Haigh Anxiety: a psycho-comedy of errors

Guest post by Alec Rawls

In an interview with NewScientist magazine, Imperial College professor of atmospheric physics Joanna Haigh scoffs at the idea that late 20th century warming could have been caused by the sun:

Haigh points out that the sun actually began dimming slightly in the mid-1980s, if we take an average over its 11-year cycle, so fewer GCRs should have been deflected from Earth and more Earth-cooling clouds should have formed. “If there were some way cosmic rays could be causing global climate change, it should have started getting colder after 1985.”

What she means is that the 20th century’s persistent high level of solar activity peaked in 1985. That is the estimate developed by Mike Lockwood and Claus Fröhlich. The actual peak was later (solar cycle 22, which ended in 1996, was stronger than cycle 21 by almost every measure) but set that aside. Who could possibly think that cooling should commence when forcings are at their peak, just because the very highest peak has been passed?

Haigh’s argument against solar warming was in response to my suggestion that one new sentence in the leaked Second Order Draft of AR5 is a “game changer.” That is the sentence where the authors admit strong evidence that some substantial mechanism of solar amplification must be at work. The only solar forcing in the IPCC’s computer models is Total Solar Irradiance so if some solar forcing beyond TSI is also at work then all their model results are wrong.

No, no, no, Haigh told the NewScientist, it is “the bloggers” who have it all wrong:

They’re misunderstanding, either deliberately or otherwise, what that sentence is meant to say.

Look whose accusing people of misunderstanding. This woman thinks that warming is driven, not by the level of the temperature forcing, but by the rate of change in the level of the forcing. When a forcing goes barely past its peak (solar cycle 22 nearly identical in magnitude to cycle 21), does that really create cooling? Haigh should try it at home: put a pot of water on a full burner for a minute then turn the burner down to medium high. Does she really think the pot will stop warming, or that it will actually start to cool?

“Deliberately or otherwise,” this is an astounding misunderstanding of the very most basic physics, and Haigh is not the only consensus scientist who is making this particular “mistake.” Hers is the stock answer that pretty much every “consensus” scientists gives when asked about the solar-warming hypothesis. I have collected examples from a dozen highly regarded scientists: Lockwood, Solanki, Forster, Muscheler, Benestad, and more. Not surprisingly, it turns out that they are all making some crucial unstated assumptions.

Solar warming and ocean equilibrium

To claim that the 20th century’s high level of solar forcing would only cause warming until some particular date such as 1970, or 1980, or 1987, one must be assuming that the oceans had equilibrated by that date to the ongoing high level of forcing. That’s just the definition of equilibrium. After a step up in forcing the system will continue to warm until equilibrium is reached.

When I asked these scientists if they were making an unstated assumption that the oceans must have equilibrated by 1980 say to whatever forcing effect high 20th century solar activity was having, almost all of them answered yes, each giving their own off-the-cuff rationale for this assumption, none of which stand up to the least bit of scrutiny. Isaac Held’s two-box model of ocean equilibration is better than Mike Lockwood’s one-box model, but just move to the next simplest model, a three-box model of ocean equilibration, and any idea that longer term forcing won’t cause longer term warming collapses.

The well mixed upper ocean layer (the top 100-200 meters) does equilibrate rapidly to a change in forcing, showing a response time of less than ten years, 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 the elevated forcing persists then 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.

This accords with what we actually see. Since the 50 year absence of sunspots that coincided with the bottom of the Little Ice Age, 300 years of uneven warming have  coincided with an uneven rise in solar activity. Any claim that these three centuries of natural warming had to have ended by a particular 20th century date (never mind right when solar activity was at its peak), is at the very least highly speculative. To claim that we can be confident that this is what happened is borderline insane.

Or maybe it’s that other thing that Joanna Haigh insinuates about. Maybe there is an element of deliberateness to this “misunderstanding” where scads of PhD scientists all pretend that warming is driven by the rate of change of the temperature forcing, not the level of the forcing. How else to blame late 20th century warming on human activity? Some rationale has to be given for why it can’t have been caused by the high level of solar activity that was still raging. Aha, what if temperature were driven by the trend in the forcing rather than the level of the forcing? That would do it. Let’s say that one. Let’s pretend that even peak forcing will cause cooling as soon as the trend in the forcing turns down.

It’s one psycho-drama or the other: either Haigh’s insinuations about dishonesty are projection, accusing others of what she and her cohorts are actually doing, or she’s just dumber than a box of rocks.

Haigh also channels Steven Sherwood, pretending that the highlighted sentence is just about GCR-cloud

The draft report acknowledges substantial evidence for some mechanism of solar amplification and lists Henrick Svensmark’s GCR-cloud theory as an example of one possible such mechanism (7-43 of the SOD):

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.

Haigh claims that the evidence about cloud formation being induced by cosmic rays points to a weak mechanism, then simply ignores the report’s admission of substantial evidence that some such mechanism must be at work:

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.

Rawls says that if Haigh had read the actual sentence itself, she would have realized that it isn’t about galactic cosmic rays, but only mentions GCR-cloud as one possible solar amplifier.

Aussie climatologist Steven Sherwood did the same thing, claiming (very prematurely) that the evidence does not support GCR-cloud as a substantial mechanism of solar amplification, then pretending away the report’s admission of clear evidence that some substantial such mechanism is at work:

He 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.

As JoNova and I blogged last weekend, this ploy inverts the scientific method, using theory (dissatisfaction with one particular theory of solar amplification) as an excuse for ignoring the evidence for some mechanism of solar amplification. Using theory to dismiss evidence is pure, definitional anti-science. Unfortunately, NewScientist gives this slick anti-scientist the last word:

“The most interesting aspect of this little event is it reveals how deeply in denial the climate deniers are,” says Steven Sherwood of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia – one of the lead authors of the chapter in question. “If they can look at a short section of a report and walk away believing it says the opposite of what it actually says, and if this spin can be uncritically echoed by very influential blogs, imagine how wildly they are misinterpreting the scientific evidence.”

Sherwood and Haigh are flat lying to the public about what a simple single sentence says, pretending the admission of strong evidence for some substantial mechanism of enhanced solar forcing was never made, then trusting sympathetic reporters and editors not to call them on it. This is why the report had to be made public. After my submitted comments showed how thoroughly the new sentence undercuts the entire report it was obvious that the consensoids who run the IPCC would take the sentence right back out, and here Sherwood and Haigh are already trying to do exactly that.

Too late, anti-scientists. Your humbug is on display for the whole world to see.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
446 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DirkH
December 21, 2012 7:29 am

Haigh’s answer: Good enough for government work.

John Blake
December 21, 2012 7:29 am

Comment would be superfluous.

December 21, 2012 7:32 am

Rawls says that if Haigh had read the actual sentence itself, she would have realized that it isn’t about galactic cosmic rays, but only mentions GCR-cloud as one possible solar amplifier.
It is all about galactic cosmic rays. Even the subtitle of the section says so explicitly:
7.4.5.1 Correlations Between Cosmic Rays and Properties of Aerosols and Clouds
Joanna Haigh is absolutely correct.

December 21, 2012 7:36 am

This accords with what we actually see. Since the 50 year absence of sunspots that coincided with the bottom of the Little Ice Age, 300 years of uneven warming have coincided with an uneven rise in solar activity.
There has been no rise in solar activity the last 300 years: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Petaluma–How%20Well%20Do%20We%20Know%20the%20SSN.pdf slide 8

John West
December 21, 2012 7:40 am

According to the climate science view of heat transfer the hottest part of the day would always be exactly at noon and the hottest part of the year would coincide with the longest day when the daily an annual forcings peak.

Camburn
December 21, 2012 7:43 am

I find it very discouraging that the “Skeptical Science Syndrome” has become so widespread. Next thing they will tell us is the world ended at midnight, was transported to another dimension, and now here we are just like it never happened. But the theory shows that it did.

R Babcock
December 21, 2012 7:44 am

I used to subscribe to New Scientist until I couldn’t take it anymore. Maybe they ARE the new scientists that forgo hard work, skepticism, curiosity, peer reviews, experimentation and the scientific method for government grants and computer models. There is (and always has been to some degree) the fight between those who really want to know and those who really want to believe.

Camburn
December 21, 2012 7:49 am

lsvalgaard says:
December 21, 2012 at 7:36 am
“There has been no rise in solar activity the last 300 years.
Which tells us all that there is something happening concerning climate that is not yet recognized.
CO2 300 years ago did not show any appreciable rise, yet the temperatures did.
Thank you Dr. Svalgaard.

GlynnMhor
December 21, 2012 7:57 am

lsvalgaard writes: “There has been no rise in solar activity the last 300 years:”
Yet the C14 and Be10 proxies for solar activity both show considerable increases in such activity, and reveal the Wolf, Spörer, Maunder and Dalton Grand Solar Minima that characterized the cooler climate of the Little Ice Age.
Of course both of those are dependent on how cosmic ray flux changes with solar activity.
Which leads one to examine the work of Svensmark and Kirkby on the effect of varying GCR on cloud formation…

herkimer
December 21, 2012 8:00 am

An analysis of recent climate history shows that during the period 1870 to 1910, the global air temperatures and the global ocean surface temperatures both declined as the sunspot number declined. From 1910 to 1940 all three again moved up together. From 1940 to 1970’s, the global ocean surface temperatures declined as they entered their cool mode and wiped out the global surface temperatures rise from continuing solar sunspot increase. From 1980 to 2000 all three variables again moved up in unison.. During the last decade or 2000-2010, all three climate variables are again going down as global cooling again gets underway. This declining pattern is likely to continue until 2030 at least . It would appear that the decadal average yearly sunspot number level of about 50-30 seems to be the tipping point where any level below this figure causes global cooling and above this figure causes global warming unless ocean cycles happen to be out of sync and over ride any warming [ like 1950’s-1970’s] We have been running at an average yearly decadal sunspot number of 29.2 over the last 10 years. This low figure clearly explains why there has been no warming for the last 16 years and why instead we are starting to see global cooling like during the past the period of 1880-1910. and again 1790-1830.
The average yearly sun spot numbers during the Dalton Minimum decades [ 1790 to 1837], a period of much colder temperatures like the period 1880-1910 were 27.5, 16.5, 19.3 and 39 . So there is some convincing evidence that low solar sunspot numbers and declining global temperatures are directly linked.
There is a pattern of changing global temperatures that match the variation in solar sunspot numbers. The sun is emitting some additional energy [energy particle Z?] primarily during solar eruptions and major sunspot activity that we have not quantified . We need to step outside our current science and propose some new concepts
There was a recent study released showing a clear correlation between low activity of the sun and cooling of parts of European winters. I quote release from SCIENCE SOCIAL NETWORK below
Link found between cold European winters and solar activity
23 August 2012
AGU Release No. 12-39
For Immediate Release
WASHINGTON—Scientists have long suspected that the Sun’s 11-year cycle influences climate of certain regions on Earth. Yet records of average, seasonal temperatures do not date back far enough to confirm any patterns. Now, armed with a unique proxy, an international team of researchers show that unusually cold winters in Central Europe are related to low solar activity — when sunspot numbers are minimal. The freezing of Germany’s largest river, the Rhine, is the key.
Although the Earth’s surface overall continues to warm, the new analysis has revealed a correlation between periods of low activity of the Sun and of some cooling — on a limited, regional scale in Central Europe, along the Rhine.
http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2012/2012-39.shtml

December 21, 2012 8:01 am

I see Alec’s solar forcing theory running through several intriging recent posts:
1. Alec has been doing a great job of showing that the warming of the later 20th century could have been due to the continuing effects of the high solar activity of that century. He has demonstrated that a three level ocean model could explain why the high level of forcing of the first half of the century would continue to warm the climate during the second half of the century. The consensus scientists are trying to refute his theory and ignore it at the same time. And are failing.
2. The new finding (see next post on this blog) that climate change precedes tectonic activity could be explained by a third factor which causes both. The top candidate for such a factor is solar activity. I’m not the first to think of this. Piers Corbyn of weatheraction.com, has started including earthquake predictions in his solar activity based weather forecasts.
3. The December 7 posting on the Science & Public Policy website was a great paper by Nils-Axel Mörner of the University of Stockholm called “Sea Level is not Rising.” He discusses the fudging of the sea-level satellite data of this century, even though sea level stopped rising. The rise in sea level during that occurred during the 20th century could have been entirely due to the thermal expansion that goes with Alec’s theory that the ocean was acting as a heat sink during the 20th century.
Howard Richman
http://www.idealtaxes.com

dr. lumpus spookytooth, phd.
December 21, 2012 8:04 am

@lsvalgaard
Leif, can you please post the values for the earth’s current GAT versus the historical average. Also, can you post current atmospheric co2 versus the historic average? I would like to make the point that because earth is currently below the historical averages, you really can’t attribute global warming to man’s emissions, because the earth has averaged higher temperatures without a manmade influence.
To be honest, I am lost on the whole solar forcing thing. I see your point that you think it can’t have caused this warming but Mr. Rawls has quite a bit of evidence himself that it isn’t being valued correctly. Secondly, I see Ivar Giaver’s position also that you can’t distinguish between 288.0 kelvin and 288.8 kelvin.

Kristian
December 21, 2012 8:04 am

I had a look at the ERA Interim Reanalysis data (of the ECMWF) on the KNMI Climate Explorer regarding the four surface energy fluxes (net downward shortwave radiation (pos.), net outgoing longwave radiation (neg.), latent heat transfer (neg.) and sensible heat transfer (neg.)) from 1979 to 2012. And got some very interesting results. It turns out that of the three negative fluxes (regulating the rate and magnitude of heat loss from the surface) only the change in latent heat transfer really matters. Also, they’ve all grown more negative (more efficient in ridding the surface of heat, that is) globally during the modern warming. As one would expect.
The key seems to be in the latent heat transfer. Not (at all) in surface thermal radiation.
Here is net global surface solar radiation (SSR) from 1979 to 2012 (ERA Interim of the ECMWF – data downloaded from KNMI Climate Explorer):
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/Solinnstrlinggl.jpg
Here are the other net global surface energy fluxes – sensible heat (green), thermal radiation (STR) (red) and latent heat (blue):
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/Varmetapsmekanismenegl.jpg
Subtracting the sum of the three outgoing net fluxes from the incoming net solar flux gives this net surface energy balance curve for the Earth as a whole from 1979 to 2012:
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/Nettoenergibalansegl.jpg
Robustly positive all along, yet still trending unmistakably downward and now finally getting pretty close to perfect balance – maybe withing 3-5 years we’re there, crossing the line … The mean imbalance between incoming and outgoing (1979-2012) is +7,22 W/m^2 (which sounds like a lot).
This is still according to the ECMWF of course.
Just out of curiosity I made a running total on the data behind the plot above. It came out like this:
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/Akkumulertenergigl.jpg
So the funny thing is, even though all of Earth’s net surface heat loss fluxes have steadily increased in strength/efficiency (becoming more negative) since 1979 (sensible heat by ~0.8 W/m^2, STR by 0.8-1 W/m^2 and latent heat by ~6 W/m^2, to a total of 7.6 – 7.8 W/m^2) and with the mean net solar input upon the global surface today pretty much equal to what it was in 1979, Earth has been accumulating a LOT of energy/heat. The global solar input has simply been larger the last 34 years than the output from Earth’s surface, the heat loss processes working hard to catch up. And that’s the funny bit. According to AGW theory, what would cause the energy imbalance is a DEcreasing of the total net upward heat flux from the surface. For instance, in a theoretical steady state, with solar IN (considered static) exactly balanced by IR+latent+sensible OUT, more GHGs would indirectly lessen the total heat flux from the surface, making it less negative (more positive) which would then create the observed positive imbalance. But this theoretical course of events is quite the opposite of what apparently actually happens in the real world. Here the IR flux, the sensible heat flux and the latent heat flux are all increasing as a function of surface temperature. Or should we say, as a function of the increasing difference/divergence between the surface temperature and that of the air layer directly above it. If the standard AGW hypothesis were right, the lapse rate should lift the mean temperature level off the ground with increasing concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere. That is to say, the incremental same-temperature levels would be situated gradually higher from the tropospheric mean emission height on down to the surface. This means that in the end, the layer of air just above the ground/sea would warm independently of the surface (a tiny bit) and would thereby in a snapshot reduce the temperature gradient between the air and the surface, reducing the total net heat flux from the ground/sea. For this to be the case, though, the temperature gap between the surface and the air layer adjacent to it must either be observed to DEcrease or to remain stable (they both warm in step). If this gap were rather observed to INcrease, this whole construct would crumble. Then the surface cannot be the follower. Then the surface is the driver. Which is what all common sense is telling us is the case. Look at these two graphs:
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/ICOADSluftmothavoverflate1.jpg
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/ICOADSluftmothavoverflate2.jpg
This is ICOADS SST vs. ICOADS Tair. The first graph covers a large chunk of the Pacific Ocean (30N-40S, 150E-100W). The second a significant part of the North Atlantic (62N-0, 60-15W). Watch how the SST trends are distinctively steeper than the Tair trends in both diagrams. How would an air layer colder than the surface and at the same time with a lower warming rate force the warming of the surface? It couldn’t. And it doesn’t. And it agrees with the ERA Interim Reanalysis data.
Finally, I did the same operation for the tropical Pacific fluxes as I did for the global ones. Here is the result, directly compared to the global (tropical Pacific (24N-24S, 120E-80W) (black), global (red)). From top to bottom – solar, sensible, IR and latent. Watch how much more positive the solar is in the Pacific and accordingly how much more negative the latent heat flux is. For the other two fluxes the difference seems inconsequential:
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/GlvstropSt.jpg

gnomish
December 21, 2012 8:05 am

(Look whose accusing —– Look who’s accusing)
reminds me of Mars Attacks when Slim Whitman sings Indian Love Call.
it can’t be nice for a climate catastrophists kids and pets about now…

M Courtney
December 21, 2012 8:06 am

Dr Svalgaard is entirely wrong when he writes at December 21, 2012 at 7:32 am
“It is all about galactic cosmic rays. Even the subtitle of the section says so explicitly:
7.4.5.1 Correlations Between Cosmic Rays and Properties of Aerosols and Clouds”
Well, he has managed to read the title correctly but he has (somehow) failed to read the report or Alex Rawls quote from it in the original WUWT article.
“Compared to the First Order Draft, the SOD now adds the following sentence, indicated in bold (page 7-43, lines 1-5, 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.”
Alex Rawls is talikng about the “amplifying mechanism” and the “Many empirical relationships”.
The draft IPCC report is talking about the “amplifying mechanism” and the “Many empirical relationships”.
Joanna Haigh is not.
Nor is Dr Svalgaard.
Curious, isn’t it?
In fact they are missing the point so entirely I will now ignore them until they catch up with the science.

David Wells
December 21, 2012 8:06 am

As Prof Brian Cox says the laws of physics travel in one direction only, birth, life and eventually death hopefully for the rentseekers who live amongst us who have already eaten doom for breakfast, gloom for lunch and government grants for afternoon tea the prolonged temperature plateau will signify their last supper, its that time of year. Hopefully when they roll away the rock this time the greens will be beyond resurrection, unfortunately we will still be left with the bloody wind turbines and biomass to destroy the environment they purported their militant action was supposed to protect, seasonal greetings to all of the greens, not!

Kristian
December 21, 2012 8:10 am

I’ll refer to Dee et al. 2011, “The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system”
http://vega.unibe.ch/teams/simlen/private/Dee2011_ERAINTERIM.pdf
for a thorough discussion on the ERA Interim project. What comes plainly out when reading the document, is that the reanalysis model has overestimated the mean surface solar input:
“Due to a programming error in the calculation of incident solar radiation as a function of solar zenith angle, the global solar radiation in ERA-Interim is overestimated by about 2 W/m^2.”
and
“For solar irradiance, ERA-Interim uses a constant value of 1370 W/m^2 throughout, i.e. no account is taken of the solar cycle. Variations due to the varying distance between the Earth and the Sun are incorporated as described in Paltridge and Platt (1976).”
According to the newest satellite estimates, the mean solar irradiance is ~1361.7 W/m^2
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/14/total-solar-irradiation-tsi-value-lower-in-2008/
The range in total irradiance between high and low within each cycle is ~1 W/m^2 with PMOD and ~1.5 (1-2) W/m^2 with ACRIM.
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/PMOD.jpg
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/ACRIM.jpg
Disregarding the solar cycle amplitudes won’t affect the long term average (over several cycles). It will, however, affect the decadal variation. That means the graphs I’ve presented (based on ERA Interim) show less variation than reality. The 8.3 W/m^2 (1370-1361.7) difference between model assumption and real-world measurements is significant. It will probably overestimate the average energy input from the Sun at Earth’s global surface by ~1 W/m^2 (1361.7/8,3 = 164 W/m^2).
Dee et al. continue:
“The energy balance at the top of the atmosphere in ERA Interim has improved, with an estimated energy loss of 1.2 W/m^2 (7.4 W/m^2 for ERA 40). However, the energy balance at the surface boundary is poor in ERA Interim, with a global value of 6.9 W/m^2 (3.8 W/m^2 for ERA 40). This degradation occurs primarily over oceans and is associated with an increase in net solar radiation there. Over land the surface energy balance actually improves in ERA Interim, to 0.5 W/m^2 (1.3 W/m^2 for ERA 40).
Källberg (2011) suggests that the model clouds are the major contributor to the imbalance in surface energy, based on a correspondence between spin-up/spin-down of cloudiness and of the net energy fluxes.”
My own calculated mean value for the global energy balance (1979-2012) turned out to be +7.22 W/m^2. Dee et al. finds a +6.9 W/m^2 imbalance (1979-2010).
Based on the quotes above it seems justified adjusting the ERA Interim solar input down by 2+1= 3 W/m^2. This would reduce the global net energy imbalance 1979-2012 to 4,22 W/m^2 (second graph below), which actually sounds AND looks much more plausible than the original +7,22 (first graph below):
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/Nettoenergibalansegl.jpg
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/Nettooverflatefluksgl2.jpg
Note how in the lower graph (the ‘new and improved’ +4,22 one) we’re already very close to perfect balance and have been so for a few years, quite on the verge of crossing the line into negative territory.
Here are the running totals (accumulated energy) for the +7,22 and the +4,22 scenarios:
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/Akkumulertenergigl.jpg
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/Akkumulertenergigl2.jpg
We’re obviously at the summit plateau.
What’s very interesting to observe, is how the evolution in Earth’s energy balance seems to follow the same pattern as ENSO East (NINO3.4) does. One might imagine an oceanic equilibrium line, across which the Earth system fluctuates in giant cycles. Below the equilibrium line the ocean’s heat loss is on average greater than the input from the Sun. There is a net loss of energy content. Above the equilibrium line the situation is reversed. There is a net builup of energy content. The main regulating mechanism seems to be the rate of evaporation from the ocean surface.
From the 70s to the 80s this equilibrium line was somehow crossed. The Earth system shifted from a negative to a positive balance. And here’s the take-home message: After the shift is completed, the trend starts falling at once, on its way back towards the equilibrium line. The initial divergence is gradually and steadily reduced. But the positive energy imbalance is still there all along. Energy is accumulating in the system, only at a slowing rate until it finally reaches zero. We’re very close now to that point.
Compare this to the MEI curve. What do we see?
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/MEI-1.jpg
A mighty upward shift in 1976/77. Before this, the curve is generally running below the zero line. After, the curve is generally above. But what about the trend? It starts falling directly from 1977 onwards. It’s basically negative all the way ’till today. Yet the ENSO phenomenon has made the world warmer and warmer during the same period. Since a few years back now the MEI/NINO3.4 curve fluctuates around the zero line, straddling the border between El Niño and La Niña dominance.
Coincidence?

Harry van Loon
December 21, 2012 8:11 am

Read Van Loon et al. in JGR 2012
[Reply: a link would be helpful. — mod.]

O Olson
December 21, 2012 8:13 am

Just a quick question from a simple farmer… How long does it take for the sun’s shielding effect against GCRs to reach the outer limits of the heliosphere?

December 21, 2012 8:17 am

Which leads one to examine the work of Svensmark and Kirkby on the effect of varying GCR on cloud formation…

Weirdly when I look at cloudiness at Forbush events where GCR increase dramatically I can find no change in cloudiness. When I challenge believers in Svensmark to state a testable hypothesis, they all go silent. Seems they want to claim an effect but not define a test for it.

richard verney
December 21, 2012 8:18 am

“What she means is that the 20th century’s persistent high level of solar activity peaked in 1985… Who could possibly think that cooling should commence when forcings are at their peak, just because the very highest peak has been passed?”
I have not read the full article, but doubtr that the summary is a fair reflection of her argument since if it were, then the warming/CO2 argument would fail. Who would have tjought that temperatures stall or even fall when CO2 forcing is at its post industrial peak! Must be something wrong there!!
The problem is that nobody truly knows what is going on, nor why and it appears that climate scientists (and I use that term loosely since there appears to be little true science conducted) are not sufficiently truthful to admit that they do not properly understand matters and that the data is either defective or insufficient from which to draw any firm conclusions.

December 21, 2012 8:22 am

Camburn says:
December 21, 2012 at 7:49 am
CO2 300 years ago did not show any appreciable rise, yet the temperatures did.
CO2 the last 300 years has risen considerably as have temperatures…
This is one of the pillars of AGW, no?

P. Solar
December 21, 2012 8:22 am

“The most interesting aspect of this little event is it reveals how deeply in denial the climate deniers are,” says Steven Sherwood of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia – one of the lead authors of the chapter in question.
It seems to me it is not the sceptics you are “in denial”.
Their scam is falling apart around them yet they carrying lying and cheating as though it was not already too late. #
You can con people once because many start by assuming good faith . Once you have called out, telling further more ridiculous lies won’t make people listen again.

December 21, 2012 8:23 am

herkimer says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:00 am
An analysis of recent climate history shows that during the period 1870 to 1910, the global air temperatures and the global ocean surface temperatures both declined as the sunspot number declined. From 1910 to 1940 all three again moved up together. From 1940 to 1970’s, the global ocean surface temperatures declined as they entered their cool mode and wiped out the global surface temperatures rise from continuing solar sunspot increase. From 1980 to 2000 all three variables again moved up in unison.. During the last decade or 2000-2010, all three climate variables are again going down as global cooling again gets underway.
What happened to the ocean thermal inertia that Alec Rawls stress to much?

John West
December 21, 2012 8:26 am

Amplification is not the only mechanism for solar activity variation to effect climate more than TSI variation would suggest. Component distribution could be the variation that is most critical to climate. For example, a typical acid copper plating solution has over a dozen organic components. The TOC (total organic carbon) parameter does not reflect the operation of the bath well because it’s the distribution or balance of the components that are critical, not just the total. The plating bath could be operating well or not at identical TOC levels. Similarly, TSI is merely the total and does not reflect the distribution of the components of solar output.

December 21, 2012 8:26 am

lsvalgaard says:
December 21, 2012 at 7:36 am
“There has been no rise in solar activity the last 300 years.”
Which tells us all that there is something happening concerning climate that is not yet recognized.
CO2 300 years ago did not show any appreciable rise, yet the temperatures did.
Thank you Dr. Svalgaard.
Either this is taken out of context, or the “Dr.” is NOT A CLEAR THINKER!!!
WHAT would QUANTIFY SOLAR ACTIVITY FOR 300 years??? Some of the alledged isotope connections are, frankly, “stuff and nonsense”. In terms of records, Sunspots is all we have. And DUE to the inaccuracies of counting and identification, there are rather large error bars there too.
I’m really hoping this is taken out of context, because if it isn’t it throws a negative light on Dr. L.S.’s potificating proclaimations…
Max

MarkW
December 21, 2012 8:28 am

“Haigh points out that the sun actually began dimming slightly in the mid-1980s”
I’m not aware of any theory that links the suns visible light output with the deflecting of GCRs.

December 21, 2012 8:30 am

dr. lumpus spookytooth, phd. says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:04 am
you really can’t attribute global warming to man’s emissions
since I don’t, your point is moot.

ZT
December 21, 2012 8:31 am

Imperial has gone down hill – the professors aren’t properly trained in Germany now.

MarkW
December 21, 2012 8:31 am

Obviously the hottest day of every year occurs on the summer solstice and temperatures start droping the very next day.

December 21, 2012 8:33 am

I’m guessing this is the paper that Harry was referring to.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012JD017502.shtml

MarkW
December 21, 2012 8:36 am

“Just a quick question from a simple farmer… How long does it take for the sun’s shielding effect against GCRs to reach the outer limits of the heliosphere?”
I’ve been told that it is around 6 months.

DirkH
December 21, 2012 8:37 am

Steven Mosher says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:17 am
“When I challenge believers in Svensmark to state a testable hypothesis, they all go silent.”
Well, the tropospheric hotspot didn’t work out so well for ya, Steven, or did it?

the1pag
December 21, 2012 8:41 am

If cloud formation is affected by GCR’s, CERN’s “cloud” study, using that big, very elaborate cloud chamber in Switzerland failed to identify it using CERN’s original atmospheric trace gases in those first inconclusive tests.. CERN suggested at the time that future experiments would be conducted to evaluate possible effects of organic gases as perhaps produced by trees. Has there been any clarification or new report about this from CERN?

December 21, 2012 8:42 am

M Courtney says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:06 am
“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.”
The sentence talks about ‘these’ observations, that is: ‘the relationships reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope achives [controlled partly by GCRs]…’ and points out that TSI does not seem to account for these observations, implying … hypothesized GRS-clout link’ and then goes on to state ‘these results were not corroborated by other studies who found no statistically significant links between GCR and clouds at the global scale (Čalogović et al., 2010; Kristjánsson et al., 2008; Laken and Čalogović, 2011).’ ending with ‘Although there is some evidence that ionization from cosmic rays may enhance aerosol nucleation in the free troposphere, there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of CCN or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way. The lack of trend in the cosmic ray intensity over the last 50 years (Agee et al., 2012; McCracken and Beer, 2007) provides another strong argument against the hypothesis of a major contribution of cosmic rays to ongoing climate change.’
What can be clearer than that? [independently of what one otherwise believes]. The statement is not a ‘game changer’ in any way, especially since its author says that Rawls have misinterpreted it.

RHS
December 21, 2012 8:42 am

Today being Winter Solstice and the high temps in Denver being significantly colder than they were on the Summer Solstice, I’d believe minor fluctuations in the Sun’s output could have minor fluctuations in our temps. After all, we’re how much closer in our orbit to the sun right now than Summer Solstice? Seeing how lessening the time exposed to the sun and the change of Sun’s angle over the horizon drops the daily temp between 30 and 40 degrees, the temperature changes really do seem to be related to the sun.

D Böehm
December 21, 2012 8:44 am

Steven Mosher says:
“When I challenge believers in Svensmark AGW to state a testable hypothesis, they all go silent.”
There. Fixed it for you. ☺

DirkH
December 21, 2012 8:45 am

Max Hugoson says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:26 am

“lsvalgaard says:
December 21, 2012 at 7:36 am
“There has been no rise in solar activity the last 300 years.”
Which tells us all that there is something happening concerning climate that is not yet recognized.
CO2 300 years ago did not show any appreciable rise, yet the temperatures did.”

Here is one C14 proxy, from an unlikely source, skepticalscience (but also available elsewhere).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age.htm
Leif surely means TSI when he says solar activity; but C14 production did change (it seems).

December 21, 2012 8:45 am

MarkW says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:36 am
“Just a quick question from a simple farmer… How long does it take for the sun’s shielding effect against GCRs to reach the outer limits of the heliosphere?”
I’ve been told that it is around 6 months.

Depending on what you call the ‘heliosphere’. If we use the ‘termination shock’ at 110 AU as the limit, then since the solar wind goes 1 AU in 4 days [on average], the time would be 110*4 days ~ 14 months

richard verney
December 21, 2012 8:46 am

The satellite record suggests that there has been no CO2 induced warming these past 33 years; flat from 79 to 97, and flat from 99 to 21012 with just a step change around the super El Nino of 1998. Unless that El Nino was somehow caused by CO2 (which to date no one has put forward a plausible mechanism), there is no CO2/warming signal in the satellite data. Materially, we have more than the so called magic 17 years, we have 33 years without a steady rise in temperature which according to the theory would follow the steady rise in anthropogenic CO2 if CO2 was a primary driver.
Whilst the satellite data set is far from perfect (and far from long enough), it is the best quality data that we have. Just consideration of this record would suggest that one should be vary wary that we understand forcings and what controls the global temperature.

December 21, 2012 8:49 am

MarkW says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:28 am
“Haigh points out that the sun actually began dimming slightly in the mid-1980s”
I’m not aware of any theory that links the suns visible light output with the deflecting of GCRs.

Then listen up: the variation of the total radiant output of the Sun [TSI] is caused by variations in the solar magnetic field, which does have a role deflecting GCRs when brought out in space by the solar wind.

ConfusedPhoton
December 21, 2012 8:57 am

lsvalgaard said
“CO2 the last 300 years has risen considerably as have temperatures…”
Misleading as usual.
CO2 has been rising for the last 60 years (debatable whether considerably is correct) but prior to that is was largely constant.
It is interesting that other AGW people use temperature rises before CO2 increases as proof (or pillars) of AGW.

Harry van Loon
December 21, 2012 8:59 am

Carrick: It is that paper.

December 21, 2012 9:02 am

What is going to count is what the various IPCC AR5 authors do with the third draft. Then we will know whether they are going to behave like scientists or deliquent teenagers. I wonder whether they will make the third draft public themselves, or wait for someone else to leak it.

Lars P.
December 21, 2012 9:03 am

“This woman thinks that warming is driven, not by the level of the temperature forcing, but by the rate of change in the level of the forcing. When a forcing goes barely past its peak (solar cycle 22 nearly identical in magnitude to cycle 21), does that really create cooling? “
Well, everybody knows that at the longest day of the year, the 21st of June, is also the warmest day of the year, and from then on starts cooling.

Camburn
December 21, 2012 9:06 am

Kristian says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:04 am
But this theoretical course of events is quite the opposite of what apparently actually happens in the real world.
Your mistake in your analysis is that you are not suffering from Skeptical Science Syndrome
The real world…..what a refershing thought?

December 21, 2012 9:06 am

DirkH says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:45 am
Leif surely means TSI when he says solar activity; but C14 production did change (it seems).
I mean the Sun’s magnetic field [which controls both TSI and the GCR flux observed at Earth].
Check slides 30 and 31 of http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-Past-Present-and-Future-Notes.pdf
30: Galactic Cosmic Rays [GCRs] produce by spallation of Oxygen and Nitrogen radioactive nuclei in the Earth’s atmosphere. 10Beryllium [2 oz total global yearly production] and 14Carbon [17 pounds] eventually enter reservoirs at ground level [ice cores and tree rings]. From those, researchers have sought to deduce the solar activity responsible for the solar cycle modulation of GCRs. The observable is really the deposition rate rather than the production rate. The deposition is also controlled by the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field, and by circulation of air and moisture [i.e. by climate]. The effects of these factors are difficult to remove and the influence of the unknown [but guessed at] flux outside the Heliosphere is not well-known. Nevertheless, progressis being made and preliminary results exist for the past ~10,000 years.
The higher flux at solar Grand Minima stands out, but there are problems. Solar activity at present is on par with what it was a century ago, yet the cosmic rays flux back then seems to announce a grand minimum [marked G] which we are not seeing repeated now.
31: It is often assumed that the GCR production, M, is controlled by the HMF B [upper panel] following a relation of the form M ~1/ B^n where n is of the order of 2. Since [absolute instrument] neutron monitors were introduced in the 1950s this relation has worked reasonably well [lower panel]. The data from [relative instrument] ion chambers from the 1930s to early 1950s have been spliced to the neutron monitor data, but do not seem to have the same calibration relative to HMF B [oval in lower panel]. This discrepancy feeds into the calibration of the entire 9,300 years before the present and makes the record difficult to interpret. Resolution of this problem is a high-priority ongoing research effort [ISSI workshop 233, co-chaired by me] and the end is not yet in sight.

pat
December 21, 2012 9:10 am

Did she think we all forgot the mid-1990s extremely active solar cycle that coincided with the 1998 surface temperature measure? Yes she did. Scientists like politicians have become adepts at rewriting history. Even near time events. Is this delusion or deceit?

Bill Illis
December 21, 2012 9:12 am

Obviously, solar energy accumulates / discharges at certain (very small) rates;
– throughout a 24 hour period (temperature lag behind solar insolation by up to 3 hours or an accumulation rate of 0.007 joules/m2/second));
– over the annual seasonal cycle (temperatures lag behind solar insolation by 35 days on Land and up to 82 days for mid-high latitude oceans – similar to the daily rate); and,
– over an 11 year solar cycle (tough to say what those numbers are);
Do we expect these accumulation / discharge rates to average out to exactly 0.00000000 joules/m2/second over a longer period of time, say 50 years. Because it has to be lower than this number above to not result in slowly increasing/decreasing temperatures.

Doubting Rich
December 21, 2012 9:16 am

“This woman thinks that warming is driven, not by the level of the temperature forcing, but by the rate of change in the level of the forcing.”
The irony is that if she even understood the basics of meteorology she could not misunderstand this.
I teach a short meteorology and world climate course for future airline pilots. It is only about 50 hours of classroom tuition, starting with an assumption of no knowledge, so this is quite a basic course. One of the things they need to know is the warmest times of the diurnal an annual temperature cycles on land and at sea.
So they know that the coldest part of the day is shortly after sunrise, and the warmest part is in mid afternoon. They know that the warmest month is just after summer solstice, July in the Northern hemisphere, and the coldest just after winter solstice. They know that the maximums and minima are slightly later at sea, where the response to warming and cooling is slower.
Simply knowing this, and the reasons why, Haigh could not make the error she does make. It is the first thing I thought of when I read what she had said. By her logic the coolest time of day would be at sunrise, and the warmest midday; the land and sea would be warmest at the summer solstice, coolest at the winter solstice. We all know this is not true; even someone with no meteorological education knows that July and even August tend to be warmer than the 21 June in the Northern hemisphere.
So does she lack the conceptual intelligence to connect this to longer-term climate trends? Is she less well-informed than my ATPL students? Or is she dishonest, genuinely believing the sun is not responsible but trying to rule it out but by a simple but false argument because she has no other argument to give to support her belief? Is she trying to win the debate, rather than find the truth, and so using an argument she knows is wrong?

Camburn
December 21, 2012 9:17 am

Harry van Loon says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:11 am
Read Van Loon et al. in JGR 2012
[Reply: a link would be helpful. — mod.]
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012JD017502.shtml

December 21, 2012 9:19 am

pat says:
December 21, 2012 at 9:10 am
Did she think we all forgot the mid-1990s extremely active solar cycle that coincided with the 1998 surface temperature measure?
‘Mid-1990s’ [1996] was a solar MINIMUM and the cycle that peaked in 2000 was lower than the previous two cycles, so she did not forget anything.

Theo Goodwin
December 21, 2012 9:19 am

Dr. Svalgaard,
Your comments on this thread leave readers with the impression that, as far as this topic is concerned, your science consists of two things: monitoring of TSI and monitoring of GCRs. You seem to report that there has been no change in either and, for that reason, the topic of the sun’s influence on the earth is closed.
Surely, you do not really mean to create this impression. Surely, you do not mean to leave readers with the impression that your goal is to end discussion of the matters raised by Rawls.

Lars P.
December 21, 2012 9:20 am

lsvalgaard says:
December 21, 2012 at 7:36 am
There has been no rise in solar activity the last 300 years:
Leif, 10Be proxy shows a different story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Activity_Proxies.png
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-7-1-2.html
how do you reconcile this?

Camburn
December 21, 2012 9:23 am

ConfusedPhoton says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:57 am
You are missing Dr. Svalgaard’s point in that temps DID rise and CO2 didn’t. Yet, CO2 is a pillar of AGW……and apparently a very very in fact……VERY new pillar that does not bear up when looked at robustly.

December 21, 2012 9:24 am

ConfusedPhoton says:
“CO2 the last 300 years has risen considerably as have temperatures…”
Misleading as usual.

Not at all, CO2 is now considerable higher than it was 300 years ago as is temperature. You should not take that as showing that CO2 is the reason for the temperature rise.

RHS
December 21, 2012 9:30 am

Temps lags sun exposure. For example, today is Winter Solstice but our coldest temps aren’t typically until late January/early February. Same with the Summer Solstice. Longest day is June 21st but warmest temps are late July through early August. An easy way to see is to go to weather.com (looking at temps rather than propaganda) and look at the average for your city. For Denver:
http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/80231
July clearly shows to be the warmest “Average” and January shows to be the coldest “Average”.
The point is, there is almost nothing with an instantaneous reflection of change. Almost everything lags something else.

December 21, 2012 9:37 am

Max Hugoson says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:26 am
WHAT would QUANTIFY SOLAR ACTIVITY FOR 300 years??? Some of the alledged isotope connections are, frankly, “stuff and nonsense”. In terms of records, Sunspots is all we have. And DUE to the inaccuracies of counting and identification, there are rather large error bars there too.
This argument cuts both ways. If sunspots are unreliable, they cannot be used to argue that solar activity has risen the past 300 years. Recent work on the sunspot record going back to original sources has shown that the sunspot record is indeed incorrect, but also that it is possible to correct for the discrepancies http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home

Paul Dennis
December 21, 2012 9:40 am

Steven Mosher,
I’ve heard you and others make this assertion before and have no reason to doubt what you say. Indeed Svensmark and co-workers say the same thing. I’m just beginning to get interested in the GCR-climate link from the point of view of understanding the faint sun paradox and early glaciation on Earth and have come across an interesting thesis by Torsten Bondo (2009): Influence of cosmic radiation on aerosol and cloud formation over short time periods. Svensmark is the thesis advisor. My very brief skimming of this work is that the magnitude of a Forbush events effect on ionisation is not directly related to the impact on the neutron monitor count. They’ve calculated a rank order of Forbush events based on ionisation and find a link with cloudiness. I’m only reporting what is in the abstract (copied below). I don’t want to discount the GCR-climate link, certainly not till I have understood this work.
ABSTRACT
This thesis describes a study of Forbush decrease events. These are rapid decreases in the cosmic ray intensity in the Earth’s atmosphere, which are caused by a temporary increased magnetic shielding at Earth due to solar eruptions. The aim is to investigate how these transient ionization phenomena in the atmosphere affect aerosol and cloud creation and whether it is realistic to observe Forbush decrease events in climate data.
The thesis involves a theoretical examination of the ionization caused by Forbush decreases based on studies of hourly neutron monitor data and muon telescope data as proxies for cosmic rays. A list of the ionization change in the troposphere of the strongest Forbush de- creases as compared to the ionization change over the solar cycle is calculated and indicates that only a few events induce ionization changes comparable to the solar cycle.
Studies of recently available high resolution satellite data and aerosol ground based mea- surements are presented. Here it is observed that significant decreases in the angstrom exponent from AERONET aerosols and cloud liquid water from satellites take place after the largest Forbush decreases. The timescales of this indicate that the ionization decrease caused by the Forbush decreases diminishes the aerosol nucleation rate which, over time, affects first cloud condensation nuclei size aerosols and then clouds.
As a part of the thesis, a model of the growth of neutral sulfuric acid aerosols has been developed. Assuming an initial distribution of stable nucleated clusters, the model takes condensation and coagulation into account and includes various loss mechanisms. This model is used to investigate the growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei size particles and to study the influence of nucleation rates and background vapour gas con- centration on aerosol and cloud optical properties over short time. The model is used to examine experimental efforts at DTU Space on the role of ions in nucleation, as well as it is used to investigate observational data on Forbush decreases in aerosols. The model con- firms the existence of decreases in angstrom exponents observed in AERONET aerosol data under assumption of realistic ion induced nucleation rates.
The work presented in the thesis indicate that the largest Forbush decreases affect aerosol formation and in turn cloud cover on a global scale.

Gail Combs
December 21, 2012 9:43 am

Harry van Loon says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:11 am
Read Van Loon et al. in JGR 2012
[Reply: a link would be helpful. — mod.]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I found this:

Trends in sunspots and North Atlantic sea level pressure
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 117, D07106, 8 PP., 2012
Key Points
* The NAO was stronger and the baroclinity steeper in 1878–1944 than in 1944–2008
* Long-term trends in the NAO Index are linked to the trend in sunspot number
* Solar activity relates to North Atlantic Ocean and atmosphere trends…

John F. Hultquist
December 21, 2012 9:43 am

Many comments on blogs make some sort of claim regarding the sun and Earth’s climate. Fair enough. Insofar as the claims are widely different it is, at this point, watchful waiting seems a good strategy for those of us not involved in real research. Leif (posting as lsvalgaard) shows a lack of change in solar activity thereby inciting folks to search for variable X (Sun related) that will explain variable Y (Earth related). So far so good (despite some poor reading comprehension and thought processes).
Comments to this current post include a quote, in part:
Although the Earth’s surface overall continues to warm, the new analysis has revealed a correlation between periods of low activity of the Sun and of some cooling — on a limited, regional scale in Central Europe, along the Rhine.
Having just read about going blind (or not) . . .
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/19/keep-doing-that-and-youll-go-blind/#more-76011
. . . and the issues of Ps and Qs, false certainty and such, the part about “on a limited, regional scale in Central Europe, along the Rhine”, makes me wonder if searchers for Sun/Earth (S/E) correlations have not committed the same felony. One can search for any number of measures of the Sun and any number of weather changes on Earth (cooling along the Rhine?) and without any plausible mechanism get a fit, of sorts, one to another. Next, create a title with global warming or climate change in it and a publication is assured. Can an unruly argument be far behind?

December 21, 2012 9:47 am

Theo Goodwin says:
December 21, 2012 at 9:19 am
Surely, you do not mean to leave readers with the impression that your goal is to end discussion of the matters raised by Rawls.
People will discuss what they want. I’m pointing out that in my opinion Rawls is not correct in claiming ‘Haigh is flat out lying’.
Lars P. says:
December 21, 2012 at 9:20 am
how do you reconcile this?
We have a whole [ongoing] workshop dedicated to that problem: http://www.leif.org/research/Svalgaard_ISSI_Proposal_Base.pdf
The end is not in sight. Next meeting is in April.

Carter
December 21, 2012 9:47 am

Richard Alley, in 2008 he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences. He was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Alley
To paraphrase Richard Alley
‘Beryllium 10 in the ice core is made by cosmic rays, but 40,000 year ago, the magnetic field zero’d out for a millennium or so and the cosmic rays came streaming in and the climate ignores it. It’s just about that simple, the cosmic rays didn’t do enough to leave a record. So it’s a fine tuning knob for the climate at best!’

Man Bearpig
December 21, 2012 9:49 am

If I remember correctly didn’t Svensmark point out a schoolboy error in using 11 year averages when this is known to give errant results? He argued that using the actual cycle time gives different results.

Gail Combs
December 21, 2012 9:51 am

Oh and you can also add Dr van Loon’s paper from last year

The average influence of decadal solar forcing on the atmosphere in the South Pacific region
Key Points
* Anomalously high sea level pressure in the South Pacific at solar peaks
* The SPCZ is poleward shifted across the entire South Pacific at solar peaks
* The signal in SLP in the South Pacific for solar peaks is different from La Nina
….The solar influence is seen as above normal SLP in the sub-Arctic Pacific, as found previously, and as corresponding positive SLP anomalies in the sub-Antarctic Pacific, as shown here for the first time. These SLP anomalies are associated with previously documented signals at sunspot maxima of greater ocean upwelling and cooling along the Pacific equator, and a poleward extension of the tropical convergence zones in both hemispheres….

Bob Tissdale should be interested in this paper.

M Simon
December 21, 2012 9:52 am

“Haigh should try it at home: put a pot of water on a full burner for a minute then turn the burner down to medium high. Does she really think the pot will stop warming, or that it will actually start to cool?”
If it is an electric stove and the controls are “properly adjusted” it can work like that. Under those circumstances ordinary people would call for a repairman.

Jonathan
December 21, 2012 9:52 am

Oh what do you expect from New Scientist?

December 21, 2012 9:52 am

Being a total ignoramus to me something is really very obvious: Occam’s razor applied it can only be the sun which causes a real effective permanent global warming.
>Hothouse gases are just way to rife with if’s and but’s to be in anyway near in the running.
>No other adequate heat source is available.
So if the many solar scientists don’t see any real changes in solar output it means they are missing something and just don’t have sufficient knowledge to account for the added heat IF there is any.
So either there isn’t any added heat, or if there is it’s caused by the sun. QED.

herkimer
December 21, 2012 9:54 am

Svalgaard
What happened to the ocean thermal inertia that Alec Rawls stress to much?
Leif, my observation is that the oceans have their own cycles and inertia,which is somewhat different and lagged from solar sunspot cycles .Each of the oceans seem to have their own cycle to some degree but they clearly interact too.The solar sunspot cycle affects the oceans but its effect is recognizable in a lagged timing because of its own flywheel.When the ocean cycles happen to be in sync with the sunspot cycle , there is more cooling[ like 1880-1910 or more warming like 1910-1940’s. The ocean amplification effect[ cooling or warming] gets even greater when the Atlantic Ocean temperatures [AMO] is also in sync with the global SST pattern, primarily the Pacific like 1900-1925 and again 1964-1995. This fact becomes clear when you see that in 1877-78 we had one of the largest El Ninos ever and it happened during a solar minimum and again during the Maunder Minimum when the sunspot cycle was at a very low level, but the ocean temperatures were rising.

Silver Ralph
December 21, 2012 9:55 am

lsvalgaard says: December 21, 2012 at 7:36 am
There has been no rise in solar activity the last 300 years: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Petaluma–How%20Well%20Do%20We%20Know%20the%20SSN.pdf slide 8
_________________________________________
You have repeated this assertion many times. But if the Zurich Sunspot numbers are so wrong, as you say, then why do the completely independent Greenwich Sunspot counts agree with them?
http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/130_12.png
As you can see in this graph, the Greenwich Sunspot count also shows a clear increase in activity since the LIA, just like the Zurich count that your are disputing. So why is this Greenwich count (also) wrong, if it was made by different observers with different methodology?
.

December 21, 2012 10:02 am

Carter says:
December 21, 2012 at 9:47 am
‘Beryllium 10 in the ice core is made by cosmic rays, but 40,000 year ago, the magnetic field zero’d out for a millennium or so and the cosmic rays came streaming in and the climate ignores it. It’s just about that simple, the cosmic rays didn’t do enough to leave a record.
Indeed

JJ
December 21, 2012 10:13 am

lsvalgaard says:
It is all about galactic cosmic rays.

No, it is not.
It is all about whatever is responsible for the “Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system …”
Among other things, that could be:
1. Change in GCR/cosmic isotopes causing changes in the climate system.
2. Change in some other solar factor causing changes in GCR/cosmic isotopes and the climate system.
3. Change in some non-solar factor causing changes in GCR/cosmic isotopes and the climate system.
GCR/clouds is but one proposed mechanism for #1 on that non-exhaustive list.
Joanna Haigh is absolutely correct.
No. Joanna Haigh is absolutely dishonest, using a false argument to dismiss GCR/cloud, and then pretending that GCR/cloud was all the IPCC statement of evidence was about, in order to dismiss the statement. No. GCR is only part of what that statement is about.
Alec is absolutely correct. IPCC identifies that something other than TSI is likely happening, dismisses the notion that one thing is happening, and concludes that nothing is happening. This is false reasoning.

Paul Dennis
December 21, 2012 10:14 am

Carter,
The lack of a strong climate response to the Laschamp event has been cited several times as an argument against the GCR-climate link. I’ve given this some thought in the past and am not particularly surprised that the Laschamp event doesn’t provoke a strong climatic response. 40,000 years ago significant parts of the northern hemisphere were covered in ice with a very large impact on planetary albedo. The dominant response mode hypothesised in the GCR-climate link is through albedo associated with increased cloudiness. If the planetary albedo is already very much increased then an increased GCR flux may not have much more effect on an already high albedo.

December 21, 2012 10:16 am

The thing that has changed in the last 100 years and is getting progressively worse is the weakening of earth’s magnetic field.

D Böehm
December 21, 2012 10:19 am

Carter says:
Quoting Alley:
“It’s just about that simple, the cosmic rays AGW didn’t do enough to leave a record. So it’s a fine tuning knob for the climate at best!”
Fixed it for you, Carter. The climate is ignoring AGW, as it always has. All you were ever seeing was a short term, coincidental correlation from around 1980 – 1998. But if you believe that you have testable, empirical scientific evidence proving AGW, post it here. Keep in mind that peer reviewed papers, models, and conjectures do not constitute scientific evidence.
And don’t waste your time posting your silly video propaganda. Learn to think and speak for yourself for a change.

Gary Pearse
December 21, 2012 10:19 am

Steven Mosher says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:17 am
“Weirdly when I look at cloudiness at Forbush events where GCR increase dramatically I can find no change in cloudiness. When I challenge believers in Svensmark to state a testable hypothesis, they all go silent. Seems they want to claim an effect but not define a test for it.
Perhaps not all readers are aware of the Wilson Cloud Chamber, invented 100 years ago, which detects subatomic particles by the creation of a streak of cloud through the chamber caused by water droplets condensing in the wake of particle track. GCRs were detected along with other particles using the chamber. (Let us hope Svensmark and colleagues gave credit to Wilson for the idea.) How’s that for a testable hypothesis? Much more convincing than the curve fitting “evidence” of CO2 goes up, temp goes up; ladies’ hemlines go up, copper prices go up and the like.
Perhaps the manifestation of the GCR cloud streaks is more subtle and not easily seen in satelite imagery. There can be no question, I would hope, that GCRs do create a water droplet track. To be easily visible it would require high humidity. It would also be confounded somewhat by the presence of already formed clouds nucleated by other aerosols. Perhaps the trains of water droplets occur from the top to the bottom of the atmosphere creating a more diffuse, diaphanous cloudiness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber
Also, none other than William Herschel, Astronomer Royal who noted the relationship between sunspot numbers and the price of wheat! Presumably low numbers-high prices. “He became famous for his discovery of the planet Uranus, along with two of its major moons (Titania and Oberon), and also discovered two moons of Saturn. In addition, he was the first person to discover the existence of infrared radiation. He is known, as well, for the twenty-four symphonies that he composed.” (from Wikipedia) A comparison of the giants of science with today’s fare in climate science (and apparently physics – Haigh, Sherwood, etc) is most telling.

December 21, 2012 10:19 am

Silver Ralph says:
December 21, 2012 at 9:55 am
then why do the completely independent Greenwich Sunspot counts agree with them?
http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/130_12.png

First, they are not sunspot numbers but sunspot areas, and they do not agree with the official Zurich sunspot numbers. See slide 7 of http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Petaluma–How%20Well%20Do%20We%20Know%20the%20SSN.pdf
We are, in fact, using the Greenwich Sunspot Areas to validate the artificial change around 1946.
As you can see in this graph, the Greenwich Sunspot count also shows a clear increase in activity since the LIA
The LIA was not in 1874. See slide 8 of the above link. Activity has a roughly 100 year ‘cycle’ and your plot starts at a low cycle, as we having right now.

December 21, 2012 10:20 am

Silver Ralph says:
December 21, 2012 at 9:55 am
then why do the completely independent Greenwich Sunspot counts agree with them?
http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/130_12.png

First, they are not sunspot numbers but sunspot areas, and they do not agree with the official Zurich sunspot numbers. See slide 7 of http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Petaluma–How%20Well%20Do%20We%20Know%20the%20SSN.pdf
We are, in fact, using the Greenwich Sunspot Areas to validate the artificial change around 1946.
As you can see in this graph, the Greenwich Sunspot count also shows a clear increase in activity since the LIA
The LIA was not in 1874. See slide 8 of the above link. Activity has a roughly 100 year ‘cycle’ of which we had had three the last 300 years and your plot starts at a low cycle, as we having right now.

December 21, 2012 10:22 am

See slide 7 of http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Petaluma–How%20Well%20Do%20We%20Know%20the%20SSN.pdf
We are, in fact, using the Greenwich Sunspot Areas to validate the artificial change around 1946.

Gail Combs
December 21, 2012 10:24 am

Steven Mosher says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:17 am
“When I challenge believers in Svensmark to state a testable hypothesis, they all go silent.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Silent???
Then how come WUWT had this thread? and Luboš Motl had Forbush decreases confirm cosmoclimatology?
Sure sounds like a testable hypothesis to me.
Forbush decrease + one week delay => the mass of water stored in clouds decreases.

Reply to  Gail Combs
December 21, 2012 10:37 am

Steven Mosher says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:17 am
“When I challenge believers in Svensmark to state a testable hypothesis, they all go silent.”
I think it has more to do with the fractured way Mr. Mosher sometimes communicates with incomplete/cryptic commentary on blogs. People often can’t figure out what he’s saying. I sure can’t sometimes. Thats’ not intended to be derogatory, only pointing out that better communications are needed if cogent responses are expected.
The spoken word has much inflection that adds communication, whereas the Internet written word, rattled off as a short comment, basically leaves it in a confused or incomplete comprehension state. The onus is on the commenter to be clear and precise. See Dr. Robert Brown’s comments for example.
Anthony

Chris B
December 21, 2012 10:26 am

MarkW says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:31 am
Obviously the hottest day of every year occurs on the summer solstice and temperatures start droping the very next day.
==========================
Actually the hottest temperatures are roughly 6 weeks after the summer solstice, depending on location.
Perhaps you were being sarcastic?

Phillip Bratby
December 21, 2012 10:34 am

When I was a student of physics at Imperial many years ago, it was a renowned college, part of the University of London. Since then it has become a separate organisation and has become commercialised. It now is prepared to employ second and third rate academics as long as they bring in the money (as per the Grantham Institute with its millions). As long as Grantham is pulling the strings, the academic “scientists” will defend the BS climate change mantra to the bitter end (which doesn’t seem far off now). Hopefully

December 21, 2012 10:34 am

JJ says:
December 21, 2012 at 10:13 am
Alec is absolutely correct. IPCC identifies that something other than TSI is likely happening, dismisses the notion that one thing is happening, and concludes that nothing is happening. This is false reasoning.
No, IPCC says that TSI does not explain the reported correlations between GCRs and climate [without acknowledging that those correlations are even valid] and then goes on the examine the GCR-cloud link and concludes that that doesn’t work:
“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.” [my bold: ‘these’ clearly refers to the ‘reported correlations between GCRs and climate’ and not to anything else]

herkimer
December 21, 2012 10:34 am

Here is some interesting sunspot number history
It would appear that the decadal average yearly sunspot number level of about 30-50 seems to be the tipping point where levels below this range seems to cause global cooling and above this figure causes global warming unless ocean cycles happen to be out of sync and over ride any warming or cooling
DURING DALTON MINIMUM
The average yearly sun spot numbers during the Dalton Minimum decades [ 1790 to 1837], a period of much colder temperatures like the period 1880-1910 were 27.5, 16.5, 19.3 and 39 . So there is some convincing evidence that low decadal solar sunspot numbers and declining global temperatures are directly linked.
LAST 140 YEARS
decadal decadal decadal
hadcrut3gl hadsst2gl average
decade sunspot #
1870 -0.274 -0.252 51
1880 -0.298 -0.26 37
1890 -0.388 -0.353 45
1900 -0.426 -0.453 35.5
1910 -0.44 -0.442 39.2
1920 -0.29 -0.312 42
1930 -0.139 -0.139 51.1
1940 -0.05 -0.082 72
1950 -0.172 -0.159 91.7
1960 -0.126 -0.103 60.9
1970 -0.102 -0.082 61.6
1980 0.079 0.0445 84.2
1990 0.325 0.185 67.2
2000 0.411 0.334 49.6
The last 10 years 29.2
One can y see that there is a common link between the period of Dalton Minimum, the period 1880-1910 and our current period of 2000-2012 to 2030. It is a decadal sunspot number below 30-50 range and the temperatures were or are cooling in each case.

Gail Combs
December 21, 2012 10:52 am

the1pag says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:41 am
… Has there been any clarification or new report about this from CERN?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Found this The preliminary findings of the Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD) experiment, published in Nature journal on Wednesday, show that a few kilometres up in the atmosphere cosmic rays cause a ten-fold increase in the formation rate of tiny aerosol particles
But it has the usual get Published Free Card.
“….But these are still far too small to create clouds…..”

…. it was premature to conclude that cosmic rays had a significant influence on cloud formation and the climate: “Anyone who believes that we see an enhancement of clouds through cosmic rays is moving too fast,” he told swissinfo.ch.
The international team of scientists from 18 institutes found that while cosmic rays “significantly enhanced” the formation of aerosol particles in the mid-troposphere and above, which could grow into the seeds for clouds, in the lower atmosphere additional vapours such as ammonia are required.
The research also revealed that the chemicals believed to seed clouds – sulphuric acid, water and ammonia – even with cosmic ray enhancement are not sufficient to explain atmospheric observations of aerosol formation. Additional vapours of organic or human origin may play a far more important role in cloud formation than suspected….

Unfortunately as Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski proved, stepping on the toes of the money men and power grabbers will get you fired.

…in 1994 Dr. Jaworowski, together with a team from the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technics, proposed a research project…
The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be “immoral” if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.
The refusal did not come as a surprise. Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute's director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that "this is not the way one gets research projects." Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, "this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute." Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski’s science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding.

Very few scientists are willing to buck the ‘system’ just for the sake of honesty because it gets you passed over at a minimum and fired and blackballed if you really tick-off the Money People. (BTDT)

Carter
December 21, 2012 10:56 am

FAO D Böehm
‘And don’t waste your time posting your silly video propaganda’ why are they propaganda? When they rely on valid scientific evidence? I notice you can’t counter them, except by blowing smoke at them!
‘Learn to think and speak for yourself for a change’ the reason I can see so far ahead is because I’m standing on the shoulders of giants, were as you are only standing on their toes!

Gary Pearse
December 21, 2012 10:56 am

“‘these’ clearly refers to the ‘reported correlations between GCRs and climate’ and not to anything else”
No, “these” refers to “observations” – a lot different.

AlecM
December 21, 2012 10:58 am

What you must realise is that the people who have been promoted in much of science have been defenders of the IPCC scam. But to do that you can’t be very bright.
QED……

Gary Pearse
December 21, 2012 11:03 am

gnomish says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:05 am
“it can’t be nice for a climate catastrophists kids and pets about now…”
This may be the most cogent comment in the thread – also very funny.

D Böehm
December 21, 2012 11:07 am

Carter says:
“…they rely on valid scientific evidence…”
Wrong. Your alarmist propagandists cherry-pick only those facts that support their agenda.
Look out the window, Carter. What do you see? There are no fast rising seas, as was incessantly predicted by your same alarmist crowd. There is no acceleration of natural global warming since the LIA — in fact, global warming has stopped. It may resume, but not one of the GCM’s predicted this halt in warming. The widely predicted “tropospheric hot spot” never appeared, either. And so on. Failed predictions are the hallmark of the alarmist crowd.
Face it, Carter, everything predicted by your “experts” has ended in failure. You smugly comment, “the reason I can see so far ahead is because I’m standing on the shoulders of giants, were as you are only standing on their toes!”
That foolish insult takes the place of the scientific facts I asked you to provide, Carter. Your total lack of empirical evidence shows that the AGW conjecture is unmeasurable. And if it is unmeasurable, it will remain nothing more than a conjecture.
You have no scientific evidence proving that AGW exists. It may, but if so it is a minuscule effect, so minuscule that you cannot even find it, and no one else can, either.
Mario Lento is right, you have been sucked in by alarmist propaganda. You cannot think for yourself, so your only response is to insult. Get back to us if and when you can show empirical, testable evidence proving AGW. Until then, your response shows just how impotent you are in a scientific debate.

December 21, 2012 11:09 am

herkimer says:
December 21, 2012 at 10:34 am
The last column gives what we now believe is the correct sunspot number
1830 67.4 80.9
1840 57.2 68.6
1850 42.7 51.2
1860 48.9 58.7
1870 51.3 61.6
1880 37.7 45.2
1890 45.9 55.1
1900 35.5 42.6
1910 39.2 47.0
1920 42.0 50.4
1930 51.1 61.3
1940 72.0 79.2
1950 91.7 91.7
1960 60.9 60.9
1970 61.6 61.6
1980 84.2 84.2
1990 67.2 67.2
2000 49.6 49.6
Gary Pearse says:
December 21, 2012 at 10:56 am
“these’ clearly refers to the ‘reported correlations between GCRs and climate’ and not to anything else”
No, “these” refers to “observations” – a lot different.

These observations as referred to in the reported correlations. Exactly the same thing. No other observations were mentioned except those reporting correlations between GCRs and climate.

December 21, 2012 11:15 am

Dr. Svalgaard maintains that solar activity could not be the cause of multi-decadal temperature variability.
Using the same sunspot number values as Dr. Svalgaard, Vukcevic demonstrates the opposite i.e. that the solar activity is indeed THE CAUSE of multi-decadal temperature variability.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
Dr. Svalgaard objections to the Vukcevic calculation:
employing the sunspot magnetic polarity
using the Earth’s magnetic variability as a secondary parameter in his calculations.
Dr. Svalgaard finds result infuriating calls correlation spurious, or even worse.
Dr. Svalgaard may or may not be correct, for time being his authority prevails, but the history of science is abundant with similar examples.
Often the initial findings were strongly denounced by those who considered themselves guardians of ‘correct’ science, but eventually ‘spurious’ was recognised as correct.
Decade ago no one would pay much attention to the Vukcevic calculation, but what happens in the coming decade may be very different.
Time will tell.

December 21, 2012 11:21 am

Alec Rawls says:
December 21, 2012 at 11:07 am
Svensmark is far from silent about evidence from Forbush events
That may be so, but recent data shows a disconnect between cosmic rays and low-cloud cover:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cloud-Cover-GCR-Disconnect.png from
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00169.1

William
December 21, 2012 11:22 am

In reply to Steven Mosher’s comment concerning a request to explain Svensmark mechanisms (note plural rather than singular.) and request for proof of the mechanisms.
Steven Mosher says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:17 am
Which leads one to examine the work of Svensmark and Kirkby on the effect of varying GCR on cloud formation…
Weirdly when I look at cloudiness at Forbush events where GCR increase dramatically I can find no change in cloudiness. When I challenge believers in Svensmark to state a testable hypothesis, they all go silent. Seems they want to claim an effect but not define a test for it.
William:
I can explain the Svensmark mechanisms in detail at all levels. There will be a CNN level testable hypothesis. If I understand the mechanisms there will be news worthy cooling of the planet.
There are three different Svensmark and Tinsley ion mediated cloud formation mechanisms by which solar changes affect planetary cloud cover (four mechanisms if one counts the modulation of cirrus clouds):
1) Low and weak solar heliosphere which results in increased GCR which results increased ion production.
2) Solar wind bursts which create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions. This mechanism is called electroscavening. There is tight correlation between GCR levels and planetary cloud cover (18 year correlation) up until around 1992. 1992 to 2006 there is a significant increase in solar wind bursts which removes ions. Hence for that period even when GCR is high there is no increase cloud cover as the ions are removed by electroscavenging. See papers linked to below.
3a) Large solar potential changes. (The driver for this mechanism is what happens when very large objects collapse. See comments for details.) Our sun is a second generation star that formed on the core of super nova. After very long periods of high solar activity when the sun changes abruptly to a Maunder minimum there is a delay (10 to 12 years for the earth) as the planets in the solar system reach equilibrium with the solar potential change. While the earth reaches equilibrium, atmospheric ions are removed and there is an increase in volcanic activity. A proof of this assertion would be a sudden and unexplained drop in planetary temperature when the Svensmark GCR mechanism kicks back in.
3b) An increase in GCR also causes a reduction in high level cirrus clouds. The high level cirrus clouds warm the planet particularly at high latitudes during the winter by the greenhouse effect. (See Tinsley’s paper linked to below for details.) Another proof of the item 3 assertion would be record cold temperatures at high latitude regions in the winter. In the Northern hemisphere that will result in record increase in Arctic sea ice.
Comment:
The physics of what is causing the solar potential change is the same as what is causing the potential change for the super massive objects that are found in the core of every galaxy. In the last 5 years, astrophysicists have found a set of structured anomalies (cannot be explained by the current models) concerning galaxy formation and evolution with redshift and quasar evolution of properties with redshift. This mechanism explains the structured anomalies. See for example Disney et al’s Nature published paper “Galaxies are simpler than expected” – six galaxy parameters that should be random are tightly controlled by some unknown mechanism – and Steinhardt and Elvis’ “The Quasar Mass-Luminosity Plane II: High Mass Turnoff Evolution and a Synchronization Puzzle” – that reports that some unknown mechanism is limiting the mass of the quasar’s super massive object by redshift. The Steinhard/Elvis finding is related to the finding that quasars do not exhibit time dilation with redshift and that there is no evolution of metallicity in quasar spectrum with redshift.)
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0811/0811.1554.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.3155v1
Since you mentioned Forbush events here is a paper that indicates there is an effect. The Forbush event also creates a space charge differential in the ionsphere which removes cloud forming ions which explain the lack of correlation of cloud cover at high latitudes. At low latitudes the space charge mechanism has less effect.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/662166078h432877/
Rainfalls during great Forbush decreases
The changes of rainfall values during great Forbush decreases recorded by the low-latitudinal neutron monitor of Huancayo (47 events from 1956 through 1992) were examined. The data on precipitations were taken from the State of São Paulo and from the Amazonian region, Brazil. As a rule, the data from more than 50 meteorological stations were used for each events. The main result is the following: during strong decreases of cosmic-ray flux in the atmosphere (great Forbush decreases) the precipitation value is decreased. The effect of rainfall changes is seen more distinctly if wet seasons are considered.
Correlation of planetary temperature and solar wind modulation
A) Correlation of planetary temperature and solar wind modulation of geomagnetic field index.
Paper by Georgieva, Bianchi, & Kirov “Once again about global warming and solar activity”
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf
In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied. It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.
B) Two mechanisms by which solar winds (electroscavenging) and changes to the solar heliosphere modulate (ion mediated nucleation) planetary clouds (see paper for details this excerpt describes concerning electroscavenging which is not discussed at Real Climate as it is “off message”,)
http://www.albany.edu/~yfq/papers/Yu_CR_CN_Cloud_Climate_JGR02.pdf
The solar wind affects the galactic cosmic ray flux, the precipitation of relativistic electrons, and the ionospheric potential distribution in the polar cap, and each of these modulates the ionosphere-earth current density. On the basis of the current density-cloud hypothesis the variations in the current density change the charge status of aerosols that affect the ice production rate and hence the cloud microphysics and climate [e.g., Tinsley and Dean, 1991; Tinsley, 2000]. The underlying mechanism is that charged aerosols are more effective than neutral aerosols as ice nuclei (i.e., electrofreezing) and that the enhanced collections of charged evaporation nuclei by supercooled droplets enhance the production of ice by contact ice nucleation (i.e., electroscavenging). Both electrofreezing and electroscavenging involve an increase in ice production with increasing current density [e.g, Tinsley and Dean, 1991; Tinsley, 2000]. The current density-cloud hypothesis appears to explain solar cycle effects on winter storm dynamics as well as the dayto-day changes of Wilcox and Roberts Effects [e.g., Tinsley, 2000]. Kniveton and Todd [2001] found evidence of a statistically strong relationship between cosmic ray flux, precipitation and precipitation efficiency over ocean surfaces at midlatitudes to high latitudes, and they pointed out that their results are broadly consistent with the current density-cloud hypothesis.
C) Satellite measurement of planetary cloud cover that confirms planetary cloud cover is modulated by GCR and solar wind bursts Mechanism where Changes in Solar Activity Affects Planetary Cloud Cover 1) Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR)
Increases in the suns large scale magnetic field and increased solar wind reduces the magnitude of GCR that strike the earth’s atmosphere. Satellite data shows that there is 99.5% correlation of GCR level and low level cloud cover 1974 to 1993.
2) Increase in the Global Electric Circuit
Starting around 1993, GCR and low level cloud cover no longer correlate. (There is a linear reduction in cloud cover.) The linear reduction in cloud cover does correlate with an increase in high latitude solar coronal holes, particularly at the end of to the solar cycle, which cause high speed solar winds. The high speed solar winds cause a potential difference between earth and the ionosphere. The increase in potential difference removes cloud forming ions from the atmosphere through the process “electro scavenging”. Satellite data (See attached link to Palle’s paper) that confirms that there has been a reduction in cloud cover over the oceans (There is a lack of cloud forming ions over the oceans. There are more ions over the continents due to natural radioactivity of the continental crust that is not shielded from the atmosphere by water.)
As evidence for a cloud—cosmic ray connection has emerged, interest has risen in the various physical mechanisms whereby ionization by cosmic rays could influence cloud formation. In parallel with the analysis of observational data by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (1997), Marsh and Svensmark (2000) and Palle´ and Butler (2000), others, including Tinsley (1996), Yu (2002) and Bazilevskaya et al. (2000), have developed the physical understanding of how ionization by cosmic rays may influence the formation of clouds. Two processes that have recently received attention by Tinsley and Yu (2003) are the IMN process and the electroscavenging process.
http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/palle1264.pdf

Harry van Loon
December 21, 2012 11:24 am

Give up Gail Combs, it’s useless.

December 21, 2012 11:24 am

The best report on empirical evidence for a GCR – cloud cover link is here:
http://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/dbs202/publications/2006/harrison2006.pdf
I have no stake in this debate, but see that the AGW people do their best to show that there is no link, while there is a lot of empirical evidence that there indeed is a link between solar activity in general and climate (but if that is by GCR or the UV/ozone/jet stream position or another mechanism, for me still is unresolved).

December 21, 2012 11:25 am

vukcevic says:
December 21, 2012 at 11:15 am
Dr. Svalgaard finds result infuriating calls correlation spurious, or even worse.
You presume too much. Nothing is ‘infuriating’, correlations are simply spurious.
Often the initial findings were strongly denounced by those who considered themselves guardians of ‘correct’ science, but eventually ‘spurious’ was recognised as correct.
For every one of those, there are myriads that stay spurious.

December 21, 2012 11:27 am

Alec Rawls says:
December 21, 2012 at 11:24 am
Read the SENTENCE Leif.
how about YOU reading the sentence Alec. Here it is:
“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.” [my bold: ‘these’ clearly refers to the ‘reported correlations between GCRs and climate’ and not to anything else]

3x2
December 21, 2012 11:31 am

[…]This woman thinks that warming is driven, not by the level of the temperature forcing, but by the rate of change in the level of the forcing.[…]

Elsewhere we call the system response to a step change ‘inertia’ – she could easily look the word up if she were a real scientist. The thermal inertia involved in 1.4 billion cubic kilometres of liquid water washing around a bumpy sphere for example.

December 21, 2012 11:40 am

You’ve really got to wonder about Leif.
I’ve just been to the sidebar on this very page.
There is a chart of solar activity courtesy of NASA (sunspots as percentage of visible hemisphere)
It shows QUITE CLEARLY that solar activity has been increasing since the 1880 cycle up to a peak in the 1960s, a dip in the 70s then a secondary peak in the 90s.
We’re now back in la-la land. Who do we believe, Nasa/Grenwich etc (and our own eyes)
or Leif who claims that the opposite is happening?
Tell you what, he might be a ‘scientist’ (tugs forelock respectfully) but I wouldn’t let Dr Svalgaard near the air-conditioning controls of a building!

December 21, 2012 11:42 am

Its not just solar radiance. It is also the number of electrons and protons(solar wind) impacting earth.
This can cause “electrical” heating effects…

December 21, 2012 11:42 am

Alec Rawls says:
December 21, 2012 at 11:24 am
how about YOU reading the sentence Alec. In legal papers, ambiguities are often resolved by repeating a clause, so I do that. Here it is:
“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 the empirical relationships that have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link.”
to explain to empirical relationships that have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system provided they hold up. The report then goes on the point out that the correlations do not hold up: “Although there is some evidence that ionization from cosmic rays may enhance aerosol nucleation in the free troposphere, there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of CCN or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way. The lack of trend in the cosmic ray intensity over the last 50 years provides another strong argument against the hypothesis of a major contribution of cosmic rays to ongoing climate change.”

Editor
December 21, 2012 11:44 am

Until we understand why the MWP dropped away into the LIA, we cannot understand how the LIA ended.
Talk of Maunders and Daltons is only part of the story. The transition from MWP began around 1200AD, so other factors must have been in play.
This seems to be the elephant in the room that so many scientists like Haigh try to ignore.

Gail Combs
December 21, 2012 11:45 am

Alec Rawls says:
December 21, 2012 at 11:24 am
Leif says that …Haigh is “absolutely correct” …. Read the SENTENCE Leif. It says exactly what I say it says. Haigh is indeed “flat our lying” about it, and now you are making inane excuses for her lying, pretending that sentences are limited by section headings. Sheesh.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I find it very interesting that L.S. and other scientists are now ‘reworking’ the historic sunspot numbers…..

Camburn
December 21, 2012 11:47 am

Carter says:
December 21, 2012 at 10:56 am
“‘Learn to think and speak for yourself for a change’ the reason I can see so far ahead is because I’m standing on the shoulders of giants, were as you are only standing on their toes!

Mr Carter continues to sucumb to Skeptical Science Syndrome. He does not realize that as we peer down on those “giants” they keep getting smaller and smaller and smaller.
In fact, they are now so small that they are invisible.

mike g
December 21, 2012 11:50 am

Indeed.
40,000 years ago, weren’t we still in the midst of an ice age? Maybe a large increase in GCR, with the climate in that state, is just not going to make the difference it might with the climate in the current state.

December 21, 2012 11:51 am

Paul Homewood says:
December 21, 2012 at 11:44 am
Until we understand why the MWP dropped away into the LIA, we cannot understand how the LIA ended. … This seems to be the elephant in the room that so many scientists like Haigh try to ignore.
what is there to ignore. Here is how the MWP ended compared to the ‘solar activity record’. although labelled TSI, it is really derived from the cosmic ray record:
http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf slide 20.
It seems to me that the solar enthusiasts are the ones ignoring the elephant.

Thomas
December 21, 2012 11:51 am

Much of the “evidence” for solar activity being a strong driver for temperature is based on kind of argument that temperature should be proportional to forcing that Rawls denounces here. Should we now discount papers like Friis-Christensen & Lassen, and what really remains of the evidence if we do that?

RACookPE1978
Editor
December 21, 2012 11:51 am

A simple caution to all involved in looking for a “solar-and-temperature” relationship – or any other fundamental “cause” of global climate changes.
The Mid-Atlantic rift existed for some 60 million years – before it was PLOTTED on ocean depth sounders and strip charts. Continental drift existed since Pangaea was broken up – but was not discovered either.
The strip charts existed (data existed!) on paper as evidence LONG before they were read and plotted on maps to show where the mid-Atlantic rift actually was.
Other seismologists had plotted mid-ocean earthquakes, but did not realized they were plotting a 48,000 mile continuous mid-ocean rift zone (separation zone) that explained continental drift.
Geology textbooks could not explain mountains and valleys – but were written anyway. Geology classes were taught anyway. Critics of mountain-building theories were rejected – because they could not propose an alternative “theory” …. But the Alps, Rockies, and Andes were still there. The sea-life fossils were still up high in the mountains. Meteoric rocks DID FLY – but could not be explained.
Continental drift had been discussed and proposed as a SYMPTOM since before Ben Franklin’s day – but was equally rejected – viciously! – by orthodox scientists and scientific organization because “it had no mechanism’ – it had ” no theory to explain it”. The trenches and edge-volcanoes existed around the opposite side of the drifting continental shelves – but were not linked either by theory or by scientists. But – they were still there, just NOT “observed” and written in peer-reviewed papers.
Papers and scientific meeting reviewing and proposing continental drift were rejected vehemently by editors and reviewers – but those same papers were right! The peer-review was wrong!
But – continental drift and plate tectonics EXISTED and WERE CONTINUING despite the absence of a theory or the math or the physics to explain them.
Likewise, simple observations are NOT always enough. If you did not know each bay and inlet geometry, you could reasonably reject the moon as a cause of the tides that are inches high in the Gulf of Mexico and Mediterranean Sea, but tens of feet high in the Gulf of Fundy. You would very properly reject two tides a day of varying heights through the year if you did not know about fluid flow and gravity, about changes in the sun’s pull over the year. If you did not know the upstream floods and droughts – would get a proper tidal chart by only correcting for the sun? Or would you REJECT a proposed solar influence on tides BECAUSE you saw the influence of droughts and floods regularly each summer, spring and fall?
We only “think” we know all of the influences. And we DO confuse “symptoms” of influences for the theory itself. Thus, volcanoes along the Pacific coasts and a mid-Atlantic rift are a SYMPTOM of continental drift, NOT the cause of it. (The cause is underneath both – but NOT visible on the surface.) Sun spots may a SYMPTOM of what might change solar changes in the earth’s climate – but may not be the CAUSE of those changes that accompany sunspot changes.
Lunar craters look like earth-bound volcanoes …. But are not. Lunar seas “look like” earth oceans – and are, in their own way, from “liquid rock” flowing like oceans on earth. You cannot extrapolate too far or you will be wrong! Dead wrong. Equally, you cannot FAIL to extrapolate between “It-is-impossible-to-get-water-on-the-moon” scenarios so the “Mares” cannot be liquid! (Now, why are there no lunar Mares on the back side? )
Humility is required. On every new idea. by both “experts” in the status quo – “we know” – community, and by the “This is a new idea that matches (some) observations, but it has no theory behind it” community.
Correct observations may be explained by a wrong theory.
A wrong theory may explain incomplete – or incorrect – observations.
(Newton and Kepler both explained what was observed at the time of their theories – neither works well near the speed of light.)
Therefore, I caution every one that “observations” of related events – AND unrelated events important to the final theory! – may come well before the theory. And that first theory, that second theory, that correction to the second theory, that third or fifteenth theory may be wrong!
Doesn’t change the observation that proves the final theory.
Nor does it change those “incorrect” observations unrelated to the first, fourth, or fifteenth theory that were wrong!
Doesn’t change the “unrelated observations” that prove the sixteenth theory correct.
Doesn’t make the first theory complete either.

December 21, 2012 11:59 am

Charles Gerard Nelson says:
December 21, 2012 at 11:40 am
It shows QUITE CLEARLY that solar activity has been increasing since the 1880 cycle up to a peak in the 1960s
And before the 1880 cycle activity was decreasing from the 1830-1875 peaks… There has been a roughly 100-yr ‘cycle’ in activity the past 300 years, so numbers go up and down.

James Evans
December 21, 2012 12:02 pm

Mr Watts:
“The spoken word has much inflection that adds communication, whereas the Internet written word, rattled off as a short comment, basically leaves it in a confused or incomplete comprehension state. The onus is on the commenter to be clear and precise.”
Some people like to try “cool and clever”. Other people prefer “clear and precise”. Just different flavours of expression, that’s all.
Generally speaking, the “cool and clever” people find it hard to bother with reaching all the way down to the boringly pedantic “clear and precise” people.

December 21, 2012 12:05 pm

mike g says:
December 21, 2012 at 11:50 am
40,000 years ago, weren’t we still in the midst of an ice age? Maybe a large increase in GCR, with the climate in that state, is just not going to make the difference it might with the climate in the current state.
Sounds like special pleading to me. Would you have said the same if there HAD been a climate response? That is: ‘the climate response is spurious because we were in the midst of an ice age, so conditions were different and we would not expect a response’.

eco-geek
December 21, 2012 12:06 pm

Some mechanism involving solar other than GCRs…..
My favourite (because I thought of it) does not seem to have been picked up by anybody. I even posted it on Svalgards blog and used his name instead of Svenmarks (sorry) and posted it in the wrong place (sorry again). Anyway..
The basic idea followed on from a discovery that was made a few years ago that the resistivity of the solar corona associated with lateral flare currents was not the expected Spitzer resistivity. It turned out to be six orders of magnitude out and very close to that of sea water. So we are ballpark correct in saying that (by the maximum power transfer theorem) that coupling between the Sun’s and Earth’s magnetic fields will lead to much stronger induced currents in the oceans when the sun is more active. This could source the “missing heat” that Landscheidt was looking for and which buffers Earth’s temperatures through solar cycle minima.
Such a mechanism could also explain why glaciation onsets are associated with magnetic field excursions and inversions are associated with a collapsing geomagnetic field as this additional energy source is cut off completely. Obviously it also explains cooling during times of low solar activity. Not only that the oceans skin depth is just what is needed.
Has anyone measured this? Anyone have a boat and some ocean nearby? It should be straightforward. We need to log the (AC) current between the surface and a depth of many tens of meters and correlate that with solar magnetic field index components.
Here is a challenge for a real scientist. If the currents are there and sufficiently large then:
1) The AGW hypothesis is destroyed completely.
2) We are in serious trouble as the geomagnetic field is falling as is the Sun’s magnetic field i.e. a major glaciation is almost upon us.
Please feel free to do something about this.

December 21, 2012 12:15 pm

Gail Combs says:
December 21, 2012 at 11:45 am
I find it very interesting that L.S. and other scientists are now ‘reworking’ the historic sunspot numbers…..
When errors are found, they should be corrected. This has happened to the ‘historical sunspot record’ several times already over the past 150 years, so we are just following in the footsteps of that proud tradition.

herkimer
December 21, 2012 12:17 pm

SVALGAARD
December 21, 2012 at 10:34 am
‘The last column gives what we now believe is the correct sunspot number’
Thanks Lief!
Can you explain who the ” we”are. My analysis is based on official SIDC figures , so they do not seem to recognize your “we” yet . Are we getting into the same situation as we are with global temperature data sets were there are so many data sets and they are altered frequently when people do not like the current data sets as they disprove their preferred view[ like hadcrut 3 ,hadcrut4, GISS, BEST , etc] Who are you going to believe anymore?. In any case your new figures do not significantly alter my previous observations . Namely low dacadal average sunspot numbers and cooler global surface temperatures seem to happen together too often to be ignored.or minimized.It was happening in the past and is happening as we blog.Just look at what is happening in Russia already and the winter just started.today

December 21, 2012 12:20 pm

As usually, Leif is trying to mislead the readers of this blog about solar activity.
The truth is that the past dynamical behavior of solar activity is not known with precision.
Leif’s position is extreme in the sense that he claims that TSI did not vary at all during the last 300 year and more. Leif’s position is considered unlikely even by the IPCC and by the GCM modelers that prefer to adopt Lean’s TSI models that show a solar activity trending and warming during the last 300 yr and during the last century.
A comparison among some proposed TSI reconstruction is here
http://s5.tinypic.com/mmuclk.jpg
Leif’s model is in red, and it is nothing but a linear re-scaled sunspot number record into TSI units: essentially is a toy model.
Other proposed reconstructions of TSI are herecomment image?w=500
and there is this recent model by Shapiro
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/ShapiroTSI1600.png
and none of the above TSI reconstructions even closely resemble Leif’s “flat sun hypothesis” which is extreme in its flatness.
About the behavior of TSI during the last decades, Leif knowns but hides the fact that there exists a controversy about the TSI groups: ACRIM and PMOD, with ACRIM showing an upward trend from 1980 to 2000, and downward trend after. See here
http://acrim.com/TSI%20Monitoring.htm
About cosmic ray count they decreases (=solar activity increased) from 1970 to 1995, see here
http://www.climate4you.com/images/CosmicRaysAndSunspotsMonthlySince195801.gif
Finally there are other evidences discussed in my papers, solar model based on harmonic reconstruction hindcast centuries of solar and climate records. See here a summary
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/nicola-scafetta-major-new-paper-on-solar-planetary-theory/
In conclusion, Leif is not trying to inform the readers of this blog. He is simply trying to sell his unlikely “flat sun hypothesis”, which is considered “extreme” in the scientific solar community.

December 21, 2012 12:34 pm

herkimer says:
December 21, 2012 at 12:17 pm
Can you explain who the ” we”are.
‘We’ are National Solar Observatory (NSO), the Royal Observatory of Belgium (ROB), and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), see http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home for more info.
Nicola Scafetta says:
December 21, 2012 at 12:20 pm
In conclusion, Leif is not trying to inform the readers of this blog. He is simply trying to sell his unlikely “flat sun hypothesis”, which is considered “extreme” in the scientific solar community.
Not at all extreme; here is a similar ‘flat sun’ paper: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf by some of the most respected authors of the ‘scientific solar community’
Their conclusion: “drivers other than TSI dominate Earth’s long-term climate change”
And from the respected people at the San Fernando Observatory:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2005GL022839.pdf
Their conculsion: “We find that the level of S at solar minimum has no long-term secular trend that is correlated with the level of sunspot activity”

Editor
December 21, 2012 12:38 pm

Leif says
Here is how the MWP ended compared to the ‘solar activity record’. although labelled TSI, it is really derived from the cosmic ray record:
http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
It does not answer my question , Leif.
Slide 20 shows TSI in the MWP at the same level as now, and much higher than the LIA.
However, you conclude
Variation in Solar Output is a Factor of Ten too Small to Account for The Little Ice Age
So which is right?
If Solar Output is not enough, then what did cause the transition from MWP to LIA?
And if it was enough, why has not it caused 20thC warming?

December 21, 2012 12:38 pm

Alec Rawls says:
December 21, 2012 at 12:27 pm
Now Leif is claiming that because our paleo proxies for solar activity come from GCR, the only mechanism of solar amplification that these proxies can implicate is GCR-cloud.
I’m claiming that that is the only thing the report talks about and has in mind, as evidenced by an author of the report.

December 21, 2012 12:46 pm

Paul Homewood says:
December 21, 2012 at 12:38 pm
It does not answer my question , Leif.
The Figure shows that the MWP was ending long before solar activity began to drop and the MWP was unaffected by the grand solar minimum around 650AD, so the partial answer is that the MWP and the LIA have nothing to do with solar activity, but are driven by the stochatic variations any complex system [like the climate] has.
Variation in Solar Output is a Factor of Ten too Small to Account for The Little Ice Age
Given a variation in solar output of 0.1%, the resulting temperature change is a quarter of that, i.e. 0.025% which of 288K is 0.07 degrees, which is a factor of ten smaller than the actual LIA change in temperature.

lgl
December 21, 2012 12:47 pm

“There has been no rise in solar activity the last 300 years.”
Leif missing the point again?
Six high cycles in a row means more energy received than three high cycles.
http://virakkraft.com/Leifs-TSI-running-sum.png

December 21, 2012 12:52 pm

They may be interviewing people who claim to be scientists. That is a meaningless claim since they are not talking like scientists and not like geoscientists at all. It should be given all the credit is deserves.

December 21, 2012 12:54 pm

Why do these simpletons continue (seemingly forever) to state things thus; “… they are misinterpreting the scientific evidence …”?
I really need to see the beef here. Seriously. I am fed up to the back teeth with these claims. They are not being honest. They reference the ‘evidence’ backing up in screeds, paid for in the blood of third-world strangers and ignoring cause. The evidence that the world has warmed since the LIA. We are drowning in this.
But they are pretending that what they really mean is their evidence to show cause – specifically, bad monkeys burning stuff. Of which they have 0.000
Sleight of mouth.
They strut about acting as if they are arbiters of truth yet lean on a staff created from guesswork and vanity.
There is no justice, just us.

Carter
December 21, 2012 12:55 pm

FOA D Böehm
‘cherry-pick only those facts that support their agenda’ please explain? Give examples.
‘There are no fast rising seas’ well it depends what you mean? I think its expected 1mm per year at the moment, which would equal 1 metre over 100 years. But an avalanche has to start with the first snowflake moving and them due to positive feedback tons are moved within no time at all. The snow moves to a new state and comes to rest! Ring any bells? Climate change in other words!
‘global warming has stopped’ says who? The Daily Mail? Or as I know it The Daily Fail! Where THEY cherry picked a part of a graph, not informing that there are temperature rises coming along (due to ocean oscillations, etc), that’s going to make them look silly! Basically they picked the start and stop points to make it appear that GW has stopped. FAIL.
‘takes the place of the scientific facts I asked you to provide’ well I have supplied evidence on this thread previously, but the mod don’t seem happy and it goes AWOL into hyper space! But try this
‘You have no scientific evidence proving that AGW exists’ you have a larf or what!
New monitoring system identifies carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning
‘Researchers have developed a new monitoring technique to distinguish emissions from man-made fossil fuels in the atmosphere from other gases, a technique that likely could be used to monitor the effectiveness of measures regulating greenhouse gases.
The team examined six years-worth of atmospheric gas measurements of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases, taken by aircraft every two weeks. Their method allowed them to separate CO2 derived from fossil fuels from CO2 being emitted by biological sources, such as plant respiration, said Scott Lehman, a senior research associate at the University of Colorado, Boulder, who led the study with John Miller, a research associate at the university.
The separation was made possible by the fact that CO2 released from burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas has no carbon-14, a radioactive form of carbon that is constantly forming in Earth’s atmosphere. Because carbon-14 is radioactive, it decays, or transforms, into another, nonradioactive element over time. Half of a given amount of the substance decays every 5,700 years so fossil fuels, which are derived from remains of plants and other organic matter that accumulated millions of years ago, no longer contain the radioactive carbon. In contrast, CO2 emitted from current biological sources is relatively rich in carbon-14. It’s a significant enough difference for atmospheric scientists to detect, Lehman said’
http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2012/2012-20.shtml
‘Get back to us’ I have but I’m not dancing to your tune!

December 21, 2012 12:55 pm

Alec Rawls says:
December 21, 2012 at 12:27 pm
GCR is a proxy, for instance, for the UV shift that accompanies variation in solar magnetic activity. This UV shift drives stratospheric ozone creation when solar activity is high, possibly altering atmospheric circulation patterns.
Apart from what the authors actually said [read it again and again and again and …, if need be], UV has not shown any trend since 1722, only faithfully followed the sunspot number which also does not have any trend over the 300 years, so cannot be involved in any climate trend. But perhaps you are denying that the climate has a trend over that time?

December 21, 2012 1:02 pm

lgl says:
December 21, 2012 at 12:47 pm
<i.Six high cycles in a row means more energy received than three high cycles.
It means that more energy was radiated back to space as well.
TSI has increased 0.2 W/m2 or 0.015% which would raise the temperature 0.01 degree.
Apart from the fact there were not ‘six high cycles in a row’.

Editor
December 21, 2012 1:02 pm

Leif says
Paul Homewood says:
December 21, 2012 at 12:38 pm
It does not answer my question , Leif.
The Figure shows that the MWP was ending long before solar activity began to drop and the MWP was unaffected by the grand solar minimum around 650AD, so the partial answer is that the MWP and the LIA have nothing to do with solar activity, but are driven by the stochatic variations any complex system [like the climate] has.

Thanks for that Leif.
Which brings us back to my original question.
What did cause the MWP to start declining into the LIA in the 13thC?

JJ
December 21, 2012 1:03 pm

lsvalgaard says:
No, IPCC says that TSI does not explain the reported correlations between GCRs and climate [without acknowledging that those correlations are even valid] and then goes on the examine the GCR-cloud link and concludes that that doesn’t work:

You shouldn’t say “No” to preface a statement that is consistent with my comments.
[my bold: ‘these’ clearly refers to the ‘reported correlations between GCRs and climate’ and not to anything else]
[your err: ‘these’ clearly refers to the ‘reported correlations between GCRs and climate’ and not to anything else that is a topic that is about much more than GCRs alone. GCRs are only part of that correlation. Obviously, climate mechanisms are also part of that, and clouds are only one potential mechanism. Non-GCR solar factors and non -solar factors are also potentials, and thus also part of what is referenced in that statement. But then, I said that already.]

December 21, 2012 1:03 pm

lgl says:
December 21, 2012 at 12:47 pm
Six high cycles in a row means more energy received than three high cycles.
It means that more energy was radiated back to space as well.
TSI has increased 0.2 W/m2 or 0.015% which would raise the temperature 0.01 degree.
Apart from the fact there were not ‘six high cycles in a row’.

December 21, 2012 1:07 pm

Paul Homewood says:
December 21, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Which brings us back to my original question.
What did cause the MWP to start declining into the LIA in the 13thC?

What do you think? It is clear that it was not declining solar activity. The wider question is “why are there those long-term swings in climate. One answer could be that any sufficiently complex system has natural, internal fluctuations and Earth’s climate may not be an exception. The same could be said for solar activity. Why are they grand minima at seemingly random times?

December 21, 2012 1:10 pm

JJ says:
December 21, 2012 at 1:03 pm
[your err: ‘these’ clearly refers to the ‘reported correlations between GCRs and climate’ and not to anything else that is a topic that is about much more than GCRs alone.
You may think so, but it is clear that the IPCC authors were only referring to the ‘reported correlations between GCRs and climate’ and nothing else. You could fault them for that, not me.

December 21, 2012 1:19 pm

Phillip Bratby says:
December 21, 2012 at 10:34 am
When I was a student of physics at Imperial many years ago, it was a renowned college, part of the University of London. Since then it has become a separate organisation and has become commercialised.
I was there too, some decades ago. Professor Leventhal occasionally would remind us that the ‘science is built on reasoning of an individual’; such a contrast to the daily yelling ‘spurious, spurious’ by certain Dr. .S.

Kev-in-Uk
December 21, 2012 1:23 pm

Carter says:
December 21, 2012 at 12:55 pm
FOA D Böehm
..I think its expected 1mm per year at the moment, which would equal 1 metre over 100 years….
WTF? the last time I checked, there were 1000 millimetres in a metre!

December 21, 2012 1:29 pm

Paul Dennis.
Good to hear from you again Paul.
‘The work presented in the thesis indicate that the largest Forbush decreases affect aerosol formation and in turn cloud cover on a global scale.”
When time permits I’ll look at the data again, but there were so many ways to cut the data that I was concerned about the issues of multiple tests. Simply, cut the data 20 different ways and you will find an effect by chance.

December 21, 2012 1:32 pm

Nicola Scafetta says:
December 21, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Leif’s position is considered unlikely even by the IPCC
Now, there is a recent TSI reconstruction by Shapiro et al. which postulates a large change since the Maunder Minimum, but as the IPCC states [in the Supplement to Chapter 8]”
“The analysis of Shapiro et al (2011) falls outside the range 0.08–0.18 W m–2 reported above: 0.78 W m–2. 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). Also, analysis by Feulner (2011) indicate that temperature simulations driven by such a large solar forcing are inconsistent with
reconstructed and observed historical temperatures, while use of a forcing in line with the range presented here are consistent. Hence we do not include this larger forcing within our assessed range. Schrijver et al. (2011) and Foukal et al. (2011) find a RF which is consistent with the RF range given above (0.08–0.18 W m–2″

Editor
December 21, 2012 1:32 pm

Leif says
Paul Homewood says:
December 21, 2012 at 1:02 pm
“Which brings us back to my original question. What did cause the MWP to start declining into the LIA in the 13thC?”
What do you think? It is clear that it was not declining solar activity.

I don’t know, Lief!!
What I do know is that until we understand the question , we cannot start to answer what caused the LIA to end.

December 21, 2012 1:32 pm

D Böehm says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:44 am (Edit)
Steven Mosher says:
“When I challenge believers in Svensmark AGW to state a testable hypothesis, they all go silent.”
There. Fixed it for you. ☺
################
falsifying AGW is simple. Show that c02 is not opaque to IR.

December 21, 2012 1:35 pm

Paul Homewood says:
December 21, 2012 at 11:44 am
Until we understand why the MWP dropped away into the LIA, we cannot understand how the LIA ended. … This seems to be the elephant in the room that so many scientists like Haigh try to ignore.
lsvalgaard says:
December 21, 2012 at 11:51 am
It seems to me that the solar enthusiasts are the ones ignoring the elephant.
Dr. S. often quotes the Loehle reconstruction, it does look OK. Here is what I found
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LL.htm (do I here ‘spurious, spurious’ ?)
Not perfect, but what it is?
hmmm…., possibly the Dr. Svalgaard’s reworked TSI, but only when he finishes off couple of ‘wiggles’ still left in the data; work in progress.

December 21, 2012 1:36 pm

vukcevic says:
December 21, 2012 at 1:19 pm
the ‘science is built on reasoning of an individual’; such a contrast to the daily yelling ‘spurious, spurious’ by certain Dr. .S.
You might want to remind the readers that I have given ample reasons for the assessment that your correlations are spurious.

December 21, 2012 1:38 pm

Paul Homewood says:
December 21, 2012 at 1:32 pm
What I do know is that until we understand the question , we cannot start to answer what caused the LIA to end.
almost everybody on this thread seems to a priory disagree with you [and me] claiming: “it is the Sun, stupid”.

John F. Hultquist
December 21, 2012 1:43 pm

Nicola Scafetta says:
December 21, 2012 at 12:20 pm
“Leif’s position is extreme in the sense that he claims that TSI did not vary at all during the last 300 year and more.

lsvalgaard says:
December 21, 2012 at 11:59 am
“There has been a roughly 100-yr ‘cycle’ in activity the past 300 years, so numbers go up and down.

Hmmm, Leif’s comment was at 11:59 and Nicola’s was at 12:20. But I recall that Leif, many times, has said “the sun doesn’t vary enough” but an echo would be that it does vary. What else could “numbers go up and down” mean?

December 21, 2012 1:44 pm

As the old saying goes “there are none so blind as those who do not want to see”..
Regarding the excess of wind turbines etc – all these will be recycled (using the normal methods), two reasons:
1. Those operating them will go to the wall and all the equipment will be available at fire sale prices (never were independently financially viable);
2. The metals and masses of rare earth materials they contain are well worth recycling.
Such materials could be used to produce much more efficient hydro electric or nuclear for instance.
I just wish one or two wind turbines could be preserved, with the following notice:
A memorial to Dumb Group Think – never let your science be led by a political agenda – the results are always illogical, expensive and totally useless.

AndyG55
December 21, 2012 1:47 pm

Kev-in-Uk says:
WTF? the last time I checked, there were 1000 millimetres in a metre!
Chuckle..
Methinks young Carter his hit his head on the ceiling waaaay too often
(comes from standing on the shoulder of giants 😉

December 21, 2012 1:48 pm

vukcevic says:
December 21, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Here is what I found http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LL.htm (do I hear ‘spurious, spurious’ ?)
Yep. Assuming you still use the secular variation at the South Pole. The problem here is that there were no measurements at all of the intensity before Gauss figured out how to do it in 1832, and that there were no measurements of any magnetic elements in the interior of Antarctica before the IGY in 1957, so any claim relying on the South Pole ‘data’ before 1957 is suspect. The models we have [which you use] were based on linear extrapolation back in time of the trend back to 1832 and on spatial extrapolation from lower [mostly Northern] latitudes to Antarctica.

D Böehm
December 21, 2012 1:50 pm

Steven Mosher,
That is not empirical evidence. The observable real world shows no warming for a decade and a half, while CO2 continues to rise. Further, the planet has warmed along the same trend line [the declining green line] since the LIA. Global warming has not recently accelerated [in fact it has stopped]. Therefore: CO2 does not have the claimed effect.
Carter:
Thank you for your long and pointless explanation of rising CO2, some of which is anthropogenic in origin. But so what? We all knew that has been the case. It simply shows that CO2 does not matter.
You are avoiding the central question with your strawman argument: has the rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2 caused runaway global warming [or even any global warming on top of the long term trend]?
The answer is no. The long term global warming trend is the same now as it has been since the LIA. CO2 has had no measurable effect. None. As we see, the spurious correlation between CO2 and T has broken down. It was just a temporary coincidence between about 1980 and 1998. That coincidence has ended.
Finally, it has been pointed out to you that your 1 mm/year sea level rise only amounts to a few inches per century. The only thing we really have to be alarmed about is your sad arithmetic skillz. ☺

December 21, 2012 1:50 pm

Paul Dennis says:
December 21, 2012 at 9:40 am

Very interesting abstract. I’ve been wondering if there are GCR aerosol interactions in cloud seeding, and it appears there are.
During the period from the 1970s to around 2000 there were very substantial changes in the levels of anthropogenic aerosols (plus black carbon and other particulates) across much of the world from clean air initiatives, catalytic converters, power station scrubbers, etc. And until we have a better understanding of GCR aerosol interactions, I doubt we can draw any firm conclusions about the effects of GCRs.

Gunga Din
December 21, 2012 1:51 pm

Steven Mosher says:
December 21, 2012 at 1:32 pm
D Böehm says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:44 am (Edit)
Steven Mosher says:
“When I challenge believers in Svensmark AGW to state a testable hypothesis, they all go silent.”
There. Fixed it for you. ☺
################
falsifying AGW is simple. Show that c02 is not opaque to IR.
==============================================================
A layman here but it seems that the crucial part is in the “A” of AGW.
PS This is not meant as a point of arguement but just get an idea where you are coming from, you support the AGW hypothesis. Do you support the CAGW hypothesis? If you’d rather not say or aren’t sure, that’s OK. I see your name pop up alot and am just curious.

Robin Kool
December 21, 2012 1:53 pm

lsvalgaard says:
December 21, 2012 at 12:38 pm
“[…] I’m claiming that that is the only thing the report talks about and has in mind, as evidenced by an author of the report.”
Maybe that causes the difference in understanding the text. Some are reading it, Dr. Leif Svalgaard is listening to it and reading its mind.

John Bills
December 21, 2012 1:59 pm

lsvalgaard that’s odd, you forgot:
“such as”
Didn’t expect that from you,

December 21, 2012 1:59 pm

Robin Kool says:
December 21, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Maybe that causes the difference in understanding the text. Some are reading it, Dr. Leif Svalgaard is listening to it and reading its mind.
Dear Robin, thank you for the kind words and for your understanding.

john robertson
December 21, 2012 2:05 pm

@eco-geek 12:06am I like; a possible check , the detection of localized magnetic effects from satellite might be a way of inferring the existence of lateral ac current in the ocean.
Need accurate solar observation and adequate precision in earth sensing, mag & gravity.
When the Chinese and Indians build their space program, maybe we can beg a ride of such devices.
(yes little bit of sarc)
@ Henry Galt 12:34pm Sir I concur. “I don’t know” are words the team members will not speak. Breath-taking arrogance, brazen authoritism and naked fear.

AndyG55
December 21, 2012 2:10 pm

Oh, and Carter.. once you realise that your giants are now standing neck deep in quicksand, maybe, just maybe, you will be sensible enough to JUMP OFF… back onto solid reality.

Paul Dennis
December 21, 2012 2:12 pm

Steven Mosher,
good to hear from you too Steven. I feel very much out of my comfort zone with respect to GCR’s, ionisation, aerosols and cloud condensation physics but think this is something I want to read up on and understand at a more fundamental level. From a geological perspective the implications of some of the ideas promoted by Shaviv and co-workers regarding the GCR flux, the faint sun paradox and timing of major cooling episodes from 2.3 billion years ago on to through the Phanerozoic are interesting.

AndyG55
December 21, 2012 2:13 pm

“Until we understand why the MWP dropped away into the LIA, we cannot understand how the LIA ended. …”
did we get an answer to this ?

Carter
December 21, 2012 2:13 pm

‘that your 1 mm/year sea level rise only amounts to a few inches per century’ you should mix imperial with metric, because you’re just confusing yourself! And you’ll remain like that!
‘cherry-pick only those facts that support their agenda’ please explain? Give examples’, all silent on that I see!

David Archibald
December 21, 2012 2:16 pm

herkimer says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:00 am
Indeed. The breakover between warming and cooling is a sunspot number of 40 which equates to a F10.7 flux of 102. Better to use the flux number because it can’t be fiddled with. If this cycle continues to behave like Solar Cycle 5 then the flux number will drop away rapidly after reversal which I expect to be in May 2013.

Louis
December 21, 2012 2:20 pm

“…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.”
=====
I’m not sure what Lief thinks the words “such as” means. You could replace them with the words “for example” and keep the same meaning. So the GCR-cloud link is given as just one example of an implied “amplifying mechanism.” Just because no other examples are listed does not mean they can be excluded. There are many examples to illustrate this point such as the following: “There are other planets in our solar system such as Mars and Jupiter.” That is not to say that Mars and Jupiter are the ONLY other planets in our solar system. Those were just given as examples. The use of “such as” leaves open other possibilities than just the ones explicitly stated in the sentence. Lief should know that and is being deliberately obtuse to say otherwise.

D Böehm
December 21, 2012 2:22 pm

Carter,
That is an extremely lame response. I was not “cherry-picking”, I was simply noting what another commenter pointed out: your arithmetic is faulty.
Now, if you’d like to be taken seriously, explain for us why the recovery from the LIA has been along the same trend line, whether CO2 was low or high. There has not only been no recent acceleration of warming, but global warming has stalled. I have plenty of charts showing that fact, so if you like I can post them.
The central fact remains: CO2 has no measurable effect on global temperatures. Therefore the rise in CO2 can be completely disregarded. It is too small a forcing to matter. That is what the real world is telling us.

LazyTeenager
December 21, 2012 2:24 pm

Who could possibly think that cooling should commence when forcings are at their peak, just because the very highest peak has been passed?
———-
Me! The earth’s energy balance is in equilibrium with the rate of solar energy input equal to the rate of earth infra red energy output.
Any change in forcing will affect the primary absorber, the near surface layers of the ocean immediately. And this will affect air temperatures on very short time scales.
Alec’s boiling pot analogy is a false analogy because the electric element, the energy source, is not in equilibrium with the pot of water during the initial heating phase. When dealing with pots of water and a heat source you need to deal with 2 conditions. Initial heating (non-equilibrium) and steady state/low simmer (equilibrium).
This kind of look like Alec’s wrong layman’s understanding crashing into the rocks of real everday physics.

December 21, 2012 2:26 pm

vukcevic says:
December 21, 2012 at 1:19 pm
the ‘science is built on reasoning of an individual’; such a contrast to the daily yelling ‘spurious, spurious’ by certain Dr. .S.
lsvalgaard says:
December 21, 2012 at 1:36 pm
You might want to remind the readers that I have given ample reasons for the assessment that your correlations are spurious.
Yes, with pleasure, but none is valid:
– Shouldn’t use sunspots magnetic polarity as a proxy for the solar magnetic field polarity.
– Denying that Earth’s magnetic field has oscillations, which do exist and coincide with Hale cycle frequency, directly derived from data by Jackson and Bloxham.
– It is illegal even to think that the Earth’s magnetic field could produce in any receptor any reaction at the same time, or of the same kind as the solar magnetic field, e.g. Lorentz force on saline and ionized ocean water
– Earth’s magnetic field must not be used as proxy for the Earth’s interior dynamics, which can reach the crust and cause geological movement.
End so on and on, and on, and on …….
Plain and simple: the result I obtained
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
closely mirrors the short and medium term ocean and land temperature oscillations.
This is absolutely contrary to your self proclaimed ‘enforcement’ role, that the ‘sun has nothing to do with it’, which it is without a doubt a wobbly crutch supporting the decrepit AGWs CO2 hypothesis.
lsvalgaard says:
December 21, 2012 at 1:48 pm

Wrong again. In here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LL.htm
It is in the magnetic field in the Arctic, as taken from the two world recognized geomagnetic databases.

LazyTeenager
December 21, 2012 2:32 pm

Hers is the stock answer that pretty much every “consensus” scientists gives when asked about the solar-warming hypothesis
———
Alec just can’t get his head around the idea that all those highly regarded professional scientists are right and Alec Rawls the eccentric right winger with economics training is embrassing himself and the whole of climate sceptic land.
This thing with the kettle is up there with Steve Goddard getting confused about water triple points because he couldn’t interpret a phase diagram properly. At least phase diagrams are a pretty obscure bit of knowledge and skill. Boiling kettles are not.

LazyTeenager
December 21, 2012 2:36 pm

John West on December 21, 2012 at 7:40 am
According to the climate science view of heat transfer the hottest part of the day would always be exactly at noon and the hottest part of the year would coincide with the longest day when the daily an annual forcings peak.
———–
No. The climate science view is that their is a delay and the real issue is how much delay in which physical system.

thisisnotgoodtogo
December 21, 2012 2:39 pm

[snip]

LazyTeenager
December 21, 2012 2:43 pm

Howard Richman says
The consensus scientists are trying to refute his theory and ignore it at the same time
———-
Logic fail. Internal contradiction.
And by the way Alec has not come up with these ideas all by himself. He is leaching off research into ideas that climate scientists have already considered and discarded due to inconsistencies with the evidence.

Lars P.
December 21, 2012 2:49 pm

Steven Mosher says:
December 21, 2012 at 1:32 pm
falsifying AGW is simple. Show that c02 is not opaque to IR.
rofl Steven, do you really believe what you say?
Water is opaque to IR,
CO2 not.
CO2 has only specific frequency bands which cover about 8% of IR .
so CAGW falsified based on your definition.

Lars P.
December 21, 2012 2:53 pm

LazyTeenager says:
December 21, 2012 at 2:24 pm
Who could possibly think that cooling should commence when forcings are at their peak, just because the very highest peak has been passed?
———-
Me! The earth’s energy balance is in equilibrium with the rate of solar energy input equal to the rate of earth infra red energy output.
Any change in forcing will affect the primary absorber, the near surface layers of the ocean immediately. And this will affect air temperatures on very short time scales.

Lazy, read above comments & try to understand why the 21st of June is not the warmest day of the year.

LazyTeenager
December 21, 2012 2:56 pm

Kristian says
For instance, in a theoretical steady state, with solar IN (considered static) exactly balanced by IR+latent+sensible OUT
———-
There is your mistake right there. Incorrect assignment of system boundaries.
If the boundary is set to top of atmosphere solar energy input must equal infrared radiation output. Here infrared is the emission from top of atmosphere across all ir wavelengths. TOA from the point of view of emission is effectively at different heights for different wavelengths.
If the boundary is just above the earths surface then IR+latent+sensible is correct but then this is a different IR flux than the one at TOA. The surface IR flux is smaller than the TOA flux.

herkimer
December 21, 2012 3:01 pm

David Archibald
Indeed. The breakover between warming and cooling is a sunspot number of 40 which equates to a F10.7 flux of 102.
The annual average sunspot number for the last 10 years is only 29.3 , so there should be no surprise why cold temperatures are starting to crop up all over Northern Hemisphere , especially inland areas like Russia, eastern Europe and Canadian Prairies . The above decadal sunspot number will get even lower as we drop from near solar max to solar minimum so there could be some even colder winters ahead . The reason I switched to using decadal based figures is that there are too many other short term climate variables if you look at monthly or yearly figures that can mask the energy of the sun like ocean cycles and other . You also need at least a decade to get a real measurable impact. For IPCC not cover this topic in full detail could make AR5 totally useless and irrelevant before it even comes out. We may not completely understand the mechanism yet but the warning should be there for the public to prepare for possible colder weather the next 2-3 decades that is quite different from the warm winters that they falsely focus on report after report .

Carter
December 21, 2012 3:07 pm

FAO D Böehm
‘CO2 has no measurable effect’ oh yes it does! Because it blocks the heat vent into space that allows the heat to escape at the correct wavelength! As recorded by satellites or are they in on the con as well?
And Global warming and co2

And where are the references for ‘cherry-pick only those facts that support their agenda’ please explain? Give examples’,

December 21, 2012 3:17 pm

AndyG55 says:
December 21, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Kev-in-Uk says:
WTF? the last time I checked, there were 1000 millimetres in a metre!
Chuckle..
I laughed as well, but this 100mm = 1m is now enshrined in legislation that I am supposed to comply with 🙁

Other_Andy
December 21, 2012 3:17 pm

lsvalgaard says:
“……are driven by the stochastic variations any complex system…..”
I have a hard time believing in random events when it comes to science.
Just because we can’t see or find the triggers doesn’t mean there aren’t any.
Bob Tisdale says a similar thing:
“…..ENSO has the ability to trigger itself.”
It would be more honest to say “Bugger if I know what causes it (YET).”
Unless you believe that things happen randomly and for no reason.
I am with RACookPE1978 (at 11:51 am)
Isn’t science supposed to find and explain the patterns in seemingly random natural events?

December 21, 2012 3:19 pm

Re: Loehle temperature reconstruction
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LL.htm
Here geomagnetic field is most likely a good proxy for geological movements in the northern reaches of the mid-Atlantic ridge affecting flow of the ocean currents in the area with strong ocean- atmosphere interaction.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/slides/large/04.18.jpg
Geological records in the area suggest close correlation to the solar activity on one side and regional temperature on the other:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-NAP.htm`
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.htm

Gary Pearse
December 21, 2012 3:32 pm

You know, I have mentioned the Wilson Cloud chamber and the streaks of cloud created in it by GCRs, and a variety of atomic particles passing though it on about 3 or 4 occasions on WUWT without seeming to elicit any interest in this fact. Charles T. R. Wilson, Scottish physicist invented it and received the Nobel Prize in 1927. Ten years later, Carl Anderson, US physicist received the Nobel Prize for discovering that GCRs contained positrons and muons using the cloud chamber. Donald Glaser won the NP for his improvement, the bubble chamber. How come I’m the only one that appears to have mentioned this in the context of GCRs and cloud formation. Does Svensmark and colleagues reference Wilson as the source of the idea? I note that many commenters express doubts about such a fanciful notion without the benefit of the knowledge that it was demonstrated in 1911 and generated 3 Nobel Prizes up to 1962. From this post, it seems apparent that Ms. Haigh, a physicist (British at that) is unaware of her countryman’s discovery. Why hasn’t this device or a more elaborate one been revisited to assess the effectiveness of GCRs on cloud formation. Models and CERN be darned. Watts up with that? Over and out.

RACookPE1978
Editor
December 21, 2012 3:32 pm

herkimer says:
December 21, 2012 at 3:01 pm (replying to)
David Archibald
Indeed. The breakover between warming and cooling is a sunspot number of 40 which equates to a F10.7 flux of 102.
The annual average sunspot number for the last 10 years is only 29.3 , so there should be no surprise why cold temperatures are starting to crop up all over Northern Hemisphere , especially inland areas like Russia, eastern Europe and Canadian Prairies . The above decadal sunspot number will get even lower as we drop from near solar max to solar minimum so there could be some even colder winters ahead . The reason I switched to using decadal based figures is that there are too many other short term climate variables if you look at monthly or yearly figures that can mask the energy of the sun like ocean cycles and other . You also need at least a decade to get a real measurable impact.

OK, so – if your decadal choice is not explicitly based on 10 for any other reason – use 11 (or 11.5 years) rather than 10 for your averaging interval.
This way, you will average a ‘symptom” or “effect” of any possible sun spot relationship across a single sunspot cycle.
if an effect is increasing w/r sunspot numbers, then your relationship increases. If inverse to sunspot numebrs and shifted w/r to a date interval, you might see that effect. If proportional to sunspot numbers, then a 11 year cycle average ought to increase, steady, decrease, and then steady again.
if proportional some how to alternative positive and negative sunspot cycles, then a 22 year response might appear from a 11 year averaging period. An arbitrary 10 year period would hide all of these effects. Or worse, would “almost” show some of the effects, and hide others at different years. The result will be confusing, rather than enlightening.

JJ
December 21, 2012 3:40 pm

lsvalgaard says:
You may think so, but it is clear that the IPCC authors were only referring to the ‘reported correlations between GCRs and climate’ and nothing else. You could fault them for that, not me.

One again, the “correlations between GCRs and climate” is not (as you stated) “all about GCRs”. The problem is not with what they said, it is with how you are mischaracterizing it.
Reference to correlations between GCRs and climate necessarily encompasses more than GCRs. It also includes climate (duh). And it also includes the correleation, which may be caused a factor that is neither GCR nor climate. The only thing explictly off the table for that discussion, according to IPCC, is TSI. Every other possible cause for the observed correlation is included.
Alec is correct. Haigh is dishonest. You are obtuse. Perhaps willfully.

Arno Arrak
December 21, 2012 3:41 pm

Problem with that entire discussion is that the late twentieth century warming is an imaginary warming. Satellites show that the global mean temperature stood still from 1979 to 1997, an 18-year stretch. But ground-based temperature curves show it as a steady rise of temperature, that “late twentieth century warming.” Or Hansen warming if you prefer because that is the one he is supposed to have reported to the Senate in 1988. In truth there is no warming there, just El NIno peaks alternating with La Nina valleys, five full cycles of them. Real warming did not start until 1998 when a super El Nino arrived. It brought a large amount of warm water across the ocean and caused a step warming that raised global temperature by a third of a degree and then stopped. This is the only warming during the entire 33 years of satellite observations. It is oceanic in origin, not greenhouse, and not solar. It and not an imaginary greenhouse warming is the cause of the very warm first decade of this century. The warmth is certainly real and various ecological effects like migration of populations occur but they are not a consequence of the greenhouse effect as Hansen keeps telling us. Since the end of the step warming temperature has not risen for sixteen years, by Met Office count. At the same time, carbon dioxide kept going up relentlessly. If carbon dioxide goes up but temperature does not the climate sensitivity becomes zero. You can say that by this criterion climate sensitivity has been zero for the last 16 years. Looking back from the satellite era, it was preceded by another step warming in 1976 that then went by the name of the Great Pacific Climate Shift. It supposedly raised global temperature by 0.2 degrees but I cannot verify that. It has been attributed to the PDO changing from its cool to its warm phase, another oceanic phenomenon. The origin of such step warmings is what should be investigated, not arguing theories of how an imaginary warming in the late twentieth century may or may not have been caused . (Hint: it was anthropogenic.)

D Böehm
December 21, 2012 3:45 pm

Carter,
Please spare us your video clowns. [“If you leave CO2 out nothing makes sense.”]
Obviously nothing makes sense to your wild-eyed arm waver. I couldn’t watch past 29 seconds, he was so crazy.
Now, how about you answer my questions @2:22 pm above, instead of always changing the subject? Explain for us your version of why the recovery from the LIA has been along the same trend line, whether CO2 was low or high.
And please, stop posting your lame ass videos. Speak for yourself. I will be more than happy to debate your reasoning, such as it is. But your stupid videos amount to nothing more than being your sock puppet. We can’t debate with a video. Especially not with one featuring an arm waving, wild-eyed lunatic like that.

DirkH
December 21, 2012 3:47 pm

Carter says:
December 21, 2012 at 3:07 pm

“‘CO2 has no measurable effect’ oh yes it does! Because it blocks the heat vent into space that allows the heat to escape at the correct wavelength! As recorded by satellites or are they in on the con as well?”

Well too bad the video ends before that guy explains what actually happened.
WHAT is scientific about CO2AGW?
The known fact that more CO2 in the atmosphere leads to a pressure broadening of the
absorption lines of CO2, retaining a slightly bigger amount of IR photons in that band.
Everything else is unscientific.
The conclusion that the pressure broadening of these few lines will lead to an inevitable
catastrophic warming of the earth is akin to the following analogy:
A kid watches a mountain creek. The kid throws a stone into the creek and walks away.
The added resistance by the stone hinders the water very slightly to move downstream, and
over time, this leads to the formation of an evergrowing lake.
Some day, the lake becomes so big that the villagers who lived nearby in the valley all drown.
The climate scientist resembles a figure that watches the kid as he throws the stone into the creek,
and runs to the village, warning everyone of the impending catastrophy.
Obviously, the climate scientist is the village idiot.

Jimbo
December 21, 2012 3:48 pm

lsvalgaard says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:22 am

Camburn says:
December 21, 2012 at 7:49 am
CO2 300 years ago did not show any appreciable rise, yet the temperatures did.

CO2 the last 300 years has risen considerably as have temperatures…
This is one of the pillars of AGW, no?

You are correct!!! Now let’s just skip past the Medieval Warm Period which was very localised in Australia, Greenland, Antarctica, South Africa, New Zealand and South America. Did I mention Europe?
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

Lars P.
December 21, 2012 3:57 pm

Gary Pearse says:
December 21, 2012 at 3:32 pm
You know, I have mentioned the Wilson Cloud chamber and the streaks of cloud created in it by GCRs, and a variety of atomic particles passing though it on about 3 or 4 occasions on WUWT without seeming to elicit any interest in this fact. Charles T. R. Wilson, Scottish physicist invented it and received the Nobel Prize in 1927.
Gary, thank you for mentioning it.
When I first heard of GCR years ago I though it is another fanciful “funny skeptic theory”, only when later the “cloud chamber” “magic words” came to my mind I realised the mechanism and started to give the theory mentally a chance. Shame on me, I did not thought from the very first moment at it.
I would say it is good to recall it in posts as there is no such record in wikipedia – only a mention in Svensmark’s page about “cosmoclimatology”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark
and no mention of the cloud chamber there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber
“The resulting ions act as condensation nuclei, around which a mist will form (because the mixture is on the point of condensation).”
To help people connect the dots is helping to increase the understanding of the phenomenon and the theory.

Bill Illis
December 21, 2012 4:16 pm

CO2 is opaque to IR photons in certain frequencies.
As Mosher reminds us from time to time, that means we can’t target heat-seeking missiles in those particular IR frequencies.
But the CO2 absorption is a fleetingly small nano-second of time. Within a nano-second, that CO2 molecule has transferred the absorbed energy to another N2, O2 or Argon molecule. Then what happens? Anyone know? Does it even matter at all that a CO2 molecule absorbed that photon? Anyone know?

D Böehm
December 21, 2012 4:17 pm

Jimbo,
You forgot the Arctic, which matches the Antarctic and Greenland ice cores in showing the MWP.
I don’t want to make Carter’s head to explode, but where is the global warming??

Jimbo
December 21, 2012 4:19 pm

Is the IPCC clairvoyant?

IPCC officials know that the papers to be published in that issue of the PNAS have not been written yet. Their own document says the submission deadline isn’t until January 31, 2013.
So why is the IPCC giving its authors this kind of heads-up? Is it clairvoyant?
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/12/21/cheating-at-the-ipcc.html
H/t Climate Depot

Carl Brannen
December 21, 2012 4:35 pm

Please replace “Look whose accusing people …” with “Look who’s accusing people …”. See wikipedia: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/who%27s#English . “Whose” is a possessive but nothing is being possessed here. Instead the sentence could read “Look who is accusing people …”, with “who is” abbreviated correctly to “who’s”

thisisnotgoodtogo
December 21, 2012 4:39 pm

I doubt that even the English dictionary will change lsvaalgaard\s mind.
His problem in understanding the simple, straightforward sentence may not be with language, but instead with inability to let go of his preconception of what the report “must” say.
If I talk Like Trenberth maybe it will work.
So my feeble suggestion is indeed, Lief, that you ask a non climate-science-involved person to read that sentence and tell you what it says.

Lars P.
December 21, 2012 4:46 pm

Bill Illis says:
December 21, 2012 at 4:16 pm
CO2 is opaque to IR photons in certain frequencies.
As Mosher reminds us from time to time, that means we can’t target heat-seeking missiles in those particular IR frequencies.
But the CO2 absorption is a fleetingly small nano-second of time. Within a nano-second, that CO2 molecule has transferred the absorbed energy to another N2, O2 or Argon molecule. Then what happens? Anyone know? Does it even matter at all that a CO2 molecule absorbed that photon? Anyone know?

Bill, will try to answer this…
I understand there would be several thousands hits with other molecules before the CO2 would re-emit a photon.
I always found very interesting such heat flows as depicted on page 4 in the post above by Leif:

http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf slide 20.

One point that the CAGW crowd ignores is that the complete radiation story is the 26 W net transfer from ground to higher atmosphere (the difference of the greenhouse fat arrows).
So all that “greenhouse” can do is influence this net energy transfer flow.
Only thinking in net energy transfers makes sense to me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Breakdown_of_the_incoming_solar_energy.svg
Furthermore only a part of those 26W are due to CO2. Gases are very bad emitters of IR.
I remember in school we made a comparison between a H2 fire and a candle. The candle is apparently warmer as it contains tiny solid particles which radiate heat. The H2 fire appears to be colder (even if being much warmer in fact) as gases do radiate heat very poorly.
The IR ground absorbtion is in the first several tens of meters for CO2 bandwidth and I understand that Miszkolczy found no reduction in the transparency – interesting enough.

Not Fooled
December 21, 2012 4:58 pm

Isvalgaard:
“Given a variation in solar output of 0.1%, the resulting temperature change is a quarter of that, i.e. 0.025% which of 288K is 0.07 degrees, which is a factor of ten smaller than the actual LIA change in temperature.”
So a 100% increase (doubling) in solar output would only result in a 7 degree warming???

Gail Combs
December 21, 2012 5:05 pm

AndyG55 says:
December 21, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Kev-in-Uk says:
WTF? the last time I checked, there were 1000 millimetres in a metre!
Chuckle..
Methinks young Carter his hit his head on the ceiling waaaay too often
(comes from standing on the shoulder of giants 😉
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Darn it now I have to clean my screen again

Gail Combs
December 21, 2012 5:08 pm

Gary Pearse says:
December 21, 2012 at 3:32 pm
You know, I have mentioned the Wilson Cloud chamber and the streaks of cloud created in it by GCRs…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thank you for bring it up. As Lars P. @ December 21, 2012 at 3:57 pm indicated it seems to be getting buried under the rug. (That rug is getting awfully lumpy)

December 21, 2012 5:09 pm

RHS says December 21, 2012 at 9:30 am
Temps lags sun exposure. For example, today is Winter Solstice but our coldest temps aren’t typically until late January/early February. Same with the Summer Solstice. Longest day is June 21st but warmest temps are late July through early August. An easy way to see is to go to weather.com (looking at temps rather than propaganda) and look at the average for your city. For Denver:
http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/80231
July clearly shows to be the warmest “Average” and January shows to be the coldest “Average”.
The point is, there is almost nothing with an instantaneous reflection of change. Almost everything lags something else.

More due to the tilt of the earth, yielding a warmer arctic (a source of ‘cool’ air-masses BTW) what with the ‘warming’ seen there in summer, coupled with fewer cold fronts (composed of arctic air-masses) that make their way south to say the 35th parallel (and the bulk of the US mainland) in July into August, otherwise, we *might* see some cooling off after the summer solstice (but the earth and weather systems are not so simple with heat-energy distribution as reflected in measured temperature)
IOW, there are darn good meteorological reasons we don’t see an immediate cool-down after June 21st and no single reason should be cited.
.

Gail Combs
December 21, 2012 5:12 pm

ecoGuy says:
December 21, 2012 at 1:44 pm
…………I just wish one or two wind turbines could be preserved, with the following notice:
A memorial to Dumb Group Think – never let your science be led by a political agenda – the results are always illogical, expensive and totally useless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And perhaps a quote or two from Eisenhower.
Love of liberty means the guarding of every resource that makes freedom possible—from the sanctity of our families and the wealth of our soil to the genius [of] our scientists…
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

thisisnotgoodtogo
December 21, 2012 5:27 pm

JJ said
“Reference to correlations between GCRs and climate necessarily encompasses more than GCRs. It also includes climate (duh). And it also includes the correleation, which may be caused a factor that is neither GCR nor climate. The only thing explictly off the table for that discussion, according to IPCC, is TSI. Every other possible cause for the observed correlation is included.”
JJ wrote correctly, getting everything.

December 21, 2012 5:38 pm

Gary Pearse says December 21, 2012 at 3:32 pm
You know, I have mentioned the Wilson Cloud chamber and the streaks of cloud created in it by GCRs, and a variety of atomic particles passing though it on about 3 or 4 occasions on WUWT without seeming to elicit any interest in this fact. Charles T. R. Wilson, Scottish physicist invented it and received the Nobel Prize in 1927. Ten years later, Carl Anderson, US physicist received the Nobel Prize for discovering that GCRs contained positrons and muons using the cloud chamber. Donald Glaser won the NP for his improvement, the bubble chamber. How come I’m the only one that appears to have mentioned this in the context of GCRs and cloud formation.

Seems to be a basic failing of some when attempting to couple physically-observable evidence (as in his experiment) with logos (an ‘evidentiary logic failure’ perhaps); one can lead a horse to the cloud chamber but one cannot make him see the streaks nor draw conclusions or implied causes.
I have always wanted to see the difference in cloud chamber appearance (the tracks and performance!!!) at sea level vs FL 340 or FL 400 (40,000 feet) say … I understand ‘in the day’ they accomplished this through ‘ballooning’, but we live now today in the age of YouTube.
.

Shawnhet
December 21, 2012 5:42 pm

“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.”
I must admit that I find some of the discussion on this particular point to be bizarre and wrong headed. Quite clearly IMO the above is saying at least two things.
1.The three listed papers imply the existence of an amplifying mechanism and
2. One of those potential amplifying mechanisms is the GCR cloud hypothesis
By simple logic, falsifying 2 does not establish that 1 is not valid regardless of what the title of the section this statement appears in. If the authors really wanted to argue that the falsification of 2 requires the falsification of 1, they would’ve had to make a different statement.
Cheers, 🙂

Ian H
December 21, 2012 5:44 pm

Leif writes: That may be so, but recent data shows a disconnect between cosmic rays and low-cloud cover

This is not surprising. Cloud formation is limited in different ways at different altitudes. As I understand it, it is mainly at high altitude that we expect cloud formation to be limited by a lack of nucleation. Also the cooling effect from clouds differs with altitude. High altitude clouds are believed to cool more. They are the ones Svensmark is mostly talking about anyway.
I have a different reason to be skeptical about the Svensmark model. As we all know aircraft contrails, ship trails, SO2 from power plants, fine particulates – these things all cause cloud nucleation and their levels have been up and down like a whores drawers over the past century. It seems likely to me that these factors today would swamp or obliterate any Svensmark GCR influence on the rate of cloud formation. Perhaps the Svensmark mechanism once worked and can explain part of the historical climate record. But whether it still works today with all these other factors also in play is another question.

Gail Combs
December 21, 2012 5:57 pm

LazyTeenager says:
December 21, 2012 at 2:24 pm
Who could possibly think that cooling should commence when forcings are at their peak, just because the very highest peak has been passed?
———-
Me! The earth’s energy balance is in equilibrium with the rate of solar energy input equal to the rate of earth infra red energy output.
Any change in forcing will affect the primary absorber, the near surface layers of the ocean immediately. And this will affect air temperatures on very short time scales.
Alec’s boiling pot analogy is a false analogy…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Gerard Roe’s paper applies just as much here as it does in the Milankovitch theory since both deal with a change in the sun as viewed from earth. The effect is not to change the absolute value or the speed/rate of rise or fall, it is to change the acceleration (first derivative) and that is exactly what we are seeing.
As for any “….change in forcing will affect the primary absorber, the near surface layers of the ocean immediately. And this will affect air temperatures on very short time scales….” It depends on the definition of “immediately” because we ARE starting to seeing changes however the oceans hold a heck of a lot of water which has a very high specific heat.
You can see the changes here
here
here
here
The evident changes in the Jets I picked up on a few years ago. – The Prevailing Westerlies used to make figuring out the weather easy a decade ago, but they are no longer ‘trustworthy.’ Since my business is completely dependent on the weather I have to very accurately predict the short term weather 100% of the time or pay up to a $1000 a day penalty when I mess-up. I am much better at it than the radio weathermen in my area because I scrutinize the jet streams and the rest of the weather maps.
The 2010 Russian heat wave: blocking high, not global warming and the current Cold Blast Claim[ing] Over 600 Lives Across Eastern Europe/Russia…” are both manifestations of these changes in the jets from zonal to meridional flow patterns.

Rosco
December 21, 2012 6:15 pm

Anyone who says “So even if the predictions are correct, the effect of climate change will outstrip the sun’s ability to cool even in the coldest scenario” hasn’t a clue.
The “sun’s ability to cool” ??????????????????????????????????????????

AndyG55
December 21, 2012 6:19 pm

D Böehm says:
“I don’t want to make Carter’s head explode”
A balloon only releases air! No harm done.

AndyG55
December 21, 2012 6:20 pm

ps might release some of the cranial pressure from all those ceiling hits. 🙂

Rosco
December 21, 2012 6:22 pm

Anyone who says “So even if the predictions are correct, the effect of climate change will outstrip the sun’s ability to cool … ” really hasn’t got a clue.
This person also claims the sun’s output has only varied by 0.1% which makes its effect – at ~1.4W/sq m larger than Trenberth’s claimed 0.9 W/sq m imbalance due to AGW greenhouse emissions.
“The sun’s ability to cool …” c’mon.

Eugene WR Gallun
December 21, 2012 6:25 pm

Every Thing A Scientist Needs To Know
About Becoming Famous In Eight Lines
Ambitious ones who seek a name
The quickest path is how they come
They find some grounds and stake a claim
With much hurrah they beat their drum
But making noise is not the same
As careful work brought to a sum
That’s everything to know of fame —
The means and end its truly from
Eugene WR Gallun

AndyG55
December 21, 2012 6:34 pm

Martin Clark says:
“, but this 100mm = 1m is now enshrined in legislation that I am supposed to comply with :-(”
I know we need to reduce the size of our houses a bit.. but this is not a very sensible approach.

December 21, 2012 6:36 pm

So, I have sat here with a bunch of cloud data and a bunch of GCR data.
And i’ve asked a simple question.
If GCR go up, as in a Forbush event, What do expect to see in the cloud data,
AND will you submit your beliefs to a test.
So, far Its been over a year of asking the GCR folks this question and nobody has the conjones
to state a testable hypothesis.

AndyG55
December 21, 2012 6:47 pm

Bill Illis says:
. Then what happens?
Probably convection ! Whenever any part of the atmosphere is at a higher temp that its local pressure can hold, the atmosphere attempts to balance the energy. Wind, convection etc etc.
The atmosphere, always striving for equilibrium, but only ever attaining it but for a fleeting instant.

thisisnotgoodtogo
December 21, 2012 6:51 pm

Mosher, Bring me a cup of year. Then we talk..

Werner Brozek
December 21, 2012 6:57 pm

Gail Combs says:
December 21, 2012 at 5:57 pm
Cold Blast Claim[ing] Over 600 Lives Across Eastern Europe/Russia…”
I can hardly wait for next year’s climate conference in Warsaw, Poland!
Carter says:
December 21, 2012 at 2:13 pm
‘that your 1 mm/year sea level rise only amounts to a few inches per century’ you should mix imperial with metric, because you’re just confusing yourself!
1 mm/year = 100 mm/century. This is 3.9370079 or 4 inches which is a bit less than the width of your fist.

Shawnhet
December 21, 2012 7:00 pm

Steven Mosher: Surely the problem isn’t in stating a testable hypothesis, but rather with dealing with the fact that climate is a very noisy field.
For instance, this paper
http://www.astrophys-space-sci-trans.net/7/315/2011/astra-7-315-2011.pdf
tests whether high amplitude FDs are correlated with a higher day-night temperature deviation as expected by the proposed GCR-cloudiness link and seems to come down on the side that the observations are consistent with the GCR hypothesis.
To be clear, I don’t think such a link is established by any means, but the argument that there are no testable consequences of the theory is pretty clearly false.
Cheers, 🙂

D Böehm
December 21, 2012 7:01 pm

Steven Mosher says:
“So, far Its been over a year of asking the GCR folks this question and nobody has the conjones
to state a testable hypothesis.”
Well then, propose your own testable hypothesis. No one is stopping you. You’ve got the cojones, right?
You might be surprised and uncomfortable with the result. But give it a shot anyway. The idea is to find out which hypothesis remains standing after the smoke clears. That’s how we make progress.
The CO2=AGW hypothesis conjecture, for example. It’s looking shakier all the time.

December 21, 2012 7:09 pm

vukcevic says:
December 21, 2012 at 2:26 pm
It is in the magnetic field in the Arctic, as taken from the two world recognized geomagnetic databases.
My comment holds equally well for the Arctic. There is no intensity data from anywhere before 1832, and no measurements in the Arctic before 1882. So ‘data’ is extrapolated in time and space.
Not Fooled says:
December 21, 2012 at 4:58 pm
“Given a variation in solar output of 0.1%, the resulting temperature change is a quarter of that, i.e. 0.025% which of 288K is 0.07 degrees, which is a factor of ten smaller than the actual LIA change in temperature.”
So a 100% increase (doubling) in solar output would only result in a 7 degree warming???

You fooled yourself: 100% is a thousand times more than 0.1%. A thousand times 0.07 degrees is 70 degrees. But the formula is not linear for such a large change. The correct value is the fourth root of 2 times 288K, which is 342K for an increase of 54 degrees.
Ian H says:
December 21, 2012 at 5:44 pm
High altitude clouds are believed to cool more. They are the ones Svensmark is mostly talking about anyway.
He is talking about low clouds, which is where he saw the correlation [which has now gone away].
Shawnhet says:
December 21, 2012 at 5:42 pm
1.The three listed papers imply the existence of an amplifying mechanism and
2. One of those potential amplifying mechanisms is the GCR cloud hypothesis

the papers do not ‘imply’ but ‘propose’ or ‘suggest’ that an amplifying mechanism ‘might’ exist, not that it ‘must’ exist. The Bond 2001 paper notes “Virtually every expansion of the subpolar surface circulation is linked to reduced solar irradiance”. The Dengel 2009 paper notes “A relationship between galactic cosmic radiation and tree rings”. The Ram and Stolz 1999 paper invokes Svensmark’s hypothesis. IPCC notes that reduced solar irradiance is probably not the cause, which leaves the GCR hypothesis as the one standing [and the only one IPCC finds worthy of consideration]. Nobody in his right mind would read more into the statement of ‘7.4.5.1 Correlations Between Cosmic Rays and Properties of Aerosols and Clouds’ than that. IPCC does not claim there are dozens of other [mostly unknown] mechanisms in play. The report is very specific about which ‘mechanism’ was considered to be of interest. Anything else is wishful thinking [and there is a lot of that going around, apparently].

December 21, 2012 7:18 pm

Steven Mosher says:
December 21, 2012 at 6:36 pm
So, far Its been over a year of asking the GCR folks this question and nobody has the conjones to state a testable hypothesis.
In the meantime, people are subjecting the mechanism to continued scrutiny, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-GCR-Clouds.pdf
Conclusion: “it is clear that there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds”. and “This work examines evidence of a cosmic ray cloud link from a range of sources, including satellite-based cloud measurements and long-term ground-based climatological measurements. The satellite-based studies can be divided into two categories: (1) monthly to decadal timescale analysis and (2) daily timescale epoch-superpositional (composite) analysis. The latter analyses frequently focus on sudden high-magnitude reductions in the cosmic ray
flux known as Forbush Decrease events. At present, two long-term independent global satellite cloud datasets are available (ISCCP and MODIS). Although the differences between them are considerable, neither shows evidence of a solar-cloud link at either long or short timescales. Furthermore, reports of observed correlations between solar activity and cloud over the 1983–1995 period are attributed to the chance agreement between solar changes and artificially induced cloud trends.”

Ian H
December 21, 2012 7:25 pm

Leif you are quite correct. Svensmark is all about low clouds. Thanks for pointing this out. I had remembered it the wrong way around.

thingadonta
December 21, 2012 7:34 pm

If solar activity peaked in 1996, then according to a study by Usoskin, who found that max temperature in the last 1000 years occurs about 20 years affter a solar maximum, then we should reach a temperature peak about 2016, then cooling. If Lockwood is right with 1985 then we have already peaked about 2005. Looks like T wont rise much between now and at least 2036.

John West
December 21, 2012 7:35 pm

@ Isvalgaard
Why do you say “variation in solar output” when you are actually talking about “variation in TSI”? Variation in solar output would include variation in UV among a host of other components and the relative distribution of those components.

Shawnhet
December 21, 2012 7:38 pm

Ok, Leif let’s get specific here with the Bond paper.
The Bond paper states “Surface winds and surface ocean hydrography in the subpolar North Atlantic appear to have been influenced by variations in solar output through the entire Holocene” Assuming arguendo that the GCR-cloud link is false, can you describe what impact, if any this would have on the implication that statement makes.
I argue that the first statement remains true irrespective of whether we show that there is no GCR cloud link. I further submit that you are the one engaging is wishful thinking (namely that the statement that an amplification is implied means nothing if the GCR link were disproven), but I will wait to see if you can support that contention by referring to the *actual paper*.

John West
December 21, 2012 7:52 pm

LazyTeenager says:

John West on December 21, 2012 at 7:40 am
According to the climate science view of heat transfer the hottest part of the day would always be exactly at noon and the hottest part of the year would coincide with the longest day when the daily an annual forcings peak.

———–
No. The climate science view is that their is a delay and the real issue is how much delay in which physical system.

Who could possibly think that cooling should commence when forcings are at their peak, just because the very highest peak has been passed?
———-

”Me! The earth’s energy balance is in equilibrium with the rate of solar energy input equal to the rate of earth infra red energy output.
Any change in forcing will affect the primary absorber, the near surface layers of the ocean immediately. And this will affect air temperatures on very short time scales. “

Really!?!? Do you have a clue what the heat capacity of the photonic zone or the well mixed zone is? A pool doesn’t heat “immediately” and yet the “near surface layers of the ocean” do? Come on dude, take a basic physics course.

December 21, 2012 7:57 pm

Gail Combs says:
December 21, 2012 at 5:12 pm
“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
Or the even greater danger that public policy could become captive of scientific illiterates.

Sean
December 21, 2012 8:06 pm

In an interview with NewSeancetist magazine, Imperial College professor of eco-propaganda physics Joanna Haigh scoffs at the idea that the earth is not flat: “skeptics have it all wrong, if the earth was not flat things would fall off my desk all the time”.
Thanks Joanna. Someone needs to keep on top of these things.

December 21, 2012 8:43 pm

This is the Forbush event cosmic ray – diurnal temperature range paper.
http://www.astrophys-space-sci-trans.net/7/315/2011/astra-7-315-2011.pdf
The size of the effect is 0.38C; 0.5C for the largest Forbush events, and maximum effect is right when you would expect to see it, 2 to 3 days after the event.
Not often in climate science you get a close fit between prediction and observation, but they certainly did in this case.

F. Ross
December 21, 2012 8:56 pm

lsvalgaard says:
December 21, 2012 at 7:57 pm
“…
Or the even greater danger that public policy could become captive of scientific illiterates.
[+emphasis]
Too late, seems like that horse is already out of the barn.

December 21, 2012 8:56 pm

John West says:
December 21, 2012 at 7:35 pm
Why do you say “variation in solar output” when you are actually talking about “variation in TSI”? Variation in solar output would include variation in UV among a host of other components and the relative distribution of those components.
As far as we know, all these other ones stem from the same cause as variations of TSI: variation of the sun’s magnetic field, so is expected to follow trends and variations of TSI. ‘TSI variations’ being in that sense just a shorthand for ‘solar magnetic field variations’ or ‘solar output’. Now, it is possible that the statement that all indicators vary with TSI in a predictable matter is false, but we have no evidence for that at this time.
Shawnhet says:
December 21, 2012 at 7:38 pm
Assuming arguendo that the GCR-cloud link is false, can you describe what impact, if any this would have on the implication that statement makes.
What I [or you] think is not relevant. What matters is what IPCC thought when their statement was written. To me, it is crystal clear what their thinking was and what conclusion they would admit.

December 21, 2012 8:59 pm

thingadonta says:
December 21, 2012 at 7:34 pm
If solar activity peaked in 1996
1996 was a solar MINIMUM year followed by a modest solar cycle 23.

Jim D
December 21, 2012 9:08 pm

Alec Rawls is saying it doesn’t feel cooler when the sun goes behind a cloud? There is an immediate response at a surface when the energy supply changes just seen in this type of common experience. Maybe deep in the ocean things are slower, but the surface changes immediately and we live on the surface. Similarly if the sun dimmed, we would notice quite quickly, not twenty years later.

mpainter
December 21, 2012 9:09 pm

Carter says:
“I can see so far ahead is because I’m standing on the shoulders of giants”
=======================================
Yes, like a monkey on a leash, but they’re not giants- they’re dwarves standing on a heap of bullshit.

Paul Vaughan
December 21, 2012 9:10 pm

Ferdinand Engelbeen (December 21, 2012 at 11:24 am) wrote:
“[…] there is a lot of empirical evidence that there indeed is a link between solar activity in general and climate (but if that is by GCR or the UV/ozone/jet stream position or another mechanism, for me still is unresolved).”

December 21, 2012 9:17 pm

lsvalgaard says:
December 21, 2012 at 1:32 pm
“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).”
See Leif, magnetic field indicators are not “perfect” indicators of solar luminosity multidedacal trending. Magnetic field indicators are mostly correlated with sunspot activity, and the sunspot record is flat in the sense that the sunspot cycle minimum cannot go below zero, so it is bounded. So, everything that strongly depends on the sunspot will appear flat as well.
The trending in TSI and other solar activity components are mostly connected to the background solar radiation that cannot be properly modeled up to now and the direct measurements are controversial because ACRIM uses the TSI data as they are and shows a significant variability, while PMOD uses altered data and does not show a variability.
Thus, several solar scientists have different opinions about how to handle or model the background variation, that is why there are so many different TSI reconstructions. Shapiro’s model is quite different from the other models because it is based on a luminosity comparison among solar-like stars which appear to present a certain variability. In any case, even if Shapiro’s model is wrong that does not make you flat solar model true.
That the IPCC prefers a quasi-flat solar activity is politically clear. If not they would not have promoted the PMOD and Lean’s models. Despite that, they reject your flat sun reconstruction as extreme, and the GCM modelers use Lean’s model.

December 21, 2012 9:23 pm

Philip Bradley says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:43 pm
This is the Forbush event cosmic ray – diurnal temperature range paper.
The paper notes that “The natural variability of atmospheric parameters makes the CR contribution difficult to detect”.
This, of course, means that the CRs are not a major driver [if their contribution is difficult to detect].

December 21, 2012 9:39 pm

Nicola Scafetta says:
December 21, 2012 at 9:17 pm
See Leif, magnetic field indicators are not “perfect” indicators of solar luminosity multidedacal trending. Magnetic field indicators are mostly correlated with sunspot activity, and the sunspot record is flat in the sense that the sunspot cycle minimum cannot go below zero, so it is bounded. So, everything that strongly depends on the sunspot will appear flat as well.
You are seeing the light!
The trending in TSI and other solar activity components are mostly connected to the background solar radiation that cannot be properly modeled up to now and the direct measurements are controversial because ACRIM uses the TSI data as they are and shows a significant variability, while PMOD uses altered data and does not show a variability.
The ACRIM data is no good [as you should know] and the PMOD data is also no good [has uncompensated degradation]. The null-hypothesis must be that there is no background variation. This is also the conclusion by Schrijver et al. and Preminger et al. who show that there is no background variation. Using the cycle average of the Group Sunspot Number as a background variation fails because the GSN itself is flawed.
Despite that, they reject your flat sun reconstruction as extreme, and the GCM modelers use Lean’s model
Nowhere does IPCC refer to my reconstruction, except in the supplement to Chapter 8 where they take note that changes over the 19th and 20th centuries were modest. The GCM modelers prefer Lean’s model because that explains the increase in Temperatures in the first half of the 20th century, but that is just circular ‘logic’.

December 21, 2012 9:40 pm

lsvalgaard says:
December 21, 2012 at 9:23 pm
The paper notes that “The natural variability of atmospheric parameters makes the CR contribution difficult to detect”.
This, of course, means that the CRs are not a major driver [if their contribution is difficult to detect].

They are trying to detect changes over the span of a few days. By way of comparison, climate science is struggling to detect the effects of CO2 over a few decades, where natural variability is at least an order of magnitude smaller..
If the study holds up and it should be fairly easy to replicate with a larger sample, the GCR mechanism will be established and to some extent quantified. The next step is to look for GCR changes over decades, which is, what is climatically significant.

Shawnhet
December 21, 2012 9:42 pm

Leif:”What I [or you] think is not relevant. What matters is what IPCC thought when their statement was written. To me, it is crystal clear what their thinking was and what conclusion they would admit.”
Yes, I know it seems clear to you what their thinking is, unfortunately, what you think that they are saying is not what they actually say.
You think that “…the GCR hypothesis as the one standing” and so if you can demonstrate
the GCR link doesn’t work you don’t have to deal with the implied solar amplification. However, the IPCC doesn’t make any claims about the GCR being the [last] one standing, and we know this, for instance, because some of the papers they list don’t even mention the GCR cloud link.
Or to look at it another way, ignore what the IPCC wrote and just read the paper(s). If assuming that the GCR-cloud link invalidates the papers’ conclusions, then you are right to say that when the IPCC refers to those papers, they are only talking about them in the context of the GCR relationship. If the papers’ conclusions remain valid assuming the GCR-climate link is false, then solely by referring to those papers, they are implying relationships that are not dependent on that link. QED.
Cheers, 🙂

JJ
December 21, 2012 9:50 pm

lsvalgaard says:
What I [or you] think is not relevant. What matters is what IPCC thought when their statement was written. To me, it is crystal clear what their thinking was and what conclusion they would admit.

Do tell.
Please provide the crystal clear thinking that can explain how it is that the IPCC made a statement that was, according to you “all about GCR” while citing Bond . Bond is not about GCR/clouds. It isn’t about GCR. The only thing that Bond uses GCR for is the basis for their nuclide proxy for TSI. The climate link in Bond is not GCR. The climate link in Bond is amplified TSI. Said amplification occuring by way of stratospheric ozone production, wind drift of polar ice, and changes to the thermohaline circulation, etc. Not GCR. Not clouds.
So, when IPCC says:
“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.”
They are referring to a climate effect caused by TSI amplification, and neither the climate effect nor the TSI amplification is postulated to be in any way caused by GCR (i.e. Bond 2001). And then IPCC goes on to dismiss that reference by poo-pooing GCR/Clouds, hiding behind “such as”. Their thinking when they wrote it is that they could get away with the bait and switch. That much is crystal clear.
The fuzzy part is your reading comprehension.

December 21, 2012 9:51 pm

Shawnhet says:
December 21, 2012 at 9:42 pm
However, the IPCC doesn’t make any claims about the GCR being the [last] one standing, and we know this, for instance, because some of the papers they list don’t even mention the GCR cloud link.
The IPCC only considers the GCR effect in what follows and have no mention of any other mechanism they would think to be a contender. That is the critical point.
Or to look at it another way, ignore what the IPCC wrote and just read the paper(s).
I know these papers very well and have discussed the matter with Gerard Bond on several occasions, e.g. here http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/sns/2003/sns_dec_2003.pdf
[page 4, it is Bond at the left].
If assuming that the GCR-cloud link invalidates the papers’ conclusions
Who cares what we assume? What matters is what IPCC assumes and subsequently elaborates on.

John West
December 21, 2012 9:56 pm

@Jim D
You are confusing transient response with equilibrium response. What you “feel” may be an inflection but not a complete reversal in direction of temperature until that cloud has shaded you for quite a while.
Noon is daily solar insolation maximum yet daily temperature maximum is still hours away. That is not immediate and doesn’t rely on “feelings”. Same thing happens with the annual cycle. Why wouldn’t we expect the same thing to happen on a ~1100 year cycle? the ~2000 year cycle? etc. etc.

December 21, 2012 9:56 pm

A few observations and perhaps error corrections.

Gail Combs says December 21, 2012 at 5:57 pm
… The effect is not to change the absolute value or the speed/rate of rise or fall, it is to change the acceleration (first derivative) and that is exactly what we are seeing.

Changing the speed/rate of rise *is* to change the acceleration (the 1st derivative); non-zero values indicate a change in speed.
And just what is it *we* are ‘seeing’? With temperatures stable for the last 15 yrs or so does this not indicate 1st derivative = 0?

As for any “….change in forcing will affect the primary absorber, the near surface layers of the ocean immediately. And this will affect air temperatures on very short time scales….” It depends on the definition of “immediately” because we ARE starting to seeing changes however the oceans hold a heck of a lot of water which has a very high specific heat.
You can see the changes here – http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ts.gif
here – http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201210.gif
here – http://i45.tinypic.com/27yr1wy.png
here – http://drtimball.com/2012/current-global-weather-patterns-normal-despite-government-and-media-distortions/ [This points to Tim Ball article with title: Current Global Weather Patterns Normal Despite Government and Media Distortions]

Those ‘cites’ would not seem to support your thesis, to wit: ” we ARE starting to seeing changes“, and, in fact, your thesis seems to be directly countered by Tim’s article which you seem to indicate supports your thesis.
Perhaps we could all use some of your insight to properly interpret those cited graphs and charts to arrive at your conclusion?

The evident changes in the Jets I picked up on a few years ago. – The Prevailing Westerlies used to make figuring out the weather easy a decade ago, but they are no longer ‘trustworthy.’

No support is provided for this assertion. ‘jets’ [jetstreams] by their nature meander. Perhaps that is where the confusion arises? (They are not strictly W-E flowing winds.)
Satellite Observation: If this real-time image does not depict ‘prevailing westerlies’ then I don’t know what it depicts (NOTICE the systems move W to E):
http://weather.rap.ucar.edu/satellite/displaySat.php?region=US&itype=wv&size=large&endDate=20121222&endTime=-1&duration=4

Since my business is completely dependent on the weather I have to very accurately predict the short term weather 100% of the time or pay up to a $1000 a day penalty when I mess-up. I am much better at it than the radio weathermen in my area because I scrutinize the jet streams and the rest of the weather maps.

Depending on the ‘radio weatherman’ to correctly tear off and read a regional, non-area specific, up-to-date weather-wire dispatch off the teletype is risky; suggest a subscription service to a professional weathercast service versus scrounging off the internet or ‘winging’ it on your own. (My opinion.)

The 2010 Russian heat wave: blocking high, not global warming and the current Cold Blast Claim[ing] Over 600 Lives Across Eastern Europe/Russia…” are both manifestations of these changes in the jets from zonal to meridional flow patterns.

‘Blocking highs’ still allow the movement of ‘prevailing winds’ to move about their periphery, they (BH’s) are not simply static features wherein everything simply stops in place! For the period that the BH is in place, the jetstream can still be active in the periphery of the high.
A couple of resources if you don’t already make use of them: The (1) Convective and Mesoscale Discussion web pages by the SPC and a website where you can view a WV (water vapor) time-lapse loop:
(1) http://www.spc.noaa.gov/
(2) http://weather.rap.ucar.edu/satellite/
.

December 21, 2012 9:56 pm

Philip Bradley says:
December 21, 2012 at 9:40 pm
If the study holds up and it should be fairly easy to replicate with a larger sample, the GCR mechanism will be established and to some extent quantified.
You could benefit from a thorough study of http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-GCR-Clouds.pdf
Conclusion: “it is clear that there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds”.
Perhaps their conclusion puts you off so you won’t read the paper, but try anyway.

December 21, 2012 10:01 pm

Addition to my previous post.
I was talking about the problem of the background radiation that people do not know how to properly model (although if Leif speaks as if he knows it! He does not of what he is talking about, of course).
As I was saying, the IPCC and the AGW guys use Lean’s TSI model that is quite flat, although not so flat as Leif’s model.
Now, Lean’s model is clearly wrong and unable to reproduce the TSI background radiation.
The demonstration of this elementary fact is simple and was even acknowledged by Frolich of PMOD, which coauthored some of Lean’s papers. The fact is that Lean’s model is failing to agree with the TSI observations!
In fact, if we give a look at the TSI composite, here
http://acrim.com/TSI%20Monitoring.htm
both ACRIM and PMOD clearly show that the TSI minimum in 2008 was lower than the TSI minimum in 1996 by at least 0.2-0.3 W/m^2.
However, Lean’s model used by the IPCC AGW guys does not show this pattern, but the opposite.
See here Lean’s reconstruction used by the IPCC
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/tsi_data/TSI_TIM_Reconstruction.txt
The minimum in 1996 was 1360.7380 W/m^2, while the minimum in 2008 was 1360.8225 W/m^2
Thus, according Lean’s model TSI went up from the 1996 solar minimum to the 2008 solar minimum by about 0.1 W/m^2, while both PMOD and ACRIM show a decrease by at least 0.2-0.3 W/m^2, which makes an error of 0.3-0.4 W/^2, which is a huge error by 30-40% of the solar cycle amplitude.
Thus, it is evident that Lean’s model, which is based on a flux transport model to simulate the Sun’s magnetic flux does not reconstruct TSI multidecadal trending variations, Thus, also the argument of Leif based on magnetic activity model are likely wrong, and the Sun varied more than what Leif or Lean or the IPCC claim.
May somebody inform the IPCC to correct their misleading statement supporting Leif and Lean, by letting them know about the above problem?

December 21, 2012 10:09 pm

“They are trying to detect changes over the span of a few days. By way of comparison, climate science is struggling to detect the effects of CO2 over a few decades, where natural variability is at least an order of magnitude smaller..
If the study holds up and it should be fairly easy to replicate with a larger sample, the GCR mechanism will be established and to some extent quantified. The next step is to look for GCR changes over decades, which is, what is climatically significant.
###############
Once again, I challenge any believer in the GCR effect to PROPOSE A TEST.
we have solar radiation data. we have GCR data.
You think one effects the other? What test will you do? and will you live with the results?
I’m going on over a year waiting for somebody to step up to that challenge.
http://stevemosher.wordpress.com/?s=Forbush
During a Forbush event you have an increase in GCR.
increased GCR are suppose to result in more clouds
I have hourly incoming solar radiation data from Anthony Watts Approved Gold Standard Stations.
And nobody wants to suggest a test.
You see its easy to be a skeptic and doubt what others do. It’s hard to be a scientist like Leif.

December 21, 2012 10:09 pm

Nicola Scafetta says:
December 21, 2012 at 9:17 pm
the background solar radiation that cannot be properly modeled up to now and the direct measurements are controversial because ACRIM uses the TSI data as they are and shows a significant variability, while PMOD uses altered data and does not show a variability.
As I said, ACRIM is no good for such comparisons. Here you can see how poorly ACRIM performs: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/posters/Pa_Cookson_poster.pdf
For Real TSI datasets 2003­03­02 to 2010­05­04 (~7yrs)
● SFO fit to SORCE R2=0.947
● SFO fit to PMOD R2=0.920
● SFO fit to ACRIM R2=0.747 <===

December 21, 2012 10:12 pm

Philip Bradley says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:43 pm (Edit)
This is the Forbush event cosmic ray – diurnal temperature range paper.
http://www.astrophys-space-sci-trans.net/7/315/2011/astra-7-315-2011.pdf
The size of the effect is 0.38C; 0.5C for the largest Forbush events, and maximum effect is right when you would expect to see it, 2 to 3 days after the event.
Not often in climate science you get a close fit between prediction and observation, but they certainly did in this case.
#############
Sorry. I followed their methodology using better observation data and their result could not be duplicated. DTR is an INDIRECT measure of cloudiness as DTR can vary for other reasons.
What you want is a DIRECT measure of cloudiness– eg decreased incoming solar radiation

December 21, 2012 10:12 pm

Steven Mosher says:
December 21, 2012 at 10:09 pm
During a Forbush event you have an increase in GCR.
an increase in Solar CRs, but a decrease in GCRs; that’s why it is called a Forbush Decrease.

December 21, 2012 10:16 pm

lsvalgaard says:
December 21, 2012 at 9:39 pm says
“The ACRIM data is no good [as you should know] and the PMOD data is also no good [has uncompensated degradation]. The null-hypothesis must be that there is no background variation. This is also the conclusion by Schrijver et al. and Preminger et al. who show that there is no background variation. Using the cycle average of the Group Sunspot Number as a background variation fails because the GSN itself is flawed.”
Leif’s logic is curious. He says:
1) “ACRIM data are not good” but leif does not demonstrate it nor he quantifies and specifies the error (data may be imperfect, but still good enough for specific major patterns).
2) “PMOD data is also no good [has uncompensated degradation]”, however Leif forgets to state that Frolich is correcting his data for the instrumental degradation. That there exists an uncompensated degradation is a Leif’s postulation because PMOd data do not agree with his flat solar model. From what I know Frolich rejected his claims.
3) “The null-hypothesis must be that there is no background variation.” Really? where is it written, in the Bible? The null-hypothesis must be the luminosity variability observed for sun-like stars as Shapiro does.
4) “This is also the conclusion by Schrijver et al. and Preminger et al. who show that there is no background variation.” Really? How do they know? The TSI experiments say differently.
5) “Using the cycle average of the Group Sunspot Number as a background variation fails because the GSN itself is flawed”. Really? Group Sunspot Number cannot be properly used for the background variation because it is mathematically bounded by being positive defined, not because they are flawed. You do not know much math, don’t you?

Rathnakumar
December 21, 2012 10:19 pm

Thank you for the fascinating post! I wish the solar physicists were not as dumb as the climate non-scientists.

December 21, 2012 10:20 pm

Leif
“The latter analyses frequently focus on sudden high-magnitude reductions in the cosmic ray
flux known as Forbush Decrease events. At present, two long-term independent global satellite cloud datasets are available (ISCCP and MODIS). Although the differences between them are considerable, neither shows evidence of a solar-cloud link at either long or short timescales. Furthermore, reports of observed correlations between solar activity and cloud over the 1983–1995 period are attributed to the chance agreement between solar changes and artificially induced cloud trends.”
Ya, In addition to looking at hourly insolation data during a Forbush I could also look at MODIS cloudiness as I’ve got my tools together for that data. However, Banging on the internet for terabytes of data is a PITA. That said, I have found some interesting increased cloudiness over larger cities. I’m going to have a look at MODIS04 aerosols which just dropped in my lap ( some bugs to work out for a guy). to see whats up with that.

December 21, 2012 10:27 pm

Nicola Scafetta says:
December 21, 2012 at 10:01 pm
both ACRIM and PMOD clearly show that the TSI minimum in 2008 was lower than the TSI minimum in 1996 by at least 0.2-0.3 W/m^2.
Werner Schmutz at the SORCE 2011 meeting in Sedona admitted that the PMOD decrease was an artifact [i.e. nor due to the Sun] of 0.2 W/m^2. See slide 29 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf

December 21, 2012 10:34 pm

Nicola Scafetta says:
December 21, 2012 at 10:16 pm
Ignoring your other nonsense, I’ll comment on:
5) “Using the cycle average of the Group Sunspot Number as a background variation fails because the GSN itself is flawed”. Really? Group Sunspot Number cannot be properly used for the background variation because it is mathematically bounded by being positive defined, not because they are flawed. You do not know much math, don’t you?
Nevertheless, the 11-running average GSN is used by people reconstructing TSI by assuming that the emergence of background flux scales with the overall level of solar activity [they use the cycle average GSN as an estimate]. You didn’t know that? Now you do.

Shawnhet
December 21, 2012 10:35 pm

Steve Mosher,
I must say I am finding your position here very confusing.
Firstly, you say that no one is proposing a test and then when people do point out tests that are out there you appear to be claiming that they are not good enough. However, your proof of this seems to be based on data for a single Forbush decrease measured at 9 stations not to mention the fact that you do not mention the relative strength of the decrease in question.
Personally, I don’t see how your test can be viewed as at all robust compared with the Dragic et al. paper but leaving that aside it seems to me that there is a pretty big difference proposing a relationship and having it shown to be invalid and not being able to propose a relationship at all.
Cheers, 🙂

December 21, 2012 10:37 pm

lsvalgaard says:
December 21, 2012 at 10:09 pm
As I said, ACRIM is no good for such comparisons. Here you can see how poorly ACRIM performs: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/posters/Pa_Cookson_poster.pdf
**********************
Leif is a curious guy. ACRIM performs poorly because a TSI proxy model made by SFO which is based on “ground based photometry” poorly agrees with an “uncorrected” version of ACRIM3 dataset! Which is what was used in that poster!
Leif, does not know of what he is talking about, as usual.

John West
December 21, 2012 10:48 pm

lsvalgaard says:
“UV has not shown any trend since 1722, only faithfully followed the sunspot number which also does not have any trend over the 300 years, so cannot be involved in any climate trend.”
Pretty greasy choosing a year that’s pulling up out of a grand minimum thereby matching our current dropping into a grand minimum so you can claim “no trend”.
“But perhaps you are denying that the climate has a trend over that time?”
Perhaps it won’t after the lag time is up and it drops like rock to 1722 levels and then it will just be faithfully following sunspot numbers as well ….. or maybe not. I suppose time will tell.
Until such time I oppose legislating CO2 emissions. (Period)
http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education/senior/cosmicengine/sun_questions.html

Shawnhet
December 21, 2012 11:11 pm

Leif:”The IPCC only considers the GCR effect in what follows and have no mention of any other mechanism they would think to be a contender. That is the critical point.”
IYO. IMO, however, there are *two* important points they raise 1. there is an implied amplification of solar effects and 2. that one mechanism that could explain this is the GCR-cloud link. Respectfully, you have given no argument for why assuming 2 is false tells us anything about whether there is another mechanism resulting in 1 (It all boils down to your *assumption* that the GCR-cloud link is the “last one standing”).
“Who cares what we assume? What matters is what IPCC assumes and subsequently elaborates on.”.
No, what matters ultimately is what scientific papers they reference(who cares what the IPCC assumes either? What matters is what the science says). This is (or should be) the source of all their legitimacy. As such, when they reference papers that support an amplification of solar factors that has consequences beyond its application towards a specific mechanism.
Cheers, 🙂

John West
December 21, 2012 11:13 pm

Alarmist troll supervisor: Send’em all in! Send’em all in NOW! They’re discussing SOLAR variation!
Alarmist troll dispatcher: Yes Sir.
Alarmist troll: What should I do?
Alarmist troll supervisor: Just try to keep the discussion on the minutiae of what the IPCC author said or didn’t say, meant or didn’t mean for as long as you can. Then throw in some ad homs and a few heat transfer “misunderstandings” and before you know it the wheat will be hidden by the chaff. Now get in there, they’re figuring out we only have two arguments against solar driven climate and one of them is too stupid for words (peaks must match to correlate) and the other is taking on water fast (TSI is all that matters).

thisisnotgoodtogo
December 21, 2012 11:28 pm

Gail Combs says:
December 21, 2012 at 5:12 pm
“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
Or the even greater danger that public policy could become captive of scientific illiterates.
But if it’s a scientific elite that is so stupid that it can’t shoot straight, things will work out “just right” Right, LS?

December 21, 2012 11:54 pm

thisisnotgoodtogo says:
December 21, 2012 at 11:28 pm
Right?
Your moniker says it all: this is not good to go

December 21, 2012 11:56 pm

Nicola Scafetta says:
December 21, 2012 at 10:37 pm
“uncorrected” version of ACRIM3 dataset!
so now we have to ‘correct’ ACRIM…

December 22, 2012 12:03 am

John West says:
December 21, 2012 at 10:48 pm
Pretty greasy choosing a year that’s pulling up out of a grand minimum thereby matching our current dropping into a grand minimum so you can claim “no trend”.
1722 was the year the effect was discovered. If it matches the current value but temperatures do not, what does that tell you?
Shawnhet says:
December 21, 2012 at 11:11 pm
As such, when they reference papers that support an amplification of solar factors that has consequences beyond its application towards a specific mechanism
IPCC doesn’t think so.

December 22, 2012 12:08 am

Shawnhet says:
December 21, 2012 at 11:11 pm
As such, when they reference papers that support an amplification of solar factors that has consequences beyond its application towards a specific mechanism
BTW, Bond never talked about ‘amplification’ of anything. He thought is was a straight solar irradiance relationship. So that argument goes out the window.

December 22, 2012 12:28 am

Alec Rawls says:
December 22, 2012 at 12:11 am
If the chapter 7 authors only choose to look at mechanisms of solar amplification that work through GCR, that does not in any way affect the possibility that the evidenced solar amplification is working in some other way than through GCR, but please notice that this is exactly what Haigh and Sherwood are claiming.
No, they are just saying that IPCC has chosen not to look at anything else than GCR-clouds.
They explicitly dismiss the idea that there is any substantial enhanced solar forcing that needs to be taken into account
So do I, so I can’t fault them on that.
To those like Haigh and Sherwood who want to follow this strategy of brute intellectual dishonesty
No dishonesty. On the contrary, they stand up for what they believe. Good for them. Applaud them.
admitting the evidence for some substantial solar forcing beyond TSI, is a thumb in the eye.
Except it does not admit any such thing. That is your wishful thinking.
That’s why my best guess is still that somebody in the name of scientific integrity snuck that sentence in.
‘Guess’?

December 22, 2012 12:34 am

Alec Rawls says:
December 22, 2012 at 12:11 am
admitting the evidence for some substantial solar forcing beyond TSI, is a thumb in the eye.
Except it does not admit any such thing other than the GCR-cloud mechanism. To think otherwise is just your wishful thinking. I’ll predict the statement will be left in as it is.

ferd berple
December 22, 2012 12:35 am

lsvalgaard says:
December 21, 2012 at 8:22 am
CO2 the last 300 years has risen considerably as have temperatures…
==============
Temperatures started rising 150 years before CO2. Al Gore already showed that temperature leads CO2. Please try and keep up.

JJ
December 22, 2012 12:39 am

lsvalgaard says:
The IPCC only considers the GCR effect in what follows and have no mention of any other mechanism they would think to be a contender. That is the critical point.

It is critical in demonstrating their deriliction, and thus their dishonesty, but that they fail to account for what they have said does not unsay it.
BTW, in English, “such as” is used to indicate that what follows is not exhaustive.

Eric H.
December 22, 2012 12:47 am

such as
Web definitions
for example; like, of the kind mentioned; those who.
Since the sentence is “…such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link.”, the GCR-cloud link is not exclusive. One can argue that the author’s intent was exclusive to GCR-cloud link but this does not change the fact that this sentence is not.

GabrielHBay