickey (NASA-JPL) spent life time studying the Earth’s interior, wrote numerous papers on the subject, her recent article may interest you.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20110309.html
and then if you are man of inquiring mind
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CO2-Arc.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LL.htm
Too many correlations make no case, but claim that all are ‘spurious’ is getting less and less credible.
I have heard of Milankovic too
Re: Svalgaard’s graph
-wrong resolution (one sample per decade)
-wrong delta rate (Hale cycle is appropriate to capture change)
– wrong presentation (too many things crammed in a limited space, with puzzling choice of 2 blue colours)
Not very professional or meant to confuse ?
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TSI-LSa.gif
vukcevic says:
December 19, 2012 at 12:35 am
……….
. “I look at the data and show what I find, you and others can read into it or not, whatever you like.
Dr. Dickey (NASA-JPL) spent life time studying the Earth’s interior, wrote numerous papers on the subject, her recent article may interest you.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20110309.html
and then if you are man of inquiring mind
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm”
I am sorry Vuk but this just another example of taking one thing and then searching around to see if it correlates with something else and then, when you find some sort of correlation (which is absolutely inevitable if you look at enough things), coming up with ‘suggestions’ or possibilities as to to a connection or cause and efffect.
I mean look at the words she uses to try and make a connection……..
“So what mechanism is driving these correlations? Dickey said scientists aren’t sure yet, but she offered some hypotheses.
Since scientists know air temperature can’t affect movements of Earth’s core or Earth’s length of day to the extent observed, one possibility is the movements of Earth’s core might disturb Earth’s magnetic shielding of charged-particle (i.e., cosmic ray) fluxes that have been hypothesized to affect the formation of clouds. This could affect how much of the sun’s energy is reflected back to space and how much is absorbed by our planet. Other possibilities are that some other core process could be having a more indirect effect on climate, or that an external (e.g. solar) process affects the core and climate simultaneously. “…………….
Could, possible, might………….. Very convincing!
You can waste your whole life just looking for correlations and then trying to explain it away with ‘possibilities’. What are the chances that you are going to hit on the right answer, on something as complicated as the Earth’s climate system, doing things this way? The odds must be astronomical.
It would be much more impressive if someone formulated a theory, giving connections and probable scale of subsequent effects and then subsequently looked for and found them in the data. Not proof but a damn sight better than the other way round, where you are inevitably going to find a match somewhere.
Alan
Alan Millar says:
December 19, 2012 at 2:49 am
……..
– formulate a theory. You meant hypothesis?
– then subsequently (not) found in the data
– Change the data ?.
Sounds familiar. For me it’s just a hobby, there I am beyond counsel.
When I read Doug Allen’s comment I interpreted its “something” as including by implication such internal fluctuations.
(I don’t know what DA’s position is on that, but Leif and Pam convinced me years ago (and Bob Tisdale more recently) that that was what was driving climate change, not the sun.)
vukcevic says:
December 19, 2012 at 4:08 am
……..
-” formulate a theory…………. You meant hypothesis?”
Common usage (Theory)………..’a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact’
Alan
lsvalgaard said:
“Every complex enough non-linear system has internal stochastic fluctuations, this probably includes the Earth’s climate system. If you deny this and claim the cycles are in the Sun, then you have just moved the focus. Now you would have to explain why the Sun has all those [long-term] cycles. Again, those might just be internal stochastic fluctuations. Possibly both the Sun and the Earth have such ‘cycles’. The observed solar variations do not seem energetic enough to make themselves felt in our climate, and may not even be needed as the Earth has it own ‘cycles’.”
And may not even be needed *IF* the Earth has it own ‘cycles’, as you are basing this on:
“probably”, “might”, “possibly”, and “do not seem”.
What you are calling stochastic, isn’t stochastic, it can be hindcast and predicted from heliocentric planetary configurations. Which is why I said I would eat my hat if it didn’t get bitter cold in the second week of February 2012 for large parts of the Northern hemisphere. So you can’t tell me that the Sun is not responsible.
@silver ralph
oh the whale has a pelvis that proves it must have come from a land mammal. And I bet you can have a computer model perfectly draw what the animal looked like huh?
You can opine whatever you want but the empirical evidence gap between the dinosaurs and transitional species since then is far too massive to be computer modelled, sorry. Drawing a fake a picture of animal nobody has ever seen before takes quite a leap of faith Ralph, please do come back do science at some point.
lsvalgaard says:
December 17, 2012 at 7:52 pm
Bill H says:
December 17, 2012 at 7:35 pm
A fission reaction must have at its core a solid or semi-solid mass of expended material. As the fission reaction progresses the burned particles (bonded) are pulled to the magnetic center…., etc
No Bill, that is not the way it works. And BTW, the Sun is using fusion, not fission, and is a gas throughout. The rest of your comment is generally wrong as well.
===========================
So a Fusion Reaction (sorry for my error) is exempt from the laws of fluid dynamics? The fusing of two molecules does not increase the weight and thus they are not then pulled to magnetic center mass as in any other fluid?
Those molecules respond differently during different phases of the reaction, thus their output in frequency changes. I was unaware that our sun does not have to follow well established rules of molecular theroy.
While the sun may appear to be a stable unchanging reaction and output, such is not the case. The appearance is deceiving. The sun can not be perfectly mixed at all times. There must always be an imbalance or circulations would never occur. It is precisely this imbalance which causes the sun to go into a phase of low output. When the amount of fused molecules become great they slow core flows until the shear weight breaks the bonds and they separate. It is this lag time, until bonds break, which determines the length of any cooling phase. The last time the sun was this heavily laden with fused mass was over 240 years ago.
If you look at the LIA or Younger-Dryas events the preceding length of excited solar cycles tells the tale. Preceding each event there was phases of hightend solar output just like today. It is like controlling the air flow to a wood burning stove or any other fire. If you reduce the air or the fuel the reaction slows. When you place a lot of expended fuel in the mix on the sun the whole reaction slows. at some point the reaction stalls until a good mix is obtained/regained.. This is where I believe we are today.
The slowed UV frequency lowers total heat at the earths surface and oceans. The depth of heating sea water is reduced. The net impact is no warming or slight cooling. In 1998 the sun just switched off. This rapid change is consistent with an available fuel reduction. It is also when the UV bands changed where the majority of heat was being produced. TSI in total was not affected but over all heating was. More heat was being deflected into space due to the wave length changes.
Lief, its safe to assume you disagree. That however is OK. It is what science is all about. Differing points of observation will result in different hypothesis.
vukcevic says:
December 19, 2012 at 1:21 am
with puzzling choice of 2 blue colours
http://www.leif.org/research/Spurious-Vuk3.png
Alan Millar says:
December 19, 2012 at 6:38 am
Common usage (Theory)……….
In science: A scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.”
Bill H says:
December 19, 2012 at 8:51 pm
The fusing of two molecules does not increase the weight and thus they are not then pulled to magnetic center mass as in any other fluid?
No, in the Sun four hydrogen atoms fuse and form one helium atom, in the process losing mass. The lost mass is converted to radiant energy [about 4 million tons every second] which streams outwards from the core, reaching the surface about a quarter million years later [and us 8 minutes later than that]
Ulric Lyons says:
December 19, 2012 at 7:56 am
I would eat my hat if it didn’t get bitter cold in the second week of February 2012 for large parts of the Northern hemisphere.
It usually does,so your hat was safe.
LSvalgaard:
“No, in the Sun four hydrogen atoms fuse and form one helium atom, in the process losing mass. The lost mass is converted to radiant energy [about 4 million tons every second] which streams outwards from the core, reaching the surface about a quarter million years later [and us 8 minutes later than that]”
=======================================================================
Interesting. Then, is this mass conversion determined by measurements of radiance emitted from the Sun’s surface?
Furthermore, at any given moment, the suns contains radiant energy calculated at a quarter million years of mass conversion at 4 million T per second. Is this correct?
mpainter says:
December 19, 2012 at 10:28 pm
Interesting. Then, is this mass conversion determined by measurements of radiance emitted from the Sun’s surface?
No and Yes. The difference between four hydrogen and one helium atom can be [and is] measured in the laboratory. The total amount of energy converted can be calculated theoretically [because we know how the sun is constructed and how the fusion process works] but also simply measured by looking at the Sun’s output [that is what the TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) measurements do]
Furthermore, at any given moment, the suns contains radiant energy calculated at a quarter million years of mass conversion at 4 million T per second. Is this correct?
Yes, the Sun is big and hot
Re: Svalgaard’s graph
Still not good enough
-wrong resolution (one sample per decade, do annual)
-wrong delta rate, one per decade, same as the sampling rate, prone to large errors. For delta use Hale cycle in order to capture full change, sliding along time axis at annual rate, as compared here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TSI-LSa.gif
The correlation is there, the correlation is strong, more attempts are made to deny the natural process involved, whatever it is, more questionable are the motives.
Sometimes even a cleverest scientist has to accept that there are natural events beyond his/her understanding. Advice: you are wasting your time, just accept it and move on.
lsvalgaard says:
December 18, 2012 at 7:50 am
… the solar wind is electrically neutral.
=================
Looking at the solar wind electron/proton flux, one can see that the solar wind has about 10^5 times greater electron flu than the proton flux, which suggests that the solar wind carries substantial electrical charge.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/SatEnv.gif
lsvalgaard says:
December 19, 2012 at 9:48 pm
“It usually does,so your hat was safe.”
Probably about one year in seven for cold like that in Feb, but the hat was safe anyway, as the forecast was deterministic.
ferd berple says:
December 20, 2012 at 6:40 am
which suggests that the solar wind carries substantial electrical charge.
No. If that were so, the Sun would get more and more positively charged which eventually would prohibit more electrons to escape. The reason for the different fluxes is that they refer to different energy ranges [slice of the distribution] determined by instrumental limitations.
vukcevic says:
December 20, 2012 at 1:28 am
-wrong resolution (one sample per decade, do annual)
The correlation is there, the correlation is strong,
All correlations improve by smoothing. Smooth until there are only two data points left and the correlation is perfect, but then the statistical significance is also lost.
The issue is not if there is a correlation between two [suitable manipulated] datasets, but whether the apparent correlation is spurious [i.e.does not reflect a physical relationship].
lsvalgaard says:
December 20, 2012 at 8:03 am
Smooth until there are only two data points left and the correlation is perfect, but then the statistical significance is also lost.The issue is not if there is a correlation between two [suitable manipulated] datasets, but whether the apparent correlation is spurious [i.e.does not reflect a physical relationship].
Wrong again. There is no smoothing in my graph, they are anual values in the Earth’s polar field and the TSI
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TSI-LSa.gif
Are you actually suggested that your TSI is ‘suitable manipulated’ dataset?
I see new IPCC ignored it anyway.
And what is this, could you elaborate?
lsvalgaard says:
The observed solar variations do not seem energetic enough to make themselves felt in our climate, and may not even be needed as the Earth has it own ‘cycles’.
You are not by any chance referring to the geo-magnetic oscillations as used in here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
which I discovered in the Jackson-Bloxham data and described on pages 14&15, of which the principal frequency is exactly sane as the Hale cycle?
Interesting that. Perhaps something to do with http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
or both with : http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
vukcevic says:
December 20, 2012 at 9:33 am
Wrong again. There is no smoothing in my graph, they are annual values in the Earth’s polar field and the TSI
1: no, not of the Earth’s polar field, but of the change in the vertical component at the South Pole calculated over a 20 year window, stepped one year [as far as I can read your otherwise incomprehensible description]. Thus smoothed over 20 years. The dashed red curve looks like a smoothed version of TSI.
I see new IPCC ignored it anyway.
But they do cite our work as suggesting that the TSI varies less than assumed:
“Studies of magnetic field indicators suggest that changes over the 19th and 20th centuries were more modest than those assumed in the Shapiro et al. (2011) reconstruction (Lockwood and Owens, 2011; Svalgaard and Cliver, 2010)”
You are not by any chance referring to the geo-magnetic oscillations
Of course not as 1) they have nothing to do with the climate, and 2) are spurious anyway.
lsvalgaard says:
December 20, 2012 at 10:04 am
of the change in the vertical component at the South Pole calculated over a 20 year window, stepped one year [as far as I can read your otherwise incomprehensible description]. Thus smoothed over 20 years.
Wrong again. Your quote is nonsense.
Values in http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TSI-LSa.gif
are calculated as a difference from 20 years before on the annual bases:
delta Bz(2000) = Bz(2000) – Bz(1980)
delta Bz(2001) = Bz(2001) – Bz(1981)
delta Bz(2001) = Bz(2002) – Bz(1982)
i.e. difference between two annual values separated by two decades, no averaging
delta Bz/delta t is differentiation which is gradient, rate of change (opposite to integration)
ntegration results is smoothing
Denial of the natural correlations will not make them disappear, but by all means do carry on running in circles, I got better things to.
vukcevic says:
December 20, 2012 at 11:16 am
Values in are calculated as a difference from 20 years before on the annual bases:
delta Bz(2000) = Bz(2000) – Bz(1980)
delta Bz(2001) = Bz(2001) – Bz(1981)
That is precisely what a 20-year window is as the difference between dBz(2001) and dBz(2000) have 19 years in common.
I got better things to
Yet having proclaimed that every time you are backed into a corner, you still come back here. Take your own advice and move on.
should be delta Bz(2002) = Bz(2002) – Bz(1982)
vukcevic says:
December 20, 2012 at 11:50 am
should be delta Bz(2002) = Bz(2002) – Bz(1982)
Makes no difference.
There is, of course, no spectral power in the time variation of the geomagnetic field as observed at the surface at the Hale-period: http://www.leif.org/research/Time-Spectrum-Geomagnetic-Field.png nor would we expect any.
lsvalgaard says:
December 20, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Wrong again.
You should know both the GUFM and the IGRF data resolution is to low to pick up 11 and 22 years, but at longer periods delta Bz has spectrum identical to the TSI, see graph five in
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
even 10Be correlation (local snow storms permitting) is there.
For high frequencies (Hale cycle and above frq) you have to go to Jackson-Bloxham, or see my article pages 14 & 17 for higher resolution.
It is time you realize that all your attempts have failed, you can’t deny nature for ever.
vukcevic says:
December 20, 2012 at 1:13 pm
You should know both the GUFM and the IGRF data resolution is to low to pick up 11 and 22 years
Yet you claim your correlation has annual resolution…
Delta Bz at the South Pole has nothing to do with variations in the core or with the climate or with the solar cycle. On this figure you can see that the external geomagnetic variations die out before reaching the core http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Earth.png
It is time you realize that all your attempts have failed
I have known for quite some time that all attempts to educated you have met with failure and will probably meet the same fate in the future.
That is precisely what a 20-year window is as the difference between dBz(2001) and dBz(2000) have 19 years in common.
nonsense, it is nothing of a kind, it is diferentiation, gradient between two points has nothing to do with the gradient between next to points. Try it on anual temperatures and show the averaging and see your folly.
try this
1980 = 100
1981 = 1
2000 = 50
2001 =1
(2000)-(1980)=50
(2001)-(1981)=0
Nothing to do what is in between.
Now you made dozen or more wrong statements, whole polemic is becoming embarrassing.
That is precisely what a 20-year window is as the difference between dBz(2001) and dBz(2000) have 19 years in common.
nonsense, it is nothing of a kind, no averaging, it is diferentiation, gradient between two points has nothing to do with the gradient between next to points. Try it on anual temperatures and show the averaging and see your folly.
try this
1980 = 100
1981 = 1
2000 = 50
2001 =1
(2000)-(1980)=50
(2001)-(1981)=0
Nothing to do what is in between.
Now you made dozen or more wrong statements, whole polemic is becoming embarrassing.
vukcevic says:
December 20, 2012 at 1:30 pm
“That is precisely what a 20-year window is as the difference between dBz(2001) and dBz(2000) have 19 years in common.”
Nothing to do what is in between.
The change from one 20-yr slot to the next shifted one year incorporates the change in the meantime.
whole polemic is becoming embarrassing
I can understand you are embarrassed
Absolute nonsense.
There is no 20 year slot ! ! !
No adding now multiplying no dividing, just plain and simple:
It is value of one particular year deducted from value of another year, with no reference what may be in between.
Got it?
Here is an example for a 5 year old:
How many sweets did you [buy] today? ..10
How many sweets did you [buy] 20 days ago? ..6
What is the difference? ……. 4
Kid ate sweets on all days in between, providing some were purchased.
If you can get that, there is no hope.
vukcevic says:
December 20, 2012 at 1:13 pm
You should know both the GUFM and the IGRF data resolution is to low to pick up 11 and 22 years
GUFM is the Jackson&Bloxham model.
vukcevic says:
December 20, 2012 at 2:22 pm
There is no 20 year slot ! ! !
Your desperation is beginning to show.
Back at beginning of yet another circle run?
Running in circles; coming up tails….
For high frequencies (Hale cycle and above frq) you have to go to Jackson-Bloxham for earth core-mantle boundary, GUFM is for the earth’s surface, see my article pages 14, 15 & 17 for higher resolution.
Sunspot magnetic cycle: main component period 21.28 years
Earth core magnetic ripple: main component period 21.28 years
Your desperation is beginning to show.
Just having a good laugh.
vukcevic says:
December 20, 2012 at 3:27 pm
For high frequencies (Hale cycle and above frq) you have to go to Jackson-Bloxham for earth core-mantle boundary, GUFM is for the earth’s surface
The core-mantle boundary data is derived from GUFM, so has no better time resolution. BTW, the secular variation at the C-M boundary is huge: up to 20,000 nT per year so cannot be due to induced currents from the much smaller solar field variations http://www.leif.org/research/Sec-Var-Core-Surface.png plus is very spatially irregular.
The sunspot cycle is 11 years and that is what the heliospheric field [which influences the Earth] has. There is no physical justification for reversing the sign of every other cycle.
lsvalgaard says:
December 19, 2012 at 9:46 pm
No, in the Sun four hydrogen atoms fuse and form one helium atom, in the process losing mass. The lost mass is converted to radiant energy [about 4 million tons every second] which streams outwards from the core, reaching the surface about a quarter million years later [and us 8 minutes later than that]
==============================================
The overall surface reaction is clouded with expended fuel. When a reaction is so heavily laden the reaction is altered. The example stands for molecular weight and a fluid.
The question is how long will the reaction be reduced and dampened? The longer the lower UV bands remain the focal point of heat from the sun the cooler the earth will become.
Bill H says:
December 21, 2012 at 7:06 pm
The overall surface reaction is clouded with expended fuel.
No, the fusion only takes place in the central core of the Sun. It is true that the Helium will accumulate there over time [billions of years], forcing the Hydrogen ‘burning’ to take place in a shell around the core, but still at great depth. This is the reason for the sun getting hotter over time [billions of years].
lsvalgaard says:
December 21, 2012 at 7:48 pm
The overall surface reaction is clouded with expended fuel.
No, the fusion only takes place in the central core of the Sun. It is true that the Helium will accumulate there over time [billions of years], forcing the Hydrogen ‘burning’ to take place in a shell around the core, but still at great depth. This is the reason for the sun getting hotter over time [billions of years].
================================
So… we may be seeing the first signs of a “shell” reaction? I am looking to find the cause of UV radiation change. Why would the sun shift to a lower primary heat transfer mechanism in a lower UV band? What has caused the excitement of the reaction to change the band level of emittance? The band pass is different at this level in out atmosphere. The penetration into earths oceans is different. And it occurred in 1998. When the sun essentially shut down internally and went quiet.
The effects are stunning in how the earth is reacting to the lessened heat in absorption at earths surface. The change a top the Continental Divide is (-.7) -(-.9) W/M^2. at 11.um to 16.50um and a corresponding increase in the 1.6um to 10.um. This shift in delivery of heat to earth is met with our atmosphere passing it differently.
Thus our sun may not mathematically change in its output, However, slight changes in the reaction on it can cause great changes at distance.
Bill H says:
December 22, 2012 at 12:02 pm
So… we may be seeing the first signs of a “shell” reaction? I am looking to find the cause of UV radiation change.
No, the ‘shell’ burning takes effect gradually over billions of years, and would not be observable on any time scale we can deal with. The UV radiation has not changed in any significant way from what it always does from cycle to cycle.
Bill H says:
December 22, 2012 at 12:02 pm
And it occurred in 1998. When the sun essentially shut down internally and went quiet.
No, we measure today the neutrino flux generated 8 minutes ago in the Sun’s core, and that flux has not changed since we first began to measure it back in the 1960s, and shows that the Sun has not shut down internally, but is operating as usual.
lsvalgaard says:
December 22, 2012 at 12:14 pm
Bill H says:
December 22, 2012 at 12:02 pm
And it occurred in 1998. When the sun essentially shut down internally and went quiet.
No, we measure today the neutrino flux generated 8 minutes ago in the Sun’s core, and that flux has not changed since we first began to measure it back in the 1960s, and shows that the Sun has not shut down internally, but is operating as usual.
====================
SO what changed?
Operating as usual includes fractional changes in amplitude of certain wavelengths and not others?
I can find no earth based reason for a shift in IR band pass
Bill H says:
December 22, 2012 at 2:03 pm
I can find no earth based reason for a shift in IR band pass
What shift?