Record heat despite a cold sun

By Sebastian Luening, Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt

Introduction

On 14th November 2016 Stefan Rahmstorf (“stefan”) of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) published on the climate blog Realclimate an article entitled „Record heat despite a cold sun”. In this article he discusses a temperature prognosis which we first published 2012 in the book “Die kalte Sonne”. An English translation of the book came out 2013 under the title “The Neglected Sun”. In his blog post, Stefan Rahmstorf attempts to demonstrate that the solar development does not match with the temperature evolution and hence has only a negligible effect on climate. Furthermore, he argues that our temperature prognosis has essentially failed.

First of all, it is good to see that our work is being considered by a prominent climate scientist and by this has re-entered the public climate debate. Nevertheless, we disagree with the conclusions drawn by Stefan Rahmstorf and would like to take the opportunity to comment on the issues raised in his article. To this end, we address the following points:

· Is solar development really incompatible with temperature development?

· Does it make sense to evaluate a prognosis only a few years after it was published?

· How did we arrive at our prognosis and why do we think it will still be successful?

· How likely are high climate sensitivity scenarios?

1) Is solar development really incompatible with temperature development?

In his starting figure, Stefan Rahmstorf shows the time evolution of global temperature, CO2 concentration and solar activity from 1950 onwards. Unfortunately, the first part of the 20th century is not shown which would have offered interesting insights into possible climate driving mechanisms. In Figure 1 we have extended the graph to 1900 and illustrate solar activity based on a total solar irradiance (TSI) reconstruction by Steinhilber et al. (2009) based on cosmogenic radionuclide 10Be measured in ice cores. The rapid warming of the first half of the 20th century coincides well with a steady increase in solar activity. Attribution of this warming therefore is not trivial as also CO2 increased contemporaneously.

In the 1960s and 70s temperatures dropped, corresponding with a fall in solar activity while CO2 continued to climb upwards. Recent research suggests that the negative phase of 60 year ocean cycles may have been the main reason for this colder interval (Gervais, 2016; Meehl et al., 2016; Tung and Zhou, 2013). Solar activity picked up again in the 1980s/90s reaching some of the highest values, making the second half of the 20th century one of the most active solar periods of the past 10,000 years (Solanki et al., 2004).

Solar activity began to gradually decline in subsequent 11-year solar cycles in the 2000s and 2010s, as marked by the downward trend in the TSI curve by Steinhilber et al. (2009) (Fig. 1). Notably, the reduced solar activity roughly coincides with the so-called warming hiatus or slowdown that commenced around 1998. Again, ocean cycles may have played a major role in initially boosting and eventually terminating the phase of rapid warming that took place 1977-1998 (Meehl et al., 2016).

Due to the inertia of the climate system, time lags of a few decades with regards to external triggers have to be expected. The drop in solar activity during the early 21st century may therefore be only fully implemented in global temperatures in the coming years to decades, if solar activity plays a more important role than currently assumed by the IPCC. Stefan Rahmstorf’s solar representation misses the important ramp up to the exceptionally high solar plateau in the second half of the 20th century. Looking at the interval 1898 to 1997, solar activity (sensu Steinhilber et al. 2009) shows an even better (R=0.78) correlation with temperature than CO2 (R=0.75).

clip_image001

Figure 1: Time evolution of global temperature (GISS), CO2 concentration and solar activity (Steinhilber et al. 2009).

2) Does it make sense to evaluate a prognosis only a few years after it was published?

Climate change temperature prognoses refer to mid- and long-term developments, and do not intend to cover effects related to fast-paced El Nino, La Nina or volcanic events. It therefore does not make sense to evaluate a prognosis only four years after it was published, especially not during an El Nino year such as 2015/16. Apart from this, the temperature dataset chosen by Stefan Rahmstorf and its way of smoothing are debatable.

The GISS data have experienced repeated large administrative changes and therefore are considered by part of the climate research community as unstable (Fig. 2). Furthermore, Rahmstorf chooses averages over a 12 months period which unfortunately further emphasizes the El Nino peak. A better choice might have been monthly temperature data which by the time when Rahmstorf’s blog article went online in mid November 2014 had already returned down to values of the pre-El Nino temperature plateau. In terms of smoothing, a longer-term moving average would make better sense, e.g. 37 months, which helps to reduce some of the El Nino and La Nina short-term temperature effects. In the case of a 37 month smooth, the last smoothed data point is from mid 2015, shortening the reality-test interval of the prognosis down to merely three years.

clip_image003

Figure 2: Diagram showing the adjustments made since May 2008 by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in anomaly values for the months January 1910 and January 2000. Graph from Climate4You.com (October 2016 newsletter).

In Figure 3 we have plotted the global RSS satellite temperature data for the period 1997-2016 and compared it with the prognosis of Vahrenholt & Lüning (2012). Since 2012 the 37-months RSS running mean has stayed quite well within the lower and upper limits of the prognosis. Short-term deviations outside the range during El Ninos and La Ninas are acceptable, as the dynamics of the temperature development have already exceeded the narrow range during previous occasions, e.g. during the 1998 El Nino (Fig. 3). The monthly RSS values in the second half of 2016 have sharply declined and have now re-entered the upper limit of the prognosis.

clip_image005

Fig. 3: Measurements of global temperature (RSS, monthly values, last data point October 2016) compared to the forecast for global temperature til 2030 by Vahrenholt & Lüning (2012: Figure 73). Thick line represents 37 months moving average.

The same comparison has also been carried out for the GISS surface temperature dataset (Fig. 4). In contrast to the satellite data, the GISS temperatures plot above the prognosed range. It will be interesting to see in the coming years, if the temperatures return into the corridor of the prognosis and if future administrative changes to the dataset by GISS will reduce the amount of perceived warming, possibly bringing better alignment with the satellite datasets.

clip_image007

Fig. 4: Measurements of global temperature (GISS, monthly values, last data point October 2016) compared to the forecast for global temperature til 2030 by Vahrenholt & Lüning (2012: Figure 73). Thick line represents 37 months moving average.

We take the opportunity to present additional temperature prognoses and their comparison with the measured temperature development. Meaningful comparisons can be carried out by studying climate scenarios that have been published at least two decades ago. First, we take a look at three temperature curves by Hansen et al. (1988) (Fig. 5). Scenarios B and C reflect cases in which trace gas growth rates would have been mildly reduced after 1988 and kept constant after 2000 (Scenario B), and drastically reduced 1990-2000 with zero emissions thereafter (Scenario C). The two cases have to be discarded, because emissions have not developed according to these scenarios, as we know today. Therefore scenario A captures the real evolution of emissions best, representing a 1.5% Increase of trace gas emissions per year, corresponding to growth rates typical of the 1970s and 80s. In terms of temperatures, however, scenario A of Hansen et al. (1988) has drastically overestimated warming by more than double the real amount.

clip_image009

Fig. 5. Measurements of global temperature (GISS, yearly average values) compared to the forecast for global temperature by Hansen et al. (1988). Description of scenarios see text.

Another temperature prognosis suitable for evaluation stems from the First Assessment Report (FAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that was published in 1990. Since publication, 26 years of new data have been observed. The comparison shows that measured temperatures have followed a path at the lower end of the FAR climate scenarios (Fig. 6). Notably, the extreme upper warming forecast has turned out to be incorrect. A major factor in these scenarios plays the large range of 1.5-4.5°C of warming per CO2 doubling proposed by the IPCC FAR for the CO2 equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). The moderate warming that tracks the path at the lower end of the FAR spectrum may suggest that climate sensitivity is equally in the lower part of the IPCC range. Notably, an ECS scenario of 1.5°C was also presented by Vahrenholt & Lüning (2012).

clip_image011

Fig. 6. Measurements of global temperature (RSS, black curve) compared to the extreme lower (green curve) and upper (red curve) forecasts for global temperature by the IPCC First Assessment Report (1990).

3) How did we arrive at our prognosis and why are we confident that it will still be successful?

Our prognosis in Vahrenholt & Lüning (2012) considered three main climate drivers, namely an anthropogenic CO2 increase, multidecadal ocean cycles and solar activity changes.

CO2. In the years following our publication, a general shift towards lower CO2 climate sensitivities has occurred in the research community (Lewis and Curry, 2015; Loehle, 2014; Masters, 2014; Mauritsen and Stevens, 2015; Skeie et al., 2014; Spencer and Braswell, 2014; von der Heydt et al., 2014). The reduction is mostly based on re-evaluations related to the role of ocean cycles and the limited cooling potential of aerosols. Notably, reconsidered solar effects on climate have not yet been implemented and may lead to additional changes in the climate sensitivity value. In its latest report from 2013, the IPCC openly stated that at present it is not in a position to give a ‘best estimate’ for equilibrium climate sensitivity because of a “lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies”. To a certain extent, the re-considered warming potential of CO2 validates our prognosis approach in Vahrenholt & Lüning (2012) in which we used a climate sensitivity at the lower end of the current IPCC range of 1.5-4.5°C per CO2 doubling (IPCC, 2013).

Multidecadal Ocean Cycles. Since publication of our prognosis in 2012, the understanding of multidecadal ocean cycles and their systematic influence on global climatic has seen a major breakthrough. While previously modellers viewed the ocean cycles mostly as unpredictable noise, the cycles are now finally accepted to play a fundamental role in cooling or warming global climate. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) have markedly increased global warming during 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-2000. In contrast, the ocean cycles slowed warming and cooled during 1880-1910, 1940-1975 and since 2000 (e.g. Han et al., 2016; Steinman et al., 2015; Tung and Zhou, 2013; Wyatt and Curry, 2014).

In the past, PDO peak plateaus typically triggered accelerated warming. Following the El Nino in 1998, the PDO has started its long-term decline, interrupted only by short-term rises, e.g. related to the recent 2015/16 El Nino (Fig. 7). The PDO climb down since 1998 may be the key reason for the slowdown in global warming since then. Based on an empirical average cycle period of 60 years, the PDO will most likely be in a general cooling stage during the coming two decades or so.

clip_image013

Fig. 7. Phases of the PDO ocean cycle Index compared to fluctuations in the general 20th/21st warming trend (monthly GISS data).

The AMO lags the PDO by about one and a half decades and started its decline only recently in 2015 (Fig. 8). The AMO cooling coupled with PDO cooling will turn the majority of the ocean cycle system into cold mode until the 2030s by when ocean cycles gradually turn into warm mode again.

clip_image015

Fig. 8. Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). From KNMI Climate Explorer. Last data point October 2016.

Solar Activity Changes. A great number of studies have demonstrated that solar activity has played a major role in climate during pre-industrial times (e.g. Hernández-Almeida et al., 2015; Holland et al., 2014; Ojala et al., 2015). On a Holocene scale of the past 10,000 years, solar-forced millennial-scale climate variability is a globally well-established Holocene phenomenon and has been described from all oceans and continents (Lüning and Vahrenholt, 2016). Solar-driven climate cycles are known from upper, middle and lower geographical latitudes, encompassing all climate zones, from the Arctic to the tropics. It is plausible to assume that the long-lasting connection between solar activity changes and climate is still active today.

Most solar physicists agree that we are heading towards a solar minimum in the first third or first half of this century (e.g. Ahluwalia, 2014; Lewis and Curry, 2015; Sánchez-Sesma, 2016; Skeie et al., 2014; Spencer and Braswell, 2014; Tlatov, 2015; Velasco Herrera et al., 2015; Zolotova and Ponyavin, 2014). In the past, solar minima have been commonly been associated with significant climate cooling, therefore it may be reasonable to expect a similar temperature effect in modern times for the coming decades.

How likely are high climate sensitivity scenarios?

In his blogpost at Realclimate, Stefan Rahmstorf cites a recent paper by Friedrich et al. (2016) in support of high climate sensitivities and a strong CO2 warming effect. The paper proposes massive anthropogenic warming of 5-7°C until the year 2100. This result is highly surprising because comparisons of modelled and measured temperatures favour rather lower climate sensitivity scenarios (see above). Also Brown et al. (2015) demonstrated that climate sensitivities in the upper part of the IPCC range are rather unlikely because they do not match with the observed recent temperature development, therefore worst case scenarios as envisaged e.g. by Friedrich et al. (2016) should be discarded.

In a recent post-publication review, James Annan demonstrated that the climate sensitivities proposed by Friedrich et al. (2016) grossly overestimate measured global warming (figure with Annan’s comparison here). Our own analysis confirms Annan’s results. We have digitized the key figure of Friedrich et al. (2016) and compared the output of the paper with the observations (Fig. 9). We used the ENSO-, solar- and volcano-adjusted global mean surface temperature (GMST) of Grant Foster (“Tamino”) since 1951 for four records (GISS, HadCRUT4, Cowtan/Way and Berkeley Earth). The comparison shows that the warming trend of Friedrich et al. is twice as high as the trend slopes of the observed GMST.

The calculated transient climate response (TCR) from the observations is 1.35°C per CO2-doubling, while the calculated TCR of Friedrich et al. amounts to 2.7°C per CO2-doubling. In a comment at James Annans Blog Nicholas Lewis determined an equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of only 45% of the estimated values in the paper when using better established forcing data and GMST variances between Last Glacial Maximum and pre- industrial levels from recent studies in the literature.

clip_image017

Fig. 9. Model output temperatures from Friedrich et al. (2016) (red curve) compared to the observed adjusted measured temperature datasets of “Tamino”. Our prediction (Vahrenholt & Lüning 2012) is marked in brown. Note its small deviation to the observed temperatures in contrast to the large deviation of the red curve of Friedrich et al. (2016) which Rahmstorf cites as “sensitivity of global temperature to CO2 is independently confirmed by paleoclimatic data”

How did Friedrich et al. (2016) arrive at their conclusions which do not seem to hold up to reality calibration? The basis of their calculation is formed by temperature and CO2 data for the last nearly 800,000 years, covering several glacial and inter-glacial periods. Closer inspection shows that the authors seem to have overlooked that CO2 increases typically lag temperature rises by a few hundred years (Ahn et al., 2012; Monnin et al., 2001; Pedro et al., 2012; Stott et al., 2007) by way of CO2 outgassing from the warming oceans due to reduced ability to hold CO2 (Campos et al., 2016; Schmitt et al., 2012), making it complicated to attribute large parts of the warming to a primary carbon dioxide effect during Pleistocene times. Notably, the Friedrich et al. dataset has only a resolution of 1000 years which is insufficient to identify and discuss this time lag effect. In addition, James Annan discusses problems with the temperature database used by Friedrich et al. (2016). Summed up, the reasons for the exaggerated CO2 climate sensitivities of Friedrich et al (2016) may be found in incorrect attribution of warming, partial mix-up of cause and effect and choice of temperature reconstructions.

Conclusions

· Pre-industrial and 20th century data suggests that solar activity changes are a credible driver for climate change and require greater attention.

· While it is too early to judge our climate prognosis from 2012, it is essentially still well on track when eliminating short-term El Nino and La Nina effects.

· Comparisons of prognoses dating from 1988 and 1990 with subsequently observed data indicate that CO2 climate sensitivities are likely at the lower end of the spectrum proposed by the IPCC. Scenarios favoring high climate sensitivities significantly overshoot warming when compared to the real temperature development.

· Both Pacific and Atlantic ocean cycles have now entered into the multi-decadal cooling mode. Furthermore, also solar activity is expected to enter a major minimum phase. For the upcoming two decades it is therefore expected that natural climate drivers will contribute cooling to the climate system which may not be fully compensated by anthropogenic warming related to greenhouse gases.

· The climate system has arrived at an important crossroad at which it will soon become clear if the attribution of anthropogenic vs. natural drivers to 20th century warming has been quantitatively correct. It is expected that the coming 5-10 years will bring clarity to this question. We call on all parties of the climate discussion to open-mindedly engage in this critical phase, weighing the arguments and data for and against each other fairly and transparently, regardless of personal backgrounds, affiliations, previous convictions and individual preferences.

References

Ahluwalia, H. S., 2014, Sunspot activity and cosmic ray modulation at 1 a.u. for 1900–2013: Advances in Space Research, v. 54, no. 8, p. 1704-1716.

Ahn, J., Brook, E. J., Schmittner, A., and Kreutz, K., 2012, Abrupt change in atmospheric CO2 during the last ice age: Geophys. Res. Lett., v. 39, no. 18, p. L18711.

Brown, P. T., Li, W., Cordero, E. C., and Mauget, S. A., 2015, Comparing the model-simulated global warming signal to observations using empirical estimates of unforced noise: Scientific Reports, v. 5, p. 9957.

Campos, M. C., Chiessi, C. M., Voigt, I., Piola, A. R., Kuhnert, H., and Mulitza, S., 2016, Glacial δ13C decreases in the western South Atlantic forced by millennial changes in Southern Ocean ventilation: Clim. Past Discuss., v. 2016, p. 1-22.

Friedrich, T., Timmermann, A., Tigchelaar, M., Elison Timm, O., and Ganopolski, A., 2016, Nonlinear climate sensitivity and its implications for future greenhouse warming: Science Advances, v. 2, no. 11.

Gervais, F., 2016, Anthropogenic CO2 warming challenged by 60-year cycle: Earth-Science Reviews, v. 155, p. 129-135.

Han, Z., Luo, F., Li, S., Gao, Y., Furevik, T., and Svendsen, L., 2016, Simulation by CMIP5 models of the atlantic multidecadal oscillation and its climate impacts: Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, v. 33, no. 12, p. 1329-1342.

Hansen, J., Fung, I., Lacis, A., Rind, D., Lebedeff, S., Ruedy, R., Russell, G., and Stone, P., 1988, Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model: Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, v. 93, no. D8, p. 9341-9364.

Hernández-Almeida, I., Grosjean, M., Przybylak, R., and Tylmann, W., 2015, A chrysophyte-based quantitative reconstruction of winter severity from varved lake sediments in NE Poland during the past millennium and its relationship to natural climate variability: Quaternary Science Reviews, v. 122, p. 74-88.

Holland, H. A., Schöne, B. R., Lipowsky, C., and Esper, J., 2014, Decadal climate variability of the North Sea during the last millennium reconstructed from bivalve shells (Arctica islandica): The Holocene, v. 24, no. 7, p. 771-786.

IPCC, 1990, First Assessment Report http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml.

-, 2013, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, Cambridge University Press, 1535 p.:

Lewis, N., and Curry, J. A., 2015, The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 forcing and heat uptake estimates: Climate Dynamics, v. 45, no. 3-4, p. 1009-1023.

Loehle, C., 2014, A minimal model for estimating climate sensitivity: Ecological Modelling, v. 276, p. 80-84.

Lüning, S., and Vahrenholt, F., 2016, Chapter 16 – The Sun’s Role in Climate A2 – Easterbrook, Don J, Evidence-Based Climate Science (Second Edition), Elsevier, p. 283-305.

Masters, T., 2014, Observational estimate of climate sensitivity from changes in the rate of ocean heat uptake and comparison to CMIP5 models: Climate Dynamics, v. 42, no. 7-8, p. 2173-2181.

Mauritsen, T., and Stevens, B., 2015, Missing iris effect as a possible cause of muted hydrological change and high climate sensitivity in models: Nature Geosci, v. 8, no. 5, p. 346-351.

Meehl, G. A., Hu, A., Santer, B. D., and Xie, S.-P., 2016, Contribution of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation to twentieth-century global surface temperature trends: Nature Clim. Change, v. 6, no. 11, p. 1005-1008.

Monnin, E., Indermühle, A., Dällenbach, A., Flückiger, J., Stauffer, B., Stocker, T. F., Raynaud, D., and Barnola, J.-M., 2001, Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination: Science, v. 291, p. 112-114.

Ojala, A. E. K., Launonen, I., Holmström, L., and Tiljander, M., 2015, Effects of solar forcing and North Atlantic oscillation on the climate of continental Scandinavia during the Holocene: Quaternary Science Reviews, v. 112, p. 153-171.

Pedro, J. B., Rasmussen, S. O., and van Ommen, T. D., 2012, Tightened constraints on the time-lag between Antarctic temperature and CO2 during the last deglaciation: Climate of the Past, v. 8, p. 1213-1221.

Sánchez-Sesma, J., 2016, Evidence of cosmic recurrent and lagged millennia-scale patterns and consequent forecasts: multi-scale responses of solar activity (SA) to planetary gravitational forcing (PGF): Earth Syst. Dynam., v. 7, no. 3, p. 583-595.

Schmitt, J., Schneider, R., Elsig, J., Leuenberger, D., Lourantou, A., Chappellaz, J., Köhler, P., Joos, F., Stocker, T. F., Leuenberger, M., and Fischer, H., 2012, Carbon Isotope Constraints on the Deglacial CO2 Rise from Ice Cores: Science, v. 336, no. 6082, p. 711-714.

Skeie, R. B., Berntsen, T., Aldrin, M., Holden, M., and Myhre, G., 2014, A lower and more constrained estimate of climate sensitivity using updated observations and detailed radiative forcing time series: Earth Syst. Dynam., v. 5, no. 1, p. 139-175.

Solanki, S. K., Usoskin, I. G., Kromer, B., Schüssler, M., and Beer, J., 2004, Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years: Nature, v. 431, p. 1084-1087.

Spencer, R., and Braswell, W., 2014, The role of ENSO in global ocean temperature changes during 1955–2011 simulated with a 1D climate model: Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, v. 50, no. 2, p. 229-237.

Steinhilber, F., Beer, J., and Fröhlich, C., 2009, Total solar irradiance during the Holocene: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 36, no. L19704.

Steinman, B. A., Mann, M. E., and Miller, S. K., 2015, Atlantic and Pacific multidecadal oscillations and Northern Hemisphere temperatures: Science, v. 347, no. 6225, p. 988-991.

Stott, L., Timmermann, A., and Thunell, R., 2007, Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming: Science, v. 318, no. 5849, p. 435-438.

Tlatov, A. G., 2015, The change of the solar cyclicity mode: Advances in Space Research, v. 55, no. 3, p. 851-856.

Tung, K.-K., and Zhou, J., 2013, Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 110, no. 6, p. 2058-2063.

Vahrenholt, F., and Lüning, S., 2012, Die kalte Sonne, Hamburg, Hoffmann und Campe.

Velasco Herrera, V. M., Mendoza, B., and Velasco Herrera, G., 2015, Reconstruction and prediction of the total solar irradiance: From the Medieval Warm Period to the 21st century: New Astronomy, v. 34, p. 221-233.

von der Heydt, A. S., Köhler, P., van de Wal, R. S. W., and Dijkstra, H. A., 2014, On the state dependency of fast feedback processes in (paleo) climate sensitivity: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 41, no. 18, p. 6484-6492.

Wyatt, M. G., and Curry, J. A., 2014, Role for Eurasian Arctic shelf sea ice in a secularly varying hemispheric climate signal during the 20th century: Climate Dynamics, v. 42, no. 9, p. 2763-2782.

Zolotova, N. V., and Ponyavin, D. I., 2014, Is the new Grand minimum in progress?: Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, v. 119, no. 5, p. 3281-3285.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
392 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ShrNfr
November 28, 2016 8:00 am

There is always a phase lag between an energy storage system and the energy pumped into it. The shortest day is in december in the northern hemisphere, but the coldest day usually occurs one to two months later.
Please get the bs GISS data out of here and into the waste basket where it deserves. It is total rubbish.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  ShrNfr
November 28, 2016 9:07 am

I see that the GISS data has adjustments that are described as ‘administrative’. How appropriate. Their past and current values are unreliable, literally, as they may change (again) at any time.

Marcus
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
November 28, 2016 10:53 am

..Exactly Crisp…If their past data cannot be trusted, why would you trust their current data ?

siamiam
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
November 28, 2016 1:06 pm

More than appropriate. Brilliant and smoooooth I’d say.

Greg
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
November 28, 2016 3:39 pm

Agreed, GISS LOTI can be ignored until they start using ALL SST data not spuriously “correcting” the daytime readings.
However, the whole thrust of the authors here is amazing. Their “prognosis” goes down, the temp record goes firmly up and they try to see that as showing that they were basically borne out by the record.
I think the technical term for this is cognitive dissonance.

Reply to  Greg
November 28, 2016 6:41 pm

However, the whole thrust of the authors here is amazing. Their “prognosis” goes down, the temp record goes firmly up and they try to see that as showing that they were basically borne out by the record.
In ordinary scientific discourse, this is taken as strong indication of failure of a hypothesis or claim. The dissonance is a very strong argument for AGW.

ferdberple
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
November 28, 2016 6:06 pm

The GISS data have experienced repeated large administrative changes and therefore are considered by part of the climate research community as unstable (Fig. 2).
===============
an excellent reason to defund GISS climate research. the last thing NASA needs is unstable results.

Richard G.
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
November 28, 2016 7:45 pm

Dr. Svalgaard, speaking of dissonance that is a very strong argument in rebuttal of AGW
http://www.globalwarming.org/2016/02/05/satellites-and-global-warming-dr-christy-sets-the-record-straight/
“What’s got the climate establishment in a tizzy is a chart–Figure 1 in Christy’s testimony–that shows a growing divergence between model predictions and observed temperatures in the mid-troposphere (the layer of air from the surface up to 50,000 feet).”
Christy modeled versus observed temperatures mid troposphere just trends 1979-2015, Jan 2015
http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Christy-modeled-versus-observed-temperatures-mid-troposphere-just-trends-1979-2015-Jan-2015.jpg
Figure 1: Five-year averaged values of annual mean (1979-2015) global bulk (termed “mid-tropospheric” or “MT”) temperature as depicted by the average of 102 IPCC CMIP5 climate models (red), the average of 3 satellite datasets (green – UAH, RSS, NOAA) and 4 balloon datasets (blue, NOAA, UKMet, RICH, RAOBCORE)

Reply to  Richard G.
November 28, 2016 9:18 pm

No, that is not an argument against AGW, only an argument about the validity of the computer models.

William Astley
Reply to  ShrNfr
November 28, 2016 9:54 am

The following is evidence to support ShrNfr’s comment:

Please get the bs GISS data out of here and into the waste basket where it deserves. It is total rubbish.

The GISS temperature ‘data’ set is climategate in your face manipulation of the past and recent temperature data:
Manipulation Step 1: The GISS temperature data set manipulation started with the massive deletion of temperature data from sites which inconveniently (rural sites for example) did not support the Cult of CAGW’s necessary/requirement to have a hockey stick.
Manipulation Step 2: After the massive deletion of data points the remaining points were manipulated by the reduction of past temperature data and the increase in current temperature data points to create a hockey stick.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/giss-land-temperature-trends-no-supported-by-satellites/

Between 1979 and 2014, GISS recorded an increase of 0.68C. This compares to 0.49C and 0.38C for UAH and RSS respectively.

comment image
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Screen-Shot-2016-11-26-at-7.53.15-AM.gif

rocketscientist
Reply to  ShrNfr
November 28, 2016 10:01 am

I thought it incredibly charitable to label GISS data as merely “unstable”. It takes a truly heated political climate to cause recorded data to become “unstable”.

Reply to  rocketscientist
November 28, 2016 12:20 pm

actually both RSS and UAH are more unstable
The recent changes to UAH warmed australia from .17C per decade to .24C per decade
[snip uneeded condescension -mod]

tony mcleod
Reply to  rocketscientist
November 28, 2016 4:39 pm

You have got to be be F****** joking!
“uneeded condescension”?? What about the column inches of outright obnoxious, abusive vilification?
Transparent double standard,

RW
Reply to  rocketscientist
November 29, 2016 12:26 am

Agreed. Less censorship please. Let the reader establish his or her own semantic filter and make the judgment call on this sort of thing.

TA
Reply to  ShrNfr
November 28, 2016 11:34 am

“Please get the bs GISS data out of here and into the waste basket where it deserves. It is total rubbish.”
Yes, GISS is junk. Use UAH or RSS. Why compare your data to the fantasy land that is GISS? What kind of a conclusion can you reach using bogus GISS data? Answer: A bogus conclusion.

Richard G.
Reply to  ShrNfr
November 28, 2016 7:17 pm

hys·ter·e·sis
ˌhistəˈrēsis/
nounPhysics
noun: hysteresis
the phenomenon in which the value of a physical property lags behind changes in the effect causing it, as for instance when magnetic induction lags behind the magnetizing force.

Paul Westhaver
November 28, 2016 8:00 am

The global temperature data is spotty and highly questionable. How many satellites were in orbit in 1900? How many temperature stations existed? How may ocean temp stations were there? The temp curve is BS.
All derived by proxy with a big error band…

Griff
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
November 28, 2016 8:03 am

On the contrary the global surface temp data is well established over a wide area and extent of time.
This is not a satellite record we are talking about here!

Latitude
Reply to  Griff
November 28, 2016 8:11 am

Griff…how long until we know what the global temperature is right now?
…and when do you predict they will stop adjusting the present temperature in the future?

ShrNfr
Reply to  Griff
November 28, 2016 8:20 am

Remind me where and how the temperature was recorded over the oceans. That area has been and remains to this day problematical in the in situ records. Further, there is an open question as to what the sea surface temperature even means. Is it the small mm or so coupled to the air at the surface? Is it the top 10 meters, the top 20 meters, the top 1000 meters? The sat data measures the ocean/air transition, Buckets measure whatever buckets measure, cooling water manifold temperatures measure, a bit below the surface and somewhat corrupted by the temperature of the vessel. To say that the temperature has been measured is probably correct if you mean that something, someplace, has been measured well since 1980 and something else has been somewhat measured at times prior to that.
Again, I would love to see the microwave spectrometers on Nimbus-E and Nimbus-F be analyzed and back up the sat record to 1972 or so. If somebody can get me the data, I will even do it if I can get the deconvolution functions, weighting functions, & so forth. Sadly, I suspect the data has been discarded.

cygnus76
Reply to  ShrNfr
November 28, 2016 12:04 pm
MarkW
Reply to  Griff
November 28, 2016 8:40 am

Griff considers less than 5% of the planet’s surface to be a wide area. And compared to the size of your average city, it is.
However it is no where close to being wide enough to establish what the temperature of the entire planet is.
As you go back in time, the extent drops of rapidly.

catweazle666
Reply to  Griff
November 28, 2016 9:55 am

“On the contrary the global surface temp data is well established over a wide area and extent of time.”
What percentage of the 4.5 billion years that the Earth has existed does it cover?

rbabcock
Reply to  Griff
November 28, 2016 10:09 am

When you can tell me what the 2 M air temperature 278 miles due east of Easter Island to within .1C, then I’ll be in your court. In the meantime, I’ll stay with the satellite measurements. They may not be perfect, but at least they are measuring most of the Earth’s surface, not estimating.

Bryan A
Reply to  Griff
November 28, 2016 10:43 am

Correct Griff, It covers a varying degree of land area decreasing going back in time with the longest nearly contiguous record spanning from the beginning of the LIA recovery period. It is most unfortunate though that the current data sets (collected in the last 70 years or so) have been adjusted to the point of being unrecognizable when compared to the raw data

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Griff
November 28, 2016 11:01 am

Griff November 28, 2016 at 8:03 am
On the contrary the global surface temp data is well established over a wide area and extent of time.
Okay Griff you got a bunch of replies, but then that was your intent yes? Fire everyone up before their morning coffee. Look, no one could be that stupid, as to believe the statement you made. And I don’t think you are stupid.
So, you can’t con the people here into accepting the manipulations, falsehoods and simple lack of instrumentation, so whats left? Throw out something so blatantly false, so implausible, ridiculous, people are going to feel compelled to reply. You missed your calling you should have been a politician.
And yes you got me too.
michael

Marcus
Reply to  Griff
November 28, 2016 11:24 am

catweazle666
November 28, 2016 at 9:55 am
“On the contrary the global surface temp data is well established over a wide area and extent of time.”
What percentage of the 4.5 billion years that the Earth has existed does it cover?
Assuming that you mean unaltered “records”, guess would be 0.0001.38 percent, give or take a few centuries…IMHO…
.

MRW
Reply to  Griff
November 28, 2016 11:54 am

Griff, read NOAA’s Argo website. There were five ocean temp measurements taken off the end of ships with buckets dragging in the water over a 40 year period before NOAA determined the need for a better system than that in 1999. Hence, Argo buoys. And they didn’t get up and running until 2003.
There was no “global surface temp data … well established over a wide area and extent of time.” None.
Do your homework.

AndyG55
Reply to  Griff
November 28, 2016 11:59 am

NOAA’s own charts show that surface data covers only about 50% of the land surface.. and that’s by the idiocy of thinking a 250km square cell (or whatever they use) is “covered” by one thermometer of often unknown quality, with unknown local effects. , at airports, next to sheds etc etc
Sorry Griff, but the whole surface data is total mess that requires so much data fabrication and unknown adjustment that it is totally open to the whim of the people doing the fabrication and adjustment to come up with whatever they want to come up with.

george e. smith
Reply to  Griff
November 28, 2016 5:50 pm

Well Griff, the global surface temperature data is ” well established ” all the way back to 1980, at which time oceanic buoys were first deployed to actually measure oceanic Temperatures, and it was found (after 20 years of data) that oceanic water temperatures and oceanic air temperatures (in the same location) are a) NOT the same, and b) NOT even correlated. (why would they be the same with orders of magnitude difference in fluid flow rates ??)
So prior to that global temperature data is just total garbage; all the way back to 1850.
By happenstance; the era of satellite scanning data commences about the same time as the buoy data.
G

tom s
Reply to  Griff
November 29, 2016 8:07 am

How’s that calibration going Griff? How’s that land change going near the sensors….Griff?

Joe Lenertz
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
November 28, 2016 9:02 am

Zero satellites in 1900. Same reasoning holds true for 1950, 1960, and 1970. Although there were satellites after 1957, most did not send back accurate global temperature. 1979 is probably the first year where enough satellite temperature data was available to be used statistically. Ground stations are also problematic. And the Rahmstorf paper starts at 1950. So, should we start all graphs at 1979? If so, we’d have just under 4 decades of temp data under our belt, plotted against 60 year ocean cycles and 11 year solar cycles. Which means we could predict almost nothing.

pochas94
Reply to  Joe Lenertz
November 28, 2016 10:15 am

As far as I am concerned, the temperature record begins in 1980 and all data compromised by data fiddlin’ can be ignored. May God protect the keepers of the satellite data and let no harm come to them.

george e. smith
Reply to  Joe Lenertz
November 28, 2016 5:56 pm

Joe, You and Pochas are exactly correct.
The oceanic buoy data for simultaneous water and air temperatures starts in 1980.
John Christy et al reported on it 20 years later in Jan 2001. They aren’t the same, and they aren’t even correlated.
So all the ocean vessel data back to 1850 is total bull shit.
G

Christopher Paino
November 28, 2016 8:24 am

A “cold” sun? Really?
Cooler, maybe. Cold… ah, no.
But using the word “cold” makes the headline pop, doesn’t it?

AZ1971
Reply to  Christopher Paino
November 28, 2016 10:25 am

Is that any different than the endless parade of “hottest year evah!” headlines splashed about in the media when it’s a 0,01°C rounding error difference with error bars of ±0,1°C?
No? Or yes?

AndyG55
Reply to  AZ1971
November 28, 2016 12:02 pm

“with error bars of ±0,1°C?”
For the surface data.. the error bars are probably ±2°C. Forget the decimal places
It is totally hilarious that they pretend to have a ±0,1°C error on data covering only half the land surface.

MarkW
Reply to  AZ1971
November 28, 2016 12:42 pm

2C? That’s way to generous. When Anthony and his volunteers rated the US based land sensors, they found that about 20% ranked class 5 (if I remember the rankings correctly) which according to the NOAA data sheet means errors of greater than 5C were probable. Over half were 3 or below, which meant that their errors were at a minimum 2C.
Then you add in the fact that less than half of the world’s land surface is covered, and next to none of the ocean is, so the total area of the earth that’s covered by the sensor network is at best 10%.
Add all the problems up, and error bars of 10C are still being generous.

Reply to  AZ1971
November 28, 2016 2:13 pm

” which according to the NOAA data sheet means errors of greater than 5C were probable. ”
Wrong.
If you actually talk to LeRoy the scientist who made the scale (CRN1,2,3,4,5) you will discover that
the BIAS for CRN5 is around .1C on monthly averages ( the measure everyone uses)
the “5” refers to the PEAK error for the WORST day in a month.
That is on most days the error is tiny. on some days it could peak to 5C in either direction
on AVERAGE over a month.. you see a mean bias of .1C

Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 29, 2016 7:25 am

“the “5” refers to the PEAK error for the WORST day in a month.”
Watch what that one peak error does to the monthly average, then continue to whine that it isn’t relevant.

TimTheToolMan
Reply to  AZ1971
November 29, 2016 4:49 am

Mosher writes

That is on most days the error is tiny. on some days it could peak to 5C in either direction on AVERAGE over a month.. you see a mean bias of .1C

A bit like TOBS, then. And yet TOBS accounts for about half the “observed” warming.

tom s
Reply to  AZ1971
November 29, 2016 8:23 am

And data that in and of itself is poorly calibrated and is non-homogeneous. CHUTZPAH!

george e. smith
November 28, 2016 8:24 am

Well the Mauna Loa CO2 record starts with IGY 1957/58 and that is exactly where their uninterrupted continuous CO2 record since 1900 takes off into the stratosphere.
If you have a bridge for sale, I’d like to buy that too.
I haven’t read all the detail yet. But I would never expect there to be any correlation between daily changes in surface solar insolation, due to cloud cover, and the effect of CO2 on the subsequent redistribution of all that energy as it morphs into the “heat” (noun) garbage form, which could take days, weeks, months or years to digest.
g

November 28, 2016 8:30 am

The post asserts:
Solar activity picked up again in the 1980s/90s reaching some of the highest values, making the second half of the 20th century one of the most active solar periods of the past 10,000 years (Solanki et al., 2004).
This is not true, as recent research clearly shows, e.g.
http://www.leif.org/research/Comparison-GSN-14C-Modulation.png
Their Figure 1 seems to me to be rather damning evidence that solar activity is not driving the climate. There are of course all the usual excuses [global temps not correct, lags due to large thermal inertia, solar data corrupt, etc], but none of them are satisfying and they look like special pleading.comment image?w=637&h=432

Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 28, 2016 8:41 am

For example they say:
The rapid warming of the first half of the 20th century coincides well with a steady increase in solar activity
nullifying the excuses why there is no such good coincidence during the last half of the century. You ca’t have it both ways.

TomRude
Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 28, 2016 9:18 am

That one for sure is not solar…comment image

Reply to  TomRude
November 28, 2016 10:46 am

It isn’t honest graphing either. They have cut out a whole chunk on the y-axis to exaggerate the difference.
In fact, GHCN-adj temperatures over the last few years, which is the range relevant to their prognosis, have barely been adjusted at all.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 28, 2016 9:23 am

Leif, your comment “There are of course all the usual excuses [global temps not correct, lags due to large thermal inertia, solar data corrupt, etc], ” is not in relation to the post because I cant’t find excuses like “solar data corrupt, GMST not correcht”?

Reply to  frankclimate
November 28, 2016 9:30 am

The post does not use the full spectrum of excuses, but I’m sure that it will crop up in comments, as it has in the past.

MarkW
Reply to  frankclimate
November 28, 2016 11:11 am

Leif, is it your contention then that the earth responds instantly to any changes in solar input?
If not, then your rejection of thermal lag makes no sense and just makes you look more petty.

Reply to  MarkW
November 28, 2016 4:11 pm

Depends on your definition of ‘instantly’ and on the time scale. Certainly things cool of when the sun sets in the evening. On the other hand, the monthly temperature lags a couple of months behind solar insolation. On longer time scales the lag is greater, perhaps a few years.

Leo Smith
Reply to  frankclimate
November 28, 2016 4:21 pm

is it your contention then that the earth responds instantly to any changes in solar input?
I bloody well hope so, or its gonna be damned cold tomorrow….

richard verney
Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 28, 2016 10:09 am

making the second half of the 20th century <b.one of the most active solar periods of the past 10,000 years.

Your plot goes back only to 1600. It would appear from your plot that 1950 to 2000 was the second most active period; the most active period being about 1700 to 1790.
I am unconvinced that you plot falsifies the claim.
Do we have data going back 10,000 years? If so, how reliable??

Reply to  richard verney
November 28, 2016 10:29 am

You should be more up-to-date. Check out e.g. Slide 6 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
That shows the last 2000 years. The 10Be and 14C records go back more than 10,000 years and show that the recent activity is not exceptionally high.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 28, 2016 10:37 am

We could have used another solar curve with higher resolution data, but the message is the same: There was a high solar activity plateau during the second half of the 20th century which coincides with strong warming. It is unlikely that the strong external solar push during the 1960s was fully implemented in the climate systemdue to inertia. I do not see this as a “poor excuse” but as a realistic scenario. I suggest you put a pot of cold water on a stove and power up the gas full-throttle. It will take a while that the water gradually heats up.

Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 28, 2016 10:45 am

There was a high solar activity plateau during the second half of the 20th century which coincides with strong warming
There was a high solar activity plateau in every one of the full centuries since 1700, not all coinciding with strong warming like we have just had the last 60 years.

Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 28, 2016 10:52 am

Most published solar curves show a clear peak in solar activity during the second half of the 20th century, and generally low TSI during the Little Ice Age, this is what counts.

Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 28, 2016 11:06 am

Most published solar curves show a clear peak in solar activity during the second half of the 20th century, and generally low TSI during the Little Ice Age, this is what counts.
Solar activity records has recently been critically review and several flaws corrected.
You can get more information here:
http://www.leif.org/research/EUV-F107-and-TSI-CDR-HAO.pdf
or from the ‘official’ world sunspot center [presented at a recent meeting of the International Astronomical Union: http://www.leif.org/research/Revisiting-the-Sunspot-Number.pdf
http://www.iau.org/news/pressreleases/detail/iau1508/
“The apparent upward trend of solar activity between the 18th century and the late 20th century has now been identified as a major calibration error in the Group Sunspot Number. Now that this error has been corrected, solar activity appears to have remained relatively stable since the 1700s “

Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 28, 2016 11:08 am

Leif, IMO it was NOT the intention of the post to say simply: “It’s the sun, stupid” as the Fig.1 shows clearly that the convergence between solar activity and GMST brakes apart dramaticly after 1990 or so. It was IMO more the intention to show that there’s no mono-causation and that there are a few factors which influence our climate. Of course also GHG with not so much sensivity as the one or the other estimates, see the last paragraph of the post. Don’t forget internal variability due to the PDO, AMO ect.

Reply to  frankclimate
November 28, 2016 11:12 am

The very title [Kalte Sonne, Neglected Sun] argues otherwise.

Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 28, 2016 11:29 am

Leif, the title ( “Neglected Sun”) is not all 😉 It only says that the solar influence could be underestimated which is not unlikely with a closer look into the (longer) past. Anyway, the post describes furthermore failed predictions from the nearer past (Hansen 1983, FAR) which estimated too strong GHG- influence. And there is also a long papragraph about the AMO, PDO. It works all together and predictions are difficult when they go into the future…that’s the bad news. Simplifications don’t help!

Reply to  frankclimate
November 28, 2016 11:36 am

Sebastian Luening
November 28, 2016 at 10:52 am
Most published solar curves show a clear peak in solar activity during the second half of the 20th century, and generally low TSI during the Little Ice Age, this is what counts.

Contradicts your notion that it is too simple. To me, it certainly sounds like he thinks the sun is a major player. This also comes from actually reading his book [have you done that?].
Clearly, the Sun is not the main driver as Figure 1 makes clear. We can all live with the sun being, perhaps, a 10% effect. But, if so, it is irrelevant.

Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 28, 2016 11:39 am

Perhaps Luening could tell us what percentage of Global Warming is caused by the Sun [in his opinion]. 0%, 10%, 20%, 50%, 75%, 100%?

AndyG55
Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 28, 2016 12:16 pm

Sebastian, don’t you know that you HAVE to use Leif’s “new, adjusted, super-dooper” solar series..
…or you are a very bad boy !!

Reply to  AndyG55
November 28, 2016 12:29 pm

You should refer to it correctly. It is not ‘adjusted’, but constructed from original sources of the raw data.

Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 28, 2016 2:35 pm

Leif, you ask about the percentage of the solar contribution to climate change. This obviously depends on the time scale. As a geologist I can tell you that the sun has probably caused quite a lot of the climate changes on millennial-scales, shorter than the Milankovich times. What else could be the driver for this significant climate variability on the past, before CO2 has risen? Noise and climate internal autocycles play a role, but the match with solar changes is too good to be just a coincidence. This is not a new invention by myself, but documented by many papers. See e.g. http://chrono.qub.ac.uk/blaauw/cds.html
On a decadal scale, the ocean cycles dominate. This is where your argument fails. A mismatch on a decadal scale does not invalidate the solar climate driver capability. You have to look beyond this. Are you familiar with the solar-driven millennial-scale cycles sensu Bond et al. 2001? Check out our new review paper about these and it will be clear that solar plays a major role in climate. I also see that you prefer using your own solar activity charts. That is fine. But please accept that officially published and accepted solar charts differ from your work.

Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 28, 2016 3:28 pm

But please accept that officially published and accepted solar charts differ from your work.
Not so. The official sunspot series is the revised one [which is not ‘mine’, although I had a hand in creating it]. See e.g. http://www.sidc.be/silso/ and http://www.iau.org/news/pressreleases/detail/iau1508/
You nicely sidestepped the issue: how large is the solar part of recent climate change?

Cordilleran
Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 30, 2016 9:34 pm

I looked at Leif’s slide 6 in his linked presentation and it appears that Be10 production in the last few decades of the 20th century was at a 500 year low. I also looked at some individual ice core deposition rates of Be10 from Steinhilber et al 2010 and it looks like there has been a secular declining trend in Be10 since either the Sporer or Maunder Minimums.
To me it does not look like solar activity has been flat since 1700.

gymnosperm
November 28, 2016 8:39 am

Since we live on the surface we are strongly biased to surface data. Temperature unquestionably still controls the variability around the trend in increasing atmospheric CO2. Due to unknown temperature and moisture effects on CO2 production by soils, which currently produce six times the CO2 humans do with an indistinguishable isotopic signature, we cannot rule out the possibility that the correlation between surface temperature and atmospheric CO2 continues to be based on the dependence of CO2 on temperature. Just as it is in the ice cores extending back 800k years. Just as it is in the benthic cores that extend back much further.

November 28, 2016 8:46 am

Again from my studies the sun should have caused warming up to 2005 and from 2005 to just recently the solar maximum of solar cycle 24 maximum kept temperatures high along with the recent El NINO.
This is now changing as the sun is finally going down to the criteria I have called for which will translate into global cooling. If the sun is above the criteria I have called for which it has been with the exception from 2008-2010 global cooling is not going to occur.
Now this is changing and what makes this time more meaningful is it has 10 + years of sub solar activity behind it, which is another requirement.
So the sun to sum it up has had a warming effect on the climate up to 2005 as was expected, but post 2005 this has changed.
The drop in global temperatures has begun and will continue as weak magnetic fields keep pushing the terrestrial items that control the climate into a cooling mode.
It is going to happen as long as solar activity stays at or below my criteria..

Marcus
November 28, 2016 8:48 am

…It has been shown here at WUWT and other web sites,, that the temperature “adjustments” correlate almost perfectly with the rise of CO2…98% match, IIRC…comment image?w=720
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2016-01-14-04-18-24.png
You cannot convince me that this is “accidental” or “unintentional” ! …IMHO..

Latitude
Reply to  Marcus
November 28, 2016 4:00 pm

….me either

Leo Smith
Reply to  Marcus
November 28, 2016 4:24 pm

Or me!

Leo Smith
Reply to  Marcus
November 28, 2016 4:25 pm

Thought: This is where the positive feedback is happening!

Reply to  Marcus
November 28, 2016 4:51 pm

A) Its USHCN… Not the entire world
B) For stations in Africa the adjustments go the other way…. reducing temps.
C) For stations in europe adjsutments are flat.
D) He actually makes several mistakes in subtracting raw from adjusted.
E). If you use unadusted stations in the US you get the same answer
Its funny you never checked his work or practiced real skepticism.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 29, 2016 7:24 am

It’s funny that Mr. Mosher claims expert knowledge on the subject, but doesn’t back it up with links, or his perennial favorite “data/code”.
He’s got that “trust me” thing going on, while demanding the proof of others. He’s gotten so much more arrogant ever since he became employed by BEST.

Bindidon
Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 2, 2016 12:49 pm

Sorry Steven: with such comments you don’t help your own belief becoming more convincing.
Nobody – me included – understands what you mean here (and: sorry! at many other places as well).
Nick Stokes has given, as usual, a far more comprehensive and therefore more convincing answer to this ridiculous, flawed graph:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/28/steepest-drop-in-global-temperature-on-record/#comment-2357842
There is no doubt about your scientific qualification! But what does it help if you aren’t able to properly communicate your knowledge?

November 28, 2016 8:48 am

The sun post 2005 has changed from a very active mode to a very inactive mode and this should continue going forward.

November 28, 2016 8:53 am

.
Many just do not have an understanding of how the climate works. They do not understand that run of the mill solar changes are not going to show up as far as showing a correlation between the two. Especially when the sun is in an 11 year sunspot cycle which in effect cancels any given effects solar activity may have upon the climate.
Many have no appreciation of the evidence of prolonged minimum solar events and the climate correlation which is shown very clearly in the historical climatic record without exception.
Many are in complete dismiss of solar secondary effects upon the climate even though there is much scientific evidence to suggest otherwise.
If one looks at the solar activity last century versus solar activity post 2005 or during the Maunder Minimum or Dolton Minimum one will see the sun was much more active last century as opposed to those other periods of time and that the temperatures corresponded.
The fact that temperatures are quite high in relative terms now , is what I would expect given the solar activity from 1840-2005. Only post 2005 has this begun to change and lag times have to be taken into consideration.
The geo magnetic field, along with Milankovitch Cycles, land /ocean arrangements sometimes work in concert with solar activity while at other times they oppose solar activity .
Lastly this fact remains, which is the sun is the main driver of the climate therefore if it changes enough it will translate to a change in the climate. I have stated many times the solar criteria which I think is needed to have an impact upon the climate.
SOLAR CRITERIA
SOLAR FLUX SUB 90
COSMIC RAY COUNT 6500 OR HIGHER
SOLAR WIND 350 KM SEC OR LOWER
AP INDEX 5 OR LOWER
IMF 4.2 NT OR LOWER
EUV LIGHT 100 UNITS OR LESS
SOLAR IRRADIANCE OFF BY .15% OR MORE

Reply to  Salvatore del Prete
November 28, 2016 4:14 pm

But you claim to know it all…

Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 28, 2016 4:58 pm

No I do not know it all. These are my thoughts only time will tell.

Reply to  Salvatore del Prete
November 29, 2016 7:25 am

‘Thought’ without quantitative analysis have little value…

pkatt
November 28, 2016 9:36 am

Im still waiting for this record heat to hit. We had a very cold summer so I have to wonder if the adjustments are the heat in very much the same way they figured out sea levels were not rising as projected.

Editor
November 28, 2016 9:52 am

Due to the inertia of the climate system, time lags of a few decades with regards to external triggers have to be expected.

And we know this how? Please provide a citation showing ANY surface climate dataset that shows a time lag “of a few decades” between the imposition of a forcing and the climate response.
w.

angech
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
November 28, 2016 10:01 pm

All of them would if indeed any multi decadal time lag does exist, Sorting it out would be the problem in b oth proving it or denying it Willis though your job is easier.
Time lags do exist, it is hotter in the afternoon though the sun is past peak intensity, the winters keep getting colder while the sun is reheating and Judith has a stadium, wave which I presume is a multi year time lag so the idea is not impossible to assert, just hard to prove.
Incidentally as was mentioned above the sun heats the air up many degrees very quickly when it comes up to the right temperature for a 400 ppm CO2 [thanks Leo Smith]. So why does it not show the AGW expected temperature. Obviously climate models and theory are in disagreement with observation.
Leif are you disputing the sun spots little ice age connection completely??
Interested, slightly surprised, and “We can all live with the sun being, perhaps, a 10% effect” is an intriguing miscomment I expect.
A10% hotter sun we are all chips [vaporized]. a 10% effect where precisely??

Reply to  angech
November 28, 2016 10:05 pm

A10% hotter sun we are all chips [vaporized]. a 10% effect where precisely?
If the global warming has been [say] 1 K, 10% of that would be 0.1 K. Is that so hard to understand?

Reply to  angech
November 28, 2016 10:20 pm

angech November 28, 2016 at 10:01 pm

All of them would if indeed any multi decadal time lag does exist, Sorting it out would be the problem in both proving it or denying it Willis though your job is easier.
Time lags do exist, it is hotter in the afternoon though the sun is past peak intensity, the winters keep getting colder while the sun is reheating and Judith has a stadium, wave which I presume is a multi year time lag so the idea is not impossible to assert, just hard to prove.

I can observe daily and annual lags. I can imagine a lag of a year, maybe. But that’s not what was claimed:

… time lags of a few decades with regards to external triggers have to be expected.

Expected? Why “expected”? That’s all I was asking for, one single pathetic example of such a multi-decadal time lag …
Crickets.
Lotta folks out their waving their hands about “time delays” and “amplification mechanisms” and “long-term solar cycles” … but when I ask these guys to support their handwaving, it’s just like Javier and Andy May, they can’t be bothered to provide the information that they think provides the best support for their claims.
w.

Editor
November 28, 2016 10:02 am

A further problem. You show the following:

The problem is that you don’t have anything that shows the changes in solar activity according to Steinhilber. The total range of the solar output (yellow line) from the low in 1900 to the high in about 1990 is A TENTH OF A FREAKING W/M2.
Perhaps you think that’s enough to affect the climate, or perhaps you think it is mysteriously “amplified” somehow.
But if that is the case … then why has the temperature NOT dropped since 1990? You say it is because:

Due to the inertia of the climate system, time lags of a few decades with regards to external triggers have to be expected.

Really? If that’s the case, then your beautiful alignment with temperature falls apart, because you’d have to move your yellow line two decades to the right … which would mean it cannot be the reason for the temperature changes of the 1940s to the 1970s.
I’m sorry, but the data you’ve presented does NOT support your claims.
w.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
November 28, 2016 10:14 am

The total range of the solar output (yellow line) from the low in 1900 to the high in about 1990 is A TENTH OF A FREAKING W/M2.
Be careful with this. The change is more like about 1.3 W/m2, which is still one tenth of 1%, not of the number of Watt/m2.
See e.g. Slides 49-55 of http://www.leif.org/research/EUV-F107-and-TSI-CDR-HAO.pdf

christianjo
Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 28, 2016 11:09 am

Leif,
To be fair, (i know that you know that, but perhaps not all here) you say 1.3W/m^2, this is correct for sun, but not for earth, which would be more arround 0.32W/m^2 (because of earth is a more like a ball, well explained here: http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/slides/climate/insolation_adg.gif

Reply to  christianjo
November 28, 2016 11:31 am

That means that the variation is still one tenth of 1%, which will result of a temperature change of 1/40 or 1% or 1/4000 of the present temperature 288 K = 0.07 degrees.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 28, 2016 5:43 pm

Leif, I have to disagree with you. See Figure 1 of Steinhilber’s post here and his data here. It’s about four tenths of a W/m2 from 1900-1990, which is about a tenth of a watt/m2 on a global 24/7 basis.
Thanks for all of your contributions,
w.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 28, 2016 10:58 pm

Willis, answers to two main points you raised:
1) DEVIATION SOLAR VS. TEMPERATURE LAST 2 DECADES:
The early decline of the solar is also a function of the data resolution of Steinhilber et al. which combines several 11 year cycles. I should have added another graph (will do in a future post) using higher resolution data, e.g. by Krivova:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/getindices.cgi?WMO=CUData/TSI_TIM_Reconstruction&STATION=reconstructed_solar_constant&TYPE=i&id=someone@somewhere&NPERYEAR=1
The solar plateau in fact reaches well beyond 2000, though gently (!) sloping down. The real brake occurs later, as we all know, when the solar output dramatically reduces from the 2010s onwards. I am surprised that people concentrate on the last 2 decades when the previous 100 years show this exceptional match. The beginning of the warming slowdown/hiatus matches quite well with this major shift. But the key reason are ocean cycles which dominate the decadal scale. The solar-climate link operates on centennial to millennial scales. A mismath over 2 decades does not mean very much. Similar mismatches occur for CO2 during 1940-1975. In both cases ocean cycles run the show. The PDO has been pushing massively until 2000. The small decline in solar therefore does not matter. It is important to see the climate system as an integrated system of various factors. The end result is a mixture, therefore we never expect a 100% corelation at all times.
2) MECHANISMS:
You ask about mechanisms without which you do not believe the solar-climate link. The insistence on a 100% fully researched set of physical mechanisms was exactly the reason why acceptance of plate tectonics was (unnecessarily) delayed by 50 years. Wegener’s critics demanded a full physical explanation which did not exist at that time because science was not yet ready. However the fact that the continents must have moved was clear from empirical data. The same is true with the solar-climate relationship. There are hundreds of studies describing the link. Feedback studies are well underway, looking at UV in the stratophere, clouds etc. But it is early days, to be honest. It surprises me that people think that extremely small changes in CO2 can change the world while the W/m2 of solar changes are considered to be too small. By the way, we tried to add the W/m2 solar scale to the chart but Excel makes it very hard to add a third Y-Axis. Any suggestions are welcome how to solve this next time.
Cheers
Sebastian

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
November 28, 2016 10:32 am

Willis, the small W/m2 solar change reminds me of very small ppm changes in CO2. It is not so much about the absolte changes but what the climate system makes from it, i.e. feedbacks etc. In the case of the sun, the UV in the stratosphere may be the big overlooked thing that filters down to earth. We are at a similar point as continental drift 100 years ago: The observation is that solar changes have influenced climate during all pre-industrial times, the mechanism however is still poorly understood. In the end Alfred Wegener was half-right: The continents have moved, but the mechanism was different to what he though.
Sebastian

Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 28, 2016 10:30 pm

Sebastian, thanks for your reply. However, waving your hands and uttering the magical word “feedbacks” is MEANINGLESS unless you can provide information about just how your mythical “feedback” works.
Not only that, but according to your graph, the TSI (yellow line) has been heading for the floor while the temperatures continued to climb or stay flat. Is that part of the “feedback”?
Oh, I forgot, we need to add maybe two decades for the mythical “multi-decadal lag” to kick in. But as I pointed out above, if you do that then it destroys your claimed correlation, viz:

Looking at the interval 1898 to 1997, solar activity (sensu Steinhilber et al. 2009) shows an even better (R=0.78) correlation with temperature than CO2 (R=0.75)

So which is it? Either we ignore the claimed multi-decadal lag, the early data fits at R = 0.78 … but it all falls apart recently.
OR we could include the multi-decadal lag, in which case the recent solar data MIGHT fit if temperatures drop radically … but your claimed 0.78 correlation goes in the toilet.
Your choice …
w.
PS—You say:

… the small W/m2 solar change reminds me of very small ppm changes in CO2.

Why?? The CO2 has increased by 60% since 1900. The solar change is ± four hundredths of a percent over eleven years. How are they anything alike? One is almost a perfectly straight line with microscopic variations and no secular trend. The other is constantly increasing.

Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 29, 2016 7:31 am

WE
“The CO2 has increased by 60% since 1900.”
No it hasn’t. Typical used car salesman misrepresentation.
Atmospheric CO2 increased from 278 to 391 between 1750 and 2011, 113/278 = 40%. But that’s a lot deceptive, by accident or intention is your choice. Atmospheric CO2 was about 1.3% of the total biospheric carbon in 1750 about 1.8% in 2011 and change of 0.5% (240 / 46,713 Gt), FF (160 / 46,713 Gt) represents 0.34%. Total uncertainty in the carbon cycle numbers is 1,700 Gt. (IPCC AR5 Figure & Table 6.1)
2) IPCC claims to know that the biospheric carbon cycle holds 46,713 Gt of carbon in all its various forms, reservoirs, sinks and sources. (Figure & Table 6.1) IPCC claims to know that in the 261 years between 1750 and 2011 mankind’s fossil fuel net unbalancing contribution to that carbon cycle was 160 Gt or 0.34%. How does anybody even measure these numbers which are also too trivial to even make for a meaningful rounding error?

Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 29, 2016 9:55 am

Nicholas Schroeder November 29, 2016 at 7:31 am

WE

“The CO2 has increased by 60% since 1900.”

No it hasn’t. Typical used car salesman misrepresentation.

It’s called “moving too fast and doing mental arithmatic” and there was no bad intent, so you can stuff your nastiness about car salesmen up your fundamental orifice …
Let me suggest you consider my rule of thumb—unless you are trying to insult people, don’t start by assuming bad intent when the situation can be explained by error or oversight.

Atmospheric CO2 increased from 278 to 391 between 1750 and 2011, 113/278 = 40%. But that’s a lot deceptive, by accident or intention is your choice.

Perhaps you practice that kind of deception, Nicholas.
I don’t, and like most honest men, I don’t appreciate being falsely accused of deliberate misrepresentation. STOP YOUR NASTY COMMENTS REGARDING THINGS YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!

Atmospheric CO2 was about 1.3% of the total biospheric carbon in 1750 about 1.8% in 2011 and change of 0.5% (240 / 46,713 Gt), FF (160 / 46,713 Gt) represents 0.34%. Total uncertainty in the carbon cycle numbers is 1,700 Gt. (IPCC AR5 Figure & Table 6.1)
2) IPCC claims to know that the biospheric carbon cycle holds 46,713 Gt of carbon in all its various forms, reservoirs, sinks and sources. (Figure & Table 6.1) IPCC claims to know that in the 261 years between 1750 and 2011 mankind’s fossil fuel net unbalancing contribution to that carbon cycle was 160 Gt or 0.34%. How does anybody even measure these numbers which are also too trivial to even make for a meaningful rounding error?

If you don’t know the answer to that question, you are participating in the wrong discussion. Please go find another site populated by people as nasty and clueless as you are to discuss this with. The conversation here went past that years ago, and you falsely accusing me of being a liar won’t bring it back.
w.

Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 29, 2016 3:43 pm

WE
Wow, classic case of dish it, but can’t take it from a master of glassy handwavium.
My objections to the “science” behind mankind driven climate change:
The greenhouse effect theory, i.e. upwelling/down welling/”back” radiation violates conservation of energy and thermodynamic laws. Yes, it really does! Not that it matters because the theory actually does not do anything, i.e. no net change in radiative balance at the ToA, per NASA 100 km.
The notion that the earth is 33 C warmer with an atmosphere than without is incorrect. The conditions postulated for the “no atmosphere” scenario are quite obviously with an atmosphere. The true explanation for the prevailing surface temperature, heat transfer’s most fundamental equation Q = U * A * dT, is ignored.
The Stephan Boltzmann ideal black body equation is incorrectly applied by ignoring the theory’s limitations and conditions, e.g. a surface, no conduction/convection, i.e. a vacuum, emissivity, gas density, tropospheric temperatures, etc.
The eccentricity of the earth’s orbit causes a TSI fluctuation, aphelion to perihelion, +/- 45 W/m^2, 50 times greater than the atmospheric heating due to CO2. Natural variations such as eccentricity, albedo, water vapor, vegetation, etc. are orders of magnitude more influential over the climate than GHGs/CO2.
Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE
(I might be unqualified to offer an opinion since I’m not a food editor, unemployed standup comic, cartoonist, aroma-therapist, nematologist, or fresh out of journalism school. or )
http://www.therebel.media/how_the_world_was_deceived_about_global_warming_and_climate_change

Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 29, 2016 10:07 pm

Nicholas Schroeder November 29, 2016 at 3:43 pm

WE
Wow, classic case of dish it, but can’t take it from a master of glassy handwavium.

I have no idea which statement of mine you are objecting to. You’re just making a general accusation. Because it is vague and general, is impossible for me to defend, as you have not quoted what you think I did wrong.
I can defend my own words. I cannot defend your misunderstandings of my words.
If you want to make accusations, please be specific by quoting exactly what you are accusing me of. I can’t respond to that kind of vague (and unpleasant) accusation, it contains no substance.
w.

Norway
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
November 29, 2016 4:02 pm

Willis, why are you using a graph that is not showing the margin of error? Also, the yellow line is just a line without any indication of scale and value.

Reply to  Norway
November 29, 2016 10:02 pm

Not my graph, it’s from the head post, and I pointed out earlier that it doesn’t have a scale. The yellow line varies about .12 W/m2 from bottom to top on a 24/7 global average basis.
w.

Reply to  Norway
November 30, 2016 12:27 am

…and I pointed out earlier that Excel does not have a third y-axis (-; The TSI is just a proxy for solar trends. If you take UV alone (which follows the trend), there is a significant change, which may be the actual trigger. The same with the magnetic/cosmic ray part of solar variability. Insisting that TSI changes are too small is a dead end road. We need to see it as a trend curve for a whole bunch of solar parameters, and we still have to work out which one is the key one.
First question to Willis and Leif: How do you explain the hundreds of study demonstrating a good solar/climate link? I know that Willis has looked at a few case studies and was not happy, but what about the other 2000 studies?
Second question: What has actually driven pre-industrial climate change of the past 10,000 years, if it was not the sun? Why are current climate models not able to model backwards beyond the Little Ice Age? What is missing in your opinion? It is good to critizise, but we need to hear from you plausible alternatives.

Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 30, 2016 12:34 am

How do you explain the hundreds of study demonstrating a good solar/climate link?
Most [all?] are of very low quality and based on flimsy data and wishful thinking [“what else can it be?”].
Show us the ONE paper of the 2000 that you think is the most convincing.

Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 30, 2016 12:37 am

Why are current climate models not able to model backwards beyond the Little Ice Age?
I didn’t know they were trying. Show me a paper that attempts to model backwards.

Reply to  Norway
November 30, 2016 1:44 am

@ Leif:
“I didn’t know they were trying. Show me a paper that attempts to model backwards.”
The paper is called IPCC AR5. Go to WG1, chapter 5:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter05_FINAL.pdf
Quote from Section 5.3.5, page 414:
“The reconstructed temperature differences between MCA and LIA […] indicate higher medieval temperatures over the NH continents […]. . The reconstructed MCA warming is higher than in the simulations, even for stronger TSI changes and individual simulations […] The enhanced gradients are not reproduced by model simulations … and are not robust when considering the reconstruction uncertainties and the limited proxy records in these tropical ocean regions […]. This precludes an assessment of the role of external forcing and/or internal variability in these reconstructed patterns.”
The IPCC states in its own report that their models have failed the crucial hindcast. Strangely, this does not stop them using exactly these models to model the future. This is absolutely remarkable and invalidates any future climate prognosis automatically.

Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 30, 2016 2:07 am

The IPCC states in its own report that their models have failed the crucial hindcast.
They also said that the proxies were not good enough to settle the issue.

Reply to  Norway
November 30, 2016 2:11 am

@ Leif
I really do not like this game “Show us the one, two, three papers”… There are thousand out there and they cannot be ignored. Why don’t you start with Bond et al. 2001 and the 70 related papers since then that demonstrated a clear solar-climate link on a millennial-scale timescale. You can find our review on researchgate. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128045886000161

Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 30, 2016 2:18 am

I know the Bond paper and have discussed it with the late Gerard Bond [http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/sns/2003/sns_dec_2003.pdf] and am not impressed.
And asking for the ONE paper is a very effective way of getting to the core of things.
You can be assured that I’m fully aware of all relevant literature.

Reply to  Norway
November 30, 2016 2:26 am

@ Leif
“They also said that the proxies were not good enough to settle the issue”
That’s not credible. There are now hundreds of studies that have documented the Medieval Warm Period and Climate of the past 1000 years globally. It is time to wake up and accept the challenge. See my online MWP mapping project here (ongoing):
http://t1p.de/mwp
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Mapping-the-Medieval-Climate-Anomaly

Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 30, 2016 7:31 am

I remarked that the paper you showed me said nothing about the new volcanic eruption dates invalidating volcanism as a contributor to causing the LIA. On the contrary they point out that “that large eruptions in the tropics and high latitudes were primary drivers of interannual-to-decadal temperature variability in the Northern Hemisphere during the past 2,500 years” such as during the Dalton Minimum.

Reply to  Norway
November 30, 2016 8:14 am

With all due respect, Leif, I think you should study the Sigl et al. 2015 paper with greater care. The terms “Little Ice Age” or “Dalton” do not even appear in that paper. The authors are very careful to NOT link the LIA with the eruptions.
During the discussion of our blog post here at WUWT I have spotted this phenomenon much too often, that claims are being made, probably hoping that the readers do not take the time to verify these. I am a trained geoscientist, experienced paper and project reviewer, very old-fashioned. It is daily bred-and-butter business for me to verify claims and check concepts. We should all make an effort to stay wthin the limits of data and evidence, this minimizes confusion in the discussion.

Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 30, 2016 8:20 am

The authors are very careful to NOT link the LIA with the eruptions.
Yet you are not that careful. You said that the paper invalidates the link. I see no evidence of that.
Perhaps, as you suggest, you were hoping I wouldn’t go check.

November 28, 2016 10:21 am

Climate change skeptics say that fluctuations in the earth’s climate are caused by variations in the output of the sun. Alarmists respond by stating that variations in solar luminosity and the average solar irradiance/constant of 1,368 W/m^2 are too small to make much difference. They are both correct and yet both of those explanations are inaccurate and incomplete.
What both sides forgot to mention is that the earth does not orbit in a nice average circle, but in an ellipse:
1) closer to the sun at perihelion, 1/4/17, and hotter with a solar non-constant of 1,415 W/m^2,
2) and farther at aphelion, 7/3/17, and colder with a solar non-constant of 1,323 W/m^2
3) for a total variation of 92 W/m^2.
What both sides also forget to mention is that because of the tilted axis and spherical shape the total insolation arriving at the top of the atmosphere fluctuates by around 670 W/m^2. What are the consequences of that large fluctuation? Winter and summer which the earth has survived for thousands of millennia.
Per IPCC AR5 between 1750 and 2011, 261 years, assuming all natural processes remained constant the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide rose due to human processes, i.e. fossil fuel and land use changes, from 278 ppm to 391 ppm. The consequence to the atmospheric heat balance of 261 years’ worth of additional carbon dioxide was 2 W/m^2. (IPCC AR5 SPM.5)
If the 92 W/m^2 fluctuation due to orbit and a 670 W/m^2 fluctuation due to tilt and shape have no catastrophic consequences what should we reasonably expect from 2?
BTW 1,415, 1,323, 92, 670 W/m^2 are real numbers based on real physical parameters, real math, and confirmed by real measurements. IPCC’s 2 W/m^2 is based on a conceptual model such as Kiehl-Trenberth’s power flux graphic diagram, i.e. a ball suspended in a hot fluid, with no consideration of orbit, tilt, night and day, and bearing no resemblance to the actual earth with an upwelling/downwelling GHE loop that violates the laws of thermodynamics.

Toneb
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
November 28, 2016 11:45 am

“If the 92 W/m^2 fluctuation due to orbit and a 670 W/m^2 fluctuation due to tilt and shape have no catastrophic consequences what should we reasonably expect from 2?”
2 things.
First those orbital forcing changes did have massive consequences for the Earth’s climate and sea-levels.
But not “catastrophic”.
Would be a tad different (if it were possible) if those changes occurred while humans have >7bn souls resident here.
It’s not about “2”.
It’s what’s down the line from “2”.
The feed-backs.

Michael Spurrier
Reply to  Toneb
November 28, 2016 12:06 pm

Exactly what if those feedbacks are negative?

Reply to  Toneb
November 28, 2016 1:30 pm

When someone says, “I believe……” that’s religion. When someone says, “In my opinion….” That’s politics. When someone says, “I know……” that’s science. Let’s consider what it is we know, think we know or admit we don’t know about CAGW.
1) We know that from orbital perihelion to aphelion the solar constant that heats the earth fluctuates 92 W/m^2. We know that because of the tilted axis and spherical surface the total solar insolation at the top of the atmosphere can fluctuate 670 W/m^2 from winter to summer. IPCC claims to know that in the 261 years between 1750 and 2011 the 113 ppm of additional CO2 added 2 W/m^2 of radiative forcing to the atmospheric heat balance. (SPM.5) 2 W/m^2 is too trivial to even make for a meaningful rounding error.
2) IPCC claims to know that the biospheric carbon cycle holds 46,713 Gt of carbon in all its various forms, reservoirs, sinks and sources. (Figure & Table 6.1) IPCC claims to know that in the 261 years between 1750 and 2011 mankind’s fossil fuel net unbalancing contribution to that carbon cycle was 160 Gt or 0.34%. How does anybody even measure these numbers which are also too trivial to even make for a meaningful rounding error?
3) We know from Box 9.2 that IPCC AR5 acknowledges a 15 year hiatus in the mean global surface temperature and laments the failure of the Atmospheric and Ocean General circulation Models to, well, model that pause. It will be 20 years in AR6. Furthermore, IPCC suggests that the AOGCM failures are due to 1) the inability to model the chaotic and non-liner behavior of natural variations, and 2) a CO2 radiative forcing feedback value that is too large. (See IPCC AR5 TS.6)
4) We know from TS.6 – Key Uncertainties that IPCC AR5 is:
a. even after five assessments still uncertain about the magnitude of the feedback between CO2 and the climate (See Youtube “Climate Change in 12 Minutes”) which is troubling considering that this feedback is the major driver of CAGW and critical to accurate AOGCMs.
b. uncertain about the behavior of the sea ice and ice sheets
c. uncertain about any connection between climate change and extreme weather
d. uncertain about the ocean below 2,000 meters which is half of it including the floor
e. uncertain about how to model clouds and precipitation effectively
f. a list of other assorted uncertainties well worth reading.
So, are you a believer or a knower? If you are a believer, talking to you or listening to you is a waste of time. If you are a knower than you know when which beliefs are wrong.

whiten
Reply to  Toneb
November 28, 2016 3:27 pm

Nicholas Schroeder
November 28, 2016 at 1:30 pm
“So, are you a believer or a knower? If you are a believer, talking to you or listening to you is a waste of time. If you are a knower than you know when which beliefs are wrong.”
—————–
If I may ask you Nicholas:
So, what are you, in accordance with above?!
In my opinion I think you should answer that question your self first . 🙂
cheers

Reply to  Toneb
November 28, 2016 7:11 pm

whiten
I consider myself a knower and laid out what is known, not what is believed. Do you “know” something different? Lay out your case. Or do you just believe something different?

Reply to  Toneb
November 28, 2016 7:15 pm

Toneb
“Would be a tad different (if it were possible) if those changes occurred while humans have >7bn souls resident here”
In the grand global biospheric scheme of things 7E9 people don’t amount to diddly squat. All 7E9 could fit easily inside half of the Grand Canyon. Whatever the real problem is it isn’t the number 7E9.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
November 28, 2016 4:28 pm

Cliamate change skeptics do not say that fluctuations in the earth’s climate are caused by variations in the output of the sun.
The merely say they are not caused overwhelmingly by CO2 concentrations.

November 28, 2016 10:25 am

Interesting post and discussion. One item of interest is in Figure 1, where CO2 shows a ~40 year (1940 to 1980) divergence from temperature, and TSI shows a more recent 1990 on divergence. It seems there is something else going on besides just CO2 and TSI to influence temperature.

Reply to  Tom Halla
November 28, 2016 10:39 am

Tom, you are absolutely right. The additional “thing” are the ocean cycles. Therefore it does not make sense to get upset about every single mismatch. Solar and CO2 is longterm, ocean cycles modulate mid term. A typical period of an ocean cycle is 60 years.

Toneb
Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 28, 2016 11:23 am

There was also the -ve forcing of atmospheric aerosols in the period after WW2 until around 1960 when the +ve forcing of GHG’s gained traction.
Was known as “global dimming”…..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimmingcomment image
That plus a -ve PDO/ENSO regime accounts for the cooling period beween.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Fkg790Q3b8o/VMRGN17t2oI/AAAAAAAAHwo/GTCVnmku248/s1600/GISTempPDO.gif

Latitude
Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 28, 2016 12:32 pm

comment image

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 28, 2016 6:53 pm

Sebastian, ocean circulation cycles in years depends on which circulation you are talking about. It is now understood, based on complex models, that complete overturning of old deep water to the surface takes 1000 years or more. That circulation timing keeps getting longer the more we know about how the various oceans work.
There are four considerations here:
1) Vertical mixing has its own time scale and processes
2) Slow net storage of heat has its own time scale and processes
3) Net evaporation of heat has its own time scale and processes
4) Overturning of old deep water and the creating of new deep water have their own time scale and processes

John
Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 29, 2016 7:42 am

I enjoyed the read, but unfortunately, as others have pointed out, at the moment you only have some correlation at times and no correlation at other times (erm, like AGW!). In order to advance this further, you need to cooperate with someone in order to factor in the oceans and, of course, CO2 itself. Otherwise, it is no better than the CAGW crowd pointing from the mid 1970s to 1998.
I realise, of course, that part of your publishing this may be to engage with others on this subject. Best of luck to you.

Christian John
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 28, 2016 11:01 am

Tom,
Yes, we knew it as antropogenic aersols, just watch out the jump: http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01538fd52d64970b-pi
^^

November 28, 2016 10:33 am

I might add just a very small increase in albedo due to the terrestrial factors being influenced by weak magnetic fields will bring about the global cooling. Something like .5 to a 1% increase in albedo which is not hard to accomplish.

mountainape5
November 28, 2016 10:38 am

What makes the temperature of the sun to go from hot to cold? How do we measure the sun’s temperature change? Or is this “cold” sun a made up line?

Menicholas
Reply to  mountainape5
November 28, 2016 1:45 pm

It is an exaggeration.
During periods of high solar activity, meaning lots of sunspots and other associated phenomenon, the output of the sun is slightly higher than when solar activity is low, like it is now.

Jim G1
November 28, 2016 12:39 pm

Geological time frame wise, there does not seem to be much correlation between co2 and temperature either. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/04/dr-vincent-gray-on-historical-carbon-dioxide-levels/

Robert from oz
November 28, 2016 1:02 pm

Sounds like something from the Mann , the sun has no effect on earths temps whatsoever it’s just there to give us light during the day . Trust me I’m a scientist/cosmologist/theologian/particle physicist/fraudster/liar/thief/scumbag/I can’t survive without the green grant money do you want me and my children’s children to starve ?where else will someone with my eminent qualifications find employment that’s pays enough to keep the lifestyle I’m used to without having to actually do any work just make stuff up ?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Robert from oz
November 28, 2016 7:25 pm

“Sounds like something from the Mann , the sun has no effect on earths temps whatsoever it’s just there to give us light during the day ”
Problem is, the only people saying that are builders of straw men, like you, apparently.

Casey
November 28, 2016 1:10 pm

I have read that there is an 11 year delay between solar changes and Earth-based effects.
So any cooling from this weakened sun will happen around 2024-2030

Reply to  Casey
November 28, 2016 2:44 pm

There are a number of papers which describe time delays of up to several decades, e.g.:
Eichler et al. 2009: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL035930/abstract
Wang & Zhang 2011: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682611001660
Perry 2007: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117707002074
The delay may differ from case to case, depending on the setting.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Casey
November 28, 2016 3:04 pm

I hope you are not saying that the annual warm up of the NH oceans that will happen this spring is from solar energy entering the Earth system 11 years ago.

jmorpuss
November 28, 2016 3:34 pm

The denser the ISM is, the more resistance (Heat) build up to form a Bow Shock , the greater the résistance the greater the deflection of the ISM and lessor the current can flow to the surface .
“In astronomy, the interstellar medium (ISM) is the matter that exists in the space between the star systems in a galaxy. This matter includes gas in ionic, atomic, and molecular form, as well as dust and cosmic rays. It fills interstellar space and blends smoothly into the surrounding intergalactic space. The energy that occupies the same volume, in the form of electromagnetic radiation, is the interstellar radiation field.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium
“Bow shocks form the boundary between a magnetosphere and an ambient magnetized medium. This occurs when the magnetic field of an astrophysical object interacts with the nearby flowing ambient plasma. For example, when the solar wind, flowing with a relative speed of order 400 km/s, encounters the magnetic field of Earth, a bow shape boundary forms. For Earth and other magnetized planets, it is the boundary at which the speed of the stellar wind abruptly drops as a result of its approach to the magnetopause. For stars, this boundary is typically the edge of the astrosphere, where the stellar wind meets the interstellar medium.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_shocks_in_astrophysics

November 28, 2016 4:22 pm

Again we see assessment analogous to plotting speedometer reading and odometer reading on the same graph and not attending to why the curves have different shapes. Is there so little familiarity with time-integral we resort to suggesting lag?
It is fundamental that temperature responds to the time-integral of forcing not instantaneously to the forcing itself. Because of effective thermal capacitance, (a.k.a. thermal inertia) it is necessary to take the time-integral of a forcing (or of a proxy such as sunspot numbers for a forcing) to logically compare with anything related to global temperature change. Not doing so is like not being aware that energy is the time-integral of power.
The signal is solar wind or solar magnetic field (or some of each and perhaps something else) for which the best proxy is sunspot numbers. The multiplier is the effect this signal has on clouds. Average global temperature is very sensitive to small changes in average cloud altitude (≈1 C°/250 m) and amount of cloud cover.
Sunspot number anomaly time-integral plus net of the effect of all ocean cycles (currently a 64 year period) plus effect of water vapor increase provides a 98% match (R2=0.98) to 5-yr smoothed temperature anomaly measurements 1895-2015. Analysis and graphs are at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

Marcus
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
November 28, 2016 4:34 pm

..Dan Pangburn, I have always wondered, and tried to find an answer to this on the net, whether a changing Solar magnetic field ( Polar Reversal?) has any effect on the Earth’s magnetic field, and what possible effect would that have on our climate ? Any opinions or any ideas where to research ?

Reply to  Marcus
November 29, 2016 6:30 pm

Marc – My guess is that there is some sort of interaction. Perhaps just the vector sum. There are a few articles on the web re interaction of solar wind and earths mag field.
As to climate, again perhaps, although I get a 98% match with measured average global temperature (AGT) without explicitly directly considering magnetic fields. Something makes the connection between sunspots and a part of AGT change, and that something could be solar magnetic field, and/or solar wind and/or something not yet discovered. Just using sunspot anomaly as a proxy, combined with the effect of increasing water vapor and a simple approximation of the effect of ocean cycles on AGT gets the 98% match.

Reply to  Marcus
November 29, 2016 6:39 pm

Marc – Because the proxy of sunspots and the effect of increasing water vapor are forcings, their influence on AGT during the period of interest is according to their time-integrals.

Marcus
November 28, 2016 4:24 pm

In addition to all of the great information above, it would seem that it is not so much the W/m2 that matter, but the strength of the Solar Winds, which affect the amount of Cosmic Rays that enter the atmosphere, which affect the amount of of clouds created, which affect the Earth’s temperature (up or down, depending on whether the clouds are created at night or during the day)…..Clouds at night trap the heat from the previous day, clouds during the day block the heat from the Sun…TSI cannot be measured from space because it does not take the effect of clouds into account…In other words, there are more unknown unknowns than known unknowns…So, in about 50 years we might have a clue about what is actually going on…IMHO….

Reply to  Marcus
November 29, 2016 8:27 am

Solar Winds, which affect the amount of Cosmic Rays that enter the atmosphere, which affect the amount of of clouds created, which affect the Earth’s temperature
No, that hypothesis is dead now, as the claimed correlations have not held up.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 30, 2016 1:13 am

Not so fast. The original, simple Svensmark model is dead, yes. But there are refined models now that distinguish latitudes and even seasons. It is enough to document that the cosmic ray – cloud effect works in a certain (large) region during a certian season which will create a clear signal out of the noise.
A globally homogenous relationship between solar activity and clouds via cosmic rays may not exist. Various studies indicate, however, that the mechanism may have significant climatic influence, when differentiated according to geographical latitude, season and atmospheric altitude (Yu and Luo, 2014). Importantly, the Svensmark process appears to work best at mid latitudes, where sufficient suitable stratified clouds, liquid cloud droplets, and suitable quantities of cosmic rays exist (Kovaltsov and Usoskin, 2007; Laken et al., 2010; Marsh and Svensmark, 2000; Marsh and Svensmark, 2003; Pallé et al., 2004; Usoskin et al., 2004). For key geographical regions Voiculescu and Usoskin (2012) documented a persistent response of clouds to cosmic rays over the entire studied time interval 1984-2009 indicating a real link. Cho et al. (2012) suggest that the north-south asymmetry on the sun has to be also considered when interpreting the solar-cloud-effect. Further recent work providing positive evidence for the effect has been provided by e.g. Rawal et al. (2013), Kancírová and Kudela (2014), Huneeus et al. (2014), Lam et al. (2014) and Sfîcă and Voiculescu (2014).
(see our paper Luening & Vahrenholt 2016)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128045886000161

Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 30, 2016 1:21 am

The more you break up the data in subsets, the more statistical noise you introduce. In any event, as solar activity has dwindled the past 60 year, cosmic rays have increased [the last minimum theGCR intensity was particularly high] which should have caused cooling, yet temperatures have soared. Ordinarily, in science, that would be taken as a failure of the hypothesis.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 30, 2016 1:31 am

@ Leif:
No and No. If I have noise and add a signal to it, you get a signal in the noise. You are talking to a former radio amateur, so you can trust me. Second, solar activity has been at an extremly high level during the second half of the 20th century, your claim of low solar during the past 60 years is misleading, sorry. I am using Steinhilber et al. which is being used by the majority of scientists and considered credible. I am nit a big fan of sun spots which are useful but only a small part of the solar activity equation.

Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 30, 2016 1:56 am

Second, solar activity has been at an extremely high level during the second half of the 20th century,
Not so: http://www.leif.org/EOS/IAU-Press-Conf.pdf
” The apparent upward trend of solar activity between the 18th century and the late 20th century has now been identified as a major calibration error in the Group Sunspot Number. Now that this error has been corrected, solar activity appears to have remained relatively stable since the 1700s”.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004-Berggren.pdf
“there is no indication of unusually high recent solar activity in relation to other parts of the investigated period [last 600 years].
I am using Steinhilber et al. which is being used by the majority of scientists and considered credible.
Steinhilber also does not show anything out of the ordinary:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cosmic-Ray-Modulation-GN.png

co2islife
Reply to  lsvalgaard
December 3, 2016 6:04 am

Solar Winds, which affect the amount of Cosmic Rays that enter the atmosphere, which affect the amount of of clouds created, which affect the Earth’s temperature
No, that hypothesis is dead now, as the claimed correlations have not held up.

Hello, over 600 million years the CO2 and temperature correlation has never existed. If correlations matter, CO2 is the first to join the junk pile.comment image

Reply to  Marcus
November 30, 2016 2:15 am

@Leif:
“Steinhilber also does not show anything out of the ordinary”
I think you should study their paper again. There is a clear high solar plateau visible during the second half of the 20th century. When you study their papers in more detail you will see that they even show a good correlation with climate development of the Chinese Dongge Cave.

Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 30, 2016 2:28 am

[sigh] here is the record for the last 2000 years. Recent solar activity has not been ‘extremely high’ [and not as you claimed earlier ‘the highest in 12,000 years’] and there is little [if any] evidence of a strong correlation with temperatures [top panel]:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-Last-2000-yrs.png
As I said: I’m fully aware of and have studied carefully all relevant papers.

Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 30, 2016 2:39 am

There is a clear high solar plateau visible during the second half of the 20th century.
[sigh] No, recent solar activity was not ‘extremely high’ [or highest in 12,000 years]:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-Last-2000-yrs.png
and there is no good correlation with temperature [top panel].
Solar activity in the 20th century was on par with that in the 19th and 18th.

Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 30, 2016 2:40 am

sorry for the double posting. WordPress crashed on me.

Smart Rock
November 28, 2016 5:05 pm

We call on all parties of the climate discussion to open-mindedly engage in this critical phase, weighing the arguments and data for and against each other fairly and transparently, regardless of personal backgrounds, affiliations, previous convictions and individual preferences

Right. Good luck with that.

Menicholas
Reply to  Smart Rock
November 28, 2016 9:34 pm

I agree with Smart Rock.
How about if instead we kick the climate liars to the curb where they belong and try to sort things out using the scientific method and the tools of science?

Javier
November 28, 2016 5:43 pm

Actually the correlation between solar activity and temperatures is very good. As good as reasonably can be expected for an important forcing, except for the 20th century.
http://i.imgur.com/yvrMXFy.png
The conclusion is clear. Part of the modern warming is solar and part CO2.
As solar activity is below average since 2009 we should expect no contribution to global warming from the Sun until solar activity becomes again above average. Global warming is not going to accelerate. It should decelerate or even moderately reverse depending on the increase of CO2. Without doing anything.

Reply to  Javier
November 28, 2016 6:22 pm

Javi – Done correctly, the match 1895-2015 is 98% (R^2=0.98) and CO2 has nothing significant to do with it.

Pat McAdoo
Reply to  Javier
November 28, 2016 6:36 pm

Anyone here know how the “models” use solar activity as a variable?
Is there a “constant” used for all the model runs or actual changes in solar activity included?
Hard for this old systems engineer to use a model that does not give a reasonable value to the source of all our “global” heat. I guess geothermal effects are modeled, maybe, but where else do we get an input to the models?
Gums sends…

Reply to  Pat McAdoo
November 28, 2016 6:47 pm

Anyone here know how the “models” use solar activity as a variable?
Is there a “constant” used for all the model runs or actual changes in solar activity included?

The solar cycle is included, with past cycles used as input for the past, and an average cycle [since we don’t know how to predict future cycles] is used for the future.
Now, that sounds fine, but the Devil lives in the details. The models use as the solar input the so-called Climate Data Record [CDR], which unfortunately is incorrect. See slide 15 ff of http://www.leif.org/research/EUV-Magnetic-Field.pdf

Reply to  Pat McAdoo
November 28, 2016 11:07 pm

Solar activity changes are included in the current IPCC models, however, the radiative forcing used is ridiculously low, close to zero. A nice way of eliminating an unwanted driver, just multiply by (nearly) zero. The problem: The same models fail with their hindcast / history match of the pre-industrial climate of the past millennia. I am surprised that nobody objects that models are used which fail their hindcast so massively. This is unique in the modelling world, in any other discipline the failed hindcast would disqualify the model and prevent usage for forward (future) modelling.

catweazle666
Reply to  Pat McAdoo
November 29, 2016 10:47 am

Pat McAdoo: “Anyone here know how the “models” use solar activity as a variable?”
Why would they bother with that?
It is an article of faith in the “profession” of climate “science” that the Sun has absolutely zero effect on the temperature of the Earth, the only variable that can influence it is anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Do try to keep up!

Reply to  catweazle666
November 29, 2016 10:48 am

The modelers try to do it right, so they bother.

catweazle666
Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 29, 2016 11:12 am

“The modelers try to do it right, so they bother.”
Really.
They could have fooled me!
(And I speak as someone who has actually been paid to do some computer modelling)
“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
So stated the IPCC’s Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Third Assessment Report (TAR), Chapter 14 (final para., 14.2.2.2), p774.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
November 30, 2016 1:04 am

@ Leif
Not necessarily Maunder-type. Most scientists seem to expect some sort of Dalton minimum.

Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 30, 2016 1:11 am

Which was not really all that ‘deep’. Most of the cold in 1810-1816 was probably due to volcanoes, e.g. ‘the year without a summer’.

Reply to  Pat McAdoo
November 29, 2016 7:18 pm

Pat – An old Mechanical Engineer has discovered a way that works to account for solar activity (98% match of calculated and measured average global temperature). It is described at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

Reply to  Pat McAdoo
November 30, 2016 1:39 am

@ Leif
The Tambora volcano only intensified a cold phase that had already started earlier, related to the solar Dalton Minimum. There is a good new overview of this in Brönnimann & Krämer 2016:
http://www.geography.unibe.ch/unibe/portal/fak_naturwis/e_geowiss/c_igeogr/content/e39624/e39625/e39626/e426207/e431531/tambora_e_webA4_eng.pdf
Take a look at FIg. 8 which illustrates this nicely.

Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 30, 2016 2:04 am

There were other large eruptions just before Tambora:
“There were also strong eruptions during the Dalton Solar Minimum in 1809 (unnamed, see Dai, JGR 96, 1991), 1814 (Mayon), and 1815 (Tambora)”
From http://www.leif.org/research/Climate-Change-My-View.pdf
“The PAGES 2k Consortium (Nature Geoscience, 6, 339, 2013) in their study of continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia came to the same conclusion that volcanic eruptions were the main driver of little ice age conditions and note the uncanny coincidence of volcanic and solar forcings”

Reply to  Pat McAdoo
November 30, 2016 2:22 am

@ Leif
“volcanic eruptions were the main driver of little ice age conditions”
You are citing an outdated study from 2013. The eruption history of the last 2500 years has been re-evaluated and found major dating errors. The new volcanic dataset of Sigl et al. 2015 does not support the ideas that volcanoes could be the main driver for the Little Ice Age.
See http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v523/n7562/full/nature14565.html
In a few weeks you may view my lecture during the recent EIKE Climate conference in Berlin on exactly this subject. There will also be an english translation of this available. Soon on: http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/

Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 30, 2016 3:06 am

I don’t think there are any dating errors regarding the eruptions that cooled the Dalton minimum.

Reply to  Sebastian Luening
November 30, 2016 3:26 am

The timing errors are so small that they do not invalidate anything. The paper does not refer to the LIA.

Javier
Reply to  Pat McAdoo
December 1, 2016 2:48 am

Leif,

came to the same conclusion that volcanic eruptions were the main driver of little ice age conditions and note the uncanny coincidence of volcanic and solar forcings”

A wrong conclusion because the effect of volcanoes on temperatures is short lived (light blue ovals), followed by a reaction in the opposite direction (red rectangles) and does not change the previous trend:
http://i.imgur.com/8uNZxds.png
The coincidence between volcanic and solar forcings is only uncanny if you limit your analysis to the LIA. It does not hold when you do an extended analysis.
The main correlation between volcanic activity and another climate variable is changes in ice load over the crust. Isostatic adjustment to ice changes is the probable cause. LIA had the biggest ice load since the melting of the continental ice sheets.
http://i.imgur.com/6Mjup0V.png
The evidence you are following is not solid.

Reply to  Javier
December 1, 2016 3:13 am

I defer to the experts on this:
The PAGES 2k Consortium (Nature Geoscience, 6, 339, 2013) in their study of continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia came to the conclusion that volcanic eruptions were the main driver of little ice age conditions and note the uncanny coincidence of volcanic and solar forcings:
“The cold summers can be maintained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks long after volcanic aerosols are removed.”
http://www.leif.org/research/Volcanic-Eruption-Pages2K.png

Javier
Reply to  Pat McAdoo
December 1, 2016 3:55 am

I defer to the experts on this:
The PAGES 2k Consortium

You are free to do so, but Steve McIntyre has a series of devastating blog posts on their work. And at least one of the authors has published later material contradicting what he contributed to that article.
Many of these experts are the same ones that are telling us that CO2 is driving climate despite mounting evidence to the contrary.
There is no evidence that any volcano has had a long lasting effect. Our own modern experience with volcanoes (El Chichón, Pinatubo) does not support a long lasting effect. Those experts tell us that there is a non-linear undemonstrated effect and unknown feedbacks that explain everything.
Sounds awfully familiar, but suit yourself.

Javier
Reply to  Pat McAdoo
December 1, 2016 4:28 am

McIntyre has a category dedicated to PAGES 2K
https://climateaudit.org/category/multiproxy-studies/pages2k/
And you can start to get a feeling of what is all about here:
https://climateaudit.org/2013/04/19/pages2k-gergis-and-made-for-ipcc-journal-articles/

Reply to  Javier
December 1, 2016 7:54 am

It is typical of you to bring up an irrelevancy [perhaps hoping that nobody would check]. That the O18 data reconstructions are suspect has no impact on the issue of volcanism.
Miller et al. (Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L02708, 2012) link the Little Ice Age to an “unusual 50-year-long episode with four large sulfur-rich explosive eruptions, each with global sulfate loading >60 Tg,” and note that “large changes in solar irradiance are not required.” Throughout the Little Ice Age, the world experienced heightened volcanic activity. When a volcano erupts, its ash reaches high into the atmosphere and can spread to cover the whole earth. This ash cloud blocks out some of the incoming solar radiation, leading to worldwide cooling that can last up to two years after an eruption. Also emitted by eruptions is sulfur in the form of sulfur dioxide gas. When this gas reaches the stratosphere, it turns into sulfuric acid particles, which reflect the sun’s rays, further reducing the amount of radiation reaching Earth’s surface.”
The massive tropical volcanic eruption in 1258, possibly of Mount Rinjani, followed by three smaller eruptions in 1268, 1275, and 1284 that did not allow the climate to recover, may have caused the initial cooling, and the 1452–53 eruption of Kuwae in Vanuatu triggered a second pulse of cooling. The cold summers can be maintained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks long after volcanic aerosols are removed. Other volcanoes that erupted during that era and may have contributed to the cooling include Billy Mitchell (ca. 1580), Huaynaputina (1600), Mount Parker (1641), Long Island (Papua New Guinea, ca. 1660), and Hekla (1693). There were also strong eruptions during the Dalton Solar Minimum in 1809 (unnamed, see Dai, JGR 96, 1991), 1814 (Mayon), and 1815 (Tambora).
A common problem is that of statistical degeneracy of correlations: if by coincidence some segments of two time series have similar variations a strong (but false) relationship emerges which can be mistaken as causal. E.g. Crowley and Hegerl (SORCE 2008 Science Meeting) note a somewhat disconcerting apparent correlation between pulses of volcanism with the Dalton, Maunder, Spörer, and Wolf Minima. Given the unlikely physically significant correlations between the two, perhaps the cosmogenic records have an uncorrected overprint from volcanically driven climate change.

Reply to  Pat McAdoo
December 1, 2016 4:55 am

@Javier
Hi Javier, I would like to get in touch with you. Would it be possible to send me a message? My contact is here:
http://kaltesonne.de/impressum/
Cheers
Sebastian

Javier
Reply to  Pat McAdoo
December 1, 2016 1:00 pm

It is typical of you to bring up an irrelevancy [perhaps hoping that nobody would check]. That the O18 data reconstructions are suspect has no impact on the issue of volcanism.

Is it typical of you to appeal to the authority of supposed experts when some of them have been caught seriously misrepresenting data? I don’t know.

The massive tropical volcanic eruption in 1258, possibly of Mount Rinjani, followed by three smaller eruptions in 1268, 1275, and 1284 that did not allow the climate to recover, may have caused the initial cooling, and the 1452–53 eruption of Kuwae in Vanuatu triggered a second pulse of cooling. The cold summers can be maintained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks long after volcanic aerosols are removed.

The problem of that nice tale is that it is not supported by the evidence. Temperature proxies show very clearly temperatures recovering in just a few decades.
http://i.imgur.com/dLwwN4e.png
The cooling from the 1257-1284 eruptions (light blue bar) lasted only until about 1300 and temperatures essentially recovered by 1330 (orange bar).
Cold summers can be maintained by many things, but we don’t see them doing that for more than a few years neither during the LIA, nor during the El Chinchón and Pinatubo eruptions.
It is all handwaving with no support from evidence as you like to say. Volcanic forcing did contribute to the LIA, but cannot explain it.

Reply to  Javier
December 1, 2016 1:09 pm

Climate is a complex system with many interacting causes. Your reliance on your cyclomania [a la the Egyptians] is not a scientific approach, but your faith is unshakable [again not scientific] so you will always find something disparaging to utter about contradictory views and the people who hold them. This undermines whatever credibility you think you may have. Luckily, most people can see through your unfounded claims.

Reply to  Pat McAdoo
December 1, 2016 1:31 pm

As an example of your cherry-picking, just look at the disconnect between your [preferred?] temperature curve [top] and solar activity [bottom]:
http://www.leif.org/research/Volcanism-Moberg-Temps-GCR-GSN.png
Note the temperature drop caused by volcanism 1805-1815 [which is what we were originally discussing.
Now, if things don’t fit, you can always invent yet-another-cycle [YAC henceforth] to explain the discrepancy, and when that one eventually fails, just add another cycle, and so on.

Javier
Reply to  Pat McAdoo
December 1, 2016 2:42 pm

Leif,

Climate is a complex system with many interacting causes. Your reliance on your cyclomania [a la the Egyptians] is not a scientific approach, but your faith is unshakable [again not scientific] so you will always find something disparaging to utter about contradictory views and the people who hold them. This undermines whatever credibility you think you may have. Luckily, most people can see through your unfounded claims.
As an example of your cherry-picking, just look at the disconnect between your [preferred?] temperature curve [top] and solar activity [bottom]:

Since climate is such a complex system, why do you think the temperature curve and solar activity should match for me to be right? I have never denied the climatic effect of volcanic activity. These are my published words:
“The Dalton minimum, that is also unusual in some climatic aspects, … it was both brief and barely showed the required reduction in solar activity. Had the Dalton minimum taken place farther from us and isolated it would probably not have been considered a GSM. To make matters worse, most of the climatic effects during the Dalton minimum are of clear volcanic origin.”
https://judithcurry.com/2016/09/20/impact-of-the-2400-yr-solar-cycle-on-climate-and-human-societies/
However you lose no opportunity to show your cognitive biases, and when challenged with evidence against your beliefs you resort to ad hominem attacks and general disqualifications like here. Curiously you think you conduct yourself in a scientific manner.
You are willing to believe in fairy volcanoes that cause the LIA, when nobody has ever seen a volcano doing anything even remotely close, yet reject long solar cycles whose evidence is ample.
I know when my arguments are good because you start attacking me. I have no faith on anything. I follow the evidence wherever it takes me, and it has taken me to the important role of solar variability on climate change. Because unlike you, when presented with evidence I do not resort to personal attacks. I had to change my position on the issue because that’s what I do when the evidence requires so. You barely present evidence in support of your beliefs. There is no evidence of correlation between volcanic activity and climate during the Holocene. Quite the contrary. There was a lot of volcanic activity during the Holocene Climatic Optimum.

Reply to  Javier
December 1, 2016 7:34 pm

The problem is that we have different ideas about what constitutes ‘evidence’. For you, everything that supports your view is evidence. My bar is much higher. In the half-century I have studied this field, I have seen ‘rock-solid evidence’ come and go. Everybody who has a firm view claims that they just follow where the data leads them. I have heard that too many times to take it seriously.

Javier
Reply to  Pat McAdoo
December 1, 2016 11:47 pm

My bar is much higher.

Certainly you bar is very high for long term solar variability, but it is not at the same height for long term volcanic forcing. That undermines your superiority argument.
As everybody knows raising the bar for the required evidence reduces the chances of committing a type I statistical error (false positive), but increases the chances of a type II statistical error (false negative). In most scientific disciplines and in Medicine, a type II error (rejecting the proposition when it is true) leads to more serious consequences. For example an undiagnosed patient with a disease.
So it is no a case of being purer and more sciency as you present it. If you have been a contemporary of Charles Darwin you would have rejected his theory of evolution because:
– He did not have a mechanism
– His evidence was an assortment of observations without any statistics
– His data collection lacked methodology and thus was a case of cherry picking the best evidence to support a faith based hypothesis, while ignoring every evidence that did not support it.
I know because I have read his book. Certainly you would have said to Darwin: “Sorry, Charles, my bar is much higher.” And yet he was right. According to you for the wrong reasons.
Sorry, Leif. you are not convincing. Evidence is evidence, and evidence based on observation is the best there is. From a scientific point of view.

Reply to  Javier
December 2, 2016 2:01 am

you are not convincing
A man who believes so strongly as you do, cannot be convinced that he is wrong.

Javier
Reply to  Pat McAdoo
December 2, 2016 6:12 am

A man who believes so strongly as you do, cannot be convinced that he is wrong.

Au contraire Leif, you can convince me easily by presenting evidence strong enough that demonstrates I am wrong. Unlike you I will bow to such evidence. The problem is you don’t have it. Your main argument is that the cosmogenic record cannot be trusted because it is contaminated by climate. But you cannot prove that the climate contamination is strong enough to invalidate the ~ 2400 year periodicity in the cosmogenic record, that is its most salient feature for the last 12,000 years.
And it would be very easy. You and I agree that the Dalton minimum can hardly be considered a grand solar minimum. You and I agree that most of the climatic effects during the 1800-1840 period were of volcanic origin. Temperature records agree that the 1800-1840 period was extremely cold. As cold as the Maunder minimum. Glacier records agree that Alpine glaciers were at its Holocene maximum during the 1800-1840 period, as large as during the Maunder period.
So we have the perfect setting for your climate contamination hypothesis. Solar activity was intermediate between the Maunder minimum and the 1900 centennial minimum, but climate was as cold and harsh as it has ever been during the Holocene. If climate contamination is as strong as you claim the cosmogenic record for the Dalton minimum should be as high as for the Maunder minimum. If climate contamination is not strong the cosmogenic record during the Dalton minimum should be proportional to its solar activity.
Now please demonstrate to me that I am wrong. Show me where is the climate contamination of the cosmogenic record during the Dalton minimum.
http://i.imgur.com/BthKSo6.png
You cannot, right? Because cosmogenic production during the Dalton minimum is proportional to solar activity, not to climate. Because your hypothesis is not supported by evidence. Because you rabidly attack anybody that challenges a belief that you hold despite no supporting evidence. Accusing everybody of doing exactly what you do. Having very low standards for evidence that supports your beliefs and very high standards for evidence that contradicts them. Being impossible to convince no matter the amount of evidence because this is part of your belief system. Using your scientific standing as an authority argument. But Leif… You are wrong on this one, and you cannot prove otherwise.

Reply to  Javier
December 2, 2016 7:47 am

We have been down the road before, but I’ll give it one more try:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/1003-4989-Climate-Effect-on-GCR-1.pdf
“suggest that galactic cosmic ray intensity changes which affect the production of 10Be in the Earths atmosphere are not the sole source of the 10Be concentration changes and confirm the importance of other effects, for example local and regional climatic effects, which could be of the same magnitude as the 10Be production changes.”
http://www.leif.org/EOS/1003-4989-Climate-Effect-on-GCR-2.pdf
“We have made other tests of the correspondence between the 10Be predictions and the ice core measurements which lead to the same conclusion, namely that other influences on the ice core measurements, as large as or larger than the production changes themselves, are occurring. These influences could be climatic or instrumentally based”
“more than 50% the 10Be flux increase around, e.g., 1700 A.D., 1810 A.D. and 1895 A.D. is due to non-production related increases”
It is generally accepted that there is climate contamination, and that it is large.
“The measured 10Be and 14C data contain significant contributions of climatic, atmospheric, and (in the case of 14C) oceanic origin” McCracken and Beer (2015).
You postulate that the 10Be flux should be proportional to solar activity. It is well-known [e.g. McCracken and Beer, 2007] that the relationship is highly non-linear and substantially further increases the 10Be flux at low solar activity
In addition there is strong contamination from Solar Energetic Particles (also called Solar Cosmic Rays) [especially those that occur at low solar activity].
So, the GCR flux is complex and uncertain. The workshop initiated and led by me back in 2012 has gone some way to resolve some issues, but much more work [and more data] is needed [as pointed out by McCracken and Beer, and Webber et al.] before we can have confidence in the GCR record.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
December 2, 2016 8:58 am

Leif says
It is well-known [e.g. McCracken and Beer, 2007] that the relationship is highly non-linear and substantially further increases the 10Be flux at low solar activity
Henry says
obviously anything coming from the sun in terms of energy is non linear.
Both the Hale and GB cycles are sinusoidal and I therefore expect the DV, Eddy and Bray cycles also to be sinusoidal. Your comment on that, Javier?

Reply to  Henry
December 2, 2016 9:22 am

There is no Hale Cycle, and the Schwabe 11-yr cycle is decidedly non-sinusoidal.
http://www.leif.org/research/The-Waldmeier-Effect.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/Waldmeier-Effect-Curves.png

Reply to  lsvalgaard
December 2, 2016 10:12 am

@leif
In 1908 G. E. Hale established that spectrum lines of sunspots exhibited the Zeeman effect and thereby proved the existence of a strong magnetic effect. In 1925 Hale and Seth Nicholson reported the laws of sunspot polarities that the magnetic polarity in Southern solar hemisphere spot groups is the opposite of that in the North. In addition, in 1937,
Nicholson pointed out that at the end of each 11-year period of rising and falling numbers, the polarity of spot groups reverses. Thus, at the end of 22 years, sunspot polarities on both hemispheres of the sun had alternated through one
complete full wave of positive and negative polarity. He proved his point by equating sunspot group polarity with particular cycles of observation.
These are the facts from the history book. Looking at only Schwabe is wrong. In fact I could say that Schwabe does not exist. What you are saying is that all is fine as long as I put [every result I get in brackets, whether positive or negative]. In mathematics that works fine but in nature you might miss a few important details….
The average Hale cycle is about 22 years but individually they do vary a bit. Just stick to the solar polar magnetic field strengths as your guide and you will figure it out fine.
2 successive Schwabe is one Hale-Nicholson. Hale is a wave.

Reply to  Henry
December 2, 2016 10:20 am

The energy does not depend on the sign of the magnetic field hence there is no Hale cycle in the energy we get from the Sun. As simple as that.
Don’t pontificate on matters you know nothing about.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
December 2, 2016 10:47 am

Nicholson also pointed out that the length of the
22-year Hale-Nicholson sunspot cycle should be
measured minimum to minimum, in as much as
sunspots of both polarity overlap near and after
minimums.
this must have been a point of argument in history…….
so I carry on like the pope…
An a-c (alternating current) wave reverses its direction at fixed intervals, and during
each interval the current will rise from zero to its maximum value, then diminish to zero. An a-c wave completes one cycle after it has made two alternations, one in the positive direction and one in the negative direction. The fixed interval required for each alternation is 180 degrees, and for one cycle or two alternations it would be 360 degrees. I max is the maximum amount of current flow;
this would occur at every 90- and 270-degree instant of an a-c wave
I found the GB cycle like an a-c wave and every Hale cycle is exactly one quadrant;
looking at the position of a few planets in our SS I can even predict the beginning and end of each Hale cycle.
I must be a genius if I can do that and you cannot….

Reply to  Henry
December 2, 2016 10:59 am

Let the genius then try to explain that the power in alternating A/C cycles are different [hint: they are not].
Again: the energy in a magnetic field does not depend on the sign of the field:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/engfie.html
as it is given by the square of the field.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
December 2, 2016 11:57 am

leif says Again: the energy in a magnetic field does not depend on the sign of the field:
henry says: it is about the strength of the fields which differs in each Hale cycle.
that difference in field strengths determines the amount of the most energetic particles being able to escape
and that determines how much ozone and peroxides and N-oxides are formed TOA
and that determines how much UV or EUV is going into the oceans.
and that determines how much clouds and rain you get.
etc

Reply to  Henry
December 2, 2016 12:36 pm

They differ between the 11-yr cycles. There are no Hale cycles in the energy.

Javier
Reply to  Pat McAdoo
December 2, 2016 5:17 pm

We have been down the road before, but I’ll give it one more try:

Yes we have been down that road. Those two articles that you cite as your main evidence to discard long solar cycles are from 2010 so it is now 6 years that they have not been published. I am not going to enter in what is their problem as that is beyond me, but you defend that it is general knowledge in the field that the cosmogenic record is heavily contaminated by climate to the point of being unfit to determine long solar cycles with sufficient confidence. Yet you cannot present evidence for 14C and the evidence that you present for 10Be is unpublished.
So the question is if it is such general knowledge how come it goes unpublished for years?
And then another problem. The authors, Webber and Higbie, also have an article on production of cosmogenic isotopes with McCracken.
Webber W. R., Higbie P. R. and McCracken K. G. (2007) Production of the cosmogenic isotopes 3H, 7Be, 10Be, 36Cl in the Earth’s atmosphere by solar and galactic cosmic rays. J. Geophys. Res. 112, A10106. doi:10.1029/2007JA012499.
And as you very well know, McCracken is one of the foremost researchers on long solar cycles.
It is clear that McCracken is well aware of any climatic contamination issue that you might know. In fact in his 2013 article “A Phenomenological Study of the Cosmic Ray Variations over the Past 9400 Years, and Their Implications Regarding Solar Activity and the Solar Dynamo.” where he does an outstanding job of analyzing and defending the long solar cycles that you deny, he cites the unpublished work of Webber and Higbie:
“The statistical accuracy of the cosmogenic data is greatly inferior to that of modern neutron-monitor or satellite data (Webber and Higbie, 2010; Webber, Higbie, and Webber, 2010).”
So he has read those unpublished articles and he sees no problem with them to reconstruct long solar variability cycles.
Frankly as I have said all along, your evidence is shaky or inexistent. Yet you display an absolute confidence that appears to be based mainly on your beliefs. No doubt a lot of people here will believe you, but science has nothing to do with believing and everything to do with proving, and you have proved nothing.
Our own eyes show us that the 10Be production rate during the past 400 years matches the sunspot record extremely well. Climatologists would give an arm to have such a good fit between CO2 and temperatures. Periods of intense climatic deviation due to volcanic forcing, like 1800-1840 do not show any deviation from solar activity, indicating that the climatic contamination is either small, or averaged over long periods, or easily corrected by researchers.
http://i.imgur.com/BthKSo6.png
Your concerns appear therefore unfounded. You complain that I don’t let myself to be convinced, but frankly I would be really a gullible scientist if I would allow myself to be convinced by the little evidence that you produce versus the piles of evidence that support the solar cycles.

Reply to  Javier
December 2, 2016 5:42 pm

As McCracken points out:
“The measured 10Be and 14C data contain significant contributions of climatic, atmospheric, and (in the case of 14C) oceanic origin” McCracken and Beer (2015).
McCracken is one of the foremost researchers on long solar cycles.
Too strong, should be ‘long-term solar variations’.
Well, I am also one of those foremost researcher. I have carefully examined the Webber et al. papers and their analysis looks very good to me. I invite you to look at them too and show where we went wrong.
Webber also a well-known and expert cosmic ray researcher. His assessment counts.

Javier
Reply to  Pat McAdoo
December 3, 2016 5:24 am

“The measured 10Be and 14C data contain significant contributions of climatic, atmospheric, and (in the case of 14C) oceanic origin” McCracken and Beer (2015).

But significant doesn’t mean that it invalidates the periodicity analysis that they engage in their other articles. Specially if it is taken into account.
And you know as well as I do that significant is the opposite of insignificant, and in most disciplines the limit for something to be considered significant is a low 2%. You cannot make an argument from that phrase that invalidates McCracken work.
In his 2013 work (The Heliosphere in Time) McCracken, Beer, Steinhilber, and Abreu say:
“Throughout the 9300 yr interval, “Grand Minima” usually occurred in groups of 2 to 4, similar to the group of four that occurred in the interval 1000–1800 AD. The groups are separated by ∼1000 yr intervals without Grand Minima. Frequency spectra of the full 9300 yr record show that the heliospheric and solar phenomena exhibit >10 well-defined and persistent periodicities. We speculate that the solar dynamo exhibits a 2300 yr periodicity, wherein it alternates between two different states of activity. In the first (∼800 yr duration) solar activity weakens greatly every 100–200 yr resulting in a sequence of Grand Minima, while in the other, the solar dynamo suffers smaller changes”
There they have defined the Eddy and Hallstatt cycles based both on Grand Minima distribution and frequency analysis.
So some of the experts of your appeal to authority agree in writing with my interpretation of the cosmogenic data, not with yours.

Well, I am also one of those foremost researcher.

But a heavily biased one. In the end this all boils down to an appeal to your own authority. “Don’t mind the evidence. Trust me, I am the expert.” You know as well as I do that science doesn’t work that way.

I have carefully examined the Webber et al. papers and their analysis looks very good to me. I invite you to look at them too and show where we went wrong. Webber also a well-known and expert cosmic ray researcher. His assessment counts.

I don’t have the capacity to critically examine their unpublished work as it is not my field of expertise. It is the work of the referees. That’s what they are for. And after 6 years several of them must have considered that either they went wrong, or concluded what cannot be concluded from their data, or ignored things that invalidate their conclusions, or it is not relevant enough to merit publication. I haven’t seen the referees’ reports but I am sure they would be very illuminating for this discussion.

Reply to  Javier
December 3, 2016 7:23 am

We speculate that the solar dynamo exhibits a 2300 yr periodicity, wherein it alternates between two different states of activity.
As they say, this is speculation. They also speculate that all variations of solar activity on a timescale longer than the 11-yr dynamo are caused by planetary influence. The authors are not solar physicists and display some ignorance about how the solar dynamo works.
But a heavily biased one
Biased in what way? Because I am more skeptical than you? having seen speculations come and go. Not having an agenda pushing wilder speculations? Not being in the grip of cyclomania?
I don’t have the capacity to critically examine their unpublished work
But I have. As for referees, perhaps they had a recalcitrant one. Their field has gatekeepers too, and sometimes it is just not worth fighting them. My [expert] assessment of their work is that it is solid and compelling. Correct interpretation of the cosmic ray modulation depends on knowledge of what the ‘local interstellar spectrum’ looks like, and that is currently being refined from measurements made by the Voyager spacecrafts. When the dust settles and the LIS becomes better known, it may be the time to revisit the Webber et al. outstanding work.

Reply to  Javier
December 3, 2016 8:11 am

As an example of things coming and going I may mention:
Solar Phys (2016) 291:3807–3815, DOI 10.1007/s11207-016-0996-9
Salient Features of the New Sunspot Number Time Series
H.S. Ahluwalia · R.C. Ygbuhay
“Fourier spectrum of the time domain of SSNs shows no evidence of the 208 year/cycle (ypc) (DeVries/Suess cycle) seen in the cosmogenic radionuclide (10Be) concentration in the polar ice cores and 14C record in trees indicating that 208 ypc peak may be of non-solar origin. It may arise from the climate process(es) that change(s) the way radionuclides are deposited on polar ice. It should be noted that we only have ∼400 years of SSN data, so it is possible that DeVries/Suess cycle is really driven by the Sun but for now we do not have any evidence of that; there is no known physical process linking 208 ypc to solar dynamo operation”
Ahluwalia is one of those foremost researchers of cosmic ray variations.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
December 3, 2016 8:30 am

leif says
It should be noted that we only have ∼400 years of SSN data, so it is possible that DeVries/Suess cycle is really driven by the Sun but for now we do not have any evidence of that; there is no known physical process linking 208 ypc to solar dynamo operation
henry
you really want to hear again from me why we cannot possibly rely on SSN before 1900?
to begin with: how big is a spot?
[I never got an answer to that question]

Reply to  Henry
December 3, 2016 8:45 am

how big is a spot
You can learn a lot by just watching. Here is a spot:
http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2016/loc-d20160521.JPG
Counting spots is easy. People have been doing that successfully for centuries.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
December 3, 2016 8:57 am

Henry says
And this was general knowledge from when?
you guys are unbelievable
\
you want us to believe the impossible from incomprehensible data, about the climate thousands of years ago, yet you refuse to believe the current data that is right in front of you
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/28/record-heat-despite-a-cold-sun/#comment-2358799

Reply to  Henry
December 3, 2016 9:05 am

And this was general knowledge from when?
At least from Schwabe’s discovery of the sunspot cycle 1848, or even from Galileo’s observations AD 1612.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
December 3, 2016 10:26 am

ja
if you believe that I must say that your belief is great
perhaps your belief [in your god] is even bigger than that of my belief in God…

Reply to  Henry
December 3, 2016 10:34 am

As Javier says: “observation is important” [with the proper analysis and interpretation, of course]. We have no reason to believe that observations made centuries ago were not ‘real’ or correct. In fact, we have telescopes that are centuries old, so can check up on the old observers. Here are two:
http://www.leif.org/research/Wolfs-Telescopes.png

Reply to  lsvalgaard
December 3, 2016 10:42 am

Did you know Wolf admitted that there was a Gleissberg cycle?
Wolf also claimed that there is a 83-year sunspot cycle. This longer term variation becomes evident simply by smoothing the data. Wolf’s original discovery of an 83-year cycle was forgotten, but the long cycle was rediscovered by H.H. Tuner , W.Schmidt, H.H. Clayton and probably others. After W. Gleissberg also discovered this 80 to 90 year cycle around 1938, he published so much material on the subject that ever since ,it was called Gleissberg cycle(Hoyt and Schatten 1997).
http://virtualacademia.com/pdf/cli267_293.pdf
perhaps it would be worth your while reading this paper and the tables II and III

Reply to  Henry
December 3, 2016 10:55 am

Did you know Wolf admitted that there was a Gleissberg cycle?
‘Admitted’ is the very wrong word here. Wolf discovered the 80-100 year variation.
The last 400 years this quasi-cycle has been more like a 108-yr cycle:
http://www.leif.org/research/Gleissberg-Cycle.png

Reply to  lsvalgaard
December 3, 2016 11:46 am

your 80-100 does not fit here, the range is too wide
[although I am glad you admit now that Gb exists and that it is real, and that it looks like an A-C curve]
probably because you are using SSN before 1900 to guide you.
Exact observations of the last 50 years taken by myself and others point to Gb as 86.5 years [currently] consisting of two Hale cycles of warming and two Hale cycles of cooling.
Essentially, the Schwabe cycle is only the half cycle of the Hale cycle.
There are indications [to me] that sometimes we could miss a [polarity] switch in the middle of a Gb cycle which would expand a minimum or maximum leading to a different ‘cycle’ viewed at it over a longer term….
I am thinking that such an anomaly might depend on the balance of gravity in the SS as I can prove that a number of the planets’ positions does seem to correlate with solar activity.
the Uranus wiggle has been mentioned in at least one paper that I know of cited as a reason for the ‘normal’ switch. If the wiggle does not happen, you have problem….if it gets stuck in a ‘grand’ minimum…..a grand maximum is not really disastrous, is it?

Reply to  Henry
December 3, 2016 11:59 am

your 80-100 does not fit here, the range is too wide
That is what the observations show. your 84-year ‘cycle’ is what doesn’t fit.
Your use of ‘admit’ is totally inappropriate. What exists is a 100+ year variation, in sunspot, in cosmic rays, in geomagnetic variations, etc.
The rest of your comment is unadulterated nonsense.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
December 3, 2016 12:03 pm

84? I never said that.
I said 86.5
All the best#
H

Reply to  Henry
December 3, 2016 12:16 pm

what’s the difference? They are equally wrong.

henryp
Reply to  lsvalgaard
December 3, 2016 12:26 pm

You i.e.climate science, have two more years to get ur act together
Or you will disappear in history / eternity as having been completely irrelevant.
I honestly dont know how anyone can hope to build an atmosphere on another planet like Mars with the knowledge that we have on display here…
Which is apparently the top of climate science of what we have…

Reply to  henryp
December 3, 2016 12:40 pm

‘Climate science’?
Those are solar observations. Have nothing to do with climate science.
Henry, you really have to calm down a bit, you seem to off your meds…

Javier
Reply to  Pat McAdoo
December 3, 2016 11:25 am

Biased in what way?

Biased in the way that you deny the existence of long solar cycles when you don’t have evidence for such position. The correct skeptic position when there is no evidence that they don’t exist but only circumstantial evidence that they do exist would be to say that they have not been conclusively demonstrated, not to say that they are the product of cyclomania and people that fool themselves or have an agenda. After all, those periodicities do show in the record. They are not being imagined. You might be wrong, don’t you know? Darwin was right and evolution does take place by natural selection even though he only had circumstantial evidence, and could not conclusively demonstrate it. That you reject your bias when it is so obvious to everybody else means you have a serious problem of introspection. Knowing own biases is important to control them. You attack people that believe in long solar cycles, and that you think that you are not biased is hilarious. Do you normally attack everybody that has a different opinion? Your social life must suffer from that. If you don’t then it is the product of your bias.

Reply to  Javier
December 3, 2016 4:13 pm

Darwin was right
A bit presumptuous to compare yourself to Darwin, don’t you think?

Reply to  Pat McAdoo
December 3, 2016 12:57 pm

Javier:
I point out that there is good evidence [that you won’t accept that is your problem] that the cosmogenic record has both a climate and a volcanic overprint. One must therefore have a healthy dose of skepticism when drawing wide-ranging conclusions from the record. Especially when the conclusion seems to require properties of the Sun that it does not have [e.g. the memory required for long cycles]. What you call ‘attacks’ are just statements of caution. Sometimes people get so caught up in an idea that caution goes out the window. You seem to be suffering from that affliction. It seems to me that you are unable to accept that other view points than the one you currently subscribe to are possible, and that other people may have scientifically legitimate reasons for doubting your cyclomania.

Javier
Reply to  Pat McAdoo
December 3, 2016 6:08 pm

A bit presumptuous to compare yourself to Darwin, don’t you think?

I am not comparing myself to Darwin, as I have not researched solar cycles. I am comparing you to John Herschel who termed Darwin’s natural selection as “the law of higgledy-piggledy.”

I point out that there is good evidence [that you won’t accept that is your problem] that the cosmogenic record has both a climate and a volcanic overprint.

Nobody denies that the cosmogenic record has both a climate and a volcanic overprint. You have failed to produce evidence that the overprint falsifies the long solar cycles found and studied for decades by scores of researchers or that your opinion that it does so is significantly shared within the expert community, as all you can show are two unpublished works and some citations that are subject to interpretation.

the conclusion seems to require properties of the Sun that it does not have.

As we do not know the cause nor the mechanism for the observed phenomena, it is completely speculative what solar properties known or unknown it will require.

It seems to me that you are unable to accept that other view points than the one you currently subscribe to are possible, and that other people may have scientifically legitimate reasons for doubting your cyclomania.

That is your wrong perception and for a scientist you should base your opinions as much as possible on facts. I completely accept other possible view points and even the possibility that I am wrong, but as a scientist I guide myself by available evidence, and in this case available evidence supports the opposite view to yours. It would be silly for me to change my position to yours against the evidence. Your personal judgement on the evidence is not convincing. If I knew more of the intricacies of the issue perhaps you could convince me on technical grounds, but if that is the case you will have no problem convincing the experts on which I base my opinion, namely McCracken, Abreu, Steinhilber, Usoskin… If you convince them, you convince me.
And I am not affected of cyclomania. Astronomical, biological, and climate cycles are a fact of this Universe. Observing and studying them is part of science. Cyclomania is seeing cycles not supported by evidence, but some of the cosmogenic cycles, whatever their nature, are well grounded in the evidence. The de Vries, Eddy, and Bray are such cycles, and those are the ones that interest me.

“Fourier spectrum of the time domain of SSNs shows no evidence of the 208 year/cycle (ypc) (DeVries/Suess cycle) seen in the cosmogenic radionuclide (10Be) concentration in the polar ice cores and 14C record in trees indicating that 208 ypc peak may be of non-solar origin.”

The SSN record contains only one instance of the de Vries cycle, with lows at 1665 and 1880. And there won’t be any more for a very long time as this cycle is modulated by the Bray cycle and inconspicuous unless ± 500 years from a Bray low. This is insufficient to come up in a Fourier analysis, so that it is not found is the correct result and doesn’t say anything about its existence or solar origin.

Reply to  Javier
December 3, 2016 7:34 pm

but as a scientist I guide myself by available evidence
I don’t think you qualify as a ‘scientist’ in this field. Do you have a deep understanding of how the dynamo works, how the cosmic ray modulation works, how geomagnetic activity is generated, etc? Have yo done original work in these field?
I am not trying to convince you of anything [impossible to convince hard-core believers]. I’m simply telling why I think your so-called evidence does not convince me.
As to convincing your selected experts of the badness of their ways, I have, in fact, done precisely that on several occasions. They have come around to accept my point of view in the end. A good example is my good friend Ken McCracken: http://www.leif.org/research/Comment%20on%20McCracken.pdf or
Mike Lockwood: http://www.leif.org/research/Reply%20to%20Lockwood%20IDV%20Comment.pdf
or the authors of http://www.leif.org/EOS/Owens_et_al-2016-JGR1-HMF-B.pdf [includes Usoskin] and
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Owens_et_al-2016-JGR2-HMF-B.pdf or Ken Schatten:
http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-of-Group-Number-1610-2015.pdf or Lockwood [again] http://www.leif.org/research/Error-Scale-Values-HLS.pdf or
http://www.leif.org/research/Semiannual-Comment.pdf and more…
There is even some doubt that the 200-yr ‘cycle’ is solar. It doesn’t show up in the auroral record back to ~450 AD [Feynman & Fougere]. Your excuses for why we don’t see it are just that: ‘excuses’.
The bottom line: several myths about long-term solar behavior have a shaky foundation.

Reply to  Pat McAdoo
December 3, 2016 9:21 pm

Javier:
What instantly stamps your ideas as cyclomania is a comment like
“The hundred year unit that you have observed is composed of two parts, 1 and 2, with a small decrease in activity in the middle (SC 20 in the 1970s)”
That is not how the sun works. Rather, the polar fields at minimum determine the magnitude of the next cycle via a well-understood, deterministic process [the solar dynamo]. The polar fields themselves are produced by a random walk of the debris of decaying sunspots, but only a tiny fraction [perhaps 1 in 1000] of the active region flux makes it to the poles. We can directly observe that process, e.g. here
http://www.leif.org/research/HMI-Polar-Fields-Migration.png
How much flux ends up in the polar caps is a ‘small number’ game, 99.9% of the flux dissipates, and only a random, tiny portion makes it. With such a random, local process we can easily end up with less flux than expected [like getting only 1 head in 5 flips of a coin]. This happened in cycle 20: the polar fields were so weak that they could not be measured [i.e. below the noise-level of the magnetographs] and therefore was SC 20 so weak. No mysterious interplay between global cycles. SC 24 had a similar fate, and we can predict SC 25 based on flux we see marching towards the poles. All this is perfectly understandable and observable, and no mysterious cycles or internal memory is required.

Javier
Reply to  Pat McAdoo
December 4, 2016 5:03 am

I don’t think you qualify as a ‘scientist’ in this field.

One doesn’t stop being a scientist in a different discipline. It stops being an expert.

I’m simply telling why I think your so-called evidence does not convince me.

Er, no. You are doing a lot more. You are trying to discredit me as a cyclomaniac, self-deceived, stubborn for holding the opposite view. This is no different to calling someone denier for holding the opinion that global warming cause is unclear and probably not dangerous. It is called squashing the opposite view by personal attacks when scientific arguments won’t suffice.

As to convincing your selected experts of the badness of their ways, I have, in fact, done precisely that on several occasions.

I’ve never doubted your scientific capacity, and I value highly your opinion. But that you have been right other times on other issues does not mean that you are right this time on this issue. The evidence for long solar cycles goes back to 1968 and has never been refuted in the literature. A score of articles have been published in 2015 and 2016 supporting this interpretation of the cosmogenic record. You are not doing a good job of convincing your peers of the rightness of your position.

There is even some doubt that the 200-yr ‘cycle’ is solar… Your excuses for why we don’t see it are just that: ‘excuses’.

No. They are not excuses. It is what the evidence says. The 208-yr variability in the 10Be record comes and goes following a ~ 2400 yr periodicity that coincides with the Bray cycle. Look at panel D:
http://i.imgur.com/niNSwIr.png
This is actually a good argument in favor of solar cycles, as we have absolutely no evidence that the climate does something like that. But as we are now in a period without 208-yr variability the cycle will not show up for a long time. As it is the expected behavior according to the evidence, this cannot be used as an argument that the 208-yr cycle does not exist or is not solar.

Reply to  Javier
December 4, 2016 9:04 am

You are trying to discredit me as a cyclomaniac, self-deceived, stubborn for holding the opposite view.
Well, you know yourself best. Now, there are lots of people in your category, so you are in good company.
Whether that discredits you is up to the readers. A fact is that you will not accept that other people [e.g. me] have a different opinion, calling them ‘biased’ and worse. But such is this field. Science is a blood sport, so get used to it.
Some of my best friends are in your category: McCracken, Beer, Feynman, Kosovichev, just to name a few.
As I said: I am telling you why your arguments [?] are not compelling to me, as the fundamental data are in flux and many of the supporting views have been recently revised. If you stubbornly [as you termed it] cling to your own view, it is your loss.

Javier
Reply to  Pat McAdoo
December 4, 2016 7:30 am

That is not how the sun works.

Do you know the cause of the 100+ year periodicity in sunspots that you yourself have observed?

lsvalgaard November 25, 2016 at 6:22 am
There is an approximate 100-year variation where generally low cycles and high cycles are found in groups of about five cycles duration. We are just now entering such a low group.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/24/the-bray-hallstatt-cycle/#comment-2351721

If you don’t all your arguments about how the solar dynamo doesn’t do that amount to nothing.
If you do you’ll have to explain why there is a centennial memory, and why the Sun does centennial periodicities, but millennial periodicities are out of the question.
It seems contradictory to me that you will accept centennial cycles but not millennial ones. Why the cutoff?

Reply to  Javier
December 4, 2016 7:55 am

Do you know the cause of the 100+ year periodicity in sunspots that you yourself have observed?
First of all, that may only be an intermittent variation and not an enduring and fundamental, real ‘cycle’. One real possibility is that it is just a stochastic variation. Even random data shows intervals of apparent cycles. The probability of a such cycles decreases exponentially with time, making longer and longer cycles less and less probable. Long-term variations of the magnetic cycle in a dynamo may come about in different ways: nonlinear deterministic chaos and random fluctuations of the turbulent parameters involved in the dynamo process. This is discussed in many dynamo papers, e.g.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/1112-6218v1Solar-Cycle-Variations-Dynamo.pdf

Reply to  Javier
December 4, 2016 7:59 am

Do you know the cause of the 100+ year periodicity in sunspots that you yourself have observed?
Words are important. Note that you call it a ‘periodicity’ already presuming a cycle, while I refer to it as ‘variation’ which does not imply a cycle. So, don’t put wrong words in my mouth.
Also: I’m not arguing with you about all of this. Rather view it as an [perhaps in vain] attempt of education.

Javier
Reply to  Pat McAdoo
December 4, 2016 10:35 am

One real possibility is that it is just a stochastic variation.

I’ll take that as a “We don’t know.”

Even random data shows intervals of apparent cycles. The probability of a such cycles decreases exponentially with time, making longer and longer cycles less and less probable.

Sure, but apparent cycles don’t show a linkage to climate cycles. The cause of this periodicities is not stochastic.

Note that you call it a ‘periodicity’ already presuming a cycle, while I refer to it as ‘variation’ which does not imply a cycle. So, don’t put wrong words in my mouth.

What you call a rose is of no consequence. Your good friend Ken McCracken is calling it a ‘periodicity.’
http://i.imgur.com/lncmTLo.png
It is just possible that what you call a variation is in reality a lower harmonic of the de Vries cycle, as it shows in the 9000 year cosmogenic record at half its period. In any case it is clear that you expect it to repeat its periodicity over the next decades.

A fact is that you will not accept that other people [e.g. me] have a different opinion, calling them ‘biased’ and worse.

Don’t get me wrong. I do respect you and your opinion, and thank you for this exchange. If I think that you are biased, as I have explained, is because you deny the existence of long solar cycles when you don’t present evidence for such position, and you conduct yourself in a very aggressive manner against those that hold the opposite view, supported by better evidence and far more numerous literature, calling them non scientific, cyclomaniac, faith-based, cherry-pickers, low-standard, and so on. Do you accept that other people [e.g. me] have a different opinion, and that you could be wrong?

Also: I’m not arguing with you about all of this. Rather view it as an [perhaps in vain] attempt of education.

That is certainly progress over the attacks. I don’t know what you get from these long exchanges. I learn, and I sharpen my arguments. A couple of years ago you convinced me that solar variability was too small to significantly affect climate change, so I have been in your position. How could I not accept that you hold that view? But studying the evidence available in the literature I became unconvinced and changed my position. As Keynes is attributed saying, “When my information changes, I change my mind.” If you presented convincing evidence that it is all due to contamination I would change my mind again. No problem with that. And my position cannot be irrational as you try to present it, because it is shared by most scientists publishing on this issue.

Reply to  Javier
December 4, 2016 10:53 am

McCracken believes [or believed] that the planets are causing solar activity, so he is an extreme cycle-guy and therefore uses ‘periodicity’.
I am a loss where you get the idea of ‘bias’.
The dictionary definition of the verb is
bias: cause to feel or show inclination or prejudice for or against someone or something
Doubting flimsy data is skepticism not bias.
That many scientists take the data at sight [most without detailed knowledge of the pitfalls] is like the 97% who believe in CAWG.
The proper way of dealing with that is to accept that other views are possible [especially when presented by someone, me, who actually know what he is talking about].
Now, why do I respond to you? because you refuse to accept proper skepticism, so I present the reasons for my doubt [for the benefit of other people – not you, as you are seemingly beyond help]. Those reasons, I believe are solidly grounded in experience and knowledge. Of course, there comes a point where you become emotional and the discussion weirs off to a pissing-contest.
You ask if I could be wrong? That is asking if I should not doubt speculation. I believe that it is NEVER wrong to doubt.

Reply to  Javier
December 4, 2016 11:41 am

In any case it is clear that you expect it to repeat its periodicity over the next decades.
First of all, there is no a priori ‘periodicity’. I have said that statistically [which here means that we assume the extrapolation will work] the next few cycles may be smallish. But I have also, strongly, said that such extrapolation does not have true predictive power. Only direct observation of the polar fields does. Cycle 20 is good example of the futility of extrapolation.
A good discussion of intermittentcy and stochastic variations can be found in Section 5 of Charbonneau’s authoritative review: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Dynamo-Models-Solar-Cycle.pdf
No cycles needed.
An argument against the longer climate cycles [if real] being solar driven is the lack of a strong solar component in climate variation the last 300 years.

Chimp
Reply to  Pat McAdoo
December 4, 2016 11:01 am

Bearing in mind of course that that 97% refers to 77 of 79 cherry-picked “actively publishing climate scientists”m whose careers depend upon AGW, out of more than 10,000 scientists sent a survey with two questions. And only 75 answered both questions yes. The queries were so broad that even many skeptics might have responded affirmatively to one of both of them.
For other kinds of scientists among the more than 3000 who replied to the survey, the rate of support for AGW declined markedly from that of those 79.
That’s a far cry from the way the results were reported and repeated in the media. I always hear lay people say that 97% of all scientists agree that most climate change is caused by humans and will be catastrophic.

Javier
Reply to  Pat McAdoo
December 4, 2016 11:35 am

Doubting flimsy data is skepticism not bias.

Yes, but you don’t doubt the existence of long solar cycles, you reject it.

That many scientists take the data at sight [most without detailed knowledge of the pitfalls] is like the 97% who believe in CAWG.

I am aware of that. That’s why I trust the evidence they present, not the conclusions they reach. I just happen to reach the same conclusions from my examination of the evidence. Of course I can be wrong the same as they, but you haven’t proven that I am wrong.

The proper way of dealing with that is to accept that other views are possible [especially when presented by someone, me, who actually know what he is talking about].

I do accept that other interpretations of the same evidence are possible. That is always the case. Whether those other interpretations are reasonable contains a judgemental element. You clearly belief that other interpretations but yours are unreasonable. I just think you are mistaken, not unreasonable.

Now, why do I respond to you? because you refuse to accept proper skepticism, so I present the reasons for my doubt [for the benefit of other people – not you, as you are seemingly beyond help].

No. I do accept your skepticism. I just don’t share it. But I am quite skeptic myself on most things, so your skepticism doesn’t bother me the least. Unlike McCracken, I do not subscribe to any planetary theory for the simple reason that there is zero evidence that the planets are causing the cycles, and with so many solar bodies, you can find a cycle near enough to any period. I don’t believe on things not supported by evidence. So my skepticism is doing fine, thank you for asking.

You ask if I could be wrong? That is asking if I should not doubt speculation. I believe that it is NEVER wrong to doubt.

I didn’t get if you answered yes, no, or did not answer. Must be a language issue. Perhaps you are afraid of being quoted that you acknowledge that you could be wrong on this issue. Then it is time to repeat what you said:

A man who believes so strongly as you do, cannot be convinced that he is wrong.

You do have a tendency to “call the kettle black.”

Reply to  Javier
December 4, 2016 11:55 am

Unlike McCracken, I do not subscribe to any planetary theory for the simple reason that there is zero evidence that the planets are causing the cycles
McCracken and Co. find strong ‘evidence’ in the cosmogenic record. You see, what counts as evidence is very much determined by someone’s pet theory.
but you haven’t proven that I am wrong.
I don’t need to [as you have not proven you are right – just postulated that in your opinion you are].
I simply point out that what you call ‘evidence’ does not convince me.
Can I be wrong? Yes, I remember once back in the 1970s when I thought the solar magnetic field had doubled the last 100 years. This turned out not to be the case, so, yes I can be wrong.
http://www.leif.org/research/Using%20Dynamo%20Theory%20to%20Predict%20Solar%20Cycle%2021.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/I-Was-Wrong.png
What I’m not wrong about is to be skeptical of flimsy ‘evidence’.

Javier
Reply to  Pat McAdoo
December 5, 2016 4:59 am

Javier: “Do you know the cause of the 100+ year periodicity in sunspots that you yourself have observed?”

Leif: “Words are important. Note that you call it a ‘periodicity’ already presuming a cycle, while I refer to it as ‘variation’ which does not imply a cycle. So, don’t put wrong words in my mouth.”

I wouldn’t be putting the wrong words in your mouth, since you yourself call it a cycle:

Svalgaard & Cliver, 2007 “A Floor in the Solar Wind Magnetic Field.”
“The solar minimum years with inferred B-values closest to the R p 0 value of 4.6 nT in equation (1) were 1901 and 1902 (B ∼ 4.7 nT) at the depth of the most recent minimum of the ∼100 yr Gleissberg cycle (Svalgaard & Cliver 2005). If we are currently approaching another Gleissberg minimum (Svalgaard et al. 2005; Svalgaard & Cliver 2005, 2006), then we may have an opportunity to directly observe such conditions in the coming years.”

I have already observed that in your scientific documents you sometimes refer to secular cycles, while here you deny them vigorously. Perhaps you have also changed your mind with regard to these cycles lately.
However we do know that secular variability is common in cold stars like ours, so we should not be surprised that secular variability takes place also in the Sun despite your arguments about lack of memory and the solar dynamo.
Alekseev, 2005. “Spots, Activity Cycles, and Differential Rotation on Cool Stars.”
“In V833 Tau, BY Dra, EK Dra, and VY Ari short Schwabe cycles coexist with long cycles that are analogous to the Gleissberg solar cycle, in which the spotted area can approach half the entire area of the star.”

Reply to  Javier
December 5, 2016 5:10 am

Sometimes it is necessary to refer loosely to things by the commonly used designation. In the context of our exchange I have chosen to be more precise in order not to presume something that is not established by observation. All we see is a variation, that very well could just be intermittent.

Javier
Reply to  Pat McAdoo
December 5, 2016 9:11 am

All we see is a variation, that very well could just be intermittent.

But we do know, because the ~ 100 yr Centennial/Gleissberg cycle/periodicity/variation is seen not only in solar activity, but also in the cosmogenic record. So despite your climate contamination concerns, we do know that the centennial is real and it can be tracked back at least 2000 years in the cosmogenic record. And we know that the previous three instances of this Centennial/Gleissberg cycle/periodicity/variation have coincided with the last three cold periods, the Gleissberg low of 1900, the Dalton low of 1800 and the Maunder low of 1700. The Eddy centennial minimum has barely started and it is already coinciding with the Pause. So make that four out of four certified decreases in solar activity that coincide with climate change.
It doesn’t really matter if these quasy-periodical solar variations are true cycles or not. We can see them taking place for millennia in the cosmogenic record, and we can see them coinciding with climate change whenever we have good climate records.
We have to find out what causes them, and how they affect climate, and when we do we will have made real progress towards predicting future climate changes. Your scientific attitude is not helping.

Reply to  Javier
December 5, 2016 9:45 am

make that four out of four certified decreases in solar activity that coincide with climate change.
At least the last one coincides with the highest temperatures ‘ever’, so it’s a fail. The others are contaminated by volcanism, e.g. 1816. Solar activity the last 300 years has had no secular trend, but temperatures have, so the Sun is but a minor player in climate.
We can see them taking place for millennia in the cosmogenic record, and we can see them coinciding with climate change whenever we have good climate records.
The cosmogenic record in contaminated by climate, so there is a circular argument there.
We have to find out what causes them, and how they affect climate,
Indeed we do, and we need to find out how climate and volcanism affect the record.
Your scientific attitude is not helping.
Skepticism is always a help against speculation.
Mechanisms are the important ingredient that is missing. Curve-fitting and extrapolations of ‘cycles’ are not helpful [and hardly qualify as science]. Occam’s razor is a good guide: look for the smallest number of miracles. Your view requires two miracles: (1) strong solar control of climate [even if you don’t know how and the evidence is contradictory] and (2) long-term solar variations [even if we don’t know how and our current knowledge of the Sun makes them implausible]. The skeptical view only requires one miracle: contamination of the records [as there is evidence for].
Postulating three or four cycles is not science anymore that the ancients’ use of epicycles to explain planetary motions. I agree that all this deserve serious study and attention, but freed from your belief-centered, uncritical approach. As I said in earlier comment, your ‘explanation’ for cycle 20 is ludicrous. Simple random variation of the [observed] amount of magnetic flux reaching the polar caps is the natural explanation, not requiring any ‘sub-cycles’ in your panoply of epicycles. Similarly, the last 5+ sunspot cycles have been successfully explained by the migration [which is a random, surface phenomenon] of the magnetic flux. No cycles needed.

Reply to  Javier
December 5, 2016 10:03 am

Your scientific attitude is not helping
My ‘scientific attitude’ has helped in may ways:
1) detection and correction of flaws in the sunspot record
2) detection and correction of flaws in the geomagnetic activity record
3) detection and correction of the effect of scatted light on the solar rotation rate
4) detection [and hopeful future correction] of flaws in the Climate Data Record [TSI]
5) detection and correction of flaws in reconstructing the Open Solar Flux
6) detection and correction of flaws in model-based solar cycle prediction
etc.
All of those stemming form my critical approach to ‘consensus science’ [what you refer to as ‘believed by most researchers’].
My track record is good.

Javier
Reply to  Pat McAdoo
December 5, 2016 1:15 pm

At least the last one coincides with the highest temperatures ‘ever’, so it’s a fail. The others are contaminated by volcanism, e.g. 1816. Solar activity the last 300 years has had no secular trend, but temperatures have, so the Sun is but a minor player in climate.

This is a fallacious dichotomy, and I am surprised that you propose it. The Sun can be a major player even if solar activity doesn’t follow temperatures secular trend.
Long-term reductions in solar activity are logical candidates for explaining observed climate fluctuations, provided that the decrease in amplitude and the time scale are large enough. We do observe that long term decreases in solar activity like those produced in the Maunder, Dalton, Gleissberg (1900), and Eddy (present) minima coincide with a negative change in climate conditions that is roughly proportional to the missing activity: larger for Maunder, bigger for Dalton than Gleissberg, and smallest for Eddy.

The cosmogenic record in contaminated by climate, so there is a circular argument there.

No. We do know (because we have measured it) that the centennial cycle (variation) is a cycle of solar activity, and not the product of climate contamination. And the centennial cycle is one of the least noticeable cycles in the cosmogenic record. It follows that climate contamination cannot explain cycles that are a lot more apparent in the cosmogenic cycle. Your contamination argument, that has little reflection in the scientific literature is thus falsified. There is climatic contamination in the cosmogenic record, but not enough to explain the cycles found. These cycles reflect long term variations in solar activity.

Mechanisms are the important ingredient that is missing.

We didn’t have the mechanisms for continental drift or variability generation within evolution when those theories were proposed. It is clearly not required to have mechanisms for the cyclical solar variability effect on climate to be true.

My track record is good.

I am in no way questioning your scientific value. You are just plain wrong on this one. And the problem is that instead of keeping yourself aside with your skepticism, you are using your considerable influence to squash and pooh-pooh the research on this important issue. I suppose a significant number of solar cycle research articles might end under your review, and that is really bad luck for the researchers involved.

Reply to  Javier
December 5, 2016 3:24 pm

The Sun can be a major player even if solar activity doesn’t follow temperatures secular trend.
This seems to be a contradiction. And there is no doubt that solar activity induces climate variations on the order of 0.1 degrees, but I would not call that “major”.
And the recent evolution of temperatures and solar activity is strong evidence against your proposition.
Your contamination argument, that has little reflection in the scientific literature is thus falsified
Not so. Muscheler et al. (2016) Solar Phys. 291, 3025-3043:
“We presented an update of 10Be and 14C-based solar modulation reconstructions for the past 2000 years and a comparison to the revised sunspot records. We note that the difference in Greenland and Antarctic 10Be data can lead to disagreeing conclusions about past solar-activity levels. This difference is most likely due to weather and climate influences on the records” and
“variations in ice-core 10Be concentrations do not only reflect fluctuations in the 10Be production rates, but may also be influenced by changes in atmospheric circulation, aerosol transport, and deposition (Adolphi and Muscheler, 2016; Field et al., 2006; Heikkilä et al., 2011;Pedro et al., 2011, 2012, 2006). For example, it has been suggested that volcanic aerosols influence the scavenging of 10Be, i.e. leading to enhanced 10Be deposition following such events (Baroni et al., 2011).”
It is clearly not required to have mechanisms for the cyclical solar variability effect on climate to be true.
On the other hand we do have evidence and mechanisms for the opposite effect of climate on cosmic ray proxies. And there are mechanisms for a solar influence at the level of 0.1 degrees.
you are using your considerable influence to squash and pooh-pooh the research on this important issue.
On the contrary, my criticism has led to important corrections and revisions of current research. My research also serves as a shield against speculations gone off the rails. The recent decade has brought significant progress in the field of solar-terrestrial relations largely due to my involvement. We have now confident knowledge about the long-term evolution [on annual as well as centennial scale, even covering the Dalton Minimum] of the solar wind and the solar magnetic field with good reasons to conclude that solar activity [e.g. TSI] during the Maunder Minimum was similar to the recent solar minimum in 2008-2009 [e.g. Schrijver et al. 2011].
Criticism is good. Real scientists will take notice and review their ‘findings’ often leading to real progress.

Reply to  Javier
December 5, 2016 3:54 pm

We do observe that long term decreases in solar activity like those produced in the Maunder…
Schrijver et al. 2011:
“Therefore, the best estimate of magnetic activity, and presumably TSI, for the least‐active Maunder Minimum phases appears to be provided by direct measurement in 2008–2009. The implied marginally significant decrease in TSI during the least active phases of the Maunder Minimum by 140 to 360 ppm relative to 1996 suggests that drivers other than TSI dominate Earth’s long‐term climate change“.
TSI is where the energy is and is the [as you say] “logical” driver.

Javier
Reply to  Pat McAdoo
December 6, 2016 9:34 am

the recent evolution of temperatures and solar activity is strong evidence against your proposition.

No because I have not proposed that temperatures should follow solar activity. That is your strawman argument. What the evidence shows is that when solar activity is below average for a long period of time, temperatures and precipitation patterns are affected. At those times solar activity appears to be the major player. I have no problem with recent warming being affected by the increase in CO2 and a natural rebound after volcanic cooling from Pinatubo and El Chichón. Temperatures are integrative. they do not depend on a single factor.

This difference is most likely due to weather and climate influences on the records

Everybody accepts that the cosmogenic record is affected by climate. Every proxy record is affected by different things, like precipitation rates (ice cores, or speleothems), or sedimentation rates (sediment cores). Proxy analysis requires that those factors are taken into account. Your proposition that because of such factors we can’t rely on proxies is not widely shared and people continue publishing lots articles based on paleoclimatic proxies, including cosmogenic proxies.
As I have shown here the centennial cycle is considered both a real periodicity in solar activity and in cosmogenic records. It is one of the less noticeable periodicities in cosmogenic records, yet it is not the product of climate contamination. Your contamination argument is thus falsified by evidence. The periodicities found in the cosmogenic record represent real solar variability.

Schrijver et al. 2011:
“Therefore, the best estimate of magnetic activity, and presumably TSI, for the least‐active Maunder Minimum phases appears to be provided by direct measurement in 2008–2009. The implied marginally significant decrease in TSI during the least active phases of the Maunder Minimum by 140 to 360 ppm relative to 1996 suggests that drivers other than TSI dominate Earth’s long‐term climate change“.
TSI is where the energy is and is the [as you say] “logical” driver.

2009 solar minimum was a couple of years long, while a grand solar minimum is 50-100 years long. So the effect of the missing activity can be up to 50x for what we know.
Whether TSI is responsible for the effects of reduced solar activity or not is not for me to say. Right now the most interesting hypothesis is the stratospheric effect of the missing activity which could be several times higher than the surface effect of the missing TSI. UV effect on ozone and oceans is a good candidate.

Reply to  Javier
December 6, 2016 10:10 am

The point is that the ‘centennial variation’ is not a strict cycle [varies between 50 and 140 years when present which is not always] and that the variation is a lot smaller than often assumed [making the solar influence even more difficult to explain]. See e.g. the comparison between McCracken and Usoskin’s reconstruction of the solar magnetic field:
http://www.leif.org/research/McCracken-HMF-B-GCR.png
The black curve is Usoskin’s showing a much larger variation [factor of 5] from the Dalton Minimum to recent times, while McCracken’s [IMO correct] version [red,blue, and yellow curves] has a much smaller variation [factor less than 2].
I addition, the actual temperatures have not varied just with dips as centennial variations, but have a variation on much longer time scale:
http://www.leif.org/research/Moberg-Loehle-Temp-Reconstruction.png
It may be possible to see the expected 0.1 degree solar influence [in the black curve average], but that is minor compared to the ponderous long-term variation. A variation not found in the cosmic ray record:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-and-Temps-NOT.png
which could be several times higher than the surface effect of the missing TSI.
Except that such variation is not observed [c.f. above graph]. And UV varies just in step with TSI, and neither has varied much:
http://www.leif.org/research/Failure-CDR.png
from http://www.leif.org/research/EUV-Magnetic-Field.pdf
It is time you begin to accept realities. Hard as it may be.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
December 6, 2016 11:38 am

leif
your graph on TSI is rubbish
before the satellite time, the first ever attempt to calculate TSI comes from a P.Moon in 1940 and he put the solar constant at 132.2 mW/cm2
You make it look like we have ages of measurements….

Reply to  Henry
December 6, 2016 11:48 am

solar constant at 132.2 mW/cm2
Which is 10,000 times too small…

Reply to  Henry
December 6, 2016 11:55 am

Sorry, I was fooled by your use of cm2 instead of the usual m2.
The first good measurements were by Abbot at the beginning of the 20th century: 1.93 cal/cm2/minute. The very first attempt was by Pouillet in 1838: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant , actually rather close to the modern value.
Again: do not pontificate on matters you don’t know anything about.

Reply to  Javier
December 6, 2016 11:01 am

Actually:
The black curve is Usoskin’s showing a much larger variation [factor of 10]

Javier
Reply to  Pat McAdoo
December 6, 2016 3:51 pm

The point is that the ‘centennial variation’ is not a strict cycle [varies between 50 and 140 years when present which is not always] and that the variation is a lot smaller than often assumed [making the solar influence even more difficult to explain]

The problem is that you actually don’t know the evidence about what you are talking about. The centennial cycle is 104 ± 10 years at most. And it has been present for over 4500 years according to the cosmogenic record. Prior to that is hard to say as it is one of the least apparent cycles.
http://i.imgur.com/aLFzlNr.png

and that the variation is a lot smaller than often assumed [making the solar influence even more difficult to explain]

What the small variation makes very difficult to explain is the climate contamination that you argue.

In addition, the actual temperatures have not varied just with dips as centennial variations, but have a variation on much longer time scale

Well you are very contradictory. If it has a variation a lot smaller than often assumed, why would you expect temperatures to take significant dips at centennial intervals?
We are talking about the tiniest of the cycles, just above the Schwabe cycle. A cycle so unremarkable that it has no name and some people mistake it for the Gleissberg cycle. But we know it is real because solar activity has decreased in its last four instances. We know it is not due to climate contamination of the record despite being so insignificant. And we know that for the last four lows there has been a climate change. The last one the current Pause.

It is time you begin to accept realities. Hard as it may be.

It is time you begin to accept the evidence that solar variability presents secular variations that affect climate more than it is currently accepted.

Reply to  Javier
December 6, 2016 5:44 pm

The problem is that you actually don’t know the evidence about what you are talking about. The centennial cycle is 104 ± 10 years at most.
Feynman & Fougere [1984] has it at 88.4± 0.7 years. You have it at 104± 10 years. Obviously not everyone is correct. I’ll go with the range 50-140 years (Ma 2008; Usoskin & Mursula 2003) that is actually observed.
We are talking about the tiniest of the cycles, just above the Schwabe cycle. A cycle so unremarkable that it has no name and some people mistake it for the Gleissberg cycle. But we know it is real because solar activity has decreased in its last four instances
Circular argument. And not supported by the data, especially not its purported climate signal:
http://www.leif.org/research/Greenland-Snow-Temp-4000-yrs.png
http://www.leif.org/research/Greenland-Temperatures-Last-10000-Years.png
nor any evidence for the Suess-cycle or the Hallstatt-cycle.
Also here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/ACS_2015_Ogurtsov_et_al.pdf
“We analyzed a number of Antarctic climatic proxies including: 1) an annual proxy covering the
time interval 1800-2003, 2) four low-resolution (tens to hundreds of years) ice core records covering the last 242,000 years. The main goal of the work was to search for traces of solar influence on Antarctic climate. Both Fourier and wavelet approaches were used in the statistical analyses. We found no evident fingerprints of solar cycles of Schwabe (ca 11 years), Hale (ca 22 years), Gleissberg (century-scale) or Hallstatt (ca 2000 years).”

Javier
Reply to  Pat McAdoo
December 7, 2016 3:40 am

Leif,
One of the problems in this discussion is that you don’t really know what you are refuting.

Feynman & Fougere [1984] has it at 88.4± 0.7 years. You have it at 104± 10 years. Obviously not everyone is correct. I’ll go with the range 50-140 years (Ma 2008; Usoskin & Mursula 2003) that is actually observed.

I suppose you refer to Ma 2009, as I am unaware of any Ma 2008.
Ma, L. H. “Gleissberg cycle of solar activity over the last 7000years.” New Astronomy 14.1 (2009): 1-3.
Well actually Ma is not observing that periodicity in the data. Ma is defining it:
“In order to obtain a quantitatively estimate of the Gleissberg cycle signals, the scale-averaged wavelet power for 60–150 years is given for each time epoch.
We obtain fluctuations of about 60–150 years in the solar activity; the Gleissberg cycle is the mean effect of the time-average of these fluctuations during 5000 BC–1995 AD.

Such a poor definition means Ma is not working with a single cycle but with an assorted range. As you say this field (as any other) has a lot of bad science and articles.
And Usoskin & Mursula 2003 also don’t actually observe anything, since it is a review where they don’t present any data on any cycle. You probably picked this reference from Ma thinking that it provided support to what you believe has “actually been observed.”
McCracken analysis on 10Be presented in the figure just above shows independent peaks at 87 (Gleissberg), 104 (Centennial), 130, and 150 years, and they have filtered variability below 60. You will understand that in periodicity analysis, bundling of peaks is a no-no.
There is a problem with the terminology as the term Gleissberg is used loosely, for any periodicity in the range that you give. That should not confuse you if you are rigorous with the data. The centennial cycle is analyzed between others by:
Feynman, J., and A. Ruzmaikin (2014), The Centennial Gleissberg Cycle and its association with extended minima, J. Geophys. Res. Space
Physics, 119, 6027–6041, doi:10.1002/2013JA019478.

Circular argument. And not supported by the data, especially not its purported climate signal:

We already went over this in detail. Again you cite Kobashi without understanding Kobashi.
“Greenland undergoes cooling when northern Europe experiences warming (positive NAO), and vice versa (Hurrell, 1995)… Therefore, it can be expected that stronger (weaker) solar activity induces warming (cooling) in NH temperature, and relative cooling (warming) in Greenland through positive (negative) NAO.”
Kobashi, T., et al. “Causes of Greenland temperature variability over the past 4000 yr: implications for northern hemispheric temperature changes.” Climate of the Past 9.5 (2013): 2299-2317.
You cannot use Greenland climate to disprove solar variability induced climate change. It actually supports it.
Given the poor knowledge that you display of secular solar cycles, and on the inverse relationship of Greenland paleoclimatology with both Northern Europe paleoclimatology and solar variability, it is clear to me that your rejection of solar cycles arises more from personal bias and poor knowledge than from a solid scientific position. Your beliefs cannot be supported on published scientific literature, or evidence, only on your authority, and that is a damning situation.

Reply to  Javier
December 7, 2016 5:24 am

What it shows is that your so-called ‘evidence’ is all over the map.

henryp
Reply to  Javier
December 7, 2016 7:13 am

Good comment , Javier. It has good and sound foundation and is supported by my measurements. What is your opinion of the Hale Nicholson cycle?

Reply to  henryp
December 8, 2016 8:02 am

just had a look at the Honolulu data for 2016
obviously November and December is not yet reported
but if I fill in 2015 data for N & D I end up with an average of 29.5 C for 2016
which is still in line with the expected Hale and GB cooling trend….