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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leif:”Nonsense, the interpretation of the data didn’t hold up, not the mechanism [as no mechanism was even mentioned].”
That’s *exactly* my point. You were able to evaluate the hypothesis by looking at data without even mentioning the mechansim.
“I don’t think Einstein was all that openminded [apart from the fact that you don’t really know]. He strenuously opposed Quantum Mechanics to the end, for example. I have myself made some scientific discoveries [and know personally many people who also have]. In no case was openmindedness a factor. You struggle against the discovery until you can’t ignore it any longer [either because the data or the logic become overwhelming].”
Well, Einstein was more open minded that Lord Kelvin who looked at the same data and proclaimed :””There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” Kelvin was perfectly happy ignoring all the evidence that led Einstein to relativity and Einstein would never have thought of relativity if he had ignored what Kelvin did.
“Really, re-read the IPCC quote. This is not an arcane point and it is the core of all the issues here.
The IPCC is very clear and correct on this: they refuse to discuss unspecified and unknown mechanisms. That is the take-home message that you miss. The core of the issue is whether this section is a ‘game-changer’, and it should be clear that such thoughts are just wishful thinking.”
Well, it is clear that you did not re-read the IPCC quote as the above has nothing to do with what we were talking about. Here is relevant section of the IPCC quote: “… implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link.” Clearly, per this, the GCR cloud link would be an example of an amplifying mechanism. When you argue the opposite, you are either wrong or talking about something other than what the IPCC is talking about. In either case, it does not change what the IPCC wrote in *plain English*. You can continue to make assertions about what is or is not an amplifying mechanisms but they are meaningless until you directly address the IPCC quote which is what this thread is about. Refer to the quote specifically, so I can be sure that we are talking about the same things.
Dr.S:
I have myself made some scientific discoveries [and know personally many people who also have]. In no case was openmindedness a factor.
Take for examples Vukcevic, he thinks he has discovered something.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
Dr. S tried every trick in the book to convince him that his ‘so called discovery’ is ‘rubbish’, but he will not have any of it. One way to deal with people like that is to use every opportunity to tell them they don’t know what they are talking about, until eventually science proves them right.
Shawnhet says:
December 23, 2012 at 10:15 am
Refer to the quote specifically, so I can be sure that we are talking about the same things.
I have done that repeatedly, but you refuse to acknowledge that. IPCC is correct in refusing to discuss unknown mechanisms, but is incorrect in claiming that there always is an ‘amplifier’ [e.g. R&S don’t need or claim any]. The grossest error is Rawls’ claim that the sentence is a game-changer.
vukcevic says:
December 23, 2012 at 10:43 am
Take for examples Vukcevic, he thinks he has discovered something.
Thousands of pseudo-scientists think so, but very few get even close.
‘so called discovery’ is ‘rubbish’
It is simply rubbish on its face.
@Leif
Well, if its not CO2 and its not TSI, then we have what Rumsfeld would term “known unknowns.” You are completely uninterested in these?
Leif:”I have done that repeatedly, but you refuse to acknowledge that. IPCC is correct in refusing to discuss unknown mechanisms, but is incorrect in claiming that there always is an ‘amplifier’ [e.g. R&S don’t need or claim any].”
In my defence, I think if you review this thread you will see that you have never mentioned the IPCC being incorrect before. I still fail to see what the point is as regardless of whether you call it an amplification or an addition there is still a much larger solar footprint in climate proxies than make sense if you only consider TSI alone.
Cheers, 🙂
Leif Svalgaard says:
”The IPCC is very clear and correct on this: they refuse to discuss unspecified and unknown mechanisms.”
I couldn’t disagree more. The IPCC is publishing so-called assessment reports. A proper assessment objectively evaluates the known and the unknown, but the IPCC has chosen to advocate a hypothesis instead.
Besides that, the UV effect on “radiative forcing” is known. The magnitude of climate sensitivity to UV variation is what’s unknown and ignored. That’s exactly the kind of thing the IPCC should be discussing.
pochas says:
December 23, 2012 at 11:31 am
Well, if its not CO2 and its not TSI
some people think it is CO2 and some people think it is TSI
then we have what Rumsfeld would term “known unknowns.” You are completely uninterested in these?
If it has been firmly demonstrated that a known unknown is causing climate change, then, of course, I would be interested, but such has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction.
Shawnhet says:
December 23, 2012 at 12:28 pm
I still fail to see what the point is
Indeed, that much is evident.
there is still a much larger solar footprint in climate proxies than make sense if you only consider TSI alone.
Some people would disagree with you, e.g. Shapiro et al. and Soon [ http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-Not.png ] and as I have said the foorprint has not been convincing to me [other people have lower bar, and will believe anything – the open mind syndrome].
John West says:
December 23, 2012 at 12:44 pm
A proper assessment objectively evaluates the known and the unknown
It is hard to objectively evaluate the unknown [or perhaps you don’t thunk so]
The magnitude of climate sensitivity to UV variation is what’s unknown and ignored.
That has been modelled and found to be tiny [perhaps you disagree]: “Out-of-phase forcing leads to ~0.05K increase in surface temperature, about half as large as in-phase forcing.” http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/6b_Cahalan_Sedona_9-15-2011.pdf
And, besides, UV has not had any long-term trend since 1722, so it is difficult to ascribe ‘Global Warming’ to changes in UV.
lsvalgaard said:
“Let us assume for the sake of the argument that the solar wind interaction with the earth produces Joule heating of the atmosphere of 1 degree variation over the cycle, then..”
Then that would be enough to account for natural variation.
Oh dear, what’s a poor old ex-clown to do? I thought Dr. Svalgaard to be a respectable scientist, but his postings in this thread sound alarmingly smug to me. They remind me of Gordon Cook’s complaint in the ClimateGate emails about Ray Bradley’s air of ‘papal infallibility.’ It’s as if he considers his every remark to be apodictic. He comes across as supercilious and condescending.
Now, I’m not saying he’s the only one here who behaves so, but one does hope that an educated, responsible person can set a good example for others. Again, I’m only an old, broken-down ex-clown and I have no great thoughts to share with the assembled readers, but I do believe that people should consider their words carefully because that tone, that public face, is how you are perceived and evaluated. At least by me. And snippy, snarky comments should be infra dig, don’t you think?
Crusty the ex-Clown says:
December 23, 2012 at 2:55 pm
Oh dear, what’s a poor old ex-clown to do? I thought Dr. Svalgaard to be a respectable scientist
Disagreeing with any anti-IPCC crowd [as found here] automatically strips one of ‘respectability’. But, please go ahead and believe that that one sentence which is the topic here is a ‘game-changer’. I, at least, have the courage to say ‘No’.
Leif:”there is still a much larger solar footprint in climate proxies than make sense if you only consider TSI alone.
Some people would disagree with you, e.g. Shapiro et al. and Soon [ http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-Not.png ] and as I have said the foorprint has not been convincing to me [other people have lower bar, and will believe anything – the open mind syndrome].”
This would be a lot more convincing if it was on point. Unfortunately, since no one thinks the relationship btw the temp and the solar proxies over the period of the graph you post would be the same as it has been in the past (have you heard of CO2?), you are simply attacking a straw man syndrome.
Here is an example of the closed mind syndrome: When presented with very good evidence of a relationship of a larger solar footprint (such as any one of the papers the IPCC lists) he claims that the experts in the field (the IPCC) are mistaken, then posts an irrelevant graph about periods where other relationships come into play. Whew, that was a close one! Our close-minder almost had to have an original thought 😉
Shawnhet says:
December 23, 2012 at 4:01 pm
Here is an example of the closed mind syndrome: When presented with very good evidence of a relationship of a larger solar footprint (such as any one of the papers the IPCC lists) … Our close-minder almost had to have an original thought
none of those are ‘very good evidence’. Sadly, your comments are now beginning to veer from attacking the opinions to attacking the person. I’ll not follow you there.
Leif:”none of those are ‘very good evidence’.”
Not true. From Dengel 2009:”The probability of such a good relationship between the annual growth anomaly and galactic cosmic ray flux occurring by chance alone is 0.008 (n = 45, r = 0.39) (see the inset of Fig. 3). Of all the variables investigated, it is by far the one most correlated with the annual growth anomaly”
“Sadly, your comments are now beginning to veer from attacking the opinions to attacking the person. I’ll not follow you there.”
Well, I got tired of you making all sorts of claims about what I believe or that I have an open-minded syndrome).so I thought I would give you some of your own medicine. For the record, I don’t like it either.
Sadly, you claim that you are led everywhere by the evidence but it looks to me that you simply ignore evidence that doesn’t meet your preconceptions. However, I am open-minded enough to ask you for instance: SInce you are so sure that the Dengel paper is not good evidence, what specifically is the problem with the paper. Please be specific.
Shawnhet says:
December 23, 2012 at 4:43 pm
SInce you are so sure that the Dengel paper is not good evidence, what specifically is the problem with the paper.
For one, the correlation coefficient claimed is only 0.39, meaning that only 15% of the variation is ‘explained’ by the correlation. This is normally not considered ‘good evidence’ and surely not of a major driver [could be indicative of a minor contribution of which there probably are many, e.g. the 0.1 degrees variation caused by cycle variation of TSI].
One of the things that convinces me that the Sun is not a major driver is the lack of any correlation between climate and the variation of geomagnetic activity since the 1840s. We have good geomagnetic data going back that far and many researchers agree that the Ap-index [which can be constructed back to 1844] is a sensitive measure of the sun’s magnetic field and the solar wind speed in the heliosphere. The index touches ‘both ends’ of the stick, so to speak: the sun’s magnetic field that controls TSI, UV, flares, CMEs, and Forbush Decreases, and in combination with the solar wind speed controls the modulation and level of galactic cosmic rays reaching the Earth. Here is the variation of the Ap-index: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png
As you can see, there is no trend whatsoever, while over the same period global temperatures are believed to have risen about 1 degree.
“SInce you are so sure that the Dengel paper is not good evidence, what specifically is the problem with the paper.
For one, the correlation coefficient claimed is only 0.39, meaning that only 15% of the variation is ‘explained’ by the correlation. This is normally not considered ‘good evidence’ and surely not of a major driver [could be indicative of a minor contribution of which there probably are many, e.g. the 0.1 degrees variation caused by cycle variation of TSI].”
??? You are claiming that because the effect of the solar link is relatively small, it does not matter what the quality of the evidence supporting it is? You do agree that it is possible to have good evidence of a factor that could increase or decrease the growth of trees by 15%, right? You seem to think that because the solar link cannot increase the growth of trees by over 50% there will never be good evidence for it.
In re: whether the TSI caused .1 degrees variation in temps can cause the relationship observed, I believe that you have already answered your own question. If a 0.1% variation in X can cause a 15% variation in Y, that would require something in addition to X acting in tandem with Y.
Shawnhet says:
December 23, 2012 at 6:30 pm
You are claiming that because the effect of the solar link is relatively small, it does not matter what the quality of the evidence supporting it is?
Essentially, yes. There is good evidence [and theoretical justification] that TSI would cause a 0.1 degree variation, but that does not make TSI a major driver. You misinterpret the 15%. Are you saying that the trees are 15% higher in perfect coincidence with cosmic rays, or have 15% more wood or something similar? I don’t have the paper handy, so can only go by the title ” A relationship between galactic cosmic radiation and tree rings”. Are the rings 15% wider?
Now, you are ignoring my reason for believing the Sun is not a major driver. If it is just a minor driver [on the 0.1-0.2 degree level, we don’t need to worry about it in the first place, and IPCC shouldn’t either, because that is not a significant change of climate]
Shawnhet says:
December 22, 2012 at 1:07 pm
In re: the paper you link above, I thought you might be interested in the most recent work done by its author which still seems consistent with the solar amplification model. (I don’t have access to the paper)
Hiroko was sweet enough to send it to me: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Obrochta2012.pdf
Shawnhet says:
December 22, 2012 at 1:07 pm
(I don’t have access to the paper)
Hiroko was sweet enough to send it to me:
And the paper effectively demolishes the Bond 2001 suppositions used by IPCC. One down, two to go 🙂
Leif, it appears that we have a very large difference in how we interpret the results of statistical tests. I don’t think one can claim that any relationship with a correlation coefficient of 0.39 cannot have good evidence supporting it. If you had six factors each with an r of 0.39, you could theoretically explain all the variation in a population in terms of those factors. Ultimately, the significance of the result is what shows that you have good evidence of a relationship and the correlation shows the strength of that relationship. As such, for the Dengel 2009 paper, there is good evidence of a relatively weak relationship(in statistical terms). Even though Dengel’s relationship is weak in statistical terms, is still much stronger than can be accounted for solely by the direct effect of TSI. Since 15% of the variation in tree ring size appears to be related to a solar proxy, and TSI only varies by 0.1-2%, something else must be operating.
Leif Svalgaard says:
Nonsense
You will pardon me for not blindly believing everything you say or write. Your staunch beliefs do not explain in any way the current lull in sun activity.. that alone tells me you have no clue. You criticize other studies for having to correct their data and then have the audacity to point us to a chart you yourself did the same thing to. Lower this after x yr.. raise that before x yr.. What on earth makes yours accurate and everyone else’s rubbish. It is closed minded thinking like that that keeps science from advancing until the OLD GUARD retires.
One should pay attention to Dr. Svalgaard’s opinion, but not necessarily agree with it.
Data shows:
Spectral response for S. Hemisphere temperature and the Sun Spot magnetic cycle is virtually identical.
Spectral analysis shows that the Sun Spot magnetic cycle, Aa index, the Earth’s magnetic field and temperature oscillations (ENSO and Antartics’s circumpolar wave) are not just coincidence or product of someone’s imagination
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SHS.htm
but the data based reality, that will be relentlessly denied by anyone inclined to sell you the AGW defunct hypothesis.
Sun –Earth link in the Antarctic is undeniable
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AntarcticSunEarthLink.htm
except by those who ideas are directly contradicted by the best available data that the science has.
I follow the data not opinions, whatever authority they may come. Free choice is yours too.
lsvalgaard said:
“One of the things that convinces me that the Sun is not a major driver is the lack of any correlation between climate and the variation of geomagnetic activity since the 1840s. We have good geomagnetic data going back that far and many researchers agree that the Ap-index [which can be constructed back to 1844] is a sensitive measure of the sun’s magnetic field and the solar wind speed in the heliosphere. The index touches ‘both ends’ of the stick, so to speak: the sun’s magnetic field that controls TSI, UV, flares, CMEs, and Forbush Decreases, and in combination with the solar wind speed controls the modulation and level of galactic cosmic rays reaching the Earth. Here is the variation of the Ap-index: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png
As you can see, there is no trend whatsoever, while over the same period global temperatures are believed to have risen about 1 degree.”
There are upward trends from ~1900 to 1960, and from ~1965 to 2005, and the rises in the 20th century were not preceded by such colder conditions as the rises in solar activity after Maunder and Dalton. And if we look at temperatures in England from say 1730 to 1930:
http://snag.gy/2q2kT.jpg
there is no warming trend, so any temp’ rise over the whole period is in the last ~80yrs.
What convinces me most though is the monthly-yearly detail of correlation between the Ap index and land temperature anomalies, only a fool would deny the link between a low Ap index and episodes of colder temperatures.
Shawnhet says:
December 23, 2012 at 10:26 pm
Since 15% of the variation in tree ring size appears to be related to a solar proxy, and TSI only varies by 0.1-2%, something else must be operating.
No, because things usually don’t behave in such a linear way. Most chemical reactions take place at twice the speed if the temperature is increased by 10 degrees, so that is 100% for a 3% increase in the driver. The fusion that powers the Sun increases 25% for a 1% increase in temperature. And so on.
But you still ignore the graph that shows why I don’t think the Sun is a major driver of climate.
pkatt says:
December 24, 2012 at 12:52 am
then have the audacity to point us to a chart you yourself did the same thing to. Lower this after x yr.. raise that before x yr..
That’s right.
vukcevic says:
December 24, 2012 at 1:23 am
Sun –Earth link in the Antarctic is undeniable
Herewith denied, as there are no data at all from Antarctica before 1957, so spectral analysis is spurious.
Ulric Lyons says:
December 24, 2012 at 6:07 am
lsvalgaard said:
“Here is the variation of the Ap-index: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png
As you can see, there is no trend whatsoever, while over the same period global temperatures are believed to have risen about 1 degree.”
Dr. S’s skills in cherry picking the data has to be acknowledged.
As I said on many occasions it is strong geomagnetic storms that matter, they induce strong electric currents in ocean and magma alike.
Here is the alternative data from the British Geological Survey (BGS) that matters
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/image022.jpg
not the trend less Ap index
However if you whish to look at flat events with Ap index above 45 degrees North here is one
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Ap-VI.htm
Dr. S. will tell you that it doesn’t count:
lsvalgaard says:
December 24, 2012 at 7:32 am
vukcevic: Sun –Earth link in the Antarctic is undeniable
Svalgaard: Herewith denied, as there are no data at all from Antarctica before 1957, so spectral analysis is spurious.
Sometime you do resort to dubious arguments; you are (and many others) happy to quote 10Be Dome Fuji ice core data (see one but last illustration in link at the end of this post) going back for thousands of years, but not knowing what magnetic field in Antarctic was at any point in time.
Ah yes, you will say that is the Earth dipole strength
And I say precisely what I am showing, the South end of that dipole is just of the South pole (blue line) last illustration in
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
Don’t forget: “You can’t fool all the people all the time”.
Can we have a bit less biased science in the New year please, and a Happy Xmas to all.
vukcevic says:
December 24, 2012 at 8:43 am
As I said on many occasions it is strong geomagnetic storms that matter, they induce strong electric currents in ocean and magma alike.
No, they induce weak and short-lived currents, and concentrating on the strong storms [Dst < -200 nT] there is no trend either: http://www.leif.org/research/Dst-Positive-Negative-1905-now.png
not knowing what magnetic field in Antarctic was at any point in time.
Nobody knows what the magnetic field in the Antarctic was before 1957.