Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
In a recent interchange over at Joanne Nova’s always interesting blog, I’d said that the slow changes in the sun have little effect on temperature. Someone asked me, well, what about the cold temperatures during the Maunder and Dalton sunspot minima? And I thought … hey, what about them? I realized that like everyone else, up until now I’ve just accepted the idea of cold temperatures being a result of the solar minima as an article of faith … but I’d never actually looked at the data. And in any case, I thought, what temperature data would we have for the Maunder sunspot minimum, which lasted from 1645 to 1715? So … I went back to the original sources, which as always is a very interesting ride, and I learned a lot.
It turns out that this strong association of sunspot minima and temperature is a fairly recent development. Modern interest in the Maunder sunspot minimum was sparked by John Eddy’s 1976 publication of a paper in Science entitled “The Maunder Minimum”. In that paper, Eddy briefly discusses the question of the relationship between the Maunder sunspot minimum and the global temperature, viz:
The coincidence of Maunder’s “prolonged solar minimum” with the coldest excursion of the “Little Ice Age” has been noted by many who have looked at the possible relations between the sun and terrestrial climate (73). A lasting tree-ring anomaly which spans the same period has been cited as evidence of a concurrent drought in the American Southwest (68, 74). There is also a nearly 1 : 1 agreement in sense and time between major excursions in world temperature (as best they are known) and the earlier excursions of the envelope of solar behavior in the record of 14C, particularly when a 14C lag time is allowed for: the Sporer Minimum of the 16th century is coincident with the other severe temperature dip of the Little Ice Age, and the Grand Maximum coincides with the “medieval Climatic Optimum” of the 11th through 13th centuries (75, 76). These coincidences suggest a possible relationship between the overall envelope of the curve of solar activity and terrestrial climate in which the 11-year solar cycle may be effectively filtered out or simply unrelated to the problem. The mechanism of this solar effect on climate may be the simple one of ponderous long-term changes of small amount in the total radiative output of the sun, or solar constant. These long-term drifts in solar radiation may modulate the envelope of the solar cycle through the solar dynamo to produce the observed long-term trends in solar activity. The continuity, or phase, of the 11-year cycle would be independent of this slow, radiative change, but the amplitude could be controlled by it. According to this interpretation, the cyclic coming and going of sunspots would have little effect on the output of solar radiation, or presumably on weather, but the long-term envelope of sunspot activity carries the indelible signature of slow changes in solar radiation which surely affect our climate (77). [see paper for references]
Now, I have to confess, that all struck me as very weak, with more “suggest” and “maybe” and “could” than I prefer in my science. So I thought I’d look to see where he was getting the temperature data to support his claims. It turns out that he was basing his opinion of the temperature during the Maunder minimum on a climate index from H. H. Lamb, viz:
The Little Ice Age lasted roughly from 1430 to 1850 … if we take H. H. Lamb’s index of Paris London Winter Severity as a global indicator.
After some searching, I found the noted climatologist H. H. Lamb’s England winter severity index in his 1965 paper The Early Medieval Warm Epoch And Its Sequel. He doesn’t give the values for his index, but I digitized his graph. Here are Lamb’s results, showing the winter severity in England. Lower values mean more severe winters.
So let me pose you a small puzzle. Knowing that Eddy is basing his claims about a cold Maunder minimum on Lamb’s winter severity index … where in Lamb’s winter severity index would you say that we would find the Maunder and Dalton minima? …
Figure 1. H.H. Lamb’s index of winter severity in England.
As you can see, there is a reasonable variety in the severity of the winters in England. However, it is not immediately apparent just where in there we might find the Maunder and Dalton minima, although there are several clear possibilities. So to move the discussion along, let me reveal where they are:
Figure 2. As in Figure 1, but with the dates of the Maunder and Dalton minima added.
As we might expect, the Maunder minimum is the coldest part of the record. The Dalton minimum is also cold, but not as cold as the Maunder minimum, again as we’d expect. Both of them have warmer periods both before and after the minima, illustrating the effect of the sun on the … on the … hang on … hmmm, that doesn’t look right … let me check my figures …
…
…
…
… uh-oh
…
…
Well, imagine that. I forgot to divide by the square root of minus one, so I got the dates kinda mixed up, and I put both the Maunder and the Dalton 220 years early … here are the actual dates of the solar minima shown in Lamb’s winter severity index.
Figure 3. H.H. Lamb’s England winter severity index, 1100-1950, overlaid with the actual dates of the four solar minima ascribed to that period. Values are decadal averages 1100-1110,1110-1120, etc., and are centered on the decade.
As you can see …
• The cooling during the Wolf minimum is indistinguishable from the two immediately previous episodes of cooling, none of which get much below the overall average.
• The temperature during the Sporer minimum is warmer than the temperature before and after the minimum.
• The coldest and second coldest decades in the record were not associated with solar minima.
• The fastest cooling in the record, from the 1425 decade to the 1435 decade, also was not associated with a solar minimum.
• Contrary to what we’d expect, the Maunder minimum warmed from start to finish.
• The Dalton minimum is unremarkable in any manner other than being warmer than the decade before the start and the decade after the end of the minimum. Oh, and like the Maunder, it also warmed steadily over the period of the minimum.
Urk … that’s what Eddy based his claims on. Not impressed.
Let me digress with a bit of history. I began this solar expedition over a decade ago thinking, along with many others, that as they say, “It’s the sun, stupid!”. I, and many other people, took it as an unquestioned and unexamined “fact” that the small variations of the sun, both the 11-year cycles and the solar minima, had a discernible effect on the temperature. As a result, I spent endless hours investigating things like the barycentric movement of the sun. I went so far as to write a spreadsheet to calculate the barycentric movement for any period of history, and compared those results to the temperatures.
But the more I looked, the less I found. So I started looking at the various papers claiming that the 11-year cycle was visible in various climate datasets … still nothing. To date, I’ve written up and posted the results of my search for the 11-year cycle in global sea levels, the Central England Temperature record, sea surface temperatures, tropospheric temperatures, global surface temperatures, rainfall amounts, the Armagh Observatory temperatures, the Armagh Observatory daily temperature ranges, river flows, individual tidal stations, solar wind, the 10Beryllium ice core data, and some others I’ve forgotten … nothing.
Not one of them shows any significant 11-year cycle.
And now, for the first time I’m looking at temperature effects of the solar minima … and I’m in the same boat. The more I look, the less I find.
However, we do have some actual observational evidence for the time period of the most recent of the minima, the Dalton minimum, because the Berkeley Earth temperature record goes back to 1750. And while the record is fragmentary and based on a small number of stations, it’s the best we have, and it is likely quite good for comparison of nearby decades. In any case, here are those results:
Figure 4. The Berkeley Earth land temperature anomaly data, along with the Dalton minimum.
Once again, the data absolutely doesn’t support the idea of the sun ruling the temperature. IF the sun indeed caused the variations during the Dalton minimum, it first made the temperature rise, then fall, then rise again to where it started … sorry, but that doesn’t look anything like what we’d expect. For example, if the low spot around 1815 is caused by low solar input, then why does the temperature start rising then, and rise steadily until the end of the Dalton minimum, while the solar input is not rising at all?
So once again, I can’t find evidence to support the theory. As a result, I will throw the question open to the adherents of the theory … what, in your estimation, is the one best piece of temperature evidence that shows that the solar minima cause cold spells?
Now, a few caveats. First, I want to enlist your knowledge and wisdom in the search, so please just give me your one best shot. I’m not interested in someone dumping the results of a google search for “Maunder” on my desk. I want to know what YOU think is the very best evidence that solar minima cause global cooling.
Next, don’t bother saying “the Little Ice Age is the best evidence”. Yes, the Maunder occurred during the Little Ice Age (LIA). But the Lamb index says that the temperature warmed from the start of the Maunder until the end. Neither the Maunder’s location, which was quite late in the LIA, nor the warming Lamb shows from the start to the end of the Maunder, support the idea that the sun caused the LIA cooling.
Next, please don’t fall into the trap of considering climate model results as data. The problem, as I have shown in a number of posts, is that the global temperature outputs of the modern crop of climate models are nothing but linear transforms of their inputs. And since the models include solar variations among their inputs, those solar variations will indeed appear in the model outputs. If you think that is evidence for solar forcing of temperature … well, this is not the thread for you. So no climate model results, please.
So … what do you think is the one very best piece of evidence that the solar minima actually do affect the temperature, the evidence that you’d stand behind and defend?
My regards to you all,
w.
[UPDATE] In the comments, someone said that the Central England Temperature record shows the cooling effects of the solar minima … I’m not finding it:
As you can see, there is very little support for the “solar minima cause cool temperatures” hypothesis in the CET. Just as in the Lamb winter severity data and the Berkeley Earth data, during both the Dalton and Maunder minima we see the temperature WARMING for the last part of the solar minimum. IF the cause is in fact a solar slump … then why would the earth warm up while the sun is still slumping? And in particular, in the CET the Dalton minimum ends up quite a bit warmer than it started … how on earth does this support the “solar slump” claim, that at the end of the Dalton minimum it’s warmer than at the start?
The Usual Request: I know this almost never happens, but if you disagree with something that I or someone else has said, please have the common courtesy to QUOTE THEIR EXACT WORDS that you disagree with. This prevents much confusion and misunderstanding.
Data: Eddy’s paper, The Maunder Minimum
Lamb’s paper, The Early Medieval Warm Epoch And Its Sequel
Berkeley Earth, land temperature anomalies
milodonharlani says:
?w=840
June 29, 2014 at 1:30 pm
“Indeed such possible connections are still being actively investigated. While Dr. Svalgaard believes that solar effects on WX & climate found between at least the 1920s & 1990s have now all been shown invalid, present researchers disagree,”
I’m sure most people would disagree if you showed them this graph:
Without fail, it gets cold in solar minima, with this minimum being no exception.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 29, 2014 at 4:27 pm
That has indeed been my observation, which is why I find more evidence for solar effects than the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacious view of Pamela, Willis, Mann, Jones, Overpeck et al, that a volcanic eruption in 1257 caused the LIA, which began sometime between 1300 & 1500.
[trimmed. Think twice before resubmitting. .mod]
milodonharlani says:
June 29, 2014 at 10:27 pm
Look, if you can find the claimed references, I’ve told you I’m happy to analyze it.
If you can’t find them, I don’t give a rat’s differential.
I have assumed all along that you don’t know where the references are either, and so far, you’ve supported that claim quite neatly …
Of course, if you’d like to prove that my assumption is wrong, you’re welcome to provide the references. I don’t care either way.
w.
I am surprised by the lack of evidence for solar variations influencing climate. I would have thought that some sort of evidence could be produced since people seem to be so adament about the relationship.
Steven Mosher says:
June 24, 2014 at 11:45 am
The null hypothesis states that all observed phenomena can be explained by the laws already considered valid.
Hence, Newton most certainly did respond to what would now be regarded as the null hypothesis, ie that planetary motions could be explained by laws then known. His Principia stemmed from Halley’s 1684 visit in which he asked Newton’s opinion on the problem of planetary motions, which topic he had discussed previously that year with Hooke & Wren.
Steven Mosher says:
June 24, 2014 at 11:45 am
The null hypothesis states that all observed phenomena can be explained by the laws already considered valid.
Newton’s Principia did indeed stem from a question as to what would now be regarded as the null hypothesis. In 1684, Halley asked Newton’s opinion on the problem of planetary motions, which issue he had discussed previously that year with Hooke & Wren, without getting satisfactory answers.
When I read and watch, although I do not get much to do), everything that is published only WUWT, then one must ask in fear, “Is God really so complicated this all about climate change?” In my opinion and understanding of the issues-not!. So much material on the basis of measurements, calculations, assumptions and other components thrown in for evidence of causes, provides no basis that it can come to the real and true cause of all these phenomena on the sun and the planets. Displayed is hundreds of diagrams of temperature change on sea, on land, in the atmosphere, but no conclusions on this phenomenon, how and why it occurs and how it behaves. It is certain that the temperature of the earth is by no means was such that repeating the same value at various times. Entered are from the Earth to its end, there will always be changes, but in certain laws that we do not know. Same is the case with magnetic fields, eruptions, solar spots and all phenomena in the solar system. All these phenomena occur as a result of one of the main “culprit” to be “caught” and handed over to the criminal investigation. He was present there every second and every millennium just camouflage by changing the intensity, position, duration, and various forms of looks and effects.
He can not be identified on the basis of immediate appearances and looks, because it will never happen again in the same size. These cycles “camouflage” the causal agents are constantly changing, but by certain laws that must be seen. Who can reveal the causative agent of the First World War on the individual situation on the battlefield.?
These discussions and searching for solutions, they behave almost as they act as the cause of climate change. I end, if I do not use logic. And this is (my conclusion): effects of mutual influence of celestial bodies in the solar system. Let this be the beginning of the right path towards a real solution to the enigma of the millennium.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 29, 2014 at 10:52 pm
Sorry about the duplicate comment above. Thought I wasn’t able to post.
Variation in solar energy & spectral distribution certainly does demonstrably show a global temperature solar cyclic pattern, along with other climatic parameters.
Here is a recent (2013) instance of the numerous studies finding a statistically significant correlation between solar cycles & temperature:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAS-D-12-0214.1
“Using 54 yr of NCEP reanalysis global data from 1000 to 10 hPa, this study establishes the existence and the statistical significance of the zonal-mean temperature response to the 11-yr solar cycle throughout the troposphere and parts of the lower stratosphere. Two types of statistical analysis are used: the composite-mean difference projection method, which tests the existence of the solar cycle signal level by level, and the adaptive AR(p)-t test, which tells if a particular local feature is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. A larger area of statistical significance than that in previous published work is obtained, due to the longer record and a better trend removal process. It reveals a spatial pattern consistent with a “bottom up” mechanism, involving evaporative feedback near the tropical ocean surface and tropical vertical convection, latent heating of the tropical upper troposphere, and poleward large-scale heat transport to the latent heating of the tropical upper troposphere, and poleward large-scale heat transport to the polar regions. It provides an alternative to the currently favored “top down” mechanism involving stratospheric ozone heating.”
I know Willis refuses to consider the many papers based upon data reanalysis because of the reanalysis. However apparently I’m not the only reader of climatological papers who does not reject statistical analysis of observations. Their authors clearly accept NCEP reanalysis as valid. It’s not like GCMs. Is there a good reason for rejecting it other than to try to maintain an unsupportable assertion?
Here is one of the many for precipitation.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00867947#page-1
“The objective of this study is to examine critically the relationship between solar cycles and Indian monsoon rainfall, for the period 1871–1984, and to search for significant periodicities, by utilizing the maximum entropy spectral technique (MEST). The results of this study using MEST show the maximum entropy spectral technique (MEST). The results of this study using MEST show clearly a significant 11-year cycle in solar activity and rainfall. Also present is a significant 7.33-year cycle in rainfall. The double (Hale) sunspot cycle is not discernible here either in sunspot number or in rainfall. The cross-spectral analysis between the sunspot number and rainfall confirms the existence of a reasonable correlation over an 11-year cycle with a relative phase lag of 0.16 year (sun lead).”
Others for lightning, atmospheric pressure, drought & other climatic phenomena abound. That earth’s climate responds to solar variations should hardly come as a surprise.
Milo:
http://depts.washington.edu/amath/old_website/research/articles/Tung/journals/Zhou_and_Tung_2013_solar.pdf
milodonharlani says:
July 2, 2014 at 5:51 pm
As I pointed out above, reanalysis “data” is nothing of the sort—it is the output of a computer model. As a result, it outputs some linear transformation of its inputs. This means that the solar input to the model will indeed show up in the output.
And as I also said above, if you think that finding a solar signal in a computer model output means anything about the real world, you’re not as smart as you seem.
This is my third request in general, and the second request to you, to please not send me analyses of model outputs. Your repeated ignoring of my request is getting old …
w.
Milo, here is the study that reported on how that reanalysis data came about. It is indeed the product of a model. I will let you digest it and see what you think.
http://rda.ucar.edu/datasets/ds090.0/docs/publications/bams1996mar/bams1996mar-bm.pdf
Nikola! Finally! You have come to your thesis (but not your senses): barycenter. Got it. You could have used one sentence and then we wouldn’t have had to slog through all those words!!!!! Your thesis, proposed by others, has been debunked MANY times here.
Willis Eschenbach says:
July 2, 2014 at 6:34 pm
Your steadfast refusal to practice the scientific method got old a long time ago.
Why do you refuse to do what every real scientist does before writing a paper, ie review the literature & show what it has found or point out the problems therewith? Asserting an hypothesis, then daring others to show it false is not how science is done. You have to do the work yourself, then ask for review & rebuttal.
Let’s see what you have to say about the monsoon data. I told you in comments to a previous blog post that the solar cycle is well supported in precipitation data, which have not been “reanalyzed”. Had you done your scientific due diligence, you’d have already discovered this fact.
Pamela Gray says:
July 2, 2014 at 6:22 pm
Pretty funny, coming from a supporter of Mann, Jones, et al on computer modeling in support of the post hoc ergo propter hoc volcanic initiation of the LIA.
Concluding from the observation of an eruption producing a sulfate spike c. 1257 that the LIA, which began sometime in the 14th, 15th or 16th century, was caused by a volcano, is a classic example of this logical fallacy.
Pamela Gray says:
July 2, 2014 at 6:42 pm
Surely the issue is, what do you think of the project? I find that it is worlds away from the GCMs, & an appropriate use of modeling. Most importantly, it’s based on actual observations, & checked against them.
If you & Willis don’t accept the reanalysis as valid, please state in detail why.
Thanks.
Milo for heaven’s sake, the challenge is for YOU to stand behind and defend your best piece of evidence. Here are Willis’ words in his original post:
“So … what do you think is the one very best piece of evidence that the solar minima actually do affect the temperature, the evidence that you’d stand behind and defend?”
So you provided a link and I provided the pdf of that link. The data was reanalysis data, not temperature data from the usual series, and since Willis objected to it, I also provided the pdf of that reanalysis for you. Now the stage is yours! Defend your very best piece of evidence!
Tell us what what the strengths and weaknesses are. Why did you present this as your best piece of evidence? What is better about reanalysis data? How do you respond to Willis’ contention that what the model used will also show up in what was spit out?
Pamela Gray says:
July 2, 2014 at 7:23 pm
It’s not my best piece of evidence. It is just to show the anti-scientific nature of Willis’ & your methods.
Neither of you has provided a valid reason for objecting to the reanalysis of actual data on any grounds whatsoever, except that it involves a model. That’s not good enough.
More recent inconvenient precipitation correlation, as if more be needed after a century of correlations, for Willis to ignore:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&ved=0CGEQFjAK&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F256146174_Solar_Cycle_Signature_in_Decadal_Variability_of_Monsoon_Precipitation_in_China%2Ffile%2F60b7d521e0eaac6813.pdf&ei=FMW0U9HfJoe_oQT9nIHoAg&usg=AFQjCNHD8D_5Wsd_X53KXkIdgZn8ruRUdQ&sig2=3xzX1SbFwVHzmQHSZco4iw&bvm=bv.70138588,d.cGU
Solar Cycle Signature in Decadal Variability of Monsoon Precipitation in China
Liang ZHAO, JingsongWANG and Haijuan ZHAO
National Satellite Meteorological Center, China Meteorological Administration, Beijing, China
(Manuscript received 6 January 2011, in final form 30 August 2011)
Abstract
Monthly high-resolution land surface precipitation data from 1901 to 2006 associated with sunspot number (SSN)
data is investigated for the relationship between summer precipitation in China and the decadal solar variability. Gen-
erally, on a national scale, precipitation is poorly correlated with SSN. However, in many regions, the long-period (>8
years) variability in summer precipitation is significantly (at >95% confidence level) correlated to SSN. Absolute value
correlation coefficient can exceed 0.48 (at >99% confidence level) in some regions. If only the decadal (9–13 years)
precipitation component is considered, the correlation becomes stronger with a maximum (minimum) correlation co-
efficient of 0.73 (–0.73) (at >99.9% confidence level). Considering that the decadal component is the most important
factor among precipitation’s low-frequency signals in the high correlation areas (because it explains more than 50% of
the precipitation’s low-frequency variance), it can be concluded that solar variability seems to dominate the long-period
variation of summer precipitation in these areas. Furthermore, in these high correlation areas, temporal variation patterns
in the power spectrum of summer precipitation is similar to that of SSN, strongly suggesting that there is a very likely
physical link between solar variability and precipitation in these regions. More convincing and direct evidence shows the
significant difference of low-level monsoon flow between high and low solar activity years, which may cause the higher
precipitation rate for high, rather than low, solar activity years in central China.
http://www.iject.org/vol5/spl2/ec1115.pdf
IJECT Vol. 5, Issue Spl – 2, Jan – March 2014
www. i j e c t . o rg International Journal of Electronics & Communication Technology 43
ISSN : 2230-7109 (Online) | ISSN : 2230-9543 (Print)
Sunspot Activity Over the Indian Rainfall Pattern
1D. K. Tripathi, 2A. B. Bhattacharya
1Dept. of Physics, Narula Institute of Technology, Kolkata, WB, India
2Dept. of Physics, University of Kalyani, Kalyani, WB, India
Abstract
The average number of sunspot data and rainfall data from 1820
to 2005 have been utilized to analyze the characteristic variations
and to find any possible correlation between them. A strong linkage
between average number of sunspot and annual Indian rainfall
pattern is obtained from the analysis. The result further shows
that the 10-year moving average of annual Indian rainfall and
the 10-year moving average of mean sunspot number are falling
since 1996.
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/Hiremath2012-d/HiremathMandi04.pdf
Influence of the solar activity on the Indian Monsoon rainfall
K.M. Hiremath a,*, P.I. Mandi b
a Indian Institute of Astrophysics, Bangalore 560034, India
b Basaweshwara Science College, Bagalkot, Karnataka, India
Received 5 March 2004; received in revised form 21 March 2004; accepted 1 April 2004
Available online 22 April 2004
Communicated by W. Soon
Abstract
We use 130 years data for studying correlative effects due to solar cycle and activity phenomena on the occurrence of
the Indian Monsoon rainfall. We compute the correlation coefficients and significance of correlation coefficients for the
seasonal and the annual data. We find that: (i) for the whole years 1871–2000, the spring and southwest monsoon rainfall
variabilities have significant positive correlations with the sunspot activity during the corresponding period, (ii) the FFT
and the wavelet analyses of the southwest monsoon rainfall variability show the periods 2.7, 16 and 22 year, respectively
(similar to the periods found in sunspot occurrence data) and, (iii) there is a long-term trend indicating a gradual
decrease of occurrence of rainfall variability by nearly 2.31.3 mm/year and increase of sunspot activity by nearly
3.91.5 sunspots/year compared to the activity of previous solar cycle.
We speculate in this study a possible physical connection between the occurrence of the rainfall variability and the
sunspot activity, and the flux of galactic cosmic rays. Owing to long-term positive and significant correlation of the
spring and southwest monsoon rainfall variabilities with the sunspot activity, it is suggested that solar activity may be
included as one of the crucial parameter in modeling and predicting the Indian monsoon rainfall.
Milo, do you know how to do research critique? I get the impression you do not. But let’s test it.
Which product from which labeled list (from http://rda.ucar.edu/datasets/ds090.0/docs/publications/bams1996mar/bams1996mar-bm.pdf) did Tung and Zhou (at http://depts.washington.edu/amath/old_website/research/articles/Tung/journals/Zhou_and_Tung_2013_solar.pdf)
use?
And how did the reanalysis project determine error bars for the products? Are there error bars for all of their products are just some of them? How confident are you that the comparison between the product and actual measures were tight enough to allow this team of researchers to say that they found a signficant result?
Pamela Gray says:
July 2, 2014 at 8:50 pm
Why is it up to me to test the validity of the dozens or hundreds of studies that show a solar signal?
Surely that is Willis’ job, which he has refused to do systematically before positing such an outre assertion as that there is no signal. The onus is on him or you to show why reanalysis is invalid.
But go ahead & ignore the work of generations of real climatologists because you & Willis want to throw out data sets & analyses thereof which you find inconvenient. It’s clear that neither of you wants to practice the scientific method, despite your previously well stated summary of how to write scientific papers, the rules of which Willis so blithely ignores willy-nilly because it’s too much work or because it will invalidate his pet belief prima facie.
PS: I can’t improve on NOAA’s own identification of problems with its data reanalysis, which addressed & fixed issues discovered:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/reanalysis/problems.shtml
If you really want to show how well you can critique research, let’s see you do so with the Team studies which you have cited in support of your insupportable volcanic LIA causation scheme. Now there is a field rich in opportunities for critique.
Milo, I take it you are not willing to step up to the plate and defend (IE critique) your best one piece of evidence for a solar/temperature measurable correlation. Willis’ position is the null hypothesis. It is in your court to propose that there is a connection that is measurable. So defend your proposal.
Let me do some of your job. I have lots of problems with the reanalysis data. And so do the product developers, as well as, I imagine, researchers who use those products. Caution is advised openly in the use of reanalysis products by the authors themselves. Why? Could it be because of the number of times their products have changed? They often do as better data comes along. Because they (as they should) freely admit to improvements, error bars must be assumed and research that has used an out-of-date product will have to be redone (just as Lean suggests with her TSI reconstruction). Ouch. Could it be because of the fact that some of their products cannot be checked with observations so are pure model outputs? How wide could those error bars be and how firmly do YOU want to stand on that kind of information?
Do you get the process now? So far all I have seen from you is cut and paste. Where are your own thoughts about the papers you refer to?
I’ve had the privilage of defending a thesis so I know what it takes. It takes more than pasted links and abstracts. But for our purposes here, we don’t need to go full out. Still, I don’t engage in drive-by pasting of links and abstracts I’m interested in and then wait for someone else to summarize them for me. I have provided my own summaries of my links. So I helped you out by providing links to the pdfs of the papers you are interested in. So get to work.
milodonharlani says:
July 2, 2014 at 8:59 pm
Why is it up to me to test the validity of the dozens or hundreds of studies that show a solar signal?Because most of them are poorly done or contradict each other in the effect. If you believe that some are better than others and that you therefore put confidence in them then it is up to you to tell us which ones that might be.
Pamela,
My intention was to somehow draw attention to my thesis. You are the first who flew carelessly “a minefield”, claiming that my thesis broken many times where you discuss.
That’s the big problem is that so far no one would seriously utilizing existing natural laws, to deal with and look for an answer to where you can not see it. Why? Because most of you deal with the “scribal activity”, repeating what someone else said. But despite so much work, effort, some evidence, measurements, formulas, diagrams and theory, there is no solution. Yes there is a solution, it would not be so much discussion. What’s the problem? The fact that today’s scientists and science do not want to fix the problem for the benefit of mankind, but prefer to earn “not welcome”.
I have checked the evidence that my thesis arose from the true sources and causes of these phenomena, and what you can not see it, look for the answer in nature and not in the PC, or wait until I publish my thesis (broken into chunks), but my post will be slightly less expensive than the total amount of the spent so far without result.