Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Someone recommended that I look at the Steinhilber 2009 paper. I did. The data is here. My first-cut graphs are below. Discuss. For the reasons I talked about in my previous post, I gotta run.
Best wishes to all, I’m outta here …
w.
Just thinking, the above regarding insolation as a function of latitude might be improved by finding the anomaly in total energy received, perhaps in kw-hr/m2/day. The plot that is the subject of this article might also benefit from adding a dimension of time, rather than instantaneous value.
BBC changing its climate change tune
– Sun affects climate change
– Maunder minimum caused Little Ice Change
– CO2 not mentioned once, but in passing ‘eliminate polluting’ power stations
– Fusion and solar are good sources of energy, no mention of wind or bio-fuels
– Anthropogenic warming (presumably is good) might compensate for a future ‘LIA type ‘ cooling.
– NASA’s Dr H appeared few times
– No CAGW views or experts appeared.
It is a small but important step away from relentless propaganda towards the reality.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0074s96/the-sun
These graphs by themselves (regardless of what Steinhilber says about them) are illuminating. For one thing, they point out the importance of scale. Physicists have for years discounted solar causes of climate change because of the very small variation in TSI and the top graph seems to bear that out. But the lower, more detailed graph eerily tracks global climate very nicely. It follows the Dalton cooling, the ~1850 warming, the late 1800 to early 1900 cooling, the ~1915 to ~1950 warming, the 1950 to 1980 cooling, the ~1980 20 year warming, and post-2000 cooling. If TSI isn’t the cause of climate changes, why does it apparently follow the temperature curve so nicely (it isn’t exact, but shows the trends)? One could reason that although TSI isn’t causing climate change, it is affected by whatever the cause is in the same way as climate.
What makes things even more interesting are the trends of Berylium-10 and carbon-14 variations during this time. These two isotopes are produced in the upper atmosphere by nuclear reaction with incoming radiation and they also correlate reasonably well with global temperature. They suggest that during times of increased production, i.e., high incoming radiation, global climates cooled. Svensmark used this to postulate that during times of high incoming radiation, condensation around ions produced more clouds, which increased albedo and resulted in cooling.
Anyway, what I get out of the two graphs is that these graphs are in accord with the Svensmark concept. They don’t prove it, but certainly provide interesting food for thought.
CET follows all ups and downs in the rate of change of the solar activity’s the longer term average. One exception is the second half of 1700s, the time of number of powerful Icelandic volcanic eruptions
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GC.gif
richard verney April 28, 2016 at 5:44
If you can tell me unequivocally whether what I said was praise or criticism, I’ll accept your claim. Until then, I will continue to say that I neither praised nor criticized the study. All I did was present the data, in two complementary visual formats—one a large overview, and one a close up.
If I present a two pictures of a tree, one a large overview, and one a close up, am I praising the tree or criticizing it? I say neither, but YMMV …
w.
Heh, disingenuous. Who, Willis?
============
Heh, unwilling to answer a simple question. Who, kim?
=============
w.
No, Kid, that’s an ink blot.
==============
There you are, posing for the cover photo of the teen glam mag with a big fat cigar in your mouth, and I’ve gotta wonder if it’s a cigar or not.
Go back to Richard Verney’s original comment. His point is that with your presentation of the data you are saying SOMETHING. You ignore that and make the fallacious argument that you could only be saying SOMETHING if you were praising or criticizing it.
That’s tricksie, Willis; it’s pea under the the thimble nonsense. It’s ingenious, and you’ve not addressed his point at all. Smells like dishonest discourse.
It’s disappointing, Willis, because in general, in the climate wars, you wield a pretty straight peashooter.
==================
Bah, ‘smells like teen discourse’ woulda been better.
=================
kim May 8, 2016 at 1:24 am
Who is “Kid”, and what is he to this discussion?
kim May 8, 2016 at 3:23 am
Say what? Are you drunk-posting, or off your meds? “Teen glam mag”?? “Fat cigar”??? Whatever your point might be, it’s lost in your puerile imagery.
Well, no, that wasn’t my argument. But OK, kim, you tell me. If I was saying SOMETHING, then just what was I saying by posting those two plots? Was I saying the data was false? Was I saying it was true? Was I saying we should trust the data? Was I saying the data was not trustworthy? Was I saying that the variations in the TSI made a difference to the climate? Was I saying the variations in TSI do not make a difference to the climate? Speak up, amigo, let us all know just exactly what I was saying, so we can be in no mystery.
I will repeat what I said above. If I show a small-scale photo of a tree and a closeup photo of a tree, what am I saying about the tree? If I post a small-scale graphic of the TSI and a closeup of the TSI, what am I saying about the TSI?
Sheesh … you and Richard want to turn a Rorschach test into a claim that simply by presenting data, Rorschach must be “saying something” … sorry, Kim, but this is just a scientific inkblot. What you see is what you get. The interpretation is up to you.
w.
Richard had an adult point; you, not so much.
===================
Heh, you are like the child in the corner screaming at the top of his lungs “I am not saying anything”, hence the cigar. You can work out ‘Ingenue’ by yourself, no more hints.
===============
Hee, hee, I may agree with what you are not saying, but I’ll defend to the deaf your right to say nothing.
======================
kim, I see you’re still unwilling to answer a simple question. In case you’ve forgotten, it was:
Still waiting …
w.