Study: The sun has more impact on the climate in cool periods

From Aarhus University:

latest_512_4500

The activity of the Sun is an important factor in the complex interaction that controls our climate. New research now shows that the impact of the Sun is not constant over time, but has greater significance when the Earth is cooler.

There has been much discussion as to whether variations in the strength of the Sun have played a role in triggering climate change in the past, but more and more research results clearly indicate that solar activity – i.e. the amount of radiation coming from the Sun – has an impact on how the climate varies over time.

In a new study published in the scientific journal Geology, researchers from institutions including Aarhus University in Denmark show that, during the last 4,000 years, there appears to have been a close correlation between solar activity and the sea surface temperature in summer in the North Atlantic. This correlation is not seen in the preceding period.

Since the end of the Last Ice Age about 12,000 years ago, the Earth has generally experienced a warm climate. However, the climate has not been stable during this period, when temperatures have varied for long periods. We have generally had a slightly cooler climate during the last 4,000 years, and the ocean currents in the North Atlantic have been weaker.

“We know that the Sun is very important for our climate, but the impact is not clear. Climate change appears to be either strengthened or weakened by solar activity. The extent of the Sun’s influence over time is thus not constant, but we can now conclude that the climate system is more receptive to the impact of the Sun during cold periods – at least in the North Atlantic region,” says Professor Marit-Solveig Seidenkrantz, Aarhus University, who is one of the Danish researchers in the international team behind the study.

A piece of the climate puzzle

In their study, the researchers looked at the sea surface temperatures in summer in the northern part of the North Atlantic during the last 9,300 years. Direct measurements of the temperature are only found for the last 140 years, when they were taken from ships.

However, by examining studies of marine algae – diatoms – found in sediments deposited on the North Atlantic sea bed, it is possible to use the species distribution of these organisms to reconstruct fluctuations in sea surface temperatures much further back in time.

The detailed study makes it possible to draw comparisons with records of fluctuations of solar energy bursts in the same period, and the results show a clear correlation between climate change in the North Atlantic and variations in solar activity during the last 4,000 years, both on a large time scale over periods of hundreds of years and right down to fluctuations over periods of 10-20 years.

The new knowledge is a small but important piece of the overall picture as regards our understanding of how the entire climate system works, according to Professor Seidenkrantz.

“Our climate is enormously complex. By gathering knowledge piece by piece about the way the individual elements work together and influence each other to either strengthen an effect or mitigate or compensate for an impact, we can gradually get an overall picture of the mechanisms. This is also important for understanding how human-induced climate change can affect and be affected in this interaction,” she says.

###

Link to Geology: Solar forcing of Holocene summer sea-surface temperatures in the northern North Atlantic http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2015/02/02/G36377.1.full.pdf+html

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
372 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 1, 2015 11:48 am

No surprise there .

Reply to  vukcevic
March 1, 2015 11:58 am

In addition to the TSI, Dr. L. Svalgaard solar scientist Stanford University states:
“As the magnetospheric ring current and the auroral electrojets and their return currents that are responsible for geomagnetic activity have generally North-South directed magnetic effects (strongest at night), the daytime variation of the Y or East component is a suitable proxy for the strength of the SR ionospheric current system..”
Y component measurements (using Gauss magnetometer) since 1840s are currently used to recalibrate the existing sunspot records (Svalgaard et al)
Solar activity effect on the N. Atlantic SST (the AMO) is unique.
Data shows direct correlation of the AMO to the geomagnetic Y (East) component
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GMEC-AMO.gif
Why 60N ?
N. Hemisphere’s climate is under control of the polar and sub-tropical jet-streams, whereby the long term zonal-merdional positioning of jet streams depends on the extent and strength of three primary cells (Pollar, Ferrel and Hadley).
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream//global/images/jetstream3.jpg

ralfellis
Reply to  vukcevic
March 1, 2015 12:48 pm

And if you can force the Polar Jet far enough south, tropical air masses never reach the higher latitudes and you get an Ice Age.
So what was the geomagnetic Y (East) component doing, over the last million years? Any way of knowing?
And what is it predicted to do, over the next 50-100 years?
R

ralfellis
Reply to  vukcevic
March 1, 2015 12:49 pm

Oh, and does the P.D.O. reflect the same kind of correlation with the geomagnetic Y (East) component?
R

Reply to  vukcevic
March 1, 2015 1:13 pm

No, no, and no!
– We have magnetometer data only since 1840s.
– Geomagnetic impact is combination of the two magnetic fields variability : solar and the Earth’s, and neither is predictable with any degree of certainty.
60N in the Atlantic is south of Iceland (btw warm current down-welling area) traverses number of important warm and cold currents linking Arctic and N. Atlantic ( warm ~9Sv, cold ~10.5Sv).
– PDO & Pacific, no!
60N in Pacific catches only the northern part of the Bering Sea, with only one minor current (warm ~1.5Sv) flowing into Arctic. (Sv= Sverdrup)

Duster
Reply to  vukcevic
March 2, 2015 3:30 pm

Very carefully controlled collection methods are used to gain a very good idea of what the planetary magnetic field is doing at any given time. Magnetic dating is used in both geology and archaeology to estimate dates of features and formations of interest. The field affects the orientation of magnetic material in sediments and since the field changes over time the orientation can be used to estimate the age of objects like hearths, lava flows and similar objects. While the direction of the pole would only correlate to time, the angle of dip might correlate to other aspects of planetary environment.

george e. smith
Reply to  vukcevic
March 2, 2015 11:35 am

Well that would be especially true at places like Vostock Station.
I would think it would be a tossup as to which has more influence at Vostock; the sun or the ice ?? On the climate that is.

Pat Frank
March 1, 2015 11:49 am

This is also important for understanding how human-induced climate change can affect and be affected in this interaction,” she says.
The standard genuflection to the political tyrants in the viewing stand.

mikewaite
Reply to  Pat Frank
March 1, 2015 12:19 pm

But 2 of the authors , including the first- named , Jui Hang, are from China , a country which , perforce , due to its large dependent population , has to make a realistic appraisal of AGW and the arguments for and against.
The name of these authors may be ones to bookmark for future reference to see what they produce in their own right , free of the political correctness required by Western researchers .

MarkW
Reply to  mikewaite
March 1, 2015 2:42 pm

On the other hand, China is making a fortune selling solar panels to the US.

Bart
Reply to  mikewaite
March 1, 2015 5:30 pm

Researchers in Red China free to inquire, Western researchers stifled. The world is truly upside down.

Harry van Loon.
Reply to  Pat Frank
March 2, 2015 6:45 am

INTERACTION? I doubt that tha earth acts on the sun.

PaulWesthaver
March 1, 2015 11:49 am

It is the Sun stupid.
…figured I’d be the first…

Ralph Knapp
Reply to  PaulWesthaver
March 1, 2015 12:18 pm

Thanks!! I needed that. Every time I’m in discussion about this topic I say this, and if outside, I point to it and say, “There’s your climate change model in real time.” 🙂 There’s usually a long silence fo;;owing my statement.

PaulWesthaver
Reply to  Ralph Knapp
March 1, 2015 1:44 pm

Hey Ralph,
Where I live, it can be 25C during the day and after sundown, below 0C. The sun vs no sun causes a high gain response of ~25 C in less than 10 hrs. Day to night in a day = 25 C shift.
What noise is associated with that signal? 1% ?
With such a small N to S ratio, can’t there be at least a small contribution from Sol? How could you measure such a minuscule effect? We could pretend that it isn’t there I suppose.

Bohdan Burban
Reply to  PaulWesthaver
March 1, 2015 2:02 pm

Will we find out Soon enough?

Teddi
Reply to  PaulWesthaver
March 1, 2015 11:27 pm

I’m right there with you, been saying it for 15 yrs…
Turn off the Sun and see what happens !
Everything else is over thinking.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Teddi
March 2, 2015 7:32 pm

Given your suggestion, you are saying let’s measure the different sizes of chicken eggs with a measuring stick that only has marks for mile (or kilometer for those fortunate enough to live under the metric system).

DeNihilist
March 1, 2015 11:50 am

So the thing is, to make the models better, we have to understand the role of umpteen things. To understand the role of say just the sun, we then have to be able to predict its variations within tight bounds. Multiply that by the umpteen things that go into producing climate and it leads me to say that we are still years away from having models that are reliable.

MarkW
Reply to  DeNihilist
March 1, 2015 7:22 pm

The problem is that we still don’t fully understand all of the different ways the sun influences the climate, much less how those influences change as the sun changes.

March 1, 2015 11:51 am

“Our climate is enormously complex.” But, alarmists would have us believe one relatively small factor (CO2) is all-important. It’s ridiculous on its face.

upcountrywater
March 1, 2015 11:53 am

Who knew IT’S THE SUN….

Tom in Florida
March 1, 2015 11:53 am

I do not have a subscription to Geology so I was not able to read the full pdf. I am just wondering if they did consider precession and obliquity changes with the corresponding decrease of summer insolation in the North Atlantic over time.

Martin H
Reply to  Tom in Florida
March 1, 2015 11:38 pm

I am about a third the way through the video. I find nothing under IMDB. It seems to be only in a few places on the net.
When was it made? It is obviously made before the “science” channels became politically correct.

rgbatduke
March 1, 2015 11:57 am

Paywalled, so one cannot look at the evidence. In particular, one cannot look at the inferred nonlinear sensitivity to determine if small variations are likely to be very important in the context of the little ice age/maunder minimum and the weak(er) solar cycle we are having now and are predicted to have for the next 1-3 cycles. As Lief has pointed out, there isn’t a good correlation in the short-run data (in part because solar state hasn’t varied that much) but if there is a compelling correlation in the long run data that would be a strong argument for confounding stuff in the highly multidimensional climate being responsible for masking a warming signal that is linked to solar state even over the last 150-400 years. There are plenty of candidates for the latter — the multidecadal oscillations being at the head of the list as they, too, have a very clear impact on climate.
rgb

milodonharlani
Reply to  rgbatduke
March 1, 2015 12:38 pm

According to Aarhus researchers, the sun influences the AMO, but more in the recent past than during the LIA!
http://m.phys.org/news/2014-03-atlantic-ocean-sun-volcanoes.html

Jimbo
Reply to  rgbatduke
March 1, 2015 12:53 pm

The post’s link leads to a title only. Here is the abstract.

Abstract
“Solar forcing of Holocene summer sea-surface temperatures in the northern North Atlantic
Mounting evidence from proxy records suggests that variations in solar activity have played a significant role in triggering past climate changes. However, the mechanisms for sun-climate links remain a topic of debate. Here we present a high-resolution summer sea-surface temperature (SST) record covering the past 9300 yr from a site located at the present-day boundary between polar and Atlantic surface-water masses. The record is age constrained via the identification of 15 independently dated tephra markers from terrestrial archives, circumventing marine reservoir age variability problems. Our results indicate a close link between solar activity and SSTs in the northern North Atlantic during the past 4000 yr; they suggest that the climate system in this area is more susceptible to the influence of solar variations during cool periods with less vigorous ocean circulation. Furthermore, the high-resolution SST record indicates that climate in the North Atlantic regions follows solar activity variations on multidecadal to centennial time scales.”
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2015/02/02/G36377.1.abstract

Reply to  Jimbo
March 1, 2015 8:24 pm

They have “built in” a fallacie in their background for their thesis….. “Mounting evidence from proxy records suggests that variations in solar activity have played a significant role in triggering past climate changes.” by using proxy they show lack of knowledge how to come up with a sound algoritm to be used. That’s one thing, but they also showed they aren’t familiar with problems involving using ice core as their proxy not to mention that had this been correct, which it isn’t, 320 samples had been too few….
Can’t anyone teach them why ice cores can’t be used to prove anything for a specific Arctic past? They haven’t even taken difference in saltination nor taken in Arctic water where Ice always drift and never ever is on same “place” ten years let alone several thousands. They have missed the fluctuation in streams and straiths over seasons and over centuries. That they also misunderstood their math… well why am I not surprised…

Reply to  rgbatduke
March 1, 2015 12:56 pm

You can find the paper here.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 1, 2015 1:25 pm

Thank you.

whiten
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 1, 2015 1:40 pm

Thank you..

milodonharlani
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 1, 2015 4:04 pm

¡Muchisimas gracias!

greymouser70
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 1, 2015 7:23 pm

Thanks Nick

rgbatduke
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 2, 2015 5:19 am

Indeed, thanks! The money quote from the paper:

The model results
indicate that a reduced frequency of Atlantic blocking events during inter-
vals of high solar activity promotes warmer and saltier conditions in the
pathway of the Irminger Current due to stronger circulation of the subpo-
lar gyre. This implies that combined atmospheric and ocean circulation
effects are important for the sun-climate link observed at our location.
Furthermore, using an intermediate complexity model in an ensemble
approach, Renssen et al. (2006) showed that the probability of a solar-
induced local reduction of the deep-water formation increases when the
Arctic is already cold.
The modeling results here may aid understanding of the processes
underlying the sun-climate link over the past 4000 yr and the absence
of such a strong link between climate variability and solar irradiation
prior to 4000 cal. yr B.P. on the NIS.

In other words, even though the changes in solar forcing are tiny, the system is chaotic and small changes can systematically trigger shifts in thermohaline circulation and its coupled atmospheric component that cool/warm the entire Arctic and by extension northern Europe and the northeast coast of the north american continent.
Note that they offer a very specific pathway for solar activity to influence climate — “intervals of high solar activity promote warmer and saltier conditions in the pathway of the Irminger Current due to stronger circulation in the subpolar gyre”. As we are entering an apparent period of low solar activity, this is certainly a candidate explanation for the shifts in the polar vortex that are currently responsible for the snow that is still sitting, unmelted, outside of my window in NC in March. Snow that will melt this week (finally!) but that may be joined by still more snow by Thursday evening. We’ve missed an “unprecedented” two days of class at Duke two years in a row due to snowfall when we have gone six to eight year stretches without missing any at all.
Speaking of unprecedented, figure 3 in the paper shows just how not unprecedented Arctic conditions and temperatures are compared to the last 10,000 years. Count the number of 1 C spikes in (for example) the lowest plot or second to lowest plot. Observe the secular variation of over 3 C over the last 8000 years from the Holocene Optimum. Observe that the LIA was the lowest stretch in the last 10,000 years. Observe that they assert “extra” sensitivity to solar state in colder conditions, although that’s a second order effect and I’m dubious that their data can really resolve this — I’m guessing that they are seeing and misinterpreting the rapidity of the shift based on the kind of shift that is most likely to occur out of cold or out of warm conditions.
Yet another set of data that suggests that a great deal of the “unprecendented” abuse of language and statistics should simply be left out of the scientific debate on the causes of climate shifts over century plus timescales.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  rgbatduke
March 1, 2015 7:41 pm

That depends what solar state you are talking about. Solar plasma density/pressure has fallen markedly in the same time frame as the AMO has strongly warmed, since the mid 1990’s. The multidecadal oscillations are more likely amplified negative feedbacks to the solar signal:
http://snag.gy/HxdKY.jpg

March 1, 2015 11:59 am

Very well argumented article, I enjoyed reading it. I dare to say that oceans are a decisive climatic force, too, the second after the sun. The oceans affected by human activity, naval and merchant ships operating and sailing the seas back and forth should have been the hottest topic in the debate on climate change since meteorology was established as a science in the late 19th century. Instead of that, oceans were ignored up to the late 20th century and not even today do they enjoy the significant position they deserve.
I emphasize with the idea that Naval War had a great impact in the climate change. I suggest visiting http://www.1ocean-1climate.com for more information.

auto
Reply to  smamarver
March 1, 2015 2:04 pm

smamarver
Many thanks.
I have no doubt that human activity affects the oceans.
The amount of – mostly plastic-based – rubbish in them rather strongly indicates that.
Localised effects – as suggested in the link, in the Baltic, perhaps – may be real, if not long-lasting.
The oceans are big.
Even very large container carriers [‘big box boats’] like the ‘MSC Oscar’ and ‘CSCL Globe’ are only about 400 metres long, and sixty metres wide.
Now, there are between 50,000 and 80,000 ocean-going ships [depends on the definition’s precise parameters].
Sounds a lot – indeed it is a lot (and remember they each have a crew of twenty or so – generally – away from home for weeks, months, even a year at a time!).
If the average is 250m long by 40m in beam (probably high, but for the sake of argument] , each will cover a hectare.
80,000 ships that big – about 800 square kilometres.
The oceans are about 300,000,000 square kilometres – one part in 275,000 is covered by a ship at any time.
Effects – surely: each ship [at an average 15 knots, ~ 28 kph] will pass through 24x 112 times its length in a day [yes, merchant ships operate 24/7]. So – with some approximations – one part in one hundred of the ocean will have had a ship pass through it in any 24 hours.
On average.
The English Channel, say, or the Malacca Straits, will far exceed that. the Southern Ocean – and some quite large areas of even the Atlantic and Pacific oceans will have fewer transits.
I appreciate that, above, I am confining the passage to precisely the ship’s beam – her width.
If it is two beams either side – so an average (as above) ship affects 200 meter-wide strips of the ocean, still only one part in twenty will have had a ship pass through it in any 24 hours.
And draft – drafts today rarely exceed about 22 metres; the biggest supertankers – ULCCS – of the 1970s and 1980s reached about 30 metres draft. An average might be twelve or fourteen metres.
And ‘the effect’ may be to three times the depth; shall we say 50 metres, for ease of estimation . . .
Yet the oceans average about 3,000 metres depth . . .
So, for me, with over forty years in shipping, and having transited many of the main sealanes at 15 knots or less, the idea is a little stretched – if viewed globally.
On the Baltic scale – a fairly shallow sea – I would need to look more closely, so don’t rule it out.
I’m not at all clear about the mechanisms – turbulence, noise, waste heat, use of explosives, change in albedo [smoke versus water, I guess] – but am happy to be enlightened.
Welcome Monday with a smile, every Monday.
Auto

Reply to  auto
March 1, 2015 5:24 pm

Or you could calculate the total energy used by the ships and how much of it is transformed into kenetic energy to move the ships through water and compare that to the total energy the oceans absorb. This would probably give a more accurate assessment of ships ability to affect the oceans. Probably very very very small.

Reply to  auto
March 2, 2015 1:57 am

Here, on http://climate-ocean.com/2015/K.html, is another aspect of human presence on the oceans, and I quote: “Many ship propellers are plowing through the sea stirring the surface layer to a depth of 15 meters. In the North Sea and Baltic there are continuously ten thousand motor ships and more at sea. Several thousand offshore facilities on the bottom of the sea or anchored offshore rigs divert currents at sea and influence tides and currents as a permanent resistance against the normal flow of huge amounts of ocean water. (Fig. 3-8) The result is like stirring hot soup. Warm water will come to the surface and the heat will supply the atmosphere with warmth. The air will become warmer and the winters will be milder. The correlation is not to be overseen. It is not relevant to climate research or agencies allowing offshore structures who do not consider such evaluations.”

auto
Reply to  auto
March 2, 2015 1:26 pm

smamarver
March 2, 2015 at 1:57 am
Thanks.
Basis your comments, I assume this hypothesis is pretty much restricted to the shallow seas. There, I can – empirically – just believe an effect in good/bad [per definition] years
The North Sea – per that peerless organ that even I can edit, Wikipedia, (authoritativeness to the fifth power, some say . . . .) – has an area of 750,000 [definition; error bar?] square kilometres.
Even fifteen thousand motor ships [many obviously rather shallow draft – say three or four metres] will give one every fifty square Km – about every four mile square space, I think.
Warm water will come to the surface, as you aver, but in the North (and Baltic) seas, given a modest average depth (95 metres, per the peerless organ Wikipedia), there may not be a huge difference between surface waters [say a meter down] and those at fifty or a hundred and fifty metres depth.
As I noted in my previous post, the ‘Oceans’ average 3,000 metres depth – very roughly, oceanography is still getting to grips with the oceans, as we saw with the MH370 [I wonder if – given that the oceans are big] we will – in my lifetime – find out anything more about that tragedy . . . .]!
Russia has an area of about 17,1 million square kilometres. The Indian Ocean – much smaller than the Atlantic or the Pacific Oceans, is about 73 million square kilometres. [Both numbers sourced on the ‘utterly infallible’ Wikipedia, which even I can edit, 2 March 2015, about 2115 Z].
The suggested mechanism for this effect appears – basis your post – to be turbulence.
Not totally ignorable – but I wonder if insolation, cloud shading, orbital geometry, albedo due to (lack of) phyto-plankton, ocean and sea currents [due to the disposition of continents and islands] – and perhaps other influences might have a similarly noticeable effect.
I may have misunderstood, so do correct me if I err.
wickedwenchfan – yours noted.
Worldwide, my fleet – of about one-and-a-half hectare ships ( jolly roughly), trading world wide, at over sixteen knots average speed through the water, burn about forty thousand tonnes oil equivalent a year.
Each.
Not – I suggest – just ‘very very very small’ – but, in truth, given the size of the oceans ‘vanishingly small’ to utterly – delete that rue Anglo-Saxon thought – irrelevant.
Auto

rgbatduke
Reply to  auto
March 3, 2015 5:53 am

The most plausible mechanism for human effects on the ocean (outside of agricultural silting and fertilization and general pollution that affects things like water clarity and hence depth of solar penetration) is altering the surfactant properties of its surface, largely by means of fuel oil slicks. A single drop of oil on the surface of spreads out to cover many square meters. Those square meters have inhibited evaporation and significantly less atmospheric mixing and sea surface turnover — oil does indeed calm “troubled waters”. In WWII quite a few ships and all of the fuel oil that they carried went down to the bottom (but left the fuel oil on top) The “Exxon Valdez” disaster was something that happened literally every day, somewhere, in just about all of the seas of the world.
The arithmetic for this still ends up being uncertain. As you note, the ocean surface is enormous. I had an extended argument with a WUWT poster on this very subject, where he alleged — with some backing — that oil eventually spreads out to a monomolecular layer that is the moral equivalent of covering large tracts of ocean surface with saran wrap. This effect is pretty demonstrable with a pond-sized body of water, where a tiny bit of oil will cover an acre or more of water quite rapidly with clear effects on its response to wind and so on. IMO the arithmetic still worked out orders of magnitude shy, and didn’t properly account for degradation of the oil both to surface evaporation (which might or might be a good thing GHG-wise:-) and to being eaten, which actually is the destiny of quite a lot of the oil that makes it into the water in short order. His argument didn’t really compare magnitudes of anthropogenic diesel from sinking oil tankers to estimates of oil seeps on the sea bottom, either, or natural sources of biological oils (dying whales, dying krill). I haven’t either, but I suspect natural sources are at least as large if not larger (although now we probably leak unknown quantities of ocean rig oil wells that are somewhere in between).
The propeller argument fails all sanity checks, as you point out, even in small seas. People who haven’t been out to sea have no idea how big it is. Up next to the coast it can look “crowded”, two miles out it is less crowded, five miles out it starts to look a bit deserted, and a hundred miles out you can go a long, long ways and not see any sign that there are other humans on the planet. Against this vastness, a single storm mixes the ocean to any depth a propeller might help with across more area than all the boats of all the coasts traverse in a single day, and that doesn’t include the nearly constant mixing caused by the fact that the wind moving over the water is almost never still — there are whitecaps and long period waves in perfectly ordinary weather, just about all of the time, just about everywhere but “the doldrums”.
Causality is not correlation (or is that the other way around?) or we’d be inclined to assert that “The Pause” is caused by improved regulations for discharge of fuel from boats. Which is currently at least mildly illegal and actively discouraged in US coastal waters, even for personal watercraft.
An experiment to sort of illustrate the problem. Take a swimming pool. Try to alter its temperature profile, detectably, by beating the top cm of the surface with pins. Use all the pins you can hold in your two hands, but you have to lean over from the edge, the vast middle part of the pool is off limits. This isn’t properly scaled to the ocean — propeller turbulence is pretty much the top 1-2 meters out of 1000 to 5000 meters where your pool is 1 cm out of 1 to 3 meters (so the ocean is orders of magnitude harder to warm and is damned cold on the bottom where your pool probably won’t be in the summertime) but even with the huge advantage you have, I very much doubt that you could observe any systematic shift in pool temperature with any instrumentation you could afford to use.
Now take that same pool, and put a single good sized drop of oil onto its surface and watch as it spreads out to thinly coat the whole pool, and actually alter the scale of ripples and waves caused by wind over the water. The one drop of oil mattered at the scale of the pool surface where beating the surface with two or three pins near the pool edge did not. You still might not be able to measure an effect on temperature, but at least now it is plausible that you could.
rgb

Reply to  auto
March 3, 2015 6:09 am

Auto,
It’s interesting discussing with you. I have a few points:
* It is evident, that North Europe has milder winters than average. In winter the sun’s influence is very much lower as during the summer. Extra warming is presumably comming mostly from the sea.
* Concerning the ocean, one should bear in mind that its average temperature is only about 4°Celsius, and warm water is only at the very surface, which also has a very complex struture concerning temperature and salinity.
* Ships interfere is this structure massively. Ship propellers stirring the surface layer together with the size of the generated resistance of the hull, over a daily distance of about 500 to 700 kilometer per day.
That results in a lot of square/km of sea surface turned around p/d.
Keep in touch! 🙂

Reply to  smamarver
March 3, 2015 2:39 pm

For Auto: Hopefully this graphic contributes to the discussion: http://www.2030climate.com/a2005/_Links-rand/54b_957_WorldFleetl.htm, From 1910 to 2005 the number of ships grew from 25T to 90T, and the volume from 25 to 650 million tonnage.

Reply to  smamarver
March 3, 2015 2:43 pm

For Rgbatduke: Concerning the third paragraph presumably you have experienced the width of the sea extensively. Awaiting such opportunity since long, my interest in sea matters was only raised, when reading some time ago http://www.1ocean-1climate.com/, and after discussion with friends recently the book at: http://www.seaclimate.com/ . It discusses the warming of the Northern Hemisphere from 1919-1939, the global cooling from 1940 to 1970, and particularly the very extreme winters in Europe 1940, 1941 and 1942. During the early WWII, naval war was highest in coastal areas along Europe’s shores, particularly from the Biscay to the Gulf of Finland. To these three events human activities in the sea have contributed to the warming, the cooling and the extreme winters, to which the book provides different explanations, based on sea temperature structure and salinity. In IMHO the most convincing yet. A better understanding of world war impact would presumably resolve the question: why is the increase of water temperature during winter in North Europe higher as average (see ref.: March 2, 1:57)? Is there any evidence that off-shore facilities, shipping, fishing etc. should be excluded?
Thanks for your comments, I’m very keen for better understanding the matter.

March 1, 2015 12:10 pm

We know that the Sun is very important for our climate, but the impact is not clear.

Too bad we can’t turn off the sun and find out.
I predict it would have no impact. It’s all about carbon dioxide … well, not all carbon dioxide — just the carbon dioxide produced by evil man.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Max Photon
March 1, 2015 12:23 pm

Suggesting we turn off the sun to elucidate this study is illogical. The study focuses on solar variation, not the fact that we have solar heating.

PaulWesthaver
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 1:46 pm

Pamela,
Do you think that day to night variation may indicate the strong effect solar radiation may have, and in so doing indicate the difficulty there would be measuring 0.1C in 20 years?

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 3:14 pm

Day versus night variation is an apples and oranges comparison to measured Top Of The Atmosphere solar variations. Maximum variation with error bars would bury a smaller solar signal. What would be the point of teasing out such a small insignificant forcing when we have such a larger source of variation right here on Earth?

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 3:33 pm

Ummm … wouldn’t turning off the sun eliminate solar variation?

PaulWesthaver
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 5:59 pm

Pamela,
In terms of S:N, I agree. So, If the sun does vary, or has varied, it would be impossible to detect evidence for it on the surface. Particularly if the variation contributes +/- 0.1 C? Ne ce pas?

george e. smith
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 2, 2015 11:45 am

Well we don’t really have solar heating; we have solar irradiating. It is our inefficiency that wastes most of that as heat.
If we want to get full value out of the sun, we have to learn how to not waste all that radiant energy as heat.

pochas
Reply to  Max Photon
March 1, 2015 1:15 pm

Suppose we turn off the carbon dioxide nonsense until we understand solar effects. 😊

Reply to  Max Photon
March 1, 2015 4:33 pm

Max,
“Too bad we can’t turn off the sun and find out.”
Every day for most of the planet, it’s tuned off.
More people should be studying the effects of this, other than myself.

H.R.
Reply to  Mi Cro
March 2, 2015 4:48 pm

Mi Cro March 1, 2015 at 4:33 pm
Max,
“Too bad we can’t turn off the sun and find out.”
Every day for most of the planet, it’s tuned off.
More people should be studying the effects of this, other than myself.

Lord knows I’ve tried my best, but I keep falling asleep.
.
.
.
I hope they have enough sediment cores for meaningful interpretation of the blocking events. I’d hate to find out that they studied the equivalent of a core taken from Wyoming and one from Alabama and tried to draw some conclusions.
(H.R., back from Florida and looking at over a foot of snow. There is no Climate Justice here.)

rgbatduke
Reply to  Max Photon
March 3, 2015 6:07 am

What Pamela means is that TOA insolation varies by around 91 W/m^2 every year, invisibly. This is around a 7% relative variation. 7% is absolutely enormous compared to every other cause of variable “forcing” around the numbers assumed for “mean insolation”, which all put together and amplified by feedbacks (or not) and improved by some wistful imagination don’t add up to anything like one whole percent. This is because of the rather elliptical orbit of the Earth around the sun — it gets substantially closer and farther away over the course of a year.
If that isn’t enough for you, note that the Earth is farthest from the sun and on the low end of this particular stick during the NH summer, when global average temperatures are typically the highest, and closest during the NH winter when global temperatures are the smallest. The usual proposed explanation for this stunning fact is that the NH has comparatively more continental land surface area and that the SH has comparatively higher albedo as a consequence, although personally I am highly skeptical of the glibness of this assertion — more ocean could mean more cloudiness, it could mean more efficient vertical latent heat transport and cloud-based albedo, but more ocean also means more water vapor and hence more GHE warming! It is probably not a single factor effect, in other words, and may depend on the shape and structure of the continents involved (where their mountain ranges are and how high they are and how much of the land is desert and what’s going on with the part of the surface supporting vegetation and where the continents are with respect to the Earth’s axial precession and cloudiness, albedo, water vapor warming, and don’t forget thermohaline circulation and the continent sized ice cube known as “Antarctica” that occupies the south pole instead of an ocean that gets an thread of tropically warmed water injected in it all year long).
rgb

March 1, 2015 12:12 pm

“In their study, the researchers looked at the sea surface temperatures in summer in the northern part of the North Atlantic during the last 9,300 years. Direct measurements of the temperature are only found for the last 140 years, when they were taken from ships. However, by examining studies of marine algae – diatoms – found in sediments deposited on the North Atlantic sea bed, it is possible to use the species distribution of these organisms to reconstruct fluctuations in sea surface temperatures much further back in time.”

Seasonal changes in sea surface temperature dwarf long term trends. Considering the great variation in sea surface temperature measurement techniques, times & locations, and the corrections used to attempt to compensate for those variations, which make land surface TOBS adjustments seem inconsequential by comparison, I absolutely do not trust the 140 year sea surface temperature record. But I trust even less the attempts to tease another 9K years of sea surface temperature data from proxies derived from sediment analysis.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  daveburton
March 1, 2015 12:25 pm

Exactly. We need error bars.

highflight56433
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 2:32 pm

…some just need bars…that serve exotic liquors, etc

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 5:28 pm

Error goal posts, more like. You couldn’t make error bars big enough

MarkW
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 7:26 pm

Gillies was pretty big.

Reply to  daveburton
March 1, 2015 1:33 pm

In my examination of Shakun’s paper claiming CO2 (except at polar ive cores) I looked in detail at his 72 ocean sediment proxies of various sorts one group were diatom species variations. There is absolutely no reliability in these proxies. They do not agree on when deglaciation began, nor when it ended. Yet we know those dates to within a millennium thanks to sea level rise. I would judge the study not worth the paywall cost on those grounds alone.
Plus, exactly what proxy for solar radiation intensity is there that is reliable. All the radioisotope stuff like Be and C are confounded.

Phlogiston
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 1, 2015 3:28 pm

Exactly! As I have argued before, Shakun et al used 2 tricks to cook up a bogus case for CO2 leading the Holocene inception. One was – as you say – smearing together of many proxy records some so poor that they scarcely resolved the Holocene at all. This completely ironed out the Younger Dryas for instance. Shakun’s trick number 2 was to exploit the bipolar seesaw, specifically the fact that Antarctica and the southern ocean started warming first, about 20,000 yrs ago, long before the NH. Since there is more ocean/less land in the SH, this helped create the illusion that CO2 liberated from the warming Southern Ocean was somehow driving that warming. Strip away all the illusions and tricks and there is no case left for CO2 doing anything but passively following temperature.

Latitude
March 1, 2015 12:15 pm

We have generally had a slightly cooler climate during the last 4,000 years…really?
….so slight warming of a 1/2 degree would be normal and expected then

Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 12:20 pm

Not impressed. We are so quick to eviscerate puny CO2 variation effects. Yet put on a parade for equally puny solar variations.

milodonharlani
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 12:45 pm

Solar effects are far from puny. They account for 95% of alleged modern warming. Since CO2 has no significant effect, the supposedly puny sun is infinitely more significant, not equally insignificant.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-sun-explains-95-of-climate-change.html?m=1

Pamela Gray
Reply to  milodonharlani
March 1, 2015 2:48 pm

Wrong. Additional energy from solar variation forces a vanishingly small uptick in surface temperature that is buried in a much noisier intrinsic system.
Re-visit this post for further discussions.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/15/solar-cycle-24-update-for-february-2015/

milodonharlani
Reply to  milodonharlani
March 1, 2015 3:04 pm

Apparently you’re unaware of the wide variation in the UV portion of TSI discovered by SORCE.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  milodonharlani
March 1, 2015 3:19 pm

Milo, this is your old information regarding UV variation being a solar forcing of temperature trend here, which has been discussed (eviscerated actually) many times on this blog. Of course it varies. But there is very little energy in the narrow UV spectrum available to force measurable temperature trends at Earth’s surface. It amazes me that you still cling to such a thoroughly debunked idea.

MarkW
Reply to  milodonharlani
March 1, 2015 7:30 pm

First off, a 0.1% change in TSI would result in a 0.3C increase in temperature, almost 1/2 the total claimed over the last 150 years.
Secondly, you are assuming that TSI is the only thing that influences climate.

Reply to  milodonharlani
March 1, 2015 10:00 pm

They allegedly account for 95% …

Jay Hope
Reply to  milodonharlani
March 2, 2015 1:54 am

Even the ‘puniest’ of solar variations is infinitely mightier than any variation in one of the least important greenhouse gases, co2. I think one of the big problems is that people fail to understand the power of what we are dealing with here, and the total control it has over our destiny.

Admin
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 12:48 pm

Just out of curiosity, are you this Pamela Gray?
https://twitter.com/drpamelagray

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Eric Worrall
March 1, 2015 2:34 pm

Nope. I be a wee little leprechaun with a long career centered on various handicapping conditions across the age span. I do not have a Ph.D.. I do have a BS, MS, and MA degrees plus teaching and administrative licenses and have published research on the auditory brainstem response to high frequency narrow band stimuli. As for the present topic, I am a climate and weather nerd.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Eric Worrall
March 1, 2015 9:11 pm

Yes Milo I did find it. Having been raised in Wallowa County on a ranch, it was a given that I would attend OSU in Corvallis, Oregon. Moo U.

milodonharlani
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 3:52 pm

Only in your imagination has the repeatedly demonstrated profound effect of variation in UV (& magnetic flux) been “debunked”. Please show the evidence which you imagine has done this debunking. Thanks.
It is a measure of the genius & profound learning of Jack Eddy that he correctly perceived that the sun is a variable star without benefit of the SORCE data, which showed his appreciation of decades earlier presciently to have been correct.

Jay Hope
Reply to  milodonharlani
March 1, 2015 4:12 pm

Hear hear!

milodonharlani
Reply to  milodonharlani
March 1, 2015 4:14 pm

I see this is out of place. Hope Pamela will find it.
Oregon State (when it was Oregon Ag) is my parents’ alma mater, & another OSU, Ohio State, my civil & mechanical engineer grandfather’s.
She has the last word, as the boat in the South Pacific is about to lose the signal from the nearest cell tower.

Reply to  milodonharlani
March 1, 2015 10:20 pm

Eddy [and the rest of us] believed in 1976 that the variation of TSI over the sunspot cycle was of the order of 1 to 2% which would explain the solar link. Observations a few years later showed that the variation was 10 times smaller, and at the Dinner Talk at the SORCE meeting in 2003, Eddy conceded that the observed variation was too small to have any significant effect:

Sturgis Hooper
Reply to  milodonharlani
March 2, 2015 5:23 am

TSI maybe, but not when factoring in the much greater variation in the most energetic end of the spectrum & magnetic flux the effects are out of proportion to just total irradiance.
This is not speculation but observed & confirmed experimentally.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  milodonharlani
March 2, 2015 7:41 pm

Leif, his comment, that he was wrong, makes him worthy of having the next prolonged quiet sun period named after him.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 2, 2015 7:46 pm

which it will be.

Reply to  milodonharlani
March 2, 2015 7:48 pm

Sturgis Hooper March 2, 2015 at 5:23 am
TSI maybe, but not when factoring in the much greater variation in the most energetic end of the spectrum
It is like the large variation of loose change in someone’s pocket being a measure of the variation of his total wealth.

dp
March 1, 2015 12:24 pm

We know that the Sun is very important for our climate, but the impact is not clear. Climate change appears to be either strengthened or weakened by solar activity.

I would have bet real money on this statement being true. Head, I win. Tails? I win.

MCourtney
Reply to  dp
March 1, 2015 1:04 pm

So it states that this is a known unknown.
Better than claiming there aren’t any unknowns (a falsehood).
And better than ignoring that we do know of the unknowns (a lie by omission).

Mike
Reply to  MCourtney
March 1, 2015 1:12 pm

As my grandad used to say : it’ll either rain or go dark before the nights out 😉

Michael Wassil
Reply to  MCourtney
March 1, 2015 3:00 pm

Mike
During June to August at Lake LaBerge in the Yukon, your grand dad would have been wrong. During the three or four hours between sunset and sunrise, it was never dark and seldom rained.

dp
Reply to  MCourtney
March 1, 2015 5:22 pm

The only issue I have with a statement like this is that while it is true, it is true only because it cannot be wrong. But it has no useful meaning. Better is to come clean and say those three words that seem not to be in any climate scientist’s list of catch phrases: “We don’t know”.

Streetcred
Reply to  dp
March 1, 2015 8:58 pm

This is what I find so annoying about climastrologists … they have scant knowledge of the effect of the SUN yet proclaim such ‘compelling’ knowledge in respect of the miniscule effect of CO2 in warming the Earth. I’ll give them a clue, the SUN gives effect to EVERYTHING on our planet Earth.

Ian H
March 1, 2015 12:26 pm

Another way of describing this effect would be to say that there is evidence that the climate is buffered against increases in temperature beyond a certain point. Hence as it becomes warmer it becomes less sensitive to `forcing’. There is also evidence for this in the long term climate history where we see what looks like an upper limit on temperature.
If true this suggests scenarios of run away warming due to tipping points are just not possible.

milodonharlani
March 1, 2015 12:28 pm

This should have gone in the comments on Willis’ Maunder Minimum sunspot observation post, but it fits here too.
Speaking of the effect of the sun on climate during cold periods, here is Eddy’s classic paper on evidence for the physical reality of the MM:
http://m.sciencemag.org/content/192/4245/1189.extract

Pamela Gray
Reply to  milodonharlani
March 1, 2015 12:47 pm

and that classic needs to recede into oblivion as being…wrong.

milodonharlani
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 2:31 pm

Please state why you think so. Have you actually read the 1976 paper by Leif’s esteemed mentor? You may well know more & be smarter than Eddy but I’d like to see evidence to that effect.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 3:02 pm

From the article:
“I have reexamined the contemporary reports and new evidence which has come to light since Maunder’s time and conclude that this 70-year period was indeed a time when solar activity all but stopped. This behavior is wholly un-like the modern behavior of the sun which we have come to accept as normal, and the consequences for solar and terrestrial physics seem to me profound.”
and:
“If this change is periodic, we can speculate that the sun may now be progressing toward a grand maximum which might be reached in the 22nd or 23rd centuries.”
We now know that there has been no “grand maximum” and we also know that solar activity continued during the Maunder Minimum based on other reconstructed solar parameters now that the record has been corrected for miscalibrated sunspot numbers.
http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-Solar-EUV-Flux.pdf

milodonharlani
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 3:07 pm

We do not know any such thing. You may imagine that the MM didn’t exist but all the available observational & proxy data, such as isotopes, show you’re wrong & Eddy was right.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 3:22 pm

Of course there was a Maunder Minimum (a period of time with fewer visible sunspots for a longer period of time compared to solar minimum), but it is not true that solar activity all but stopped.

milodonharlani
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 3:24 pm

Also, before you consign the great pioneer Eddy to oblivion please consider what his harshest critics among solar scientists today have concluded about the MM. That is, that it was a pronounced minimum without necessarily being a Grand Minimum.
http://www.leif.org/research/Discussion-of-Paper-MM-Not-So-Grand.ppt
That is, as Eddy showed, it existed.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 3:32 pm

http://www.leif.org/research/Discussion-of-Paper-MM-Not-So-Grand.pdf
It just wasn’t as quiet as people like you wish it were.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 4:09 pm

Yes Eddy wrote about the Maunder Minimum (but he did not discover it). And yes solar activities that result in visible sunspots retreated to less activity than usual (again something he did not discover). But Eddy was heading down an unsupported hypothesis: He believed that it was much worse than it turned out to be, and that it likely was one if not the main reason for global cooling at the time. Neither one of those ideas have born fruit.
In case Milo still does not read carefully,
1: There was a period of time of lower solar activity referred to as the Maunder Minimum.
2: It has since been upgraded to a period of time with somewhat greater than “all but stopped” activity, while still retaining its status as a prolonged solar-quiet period.
3: No published peer reviewed study has found a robust correlation, one which uses standard statistical measures and only lightly (or less) parametized data.
4: No one in the peer reviewed literature has proposed and demonstrated a plausible mechanism.

jonesingforozone
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 8:02 pm

Dr. Svalgaard himself questioned whether current solar activity compares to that of the Maunder Minimum in his paper, Calibration of Sunspot Numbers, concluding, “Should such deviations from `normal’ observed sunspot activity be substantiated in the near future, the question naturally arises whether [and when] they might have occurred in the past as well, e.g. during the Maunder Minimum, 1645-1715.”
Concerning the significance of the EUV spectrum, the paper The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate states:
“Although the ultraviolet region of the spectrum provides only a small fraction of the TSI, ultraviolet irradiance can change by several percent over the solar cycle, and thus represents an important source of modulation of the energy deposition and composition in the middle and upper atmosphere. Ultraviolet irradiance both changes the radiative balance of the atmosphere and affects the shape of the spectrum of radiation reaching the lower atmosphere. Such variations are thought to drive the top-down coupling mechanism.”
Further, Solomon et al(2011) concluded that an Anomalously low solar extreme-ultraviolet irradiance and thermospheric density during solar minimum had occurred for which the F10.7 and Total Electron Count proxies did not detect.
Cited in Dr. Svalgaard’s paper, Dr. Ken Tapping may have been the first to document this discrepancy between in the pdf slide show, Properties of the Sunspot Number and 10.7cm Solar Radio Flux Indices, Their Inter-Relationship and Unusual Behaviour Since the Year 2000,
with lecture description here. The concluding slide of the presentation summarizes the discrepancies.
When pressed with the evidence of anomalously low EUV data, Dr. Svalgaard either questions their accuracy, their significance, or both.
On the issue of the solar wind, Dr. Svalgaard’s proxies may correctly account for year over year changes, however, the proxies cannot explain the solar wind’s multi-decade decline. For example, compare Leif graph of the solar wind flux,
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Wind-Climatology.png
with the solar wind pressure provided by David Archibald:
http://i1.wp.com/www.warwickhughes.com/agri14/archmar14f3.jpg
The solar wind deflects cosmic rays.

March 1, 2015 12:28 pm

*blinks* No Leif, yet? Bets on how many more comments before he shows….?

jonesingforozone
Reply to  Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
March 1, 2015 7:31 pm

His nom de plume is Pamela Gray.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  jonesingforozone
March 1, 2015 9:14 pm

LOL! That is funny as hell!

asybot
Reply to  jonesingforozone
March 1, 2015 10:52 pm

@ jonesinger, Thanks for the Ken Tapping presentation. We do not live far from his observatory. They do very good work there with very limited resources. If any one would like to know it? It is called the White Lake Observatory. located south of Penticton BC Canada. It works with a very limited budget. The work also includes (as far as I can recall) as a base point for a world wide radio “telescope” creating a very large footprint to investigate radio signals impossible to do with a single dish, as I remember it is a effort that uses two or three radio dishes in different countries and two (?) satellites to give a huge baseline. Here they are. https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=white%20lake%20radio%20observatoryne. As to penetrate very far into radio spectrums. I am not sure how far they have gotten with this project. Not directly related to climate as such but hey as far I think, any thing coming at us from “out there” is related to climate and why I also believe the CO2 thing is a scam!

jonesingforozone
Reply to  asybot
March 2, 2015 11:54 pm

Yes, I asked Ken about the EUV anomaly. He and a research assistant are writing up a paper now. Don’t know how he finds the time!

Reply to  Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
March 1, 2015 9:45 pm

I am tired of educating the usual suspects about the folly of their unsubstantiated beliefs.

jonesingforozone
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 2, 2015 10:56 pm

Leif, your graph of Solar Full Disk EUV Flux at Earth (Figure 2) does not match the SEM data version 3.1 at http://www.usc.edu/dept/space_science/semdatafolder/long/daily_avg/
Specifically, the USC Space Center 2008 data are generally 15% less than the 1996 data. Such observation confirms the Solomon et al findings shown in Figure 1.
The USC Space Center 2008 data are ~15% less than the 1996 data for the 26-34nm band as well as the 0.1-50nm band, which you can easily verify.
Global and regional trends in ionospheric total electron content by Lean et al. as well as SOHO-23: Understanding a Peculiar Solar Minimum by Didkovsky et al. confirm the anomoly.
To verify that the USC Space Center does provide the SEM version 3.1 data, start at http://www.usc.edu/dept/space_science and use the web page to navigate to the http://www.usc.edu/dept/space_science/semdatafolder/long/daily_avg/
Along the way, you will see the version number of the data.

Reply to  jonesingforozone
March 3, 2015 7:03 am

You should look at the cyan curve which is the raw data. The red curve is corrected for degradation and matches very closely the TIMED data.

jonesingforozone
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 2, 2015 11:00 pm

From OMNI-2 satellite data, Justyna M. Sokół’s Solar Wind page has wind speed, wind density, wind flux, and wind pressure in the ecliptic plane at 1 AU since 1990.
None of these graphs match your (homogenized?) data.
Here are some other links:
Cosmic RaysHit Space Age High
Does the worsening galactic cosmic radiation environment observed by CRaTER preclude future manned deep space exploration?
GROWING PERIL FOR ASTRONAUTS?
Chapter 12 of Variations of Galactic Cosmic Rays and the Earth’s Climate by Jasper Kirby and Kenneth S. Carson of the book Solar Journey: The Significance of Our Galactic Environment for the Heliosphere and Earth editted by Priscilla C. Frisch, ISBN: 978-1-4020-4397-0 (In this chapter, Kirby et al. cite Svensmark, Friis-Christensen, and Marsh)
Evidence for large century time-scale changes in solar activity in the past 32 Kyr, based on in-situ cosmogenic 14C in ice at Summit, Greenland
Galactic cosmic ray radiation hazard in the unusual extended solar minimum between solar cycles 23 and 24
Enjoy!

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 3, 2015 7:09 am

jonesingforozone March 2, 2015 at 11:00 pm
None of these graphs match your (homogenized?) data.
As Willis says: if you disagree show precisely with what.

jonesingforozone
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 3, 2015 10:41 am

Sure Leif, I had posted it above but I will also post it hear:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Wind-Climatology.png
Compare these nearly perfect sine waves above to Justyna M. Sokół’s from the Solar wind in the elliptic plane – OMNI-2below:
Solar wind speed: OMNI-2
http://www.cbk.waw.pl/~jsokol/solarParamsModel/plots/figOMNI2Speed.jpg
Solar wind density adjusted to 1 AU: OMNI-2
http://www.cbk.waw.pl/~jsokol/solarParamsModel/plots/figOMNI2Dens.jpg
Solar wind flux adjusted to 1 AU: OMNI-2
http://www.cbk.waw.pl/~jsokol/solarParamsModel/plots/figOMNI2Flux.jpg
Solar wind dynamic pressure adjusted to 1 AU: OMNI-2
http://www.cbk.waw.pl/~jsokol/solarParamsModel/plots/figOMNI2DynPress.jpg
Solar wind energy flux* adjusted to 1 AU: OMNI-2
http://www.cbk.waw.pl/~jsokol/solarParamsModel/plots/figOMNI2EnergyFlux.jpg
* Le Chat, G., Issautier, K., Meyer-Vernet, N. – 2012, The solar wind energy flux, Solar Phys. 279, pp 197-205

Reply to  jonesingforozone
March 3, 2015 10:58 am

What my plot shows [as it says] is the average variation of the parameters over a solar cycle [based on many cycles] . I repeat the cycle several times simply to show the pattern better. The plot does not show the last several cycles.

jonesingforozone
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 3, 2015 2:30 pm

Then, we can not distinguish your solar wind flux from “homogenized” data unless your can show us the source.

Reply to  jonesingforozone
March 3, 2015 6:20 pm

The source is me
The data is an average of 11 solar cycles http://www.leif.org/research/Historical%20Solar%20Cycle%20Context.pdf
It shows space climate and is not controversial
The OMNI data shows space weather

Michael Webb
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 4, 2015 9:06 pm

Is it possible to speak with specificity about solar “climate” while choosing to ignore solar “weather?”

Reply to  Michael Webb
March 5, 2015 2:47 am

The situation is the same as with the Earth: weather is not climate.

jonesingforozone
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 3, 2015 3:43 pm

Dr. Svalgaard, I’ve taken the liberty of annotating a copy of Solar Full Disk EUV Flux at Earth (Figure 2) so that the EUV anomaly can be better understood:
comment image
The data is pertinent because our satellite orbits depend upon an good estimate of the drag caused by EUVs.
In Minima of Solar Cycles 22/23 and 23/24 as Seen in SOHO/CELIAS/SEM Absolute Solar EUV Flux by Didkovsky et al.(2009), the authors successfully use an Mg II index to predict the anomalous behavior. Don’t know if exactly the same (weighted) Mg II index is currently in use.
Instructions for obtaining the SEM Data v3.1 are in a post above.
If I may hazard a guess as to why the anomaly does not show in your data is that you may have applied the degradation corrections, a second time, to the 2008 3.1 data set.
Visiting the web page http://www.usc.edu/dept/space_science and using the web page to navigate to http://www.usc.edu/dept/space_science/semdatafolder/long/daily_avg/ will verify that the version of the data is 3.1.
I thank you for having provided the instructions for downloading the data to begin with!

Reply to  jonesingforozone
March 3, 2015 6:23 pm

After the gross degradation correction there is still a much smaller residual degradation which was not corrected for. The progressive residual degradation is easily seen by comparing with F10.7 and with the TIMED EUV measurements.

jonesingforozone
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 4, 2015 10:27 am

Leif, the SEM EUV version 3.1 data have already been adjusted for the SEM degradation over time.
What you have labeled as “SEM raw” are actually the version 3.1 data.
The version 3.1 data have already been calibrated by observations taken by eight sounding rockets with an onboard SEM to an unbiased accuracy of ±5%.
Unlike EUVs, the intensity of the F 10.7 cm radio signal has no impact on the stratospheric heating that affect satellite drag.
Making further, proprietary, upward adjustments to the SEM data with F 10.7 cm signal data would not improve satellite drag.
What the literature describe as an EUV anomaly during the last solar minimum can not be correct with F 10.7 cm radio signal, as you have attempted.

Reply to  jonesingforozone
March 4, 2015 10:31 am

Comparison with TIMED spacecraft measurements [the red curve] shows that SEM has residual degradation. TIMED and F10.7 agree completely. I don’t think you are paying attention. Just keep repeating your comments doesn’t cut it.

Reply to  jonesingforozone
March 4, 2015 10:36 am

Since you don’t bother to read the paper, I show the relevant section here:
“The Solar EUV Experiment (SEE) data from the NASA ‘Thermosphere, Ionosphere, Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics (TIMED)’ mission [Woods et al., 2005] provide, since 2002, daily averaged solar irradiance in the 0.1–105 nm band with corrections applied for degradation and atmospheric absorption (with flare spikes removed) and can be downloaded from http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/see/data/. The SEE flux (Figure 2, blue curve) is very strongly linearly correlated with (and simply proportional to) our residual–degradation–corrected SEM flux (with coefficient of determination R2 = 0.99) and thus serves as validation of the corrected SEM data.”

jonesingforozone
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 4, 2015 11:16 am

The anomaly is not with the SEM or SEE data.
The anomaly is that use of the F 10.7 cm radio signal index overestimated solar activity during the 2008/2009 minimum.
SEM version 3.1 data can not be further improved with F 10.7 cm radio signal derivations.
Improvement to the SEM version 3.1 will be made by applying some SEE algorithms, however, the SEE data are only accurate to ±20%. See http://cdaw.gsfc.nasa.gov/publications/ilws_goa2006/145_Woods.pdf

Reply to  jonesingforozone
March 4, 2015 11:36 am

The problem is that the 40-year old models for computing satellite drag are simply not good enough. The crux of my paper is to show that the diurnal variation of the geomagnetic field is a very good indicator of solar activity. Perhaps even better than the very difficult measurements of EUV with their large uncertainties. Now, there will always be people who believe they know better and one may simply choose to ignore the know-it-alls.

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 4, 2015 10:52 am

Unlike EUVs, the intensity of the F 10.7 cm radio signal has no impact on the stratospheric heating that affect satellite drag.
Yet, F10.7 is the primary component of the model used to calculate satellite drag because F10.7 is an excellent proxy for the EUV, see e.g. http://www.ips.gov.au/Category/Educational/Space%20Weather/Space%20Weather%20Effects/SatelliteOrbitalDecayCalculations.pdf

jonesingforozone
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 4, 2015 11:23 am

I reply to this in my comment above

jonesingforozone
Reply to  jonesingforozone
March 4, 2015 1:08 pm

lsvalgaard
March 4, 2015 at 11:36 am
The problem is that the 40-year old models for computing satellite drag are simply not good enough…

Yes. The SEM data are good and will soon get even better. See Resolving Differences in Absolute Irradiance Measurements Between the SOHO/CELIAS/SEM and the SDO/EVE.
The failure of the F 10.7 signal to adequately model solar activity is noted as early as 2001 by
Viereck et al.:

“However, as models of the ionosphere and thermosphere improve and as the datasets get better, the errors introduced by the F 10.7 index in models become significant.”

This was prior to the 2008/2009 solar minimum which saw the F 10.7 index track anomalously higher. The paper Solar EUV flux(0. 1-50 nm), F 10. 7 cm flux, sunspot number and the total electron content in the crest region of equatorial ionization anomaly during the deep minimum by Chakrabarty et al. notes that the discrepancy between the F10.7 signal and the EUV 0.1-50nm signal doubled from the 1996 minimum.

jonesingforozone
Reply to  jonesingforozone
March 4, 2015 1:15 pm

Oh, see I missed a tag…
lsvalgaard
March 4, 2015 at 11:36 am
…The problem is that the 40-year old models for computing satellite drag are simply not good enough.

Yes. The SEM data are good and will soon get even better. See Resolving Differences in Absolute Irradiance Measurements Between the SOHO/CELIAS/SEM and the SDO/EVE.
The failure of the F 10.7 signal to adequately model solar activity is noted as early as 2001 by Viereck et al.:

“However, as models of the ionosphere and thermosphere improve and as the datasets get better, the errors introduced by the F 10.7 index in models become significant.”

This was prior to the 2008/2009 solar minimum which saw the F 10.7 index track anomalously higher. The paper Solar EUV flux(0. 1-50 nm), F 10. 7 cm flux, sunspot number and the total electron content in the crest region of equatorial ionization anomaly during the deep minimum by Chakrabarty et al. notes that the discrepancy between the F10.7 signal and the EUV 0.1-50nm signal doubled from the 1996 minimum.

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 5, 2015 6:49 am

The conductivity of the E-layer is determined by ionization of molecular oxygen by photons with wavelength less that 103 nm, and the magnetic signature on the ground of the resulting electric currents is a sensitive measure of the EUV flux below 103 nm. F10l.7 is a very good proxy for that flux. Slides 23-26 of http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-Solar-EUV-Flux.pdf show how close the relation is. There is no F10.7 anomaly. The Earth as our measuring instrument shows that clearly. There are problems with the 40+ year old models and with the difficult to calibrate EUV measurements. My use of those is simply to get a physical unit [such as photons or Watts] of the causative agent of the range of the magnetic variations. People [such as Viereck] that are monitoring the EUV flux often get in trouble because such monitoring is tricky. F10.7 can be used to put wrong calibrations in the right track, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/MgII%20Calibration.pdf

jonesingforozone
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 5, 2015 3:36 pm

You assume, Dr. Svalgaard, that EUV radiation is the only game in town.

Reply to  jonesingforozone
March 5, 2015 4:21 pm

EUV is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. All other things are second order.

jonesingforozone
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 5, 2015 5:18 pm

Seriously, I look forward with interest to reading your paper refuting the EUV anomaly, Dr. Svalgaard, in the JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, for example.
I admittedly have more questions than answers on this topic.

Reply to  jonesingforozone
March 5, 2015 7:22 pm

I don’t really have to refute anything. The experimenters are slowly coming around to admit that their data on EUV have degradation problems, e.g. this poster: http://lasp.colorado.edu/media/projects/LWS/PDF_Oral/S13_2_Didkovsky_contr.pdf
I was at the meeting and discussed the situation with the folks involved.
There are now strong evidences that F10.7, TEC, and TSI were not any lower during the 2008-2009 minimum compared to the 1996-1997 minimum.
You can read up on the EUV calibrations and measurements here http://www.adv-radio-sci.net/12/251/2014/ars-12-251-2014.pdf “degradation is still a problem”. Now, I don’t really care if there would be a 15% problem as EUV changes by 400% over the solar cycle so any discrepancy and small residual degradation would drown in the noise anyway. I correct for residual degradation, because I can, no because it is necessary for my conclusions.

jonesingforozone
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 6, 2015 2:45 am

Dr. Svalgaard, that, “There are now strong evidences that F10.7, TEC, and TSI were not any lower during the 2008-2009 minimum compared to the 1996-1997 minimum,” is already ‘baked into the cake.’
The description the EUV data as being anomalously low the during the solar minimums underscores the difficulty of finding a good proxy by numerous authors for the EUV data.
The SEM EUV data is essential for satellite drag calculations.
Viereck et al(2001) writes,

“In fact, by replacing the F10.7 index with the Mg II index, the US Air Force reduced their long-term errors in satellite drag calculations by 13% (Marcos, Private Communication). In a similar study of the short term variability in satellite drag, Thuiller et al., [2000] reduced the RMS error in their satellite drag calculations by 20-40%.”

The motivation by researchers is to find a suitable proxy for the SOHO SEM data when it is no longer available.
The TEC-EUV proxy described in http://www.adv-radio-sci.net/12/251/2014/ars-12-251-2014.pdf from your post above correlates well the SOHO SEM EUV data for the November 2012-January 13 time frame(for four months, not for four solar cycles).
I am sure the world would be impressed by your novel approach to resolving the EUV anomaly by simply rotating the EUV curve to provide better correlation with the F10.7 or the rY TEC indices.
I await for publication of your paper resolving the EUV anomaly in a reputable journal with anticipation.

Reply to  jonesingforozone
March 6, 2015 5:02 am

The MgII data also has problems. Here is my analysis of those: http://www.leif.org/research/MgII%20Calibration.pdf
Here is Viereck’s reply:
“From Rodney Viereck
ìIndeed, our automated processes that updates the file on the web simply applies the standard algorithm to
the data. We have known that NOAA 16 SBUV has been drifting a bit but until now, we did not realize
how bad it had gotten. The problem is that the satellite orbit has processed so far that the incident angle
into the SBUV is too large and it is affecting the values.
The issue of degradation of SEM is being resolved by the experimenters, see e.g. Figure 5(b) of http://www.leif.org/EOS/Diff-SEM-EVE-2014.pdf
The upgraded [over version 3.1] SEM response function resolves most of the discrepancy.
But, as I said, the issue is not important for my analysis.

jonesingforozone
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 6, 2015 4:41 pm

Yes, Dr. Svalgaard, the numerous Mg II indices are satellite based measurements whose long term correlation with EUV irradiance are unproven, however, the quote above by Viereck et al(2001) highlights the importance good estimation of satellite drag.
A paper by Emmert et al (2013), Attribution of interminima changes in the global thermosphere and ionosphere, concludes, in part,

“Ultimately, accurate independent specification of solar EUV irradiance interminima changes is essential to resolve the contrasting behavior of thermospheric mass density and TEC. This may not be possible with existing measurements during the past two minima, in which case we must await the next extended solar minimum.”

As of yet, to measure solar activity is not as straightforward as to measure the temperature with an ordinary mercury-filled thermometer, as you would have us believe.

Reply to  jonesingforozone
March 6, 2015 5:53 pm

I don’t know how much experience you have with estimating or measuring solar activity. I have spent almost half a century doing this, so have perhaps a bit more confidence in the methods and the results. Solar activity [or at least the part that is relevant to us] can be measured by its effect on the Earth. The sunspot number has been found to have a high correlation with most of these effects so is a useful proxy for solar activity. Sunspots and associated flares are sources of EUV over and above the thermal emission from a 5777 K Sun. The EUV creates and maintains the ionosphere. Dynamo action produces electrical currents at about 105 km altitude in proportion to the electron density at that height. The magnetic effect of that current is readily measured on the ground [was discovered way back in 1722] so we have a direct measurement of the electron density which theory tells us is proportional to the square root of the integrated incoming EUV with wave length shorter than 103 nm. Observations show that that is in fact the case, so we have a good measurement of the integrated EUV 0-103 nm. That is what I call solar activity and as I show is easily measured and matches very well what other proxies tell us. Some of our models that attempt to use solar activity to predict various effects [e.g. satellite drag or climate change or communications disturbances or whatever] don’t work too well, but that is a problem with the models, not with solar activity.

jonesingforozone
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 6, 2015 6:16 pm

Leif, you certainly seem to have the qualifications and the intelligence.
The controversy over the anomalous EUV observations and TEC counts may come down to varying geomagnetic activity with the much reduced solar wind and its impact at varying altitudes, according to:
Comparative study of the equatorial ionosphere over Jicamarca during recent two solar minima
Which raises the question, “Is the climate science of the sun settled?”

Reply to  jonesingforozone
March 6, 2015 6:22 pm

Nothing in science is ever ‘settled’. Some things are understood better than other things. The influence of EUV on the conductivity of the ionosphere and the effects of geomagnetic activity are understood quite well. The model used to predict satellite drag may not work as well, perhaps there are other things involved, like the increasing CO2 concentration or the effect of the decrease of the Earth’s main magnetic field [lower field = higher conductivity]

Reply to  jonesingforozone
March 7, 2015 3:58 am

Your Emmert link concludes: “There is large uncertainty in the interminima change of solar EUV irradiance; the mass density and TEC data suggest a plausible range of 0% to -6%.” and is thus consistent within the error bar with no change at all.

jonesingforozone
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 7, 2015 4:34 am

Yes, suggest that the Reconstruction EUV graph might also have a correction interval, also, rather than a precise correction.

Reply to  jonesingforozone
March 7, 2015 4:42 am

If you had paid attention you would have seen on Slide 21 of http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-Solar-EUV-Flux.pdf that there is an error-interval.

jonesingforozone
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 7, 2015 5:55 pm

That looks great.
I am installing Photoshop to help illustrate what I am talking about and I will email you later

jonesingforozone
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 7, 2015 4:36 am

Good luck (not implying that you’ll need it, of course)!

jonesingforozone
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 5, 2015 4:12 pm

Oh snap!
We invent a “Dark Energy” to explain the lack of drag on satellites during the solar minima!
Brilliant!

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 6, 2015 6:16 pm

accurate independent specification of solar EUV irradiance interminima changes is essential
The diurnal variation of the geomagnetic field is precisely such an ‘independent specification’

jonesingforozone
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 6, 2015 6:19 pm

Then, publish a paper with your thoughts in a respected journal!

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 6, 2015 6:38 pm

Then, publish a paper with your thoughts in a respected journal!
I only publish in ‘respected journals’, and my thoughts will be published soon, but I always put them out on display [‘work in progress’] earlier to get [relevant] feedback as well as talk about them at seminars and conferences. That is where the real science is done. The eventual publication is only ‘for the record’ and doesn’t really matter all that much.
Here is my talk at the upcoming EGU conference in Vienna:
Geophysical Research Abstracts
Vol. 17, EGU2015-2666, 2015
EGU General Assembly 2015
Reconstruction of Solar EUV flux 1834-2014
Leif Svalgaard
Stanford University, HEPL, Petaluma, United States (leif@leif.org)
Solar EUV creates the conducting E-layer of the ionosphere, mainly by photo ionization of molecular Oxygen. Solar heating of the ionosphere creates thermal winds which by dynamo action induce an electric field driving an electric current having a magnetic effect observable on the ground, as was discovered by G. Graham in 1722. The current rises and sets with the Sun and thus causes a readily observable diurnal variation of the geomagnetic field, allowing us the deduce the conductivity and thus the EUV flux as far back as reliable magnetic data reach. High quality data go back to the invention of the magnetometers by Gauss and Weber in 1834 and less reliable, but still usable, data are available sporadically for the hundred years before that. R. Wolf and, independently, J-A. Gautier in 1852 discovered the dependence of the diurnal variation on solar activity, and today we understand and can invert that relationship to construct a reliable record of the EUV flux from the geomagnetic record. We compare that to the F10.7 flux and the sunspot number, and find that the reconstructed EUV flux reproduces the F10.7 flux with great accuracy and that the EUV flux clearly shows the discontinuities of the sunspot record identified by Clette et al, 2014.

jonesingforozone
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 6, 2015 8:06 pm

I’ll believe it when I see it!

Reply to  jonesingforozone
March 6, 2015 8:15 pm

I don’r really care what you believe…

jonesingforozone
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 6, 2015 10:09 pm

I’m sure you are personable, otherwise!

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
March 7, 2015 8:51 am

Here is Figure 2 from your Emmert et al. link:
http://www.leif.org/research/Emmert-EUV-etc.png
You can see that they agree with my estimated degradation of SOHO-SEM. So, there is no anomaly in the EUV data. The models, on the other hand, need to be tweaked, but that is a problem with the models, not with EUV.

jonesingforozone
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 7, 2015 8:52 pm

Yes, found the paper, same as the one you cite in the Reconstruction…
Sent you email concerning some minor details.
Thanks.

ozric101
March 1, 2015 12:31 pm

The sun is responsible for the heat we have. Without an atmosphere we would have about the same climate as the moon. Call we a lukewarmer if you like but I think global warming is good thing no mater what is causing it. I see no evidence for tipping points and I see no need for a theory of AGW to explain anything. Natural variation AMO, PMO(PDO) and ENSO do a nice job of it.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  ozric101
March 1, 2015 12:36 pm

Again with the illogical debate! Come one people. Put on your thinking caps. This is about solar variations, not the fact that we have a sun. Geesh.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 12:44 pm

May I add not to be interchanging actual solar variations with insolation changes due to orbital mechanics.

ozric101
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 12:46 pm

The sun has more to do with it than .2W/M^2 per decade of co2 forcing.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 4:36 pm

THINKING CAPS ON!

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 4:37 pm

… NOW WHAT? …

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 6:28 pm

gets annoying doesnt it.

Streetcred
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 9:01 pm

Too right, Mosher … you are annoying. Like a little yapping terrier.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 2, 2015 12:20 am

The sun has another variable that gives us predictable variations in our climate, this is not monitored but could be described as the music of the spheres. The charge recycling from the gas giants to the sun in their various alignments, gives us the suns behaviour and our climate variations. If you have non of this knowledge you are only looking at effects not causes.

mpainter
March 1, 2015 12:35 pm

This study uses diatom species as proxies for SST. Plausible except that such proxies are not always reliable. Also, the Gulf Stream is a very changeable current, with eddies, meanderings, etc. hence these proxies may simply reflect the gyrations and variations in that. In short, the conclusions of this study need independent confirmation.

Admin
March 1, 2015 12:46 pm

Makes sense. When the sun is too hot, the equatorial storm belt does a good job of keeping a lid on temperature. But if the sun falls below some threshold, its influence over climate could easily increase. Obviously this is a speculative response – love to see more research into this issue.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Eric Worrall
March 1, 2015 12:55 pm

I give up. Read a book on solar physics.

Admin
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 1:07 pm

Tell us why CO2 does such a good job of explaining the climate Pamela.

MCourtney
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 1:26 pm

Eric Worrall, It’s not an either/or.
A) There just isn’t the evidence to say “It’s the Sun that done it”.
In my opinion,
B) There is the evidence to say “It isn’t the CO2 that done it except at the end of an ice-age”.
But the fact that I’m persuaded of B does not prove to me A.

milodonharlani
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 2:50 pm

Please cite those which you have read, especially those published since the SORCE data showed how variable the sun is.
Thanks.
PS: I assume you haven’t yet signed the petion to the AAS of Anth*ny W*tts & Leif Svalgaard to name the next solar minimum after Jack Eddy, whose work you feel free to disparage in an entirely evidence free manner.

whiten
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 3:10 pm

Eric Worrall
March 1, 2015 at 1:07 pm
Tell us why CO2 does such a good job of explaining the climate Pamela.
————
You asked Pamela, yes but I could not resist…
Because CO2 correlation with climate and climate change is the best and the most strong correlation observed, then is sea level variation and so on.
Even in that case is clearly understood and accepted that still CO2 does not cause climate change, for as far as climate seen in the natural angle. Does not trigger or causes climate change.
Even Mann is not and will not claim that CO2 emissions caused any climate change before the anthropogenic era..
That is why there is a metric, the CS, climate sensitivity to CO2 emissions.
and so on and so forth…
Sun (the variations) never had that luxury, and probably never will…
cheers

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 3:36 pm

CO2 does not do a good job of explaining past and present weather pattern variations. Likely because the anthropogenic portion of total atmospheric CO2 does not have enough chops to increase downwelling longwave infrared radiation outside the natural variation and the oceans do not absorb downwelling longwave infrared radiation to the degree hypothesized.

Admin
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 3:41 pm

whiten
… Because CO2 correlation with climate and climate change is the best and the most strong correlation observed, then is sea level variation and so on. …
Nonsense. Warming events which occurred in the recent past, which cannot have been caused by CO2, are statistically indistinguishable from the recent warming, which is alleged to have been caused by CO2. Even alarmists like Phil Jones, one of the stars of Climategate, and director of the CRU, admit this.
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
I’m not saying that the case for the sun has been proven, far from it. But there is also a lot wrong with the claim that CO2 can explain the recent warming.

Jay Hope
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 4:06 pm

I don’t think anyone has yet written the definitive book on solar physics.

whiten
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 4:07 pm

@ Eric Worrall
March 1, 2015 at 3:41 pm
You say:
Nonsense. Warming events which occurred in the recent past, which cannot have been caused by CO2, are statistically indistinguishable from the recent warming, which is alleged to have been caused by CO2. Even alarmists like Phil Jones, one of the stars of Climategate, and director of the CRU, admit this.
——————–
Sorry Eric but I think you have not read the rest of my reply to you, or you in intent have cherry picked from it.
If you re-read it you will see that I and you say the same thing.
I say Mann you say Phil the only difference at that point, apart from the big one, that you deny the correlation all together, while I do not.
And that correlation helps a lot in explaining and understanding the climate.
Its clarity and obviousity (in the data) is a big problem for AGWers when they try to pull things further than supposed to.
Is the best correlation propagated from the climate data…..
Sun is no where near that.
cheers

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 4:56 pm

Pamela, do you have a recommendation for a book on solar physics?
I for one think solar physics is in rather a mess.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 8:19 pm

Our Sun (2011) by Tony Broxton is a great first read handbook. It is for me one of the better books that sets you up with solar vocabulary. I recommend starting there. I also recommend reading articles found on Leif website. The efforts of other noted researchers can be found on his site as well as his own work.
http://www.leif.org/

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 8:40 pm

Good grief, does it come with training wheels, or do I have to purchase those separately?

Robert B
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 9:39 pm

“Because CO2 correlation with climate and climate change is the best and the most strong correlation observed” – Whiten
Both are roughly going up over the last half century. Detrending the data shows that they do not correlated well apart form that.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-co2/mean:12/detrend:80/offset:-315/scale:0.01/plot/gistemp/mean:60/from:1958/detrend:0.6
Doing something similar with the derivative of the CO2 levels shows a much better correlation.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/detrend:0.12/offset:-0.08/scale:2/from:1978/plot/uah/from:1958/detrend:0.3/mean:12
I don’t want to bring up anything else except that you would expect the correlation to be better in the first instance if the warming was due to CO2.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 2, 2015 5:54 am

The recommended read stands. Given the amazing lack of knowledge demonstrated in the thread, I could not have, in good conscience, recommended a higher level text. When basic solar science is thrown aside for an entirely unsupported idea, it is back to basics education. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
March 1, 2015 2:23 pm

Eric, if you have not, read Lindzen’s adaptive ir iris paper, BAMS 2001. In the strong form he puts forth, probably not true. (subsequent response papers). In the weak slower form you put forth, probably is true. Explains the absence of the modeled tropical teoposphere hot spot. Willis’ thermoregulation by tropical T storms. Plus delta wandering/ expansion of the ITCZ as the equator pole temperature gradient shifts. Vuc’s stuff above.

milodonharlani
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 1, 2015 2:34 pm

Willis’ hypothesis is not his discovery. Please see Roy Spencer on the decades of research by professional scientists ignored by Willis.

mpainter
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 1, 2015 3:40 pm

Much study on this predates Willis, who neglected to give due credit to those before him. So lots of bloggers think that it was Willis who originated the “homeostasis” of the tropics.

Jay Hope
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 2, 2015 1:59 am

Our Sun by Tony Broxton? That’s a bit basic, isn’t it?

Sturgis Hooper
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 2, 2015 4:31 am

MP,
True. Willis has himself acknowledged that his papers leave out the usual literature step. He enjoys crunching numbers even when the same crunching has already been done by others and repeatedly verified.
IMO he could make original contributions by looking at data sets which haven’t been qualitatively or quantitatively analyzed adequately yet, as he did with the CA coastal buoys.

March 1, 2015 12:54 pm

The data tells the story more to follow.comment image
More data which shows since the Holocene Optimum from around 8000BC , through the present day Modern Warm Period( which ended in 1998) the temperature trend throughout this time in the Holocene, has been in a slow gradual down trend(despite an overall increase in CO2, my first chart ), punctuated with periods of warmth. Each successive warm period being a little less warm then the one proceeding it.
My reasoning for the data showing this gradual cooling trend during the Holocene ,is Milankovitch Cycles were highly favorable for warming 10000 years ago or 8000 BC, and have since been in a cooling cycle. Superimposed on this gradual cooling cycle has been solar variability which has worked sometimes in concert and sometimes in opposition to the overall gradual cooling trend , Milankovitch Cycles have been promoting.
Then again this is only data which AGW enthusiast ignore if it does not fit into their scheme of things.
http://www.murdoconline.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/gisp2-ice-core-temperatures.jpg

richard verney
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
March 2, 2015 12:00 am

It may be the case that the Greenland ice cores under record the warmth/variation.
The Greenland ice cores suggest that during the Viking Warm Period (Medieval Warm Period) that Greenland was warmer than today by only 1 degC, and yet today gGlaciers are retreating revealing old Viking Settlements, and with the Viking’s limited technology there is no way that they could have farmed and liived in the settlements that are now beginning to see the light of day, if the land was only 1 deg warmer than present.
For the Vikings to have flourished for so long, Greenland (at least around the old Viking Settlements) must have been more like 2 to 4 degrees warmer than today.

Dario from Turin
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
March 2, 2015 6:56 am

Hi Salvatore, the MWP being 1° C higher than current climate is coherent with data from vegetation here in NW Italy… Some town in the Monferrato Hills had medieval regulatory plans about the planting of olive trees, and there are records about the trading of olive oil… Olive trees need a climate with a mean temperature 1° C higher tham today, to get from them enough fruits to produce oil….

Mike
March 1, 2015 12:58 pm

It just so happens that the excess warming is climate models looks very similar to inverted SSN. ie deviations of dT/dt in models is due to lack of sufficient solar effects in the models.
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/cmip5_xs_hi_ssn.png?w=800

whiten
March 1, 2015 12:59 pm

Judging only from what said here in this post, it seems like a very tricky and cherry picking method to show what clearly thus far can not be shown by the paleo climate data, the famous deceptive correlation of the sun.
Showing a correlation of North Atlantic SST as correlating with the Sun does not really mean a sun- climatic correlation with climate. Trying to use the term North Atlantic climate based only on the variation of SST, could be misleading.
The Maunder Minimum during LIA has clearly no correlation with climate, As the end of LIA was triggered there happened to follow shortly the Maunder, but never the less the climate warmed with no any sign of care.
According to this study, and the North Atlantic variation we now may conclude that actually that Maunder did correlate with climate change. What a nobrainer…
Is not unusual that in Transient anomaly climate, not stable climate, the SST in places may show a strong signal in opposite way of the climate signal.
Failing in one angle to show a correlation may just happens to support it in the other opposing angle, like during LIA. That is no more than a trick and a cherry picking method.
The giveaway line:
“Since the end of the Last Ice Age about 12,000 years ago, the Earth has generally experienced a warm climate. However, the climate has not been stable during this period, when temperatures have varied for long periods. We have generally had a slightly cooler climate during the last 4,000 years, and the ocean currents in the North Atlantic have been weaker.”
Very messy indeed…..
Climate is an Atmospheric energy configuration.
Yes it is coupled and influenced by other earth system functions, but a correlation of some effect on climate must be related to climate and atmosphere first, otherwise a mess follows.
Any other indirect correlation may be of no any value, especially while climate and atmosphere in plain contradiction as far as such correlations concerned.
cheers

whiten
Reply to  whiten
March 1, 2015 1:18 pm

Wait a minute,,,,,, I said North Atlantic, ……..is even worse, …actually is only north North Atlantic…..:-)

Reply to  whiten
March 1, 2015 1:54 pm

Far North Atlantic is where all the action is, mixing of warm and cold currents, warm currents down-welling striped of the heat energy by cold westerly wind, hundreds of W/m2 of heat rising into higher atmosphere creating the Icelandic Low atmospheric pressure system, diverting polar jet-stream etc.
Southern portion of N. Atlantic except for occasional hurricane is for the most of time a docile creature.

joelobryan
Reply to  whiten
March 1, 2015 1:22 pm

Climate is an atmospheric energy and (water vapor) mass configuration.

whiten
Reply to  joelobryan
March 1, 2015 1:27 pm

Of course it is.

whiten
Reply to  joelobryan
March 1, 2015 1:31 pm

The sun and “water vapor” variation both considered as constant according and in regard to climate…..There you have it… the famous correlation,……. the correlation of the constants..:-)

Mike
March 1, 2015 1:01 pm

One of the problems is that there is often a big volcano quite soon after a large drop solar activity. This can lead to false attrubution.

ferdberple
Reply to  Mike
March 1, 2015 3:19 pm

Remember Willis did a piece of Volcano’s that tended to show that temperature drops BEFORE the eruption takes place. That global temperature anticipates large eruptions.

March 1, 2015 1:03 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#mediaviewer/File:Sunspots_11000_years.svg
More data showing solar variability which when superimposed over the slow gradual cooling trend due to Milankovitch Cycles during the Holocene shows a strong correlation to the climate right up to present day.

Jazznick
March 1, 2015 1:05 pm

Willie Soon style unfounded smear campaign against Professor Marit-Solveig Seidenkrantz to begin in 3,2,1……………….
Funded by Big Sun etc etc. Where is this university ? Can’t we get it shut down ? Do they get any UN funding ? If they do, pull it. Expel Denmark from the UN. The Danes are DENiers, geddit ?
Yeah, that should do it.
Send that out – Greenpeace, WWF, BBC you know, all the usual green blobbies.
It will be FACT well before we are found out – usual drill.

March 1, 2015 1:05 pm

So for this one part of the earth, for this oneperiod of time, there’s a correlation. The rest of the earth we didn’t study, and by our own admission, there’s no correlation outside this period of time.
Seriously?

Pamela Gray
Reply to  davidmhoffer
March 1, 2015 3:51 pm

Bingo.

Admin
March 1, 2015 1:06 pm
Henry Galt
Reply to  Eric Worrall
March 1, 2015 1:28 pm

Not our Pam.

MCourtney
Reply to  Eric Worrall
March 1, 2015 1:50 pm

And why are you playing the (wo)man not the ball?
Argue the science.
This isn’t a political thread.

Admin
Reply to  MCourtney
March 1, 2015 3:59 pm

Pam could have been a little more upfront about her views, if this is the same Pam. She obviously has some very strong feelings about the climate “crisis”.
Having said that, she has offered very little science to argue – very evidence to support the CO2 theory, just lots of pooh poohing of solar theories.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Eric Worrall
March 1, 2015 3:42 pm

Not me Eric. Ask Willis and his lovely bride. I had the pleasure of their company last summer.

Admin
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 5:00 pm

Fair nuff 🙂

James Allison
Reply to  Eric Worrall
March 1, 2015 3:50 pm

Our Pam is not a Dr, has red hair and is a self confessed leprechaun. 🙂

asybot
Reply to  James Allison
March 1, 2015 11:49 pm

@ James 3.50 pm: thanks sir, + 100, 🙂 ( and I am not Pam.)

Reply to  Eric Worrall
March 1, 2015 7:48 pm

Eric Worral … that is despicable, and borders on stalking. ‘Pamela Gray’ is a very common name, and you have the wrong ‘Pamela Gray.’
Why are you practicing ‘science’ like the worst of the AGWers that we all here despise. She disagrees with you about the properties of the sun … so what? I thought this blog was all about skepticism and open debate. What’s wrong with you?
You have lost a great deal of credibility and good will, today.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  teapartygeezer
March 1, 2015 8:24 pm

It didn’t upset me in the least. In fact I rather enjoyed the debate. My feathers rarely ruffle.

asybot
Reply to  teapartygeezer
March 1, 2015 11:52 pm

@ Pam, “My feathers rarely ruffle” . As a leprechaun, I thought it would be the wool 🙂

March 1, 2015 1:06 pm

http://spaceandscience.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/ssrcresearchreport1-2010geophysicalevents.pdf
This data shows a strong correlation between sunspot minimum and major geological activity.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
March 1, 2015 8:26 pm

Nonsense. Earthquake and volcanic eruption physics has come a long way. There is absolutely no correlation between magnetic changes during minimum and its affect on Earth’s geology. Not enough energy.

Robert B
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 9:58 pm

Pamela, do yo even understand the difference between correlation and cause? One does not necessarily cause the other if there is a good correlation. It could be complete coincidence (http://geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/mag_fld/sec-eng.php) that magnetic changes were at a maximum while temperature increases were at a maximum, but the correlation for the data at Toronto is actual good. Better than that with CO2 levels.
Not enough energy? If gravitational pull on the Earth changes the currents then the climate changes. It might also cause a change in declination, hence the correlation.

whiten
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 2, 2015 10:02 am

Robert B
March 1, 2015 at 9:58 pm
Pamela, do yo even understand the difference between correlation and cause?
————————–
Robert, a very wrong question…….
In the case of the Sun, correlation either is something inflated and purely coincidental, with no any meaning, or otherwise means only causation……
Hard for some to see this.
Think it over please…….
cheers

highflight56433
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
March 1, 2015 3:23 pm

it’s easy to gravitate to solar variations driving large variation in global temperature. Just look at the difference between average temperatures at the equator vs south pole. Equatorial variation is 15 F between day night with little seasonal change. South pole can vary over 100 F between the long night season and the long day season. The equator at sea level is saturated with water, the south pole is dry and high (over 9000 ft). To me, promoting CO2 as a climate change driver is ludicrous On the other hand (dexter) to promote solar influence on global temperature changes, one only has to look at day/night variation and polar/equator variation.
The jet stream variation certainly has influence on weather as we have seen in recent winters and summers. An increased semi-permanent flow of arctic air masses into the mid North American continent would present longer freeze/snow season, while leaving the west coast warmer and dryer. That might explain the ancient dunes along the west side of the Columbia River south of Kettle Falls from the last ice age jet stream producing a ridge of high pressure, preventing the west coast from the typical rainfall.

milodonharlani
Reply to  highflight56433
March 1, 2015 5:49 pm

My granddad’s company built the first (1929) Kettle Falls Bridge, inundated by Lake FDR behind GCD. Also the sea wall & turnaround at Seaside, highways to the Coast & Central OR & the Crown Point overlook in the Gorge.
The dunes & nearby Miocene full body rhino cast fossil were my introduction to geology & paleontology, plus a sub fossil mammoth tusk from a road cut near Walla Walla brought home by my dad from a road crew. And the moraine at Lake Wallowa. Not to mention the very Athena series Palouse sandy loam soil we farmed, gift of the glaciers.
Thanks for bringing back those PNW memories while anchored in the S. Pacific.

highflight56433
Reply to  highflight56433
March 1, 2015 6:36 pm

milodonharlani March 1, 2015 at 5:49 pm Thanks for bringing back those PNW memories while anchored in the S. Pacific.
I have a ranch there high above the reservoir I try to get to on occasion. I find entire gorge geological features very interesting, as well as most of the west. Amazing variety.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  highflight56433
March 1, 2015 8:32 pm

I know the geology well having been raised in Wallowa County. Milo, there is another moraine. The one at the lake is famous because of the lake. Look at the topography over in the Lostine River Canyon (West of the Wallowa Lake area) and you will find a dry moraine every bit as interesting as Wallowa Lake’s moraine.

asybot
Reply to  highflight56433
March 2, 2015 12:42 am

@ Milon ( South pacific, you lucky guy take some SST’s while there:)) The soils you mentioned as a farmer are they similar to what we called “Loess” in areas of SW Germany and that general area? Also a left over from the EU’s Glacials , very rich and reddish/tan colored, the stuff was worth gold as a farmer!

milodonharlani
Reply to  highflight56433
March 2, 2015 4:47 am

Pamela,
I mentioned only the lake cuz that’s what I studied as a kid. Since then I’ve walked, ridden & flown over the one you cite too.
My great grandad bought horses from Chief Joseph, pere et fils.
Asbyot,
Palouse soils are indeed loess, deep wind blown glacier dust. They’re part of the global loess belt so important in the history of agriculture.
I’m not in the tropical South Pacific but subtropical, about the same south latitude as San Diego, CA in the north. But still pretty nice, if sometimes too windy.

Mario lento
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
March 1, 2015 11:18 pm

Thank you Stephen

March 1, 2015 1:13 pm

comment image
It is only data showing over and over again the solar/climate connection. Denial by many ,oh well.
Which by the way is going to happen again before this decade ends. Expect global cooling not warming going forward tied into this current prolonged solar minimum.

March 1, 2015 1:26 pm

When Earth is cooler, atmospheric water vapor is less. That’s the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship, and it is used in IPCC’s pet GCMs, but only in the reverse to amplify anthropogenic global warming. When the atmospheric water vapor is less, the cloud cover is less, but not in those GCMs, because that tends to negate the desired result that man and capitalism are guilty by definition. This effect of cloud cover is the negative feedback that mitigates warming from any cause, and because it gates the Sun on and off, it is the most powerful feedback in all of climate (though not GCMs).
At the same time, the same cloud cover is a positive feedback to solar variations which the IPCC long ago determined were insignificant. Cloud cover amplifies solar variations through the burn-off process, which perpetually proceeds apace on the morning side of the planet.
Click on my name to read about SGW, Solar Global Warming (2010). If you only read professional climate journals you’re only getting the dogma. Ordinary phenomena and observations will come as a surprise.

Reply to  Jeff Glassman
March 1, 2015 1:34 pm

P.S. Cloud cover perpetually mitigates warming, which has the numerical effect of reducing Climate Sensitivity in each of its various forms. That fact has been demonstrated by Lindzen and others, and it puts Climate Sensitivity below the minimum deduced by IPCC climatologists. That invalidates the GCMs.

Reply to  Jeff Glassman
March 1, 2015 2:27 pm

See upcoming (later today) guest post at Climate Etc. You will have shiny sharpened tools…

Reply to  Jeff Glassman
March 2, 2015 10:02 am

Rud Istvan, 3/1/2015 @ 2:27 pm:
Your topic over at Climate Etc. led reader HAS to say
The test of a model is utility, not necessarily predictive power. And GCM have utility, just not in decadal projections of global temperatures.
Unfortunately that is what they have become poster children for.
On the other hand, having just written that, perhaps they do have utility there 🙂

My response was unpublishable in that environment, cutting to the quick where postmodern models fail and PM scientists practice “publish in our controlled journals or perish”. What I had to say to you and HAS on the parallel topics of Study: The sun has more impact on the climate in cool periods, a paper by Jiang, et al. suggesting models should link the effects of solar activity to SSTs, and Monckton, et al., Why models run hot, results from an irreducibly simple climate model, was about the history and background of climate models. It went thus:
What on earth, so to speak, is the value in industry of a model that can’t make useful predictions?
GCMs have utility — political utility. The IPCC, an agency of the UN, is after all a political body, not a scientific one. It pretends to rely on peer-reviewed and published papers, except where they are insufficient for the cause Its Assessment Reports are addressed to Policymakers, not to scientists.
The original charter of the IPCC was to explore the science of climatology. Shortly after it was formed in 1988, it revised its own charter to study the impact of human-induced climate change. [The details are in Part E, in my paper SGW. Click on my name.] IPCC baked its bias into the cake. Thus the science was settled. Physics non-conforming to the dogma (e.g., dynamic cloud cover albedo, thermodynamic equilibrium, Henry’s Law of solubility, source-independent CO2 solubility coefficients) was omitted.
Manmade climate change is part of a larger political movement. The objective of the GCMs is, and always been, to assume and exert government control over capitalism, and to provide funds for ever bigger research computers. At that alone, they have had, and continue to have measurable success.
Climate Change attributed to Anthropogenic Global Warming is a set of disasters manufactured to frighten the public and their Policymakers into urgent action against CO2. AGW, like a flash of lightening, has all but gone away, meanwhile Climate Change continues to reverberate, like the roll of a distant thunder. Just to calibrate the problem, we are now told that climate change is a far more serious threat than the onset of World War III, proceeding apace on two fronts — from Iran out through the Middle East, and from Russia down through the Crimean Peninsula.
The IPCC through its Assessment Reports elevated a conjecture to a hypothesis, and thence to non-science. IPCC, though, acted as if the model had gone from hypothesis to theory. The nonscientific public, up to its hips in snow, is applying an unfair reality check. Models must work.
At least the first six of the seven skeptics now under attack by Congressman Grijalva (D, AZ) [David Legates, John Christy, Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, Robert Balling, and Roger Pielke Jr., plus Steven Hayward], defended on Climate Etc., are only skeptical about the extent of AGW. None of the seven, including the injured host of the blog, is skeptical enough. None will openly state that AGW, being unmeasurable, cannot be a scientific fact, less he be branded a — hiss, boo — denier. They are agnostics, where the science demands atheists.

Reply to  Jeff Glassman
March 2, 2015 8:26 pm

Re: Low temperatures enhance SGW, 3/1/2015:
Since posting at 10:02 am that six of Grijalva’s seven targets were only AGW agnostics, I found The Environment with Steven Hayward, an interview on YouTube. At the relevant point, the moderator begins:
13:09: Peter Robinson: So you granted the globe is warming, do you grant it is because of human activity?
13:12: Steven Hayward: Ah, partially. Almost certainly it’s partially due to human activity, sure. I don’t know what proportion to assign.
Steven Hayward, PhD, is a historian, not a scientist, but his writings show him a skilled reporter on the chronic problems with AGW. Above, he shows that he completes the set of seven, fitting right in as no more than an agnostic on an invalid conjecture.
As shown in my SGW paper, the IPCC-certified best model for the Sun predicts the Global Average Surface Temperature (HadCRUT3) over the entire record since the advent of thermometers almost as accurately IPCC’s 20-year smoothed estimate represents GAST. If man’s fingerprint is on GAST, it must have come from anthropogenic solar radiation. Not only is there no evidence supporting the existence of AGW, evidence is available to support that AGW does not exist.
Dr. Hayward, et al., the proportion to assign is zero.
And as a bonus, the close relationship between SGW and GAST tends to validate the accuracy of HadCRUT3, heat islands or not.

Reply to  Jeff Glassman
March 3, 2015 6:35 am

Re: Istvan’s shiny sharpened tools, 3/1/2015:
The following summary of a healthy discussion here and at Climate Etc. was automatically rejected at Climate Etc. What it shows is that Judith Curry, in practicing her unquestioned editorial prerogatives, runs her blog as if it were a professional journal, allowing only the dogma de jour to see the light of le jour. Her alleged skepticism, and her vaunted academic freedoms, have narrow limits.
>>Just one month ago, Jiang, et al. wrote a paper with the long and oddly oblique title, Solar forcing of Holocene summer sea-surface temperatures in the northern North Atlantic. Anthony Watts posted a topic [WUWT above] on the paper under the title, Study: The Sun has more impact on the climate in the cool periods, a direct and important extraction from Jiang, et al. It is like the relationship between the parent Global Warming and its daughter, Climate Sensitivity — the former is an unverifiable catastrophic prediction, and the latter is an immediate, implied, and invlaidating derivative. I responded serially [WUWT above] with several comments to the point that, of course, SGW is less in cool periods. That is a direct consequence of dynamic cloud cover, the most powerful feedback in all of climate, one omitted from the GCMs, and the one that mitigates warming from all causes. The converse, requiring just a little thought, is that a cooler atmosphere enhances warming, allowing more solar radiation to reach the boundary layer.
>>On WUWT, 3/1/2105 at 2:27 pm [WUWT above], Rud Istvan, author of the Climate Etc. post, Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle, responded to my comments, inviting me to find some “shiny sharpened tools” on his treatment of the Monckton, Soon, Legates, and Briggs paper, Why models run hot, results from an irreducibly simple climate model. As Istvan noted, complete with links, that kerfuffle boiled over into the attack by Congressman Grijalva (D, AZ) on the Grijalva Seven: Legates, Christy, Curry, Lindzen, Balling, Pielke, and Hayward, discussed on Climate Etc. on 2/25/2015, Conflicts of interest in climate science. [What happened to poor Soon and Baliunas?]
>>My comments posted the same day [on CE] discussed the substantive issue behind both scientific papers — Jiang, et al. and Monckton, et al. — namely, that the modelers have ignored dynamic cloud cover, so omitted its strong mitigating effects. That led to models that, while they run too hot, are nonetheless suited to their political purpose, as specifically stated by IPCC. I discussed that “too hot” implies a comparison with real world data, a criterion unnecessary and disinvited in the academic publish or perish world, but applied by both the public and scientists outside the enclave of IPCC climatologists. I pointed out that while every one of Grijalva Seven is critical of where IPCC has taken Climate Change, each nonetheless still assumes that AGW exists.
>>Dr. Curry found that I had strayed too far off topic, so brought the discussion to an abrupt end with a snip on 3/2 at 9:47 am.
>>On these grounds, which I submit are consistent and on-topic, and in the broader interests of science, I respectfully appeal to Dr. Curry to reconsider her decision by simply allowing this post to appear.
The instant, automated answer: Sorry, this comment could not be posted.
These transactions are evidence that Climate Etc. is not an open window, but a closed door. It is but one more postmodern outlet, interfering with the progress of science and knowledge. It explains how such patent nonsense as AGW can gain currency (of two kinds), and all in the guise of science.

Reply to  Jeff Glassman
March 1, 2015 1:57 pm

PPS. For any climatologists who read WUWT, and any others who talk about feedback without really understanding it, cloud cover is a negative feedback WRT global average surface temperature (GAST), and a positive feedback WRT solar radiation (S). So when GAST is low, cloud cover does not mitigate warming from the Sun as much. Hence, the subject paper and headline.

March 1, 2015 1:32 pm

Here is the supplementary data for that paper….
ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/reposit/2015/2015073.pdf

March 1, 2015 1:44 pm

I have read most of the papers related to the AMO, accesable on the web, and found that many authors just do not understand dynamics of the far north Atlantic.

Gentle Tramp
March 1, 2015 1:48 pm

Don’t get too excited about that paper. It must be scientific trash of course, because according to the common wisdom of Greenpeace, The New York Times, The Guardian and other “holy and infallible” institutions of our planet, those “scientists” can only be paid thugs of “Big Oil”, since their “research” does bolster the sinful claims of that infamous pseudo-researcher and “Big Oil”-slave Dr. Willie Soon, who actually maintains – believe it or not – that activity changes of the sun could possibly alter the Earths climate. What an absurd Idea !!!!!!!
Or is it not? / sarc off 😉

whiten
Reply to  Gentle Tramp
March 2, 2015 11:57 am

Don’t worry Gentle,
Dana at the Guardian already tryed the Sun variation as the best excuse for the hiatus.
It did fail horribly the first time around with that.
Perhaps if this study was around then than he would have had a better luck with it.
Doubtful he would fail again if tried the same again now, in the new light of this study.
Could even refer to WUWT about the credibility of this study.
cheers

Dawtgtomis
March 1, 2015 2:24 pm

Hopefully, the Doom blogs will remove solar forcing from their list of “myths”.

Our climate is enormously complex.

This is the essence of the skeptic approach.

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
March 1, 2015 2:43 pm

May I humbly suggest that mankind has only just begun to unravel the processes that govern this planet, and the universe in which it resides.

ferdberple
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
March 1, 2015 3:40 pm

The problem is that scientists of every generation mistakenly underestimate how much is unknown in their field of study. The unknowns are always assumed to be finite, and likely less than what is known. The assumption is always that what is yet to be discovered must be relatively minor.
However, if this was true, then the pace of scientific discovery should be dropping off as we start running out of unknowns to discover. Yet the pace of scientific discovery is continuing to accelerate in all fields. This suggest that what we know is only a very small fraction of what is unknown.
In an infinite universe, what is unknown is infinite. There is always more to discover. While at the same time what is known is always finite. On this basis, we know exactly finite/infinite*100% = 0% of what there is to be discovered.

zemlik
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
March 1, 2015 3:56 pm

Of course you can. Anybody can put forward any nonsense at all, for example I can say that the life in this locality may well be dependent on the energy from the sun but that the thing that is consciousness of that might transcend that molecular world and simultaneously inhabit several worlds not blighted by blobs of things but rather some gaseous flitting from one to another in dreams might well be the story.

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
March 1, 2015 6:08 pm

zemlik, if what I said is nonsense to you then so be it, to you I am an old fool. Perhaps it was not wasted on those who also question the egocentric narcissism of this century.

johann wundersamer
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
March 1, 2015 6:08 pm

ferdberple:
we know exactly finite / infinite*100% = 0% of what there is to be discovered.
____
So – if it’s your aim to show that mankind came forth 2.000.000 ys without scientific support –
you’ve won the discourse.
Regards – Hans

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
March 2, 2015 12:38 am

yes

Jay Hope
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
March 2, 2015 1:34 am

Very true, but it seems that Pamela doesn’t know that yet!

March 1, 2015 3:46 pm

@ Salvatore Del Prete
Probably, I hypothesize a major volcanic eruption (next decade)
I have a new study in progress (EGU 2015).
We must wait next major magnetic transition.
http://michelecasati.altervista.org/relationship-between-major-geophysical-events-and-the-planetary-magnetic-ap-index-from-1844-to-the-present.html

richardscourtney
Reply to  Michele
March 2, 2015 1:58 am

Michele
Please define “next decade”:
is it 2021 to 2030, or 2025 to 2035, or etc.?
And please define “major volcanic eruption”:
is it an eruption of an existing volcano, or of a new volcano, and of what minimum magnitude in what possible place(s)?
At present your hypothesis (as explained by your linked Abstract) is not an identifiable prediction and, therefore, it is not falsifiable.
Richard

Reply to  richardscourtney
March 2, 2015 1:56 pm

A major volcanic eruption is a VEI5+
Quote : “….Please define “next decade”….”
Transition solar cycles in the deep solar minimum (ascendet phase)
Firt hypothesize (2021-2023) SC24-SC25
http://www.leif.org/EOS/jgra50733.pdf
http://michelecasati.altervista.org/relationship-between-major-geophysical-events-and-the-planetary-magnetic-ap-index-from-1844-to-the-present.html
“….with a period of about two and a half years….”
or
Second hypothesize (2033-2035) SC25-SC26
http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/13/3395/2013/nhess-13-3395-2013.html
“….That the GSL is somehow connected with SAA is also confirmed by the similar result when an analogous critical-like fit is performed over GSL: the corresponding critical point (2033 ± 11 yr) agrees, within the estimated errors, with the value found for the SAA. From this result, we point out the intriguing conjecture that tc would be the time of no return, after which the geomagnetic field could fall into an irreversible process of a global geomagnetic transition that could be a reversal or excursion of polarity.”
Transition solar cycles in solar minimum output (rise phase)
http://michelecasati.altervista.org/possible-relationship-between-changes-in-imf-m7-earthquakes-and-vei-index-.html
“We conclude that this research further confirms that while coming out from periods of low activity, in the long period – deep solar minima, and the simultaneous fast oscillation, in the short period and impulsive electromagnetic activity, the recovery of the EM activity of the Sun can trigger significant geophysical events in terms of energy release as regards the magnitude or the VEI index.

richardscourtney
Reply to  richardscourtney
March 2, 2015 11:24 pm

Michele
Thankyou for the clarification on timings;
i.e. you are saying “a major volcanic eruption” will occur in “(2021-2023)” and/or “(2033-2035)”.
However, for your hypothesis to be making a falsifiable prediction then you still need to define what you mean by “a major volcanic eruption”.
Please note that I am trying to help you by pointing out the need for these clarifications. 2023 is not far away and a clear, accurate prediction of a volcanic event years in advance would be a significant achievement demanding further study.
Richard

Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 3:47 pm

Google my name and you will get over 3 million results, ranging from call girl, convicted criminal, stay at home mom, actress, scientist, teacher, doctor, etc. It gave me a good belly laugh!
This is me and the original thesis paper is at Oregon State University:
http://www.audiology.org/sites/default/files/journal/JAAA_02_01_04.pdf

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 4:04 pm

I just knew it.

u.k.(us)
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 4:06 pm

So, just what do we really know about our Pam ??

mickcrane
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 4:07 pm

do you fancy a shag after we rob the bank ? You would have to get somebody to babysit while you dressed up in the outfit to hide the explosives, I assume you are still able to make those from your years teaching chemistry, and don’t forget to bring the first aid kit !!

Pamela Gray
Reply to  mickcrane
March 1, 2015 4:23 pm

I taught all CORE classes in a self-contained middle school class for students with behavioral and/or emotional problems. Yes I introduced them to chemistry in their Science class. But I would hardly call that “years teaching chemistry”.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  mickcrane
March 1, 2015 4:25 pm

And just who would they be babysitting? I’m an old chicken and if I still can lay an egg, it is undoubtedly without a shell.

1saveenergy
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 4:40 pm

Good heavens Pam, you have had a varied career, I know women can multi-task but that’s just greedy, hope you pay income tax on all those jobs !!

Pamela Gray
Reply to  1saveenergy
March 1, 2015 5:38 pm

Too damned much

Pamela Gray
Reply to  1saveenergy
March 1, 2015 5:40 pm

You realize of course that my name is very common and shared by millions.

asybot
Reply to  1saveenergy
March 2, 2015 12:50 am

@ Pam, “You realize of course that my name is very common and shared by millions.”
But to me there is only one real Pamela Gray, Love your science and your empathy.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 4:45 pm

Come on guys. Pam is clearly a good listener.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 5:07 pm

How many shades of gray does that amount to, Pamela?

Catherine Ronconi
March 1, 2015 4:32 pm

Alan: I wish I were as sure about anything based on evidence as Pamela is about everything based on none.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
March 1, 2015 5:25 pm

Then we agree. It is not good to adhere to ideas so poorly evidenced.
1. There is very little by way of plausible mechanism that solar variation drives measurable temperature change. 2. There is very little by way of anthropogenic CO2 downwelling longwave infrared radiation calculation and modeling compared to observations that anthropogenic portions of atmospheric CO2 is driving measurable temperature change.

John MIller
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 6:12 pm

‘There is very little by way of anthropogenic CO2 downwelling longwave infrared radiation calculation and modeling compared to observations that anthropogenic portions of atmospheric CO2 is driving measurable temperature change.’
Say that again?

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 8:40 pm

The added anthropogenic portion of atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in downwelling longwave infrared radiation, thus adding warming to the surface. However, we are talking about a teeny tiny addition of this absorbing-reemitting molecule. Without some kind of amplification, it alone does not have the energy to push a warming trend. This is why the models add a water vapor increase, since water vapor does indeed have the chops to warm us up. But even this fudge factor cannot be plausible. Indeed, measurements of water vapor trends do not show the proposed amplification.
All this is to say that both solar parameters and anthropogenic CO2 are sideline players. Water boys if you will.

March 1, 2015 4:34 pm

This is our Sun telling us something:
Monthly and smoothed sunspot number (Ri) (SILSO, Royal Observatory of Belgium, Brussels):
http://sidc.oma.be/images/wolfmms.png
From http://sidc.oma.be/silso/monthlyssnplot

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Andres Valencia
March 1, 2015 4:41 pm

Tells me the sun explains the frigid ’60s and ’70s, warmer ’80s and ’90s and plateau of the ’00s and ’10s to date. Odds favor future cooling. The ice moons cometh.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
March 1, 2015 5:37 pm

No, it does not explain cold years. Total Solar Irradiance (which is in step with SSN change) variation pales in comparison to variation caused by Earth’s orbital changes in distance.
http://www.leif.org/research/Eddy-Symp-Poster-2.pdf

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 1, 2015 7:11 pm

Pamela Gray, presenting Leif Svalgaard, lsvalgaard presentation at the solar conference,

No, it does not explain cold years. Total Solar Irradiance (which is in step with SSN change) variation pales in comparison to variation caused by Earth’s orbital changes in distance.

Good source, thank you.
Two questions please.
1. Sheet 9 of 17. The spoken words during your presentation at the symposium in 2010 perhaps made thie slide clear, but it certainly is not clear to me now without further explanation. “Aa-index and Method Wrong” means what? One of the two graphs is wrong? Both are wrong? Both show an old way of calculating solar energy that is not supposed to be used now?
2. The last ten years of SORCE measurements show that TSI (at avearge distance of earth-sun) is slightly under 1362 watts//m^2. The graphic on page 4 shows that successive TSI measurements by different systems also all go down over time, but the result is a current TSI = 1362 watts/m^2. But page 9 shows ALL “reconstructions” of TSI over time going up towards a TSI = to the “old value” of 1372 – 1366 watts/m^2.
How can page 4, page 9 and page 12 be reconciled to a single steady TSI value between AD 1500 (before the LIA in 1650) and 2015 if all three show variation from 1361 to 1372 in just 12 years of measurements? Or are the slides (the graphics) settling towards different values somehow that the text does not make clear?

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
March 1, 2015 9:23 pm

Circle the correct responses:
Compared to, say, a million years ago:
1, The average annual distance of the Earth from the Sun is now: smaller, greater, the same, unknown.
2. The average annual TSI is now: more, less, the same, unknown.

dp
Reply to  Andres Valencia
March 1, 2015 6:10 pm

Over the life of the reliable sunspot data does that data continuously correlate at a confidence level of 95% or greater to any independently identified weather or climate data? If not then what you have is a plot of no known significance.

Reply to  Andres Valencia
March 1, 2015 6:51 pm

Dr. Henrik Svensmark’s hypothesis on Solar activity:
“When the Sun is active, its magnetic field is stronger and as a result fewer global cosmic rays (GCR) arrive in the vicinity of Earth.”
“The variations of the cosmic ray flux, as predicted from the galactic model and as observed from the iron meteorites, are in sync with the occurrence of ice age epochs on Earth. The agreement is both in period and in phase.”
“The inverse relationship between temperature and CRF is clear; when CRF rises, temperature falls, when CRF drops off, temperature climbs.”
“The evidence of correlations between paleoclimate records and solar and cosmic ray activity indicators, suggests that extraterrestrial phenomena are responsible for climatic variability on time scales ranging from days to millennia.”
“The movement of the solar system in and out of the spiral arms of the Milky Way galaxy is responsible for changes in the amount of cosmic rays impacting Earth’s atmosphere.”
Time frames:
“Decadal – Cosmic ray muons regulated by the Solar cycle. This accounts for temperature variability in sync with the 11 year sunspot cycle.”
“Hundreds to thousands of years – Solar regulation of cosmic rays plus changes in Solar irradiance. This variability includes historical climate change as witnessed in the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period.”
“Tens to hundreds of thousands of years – The Croll-Milankovitch cycles that combine Earth’s attitudinal and orbital variations. This variability drives the glacial-interglacial cycles during ice ages.”
“Millions to hundreds of millions of years – The solar system’s transit of the galactic spiral arms, causing variation in overall cosmic ray intensity. This variability regulates the cycles of ice ages and hot-house periods.”
From The Resilient Earth (Book. Doug L. Hoffman & Allen Simmons, 2008). Chapter 11, Cosmic Rays. At http://www.theresilientearth.com/

March 1, 2015 5:08 pm

More proxies and guesswork. More “appears to” “may” and “suggests”.
Are there just too many scientists these days? Is this what is behind all this wishy washy research? Not enough hard science to go round?

Latitude
Reply to  wickedwenchfan
March 1, 2015 5:37 pm

yes

Jim G1
March 1, 2015 5:35 pm

I suppose that rain has more impact during dry periods, as well. What a discovery!

Mervyn
March 1, 2015 5:43 pm

Well, the warmest establishment behind the ‘Church of Man-Made Global Warming’ is certainly not going to be happy about this. It is blasphemous!
If ‘Die kalte Sonne’ by Dr Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr Sebastian Luning was deemed a book by heretics, then this latest study will surely be deemed an heretical study that deserves a “burning at the stakes” moment.

whiten
Reply to  Mervyn
March 1, 2015 9:18 pm

Really doubtful.
They all probably having a laugh at it.
Even Mann must be laughing and be proud of his total f.ck up, the “all action happens around a single tree in Jamal”, by knowing that this is even a worse f.ck up, when considering climate.
cheers

Ulric Lyons
March 1, 2015 5:51 pm

The paper claims “a robust negative correlation between the SST’s and solar activity records over the last 4000 yr”, but quotes an absolute minimum in SST’s c.600 BP “during the Little Ice Age”.

logos_wrench
March 1, 2015 6:10 pm

Nice to know grant money is never wasted studying the obvious. Oh, and how is this knowledge helping understand how the whole climate system works? Isn’t the science settled? Don’t the models know all?
The whole field is a joke.

Ulric Lyons
March 1, 2015 6:10 pm

This chart is very revealing (click to enlarge):
http://www.rapid.ac.uk/
Low AMOC events in Jan-Feb 2010, Dec 2010, Feb 2012 and March 2013, precisely during the much colder winter months. But also nearer mid year in 2007 and 2012 when there was a greater loss in summer sea ice.

Atomic Hairdryer
March 1, 2015 6:45 pm

Re Max Photon March 1, 2015 at 4:56 pm
“Pamela, do you have a recommendation for a book on solar physics?”
I asked this before and Leif recommended:
http://www.amazon.com/Sun-Space-Astronomy-Astrophysics-Library/dp/3540769528/
Which he didn’t author, so no COI issues if congressmen come knocking. It’s a nice bio of my namesake, and a fair section of the book is citations if you want to learn more. Which if you read it, you probably will because although intuitively it should drive our climate, the numbers don’t always add up. That’s just the joy of climate science. Which straw breaks the camel’s back, or which nail loses the battle? Or is it just one of those natural variability things where events conspire against us, and we add a little bit to the problem. Or we think we’re adding to the problem, but our contributions are insignificant on a planetary scale.

Reply to  Atomic Hairdryer
March 1, 2015 8:31 pm

Thank you for the recommendation. (You’re not Pamela’s atomic hairdryer by any chance, are you?)
You know, speaking as Maxwell C. Photon, I always cringe when I see solar physicists discussing magnetic this and magnetic that. Magnetic fields are the effect; electric currents are the cause. So why are physicists not focusing on electric currents instead? And this whole “magnetic reconnection” business only makes me … cringier.
Maxwell’s Equations are just … not … that … difficult. I even have a t-shirt with them emblazoned across the front. People ask if I graduated from DeVry.
But I guess we are supposed to settle for settled solar science.
C’est le soleil.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Max Photon
March 1, 2015 8:53 pm

The Electric Universe peaks out of the dog house.
But…plasma works a bit different in the solar environment. Don’t ask me how because I would have to read again Leif’s material on this issue. But just be forewarned that plasma here in the lab does not act like plasma on the Sun.
“changing magnetic fields in a plasma (consisting of charged particles) generate electric currents that are described by Faraday’s law”
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Electric_currents_in_space_plasmas

Reply to  Max Photon
March 1, 2015 9:06 pm

Ouch. A double ad hominem.
Last time I check it was called the “electromagnetic spectrum.” Is electricity a no-no in Pamela’s Universe?
And what … are there different laws of physics for plasma Here vs There? Interesting.
And yes, of course changing magnetic fields can induce currents. Any freshman in physics knows that. But they also learn that while there are electric monopoles (sources and sinks), there are no magnetic monopoles.
What causes magnetic fields to vary?

whiten
Reply to  Max Photon
March 1, 2015 9:25 pm

Max Photon
March 1, 2015 at 9:06 pm
What causes magnetic fields to vary?
———–
Probably electricity, like in electrical fields, electrostatic fields of energy,,,,,just maybe…:-)
Same may hold true for the Earths Magnetic field…just maybe….
cheers