Opinion; Dr. Tim Ball
Way back in the last century, I suggested that in this 21st century the dominant issue in science would be magnetism and in resources water. This especially applies to climatology, where, thanks to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), they are either marginalized or ignored. It is not the only damage the IPCC have done. They kept the focus almost exclusively on CO2, and temperature within the atmosphere, at the expense of many other factors. William Kininmonth explains,
Climate models track the transfer of energy through the Earth system. The only boundary condition to the Earth system is solar intensity; everything else is dependent on the composition and physical/chemical/biological processes within the Earth system.
The recent article about the role of the “oceanic conveyor belt” in climate is nothing new, but is a reminder of IPCC narrowness. It is even worse with regard to extraterrestrial factors. Simple solar system activities, like the Milankovitch Effect or Svensmark’s Cosmic Theory, are barely included in their discussion and excluded from their models.
Too often, phenomena are considered, but rarely right back to the original mechanism. For example, everybody talks about El Nino and La Nina and accept they are caused by ocean current reversals, but suface ocean currents are created by wind, so the wind has to reverse first. But what makes the winds reverse? The upper level tropical easterlies have to weaken, stop, and start blowing in the opposite direction. What causes that? Van Loon and Labitzke showed correlations between sunspots and El Nino, but what was the mechanism?
Figure 1
Similarly, the Jet Stream shifts from Zonal to Meridional Wave patterns (Figure 1), but what causes that change?
Most of the considerations overlook physical causes, particularly wind, whether as advection within the atmosphere, or the solar wind impinging on the magnetosphere and the atmosphere.
Magnetic Reversals
Svensmark’s Theory related variation in solar magnetism to variation in low cloud cover and thus global temperature. It addressed two major issues in climate. First, it provided a mechanism of cause and effect between variations in sunspot numbers, an external forcing, and the internal result, varying global temperature. Second, it explained how there was more cloud formation and precipitation than the estimated available condensation nuclei.
One potential event is bringing magnetism into the public forum, but as usual, it is being exploited. The Earths magnetic field has been weakening for approximately 1000 years (Figure 2) and a simple trend extension suggests it will weaken to zero in the near future. The questions are, will the trend continue, and if it does, when will zero occur?
Like most alarmist exploitations, it is nothing new. Reversals occur on a regular and relatively frequent basis. Periods called Epochs fluctuate between Normal, as at present, with Reverse conditions. Discovery of these polarity reversals was important in establishing the continental drift theory. As lava emerges and cools, when it reaches the Curie Point, magnetically sensisitive minerals align with the existing polarity. The lava layers are a record of the changing polarity. The problem is it is a crude measure, so it’s unclear how long the process takes. We know extensive extinctions occur at the same time, but other impacts are not known. Does it affect the climate? The larger question is how magnetism affects weather in general.
NASA said in September 2013 that we were within 3 to 4 months of a polar magnetic reversal. They were wrong, but now a new paper says it will occur some time in the next 100 years. Either way, alarmists and the sensationalist media see another opportunity. To paraphrase Rahm Emmanuel, the mantra among environmentalists is to “Never let a good catastrophe go to waste.”
Figure 2
Evidence suggests there is no potential harm to humans as one commenter observed,
“The human race has survived many excursions and a few reversals already: so we are likely to come through the next one unscathed.”
Some suggest the Olduvai event was pivotal in human evolution, as that region of Africa is apparently important in the anthropological record. Some attribute demise of the Neanderthals to magnetic reversals, but why them and not others.
What happened to the weather during the reversals? Some researchers link them to dramatic weather pattern changes, but also to volcanic eruptions.
…the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences described the connection between the Laschamp magnetic reversal, the Phlegrean Field (Campi Flegrei) volcanic eruption that devastated most of southeastern Europe, and periods of frequent rapid cooling and warming.
It is not clear if the weather fluctuations are due to volcanic dust or the reversal. This is not surprising because few consider magnetism as a factor and most assume that an exterenal forcing will affect all global temperature globally.
Earth’s Magnetism and Weather
What do we know about relationships between the Earth’s magnetic field and weather? The answer is very little, mostly due to the IPCC hijack, but also inadequate data and knowledge of mechanisms. Are people using solar or earth’s magnetism for weather forecasting? If your forecast works then you likely have the science correct, unlike the IPCC. It looked promising when a search found such sites such as Environment Canada’s “Space Weather”. It was actually a forecast of magnetic activity over Canada. (Figure 2)
Figure 2
There is, to my knowledge, no connection made by EC between this information and the underlying weather. This, despite the fact some are beginning to examine the issue. For example, an article in ScienceDaily is titled, “Sun’s Magnetic Field May Impact Weather and Climate: Sun Cycle Can Predict Rainfall Fluctuations”, references a 2008 work by Baker et al in Geophysical Research , but more on that later. One Aurora information web site from the University of Alaska answers the question, “Does the aurora have an effect on the environment?” with a simple, “Yes, but limited to the high altitude atmosphere.”
They are also primarily a high latitude event, but observations in lower latitudes are a sign of expansion of the dome of cold polar air. In England they were also called Lord Derwentwater’s lights because they were unusually bright on February 24th 1716, when he was beheaded. A bad omen for him, but are they indicators of anything else?
Flying in the arctic and later examining historic records of the region, I became familiar with the importance of these lights for northern indigenous people. They and the fur traders, who called them Petty Dancers from the French petite danseurs, used them as weather indicators.
The Cree in Manitoba forecast cold weather for three to four weeks after a prolonged display. Henry Youle Hind, leader of a scientific expedition across Canada, wrote about Ojibway predictions. On the 19th of September 1858 he wrote:
We arrived at the mouth of the river at 10 A.M., and hastened to avail ourselves of a south-east wind just to rise. Last night the aurora was very beautiful, and extended far beyond the zenith, leading the voyageurs to predict a windy day. The notion prevails with them that when the aurora is low, the following day will be calm; when high, stormy.
Samuel Hearne spent 2 1/2 years with the Chipewyan, (he called them Northern Indians), and wrote in his journal,
The Northern Indians call the Aurora Borealis , Ed-thin; and when that meteor is very bright, they say that deer is plentiful in that part of the atmosphere;,,, Their ideas in this respect are founded on a principle one would not imagine. Experience has shewn tham, that when a hairy deer-skin is briskly stroked with the hand in a dark night, it will emit many sparks of electrical fire, as the back of a cat will.
This effectively describes the phenomenon of static electricity. It is remarkably close to the current explanation of the aurora as an interaction between the solar wind, exciting gas particles of nitrogen and oxygen, causing a neon type glow.
There are some interesting studies that point to a relationship and impact not considered by most, especially the IPCC. For example, in 1974 J. King published Weather and Earth’s Magnetic Field. The abstract says,
A comparison of meteorological pressures and the strength of the geomagnetic field suggests a possible controlling influence of the field on the longitudinal variation of the average pressure in the troposphere at high latitudes. If so, changes which occur in the pattern of ‘permanent’ depressions in the troposphere as the magnetic field varies (for example, as the non-dipole component of the field drifts westwards) may be accompanied by climatic changes.
Another study by Professor Baker links solar activity to precipitation, concludes,
“The interaction between the directionality in the Sun’s and Earth’s magnetic fields, the incidence of ultraviolet radiation over the tropical Pacific, and changes in sea surface temperatures with cloud cover – could all contribute to an explanation of substantial changes in the SOI from solar cycle fluctuations. If solar cycles continue to show relational values to climate patterns, there is the potential for more accurate forecasting through to 2010 and possibly beyond.”
The sun’s magnetic field may have a significant impact on weather and climatic parameters in Australia and other countries in the northern and southern hemispheres. Droughts are related to the solar magnetic phases and not the greenhouse effect, according to new research.
A recent article on WUWT provides another perspective on,
a correlation between the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) and polar jet streams, which drive weather events on Earth.
This trend of articles on solar activity and weather suggests it is time to revisit my long-term interest. The quote, “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven”, is appropriate. All of these factors attracted my interest during research for my doctoral thesis. I discovered a very strong 22-year cycle in a spectral analysis of a long precipitation record for two weather records. One, Churchill, is climatically sub arctic. The other, York Factory is mid-latitude and within the boreal forest. York has the 22-year pattern, but Churchill does not. This mid-latitude precipitation pattern, links with research of drought cycles on the Canadian Prairies. (“Climatic Change, Droughts and Their Social Impact: Central Canada, 1811-20, a classic example.” In C.R.Harington (ed) The Year Without a Summer? World Climate in 1816. 1992).
I also wrote an article for John Daly’s website speaking to a possible mechanism linking solar activity with variations in weather patterns. It stemmed from Environment Canada’s public claims and weather forecasts based on El Nino. It became the forecast fad after 1983 when El Nino pushed into southern California. This was north of its previous, more general, northern South America/Central America location and nothing grabs headlines like beach houses at Malibu being washed away.
Despite using El Nino for their forecasts EC were consistently wrong. I tried to explain that El Nino does not affect Canada; it only appeared like it, because the mechanism that changed El Nino also caused changes in the Jet Stream. What they were doing, was akin to saying that they watched cars and noticed every time the front bumper moved the back bumper moved. They concluded that the front bumper was causing the back bumper to move.
I proposed that a major mechanism is the varying pressure of the Solar Wind on the magnetosphere, down through the layers to the atmosphere, where it causes changes in the major wind patterns. The mechanism has to accommodate two major wind situations. First, is the reversal of upper troposphere equatorial winds, second, is the change from Zonal to Meridional Flow in the Jet Stream. This is achieved if you consider the atmosphere as a bellows that expands and contracts with increasing and decreasing Solar wind pressure. It creates a push-pull effect that causes the weaker tropical winds to stop or reverse and the much stronger Jet Stream to switch between low amplitude Zonal Flow and high amplitude Meridional Flow.
Those who only study one small piece of the complex puzzle that is weather and climate will make specious unhelpful comments, as usual. Others, especially those trying to make more accurate weather and thereby climate forecasts, will understand. We know the IPCC and all national forecasts are consistently wrong. We also know some achieve better results, but they are marginalized and ridiculed by the “official” agencies. Even mention of them here will trigger the cynicism. In general, for seasonal and annual patterns of weather, the Old Farmers Almanac has a reasonable record. It uses sunspot activity among other things. Piers Corbyn survives in the marketplace, where, if he were consistently wrong he would be out of business. His results gained attention from the Mayor of London.
I have not a clue whether his methods are sound or not. But when so many of his forecasts seem to come true, and when he seems to be so consistently ahead of the Met Office, I feel I want to know more.
Corbyn does not disclose his input and methods for commercial reasons. We do know magnetism is part of the mix. The IPCC, and some of its participants, do not fully disclose method and input with no justification, although we know they don’t include magnetism. Their motive is also commercial. They need to keep the industry of deception going, which requires keeping government and crony capitalist funding flowing. It doesn’t matter if the forecasts fail, the political success it what matters. It is essential for them to include or exclude factors that achieve the political goal. Unfortunately, too many skeptics are also unaware of many of the factors, but at least most of them are willing to listen.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
ren brought up Iceland’s volcanic SO2.
This gives a warming bump, followed by cooling in the hemisphere. This is from HiRise:
Yet the Cannabis Generation continues to attack coal, oil, combustion of any kind, and agriculture. This is really bad timing to force 1% solutions on people who do not know any better because they are miseducated and gullible. I remind readers that renewables only provide less than 1% of our needed power (not counting hydro, which activists hate and oppose), despite billions spent on their use. Likewise, organic agriculture only provides 1% of our food supply. The reason for this is that organic ag is extremely unreliable and ineffective.
Yet the Cannabis Generation continues to believe that throwing Bill Gates billions at the problems, and forcing people to buy into their personal investments in expensive and worthless replacements, will be a positive “change.” Look at the potential cooling and look at the banning of agricultural methods and coal at this time. It is just horrible timing to let the Cannabis Generation have their way. Just say no to them. And remember, eat a little wheat gluten every day, with milk, hamburger, non-nematode-eaten potatoes, and an orange shipped in two days flat from Florida in a refrigerated 48′ trailer.
Indeed, the magnetosphere undergoes quite evident distortions much like pushing on a balloon during solar impact events throughout the solar-cycles, both weak and strong 11 year maximums. The impacts and interactions felt further down (ionosphere layers, mesosphere, stratosphere, troposphere, planet core) of these distortions are not understood.
we’ll never have the ability to measure the electromagnetic forces within a cubed meter of air, so measuring the forces at all wavelengths (E & H fields) within the magnetospheric bounds becomes subjective…
Stop blaming Zeke
Zeke must be new to the planet, let’s welcome Zeke with a nice glass of ‘cool aid’ to make it feel at home.
Reblogged this on Globalcooler's Weblog and commented:
Besides the respect that I have for Tim Ball’s abilities and understanding of our climate, this piece puts together the mechanisms that I am convinced control our climate and weather. Thanks to Albert Jacobs of the Friends of science for sending this to me. And thanks to others like Piers Corbyn who has made a life out of analyzing the effects of solar/Earth magnetic interactions, the late Timo Niroma who analyzed the solar sunspot cycles and their effect on our planet, as well as Will Alexander who predicted the solar effect on rainfall/drought in Africa. And not to forget Oliver Manual who first showed me how the Sun was not a stable star but was often “an insolent child”. There were others who have made significant impacts on my understanding of the solar /climate/ Earth relationship where Paul Vaughn was particularly astute. Paul’s charts have been a source of confusion, generally followed by a breakthrough in awareness of the total effect of the whole system. This is a great piece worthy of a careful read.
http://www.evolutionaryleaps.com/2014/09/earths-impending-magnetic-flip-scientific-american/#more-3294
Contrary to what some have said there is much evidence/data out there that suggest the strength of magnetic fields of the sun and earth have a big impact on the climate.
As I have said weak solar magnetic fields correlate to a cooler climate moderated further by the geo magnetic field of the earth.
Salvatore, your claim that there is much evidence out there that suggests that magnetism affects climate would be helped greatly by few links to such evidence itself. Not to the press release. Not to the Scientific American article on the subject. Links to the evidence.
Many thanks,
w.
I wonder how the recent discovery of proof of Higgs Field affects this ?
The discovery of the Boson Particle is proof that the predicted Higgs Field does exist, and it may well constitute much of the so called missing “dark matter” of the universe. It isn’t just the Boson, or the Higgs Field itself, but how this invisible “plasma” if you like, can make interplanetary connections which could affect space weather and hence cause effects of the atmospheric system here on Earth.
What is Higgs Field (Fermilab short explanation)
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/inquiring/questions/higgs_boson.html
http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Courtillot07EPSL.pdf
Here is one of many studies.
If that’s your best shot, it’s time to retire from the field. That says things like:
I see … in modern times when we have good data they can’t find the signal, but a hundred and thirty years ago they claim it might exist. Their main conclusion?
Truly, Salvatore, you should read these things very critically before linking to them. You are not doing your reputation any good to post this kind of vague handwaving. Yes, as they say, magnetic fields MAY have significant bearing on climate. On the other hand, I MAY win the lottery this week. So what?
w.
Is this not how science works? People do research which points to the possibility of x being a possibility and others do further research which either reinforces hypothesis x or tends to contradict it? In this case we have many studies which suggest, and present ‘evidence’ for – the quality of which will no doubt vary – a significant role for geomagnetism/solar activity in climate variability. None of them ‘prove’ the case definitively. However, in order to disprove the case definitively, one must in turn cite research which unarguably debunks x in favour of an alternative hypothesis y, say, or even just rules out x without suggesting an alternative. Are there any papers out there which conclusively DISPROVE a link between climate and geomagnetic/solar activity? If so, they should be presented on this thread by the sceptics of this hypothesis. Meanwhile, tentative evidence mounts to suggest that climate/weather is indeed forced by geomagnetic/solar variability.
Only an abstract I’m afraid:
“The results do not rule out the possibility that geomagnetic field variations which modulate the cosmic ray flux could have played a major role in climate change in addition to previously induced by solar radiation.”
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS0016793212080063
This paper suggests that solar activity impacts upon geomagnetic activity.
“Studies of the Quaternary climate record indicate changes towards cooler and locally dryer conditions in conjunction with geomagnetic intensity lows, geomagnetic reversals, and lows in solar magnetic activity. . . .
Geomagnetic reversals and low-geomagnetic-intensity events seem to occur in phase with the orbital 100 ka eccentricity cycle and a 100 ka solar magnetic activity cycle.”
http://www.geosci.sfsu.edu/Geosciences/classes/gm700/PDF_Files/DaveGgeomag.pdf
Jaime Jessop November 4, 2014 at 10:04 am
Depends. If the “possibility of x” is only suggested by paleo data and not supported by modern data, as in this case, it’s not how science works. Science in that case would look at the modern data and say something like “x is extremely unlikely, since there is no sign of the effect in more accurate modern data, although some paleo data seems to support it”. However, modern science seems to be all about “publish no matter what”, and so we see nonsense like that paper, full to the brim with “might” and “could” and “may” and “possiblity” … sorry, not science.
You go on to say that:
“Tentative evidence”? First, people have been looking at this question for decades. The fact that at this point all you can produce is “tentative evidence” should tell you something about whether we’re looking at science or wishful thinking.
Next, what is “tentative evidence” when it’s at home? Was the dataset found abandoned by the roadside, with no provenance? Does it provide evidence for both sides?
In addition, even the paper doesn’t present evidence in favor of the geomagnetism-weather connection. The best the authors can say is that they “do not rule out the possibility” that there is such a connection.
The problem, Jaime, is that in science there is rarely anything that can “rule out the possibility” of just about any result. For example, it is indeed possible that all of the coffee in my cup will suddenly and spontaneously jump out of the cup. So finding something that “does not rule out the possibility” of spontaneous coffee levitation is meaningless.
For a more relevant example, I’ve looked at dozens and dozens of surface weather-related datasets, and found no sign of the purported 11-year sunspot related cycle. Does this “rule out the possibility” that such a cycle exists?
Of course not … but that’s because there is literally nothing that can rule out that possibility. I could look at 9,999 datasets and not find it … but since I might find it in dataset 10,000, it does not rule out the possibility that such a cycle exists.
So if the best a scientific study can say is that it “does not rule out the possibility” of something, it’s not a scientific study. It’s an advocacy piece … and there are literally dozens of those out there masquerading as science.
Best regards,
w.
Willis, thanks for the substantial reply.
“Depends. If the “possibility of x” is only suggested by paleo data and not supported by modern data, as in this case, it’s not how science works.”
In my experience, paleo data and modern data are frequently two very different creatures which often cannot be easily compared one to the other. The relatively highly accurate modern instrumental record and the 35 year old satellite record, with associated very high temporal and spatial resolution can only be compared to the much less certain and generally far less chronologically resolved paleo record with caution. So we cannot with precision say this has happened now but didn’t happen in the distant past because our looking-glass into that past will never be as sharply focused as our view of the present.
By tentative I mean to imply that it is not conclusive, but this does not preclude the possibility that the evidence as presented is of sufficiently high quality such as to merit further research.
“In addition, even the paper doesn’t present evidence in favor of the geomagnetism-weather connection. The best the authors can say is that they “do not rule out the possibility” that there is such a connection.”
Without reading the actual paper, which is behind a paywall, it’s difficult to assess the basis on which the authors make this statement. They may be cautiously understating the results of their own research or they may be overstating them. For example, the authors also say in the abstract:
“The beginning and termination of the examined geomagnetic excursions can be attributed to periods of climate change.”
Which I’m sure you’ll agree is a rather more definitive statement.
Jaime November 4, 2014 at 1:48 pm
My pleasure.
Jaime, when someone says that something happened regularly in the past, but doesn’t happen now, my first conclusion is that the data has serious problems of some kind. And since they said that the evidence for their case is “tenuous”, I fail to see why you are talking about evidence of “sufficiently high quality”.
Oh, yeah, right, scientists are famous for understating their results … but in any case, saying that they “do not rule out the possibility” is so weak as to be meaningless. As I pointed out, nothing can “rule out the possibility”, so their statement is meaningless.
Dear heavens, you are indeed easy to cozen … the climate has been changing since the climate existed. As a result, saying that something happened during a “period of climate change” is the same as saying something occurred “during a period when there was oxygen in the atmosphere” … meaningless.
So no, Jaime, that is not a “more definitive statement”. It is just more bafflegab, the same as the claim about how something does “not rule out the possibility”.
w.
“Jaime, when someone says that something happened regularly in the past, but doesn’t happen now, my first conclusion is that the data has serious problems of some kind. And since they said that the evidence for their case is “tenuous”, I fail to see why you are talking about evidence of “sufficiently high quality”.”
We’re getting bogged down by disparate references here. To be clear, I have not said that any researcher’s evidence is ‘tenuous’ or illustrated that they should themselves think it so. No, what I am saying is that past reconstructions of climate rely upon the paleo record, obviously, and should only be compared to current climate observations with caution, especially if one is seeking to prove that a apparently happened in the past but does not happen now or indeed that b did not happen in the past but is very evident now. What I have said is that research linking magnetic fluctuations to climate is not conclusive but that this does not necessarily mean the accumulated evidence in favour of this hypothesis can be easily dismissed as tenuous or unconvincing.
I quoted: “The beginning and termination of the examined geomagnetic excursions can be attributed to periods of climate change.”
Which I’m sure you’ll agree is a rather more definitive statement.
You replied: “Dear heavens, you are indeed easy to cozen … the climate has been changing since the climate existed. As a result, saying that something happened during a “period of climate change” is the same as saying something occurred “during a period when there was oxygen in the atmosphere” … meaningless.”
Besides drawing seemingly sweeping conclusions from an abstract only, you are looking at this topic in rather artificial isolation I feel. If, as the authors suggest, geomagnetic excursions occur contemporaneously with defined fluctuations in climate (cooling) then, at the very least, this requires further investigation to see if there is indeed a physical link between the two and/or whether further observational paleo evidence reinforces the findings. When there is also a developing area of science which is suggesting viable mechanisms for solar wind/GCR-climate interactions, it seems somewhat premature to me to dismiss out of hand this research as ‘meaningless’. Contrary to rumours, Svensmark’s cloud hypothesis is not dead, just undergoing a process of more rigorous assessment and expansion upon the original, rather simplistic concept.
But Svensmark’s cloud nucleation is just one of a number of possible mechanisms. Solar/geomagnetic field/climate interactions are far from fully understood. I quote:
“Our understanding how much the sun and other things occurring in space effect [sic.] Earth’s climate is still in its infancy.
Why?
Because – as NASA explains – interactions between the sun, sources of cosmic radiation and the Earth are very complicated, and takes an interdisciplinary team of solar physicists, chemists and others to quantify what is really going on.
Indeed, scientists have been stunned in recent years by the following discoveries:
Flares from the sun change the rate of radioactive decay of elements on Earth
Sounds generated deep inside the Sun cause the Earth to shake and vibrate in sympathy. They have found that Earth’s magnetic field, atmosphere and terrestrial systems, all take part in this cosmic sing-along
“Space weather” causes “spacequakes” in Earth’s geomagnetic field
There is even some evidence that solar activity can cause earthquakes and volcanic eruptions on Earth”
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/scientists-discover-new-mechanisms-space-events-effect-earths-climate.html
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Cliver.pdf
Another study. take care
No, you take care. That study is no better than the previous one. It claims a correspondence between a line connecting the minima of the aa index with a decadal estimate of the global temperature from Parker and Jones … that’s your evidence? To start with, connecting the minima is about the worst kind of smoothing I can imagine. Then comparing that to a decadal boxcar average? Seriously?
‘Fraid you’ll have to do much better than that, Salvatore.
w.
Willis I think the same about your studies so we will never get any where on this subject. I believe in those studies and not yours and you believe in your studies and not these. You will not convince me and I will not convince you.
Salvatore Del Prete November 4, 2014 at 1:00 pm Edit
Belief? What on earth does belief have to do with science? I see the problem now. I’m looking at facts—observations, statistical analyses, types of averaging done, provenance of the dataset … and you are rambling on about “belief”, without providing one single response to the problems that I’ve pointed out in your cited studies.
Belief?!?
Spare me from believers …
w.
Belief? What on earth does belief have to do with science? I see the problem now. I’m looking at facts—observations, statistical analyses, types of averaging done, provenance of the dataset … and you are rambling on about “belief”, without providing one single response to the problems that I’ve pointed out in your cited studies.
MY RESPONSE
I am looking at sources with facts, statistical analysis ,types of averaging etc., the reality is you choose not to believe those sources and I do.
You instead have created your own studies and have drawn your conclusions based on those studies.
Many in this field as you know from the recent climate summit agree with my stance, maybe wrong maybe right but I have a lot of company in my camp.
Salvatore Del Prete November 5, 2014 at 7:53 am
Not true. The reality is that I have analyzed those studies, using standard scientific methods, and found them wanting. Each time I’ve done so you’ve had an opportunity to show that my analysis is wrong. That would be the scientific method … but you’ve never done that. Instead, you prattle on about what you believe, as if belief made any difference.
It’s true. In addition to studying the work of others, I’ve done my own research … this is now a point against me?
Gosh, yes. You have the 97% solar consensus … thankfully, science is not an election. How is that suddenly you are a fan of the “consensus” argument?
w.
Jaime November 5, 2014 at 1:37 am
Say what? The authors themselves said that their evidence was “tenuous”, as I quoted above:
Given that, what evidence are you talking about that is of “sufficiently high quality”?
You go on to say:
You seem to think that I’m the one saying that the evidence is “tenuous”, whereas that was the conclusion of the authors that YOU CITED!
w.
Er, no Willis, I did not cite this paper, Salvatore did. Furthermore, I am not trying to convince yourself or anybody else on this blog that there is evidence for “Milankovich forcing in the core, either directly or through changes in ice distribution and moments of inertia of the Earth.” That was not the thrust of my argument at all. But as you quoted this paper cited by Salvatore, the very next sentences say:
“Correlation between decadal changes in amplitude of geomagnetic variations of external origin, solar irradiance and global temperature is stronger. It suggests that solar irradiance could have been a major forcing function of climate until the mid-1980s, when “anomalous”warming becomes apparent.”
This is the argument I was putting forward, bar the correlation with post 1985 warming which the authors identify as “anomalous”.
Jaime Jessop November 5, 2014 at 9:20 am
OK, my bad. Please change my last sentence to
However, my main point still stands. The authors say:
So the evidence is “stronger” than tenuous evidence … wow, that’s impressive. It “suggests” something, once again, that’s impressive. And it disappears in 1980 … also impressive.
However, when you look at the paper, the authors are not talking about “Correlation between decadal changes in amplitude of geomagnetic variations of external origin, solar irradiance and global temperature”. That’s just there to deceive the masses, and successfully, it seems. But in fact they are talking about correlation between PROXIES for geomagnetic variations, PROXIES for solar irradiation, and PROXIES for global temperature.
As a result, their final conclusion is as weak as American beer. They finish by saying that there are:
“Indications”? “may have significant bearing”???
Perhaps that impresses you, perhaps you mistake that for science … me, not so much. It’s just another example of the “publish or perish” problem, a paper that wanders around and eventually says nothing. Everything is wrapped up in so many “indications” and “might” and “suggestions” and “could affect” and the like that at the end of the day, there is nothing of substance there at all.
w.
Deary me, so we’re taking one comment from the authors of just one paper which I did not cite, in relation to a topic which I am not discussing, to criticize my argument by saying “that was the conclusion of the authors that YOU ARE DISCUSSING!”
“But in fact they are talking about correlation between PROXIES for geomagnetic variations, PROXIES for solar irradiation, and PROXIES for global temperature.”
Please do enlighten me as to whether there exist ways to directly measure such variability before the advent of instrumentation.
But we do seem to be bickering now, which is not constructive and probably not a worthwhile use of both of our times. Thanks for the main discussion though.
Jaime November 5, 2014 at 1:37 am
Good heavens, I’ve been doing nothing but that with my investigations of the claimed existence of the 11-year cycle. In fact, I’ve found no evidence at all to support that hypothesis. So you are standing on the sidelines and saying “this requires further investigation”, and I’m one of the poor shlubs actually DOING the investigation, and finding nothing.
Jaime, I’ve invited you along with everyone else to point me to the definitive dataset, the one where we can actually find the evidence of your long-rumored connection between some sunspot-related phenomenon (TSI, solar wind, GCRs, etc) and some surface weather dataset.
To date, nobody has come up with one that stands up to simple statistical significance analysis.
Now, this makes no difference to the true believers, of course. But I had though you were a fan of the scientific method … just how many negative results will it take for you to admit that simple fact, and consider what it might mean?
w.
Willis, if you are asking me to point you in the direction of a definitive dataset, I have already stated that the evidence for solar/GCR/geomagnetic related forcing of climate/weather is not conclusive, though by no means insubstantial. I am a ‘fan’ as you say of the scientific method and I am quite open to being convinced of the absolute fact that there is no merit whatsoever to any of the numerous studies which identify a supposedly statistically significant correlation between solar activity and climate. If such is the case, i am sure that you (and others) will be writing to the authors and publishers of said papers very soon to demonstrate their error and either have them amended or retracted. But that’s only half the story. The other half is the numerous papers which postulate viable mechanisms whereby this ‘statistically significant’ correlation (or not, as the case may be) might be physically realised.
Willis, I’ve only skimmed through the comments, so I wanted to confirm – you’re findings suggest that solar output remains constant? And you’re skeptical that solar output influences the Earth?
See, J, this is why I insist that people don’t try to summarize or interpret what I said, but that instead they QUOTE MY WORDS. Given that you appear either too dense or too refractory to do that one simple thing that I clearly requested in the head post, I fear your comment goes straight into my garbage can.
w.
Jaime November 5, 2014 at 9:38 am Edit
Since you are unwilling to point to a single dataset, I fear I don’t understand why you think the evidence is “not conclusive”. That implies that it is substantial and solid but not solid enough … however, you can’t name a single dataset to back that up.
Sorry, Jaime, but I believe in evidence, not some claim from some random anonymous internet poster that he thinks the evidence is “substantial” but can’t or won’t point to a single dataset to back up that claim.
w.
“Sorry, Jaime, but I believe in evidence, not some claim from some random anonymous internet poster that he thinks the evidence is “substantial” but can’t or won’t point to a single dataset to back up that claim.”
You clearly are bewitched by this conviction that there is no evidence on this issue, only hearsay. What can I say, other than that I wish you well in your crusade against ‘bad science’ and its ill-informed advocates and recommend that you take just a little more care with your assumptions about the people you are debating with!
Not true. The reality is that I have analyzed those studies, using standard scientific methods, and found them wanting
My reply to Willis.
First of all the data you have presented leaves much to be desired in my opinion. I think it is very confusing and inaccurate when all is said and done which results in it not being able to prove anything to many of us in this field. ..
Secondly I have presented to you many papers with data that show everything counter to what you try to show. You are the one who chooses not to believe in them or say the papers are not good enough for you.
That is your opinion which is fine but it is ONLY your opinion.
You think you are correct . I think you are not correct. .
I have specified the problems with the few (not many but few) papers you recommended. If you think I was wrong in any of those problems, please QUOTE MY WORDS and tell me where you think I was wrong.
Waving your hands and saying “many papers” does nothing to forward the discussion. I have no clue which papers you are referring to, or why you disagreed with me but said nothing about my analysis.
However, this is all too common for you, so I guess I should not be surprised … for example, you say:
No citation, no quotation, so NOBODY (including myself) has any clue what you are babbling about.
I give up, Salvatore. I’ve asked you over and over again to CITE and to QUOTE what you are talking about. Your latest comment shows that I’m having absolutely no effect.
I’ll pass on your further comments, thanks.
w.
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967.full
Here is another study which you Willis will say is not correct. I can give you 100’s of these and you will have the same commentary and opinion. This is because you don not believe in what the papers are saying due to your studies which is fine but this does not mean these are not correct while you are.
If it were that clear cut you would be famous in the field of climatology by now and would be THE person everyone would go to. Which we know is just not so.
.
However, this is all too common for you, so I guess I should not be surprised … for example, you say:
No citation, no quotation, so NOBODY (including myself) has any clue what you are babbling about.
I give up, Salvatore. I’ve asked you over and over again to CITE and to QUOTE what you are talking about. Your latest comment shows that I’m having absolutely no effect.
MY REPLY
This is the same way I feel about you and what you have to say. You have never refuted anything I have presented. If anything you convince me more then ever that my stance is correct. Thanks for that.