In a talk featured in our Monday Weekly Climate and News Roundup at the 14th International Conference on Climate Change Willie Soon [at time 26:49] took me, (Svalgaard) to task for arguing that there has not been any trend in solar activity the past 300+ years.
He showed their new reconstruction of solar activity as support for his criticism:
Here is the video cued up.
I also show the reconstruction by me and Ken Schatten [2016, https://svalgaard.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-of-Group-Number-1610-2015.pdf ]. To my eye there is no difference between our reconstruction and theirs [based on Machine Learning], except that we have error bars and they don’t. It is amazing how people’s bias can cause them to draw contrary conclusions from [almost] identical data.
Sorry, off topic, but this is sweet:
(Do NOT do this again! you have started the thread by pulling away people from the topic angering the person who made the blog post) SUNMOD
Of course Russians knew about it, but Putin likes to keep his icebreakers busy and earning dosh.
Mother nature will have its revenge on disrespectful.
Well, they are there because for years it hasn’t iced up this much, this early…
so this is a freak weather event, right? Not a change in the climate/decline of sea ice…
But Griff, your thermageddonist crowd said the northern polar ice should have all disappeared by now. They were hopelessly wrong, so why do you still believe such charlatans?
What is freakish is that the Bozos said that the opposite would happen and this would never happen again because of atmospheric CO2 levels. And you and so many others still believe them even though we are 20 years or more past the time when they said it would be ice free!
Because Griff’s head is so far up his ass he can see sunshine emanating from his mouth.
The griffter thinks he’s getting free, regular proctological exams! I imagine his silly grin is a match for the one Chairman Zhao wore after his colonoscopy!
What do you mean; he’s one of them.
A freak weather event? Funny how freak flooding, freak droughts, freak heat waves, etc, etc are always either caused by global warming or made worse as a result of global warming.
Actually, there always seem to be a number of ships that get stuck in the ice about this time. They’re typically looking for that mythical NW passage and the open waterway to Russia or some such thing. I’m remembering that they usually get stuck in some out of the way channel and have to be rescued by helicopter. Wasn’t there some fool a few years ago that tried kayaking his way to the North pole and had to quit because of ice (and he was freezing his butt off)?
Ice levels have been increasing for 12 years, this a freak one time event?
So each point on the downslope of a long term ocean cycle is considered a random event. I think not.
No, it is NOT a freak weather event. Just because something you haven’t seen before happens doesn’t make it a “freak” event. That is, again, argument from incredulity.
” … so this is a freak weather event, right? ”
Frick weather event my a….!
griff, have you ever heard the names of Hugh Willoughby, Barentsz, Bering, Adolf Nordenskiöld, Amundsen? Do any of these names ring a bell? Why? Because the ice up there only happen in “freak years”?
A universal nuclear powered icebreaker to the rescue!
Someone in Moscow is not listening to MSM , imagine that !
I really hate it when someone immediately hijacks one of my posts with some off-topic comment.
In this case, Hatter Eggburn (anonymous coward?) seems unaware of https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/11/16/early-arctic-freeze-threatens-to-strand-ships/
Please don’t be a twit – for anyone’s post!
I agree. It is very discourteous. It take a lot of time to write a post and it is annoying when it is hijacked then many others follow it down the rabbit hole.
Don’t just sit there pissin’ & moanin’ about it — do something(!). Like maybe deleting the the comment when it comes out? (mods?) Honestly, Watts’ comment page is about as painful to read as the NFL is to watch…
ah diddums to you
Sorry – my bad 😞
Willie Soon, et al, appear to correlate low sun-spot events with earth global cooling, like the Maunder and Dalton Minimums, with the Maunder closely correlated with the “Little Ice Age”. Leif Svalgaard, et al, appear to argue the counting of sun-spots is complicated and without established protocol and therefore somewhat compromised as regards cause-and-effect issues. However, the Little Ice Age has been documented, at least to my satisfaction, to be a world-wide event and was clearly associated with solar sun-spot minimums. Since association is not causation, we are left to argue other potential “control-knobs”, like the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere. Show me where carbon dioxide atmospheric content does not trail temperature. Exxon Research, in the 1970’s, discovered world-wide seismic profiles that matched, clearly indicating some world-wide control of ocean water depth, ie, there is a cyclic control on net earth temperature. If not the sun, what?
so we have low solar activity and have had for 38 years, which according to you and many scientists would normally produce cooling -and yet temps continue to rise.
Because of the additional climate driver which is human CO2.
There is no (reputable) evidence CO2 trails temp rises
Do you do stand up Griff?
No. Only sit up and beg for approval from its handlers.
More like lay down and play with it
Between Super Los Niños of 1997-98 and 2015-16, Earth’s temperature trend was flat. Since February 2016 the planet has cooled. Where is this warming of which you speak?
Griff is still living in 2016.
Most people focus on the rising edges of glacial-to-interglacial transitions in the ice-core data.
After careful examination of the graph below, which starts at the Eemian interglacial 140 millennia ago, please answer the following question instead.
Roughly how much had temperature anomalies fallen from the interglacial “plateau” (of +0.5 to +1°C) before CO2 levels fell below 260 ppm roughly 113 kya ?
– – – – –
The Antarctic ice-cores provide solid scientific evidence that “CO2 changes trail temperature changes” on millennial timescales (at least).
If you wish to make a different claim (/ bald assertion) please :
1) Specify the timescale you are discussing (the OP talked about the LIA and you suddenly referenced “the last 38 years”, which barely qualifies as “climate change” …)
2) Provide a reference (or, even better, a reference and a plot / graph) showing the “actual” temporal relationship between (global mean surface) temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels
It is warming from the top:
There is no (reputable) evidence CO2 trails temp rises
That’s a flat out risk statement
Comparison with methane makes it crystal clear. Methane tracks temperature in close to real time. CO2 lags behind relative to both temperature and methane (an additional proxy of temperature). CO2 is simply a lagging proxy of temperature. Hard to hear, but best just face it like a real scientist.
giffie stuffs size 13 feet into mouth!
Imagine that, giffie falsifies late 20th century solar activity peak as “low solar activity”.
giffie’s version of science, claim the opposite of reality and lie lie lie.
Hmm, I seem to recall that Cycles 21, 22, and 23 were pretty energetic, though nowhere near Cycle 19. (I am basing my opinion on HF radio propagation. They were great for the amateur radio operations.)
The peaks of Cycles 21, 22, and 23 have a downward slope, and then a big decline for Cycle 24. (HF propagation wasn’t very good during the peak.) It looks like Cycle 25 will be similar to 24. Will this continue over the next two, three, or four solar cycles? I don’t know. There are some out there who think so, and if so, this would be another Grand Minimum. Will it affect climate?
Again, I don’t know. This is something that seems to have those in the know split down the middle.
Only time will tell.
That could not be more wrong because all empirical evidence indicates atmospheric CO2 concentration trails temperature rises at all time scales.
Shorter timescales are most pertinent to recent changes so I cite the seminal work of Kuo et al. which has had no refutation but has been confirmed by several similar studies.
The reference is
Kuo C, Lindberg C & Thomson DJ, ‘Coherence established between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature’ Nature 343, pp 709–714, (1990)It can be obtained from https://www.nature.com/articles/343709a0/
Its Abstract says
Subsequent studies have confirmed the work of Kuo et al. which is derived from Mauna Loa CO2 data. And the subsequent studies have revealed the “Changes in carbon dioxide content lag those in temperature” with lags that are are in the range of 5 to 8 months depending on latitude.
Please desist from wasting space on this blog with alarmist disinformation. Those who know the truth are given the imposition of a duty to correct your falsehoods which could mislead others.
“Please desist from wasting space on this blog with [alarmist] disinformation. “
Can we not apply that principle to UK politics, Richard? One should be accurate whenever possible; whatever the topic of discussion.
I cannot answer for “we” but I ALWAYS apply that principle.
You only have to answer for the howling errors you made the other day.
If truth really matters you’ll hold your hand up to it.
If by “howling errors” you mean refuting the fallacious political propaganda of you and other trolls posting falsehoods from behind the cowards screen of anonymity, then I pleas GUILTY.
Whomever gave my post to Griff a negative vote,
(a) refuted disinformation from Griff by providing factual information substantiated by reference, link and quotation
(b) a request that Griff desist from posting disinformation because it provides a nuisance to those who know the disinformation requires correction.
It would be helpful if I were told why somebody thinks that merits a negative vote.
You get that here. Personally, I don’t do the downvote – I will vote positive for a post that merits it – I prefer to state why I disagree or dislike what someone has posted.
I gave you an upvote, so now you’re back on zero.
Er, other people have downvoted you! You must be popular.
popularity is of no consequence.
You hiding your identity demonstrates you know popularity ids of no consequence.
Remember, Griff and his like minded buddies also have the ability to click on the + – buttons. Sometimes they’re gonna get to vote first, that’s just the nature of the beast. Complaining about your like/dislike score approx. 20 minutes after you posted earns you a dislike from me.
Claiming a request for explanation is a “complaint” is risible,
There was a time when rational debate occurred on this blog.
I remember those days. It was before the commenting section change.
What change would that be?
Btw, Richard Courtney, as of now, your top post has 29 up votes. Don’t take a couple of down votes to heart. Consider the source.
“There was a time when rational debate occurred on this blog.”
Yes, that was before people complained anytime someone downvoted their post within 20 minutes of them making said post.
Perhaps it was Griff who gave you the downvote?
griff, or one of the other tag team trolls.
Brent C and Mark W,
Thanks. I suspect you are right. But if it is Griff and/or his associates who dislike a post that disproves Griff’s comment then it would indeed be useful – because informative – if he/they were to explain why they vote down a post which he/they have not replied.
Indeed it would – but their purpose is not to engage in intelligent discussion, but to pimp the propaganda.
It’s my understanding that some website comment software allows one to hover the mouse pointer over the up or down portion and shows the names of the people who voted one way or another.
I don’t know if that would be a good thing or not. Probably not.
“ if he/they were to explain why they vote down a post “
Nobody owes you an explanation for why they vote a particular way on any particular post. The simple fact is no matter what you post, there will be some people who choose to hit the + button and some who choose to hit the – button (and many more who choose to not hit any of the buttons). Don’t like that someone hit the – button on you? too bad, so sad. get over it.
Unfortunately, many here seem to downvote just because they disagree with what was said, not because it was wrong.
I think that it would be more meaningful if upvotes AND downvotes were shown instead of just the algebraic sum.
We’re currently living in a world where any departure from a global narrative on Covid (for instance) is regarded by the main stream media as alarmist misinformation. Now it seems you’d like to apply the same shoddy indefensible treatment to the comments expressed on this site. You don’t think much of the intellectual capacity of the average WUWT reader do you? For you, they’re too dim or uninformed to assess the discussion. Given the massive readership of WUWT that amounts to immense arrogance on your part. Let the discussion and the arguments go where they will with polite responses. That is a civilized approach. How about we assess the merits of an argument ourselves without your protection, thank you very much.
I object to you – or any other anonymous troll – blatantly claiming I said the opposite of what I did as an excuse to throw personal abuse from behind the coward’s screen of anonymity.
Griff – not me – posted the “mainstream media” narrative when he asserted,
I refuted his assertion with undeniable scientific evidence which I cited, linked, and quoted. That is NOT “shoddy indefensible treatment”: it is a proper response to a scientific error.
And it in no way justifies your claims that
I “don’t think much of the intellectual capacity of the average WUWT reader”,
I think “WUWT readers are too dim”
and that I did not provide “polite responses” but was uncivilised and “arrogant”.
You conclude with this nonsensical question to me,
I answer your question with a rebuttal and a question to you.
I will share my knowledge whenever and wherever I observe a discussion being misled by falsehood.
How about you and the other anonymous trolls – instead of trying to mislead WUWT readers – thanking me for providing factual information which you cannot refute.
“How about you and the other anonymous trolls – instead of trying to mislead WUWT readers – thanking me for providing factual information which you cannot refute.”
I certainly thank you, Richard. Your posts are always informative. Keep up the good work.
A recent paper (I don’t keep the stuff, I have a life) indicated that, because both instrumental temperature and CO2 series are independently autocorrelated (temperature about 76 and CO2 90), one cannot draw inferences from their recent rises.
I recently saw a paper (I don’t keep the stuff, I have a life) indicated that Santa climbs down chimneys with a sack of toys.
I am sure more people are more interested in the unverifiable paper I read than they are in the one you read.
Richard, the problem with such analysis is that you will always find a good correlation between the short time temperature rate of change variation and the CO2 rate of change variability as indeed the latter is caused by the fast effect (1-3) years of temperature (Pinatubo, El Niño) on (tropical) vegetation.
But that says nothing about the cause of the trends. Over the past 60+ years CO2 increased with about 100 ppmv and the rate of increase did quadruple, while the rate of change of temperature was completely flat, thus not the cause of the CO2 increase.
At the same time human emissions also quadrupled in rate of change, at twice the net increase in the atmosphere.
In my opinion, there is little doubt that the trend in CO2 by far precedes the “normal” effect of temperature on CO2 levels (~16 ppmv/K for its solubility in seawater), which is about 13 ppmv for the 0.8 K temperature increase since the LIA, not 100 ppmv…
I used a factor 3.5 for the temperature derivative variability to show about the same amplitudes as for the CO2 derivative, which implies a short time effect of about 3.5 ppmv/K/year on CO2 variability in the derivatives.
The sink rate is simply the increase in the atmosphere minus human emissions. As the carbon mass balance must be closed, nature in near every year of the past 60+ years was a net sink for CO2…
800,000 years of ice-core data doesn’t exist in Griffworld. Only 200 years since the Little Ice Age.
Even 200 years is longer than griff usually deals with.
As far as griff and most of the alarmists are concerned history started in 1979.
We had a period of high solar activity which ended about 20 years ago which correlates exactly with the period of more rapid warming. Since then we have had relatively normal solar activity which correlates to the mild warming since the turn of the century. This is in distinct contrast to CO2 levels, which have been rising faster since the turn of the century while the rate of warming has decreased.
Maybe that is because of the overwhelming evidence that CO2 has trailed temperature on dozens of occasions.
Let’s not forget that one of the time scales where CO2 follows temperature (from the ice core records) is about 800 years. Subtract 800 years from 2021 puts you in 1221. AKA the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum.
So some of the CO2 increase being witnessed today is little more than an echo of the last climate optimum.
Except that the ratio between CO2 and temperature changes over thousands of years is not more than 8 ppmv/K. As that is for Antarctic temperatures, that is about 16 ppmv/K for global temperatures or about what Henry’s law says for the solubility of CO2 in seawater with temperature changes…
In the past 60+ years that increased to 125 ppmv/K, which is certainly not caused by temperature… And ice cores over the Holocene show where it started:
Well let’s not be too harsh on the griffendope. He’s probably saying that he saw the oversized chart where algore went up on the bucket lift. His own chart showed temperature rising and then CO2. So I’m sure griffo means that algore is not a reputable source. Let’s look for common ground with the griffter, we can all agree that algore is not reputable.
“There is no (reputable) evidence CO2 trails temp rises”
There is no evidence at all any where, that temp trails or follows CO2 concentration rises.
Even in the case of CC AGW, where the assumption is that temps will rise due to CO2 and therefor trailing and following it, still the evidence refuses to support such as.
Are you claiming now that atmospheric CO2 concentration correlation with temps variations is just a freakish coincidental one, with no relation whatsoever?
Griff: “we have low solar activity and have had for 38 years”
No, we have not.
Yes solar activity has been declining, but it’s still more active than during periods of cooling. To my eye, somewhere around 6 on the left scale is a threshold. Solar activity below 6 = net cooling. Above 6 = net warming, and the more above 6 the more warming. In the last 100 years, we have not broken below 6.
When you turn your stove burner from high to med, it’s still adding heat, and whether the temp drops or not depends on whether the pot was previously at equilibrium or not. If heat in = heat out, temps stay flat (which may be why there has been no warming for the last decade of “the pause”). Only when you turn the burner down to a point where heat out > heat in will the temp drop. This is basic stuff.
As usual, griff has to re-write history in order to defend his nonsense.
Solar activity has been dropping for 38 years, that’s not the same thing as being low for 38 years.
Are you claiming that the Greenland data is not reputable evidence?
Actually there is no evidence, reputable or not, that CO2 drives temperatures.
NASA CERES data tells us what caused the warming for the past 20 years. It was a reduction in clouds allowing more solar energy to reach the surface. Since there is no evidence of any CO2 based warming over this entire period, I would say your assertion has been falsified.
Ron Long said: “Show me where carbon dioxide atmospheric content does not trail temperature.”
The PETM and other ETM events would be examples. The contemporary warming era is another since CO2 concentrations are artificially increasing they cannot possibly be lagging the temperature. It’s also not clear whether CO2 even lagged the global temperature during the glacial cycles since at least for the last glacial maximum there is evidence that while it did lag in the SH (at Vostok and EPICA) it actually lead globally (see Shakun et al. 2012). The fact is that CO2 both leads and lags depending on the circumstances of the era since it both responds to temperature and forces the temperature.
The contemporary warming era is another since CO2 concentrations are artificially increasing they cannot possibly be lagging the temperature.
Except, of course CO2 concentrations ARE lagging the temperature (and what you and Griff choose to believe does not alter that reality).
Please see my response to Griff which is above.
Show me the error bars on the timing of temperature and CO2 in the PETM, and for Shakun’s proxies. You’ll find the only time CO2 leads temperature is when you truly believe, and squint really hard at “evidence” that has inadequate resolution.
Fair enough but it is an assumption to use the verb “forces”. It sometimes leads the temperature as in the contemporary case, which does not prove causality.
You beg the question when you assume that it “forces” the temperature. It may be independently rising and falling (for example by variation in volcanic outgassing) without having any significant effect on temperature. Although it must be obvious from Henry’s Law that there is causality when temperature forces a lower solubility of CO2 in ocean water.
How do you reconcile a 10x CO2 concentration during the Ordovician ice age relative to today. If ECS is a valid concept, that is?
DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!
But you’ll find the “climate” deluded to be impervious to logic and reason.
Yep, to think that ECS is a valid concept, you have to be a rotation-of-the-earth denier, amongst many other strange theories.
Could you elaborate on that rotation-of-earth denial, philincalifornia?
I don’t know what is right about the previous lead-lags of temperature and CO2 levels, but in the past 800,000 years in general CO2 lags with 800 +/- 600 years during a glacial-interglacial transition and with several thousands of years in the opposite direction…
That doesn’t prove that increased CO2 levels have no effect on temperature, but only that the effect is small, as it is undetectable in the ice core measurements.
But the CO2 increase in the past 170 years is NOT caused by temperature: Henry’s law only shifts the solubility of CO2 in seawater with about 16 ppmv/K at equilibrium with the atmosphere, about 13 ppmv since the LIA, while the increase over the past 60+ years of accurate measurements is over 100 ppmv.
Meanwhile humans have emitted over 200 ppmv CO2…
Thus the current CO2 increase in the atmosphere does lead temperature. If will have much effect, remains to be seen…
Here the graph of the CO2 levels in the high resolution Law Dome DSS core, which shows the small drop in CO2 level due to the LIA. As the Medieval times were at least as warm as the current period, CO2 levels should be at maximum the same as in the MWP…
Preposterous drivel and the magical thinking typical of an AGW true believer. You have no empirical evidence supporting such nonsense.
There is little trend across 300 years but there is a cyclic trend within that same 300 years.
If one goes back 400 years then the trend would be upwards.
It’s a fraction of a watt/sq.M…..I really like Willy’s ongoing lampooning of CC nonsense….but I think he’s getting down to analyzing dog dandruff DNA and correlating to worldwide rabid dog attacks…maybe a second cousin relation involved…..Svalgaard is out to a 3rd cousin relation with his solar particle/cloud stuff….
The trend is actually quite large. The 1844-1996 period has an average yearly sunspot number 24% higher than the 1700-1843 period.I would not call that little.
The sun’s effect on climate change is a long distance runner, .The effect of current reduction in solar activity may be more accurately appraised in 30 to 50 years time, but for moment it is anyone’s guess.
The pause is a consequence of the reduction in solar activity, so we are seeing the effect right now, since about 1997.
I like Svalgaards analysis and data series better. The silly coloured picture adds no benefit and is the pictorial equivalent of jargon. Any fule can see the 11 and 120 year cycles by eyeing up the graph, Fourier analysis can represent that.
I’m now a little wary of the buzzword “machine learning” which can be used to sprinkle fairy dust on what is reasonably simple and obvious, and makes it difficult to argue with or replicate.
I agree with your sentiments on machine learning. I’ve worked with Bayesian networks for a couple decades, and the last decade or so it seems you have to include “machine learning” or “AI” into your titles to get noticed and/or funded. Even the software providers have had to modify their jargon to remain competitive – if product X claims to use machine learning then product Y better too, even though neither one changed their processing or display. Certainly there have been some advancements in techniques, but I’m not sure machine learning is always the right label.
Amen, IMO it’s right up there with “Quantum” in the world of junk terminology. Pretty soon they’ll be selling AI-enhanced skin cream on QVC…
Interesting idea. Maybe Ron White is mistaken. Maybe you can fix stupid…
with the right face cream that imparts artificial intelligence?
Right up there with “Tipping Point.”
Climate change, climate crisis ….. Baby-talk for Beginners.
Machines “learn” exactly what the algorithms tell them to. Or as I generally like to sum it up – “Computers are very stupid machines – they do EXACTLY what you tell them to do.”
No more, no less.
Not to say they can’t be useful in identifying patterns and such (look at DNA research), but they get far too much deference for nonsense like “climate models.”
It’s too bad they don’t do exactly what you intended to tell them to do.
Don’t forget the quantum dots. They are fashionable too.
Yep. If it can’t be replicated, it isn’t science.
It appears to me that what we have here is an excellent example of how science is supposed to work. The question is well defined and each of you, and others, are seeking the answer(s). Sooner or later observational, or other data will determine what is correct and thus who’s interpretation has been correct.
What is this “other data” of which you speak?
Who knows? New technology, or yielding new information or data emerges all the time in many fields as has been the case throughout the history of science. Our very ability to test the viability of a hypothesis and elevate it to theory far more often than not has resulted from advances in technology which allows us to observe things that were unobservable before.
It is your “… observational, or other data …” to which I was responding. All data comes from observation, no matter the technology used.
My concern was with CliSciFi “data” derived from models. I should have been clearer, but sometimes trying to be cute (witty) gets the better of me. I meant no disrespect.
From the youtube transcript, auto generated :
¨because there is a movement now the reason why they want to change the
sunspot activity record is because they
do not like that the sun could possibly
explain so there’s a lot of politics
involved mainly the guy like liv
southgate and all that they are very
obsessed with this climate no global
warming by by the sun at all only only
the co2 can do it which is a very
strange proposition why don’t study it¨
I take ¨liv southgate¨ to mean the obvious…
So what is going on besides changing records – the Sun drives climate, or some rare gas?
“the Sun drives climate, or some rare gas?”
You either misunderstand the discussion or willfully ignore it.
It is the VARIANCES in TSI that are are claimed to be too small to drive climate change.
But that doesn’t default to CO2 as a climate driver either.
As Dr. Soon says it is politics.
The “new science” is come up with a theory and hammer and bang the data until it conforms to the theory, like you were working in an auto body shop.
It is so antithetical to the way I was taught science, but I can see the attraction, as one does not need to worry about ever being wrong (as the data always is) or being stymied for many years with nothing to show for your labors.
Science seems to be following the progressive cultural zeitgeist of the humanities, whose apogee (or nadir) was the 1619 project. (sigh)
Two scientists openly disagreeing.
A real blast from the past. It won’t make it into the msm, the narrative is settled.
There is a lot about the local star we don’t yet get
I have a great deal of regard for Leif Svalgaard and much for Willie Soon but I suspect that were bias left entirely out of the analyses it would be apparent that we don’t have enough knowledge at present to answer the question asked.
Aw this is indeed very lovely.
Everyone agrees with each other, the birds can fly, fish can swim and all is well with the Phlogiston
Much as anyone hates to be a party pooper but:
What is the mechanism by which Sunspots are turned into Centigrades?
Two words. Uv
Sunspots correlate with an increase in energy output. UV radiation dramatically increases during high sunspot activity. Sunspots also cause solar flares, which emit large amounts of energy in the form of heat energy, magnetic energy, x-rays, and gamma rays. Ozone in the atmosphere shields the planet from UV, x-rays and gamma rays. There are holes in the ozone layer over the poles, so in theory the poles would be subjected to this increased energy more than the rest of the planet.
Except that the sun never gets directly above the so-called holes. The sunlight is always coming in through a long slant-range of typical atmosphere.
Given the earth’s tilt of 23.5°, a diameter of 6378km, and the the height of the stratosphere at only 50km, the sun can hit the top and bottom of the planet through the ozone holes.
Creation of upper atmosphere ozone needs UV. Ozone is short lived and must be created continually. As long as there is UV there will be ozone. When there is no UV, ozone is not produced.
Well Svensmark has a theory backed up by some evidence:
I like that theory.
What we do know is that when solar activity is low Earth’s atmosphere compacts, it becomes less thermalized, molecules vibrate and collide with less energy. So the sun’s activity level definitely does have a major affect on the atmosphere, especially the top of it, only the extent and mechanism(s) by which it does so are in question, and if such mechanisms extend into the troposphere, and alters the balance of energy levels there.
“What is the mechanism by which Sunspots are turned into Centigrades?”
One of the theories is that when sunspot numbers are low, this allows more galactic cosmic rays to penetrate into Earth’s atmosphere, since the Sun’s magnetic field is weaker during these times, and these cosmic rays interact with the atmosphere and cause clouds to form, and the clouds reflect sunlight away from Earth and thus cool the Earth.
When the sunspot numbers are high, and the Sun’s magnetic field is stronger, fewer cosmic rays get through and fewer clouds are created, which means the sunshine can penetrate to the Earth’s surface, instead of being reflected away, and this warms the Earth.
To my eye those 2 graphs are not even close … The peaks and troughs are completely different … Talk about biases … To everyones eye the Al Gore graph showed CO2 leading temps … Until you paid attention … So don’t use your eye … Pay attention …
Rules of scientific engagement :
1- Extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence.
2- Coincidence does not establish causality
3- There is always unavoidable Type I and Type II errors.
4- Strength of a theory is in its prediction, not in its hindsight
I see none of these factors satisfied in Dr Soon’s or for that reason anthropogenic climate change arguments. Both use fancy graphics to convince us to their claims.
One can easily attribute both of these claims to the actions of angels on the head of a pin.
The 300y solar trend per se matters more to the sunspot history than to the climate debate, because the climate (30y HadSST3) lags the 109y sunspot average by 11 years, or 120 total years of solar activity, consistent with the 120y wavelet peak, rather than 300 year trend:
“It is amazing how people’s bias can cause them to draw contrary conclusions from [almost] identical data.” Possibly – just maybe, the data isn’t as dispositive as either side would like?
This is the real “butterfly effect.”
2m temperature derivative peaked about 20 years ago and has been trending downwards since then. The trend is roughly crossing into negative territory at this time.
Galactic radiation not only affects the circulation in the lower stratosphere and the opacity of the troposphere above the polar circle, but is the best and fastest indicator of the strength of the solar wind magnetic field reaching the Earth.
It appears there is a degree of inverse correlation of UAH to sunspot cycles, not way that might be expected
Could be anything to it, or it is a just coincidence of a wiggle matching?
“wavelet analysis graph may be confusing!”
It depends on wavelets used. There vare infinitely many wavelet bases. You may use wavelets to “prove” many different conclusions.
Willie Soon PhD Versus Milankovitch climate theory… with the hyped thesis of:
“The Sun is doing it (again)” ……! ooops
“we have error bars and they don’t“
This has been the bugbear of my son (an engineer) with the climate alarmists.
I could not help but notice how the graphs/charts in the 2014 IPCC report were not the most recent which were available before their publication of the full report.
In my book these kinds of actions are lying or deceiving by omission.
” It is amazing how people’s bias can cause them to draw contrary conclusions from [almost] identical data.” This is one of the characteristics of politics…..
I asked Leif in a prior thread what he thought caused the variation in the climate we observe in the geologic record. He replied orbital dynamics. Of course. I was sloppy as I meant to ask how he would explain the variation we have observed during the Holocene. In my view, there are only a few explanations. It’s either changes in solar, ocean currents, or just internal variability of a complex system. I find it just baffling that climate models aren’t able to provide an explanation to what we clearly observe in the record. In fact, they don’t even try. What is the reason for the neo glaciation that occurred 5k years ago? Why did the medieval warm period transform into the little ice age? These are basic questions that climate science doesn’t address.
Mainly because what passes for “climate science” today is not science, but cover for political agendas that have nothing to do with actual science.
There are other mechanisms that are at play, that have not been recognized.
I think the oceans are the answer for mid to short term variability. There are a lot of people married to the “It’s the sun” assertion and probably will never let it go.
My problem with just about all of climate science, no matter who’s doing it, is that we’re always presented with a single line representing “global temperature” or “global anomaly” or other such nonsense. Such things simply confuse the situation, giving the impression that something global is happening synchronously. That’s just plain false.
Stating “the Sun impacts climate” is kind of like stating that “the atmosphere impacts climate”. It’s obvious and not really helpful to my understanding.
We need to start pulling apart the Sun’s various methods of impacting the climate and studying each. Total solar Irradiance (TSI) needs to be divided up into various groupings of wavelengths based on HOW they impact temperature and climate – even if for now some of the groupsing are hypotheses. Seeing magnetic flux and solar particles mentioned separately is a start – at least are are strating to realize that the Sun isn’t just providing “sunshine”. I suspect that an increase in ultraviolet light for example has an outsized impact to our world, even though it’s a tiny part of TSI.
Sunspot activity is a proxy and one that we do not understand very well. Like tree rings, it might or might not tell a useful story but may have so many confounding variables as to be hard to use. Until we get a grip on the various components of the Sun’s Output and how each really affect our climate, I don’t know that sunspot activity is particularly helpful.
The production of ozone and its distribution in winter at high latitudes are of capital importance to the weather in the middle latitudes.
Mg II index data
Mg II data are from the GOME (1995-2011), SCIAMACHY (2002-2012), GOME-2A (2007-present), and GOME-2B (2012-present) measurements. All three data sets, as well as the Bremen Mg II composite data, are available (see links below). In recent years, the GOME solar irradiance has degraded to about 20% of the 1995 value near 280 nm, making the GOME data noisier. For the latest information on our Mg II data, see Snow et al. (2014).
You state “In recent years, the GOME solar irradiance has degraded to about 20% of the 1995 value near 280 nm, making the GOME data noisier.” I’m confused. How does a 20% degradation in a value ‘make’ it noisier?
Yes, this should give scientists food for thought.
Are you saying that as a value declines, it becomes noisier solely because of the decline itself? Or is it because both the decline and data noisiness are being caused by one or more external factors?
Are you suggesting that ozone is being produced when there is no sunlight?
“Brewer-Dobson circulation directly impacts the distribution and abundance of stratospheric ozone by moving it from the tropics towards the poles. This transport helps to explain why tropical air has less ozone than polar air, even though the tropical stratosphere is where most atmospheric ozone is produced.”
Your text seems to be coming from
which cites itself as a Reference #1. Impressive 🙂
How does that mechanism concentrate ozone?
When the magnetic field of the solar wind is weak, ozone is accumulated according to the geomagnetic field.
Too bad you don’t pay attention to the graphic that shows the current stratospheric ozone data.
It shows where ozone is, not how it got there. Your “accumulation according to the geomagnetic field” makes no sense. The field would have to be 100,000 times stronger to have an observable effect.
Whatever the cause, excess ozone is evident in the north of Pacific.
Moreover, galactic radiation is also focused in the north of Pacific by the geomagnetic field.
That’s interesting. Does this focus have anything to do with the split north magnetic poles?
The relationship between climatic parameters and the Earth’s magnetic field has been reported by many authors. However, the absence of a feasible mechanism accounting for this relationship has impeded progress in this research field. Based on the instrumental observations, we reveal the spatio-temporal relation ship between the key structures in the geomagnetic field, surface air temperature and pressure fields, ozone, and the specific humidity near the tropopause. As one of the probable explanations of these correlations, we suggest the following chain of the causal relations: (1) modulation of the intensity and penetration depth of energetic particles (galactic cosmic rays (GCRs)) in the Earth’s atmosphere by the geomagnetic field; (2) the distortion of the ozone density near the tropopause under the action of GCRs; (3) the change in temperature near the tropopause due to the high absorbing capacity of ozone; (4) the adjustment of the extra tropical upper tropospheric static stability and, consequently, specific humidity, to the modified tropopause temperature; and (5) the change in the surface air temperature due to the increase/decrease of the water vapor greenhouse effect.
The impact of the solar minimum is clear in this image, which shows the temperature difference between 1680, a year at the center of the Maunder Minimum, and 1780, a year of normal solar activity, as calculated by a general circulation model. Deep blue across eastern and central North America and northern Eurasia illustrates where the drop in temperature was the greatest. Nearly all other land areas were also cooler in 1680, as indicated by the varying shades of blue. The few regions that appear to have been warmer in 1680 are Alaska and the eastern Pacific Ocean (left), the North Atlantic Ocean south of Greenland (left of center), and north of Iceland (top center).
When the model started with the decreased solar energy and returned temperatures that matched the paleoclimate record, Shindell and his colleagues knew that the model was showing how the Maunder Minimum could have caused the extreme drop in temperatures. The model showed that the drop in temperature was related to ozone in the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere that is between 10 and 50 kilometers from the Earth’s surface. Ozone is created when high-energy ultraviolet light from the Sun interacts with oxygen. During the Maunder Minimum, the Sun emitted less strong ultraviolet light, and so less ozone formed. The decrease in ozone affected planetary waves, the giant wiggles in the jet stream that we are used to seeing on television weather reports.
A look at the current jet stream over North America (despite the fact that the average temperature in the stratosphere is dropping).
The jet stream pattern proves the impact of excess ozone in the north of Pacific.
This is correct, but we just don’t have the data right now. NASA’s SORCE mission, launched in 2003, was the first time we got long term data about the variations in solar output along different wavelengths. It showed that solar radiation did not vary as expected, with output at some wavelengths decreasing when TSI rose, and others increasing ten times as much as expected, and that the variations did not happen in lockstep with TSI. It was enough to dispel the notion that solar variation couldn’t be the cause of warming over the last 70 years, but nowhere near enough to prove that solar variations were the cause. We will never have data for the relatively fast warming in the latter half of the 20th century.
Unfortunately, explanations for warming are needed now to counter the insane proposals of politicians using CO2 as an excuse for government control of the economy. Sunspot activity has a relatively long record of observation and a better correlation to temperature than CO2 does, so there is still a chance that the relationship can be divined before the spectral data is robust enough to draw conclusions.
Leif is being disingenuous as usual when he says:
Science is not to be judged by eye.
Velasco Herrera, Soon et al. machine learning method produces a fundamental difference to what Svalgaard promotes.
Herrera, VM Velasco, W. Soon, and D. R. Legates. “Does Machine Learning reconstruct missing sunspots and forecast a new solar minimum?.” Advances in Space Research (2021).
Figure 2e in that article shows the temporal power anomaly of the sunspot record, and figure 6h that of the machine learning reconstruction. Both support increasing solar activity leading to the modern solar maximum of the 20th century.
You can see the same in this figure, and you can reproduce it too with the SILSO official sunspot record that Leif wants to change.
Compare it to figure 2e of the linked Soon paper above.
The record Soon et al promote is not what you show, but is this one:
The one posted at the top of the posting.
I don’t know shy my Figures do not show. Trying one more time:
This is a test [for Charles the Mod]
Trying with jpg not png
panel 6a is their reconstruction. And the one Soon showed in his talk.
“You can see the same in this figure,”
As you say: “Science is not to be judged by eye”
Machine learning shows the growing trend in solar activity that your group reconstruction doesn’t. The same growing trend that is in the sunspot record. That’s why Willie disagrees with you. That’s why this article is silly. Either you or Willie is right, and I agree with Willie.
If you cannot post images the problem is probably in the url were the image resides. Sometimes url’s that are not https are shunned.
Well, the point is that their ML-based reconstruction [their Figure 6a] actually agrees very well with our group number reconstruction as the Figure at the top of the posting shows. So, if you agree with their reconstruction you then also agree with me. This would be progress.
Not really. It clearly agrees better with Hoyt & Schatten group reconstruction for cycles -4, -3 & 6. You might have those wrong.
It agrees better with yours for the early 17th century ones, though. Before the Maunder Minimum.
Yes, really. The important point is the middle of the 18th century [cycle -1,0,1]. Their Figure 2 points out that those are too low in the SN v2, thus creating a false trend.
There is almost no data for cycles -1,0,1 and the SN is just wrong for those as Soon et al. point out [even in the title of their paper]. SN v2 for that time is just v1*1.667 without any new data or interpretation. The ML-approach may be right here. But perhaps you disagree with that, although you claim to agree with Soon [get your story straight, will you]. So, using the ML-based reconstruction removes the false trend.
If it has several cycles very different to your reconstruction, then it does not agree as well as you claim.
For the cycles that matter[ -1,0,1] the agree is good, so as I said, the long-term trend is not there for the last 300+ years.
And what cycle do you have in mind? Actually -1,0,and 1 are slightly larger than my reconstruction, but within my error bars, so I can live with that. The bottom line is that the Soon et al. reconstruction agrees well with ours, and at the same time shows that the SN for those cycles is too low.
No. The bottom line is that Soon doesn’t think their reconstruction agrees well with yours. That is why he says what he says in the video you link. And they are the ones that have the data on the machine learning reconstruction and the ones that can do a proper comparison instead of judging by eye as you do.
As I said this blog post is silly. Once Velasco Herrera, Soon, Hoyt & Muraközi 2021 is published we shall see what they actually say about this question. Until then it would appear you are uncomfortable with machine learning joining the ranks of those that disagree with your sunspots shenanigans.
Whether or not their reconstruction agrees with mine is irrelevant as their own data alone show no trend [R-squared = 0.00003]. That my reconstruction also does not show any trend is comforting and on the surface seems to back up their reconstruction, but regardless of that: their data alone has no trend over the last 300 years. If you disagree with that, go and download their reconstruction and compute R-squared for yourself. Then come back here and report the result. If you do not, your comments are just fluff. Make an effort to remove that stigma, if you want to be taken seriously.
The paper also concludes:
we found that our ML pattern recognition method yields insights regarding the missing sunspots during the early sunspot records around Cycles 1, 0 and 1 (ca. 1730s-1760s). This specific reality of under-estimating sunspot counts around this historical interval has long been documented by the pioneering sunspot reconstruction effort by Hoyt and Schatten (Hoyt and Schatten, 1998a; Hoyt and Schatten, 1998b) as well as the latest research of Clette et al. (2014).”
So they claim that the official SN v2 [and then also v1] is too low in the middle of the 18th century [ would actually agree with that], thus imparting a wrong long-term trend in the SN v2. So you should heed their advice and not use the SN.
They don’t advice not to use the SN. It is no surprise that the early sunspots were not counted as well as the late ones. But this is as temperature, the farther you go back the less reliable the reconstruction. What it is clear is that I am not going to be using your reconstruction, nor a machine learning product, that gives an independent assessment but does not produce data.
But cosmogenic records give a very good idea of how solar activity has evolved. They essentially agree with SN, so the error cannot be very big.
Perhaps during the Maunder Minimum sunspots were so faint that they were not counted?
Those reconstructions are old and outdated. Here are some better ones:
Your attitude conforms to the general tendency to pick what agrees with your view and disregard anything else. It is also clear that you conform to the usual notion that the stronger the counterargument is, the stronger your belief becomes.
What is plotted are the old v1 SSN, so that invalidates the Figure.
“They don’t advice not to use the SN”
They argue that the SN is not correct for cycles -1,0,and 1. In my book that equates to an advice not to use the SN. It seems that in your book, using incorrect data is not a problem, but perhaps a feature 🙂 especially if it supports your view.
What do you mean by not correct according to them? I haven’t read that. Machine learning provides an independent view on the sunspot record and if properly done it is unbiased, unlike humans. But it is not based on observation as it is generated by the software.
What I study on the sun-climate connection does not depend on the exact number of sunspots on a certain cycle. The effect is clearly seen over the past 5 cycles when there is little doubt about solar activity.
The data is available on the web. No need to wait for anything.
The Figure below [if I succeed posting one] shows their Figure 6a with their ML-based reconstruction from their paper that you cite. Just above it is myplot of the last 300 years of their data from their web-link. In the plot is the linear trend line with a coefficient of determination R-squared of 0.00003 [= no trend]. Above that [with orange curves] our group sunspot number for comparison. Andabove that a linear regression plot of the relation between the two reconstructions. Before 1749 there is considerable scatter [because of data paucity], but overall the comparison is ok.
Soon looks at their plot [blue curves with no trend] and proclaims that there is a significant increase towards modern values. His own data shows this is false.
“What I study on the sun-climate connection does not depend on the exact number of sunspots on a certain cycle. The effect is clearly seen over the past 5 cycles when there is little doubt about solar activity.”
TSI, UV, cosmic rays, magnetic storms, and all other solar phenomena depend on the solar magnetic field which in turn is VERY closely related to the number of sunspot [groups]. What you study does not [as per your admission] depend on any of those. One wonders what it is then. Then you say that the ‘effect’ [what exactly?] is clearly seen when there is little doubt about what [as per your admission does not depend on the sunspots on a ‘certain cycle’ [which one?]. You make little sense, but that is nothing new..
Well maybe I am missing something ins this discussion, but isn´t it not about which model provides a good fit for the sunspot number over time (which seems to be discussed above), but what this can mean?
“It is amazing how people’s bias can cause them to draw contrary conclusions from [almost] identical data.”
I fail to see the different conclusions discussed or even mentioned here!?
To the untrained eye the area under those curves seems higher on the right side than the left side for all those figures, which seems to support Soon´s point?
There are standard ways to test if a trend is significant. Using the ML-reconstruction [data linked to in their paper], one calculates the R-squared value for the last 300 years to be 0.00003 which means no linear trend whatsoever. This is the point I’m trying to make.
Now, I’m not arguing that the ML-reconstruction is any good. I think it is nonsense because it relies on an additional purported 5.5-year cycle. This ‘cycle’ is an artifact stemming from the asymmetrical shape of the 11-year cycle. But that is not my point. My point is that it is amazing that Soon et al. in the same breath can claim that solar activity has a strong upwards trend explaining global warming while the reconstruction they are peddling has no trend whatsoever the last 300 years.
“To the untrained eye the area under those curves seems higher on the right side than the left side”
“which means no linear trend whatsoever.”
seem mutually exclusive. As I trust my eyes, I am tempted to say you are doing something wrong here. Which surprises me a lot as I generally admire your work.
Perhaps the untrained eye is not a good substitute for careful, quantitative scientific analysis, so there need not be problem here.
My eye is not very well trained but it still indicates there is clearly no trend over the last 300 years.
same conclusion comes from the statistical R-square measure [R^2=0.00003 = no trend].
Unfortunately, your plots do not emphasize the critical part. The peaks vary a lot, the critical part for long-term climate is the baseline under the minima. The relationship between solar variability and climate change is unknown. Is it just TSI, or is more involved? How flat is the long-term baseline? Compare the ACRIM model to the PMOD model for example (see attached). The difference is fractions of a W/m^2 in 1996 and 2008, but might be significant. It can’t be proven one way or another, we don’t know enough about how climate varies with solar activity. Forcing a flat baseline can be done, ignoring the difference can be done, but we still don’t know.
I’m not forcing a flat baseline. It has been shown that variations of TSI are completely explained by variations of the solar magnetic field. We have good direct measurements of the field from the 1960s on both from the ground and from space [since 1996]. We have very well understood proxies of the field going back to the 1740s and of the interplanetary field back to 1843 and the flat baseline is an observational fact as has been known since the 1870s. So, we do know. Of course, you can choose willful ignorance against which no arguments can be made.
Leif, I see that Hoyt and Schatten now are in different camps, while they years ago had written a reconstruction of solar activity together. What happened there?
Ken Schatten now agrees that they erred back in 1998 and that the old H&S group number is incorrect. This, of course, does not prevent true believers to use the wrong reconstruction if it agrees with their firmly held views. ‘Bad science lives forever’ [or until its minions are dead and buried].
Thanks, I was just curious…
Let the data speak for themselves. But that seems quite difficult for a lot of people…
We actually know precisely where Hoyt and Schatten went wrong. They did not realise that Wolf used two telescopes, a large one before ca. 1860 and a small portable one after 1860. The larger telescope was used by Wolf’s assistants, e.g. Wolfer who would see 65% more groups that what Wolf could see with the smaller telescope. Hence, the factor to normalize Wolfer to Wolf’s scale was to divide the count by 1.65 [or equivalently multiply by 1/1.65 = 0.6]. H&S missed that detail and used a factor of almost 1.0 instead, thereby introducing a jump of 1.00-0.60]=40% by which the earlier data were thus too small. As simple as that.
When it comes to UV radiation, differences between solar cycles can be as high as several tens of percent.
But the important baseline is constant. We know this all the way back to 1740 AD.
As always, Leif, I much appreciate your curiosity and willingness to share it in contentious discourse. You have analyzed repeatedly and honestly many claims for a mechanism by which the sun affects the climate by a means other than basic TSI.
You have elegantly maintained your belief that the sun has not had a more active role in warming since the LIA.
I remember the three mammoth solar threads @ StevieMac’s, and you were discussing this point in depth even way back then. I am certain that your marvelous curiosity and insatiable need to teach have very much advanced the discussion.
We are closer to the answer and many thanks to you.
Doesn’t the decrease in UV radiation show a decrease in sunspot magnetic activity?
Of course, if UV dropped even more during minimum periods, that would be a real disaster for the climate.
Already this year, winter in North America begins in November.
Is Europe ready to be hit by Arctic air? Very high pressure over Iceland.
Deep learning (or “ML” or “AI”) is definitely set to make a big impact on climate science. Some will be deeply nervous about this.
However beware of pseudo-DL which will deliver results exactly from the alarmist hymn sheet.
Good to see Dr. Soon’s presentation get even more publicity. I was there and the whole thing is simply brilliant.
I have my doubts that “To my eye” is valid scientific technique for determining the similarity or differences between data sets and their presentation.
Then look at
Figure posted up the page.
“I have my doubts that “To my eye” is valid scientific technique”
Then learn that the expression is code for careful scientific and quantitative analysis.
Leif ==> If you had meant to supply substantial proof of “careful scientific and quantitative analysis” it might have been better to do so . . . . instead of speaking in code. Maybe a bit more detail and a little less dismissive, petulant language would have been appropriate.
I agree with you that there is no significate difference between yours and Soon’s analysis. Your error analysis is the best evidence of that. I have done a trial and error “human” learning process on your most accurate averages (from 1865 to 2015) maximizing R^2 in a multi-linear regression. I find the ln of the average group numbers best fits two cycles; each with one harmonic, The most significant cycle is 10.75 years with a weaker harmonic at 5.375 years. The second cycle is weaker but still significant at 124 years with a harmonic at 62 years. So the machine learning finds of around 120 and 60 years are very likely real.
Using the resulting coefficients in the best fit equation, I calculated the group numbers back to 1620. The results are well within your calculated error bars. You should be able to calculate expected future group numbers within error bars.
And the 5.375-year cycle is simply an artifact stemming from the asymmetrical shape of the 10.75-year cycle, so is not an additional physical cycle. Here is on the right a series of artificial 11-year cycle; each cycle rises [like real cycles] a bit faster than it decays, with a maximum at 4 years. On the left is the FFT power spectrum of the series; note the peak at 5.5 years, exactly half of 11 years.
So, their ML-reconstruction, or rather the use of it is a predictor is bogus and just shows that its authors don’t know what they are doing. On the other hand, the 120-year modulating ‘wave’ might be real, but we don’t know if it will be repeatable or just be happenstance.
Trying again with jpg file instead of png file:
You are right in saying that the harmonic is not a different cycle. However, it is giving us a picture of the shape of the primary cycle(as you have stated) if it is repeatable. Statistical significance is a measure of repeatability.
You can fit any shape curve or repeating curves with enough terms in a Fourier series. However, if the terms are not statistically significant, the results have no validity with respect to prediction or hindcasting.
In my analysis of your best data I assume the primary cycles have a sign or cosign shape with a log-normal distribution with respect to time. I convert time in years to radians, then radians into their location on sign and cosign functions. Sign and cosign functions are orthogonal. So the multi-linear regression I did was on both sign and cosign for the primary cycle , then 2*sign and 2*cosign for the harmonic. I used the f statistic as the probability indicator for each resulting coefficient.
If I have made a mistake in my analysis, please show me where.
I forgot to include the important part of the trial and error analysis. that is I divide radians by the expected cycle length in years before calculating the sign and cosign. These values are changed to maximize R^2. If you wish to discuss this with out making a comment here, go to my word press site and make a comment. http://www.retiredresearcher.wordpress.com
Re.: your problems with uploading pictures and graphs
When looking at the address of this graph
I see that the name of the uploaded file
contains a dot.
This is very probably the problem you have: either the software producing the graph or the upload software thinks that the file’s type is
and hence does not add the real file type (‘jpg’, ‘png’ etc) or discards it.
The uploader at
detects incomplete file names and doesn’t upload them.
Best however is to avoid file names containing dots…
Thanks for the advice. However, the upload was a success eventually. Sometimes it is the size that matters, sometimes it takes jpgs but not pngs, sometimes it is the other way around. I have have not yet figured out what the REAL criteria is.
Ron Long November 23, 2021 2:36 am
It certainly has NOT been demonstrated to my satisfaction.
The globe cooled for about 700 years to the Little Ice Age … not seeing the Maunder Minimum in that.
And then we have this …
Just saying, the jury is not only out on the sunspot-climate connection. It’s a long ways out.
I can only agree with your position.
Some years ago, I wanted to compare SSN, HadCRUT and the (undetrended) AMO, by uniformly scaling all the very different data to percentiles:
Of course: some would argue that like correlation does not imply causation, the lack of the former conversely does not imply the lack of the latter 🙂
I moreover have seen on this blog that TSI correlates with HadSST, but I don’t recall how good TSI in turn matches SSN and the solar flux at 10.7 cm.
That the latter two perfectly do since F10.7’s ‘beginning’ in 1948 was easy to see:
We seem to conveniently ignore the notion that today’s temperature reflects the cumulative sum of energy imbalances from the past.
Periods of net positive vs net negative. A function of time and magnitude, of course.
Just what is a ‘warm’ sun vs a ‘cold’ sun? Can sunspot number gives us an empirical threshold?
Will it explain everything? of course not.
Add in some ocean exhales vs inhales, say from AMO or PDO (whatever your flavor), to explain the wiggles. A solar baseline is not so far fetched.