Funny things happen on the Internet sometimes. Rather spectacular claims were made that 900 days of data “were fabricated”. This claim was described as not just speculation, but “a demonstrable fact”, and worse, the crime was apparently even “admitted to” by the man himself! Except that none of it was real, and three tiny misunderstood dots were not fabricated, not data, and not important. Welcome to a Bermuda-Triangle-moment in blog-land, where facts vanish, ships full of misquotes appear from nowhere, and ghosts-of-malcontent and misunderstanding roam freely. This post here is to slay the last loose ghosts, lest anybody think they might still have life in them, or indeed, think they ever did.
Usually a live debate is a brilliant way for spectators to learn. But in that particular science thread, the main lesson is not science but manners. Common courtesy may seem a quaint anachronism, but without it, logic and reason die on the sword of uninformed passion. A simple polite email and an open mind could have saved the world from a cloud of nonsense.
Thanks to the many valiant souls who fought for common sense.
It’s rare in a complex situation that the answer is so simple. (You won’t believe how small and irrelevant it all was.) The short answer is that the 900 days of fabrication was a fuss about three dots covering three years of data at the end of a 400 year graph. The tiny blue dots were described on the graph as “assumed as average” and added to the end of a solid red line. In other words, they were obviously not actual data, the description made it clear they were estimated, they were colored differently, and nothing was hidden. What’s more, their presence or absence made little difference to the arguments or the predictions. (So there was no incentive to fake them up.) It was kind of like a handy-hint was misinterpreted as a constitutional law and the trial went on for days before anybody noticed. Time for a cup of tea instead, then? We think so.
In round one, Leif Svalgaard said Evans was “blatantly wrong” about the big TSI drop (Willis Eschenbach said “wildly incorrect”) — so we explained how the fall was 11 year smoothed and was right there even in Leif’s own data. Both men read our reply (citing it here or on WUWT) and both men can comment freely here.Yet neither was willing to admit they were wrong, apologize, or correct their claims. Does accuracy matter? It does to us. This is round two, where their second mistake is as wrong as the first. We remain baffled at their behavior. We can but point to the data.
If you’ve come here for the science, the graphs and details of datasets come first. If the bloodsport competition is more your thing, the accusations and “highest” criticisms of our critics are printed at the bottom. You won’t want to miss those.
— Jo
———————————————–
Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) Data
Dr David Evans, 4 July 2014, David Evans’ Notch-Delay Solar Theory and Model Home
We need to clear up some confusion over TSI data and the Solar Model. Sorry, there is no big new “News” here, but the details matter and allegations as serious as fraud or fabrication deserve a proper response. Plus there’s a sort of useful lesson in how a silly mistake can get magnified and live on for days. Much of what follows will be obvious or covered previously. (An early reviewer said it cemented some things in his mind and he liked that anyway). We’d rather be pushing the scientific ideas forward. Soon.
1 The Context: Why there is a fuss over a fall in TSI?
The notch-delay solar model predicts a sharp global cooling and the turning point is soon (see Post VIII). It’s widely known the current solar cycle is a lot lower than the one before, but the notch-delay model predicts a sharp turn. An obvious question arises: is there some other way, apart from using the model, to see there is going to be a sharp cooling soon? (Assuming the notch-delay theory is right.)
Figure 1: Climate model driven only by solar radiation, with no warming due to carbon dioxide. Predictions shown by dotted lines. See Post VIII for explanation and context.
The model includes a delay, a low pass filter, a notch filter, and parallel paths. For a move as gross as the projected imminent cooling, we can dispense with the subtleties of the last three elements and just focus on the dominant driving element—the delay. This is just a simple check. The model is of course very “aware“ of the sunspot cycle, so any corresponding fall in TSI is not of the usual sunspot cycle variety, but is a fall after taking into account the usual ups and downs of the sunspot cycle.
The obvious and simplest way to remove most of the sunspot cycle and reveal the underlying trend is to apply an 11-year smoother to the TSI. The sunspot cycle varies from 8 to 14 years, but averages 11 years. The goal is only to crudely mimic the model’s behavior in order to get more understanding of why it predicts an imminent cooling.
2 TSI in Post VIII
Here is the TSI graph presented in Post VIII: [Jo says: look out, this is the graph that generated the Bermuda-Triangle moment.]
Figure 2: The recent fall in TSI is the steepest and one of the largest ever recorded (records go back to 1610). (There is a trivially different original before the PMOD data was updated a few days ago, linked to in Post VIII.)
Which Lean 2000 dataset was that? It’s reasonably clear:
This TSI graph shows the composite TSI data used in our project, which is described in its bare bones on the graph itself (top left). Direct measurements of TSI only started in late 1978, by satellite. The reconstruction used for most of the data in Figure 2 is from Lean 2000, which is the main, standard reconstruction. Anyone familiar with the TSI datasets can also see that the Lean 2000 data used here is the newer version with the Wang, Lean, & Sheeley background correction (2005), because the level during the Maunder Minimum is about one W/m2 below the average level since 1940, whereas in the original Lean 2000 data the difference was over two W/m2—see the first graph here.
We did mention that smoother in Post VIII: “We put an 11-year smoother through it to give us the red line, which shows the trends in solar radiation.” We then commented on the three big falls in the red line, and made the point that the third fall, which started around 2004, will lead to a corresponding fall in temperature sometime around 2014 to 2017 (but more likely 2017) according to the notch-delay solar theory.
A close up of those misunderstood blue dots
Notice the blue dotted line (circled) at the end of the red line. Here it is, blown up:
Figure 3: Enlargement of the fall in the 11-year-smoothed TSI around 2004, in Figure 2 above.
The text on Figure 2 explains the dots: “Composite TSI for Sep 2013 to Dec 2015 assumed as average TSI value from Sep 2012 to Aug 2013, to extend smoothed curve (dotted line).” That period is roughly 900 days.
The extension was made to give us an idea of where the TSI fall might bottom out. If the data stops in August 2013, as in Figure 2, then the 11-year-smoothed values stop 5.5 years earlier, in January 2008.* We are close to a solar maximum in sunspots now, so the values of TSI for the rounded top will probably be about the same. You could reasonably disagree with that extrapolation, but the method was stated clearly on the graph.
The extension was noted in the explanatory text, dotted, and a different color to the data. It is described as assumed and used to extend. It is difficult to confuse with the data. (Apologies for stating the glaring obvious. It’s odd having to point out things this simple. We describe the fracas below. Who would have thought?)
The same dots are more obvious (and useful) on a close-up graph:
Figure 4: As per Figure 2, but from 1950. Notice how the extension of the data shows that the fall in 11-year smoothed TSI will likely end soon, and thus indicates the size of the fall in 2004, so it can be more easily compared to the falls in the 1600’s and in Napoleon’s time.
What are the differences in the TSI datasets?
TSI measurements come from satellite-based instruments. There are three main datasets. PMOD starts in late 1978, is the dataset Judith Lean used to reconstruct TSI back to 1610 from the sunspot data, and is the dataset we use predominantly. ACRIM had some troubles in the 1980s, but we use it from 1992. SORCE started in 2003. See footnote.**
Lief Svalgaard made it clear that he prefers his own reconstruction and the SORCE/TIM reconstruction (a reconstruction until 2003, then the SORCE/TIM data) to PMOD/Lean-2000:
Figure 5: The SORCE/TIM and Svalgaard reconstructions both show the three big drops in their 11-year-smoothed curves, including a recent fall. Compare to Figure 2.
Their 11-year smoothings both show three sharp declines — in the 1600’s, in the time of Napoleon, and recently — just like our composite TSI in Figure 2. However the timing of the most recent fall is different:
Figure 6: The start of the recent fall in the 11-year-smoothed trends of the SORCE/TIM and Svalgaard reconstructions occur earlier than in the PMOD/Lean 2000 data. Compare to Figure 4.
If the SORCE/TIM and Svalgaard reconstructions are to be believed, the recent fall in TSI started back in 1995. This is a significant difference. If TSI fell from 1995 then the corresponding fall in temperature should have been evident from about 2006 — but since it didn’t happen that would mean the solar influence is weak. (Toss out that theory eh?) But if the sharp fall started around 2004, the corresponding temperature drop is yet to impact Earth.
See the graph posted and discussed here. It shows that all the TSI estimates show a recent fall in their 11-year smoothed trends, and all the falls are of a similar magnitude. All show a TSI peak in about 1986. The only substantial differences (relevant to this work) are in the timing of the start of the recent fall.
Basically it comes down to a choice between the sunspots and reconstructions based on those sunspots, or the measured TSI. As Svalgaard himself said, “All so-called ‘reconstructions’ of TSI are Guesses. Most of them bad.” The only measured data covering the relevant period from the late 1980s (required to construct an 11-year mean of the early 1990s) to the current day is PMOD.
4 The Accusations (Aka science as a “bloodsport”?)
Comments below come from the post “A Cool Question, Answered?” (which turned out to be a Hot Question, Unanswered). Don’t Svalgaard and Eschenbach protest just a little bit too much?
There are basically three accusations that Svalgaard and Eschenbach repeat over and over:
1. That my claim of “TSI dropping” around 2004 is false.
They argue against a straw man, as if I had claimed that monthly or daily TSI readings have dropped since 2004. However Post VIII , linked to in the article at WUWT, makes it abundantly clear that I was talking about the trend, as established explicitly by 11-year smoothing and implicitly by the filtering action of the notch-delay solar model. See Figures 2 and 5 above. Svalgaard links to a graph or the SORCE/TIM measurements since 2003 as support for his position that there is “no such drop” — but his graph is of TSI, not ll-year smoothed TSI or any trend measure of TSI. They never acknowledge either that there was a recent fall in the 11-year smoothed TSI or that I was referring to it.
Svalgaard repeats his misunderstanding here. He links here to the Figure I used in Post VIII, which is labelled “Solar radiation (TSI) 11-year smoothing“. Here Eschenbach even pastes our graph of 11-year smoothed TSI estimates, and attacks our use of 11 year smoothing! So they knew. I talked about three big falls — which are clearly visible in the 11-year-smoothed red line, but not the brown line of 1-year smoothed TSI with many falls. It is hard to explain how they missed it.
Note that this is a separate issue from Svalagaard’s position that all the past reconstructions and recent measurements are wrong except his reconstruction and the SORCE/TIM measurements from 2003, which he explains here and here.
2. That I fabricated data in my TSI graph, which is Figure 2 above.
The extension is not data. I described it as an extension on the graph itself : “to extend smoothed curve (dotted line)”, the method used to obtain it is given on the graph and that makes it clear that is not data, it is presented in a different color from the data, and is dotted, not solid, like the data. See above. The general principle is you can put anything on a graph, so long as you explain what you are doing and it is not deceptive. The extension isn’t so useful on the 400 year graph, but on the 60 year graph (Figure 4 above) it shows the likely extent of the fall.
3. That I am hiding something by not releasing my data and calculations yet.
A reminder of what we said in the introductory post: “All the data, model, and computations are in a single Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. It runs on any pc with Excel 2007 or later; it runs at least partly (and maybe fully) on any Mac with Office 2011 or later. This is completely open science—every bit of data and every computation is open for inspection. We will be releasing this towards the end of the series of blog posts.” The reasons for this—so as not to preempt the blog posts, and to engender a more focused conversation with useful feedback –were given several times, and elaborated upon here. The spreadsheet would already have been released by now, but some people prepared to comment publicly on it still don’t know the basics, and it takes time to correct their mistakes.
Here are some of the , er, highlights:
Svalgaard 1. “The TSI used by Evans is totally wrong“. | Lean 2000, PMOD, and ACRIM are mainstream datasets. The datasets for the critical period from the mid 1980s on are basically the PMOD and ACRIM measurements. Svalgaard implies these measurements are “totally wrong”, while putting forward only reconstructions to cover the period before 2003. So, this is a case of measurements vs reconstruction.
Svalgaard 2. “The most blatant error is the statement that TSI has had a sharp unprecedented drop starting in 2003-2005 to now. This is complete nonsense. There is no such drop.“ | Straw man. A drop in 11-year smoothed TSI has clearly occurred, even in his own reconstruction (doesn’t he see it?).
Svalgaard 3. “As far as I am concerned, the model is already falsified. Not by the observations but by the [almost fraudulent – as there clearly is an agenda here] use of invalid input to begin with.” | Fraud implies lying with intent to deceive. See Figures 5 and 6: who lied? Svalgaard prefers his own reconstruction or the the IPCC reconstruction that recently replaced the one I used: who’s got an agenda?
Svalgaard 4. “The data is not slightly wrong, but verry wrong, and hence the prediction […] is wrong, which was my point.” | The prediction is based on measurements of TSI since the mid1990s, but mainly around 2004, made by PMOD and ACRIM. Svalgaard only offers a reconstruction for most of this period. Again, we use mainstream measurements while he uses reconstructions, both of which show a trend drop anyway.
Svalgaard 5. “On the contrary he has shown that Mr Evans used wrong TSI data. This is either incompetence [I will allow for that hence my ‘almost’] or a deliberate act [you made that call].” | Again, we use mainstream measurements while he uses his reconstruction.
Svalgaard 6. “The SORCE/TIM data is correct since 2003 and contradicts Mr Evans demonstrably false assertion that there was a sharp drop in TSI in the 2003-2005 time.” | Straw man. See accusation 1 above.
Svalgaard 7. “On the contrary, TSI is now higher than at any time in the SORCE/TIM record, so Mr Evans has spliced the SORCE/TIM data incorrectly to the observations covering 1978-2002.“ | Huh? How would he know? As it happens, I didn’t use the SORCE/TIM data.
Svalgaard 8. “That the 2000 Lean reconstruction is invalid is well-known [even Lean agrees with this] so Mr Evans is either incompetent or deliberately using invalid ‘data’ without having done his due diligence. The Krivova reconstruction suffers from the same problem as Lean’s obsolete one: invoking a background based on the flawed Group Sunspot Number.“ | My prediction of an upcoming fall relies on PMOD and ACRIM data from the critical period from the mid1980s, not from any reconstruction. Perhaps those making claims of incompetence ought first be competent readers?
Svalgaard 9. “Mr Evans made a horrible mistake [deliberately or out of ignorance – your call] making his prediction worthless; one cannot scientifically disagree with such nonsense. Disagreement requires substance and there is none in Mr Evans’ work.” | Straw man. See accusation 1 above.
Svalgaard 10: In response to something Christopher Monckton said, “You are correct that nothing can rest on Mr Evans’ incorrectly doctored dataset.“ | Oddly enough he refers to me as “Mr Evans” but accuses me of doctoring. Funny man.
Svalgaard 11: “I will agree that Mr Evans did not intend to have anybody discover his little ‘trick’. [One is reminded of Mann’s ‘Nature Trick’ of Climategate fame].” | The extension is plain to anyone. There was no “trick”, nor anything to gain from the dots—they limit the downward trend. See accusations 2 and 3 above.
Svalgaard 12: In response to “what’s all the hubub about?” Svalggard says “It is about scientific honesty [or rather lack thereof]”. | Dishonesty? I didn’t misquote Svalagaard or say he did things he didn’t, did I?
Svalgaard 13: “So Mr Evans fabricates out of thin air about 900 days of TSI and tags that to the end of the curve.” | The extension was clearly explained on the graph itself, and is visually very different from the data. See accusation 2 above.
Svalgaard 14: “Both Willis and I have shown that Mr Evans invented the decline of TSI since 2003-2005.“ | All the estimates and datasets show a recent fall in 11-year-smoothed TSI, even Svalgaard’s own reconstruction. See the first figure here.
Svalgaard 15: “And the fabrication [of data] is a fact as I showed above by Mr Evans’ own words.” | It’s a “fact” now? And wait… it’s in my “own words”, but you said I was hiding it? So which is it? See accusation 2 above.
Svalgaard 16: “Even the data he claims is Lean 2000 has been tampered with and doctored into shape.” | The TSI in the TSI graph in Post VIII is a composite of Lean 2000 and other sources, so it will not exactly match Lean 2000. As noted above, anyone familiar with the TSI datasets can immediately see that the Lean 2000 data used here is the version with the Wang, Lean, & Sheeley background correction. Odd that he didn’t notice.
Svalgaard 17: “Mr Evans does indeed fabricate and invent data. End of discussion.” | Since there is no fabrication or invention, where does that put Svalgaard and Eschenbach? See accusation 2 above.
Eschenbach 1: “I begged David Evans, begged him please, please, to release the hidden code, to stop keeping the model equation a secret, to reveal the data, to expose the numbers of tunable parameters, to show the results of the out-of-sample tests that Jo says he’s already done …” | Really? Begged? I don’t recall ever having talked with Willis or exchanging emails with him. And I’ve searched through all the comments Eschenbach left on the blog posts here about the notch-delay solar project…and no “beg”. No asking even. Certainly no “please”. Just lots of repetitive berating for not releasing material immediately, and he did not even address our clearly stated reasons given for introductions-before-material.
So how about you quote yourself Willis: where is this begging you keep said you did?. I’ll quote you — this is what you typically say at the bottom of one of your articles: “USUAL REQUEST: …please quote the exact words you disagree with. That way, everyone can understand your point of reference and your objections.”
Eschenbach 2:“I begged Jo and David to publish, and I got the same answer we’ve gotten from every other pseudo-scientist, that for me to ask was wrong, wrong, wrong, and that they’d publish the code and data and out-of-sample tests when they damn well felt like it … science at its finest.” | Yep, definitely said “begged”; see accusation 3.
[Jo adds: I note that Willis raised the “Mann and Jones” false equivalence on this blog on June 21, and my answer to this was not quite the “same answer we’ve gotten from every other pseudo-scientist”. Willis asked: “And why on earth do I have to ask you pretty please if you’ll release your results as if you were Phil Jones or Michael Mann?” Jo replied: “Because Phil Jones and Michael Mann get your taxes. We don’t. That’s why.” This from the man who insists people quote him exactly?]
Eschenbach 3: “…and admit that (at least according to their graph) they have made a wildly incorrect claim that the TSI has fallen precipitously since about 2004. It is on the basis of this supposed fall that they are predicting falling temperatures.” | Straw man. See accusation 1 above.
Eschenbach 4: “But neither of us owe David Evans an apology. He’s the one that made the horrendous newbie mistake, not us.” | Ummm, you didn’t notice it was 11-year-smoothed TSI and trends in TSI we were talking about?
Eschenbach 5: “That quote from the graph itself clearly says that they have invented the data from March of 2013 to December of 2015, which is the 900 days of data that Leif mentions. Now, I’ve used the word “invented” for that data. The graph itself uses the word “assumed” for that data. And Leif used the word “fabricated” for that data.” | “Invented data” now? Not so. (It’s like Chinese whispers: assumed means invented means fabricated. Go Directly To Jail!). It was clearly explained and marked on the graph itself. See accusation 2 above.
Eschenbach 6: “Next, David Evans has not released the data, the model, the model results, the equations, the out-of-sample tests, or any of the details. This is the same garbage we got from Michael Mann and Phil Jones. And now, here you are cluttering up WUWT with the same kind of garbage. There is no transparency. There is no data. There is no code. In what alternate universe does this pass for science?” | Didn’t read the introductory post perhaps? Don’t believe the answers we gave you? See accusation 3 above.
Eschenbach 7: “Christopher, I have a simple rule that has never failed me. When a man is hiding something, it’s because he’s got something to hide.” | I have a simple rule too: when a man attacks a scientific argument with accusations about motives, there is something else going on. See accusation 3 above.
Eschenbach 8: “I’m sad to see you and David Evans and Joanne taking up the habits of Mann and Jones, David. I’d thought y’all were scientists. Ah, well, live and learn.” | We are sad to see a skeptic taking up the habit of character attacks, as is commonly used by unskeptical people. See accusation 3 above.
And on and on and on.
We are looking forward to releasing the spreadsheet, and are grateful that Eschenbach and Svalgaard have made it clear they have made their conclusions already. ; -)
5 Conclusion
Otherwise, we remain baffled. The comments by Svalgaard and Eschenbach at WUWT are inexplicable. Svalgaard says that “science is a bloodsport”, but Joanne notes that it “doesn’t have to be… You could use logic and reasoning instead.” We offer no speculation on the reasons for their repetitious, tendentious, and aggressive comments. It doesn’t look like truth-finding to us when someone uses fallacies, fails to quote exactly, and fails to acknowledge polite responses pointing out their misunderstandings. We see little hope that their attitude will change, so we expect more of the same as we roll out the project.
A big thank you to Christopher Monckton and the others who objected at WUWT and pushed back. Thank you! They sensed that a crime was being committed and they did what they could. And thank you also to those who have emailed us, or left comments on this blog about the matter, or donated. (BTW Joanne spoke to Anthony Watts at length yesterday in a friendly exchange. He had arrived late at the “Bermuda Triangle”, and did what he could. Please keep comments constructive below. This post is about commenters and a new theory, not Anthony.)
We are still rolling out the introductory blog posts. It is taking much longer than we had anticipated partly because of the need to respond to unwarranted and inaccurate criticisms and statements. We very much want feedback, good and bad, and appreciate the well informed, polite sort the most. We will resume the series as soon as we can, other commitments, notwithstanding.
FOOTNOTES
*As of a few ago PMOD had issued data to the end of 2013, but ACRIM only to about the end of August 2013.
** The SORCE/TIM reconstruction uses the measured SORCE/TIM data from February 2003, but before that it is a reconstruction. The SORCE/TIM reconstruction changed significantly in February 2014—see here, or the blink comparator here. The old reconstruction is very much like Lean 2000—compare it to Figure 2 above. The new/current reconstruction uses a reconstruction by “N. Krivova et al. … which is used in the IPCC AR5 Working Group I’s Assessment Report”—see the SORCE/TIM data home.
It’s not easy to measure TSI exactly. Obviously everything before late 1978 is estimated from proxies. Judith Lean studied the way PMOD and sunspots varied, then used the sunspot data and models of solar behavior to estimate TSI before the satellite era — so the Lean 2000 reconstruction and the PMOD observations agree with each other.
However the PMOD and ACRIM data disagree until the early 1990s. Opinions differ on whether PMOD or ACRIM is more correct, but PMOD fits with Lean 2000 and is the longest measured dataset—running right through from the TSI peak around 1986 to when it started declining. So we effectively went with the PMOD data, by only introducing ACRIM into our composite TSI from the beginning of 1992.
Our composite TSI data from December 1978 through December 2008 is an average of Lean 2000 and PMOD, then an average of Lean 2000, PMOD and ACRIM through December 2008 (when the Lean 2000 dataset ends), then an average of PMOD and ACRIM, using averaging-equalizing offsets and blends at joins to make the composite. We could usefully add SORCE/TIM data from 2003, but haven’t yet because we didn’t find that data useful for analysis (at less than one sunspot cycle, it is not long enough).
In the final analysis we are basically using PMOD data, so the notch-delay solar model is essentially between PMOD-TSI and temperature. It is possible that PMOD somehow measures the components of TSI that predict force X better than other measures of TSI.
I’m confused as why so many (who I thought were level-headed and polite) skeptics have been so unnecessarily hostile and insulting towards a fellow skeptic. They could get their points across equally as well without the playground-putdowns.
882
Confused?
The larger the EGO, the less room for other peoples ideas.
The study of climatology is stale, it is obvious to most nonacademics that the cause is spiralling in.
For all the authoritarian claims of science, there is none supporting the magic gas concept.
Naturally without fresh input, such as D.E’s beautiful conjecture, the conversation will deteriorate.
Until we who pay taxes, turn on the fools and bandits who steal, waste and destroy our work, this kind of ugliness will only grow.
802
I’m not entirely sure that massive egos are the sole cause of the surprising and vehement vilification of Dr Evans from Dr Svalgaard and Mr Eschenbach, it may be they are from a different cultural mindset where civility and courtesy are regarded as weakness. That Dr Evans should be vilified for putting forward an hypothesis that he claimed very early on was just that-an hypothesis shows sheer ignorance of scientific protocol. Dr Svaalgaard seems to believe what he does not know about the sun is not worth knowing and is remarkably piqued that Dr Evans is suggesting that Dr Svalgaard may not be as omniscient as he, Dr Svalgaard, believes. Mr Eshenbach is, unfortunately, in this exchange is full of bombast and very little else as he totally disregards the points Dr Evans has made regarding publication of data. Perhaps his lack of a PhD, the entry point for any serious researcher in science, has given him an inferiority complex I can’t think of another reason for his vindictiveness. And finally, please note that I have used the correct honorific for Drs Evans and Svalgaard and Mr Eschenbach, a courtesy neither Dr Svalgaard or Mr Eschehach extend to Dr Evans. Perhaps they feel this is a necessary and integral part of their denigration of this scientist and his proposal. Naturally I will still look at WUWT and Climate Audit and as wellas SkepticalScience and RealClimate but regret that Dr Svalgaard and Mr Eschenbach care so little for the ammunition and propaganda they are providing for these and other similar sites in their efforts to discredit a fellow traveller.
880
As has been said elsewhere, it would appear they are suffering from the “It wasn’t my idea” syndrome. Other than the pedestal they have been placed upon over at WUWT, neither man, Svalgaard or Eschenbach, appear to be worth listening to based on this exchange. Whatever their qualifications are, neither is an Engineer, and Eschenbach from the information I have found regarding his qualifications appears to have no science background. He just happens to be “good with numbers.”
As you so aptly noted the “other side” will be having a field day with this one, not that either of them appear to care.
500
That is actually ad hominem and conjecture. A PhD is a prerequisite for teaching in a tertiary institution, and is simply a rite of passage into that career.
A count of the number of PhD’s on staff, is sometimes used by commercial research institutions as a marketing differentiator, when in pursuit of competitive funding.
But the majority of privately developed inventions, and the associated patents, are owned by people who do not have a tertiary degree, and sometimes holding no degree at all.
543
I stand corrected and apologise unreservedly to Willis Eschenbach It certainly is conjecture and although I had thought the use “perhaps” might ameliorate the comment to some extent this appears not to be the case. Whatever, I can do no more than say I’m sorry to Mr Eschenbach
90
Example: The nature of the degree – PhD
“A successful PhD thesis will demonstrate the candidate’s ability to conduct original research and to present the findings of that research to a professional standard. The thesis should give evidence that the candidate has made a significant contribution to knowledge in the particular field. On the award of the degree, the graduate should be a person capable of conceiving, designing and carrying out high-quality research in the area of their expertise without supervision.”
Original research and the abilities to conduct and supervise research independently are the touchstones here.
A PhD is certainly not a prerequisite for teaching in a tertiary institution, which may possess a substantial number of teaching fellows who do not hold PhD’s. In general, the rule is that one should hold a degree above the one is teaching into.
For some a PhD may well amount to a ‘rite of passage’ into a career that involves ongoing and extensive research. I have observed that those who say this are either experienced and successful researchers, or serial iconoclasts. I accept my observations may not account for all the possibilities this Universe may hold.
For many, it is a mind sharpening tool en route to business, commerce, politics or administration to name a few paths. However, there is little that is ‘simple’ about it. The quality of the institution from which the PhD was gained nonetheless may be a guide to rigour. The internet is not an institution in this context and paying for a PhD over it is as you put it, ‘simply a rite of passage’.
Far from ‘simple’ if there is any diminutive to be applied it might perhaps be ‘tenacious’ or ‘determined’. It is an exercise in these as much as it is in intelligence or the application thereof.
For those that gained their “PhD’s” in the back garage or school of hard knocks, these may well be seasoned, capable, original and indeed a dominant and celebrated source of private patent holders. So what? They may be idiot savants for all we know. It tells us nothing of their background or informs us of their wider abilities. A PhD on the other hand conveys an expectation among other things, which may or may not be lived up to.
And the ratio of individual private patent holders to institutional patent holders where the PhD’s are more usually found?
41
So what is the degree above PhD? Is it higher and higher degrees all the way up?
30
DSc
http://www.monash.edu.au/science/future/postgraduate-research/dsc.html
13
An good postdoc and research, supervisory experience elevate beyond the entry level. Furthermore, a PhD is not ‘taught’ in the classical sense. It could probably be crudely described as a supervised apprenticeship by committee. And then there comes the point when the principal investigator’s knowledge and expertise in the chosen topic (hopefully) becomes apical.
10
Manfred, you are correct that a PhD is an apprenticeship.
Supervision is not by a “committee” unless there is more than one designated supervisor.
The degree of supervision varies with the attitude of the supervisor.
Some treat PhD students as research assitants there to simply follow the instructions of the supervisor and his or her agenda.
Such supervisors inhibit the developement of independence in the student.
I reacall a department in which I was a research fellow where a instance where a PhD candidate, a surgical registrar, had a very intersting idea but the boss wanted him just to go on and measure the x hundredth breast sample biopsy.
I helped Peter carry out experiments on his idea in secret. I did not know that he put the boss’s name on a publication and submitted it without her knowing.
This is a real no-no. But when the work became well known she was in no position to complain.
This was the department and boss I blew the whistle on. Part of my reason for speaking out was that Peter told me that the supervisor’s management style was so distressing if he did not take a year off his candidature he would be clinically depressed. I could only concur
After my exile to Siberia, I was having breakfast listening to the ABC health report with Dr Norman Swan interviewing our former boss.
Dr Swan said: ‘There has been some really intersting work done recently in your lab concerning Barrett’s oesophagus.’ (A potentially pre cancerous condition.)
The Boss replied. ‘Yes we are really excited about this work…
I nearly choked on my wheaties and sent an email off to Dr Swan explaining the real story.
Then there are supervisors who give you a thesis subject and expect you to come back three years later with a thesis, (or consult them when you are writing a paper).
As a colleague once said “You spend a lot of time educating your supervisor.”
My supervisor at this end of the spectrum. This makes the whole project much more challenging for the candidate, but is much better training and gives a much greater sense of acheivement.
21
I would have given you both a green thumbs up and a red thumbs down if that were possible. The thumbs down for the Phd ad hom. The thumbs up for everything else you said.
111
And my above comment was to Ian at 2:24am
20
A PhD is merely a formal entry process to an academic career. Very few high achieving engineering graduates bother to pursue a PhD because they can earn far more in industry than in academia. During the mining boom Australian graduate engineers were often earning over $100,000 (the highest salary I saw was $140,000) straight out of university. It would have taken them at least 10-20 years to earn the same salaries in academia.
90
I think this scene summed it up best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-c4iS454WA
11
Very few high achieving engineering graduates get PhDs because they go into engineering becuse they want to be engineers, for which a PhD is unnecessary.
Those who enrol in vocational degrees such as engineering do so because they are interested in persuing a career in that field.
By and large, students enrolling in engineering want to be engineers, those enrolling in medicine want to be doctors etc.
But there are some who in the course of an engineering degree (or any other) find they have an interest in research, or possibly teaching at a tertiary institution, and will go on to do PhD studies.
A medical practitiioner once told me that their colleagues who opt for an academic career are considered somewhat odd.
These people invarialbly practice in their field as well. But the time and effort they spend in academia is poorly rewarded financially compared to what they would earn if they spent all their time looking after patients.
And it is not because these people are not up to scratch clinically that they pursue these interests. I remember arriving at the lab at the University of Melbourne Department of Surgery at the Austin Hospital to see Professor Christophi dozing in his office chair because he had spent a long night giving someone a new liver. The people in this department are acknowledged leaders in their field.
Certainly academics or people who work in public research institutions are paid far less than they would be in the private sector, but not everyone is primarily motivated by money.
These days, many doctors who have no interst in continuing in research or teaching as such will do a PhD or Masters as that is a way to stand out from the pack in advancing in their specialist field. I have worked with and supervised a number of these people.
Rereke is correct about patent holders, as again inventors are smart people who make things, for which formal studies to a higher degree is unneccesary.
On the other hand in the past universities were very casual about their “intellectual property” and most discoveries were placed in the public domain and were therefor not able to be patented. Woe betide any academic who lets something potentially income producing slip through like that these days. It was very late in my academic career that I became a patent holder.
32
Well said
10
Yes Richard, that’s exactly how I saw it.
I quite like watching the dynamics of these things, though. After the initial flurry of posts here, the balance of the discussion took place over at WUWT where there was more . . . ummm ‘insulation’.
Not that I think that’s a bad thing . . . just interesting.
It occurs to me that the deliberate slow release of Solar Model is actually highlighting some benefits.
That is, early objections, valid or invalid, are able to be addressed ‘in-line’ as it were.
But as a colleague reminded me one day; “Don’t sweat the small stuff”.
230
The deliberate slow release of the Solar Model, seems to be making it more accessible to those folks (like me), who can only translate a limited amount or arcane jargon, in a single sitting.
I like the approach that says, “Now listen up, dummy. You take one of these things, and you hold it this way up; and you take one of those things over there, and you put that bit into this hole, got it?
Using a preponderance of unintelligible multisyllablic word constructions to demonstrate how superiorly erudite the presenter might be, combined with incredibly verbose and interminable sentence fabrications is oft the way of concealing ones own appalling lack of knowledge.
Jus’ saying …
532
And frequently used by those who were weaned on a Dill pickle….
40
Probably the reason is that sceptics believe in the facts and the fragmentation is not about the ’cause’ just about who is or is not supporting an individual theory.
On the other hand alarmists believe in the ’cause’ and wil all band together to support anything that even hints at proving that belief no matter how far fetched.
120
Because they dont consider tribal alliance to be important.
Because some of them excoriated Mann and CRU for similar padding tricks at the end of a series, whether
these tricks were documented or not.
That is because they are consistent, brutally consistent, whether you are “friend” or “foe”
148
One can’t help but think this is poetic justice for all the bile directed at real climate scientists over the years.
349
Come now Stephen, had David omitted the padding and had generated a wild artifact from that truncation, they would be whining about that too!
Mann grafted two dissimilar datasets WIITHOUT telling anyone, Evans added three data points of padding with explanation in a different colour and linestyle. Hmm, seems different to me.
420
hey, some of us are consistent is criticizing all padding whether disclosed or not.
its called principles.
some of us demand code and data upon publication ( even blog posts)
its called principles
Leif has them
Willis has them
the rest of you? i suspend judgment
360
And some of us Steve, those of us with Engineering backgrounds rather than literary backgrounds, don’t release code until it is in our consideration finished. It’s called principles as well and we do have them. We haven’t seen much from you indicating you are doing any more than projecting and defending “the team.” Now where have we seen THAT type of behavior before?
400
The code is less important than using the wrong input data. Garbage in with any code will give you garbage out. Especially an engineer should appreciate that.
345
Perhaps you should inform Mosher and Eschenbach that. Since it appears they are in a tizzy because they can’t play with the code RIGHT NOW!
As to the data, so far all I have seen from you is “it doesn’t agree with mine so it is wrong.” Please show us the proof that yours is correct, or “less wrong.” The impression you give us all is no different than what we would expect to see from an alarmist claiming “the science is settled so no matter what you think you’ve found it is wrong.”
Arrogance has no place in science, you should know that.
490
Dear Leif,
You seem not to comprehend the clear meanings of the simple words written above. Please re-read the post and re-submit your corrected manuscript for marking.
What this 71 years old engineer (first class honours, employed full-time in a forensic investigation role) cannot appreciate is such an abnormally obtuse response from one doctor of philosophy to another.
550
And ‘Sun King’ Svalgaard will decide what is garbage.
That is, if an analysis is not based on Svalgaard’s data reconstructions and conducted with his approval, it must be wrong, and somehow fraudulent. This is an egotistical totalitarian obsession which inhibits productive debate in solar science.
400
Please show your empirical demonstration of how the ACRIM TSI data set is “garbage.” There is no degradation there, and the ACRIM gap is filled with actual data. Not only that, but the ACRIM data correlates quite well to temperature for the last 30+ years.
Then explain how it is that you claim that “TSI right now is about 0.45 W/m2 higher than in 2003-2005” according to the SORCE/TIM data, but yet all of these SORCE/TIM graphs show that you are wrong…the trend is down in the last 10 years?
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/guillermo_image2.png
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/sorce_tsi_reconstruction_feb2013-feb2014.png?w=640
90
It is a shame Svalgaard does not seem to care about accuracy, for his own reputation’s sake.
I cannot fathom why he keeps insisting on the strawman that there was “no drop” in TSI when the discussion is about the trends of TSI (11 year smoothed) from 2003. Nor why he will not admit his defamatory claims of “fabrication of 900 days of data” were abjectly wrong and indeed self-evidently false if he had only read the graph he criticized. With every repetition he is advertising his poor judgement and low standards. See all his comments repeated in the post above that he still thinks are correct.
eg:
Svalgaard 15: And the fabrication [of data] is a fact as I showed above by Mr Evans’ own words.
How factual is a “fact” as asserted by Leif?
If the man is happy to put out false statements said with complete certainty, and not correct them, even when presented with direct quotes and graphs of his own data, then all his words have to be viewed through that prism. When Leif says something is “blatantly wrong” clearly it may be anything from blatantly wrong to completely correct.
Leif’s own words apply to Leif’s comments: “From false assertion only garbage follows.”
321
What a ridiculous comparison. To say that showing in contrasting color and then stating just what some points are vs seeing people interpret data you have produced without contrasting colors and not saying anything is repugnant and dishonest, as is your answer. Mann never said anything about the misinterpreting of data on his famous graph. He was probably perfectly happy to have it viewed that way, otherwise he would have said something. He should have said something.
180
Steve Mosher:
That has to be the most bizzare comment on this thread.
80
“…whether
these tricks were documented or not.”
Puhlease.
If you noticed it was there, you could hardly fail to notice that it was a different colour, or that the graph was clearly labelled. Compared to CRU, this is completely transparent.
IMHO, there is absolutely no need to invoke cries of “trickery” and make comparisons with Mann & Jones et al.
By all means dispute the method of estimation; by all means ask for code (remember “free the code”, Moshpit?); by all means suggest the method is defective. All these are normal and expected.
But remember that this is not publicly funded research, it is in the process of being released on the terms of those who funded it, and there is as yet no reason to believe that the code and data will not be released at the stated time. If you do not believe it can be properly evaluated without code and data (and I would agree with that), then wait for the code and data before offering a critique.
Perhaps BEST should have released ALL their code and data immediately too, but they didn’t – pots and kettles much? Let me guess – that’s different. If you think so, your hypocracy is showing.
320
“then wait for the code and data before offering a critique”
As we already know the data is bogus, there is no need to wait for the code.
261
The METHOD is useless because the data is wrong (not yours)?
So I take it that the use of arithmetic should be discontinued if some one has been found to be fiddling with the books?
That is a novel approach. Do you use it often?
180
Indeed, if the books have been fiddled with, any arithmetic performed on the numbers in them is of no use. This is a good principle to follow, and, yes I do that often.
440
Leif,
You are just some old tosser with an axe to grind, please stop cluttering up this blog as i only wish to read what the adults have written.
315
But you would junk arithmetic altogether if the books have been fiddled.
Or was that statement of yours incorrect? Or perhaps your wording was inartful?
120
Not the point being made. Arithmetic still works on bogus data.
Or are you claiming it does not?
It is rather silly to claim that a method is wrong because the data used in the method us wrong.
120
Leif:
Please show your empirical demonstration of how the “books have been fiddled with” with regard to the ACRIM TSI data set. There is no degradation there, and the ACRIM gap is filled with actual data. Not only that, but the ACRIM data correlates quite well to temperature for the last 30+ years.
Then explain how it is that you claim that “TSI right now is about 0.45 W/m2 higher than in 2003-2005” according to the SORCE/TIM data, but yet all of these SORCE/TIM graphs show that you are wrong…the trend is down in the last 10 years?
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/guillermo_image2.png
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/sorce_tsi_reconstruction_feb2013-feb2014.png?w=640
140
Kenneth Richard – He won’t answer that one.
80
“As we already know the data is bogus,…”
So even prior to full revelations from the author of the provinence of the data, you know it’s bogus?
Please forgive me for believing you have a closed mind and have no right to call yourself a scientist. By all means be sceptical of unverifiable claims, but trashing them without seeing the data when the author has made a commitment to release it, is indicative of someone with a dogma to defend rather than a passion for the truth. If David doesn’t release code and data within 3 months, I will withdraw and apologise.
200
So Steven – I guess we can take all the thousands BEST “estimates” as Mannian manipulation. Fair’s fair.
90
Richard, it is odd that anyone reading this blog can be surprised that skeptics can be “hostile and insulting” when they “could get their points across equally as well without the playground-putdowns.”
The fact that on this occasion the people they disagree with are “fellow skeptics” is irrelevant. That is the way they adress anyone they do not agree with.
217
What a classic case of projection.
110
No TedM, my own experiences on the recieving end of skeptic comments here and elswhere.
If try to remain polite in face of this provocation until I have had enough of it.
26
I will be amused to see your responses when you have had enough.
BTW I’m a believer in AGW especially with CO2 going up and now the long pause in response to that rise. Got anything that will help me keep the faith?
I get asked this a lot, “What is the proper level of plant food in the atmosphere?” Can you help me with that?
I also get asked, “What is the best temperature for the planet?” I have never seen an answer to that. Perhaps you can direct me to one.
60
M Simon. See some of my responses to griss, bullocky Bob_
I was banned from Watts for getting fed up when he told me to pull my head out of my rear end among other things.
It was indeed personal upping the ante on that kind of insult and did not think the moderators would even put it up
I kind of regretted it after but getting that kind of nonsnse from punters on the blog is one thing. Getting it from the proprieter of the blog is another, and it was meant as a sign off from further participation on that blog as I fully understood the consequences.
Here is something that may help with CO2 and the “pause”:
http://tinyurl.com/nyjroxe
18
Looks to me like no trend in the data for about 14 years just by eyeballing the graph.
And ya know. I believe Jones noticed this too. And he is a warmist.
50
The trend line for the last 14 years is in fact far from flat.
http://tinyurl.com/mxysg96
But the real point is that the statistical error in the trends for short perids such as the last 14 or 15 years means that the data is extremely unreliable.
(The graph was initially used to demonstrate the problems with cherry picking short data sets, specifically with respect to claims about the post 1998 el nino temperatures.)
From June 2000
Trend: 0.085 ±0.241 °C/decade (2σ)
From June 1999
Trend: 0.134 ±0.222 °C/decade (2σ)
The data from 1979 shows statistically significant warming.
Trend: 0.138 ±0.070 °C/decade (2σ)
17
So tell me according to your oracle what length of time does a trend need to continue for to get the SD below 1C? (still no warming since 1850)
How long does it need to extend for to get the SD below .5C (barely any warming).
So far the trend has continued for 30 years or so. And for the last 7 or 9 years we have started cooling a tad.
And most folks (including warmists) are saying we could be in for a cold spell. The warmists because they need to hedge their bets to keep their theory alive (other forces are in play – known but not previously accounted for – why no accounting? Well catastrophism goes away if the effect of CO2 is reduced much more from where it is). And the rest of us because at the very least – it was never CO2. It was ocean cycles. You start blaming CO2 when the ocean cycles are on the rise and you get 30 years of it is CO2 – for sure.
But then the cycle reverses. And then believers in CO2 look like fools – or worse.
BTW the flattening is just what you would expect if the heating was cyclic. And after the flattening comes the decline.
50
And just for a historical note:
We have been getting alternating heating and cooling scares about every 30 years since about 1895. Corresponding to alternations in the PDO cycle (and other cycles).
Had you looked at that record you might not have placed so much emphasis on CO2. But what did we hear instead? “This time it is different.” Evidently this time it is not different.
It never was CO2. That was just a ploy to advance other political goals (don’t even get me started on that one).
70
MSimon. The SDs we are talking about are in temperature /unit time. So I do not know what you mean by a SD of less than 1 C.
Once again, where do you get this ‘no warming for 160 years’?
“So far the trend has continued for 30 years or so.”
What 30 year trend?
UAH data since 1984?
Trend: 0.174 ±0.087 °C/decade (2σ)
16
Philip Shehan:
Yes, we can cherry-pick graphs too…
http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/ENSO_files/image030.jpg
Here are the raw temperature numbers taken directly from HadCRUT for the last 17 years. See if you can find a distinct warming trend here.
1997 0.392
1998 0.531
1999 0.301
2000 0.294
2001 0.437
2002 0.492
2003 0.503
2004 0.445
2005 0.539
2006 0.495
2007 0.483
2008 0.388
2009 0.494
2010 0.547
2011 0.406
2012 0.448
2013 0.486
The globe has warmed by a whopping +0.4 C since 1940…
HadCRUT temperature data:
1940 0.018
1941 0.018
…even though nearly 100 ppm of CO2 has been pumped into the atmosphere during the last 75 years. This period has included a cooling trend of -0.2 C between the years 1940/’41 and 1975/’76.
Here’s what the +0.4 C of warming since 1940 looks like plotted (using multiple datasets):
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/global.png
And according to the IPCC, which uses the HadCRUT, we only warmed by +0.76 C from 1850 to 2005.
“The total temperature increase from the period 1850 to 1899 to the period 2001 to 2005 is 0.76°C ± 0.19°C.”
If we cherry-picked the late 1870s to start from rather than 1850, we’ve warmed by less than +0.5 C in the last 140 years.
70
The trend line for the last 14 years is in fact far from flat.
But if I put a ruler on the graph from the last data point to about mid 1997 the difference is zero.
50
Philip Shehan
July 6, 2014 at 11:53 pm
I must admit I misread your numbers (as you can tell from my comments). You can disregard my points about SD. But my main point still stands. From about 1997.9 to the present the trend is zero. That is over 16 years. Phil Jones thinks the pause is significant because such long pauses do not show up in CO2 driven models with the current rate of CO2 increase. His original opinion was that a pause over 10 years was significant.
Such a pause would not be unusual if the climate (30 years) was cyclic.
Such a cyclic nature would require greatly reduced CO2 sensitivity. If there is any sensitivity at all. Because what happened was that a cyclic rise was imputed to CO2 rise.
40
Kenneth, your comment is polite, well presented and thoughtful and backed by data so I would normally do you the courtesy of a detailed response.
However, I do not readily recall your name compared with others who I encounter frequently here and you seem to have missed my many posts on cherry picking, statistical significance, the mutifactorial nature of temperature forcings, and the consequent variability of the temperature record, “step” theories etc.
Others here are familiar with these arguments, and I must be elsewhere so I apologise for not repeating them again.
13
Regarding “cherrypicking”….
Considering that when we talk about the warming of the 20th century, we’re talking about only two periods of warming—1910 to 1940, and 1976/’77 to 1997/’98 (with the latter trend both starting and ending with strong El Nino years). That’s it. Those are the only two warming stretches of the last 130 years.
The 1910 to 1940 warming of +0.5 C coincided with a CO2 increase of just 5 ppm, as CO2 levels only rose from 300 ppm to 305 ppm during that 30+ year stretch. So that warming couldn’t have been mostly anthropogenic.
From 1940 to 1976, temperatures cooled by -0.2 C (despite CO2 levels rising by 30 ppm during that stretch).
From 1998 to 2012, we have “warmed” by +0.04 C per decade (according to the IPCC AR5) despite CO2 levels rising from 360 ppm to 400 ppm during that stretch…so this stretch really doesn’t fit the hypothesis either.
And if we go back to the 1877/’78 to 1910 trend, we see a drop in temperatures of nearly -0.5 C during that 30+ year trend. So that doesn’t fit either.
Simply put, the only stretch of time in the last 130 years that CO2 levels rose rapidly at the same time that temperatures rose rapidly were between the years 1976/’77 and 1997/’98, a 22-year period. Does 22 years out of the last 130 truly establish a correlation between CO2 amplification and temperature amplification?
This is the backdrop that must be considered when one references the subject of “cherry-picking.”
30
M Simon,
With respect to “What is the proper level of CO2 for plant food?” This is not my area but it is true that plants grow more with increased CO2 concentration but I am not sure what the limits are. It is also true that the nutritional value of plants grown under higher CO2 concentrations is lower.
It depends on what plants you are talking about. Natural selection will result in plants adjusting to whichever are best suited to whatever the conditions are.
Ditto with “What is the best temperature for the planet?
What people really mean is what is the best temperature from an anthropomorphic viewpoint, and even then that will depend on which people where. There will be winners and losers from global warming.
I remarked previously as to why the Prime Minister of Canada may have a relaxed atitude to AGW.
18
Plants seem to like from 1,000 to 1,500 ppm. We have a ways to go. Below about 250 ppm some plants don’t do well. At 100 ppm none of them do well.
I’d like to see about 500 to 800 ppm in the atmosphere. We may have to turn a LOT of calcium carbonate into CO2 to get there.
As to my preferred temperature for the planet. I like about 2C to 5C warmer than current conditions. I think we ought to leave the ice age behind. If we can.
90
Speaking as an Australian, I am not in favour of warming of 2 to 5 degrees, which would render Australia’s food bowl barren and inundation of coastal cities.
18
You fix barren with CO2 – lots of CO2. As to coastal cities? That is a problem.
But I’m tired of the ice age. I’ve lived in one all my life. And we may very well be near the end of the interglacial. I would think an end to ice ages would be worth some pain. After all – crops do not do well under ice.
50
Philip Shehan said …
What do you base this on? Temperatures rise by more than 5 degrees every day from the night before and catastrophe has not occur yet.
The much more scarier scenario is that a drop of 2C in average temperatures for the Northern Hemisphere and large areas of Russia and Canada stop being able to produce wheat. The spectre of wide spread famine becomes a real possibility.
Cold is orders of magnitude worse than warm.
40
MSimon. Plants indeed need CO2. They also need another vital substance: Water.
I live on the earth’s driest inhabited continent and the food bowl (South Eastern Australia) is almost perpetually on the brink of drought or in one. This problem is projected to increase dramatically in this region with rising global temperatures.
16
Yes, droughts are “projected” to increase by those who wish to equate rising anthropogenic greenhouse gases with drought frequencies (and rising flood frequencies at the same time—go figure).
But not only does the IPCC (now) acknowledge that there are no trends with regard to drought frequencies since CO2 levels began their precipitous rise in the 1950s, but there were more droughts reported prior to the 1950s than since. Besides, it’s well established that droughts are caused by solar forcing, not 1/100ths of 1% changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations (300 ppm to 400 ppm).
———————————————–
IPCC summarizing statements from AR5 (2013):
“In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century.”
“AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated.”
———————————————-
The peer-reviewed literature indicates that droughts were much more frequent prior to 1950, when CO2 emissions began their exponential rise, than since 1950. This establishes a non-correlation between amplified CO2 and drought frequency or intensity.
————————————————-
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL025711/abstract
Droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the country over the last century.
————————————————–
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI2683.1
Tree-ring records show that the twentieth century has been moist from the perspective of the last millennium and free of long and severe droughts that were abundant in previous centuries. The recent drought, forced by reduced precipitation and with reduced evaporation, has no signature of model-projected anthropogenic climate change.
—————————————————
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016819231000256X
[D]rought conditions over the period of instrumental records (since 1895) do not exhibit the full range of variability, severity, or duration of droughts during the last millennium. Thirteen decadal to multidecadal droughts (i.e., ≥10 years) occurred during the last millennium – the longest lasting sixty-one years and centered on the late twelfth century.
—————————————————
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v384/n6609/abs/384552a0.html
Extreme droughts of greater intensity than that of the 1930s were more frequent before AD 1200. This high frequency of extreme droughts persisted for centuries, and was most pronounced during AD 200–370, AD 700–850 and AD 1000–1200. We suggest that before AD 1200, the atmospheric circulation anomalies that produce drought today were more frequent and persistent.
—————————————————-
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.619/abstract
[I]t is not possible to conclude that drought conditions in general have become more severe or frequent. The period analysed and the selection of stations strongly influenced the regional pattern. For most stations, no significant changes were detected.
——————————————————-
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/abs/nature11575.html
Here we show that the previously reported increase in global drought is overestimated because the PDSI uses a simplified model of potential evaporation that responds only to changes in temperature and thus responds incorrectly to global warming in recent decades. More realistic calculations, based on the underlying physical principles8 that take into account changes in available energy, humidity and wind speed, suggest that there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years.
——————————————————-
And droughts, of course, are not caused by carbon dioxide concentrations, or humans. They’re primarily caused by solar forcing.
——————————————————-
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/292/5520/1367.abstract
We conclude that a significant component of century-scale variability in Yucatan droughts is explained by solar forcing.
——————————————————–
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL034971/abstract
These coherencies corroborate strong visual correlations and provide convincing evidence for solar forcing of east-central North American droughts and strengthen the case for solar modulation of mid-continent climates.
50
According to the IPCC, sea levels rose at a rate of 1.7 mm/yr, or 6.6 inches per century, from 1901 to 2010. And sea level rise has actually been decelerating (overall) since the 1920 to 1950 period, when CO2 levels were still in the low 300s ppm.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL028492/abstract
Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003).
http://www.psmsl.org/products/reconstructions/2008GL033611.pdf
The fastest sea level rise, estimated from the time variable trend with decadal variability removed, during the past 300 years was observed between 1920– 1950 with maximum of 2.5 mm/yr. [E]stimates of the melting glacier contribution to sea level is 4.5 cm for the period 1900 – 2000 with the largest input of 2.5 cm during 1910 – 1950 [Oerlemans et al., 2007]
http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/q7j3kk0128292225/
For the last 40-50 years strong observational facts indicate virtually stable sea level conditions. The Earth’s rate of rotation records an [average] acceleration from 1972 to 2012, contradicting all claims of a rapid global sea level rise, and instead suggests stable, to slightly falling, sea levels.
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1
Without sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m from 2010 to 2100; therefore, sea-level acceleration is a critical component of projected sea-level rise. To determine this acceleration, we analyze monthly-averaged records for 57 U.S. tide gauges in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) data base that have lengths of 60–156 years. Least-squares quadratic analysis of each of the 57 records are performed to quantify accelerations, and 25 gauge records having data spanning from 1930 to 2010 are analyzed. In both cases we obtain small average sea-level decelerations. To compare these results with worldwide data, we extend the analysis of Douglas (1992) by an additional 25 years and analyze revised data of Church and White (2006) from 1930 to 2007 and also obtain small sea-level decelerations similar to those we obtain from U.S. gauge records.
Non-accelerating sea levels have been documented for the coasts of Australia, too.
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00141.1
The Australasian region has four very long, continuous tide gauge records, at Fremantle (1897), Auckland (1903), Fort Denison (1914), and Newcastle (1925), which are invaluable for considering whether there is evidence that the rise in mean sea level is accelerating over the longer term at these locations in line with various global average sea level time-series reconstructions. The analysis reveals a consistent trend of weak deceleration at each of these gauge sites throughout Australasia over the period from 1940 to 2000.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378383912000154
The government of Australia is supporting the statement that sea levels are rising faster than ever before as a result of increased carbon dioxide emissions. Consequent to this, low-lying coastal areas, where the majority of Australians are concentrated, have been declared at risk of sea level inundations. Maps with 0.5, 0.8 and 1.1 m sea level rise have been proposed for Sydney, the major Australian city. However, long term tide gauges, recording sea levels worldwide, as well as along the coastline of Australia, and within the bay of Sydney, do not show any sign of accelerating sea level rises at present time.
http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/k3xg21881l4k0161/
There is a claim that, by the end of this century, Australian coastal communities will experience rising sea levels of up to more than 1 metre because of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions causing global warming. The paper shows that locally and globally measured data, collected over short and long time scales, prove that the claim of sea level sharply accelerating is false.
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/jaeger/Moerner_Parker_ESAIJ2013.pdf
We revisit available tide gauge data along the coasts of Australia, and we are able to demonstrate that the rate may vary between 0.1 and 1.5 mm/year, and that there is an absence of acceleration over the last decades. With a database of 16 stations covering only the last 17 years, the National Tidal Centre claims that sea level is rising at a rate of 5.4 mm/year. We here analyse partly longer-term records from the same 16 sites as those used by the Australian Baseline Sea Level Monitoring Project (ABSLMP) and partly 70 other sites; i.e. a database of 86 stations covering a much longer time period. This database gives a mean trend in the order of 1.5 mm/year. Therefore, we challenge both the rate of sea level rise presented by the National Tidal Centre in Australia and the general claim of acceleration over the last decades.
And to put this into perspective for the last 10,000 years…
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jqs.2634/abstract
We conclude that relative sea levels rose at an average rate of 4 mm per year from 10,000-6,000 years ago, 2 mm per year from 6,000 to 2,000 years ago, and 1.3 mm per year from 2,000 years ago to AD 1900.
And since 1900, they’ve risen at a rate of 1.7 mm/yr, with most of that increase in acceleration occurring prior to 1950, when CO2 emissions were but a fraction of what they are today.
So, to address the original point, inundation of coastal cities due to rapid sea level rise/anthropogenic CO2 is highly unlikely.
Thank you for posting so many links to articles with short descriptions. This is very helpful. Cheers! – Jo
80
I live on the earth’s driest inhabited continent and the food bowl (South Eastern Australia) is almost perpetually on the brink of drought or in one. This problem is projected to increase dramatically in this region with rising global temperatures.
Well then. If CO2 is disproved to be a driver of climate I’m sure you will be greatly relieved. We can then up the CO2 in the atmosphere further. If the Sahara is any indication (greening with higher CO2 levels) it should be a great boon to Oz.
As to “projected”. I wouldn’t place much stock in that. I project that if temperatures keep rising as they did in my location from 5AM (local time) to 1 PM in 20 days the local temperature will be on the order of 260F minimum. Evidently I’m doomed. 😉
60
Philip Shehan
July 6, 2014 at 9:48 pm
M Simon,
With respect to “What is the proper level of CO2 for plant food?” This is not my area but it is true that plants grow more with increased CO2 concentration but I am not sure what the limits are. It is also true that the nutritional value of plants grown under higher CO2 concentrations is lower.
I think you’ll find that that “fact” is somewhat under dispute. See here
Jo says see my post:Increasing CO2 threatens human nutrition (From the Annals of Hype)
“…to solve a shortage of a 10% reduction in iron and zinc in rice, the average person eating 100g of rice would need to eat an extra 2.6 grams of chickpeas (or is that chickpea, singular?). As a bonus they would be getting five times more iron than what they are missing out on in the rice.” — jo
10
Mr Shenan
In #1.6.1.1.2, you say:
How would the coastal cities would be inundated? The level of the entire Pacific and the entire Indian Ocean would need to rise by several metres to achieve that. The area of the earth’s oceans is 361.8 million square metres, and that would need to rise by about 5 metres to “inundate” cities. Where would the 1809 million cubic metres of water come from, to do that?
Also, if the air temperature increased by 2 to 5 degrees, this would increase the amount of evaporation from the sea, would it not? That water vapour would eventually condense into droplets and form clouds, which would then increase the amount of rainfall. This is the water cycle they teach kids in primary school.
Can you explain to us, how either of these hypotheses are wrong?
20
I rest my case.
10
After reading some of Svalgaard’s endless postings, and his desperation to assert his authority, I’ve just realised who he reminds me of. It’s Captain Queeg.
50
“As Svalgaard himself said, “All so-called ‘reconstructions’ of TSI are guesses. Most of them bad.”
If David’s guess turns out less bad than Leif’s I will be greatly amused.
Given the large drop from the peak of cycle 23 to the peak of cycle 24 my best guess would put the start of the steepest decline (after smoothing) nearer 2004/5 as per David than 1995 as per Leif.
The jet stream tracks stopped moving poleward and became more meridional around 2000 and since then ozone above the poles has started to increase again, ocean heat content is no longer rising, the Earthshine project shows increasing global cloudiness and albedo, El Nino is not as dominant compared to La Nina as it was and incursions of cold polar air into the mid latitudes in both hemisphere have increased.
The most likely interpretation is that Leif spotted the initial change to a cessation of warming and maybe slight cooling in the mid 90’s (blogger HenryP set it around that time too, I think) but the recent very low minimum with record negative polar vortices may well have put the trend into proper cooling which, taking the 11 or so year lag into account, should give a cooling atmosphere by 2017 as David suggests.
I think blogger Salvatore del Prete has suggested the levels to which solar activity should drop so that that actual cooling begins.
Maybe Leif is a few years behind the curve on this?
730
Good point Stephen (kicking myself for not seeing it myself :)):
“Given the large drop from the peak of cycle 23 to the peak of cycle 24 my best guess would put the start of the steepest decline (after smoothing) nearer 2004/5 as per David than 1995 as per Leif.”
640
You are welcome.
This is getting to be fun:)
490
such a pity you have had to devote so much time and energy answering criticism,whether valid or not,before the complete series of posts was completed. i really do believe some very clever people have problems reading at times.
350
The problem is, you’re muscling in on someone else’s pile of dung which they thought they had come to control. Hence they find it impossible not to push back, hard, until they see the point of firm resistance indicating the real boundary.
I’m a different sort of character: my MO is to pass very swiftly across contested territory having done my detailed analysis in advance. That analysis always has at its heart the unassailable physics’ correction showing that the particular pile of dung is really being held under false pretences and it embarrasses the holder to continue holding it!
So, the difference is that you attack and occupy whereas I, one of Nature’s iconoclasts, undermine to the point of collapse then rebuild!
210
“…you’re muscling in on someone else’s pile of dung…”
I am totally stealing that phrase, good one 8)
30
[…] Funny things happen on the Internet sometimes. Rather spectacular claims were made that 900 days of data “were fabricated”. […]
30
I’m not so confused by the behavior of Svalgaard and Essenbach.
You are treading on the Sun Gods toes. Whenever I was confronted with an expert, I always kept this definition in mind, “An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less until they reach the pinnacle where they know absolutely everything about nothing”
The other case seems to be an example of the “Napoleonic small man complex”. I have to wonder how many times others were tempted to “punch his lights out, the argumentative little bast88RD”. Career wise the resume would raise red flags, two immediate thoughts would be either incompetence or interpersonal skill deficiencies. In school report parlance, “Does not play well with others”. Probably a fun guy to have a beer with but does not come over as a team player, a bright critical thinker but at times develops tunnel vision and loses the big picture.
Right or wrong, the positions taken and the antagonistic language used have done serious reputational damage. Childish, blinkered, arrogant and uncalled for.
660
“An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less until they reach the pinnacle where they know absolutely everything about nothing”
One of my favourite quotes that I’ve often borne in mind when commenting over the past several years.
Sometimes, being a generalist outsider is the best way forward.
460
I prefer Ex – hasbeen Spurt- a drip under pressure.
I hope you have considered (as I have mentioned numerous times before) that the reason you are not seeing much cooling yet is because you are not looking at real data.
As long as NCDC and GISS have control of the final output of temperature data there will be no large amount of cooling in the so called official data sets.
Another point to consider is that Satellite data is showing the amount of warmth leaving the Earth, not the actual temperature of the earth. Which may be one reason why the values shown for various regions by the Satellite data bear no resemblance to what the people living in those regions actually experience at Ground Level.
See this post by the ScottishSceptic
http://scottishsceptic.wordpress.com/2014/07/03/reconciling-skydragons-and-mainstream-skeptics/
140
Stephen,
But remember that “a generalist knows less and less about more and more and the pinacle is knowing nothing about everything”
80
A neat riposte but not quite accurate.
A generalist knows more and more about more and more but realises that one can never know everything about anything.
Generalists don’t drop out of whole areas of knowledge in order to focus more on a small area of knowledge which is what experts tend to do. Generalists try not to drop out of any areas of knowledge whilst they go deeper into as much as possible.
Leif, for example, knows as much as it is currently possible to know about the sun but I have little confidence in his knowledge about solar interaction with an atmosphere. In that latter area he is no more expert than many of us here.
Willis had an insight about a water based thermostat applying to equatorial sea surface temperatures but failed to take advice as to how it should be extended globally and why it is related to the weight of atmospheric mass pressing down on the water surface.
Neither of them has the breadth of general knowledge required to helpfully interpret the multidisciplinary complexity of a planet’s climate system.
190
My favourite was alway:
“an expert is someone who knows what he doesn’t know“.
In other words he is aware of the boundaries to his knowledge.
70
Quite correct Engineer.
And in fact scientists spend their days trying to come to grips with things they do not understand about their chosen field. That is why it is called original research.
25
Engineers try to come to grips with problems they do not initially understand in order to make their devices work. There is at least as much research going on in engineering as there is in science. It is just directed towards a different end.
In fact one of the cardinal virtues of engineering is the ability to discard a misleading or wrong hypothesis quickly. Scientists seem to lack that virtue – in the main.
I would guess that is why you find so many engineers among the CO2 sceptics. We don’t have time for ideas that don’t work.
50
My Dad always said to me to be cautious of Experts
He said to me “X” is an unknown quantity and “Spurt” is a drip under pressure.
50
Apologies to A C Osborn should have read the replies properly
30
The two of them have lost sight of a very basic principle that even Tony Soprano understands – those who want respect give respect.
100
I much prefer Feynman’s more succinct “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts”.
280
I already said I am going all-in on Nova and Evans.
Eugene WR Gallun
191
“Science is a bloodsport”
Said by those who prefer to think of themselves as the bullfighters rather than as the bullsh*tters they really are.
Keep up the good work David and Jo. When you’re getting hit with flying bullsh*t, you know you’re over the most fertile land.
750
Be careful, when walking behind cows that have been eating spring grass … 🙂
140
Don’t expect Slick Willy, the fishing cowboy who would be a scientist, to back down. Even when confronted with his mandated quoted material provided he side-steps through diversion as if he’d not even read what one has written. He likes to speak of the characteristics of the planet where he’s from – apparently humility is not found there as someone else observed. When center-punched by Jo Nova he did finally chant “mea culpa” when there was no wiggle room left.
He is conformed to his slap dash emergent phenomena hypothesis (which has never included an energy budget to power this regulator) and defending that hypothesis is his agenda. Leif is what you see – no further description is needed.
The sooner we all get past the unhelpful contributions of these two manics the sooner we can all see the full picture behind the mysterious X force. I’m looking forward to it.
400
I erred above and I hasten to correct the error. I wrote Dr. Curry but in fact intended to write Jo Nova.
Fixed. Thanks – Jo
30
AsI have noted before for Tallblokes, there appears to be a desire to keep the skeptic command firmly in the American hands. Substantive contributions by “foreignerd” seem to be greeted with suspicion. I’ve seen it in my oil and gas business: if a Texan didn’t come up with the idea, there must be something wrong with it. At a minimum? , it needs fixing.
The climate dispute displays cultural attributes just as we’ve seen through history. If it don’t come from our friends, we don’t have to pay attention. And if it turns out well, we somehow started the ball rolling.
People are tiring. Dogs are often better.
400
“there appears to be a desire to keep the skeptic command firmly in the American hands.”
As a Virginian in the USA, I hope that this is not the case. Michael Crichton laid out the dangers of the scientific community not remaining an international family that remains aloof from governments and pursue the truth en masse. Lysenko also comes to mind.
The truth of the matter is that the truth lies where it will, and no amount of PR or plans can change that.
60
I didn’t mind reading the bulk of this post which reiterated what has already been covered in the release of Dr Evans’ new theory and model so far. It convinced me that my understanding was correct and it was good to see some of the issues which have been raised, and some of the misunderstandings addressed in one place, i.e. rather than in the comments section of the previous posts.
But I felt sick in the guts when I read through the list of ‘Highlights’ noting specific comments by Svalgaard and Eschenbach. I had seen some of them of course, but putting them altogether was shocking, like staring at a gory train wreck. There is just no excuse for being so rude, impolite and defamatory. This is a science blog!
I am amazed at the grace and dignity Dr David Evans and Jo Nova have shown in handling this.
740
You can either use a rational and transparent scientific process or a post normal scientific process but you can’t use both.
The post normal scientific process is based upon Post Modern Philosophy in which truth is said to be unknowable. This is especially and because one must see, process the evidence one sees, and draw conclusions from that process to know. As Kant says, one cannot see a thing in itself (without process) therefor all that is seen is false. All truth is revealed only to those capable of knowing. That you don’t know proves your unworthiness. Mere reason is helpless in face of such magnificent wisdom.
It is because of that belief, the data, the exposed process, and the demonstration/experiment are all considered irrelevant. It is only the seriousness of the charge and the truth as revealed by the self selected significant observers that is relevant. How do they know? Well, they are superior beings of extraordinary vision of what is. Their word is the law because it is THEIR word. It is all justified by the mystical and magic word “somehow”.
If you *believe*, no explanation is necessary. If you don’t, no explanation is possible. Those who don’t *believe* are apostates worthy of only beheading. At first, figuratively by having their character assassinated and finally, if they do not submit to the superior mystical wisdom, literally.
It is all made so simple once you have the right perspective. You can dispense with evidence, demonstration, and experiment. You can then move immediately to the conclusions. The conclusions are correct simply because they are your conclusions. Reality had better cooperate with the program or else the human sacrifices will commence to force reality into compliance. That this has never worked except to produce mountains of dead bodies is part of the evidence they hold to be irrelevant. Their intent to make the universe pure and noble is all that matters.
Their hidden motivation is part of that body of irrelevant evidence and is not to be considered. Yet, if you keep doing the same thing and keep getting results contrary to your spoken objective, your real objective is the results you get.
170
” if you keep doing the same thing and keep getting results contrary to your spoken objective, your real objective is the results you get.”
that’s the most awesome quote. i am so going to be using that next time i hear a taxpayer complain about taxes (he does it so he can complain) or a voter yammering on about voting (he does it because he’s codependent, submissive and self deluded.)
thanks for that!
20
The Maker help us if we move on from post normal science to post normal engineering.
80
If it were to happen I don’t think it would last long. After a few bridges or buildings collapsed or a few cars or aircraft gained a reputation as death traps those engineers would find themselves without work. When everything is theoretical there isn’t the same damage done to one’s reputation as when it must be applied but is applied incorrectly and results in deaths or injury.
Were I to design a power generator intended to parallel with the grid without any reverse power protection, phase synchronization safeties, etc. and it a) destroyed itself on connecting to the grid, or b) destroyed one of the main power generators on the grid after it was connected the repercussions would be immediate. Yet I can hypothesize that a trace gas will cause eventual planetary destruction at some point after I will be dead and buried with relative immunity as by the time either the damage of following solutions to prevent the outcome of my hypothesis or the reality that it was wrong become apparent it will be far to late to do anything to me about it. Well, I suppose you could write nasty things about me in the upgraded history texts but seeing as I’m dead by then it won’t bother me.
50
Doctors bury their mistakes one at a time, engineers by the dozen. If you wonder who is more cautious, check out the E&O rates for engineers vs. malpractice rates for doctors.
10
Lionell,
Your 15 microseconds of fame: http://classicalvalues.com/2014/07/results-oriented/
30
Lionell, there is no “post normal science” based on post modern philosophy.
And Robert, comparisons between science and engineering is comparing apples and spanners.
Engineering is based on relatively simple physical principles known to a very high degree of precision and accuracy.
Science deals with theories, many of which concern exrtremely complicated systems which are established to varying degrees of uncertainty and are subject to further research and modification.
46
I see you are totally ignorant of wafer fabs. You should not use computers if you don’t understand them.
Engineering in very complex systems is based on empiricism. Science can be very helpful. But it is not necessary if the empirics are good.
And scientists develop theories – whoop te doooo doooo. And the theories get trashed repeatedly. Especially those about complex systems. But empirics? If they worked yesterday and cover a sufficient range of factors they will work tomorrow.
Good science is a codification of empiricism. Bad science? Well that is everything else. There seems to be a LOT of everything else going around these days.
80
I said “relatively” simple. It is the precision with which these principles are known that allows engineers to apply them and make instruments that work and bridges that don’t fall down.
Yes scientists develope theories, including those which engineers use, such as those behind the developement of wafer fabs. They could not be developed by empiracism alone, trial and error. There must be an understanding of the physical theories behind them.
Scientists develope theories based on what they learn from observations of the physical world, to explain that world, make predictions based on those theories and modify them, or trash them and replace them with new theories to account for new observations where required.
That is a description of the scientific project.
18
Philip,
“If you cannot use it to build something that works in the real world, it is speculation.”
An engineer’s view of science.
60
And science is the basis of engineering.
17
I might add that all modern understanding of electronics is based on quantum theory.
15
I might add that electronic devices were built without reference to quantum theory.
And I might also add that quantum theory may very well be wrong. But it doesn’t matter as long as the numbers are useful.
It works the same way as F=ma. That is wrong. Absolutely wrong. But it doesn’t matter in the cases where it is close enough to do useful design.
Empiricism trumps theory. And in the case of current climate theory – “its the CO2 stupid” – reality trumps that. 17+ years of stagnant temperatures while atmospheric CO2 is up about 25%. In order for the models to reflect that the efficacy of CO2 in driving temperatures will have to be reduced. Reality averts catastrophe. Carbon will not need to be taxed.
40
Of course quantum theory may be wrong.
But thus far it has passed every test to a degree of precision unparalled in science.
And truth seeker has a very narrow attitude to science.
The structure of DNA was not mere speculation until genetic engineering came along.
The fact is that much well established science waits a long time for a practical application, but that does not make it mere speculation either.
In my own field Nuclear Magnetic Resonance began with physicists studying the magnetc properties of nuclei. They did not foresee the constrruction of NMRE spectrometers and MRI.
The first bridge may have been constructed when a hominid pushed a log over a stream, but for a rather long time the fact has been: No science, no engineering.
16
Have you heard of Polywell Fusion? The people involved plan to use surplus MRI magnets to build a test reactor.
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/low-cost-fusion-project-steps-out-shadows-looks-money-n130661
20
MSimon: No I had not heard about Polywell fusion. Very interesting. Thanks for the link.
22
You are welcome.
20
F = ma is not absolutely wrong.
In spite of Newtonian phsyics being superseded by relativity, it is still accurate enough for almost all terrestrial applications, including engineering, and to send space vehicles to the planets.
I have responde to the point about CO2 and temperatures above.
15
F=ma is ABSOLUTELY wrong. It is just as you point out (and I have been saying) close enough for a lot of work.
30
What a self important tosser you are.
Quit trying to trivialize engineering. Many of the principles are not relatively simple which you might understand if you were an engineer. And the repercussions when an engineer makes a serious error outweigh anything a scientist might face because his/her hypothesis was crap.
80
Robert, I am not trivialising engineering.
It is people like Truthseeker and yourself who are trivialising science.
‘Philip,
“If you cannot use it to build something that works in the real world, it is speculation.”
An engineer’s view of science.’
If that is really the attitude of a significant number of engineers they would be correctly characterised as narrow minded non-thinkers who can only operate a calculator.
I give them more credit than Truthseeker does.
My point is that the physical principles behind engineering are not as complicated, with multiple interactions as in living systems and climate, for example.
Quantum mechanics is in no way trivial. Nor are the physics behind the forces and stresses involved in civil engineering. That is why calculations can be made to a very high degree of precision and confidence which means that bridges can be constructed that will not fall down. As they did, along with pyramids and cathedrals when things were done on the basis of “emprical” experience, trial and error.
I was trained in the physical sciences looking at “relatively” simple systems, the structure dynamics and interactions between “relatively” simple molecules, and had some sympathy for Rutherford’s viewpoint that if you have to resort to statistics you have not done the experiment properly.
Then I moved into biomedical research, dealing with complicted and messy systems of living matter, animals, organs tissues etc. and understood that this was indeed a narrow minded attitude.
“And the repercussions when an engineer makes a serious error outweigh anything a scientist might face because his/her hypothesis was crap.”
Before the first atomic test, Edward Teller postulated that there was a non-zero probability that the test would set fire to the atmosphere. They did some more maths and decided to take the risk. (All a bit cavalier considering the possible consequences in my opinion.) The physics of nuclearfusion is however relatively simple. So the engineers and scintists involved in constructing “the gadget” on the basis scientists theories had a high “engineers degree of confidence the correct working of their bit of engineering.
I suggest that a serious error in scientist’s calculations and theories in this instance would have had consequences that outwieghed any negative outcomes of an engineering problem.
15
Despite all the “names” involved with the gadget it was an engineering problem. Feynman and the rest were not doing physics. They were doing engineering.
As to “unfortunate results” had one set of calculations proved correct – just goes to show that some things are not amenable to available math. You have to run the test.
30
Do a web search on “Post Normal Science” and you will find over 10,000 hits for the phrase. Here is a paragraph from one:
I call this a meaningless verbal word salad derived from the principles of Post Modern Philosophy. You may argue that my assessment is in error but you cannot properly argue that Post Normal Science doesn’t exist. The authors take this garbage seriously. So also do most so called climate scientists. That way they don’t have to do the hard work of real science and be honest, honorable, and open with the details of their work and data processing.
50
Lionell.
I have no doubt that academics in the Humanities and Social Sciences (including apparently the authors of your link: S. Funtowicz, Centre for the Study of the Sciences and the Humanities, University of Bergen; J. Ravetz, Oxford) have ideas on “post normal” or “post modern science”. But do scientists themselves go along with this?
Such ideas are confined to these social scientists.
It is not something that scientists, who are the only people who count with regard to such an assertion, accept or even know about. They continue to practice science according to the old established norms.
As for sociologist’s claims that this is how science is or should be conducted, this is a decades old idea. For a brilliant take down of such nonsense which I read close to twenty years ago, I suggest Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science by biologist Paul R. Gross and mathematician Norman Levitt, published in 1994.
Richard Feynman said that History and Philosophy was irrelevant to science and a waste of time.
I see his point in that it also is unknown to most scientists and irrelevant to them in their day to day lab work, although as a separate discipline in its own right I was sufficiently interested to undertake post graduate studies in that area.
There is nothing wrong with “the need for greater participation in science-policy processes” and other such matters. In fact I am all for it. The uses of science should not be something that is only the preserve of scientists or governments or other “experts”. We need a scientifically literate and involved public to make decisions on how scintific discoveries are to be used.
But again this has nothing to do with the way scientists conduct science itself. Which is all that really matters.
12
David,
While I disagree with any nastiness in approach, I tend to agree with some points that both Willis and Leif made. More generally, this is one of the better graphs that show how TSI really peaked with the big sunspot cycle in the late 1950’s and has been rolling off ever since:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temp_vs_TSI_2009.gif
The TSI trend versus temperature trend is particularly telling– they are going in opposite directions and have been for many decades, notch filter or no notch filter.
I happen to think you are way off base on this, and that overall, each succeeding decadal average temperature will be higher than the previous decadal average for at least the remainder of this century. The only break in this trend will be the eruption of a large volcano or two in the same decade. The forcing from CO2 and other GH gas increases is just too strong compared to the solar influence (as the chart above clearly shows).
Prior to the large anthropogenic influence, volcanoes and solar cycle did indeed modulate shorter-term climate, with astronomical cycles (Milankovtich) modulating longer-term comings and goings of glacial advances over the past several million years.
327
That explains the pause very well. Almost 18 years now. Let me see. How many decades is that? A little less than 1.8 by my reckoning. How do you reckon?
171
“That explains the pause very well. Almost 18 years now.”
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/weekend-unthreaded-41/#comment-1503255
14
Almost 2C SD? Well then. Statistically there has been no warming for at least 160 years.
We have nothing to worry about.
50
Kindly supply some evidence to support your assertion that “Statistically there has been no warming for at least 160 years.”
15
each succeeding decadal average temperature will be higher than the previous decadal average for at least the remainder of this century
Gatesy, that’s just wishful thinking on your part. The current solar cycle appears inadequate to maintain the temperature rise, and according to Leifs data the next solar cycle is looking like being a repeat of this solar cycle, so the ‘pause’ or even slight decline will most likely continue. co2 is well into the flat part of its logarithmic curve and the biosphere continues to blossom. If PDOs and AMOs play any part in global temperatures then their influence on the next 2 or 3 decades is unlikely to be “higher” temperatures either.
Your gif you provided looks suspiciously like GISS or Hadcrut 4 adjusted warmist comfort food.
If anyone is “way off base” it’s you.
220
J Martin,
Adjustments to the temperature record are made to acount for inconsistencies and problems involved in past temperature measurement.
Many of the adjustments made to GISS data actually increase past temperature relative to more recent ones which is hardly of comfort to “warmists”. Others have a neutral effect.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/are-transfer-functions-meaningless-the-white-noise-point-beware-your-assumptions/#comment-1499520
The fact is that all the temperature data sets are in very good agreement.
http://tinyurl.com/l5ojm6b
110
@ Philip Shehan. An inconvenient warm peak and subsequent trough wiped out by GISS.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/hansen-giss-1940-1980.gif
60
J Martin,
You have provided no information about the graphs so I cannot properly assess them.
If they do actually represent adjustments made, you have given no reason why the adjustments may not be entirely legitimate as outlined in the paper.
For example, hadcrut4 superseded hadcrut3 because the latter did not adequately cover temperatures in higher latitudes. This makes a difference in the area of interest of your graphs.
http://tinyurl.com/ptj9cz2
The graphs you post showing changes in relative positions of the mean temperatures between 1945 and 1955 and 1969 to 1970 in fact make very little difference to temperature changes with respect to any argument about the role of CO2 in warming. Hansen himself stated in his 1980 paper that he did not expect the warming signal from CO2 to make an appearance above the noise due to natural variation until the decade of the 80s.
If, as you suggest, something illegitimate is going on to make things look better, why did they not simply shave temperatures off the top of the anomalous local peak around 1940?
By the way, CO2 concentration (currently 400 ppm) is no where near the flat part of the logarithmic curve.
http://knowledgedrift.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/log1-co2.jpg
15
Your point about not providing the associated post that came with the graph is fair enough, and I will endevour to do so in future. However, your co2 graph is so almost linear as to be absurd and bears no relation to laboratory tests. It looks to me as if your co2 graph is based on climate models and presumes a matching increase in moisture content which has yet to be seen.
50
From your co2 graph we see that it shows a temmperature rise of 2C from 280ppm to 400ppm. Whereas in reality the temperture rise over that period has been ~0.8C. And it has yet to be conclusively established that that rise had anything to do with co2.
Over the last 17 years and 10 months co2 has risen steadily yet temperatures have not changed one iota.
40
J Martin,
Thanks for the reply and for looking for further information on the graphs.
I should point out that the verical axis on the CO2 graph is the forcing in Watts per metre squared, not degrees C.
I have not provided further information on this graph either so I will attempt to find the source.
Do you have information on the laboratory experiments you mention?
I do not dismiss the idea of a pause, although I do say there is no statistically significant temperature evidence to support it.
Such a pause does not invalidate the proposed effect of CO2 on temperature as of course many other forcings contribute to temperature sometimes reinforcing and at other times subtracting from the increase due to increasing CO2 concentration. The role of the sun is what this section is all about.
With regard to the observed temperature change with CO2 concentration,I have calculated the temperature rise with doubling of CO2 concentration for the following data.
The observed temperature is not entirely due to the effect of CO2 but includes contributions to warming or cooling from other forcings.
I posted this graph above, for which the rise is 1.80 ± 0.91 °C. The large error margins are a consequence of the relatively short temperature data range and subsequent error in that part of the calculation.
http://tinyurl.com/nyjroxe
For the data from 1958, when Muana Loa data begins the calculated value is 2.01 ± 0.38 °C
http://tinyurl.com/lhjpvkt
The data from 1850 in the following graph of temperature vs log CO2 concentration is 2.04 ± 0.07 °C
http://oi46.tinypic.com/29faz45.jpg
The agreement between the calculated value for the three periods is very good and is within the IPCC range for the sensitivity factor (1.5 – 4.5 C)
13
Such a pause does not invalidate the proposed effect of CO2 on temperature as of course many other forcings contribute to temperature sometimes reinforcing and at other times subtracting from the increase due to increasing CO2 concentration.
Then why don’t we see that in the models? Hint – for such a long pause the effect of CO2 would have to be diminished.
And if it was diminished it wouldn’t be a problem. Away goes the grant money.
So given all that why do you think CO2 emissions are a problem?
30
Which models?
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5960/1646/F8.expansion.html
If the pause is real it is due to effects such as ENSO solar cycles etc. which are currently having a cooling effect.
The underlying problem of warming due to CO2 has not gone away.
What happens when the natural cucles reinforce the warming due to CO2?
13
So tell me why haven’t the climate models included the cycles as soon as they were known?
Because to include them it would diminish the effect of CO2. BTW nice graph at the link. But it will be a bad predictor if temperatures start falling.
So how about the alternate hypothesis? I have seen models that just include ocean cycles and solar effects that account for >90% of the temperature changes. A tad better than your model that includes CO2.
Perhaps a zero weight for CO2 is the best weight. Then what?
===============
But OK. Suppose it is CO2. Are you willing to go to war with China, India, and Germany to get them to cut back on CO2 production? Or is it you don’t in your heart believe it is worth a war to “save the planet”?
And please give us your sophistry on why when CO2 was 1,000 or 2,000 or 5,000 ppm didn’t we get runaway heating.
Warmists have an explanation for everything.
Warmism is a dying religion. And in 10 or 15 years when it has died down more we will get explanations on why it was never CO2. Be patient.
And if CO2 was the problem why didn’t the “Greens” go on a tree planting campaign (the cheapest way to fix the “problem”) instead of becoming anti-plant food? Greens anti-plant food. Now that is an excellent laugh line.
What happens when people figure out that there were no greens? Just watermelons.
30
But you have to know those problems EXACTLY to make a proper adjustment. And you have to know the EXACT set of problems for each individual measurement.
What are the odds? Better – what is the evidence?
50
M Simon, No.
Read the link and the linked paper within it.
13
Well that certainly convinced me that they know the problems EXACTLY. And they know the EXACT set of problems for each individual measurement.
50
M Simon.
Firstly there is no such thing as an exact measurement. All measurements and resulting calculations involve an amount of uncertainty.
The rate of drop in temperature is known to be (to one significant figure) 6 C/km.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/wstdatmo.htm
The uncertainties in global temperature anomolies do not warrant temperature adjustment based on altitude to any higher precision.
Thus:
“The St. Helena station, based on metadata provided with MCDW records, was moved from 604 m to 436 m elevation between August 1976 and September 1976. Therefore assuming a lapse rate of about 6°C/km, we added 1°C to the St. Helena temperatures before September 1976.”
The question is which set of data more accurately reflects the change in temperature at St Helena, the data adjusted for the change in altitude or the unadjusted data?
13
Well ok the lapse rate is known to one significant figure. That reduces all the measurements this adjustment is applied to to one significant figure. Did the adjusters do that? Now is what you are left with of ANY significance?
Depends on the error bar of the measurement. And all the other meta data for the move. Like are the wind patterns the same? Closer or farther from the ocean? Different measuring system? etc.
And you have to ask – is the lapse rate constant from day to day? Or is it an average? Is it more or less on rainy days? Sunny days. Cloudy days? Was that taken into account?
But OK. They have “improved” that station (for the sake of argument). What about all the rest?
I like Watts’ idea of only using unmoved and as much as possible unchanged stations. And BTW how well were the Stevenson screens (where used) maintained? Was the paint used (when repainting was needed) the same? How often were the thermometers checked? Was the checking traceable to NBS (NIST these days). What are the errors in the thermometers at temperatures other than the check point (slope of the error not just offset)?
The record is lousy. Given that I wouldn’t care to trust the system for changes under 1C (long term) and in my BOE estimation changes under 3C are probably not significant. Although such changes can greatly affect things like the growing season.
=====================
Here in the Mid-West after the terrible winter just passed the “faith” in global warming is greatly diminished. If next year is on par and affects more of the nation faith will be further reduced.
Any way, all that says to me that the sun and ocean cycles are probably a better way to judge the future than measuring CO2. Piers Corbyn likes the solar magnetic field and pattern matching as a judge of 6 months to a year ahead. He makes a living at it. So there may be something to it.
30
You are indulging in hair splitting.
I believe the subject of cloudy days etc is covered in any number of references if you google temperature altitude. I chose a simple one for the point I made.
The basic question is, again:
The question is which set of data more accurately reflects the change in temperature at St Helena, the data adjusted for the change in altitude or the unadjusted data?
And here in Australia we have had a record warm autumn. What’s your point?
13
I believe the subject of cloudy days etc is covered in any number of references if you google temperature altitude. I chose a simple one for the point I made.
But that tells us nothing about the quality of the corrections made. A blanket adjustment for lapse rate introduces known errors. Which was my point.
The adjusting of data must be done very carefully. I am so far not impressed with the care with which that was done.
If it was me I’d call it a new station rather than continue the fiction that it is the same station.
30
And again with respect to your questions, read the paper in the link.
14
Jo,
Great response, in a clear and logical, point-by-point manner. In my past career in aerospace, I have gone thru the same type of public scientific jealous affrontive castigation, for merely suggesting that factor “A” could be the cause of data “B”, simply because I thought of it instead of the resident “expert”. Because his tirade had been done in front of the entire staff, the animosity was even worse towards me when it later proved out that I was correct.
Such is life. Sigh.
It is the facts that matter, no matter who proposes them. This has been a fascinating discussion to follow, so please carry on.
Best,
Neil Streech
330
I know that experience well. It happened to me so frequently, my name became “Damn It” as in “Damn It Griffith is right again.” I did nothing special except I observed carefully, thought about what I saw in a wider context, and drew the logical conclusions.
Was I ever found to be wrong? Yes but not often enough to satisfy my critics. My failure was to be right for the right reasons and being able to demonstrate my conclusions actually working the way I said they would work. I should have been eternally wrong, always fail, and be just like everyone else. That way I wouldn’t have offended those with whom I was working.
My bad. I was simply acting the way I thought a scientist and engineer should act so that I could actually be a scientist and an engineer. I never understood why always being wrong was so important and highly valued. I thought being right and successful was the point.
190
Lionell,
You are correct, being accurate(right)is the entire point of science/engineering. If additional or clearer data come along then it will either contradict or confirm the accepted understanding. If It doesn’t fit, then it is time to reassess, both the new data and the status quo understanding.
Oh, and Jo, don’t expect any apologies, especially public ones. I think i have had one (1) in 45 years. Don’t be disappointed when it doesn’t happen.
Neil
160
” If additional or clearer data come along then it will either contradict or confirm the accepted understanding. If It doesn’t fit, then it is time to reassess, both the new data and the status quo understanding.”
The ‘additional or clearer data’ is already here http://www.leif.org/research/No-TSI-Difference-Between-Minima.pdf . And has been here for three years. This should have been known to Evans. If it was [is?] not, then Evans failed to do the due diligence that is required in serious scientific work, which is why I noted that his theory is flawed at the get-go, based as it is on faulty data.
1068
The point is to offer the new data to test the theory rather than go on about failure and seriousness and flawed theory. What’s so hard about being helpful rather than accusatory? It makes you look spiteful and petty. You’re better than that.
491
There are two interpretations of the initial hypothesis. The strong version is about the actual system behavior of the sun-earth interaction. The weak version is a about human added CO2 as the only possible explanation of the so called “observed” behavior.
Examining the data that the “team” uses to tune their model that works only if CO2 is added to the system is a critical test. Once done, it appears that additional CO2 is not the ONLY thing that can fit the existing (cherry picked, cooked, modified, corrected, adjusted, and approved by the “team”) data. I suggest that this is an important outcome. It doesn’t say anything about our actual climate but neither does the CAGW hypothesis as tested by the team. It simply says the current CAGW hypothesis is a cracked pot quite filled to over flowing with putrefied low quality crap.
To test the strong version will require a sufficiently accurate, sufficiently long, and sufficiently granular data set that truly reflects the behavior of the system. Unfortunately, most of the original raw data sets are impacted by the “my dog ate my homework” effect or “I won’t share it because you will only find fault with it” excuse. I doubt that any of the current data sets can be trusted to better than plus or minus 50%. It will take some extraordinarily high quality proof to convince me otherwise.
The earth has weather. The weather changes. There are some known gross patterns in that behavior. The causes of the patterns are subject to extreme speculation. There is nothing that stands as a well verified and substantiated mechanism beyond that energy level differences drive the patterns. There is not much else you can hang your hat on and truly expect it to stay put.
200
The ‘additional or clearer data’ is already here http://www.leif.org/research/No-TSI-Difference-Between-Minima.pdf . And has been here for three years.
And yet your preferred data, which you claim shows “TSI right now is about 0.45 W/m2 higher than in 2003-2005,” is contradicted by your own source (SORCE/TIM):
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/guillermo_image2.png
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/sorce_tsi_reconstruction_feb2013-feb2014.png?w=640
50
“And yet your preferred data, which you claim shows “TSI right now is about 0.45 W/m2 higher than in 2003-2005,” is contradicted by your own source (SORCE/TIM):
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/guillermo_image2.png”
So you show data [of the variance of TSI and not of TSI] that stops in 2009. Go figure. Here is SORCE/TIM data up to a few days ago:
http://www.leif.org/research/Monckton-Flaw-3.png
211
“So you show data [of the variance of TSI and not of TSI] that stops in 2009.”
And from what I understood, we were talking about the overall trend from 2003 onwards. The trend from 2003 to 2009 was (way) down. It’s gone up since, but the overall trend, when smoothed, is still down. That was my understanding, anyway, of what Dr. Evans has been contending.
Do you think we shouldn’t include 2003 to 2009 as part of the overall (2003 to 2014) trend, though, Leif? If so, why?
40
Had the same experience, simply because I stayed out of things I wasn’t pretty certain about and would happily admit I’m uncertain, or don’t know enough yet. Once I reach a certain point of certainty based on the facts I’d speeak up.
Annoyed people lots.
Interestingly, wouldn’t be commenting here if I wasn’t almost 100% certain that global warming action is counter to the interests of my nation. Climate action fails on the science, fails on the economics and fails on the morality/politics.
180
Their great fear, is being forgotten. What’s were their names again, you know thingamajig & umm
KBO
120
My observation after reading comments and posts by Svalgard and Eschenbach is just that they have hair-trigger sensitivities and interpret nearly everything as a challenge. Maybe they’ve battled in the climate wars too long; maybe it’s a character trait; maybe they have chronic indigestion. They’re smart guys who stick their necks out and some of the reaction probably is legitimate, but much of it goes way too far. Your point about the need for a bit more courtesy and respect, especially when you have been careful to explain and annotate beyond what is typically practiced is correct. People seem to have gotten snippier lately, parsing the tiniest differences and belaboring arguments. Misunderstandings get amplified into misfeasances which then explode into malfeasances — all needlessly. This post should be the end of the matter. Resist the urge to reply to the likely response it will generate.
Whether your theory is correct or wildly wrong, you’ve promised to release the details soon and given a reasonable explanation for the delay. A target date might have helped mollify the critics, though. We’ve seen broken promises (by others) before and trust is in short supply.
250
Good point.
Ignore them, they may come around once the disclosure process catches up with their desires.
Otherwise the damage done to their credibility with other viewers will only expand.
Whatever drives the over excited war of words…has little import for understanding this idea.
What? An idea that may point the way to understanding our weather?
Impossible.
Sarc?
Who knows any more.
110
Willis recently commented (on his last WUWT post) at the seige he was under and how he was happy to be back in favour. This stouch has damaged his credibility a lot and he knows it. Pity it was completely unnecessary. Both He and Dr S dug themselves into a hole and forgot to stop digging.
260
Throwing my two cents in to muddy the waters. I belive a major civility chilling of learned opinions occurred with Dr Roy Spencer who I find to be honest, informed and civil very much like Jo, posted , http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
I know I was frustrated and upset by that post. The delay in radiation tranfer rates cased by mildly polarized molecules has nothing to do with the Greenhouse effect. Most explanations of raditive forcing do violate the 2nd law.
The above Spencer post was a gross drop in civility.
But Jo as always is in the highest class. May the force X be with you. It’s with me and I like it.
190
Theirs has been the most blatant display of professional jealousy I have ever had the misfortune to witness.
They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, rather than whining “Don’t you know who I am???”
500
“Who are you?” 😉
80
I think Leif has a valid point with his question of “who are you ?”
I use my real name, why don’t you ?
If you hide behinnd the name ‘Backslider’ for a valid reason, eg. you work for a warmist establishment and would get (restructured, a Uk term) fired if they knew you made sceptical comments on blogs, then a nom de plume is understandable. But you should at least say so.
If you have years of engineering or scientific experience and / or impressive qualifications, then you should say so.
Leif Svalgaard is without question one of the foremost solar scientists in the world and unlike most scientists he does engage with the us, the hoi polloi, and very frequently gives links to his work and others. This should be respected and is admirable indeed. I only wish other scientists would take a leaf out of his book (pun not intended).
No doubt he tends towards a rather robust style of commenting, as do Willis and Christopher Monckton, and others. Given that he doesn’t have to give us his time, though he does, and yet comes under what must seem to him to be attack, one can hardly blame him if his replies at times reflect this.
For myself there is much I don’t agree with Leif about, especially over Landscheidt, but on the other hand I do learn a lot from him.
I look forward to seeing what difference in the output might be obtained when Leifs data is input into Davids model. I am hoping that will produce a steeper fall to a lower temperature, but even if it doesn’t I expect the difference will not be great.
Currently I view Leifs and others concerns over choice of TSI data to be a storm in a teacup.
118
Piffle…
22
Backslider, thankyou for eloquent comment.
10
Piffle is as piffle gets….
Get your facts straight for a start. I do not “hide” behind the name “Backslider”. Many people know exactly who I am.
30
I’m sorry, I’m still stuck back at Svalgaard #1. Dr. Svalgaard’s contention is that Lean2000 is a flawed dataset and that its authors have acknowledged same and replaced it with a later dataset. Your response is that “Lean2000 is a generally-accepted data set”.
That’s orthogonal. A dataset can be widely used and “generally-accepted”… up until the point at which it’s determined to be wrong.
So granted that it’s generally accepted, do you agree or disagree that it’s correct, and why?
This, to me, is the crux of the issue. Why do you believe this is a correct data set to use?
60
It is not ‘mainstream’ It is obsolete and has been superseded by other reconstructions, e.g. the one [by Krivova] shown on LASP’s website http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/
This does not mean that Krivova’s is much better [but that is another post].
328
Why, Leif, do you prefer reconstructions and extrapolations and proxies—which, as you may acknowledge, can be modified in accordance with the biases of the ones doing the modifying—to the actual, raw measurements of the ACRIM TSI data set? Why aren’t actual measurements of TSI better than reconstructions of TSI—or “guesses” as you yourself call reconstructions?
If we had actual satellite data available from the year 1,000 AD that showed the MWP to be 1.3 C warmer than present, would you still prefer, say, Michael Mann’s reconstructed tree ring data that showed the MWP was -0.8 C colder than present?
60
‘ACRIM’ is not a homogeneous dataset, but a composite of three datasets [from three spacecraft] with gaps between them so that it is difficult to compare the raw data: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-Raw-Data.png This is what Froehlich pointed out when he made the PMOD composite [which incorporates ACRIM adjusted for the differences between the three ACRIM sensors].
211
It may be “difficult,” but the ACRIM gap has been bridged, and bridged precisely and accurately, with actual, and not reconstructed data.
Not only that, but when lowering the ACRIM baseline to be in close agreement with SORCE/TIM, the relative variations/trends in the ACRIM do not change. Again, they do not change. The ACRIM TSI data still stand as the best measurement of TSI for the past 35 years—including the last 10. That’s not only my opinion, but the opinion of many scientists.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7194
“The satellite total solar irradiance (TSI) database provides a valuable record for investigating models of solar variation used to interpret climate changes. The 35-year ACRIM TSI satellite composite was updated using corrections to ACRIMSAT/ACRIM3 results derived from recent testing at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics/Total solar irradiance Radiometer Facility (LASP/TRF). The corrections lower the ACRIM3 scale by ~5000 ppm, in close agreement with the scale of SORCE/TIM results (solar constant ~1361 W/m^2). Relative variations and trends are not changed.”
50
No, our response is that for the timing of the recent fall in TSI our data is PMOD and ACRIM — i.e. measurements — not any reconstruction. Svalgaard prefers reconstructions to the PMOD and ACRIM measurements.
As I said under Svalgaard 1, “The datasets for the critical period from the mid 1980s on are basically the PMOD and ACRIM measurements. … So, this is a case of measurements vs reconstruction.”
360
And oddly, Leif would prefer you use Leif’s reconstruction as the one true valid data source. Vain, much?
241
If Leif has criticisms of (satellite) measurements, then we need to get better satellites up there.
I am suspicious of reconstructions and prefer measurements every time.
130
Just a few words about the two balcony Muppet’s (I affectionately call) at WUWT.
I think the roll that Willis Eschenbach and Leif “it’s a blood sport” Svalgaard have is more important than some people give them credit for, it would be a strange world of science indeed if everyone agreed all the time, it would be the equivalent to the alarmist side of this debate packed full of yes men and nodding heads for the cause.
I personally enjoy their “old school” style when discussing various topics with them, they produce a challenge which gets the olde grey matter working, although the tough debates can be fun I have to say; being shot down no matter what you say, even if you were use Leif’s own work word for word (as I did a few years back and I still got corrected chastised) can be somewhat tiresome at times.
Even still.. I’ve found their cynical nature very useful and helpful over the years when bouncing ideas of them.
All the best guys! 🙂
1112
Who would vote negatively on someone and not leave feed back? shame on you!
610
Excellent call.
32
Because you are too forgiving when they are not forgiving at all.
Courtesy costs nothing but they still value the buzz of feeling superior over all else despite their relatively narrow (albeit very detailed in Leif’s case) knowledge bases
160
Stephen I believe you maybe on to something there! You’re right of course. If there’s one thing I am it’s courteous, it’s probably my sense of humor they don’t get as-well. I understand Leif being voted negatively because well it’s Leif and he’s engaged in blood sport, he would usually tear any commenter a new one. 🙂
20
Me for one, the braying of an inconsiderate ass is still the braying of an ass.
I too respect these two,generally enjoy their comments, but in this case they are behaving like idiots.
Even if they are both absolutely correct.
Jo and David told us all in plain english how this would roll out.
But no, thats not good enough for the special ones.
And the “ROLE” of these two ???
I am pretty certain as to how they roll on this one.
110
We all knew.. David and Jo didn’t have to spell it out.
🙂
10
Sorry, I wrote “generally-accepted” when you wrote “mainstream”. The point still holds: Something can be “mainstream” yet incorrect. If the authors of the set consider it to be incorrect, why do you believe it is correct? And if your contention is that they don’t, upon what do you base that?
Please understand this is a serious question–I’m not taking sides, or even in a position to.
I’m not a practicing scientist (though I’m an engineer who has done some research in particle physics).
But in my world, the selection of data sets is critical, particularly for validation of models. If someone were to accuse me of selecting the wrong data set, I’d be investing a LOT of time and energy justifying my selection. You seem to believe that calling it “mainstream” is enough. Forget “mainstrim”–do you believe it is correct, and if so, why?
50
See this answer please.
60
I apologize for the mistakes my last comment, I’ve been typing all day and I think I’m getting “Typers Tunnel” and this space-bar is sticking every second click. 🙂
31
Evans’ problem starts already with his Figure 4, that shows the cycle 23-24 minimum being 0.2 W/m2 lower than the previous minimum. This is not correct. There is no observational evidence for such as decline http://www.leif.org/research/No-TSI-Difference-Between-Minima.pdf so there is no sharp drop in TSI. In fact, TSI now is almost 0.5 W/m2 higher than during the 2003-2005 timeframe, contrary to the central claim made by Evans.
There are also problems with the Wang et al. [called Lean 2009 by Evans] reconstruction, but that is for another comment. Let us go one at a time.
————
Note everyone, Leif refers to solar minima which we have made no comment on anywhere. The notching effect occurs at maxima, and the drop in maxima is obvious, as is the drop in the 11 year smoothed trends. When will Leif stop posting strawmen? – Jo
647
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/sorce_tsi_reconstruction_feb2014.png
190
showing a reconstruction that is not correct does not do you any good. Makes one wonder about your motive. There is now no doubt that the decrease did not happen.
544
Gregg Kopp obviously thinks it happened, or he wouldn’t have published it.
The great solar data flattener Leif Svalgaard says not.
Where are the observations you are basing your judgement on Leif? I’d like to see them, and the metadata.
Thanks.
420
If you do not even bother to look at the link I gave you, why should I bother to respond to your over-the-top comments?
335
Leif thinks I’m the one who has been making over the top comments. Lol.
I’ve stayed well out of this debate while you’ve been ranting about “fraudulent” and “wrong input. You know: garbage in – garbage out.”
Further down the thread I see you are now demanding that he redo his work with your reconstruction rather than observations. Why don’t you just wait until he releases the spreadsheet? Then you can replace his datapoints and parametrisations with your own recon ‘datapoints’ and check the result without making [snip] of yourself in the meantime.
170
If the deacrease did not happen yet there was a decrease in sunspot number at the last minimum and an increase in cosmic ray count, why would these correlations be breaking down?
This question being for anyone who can answer.
70
And BTW, the reconstruction shown is NOT the Wang et al. reconstruction which was used by Evans, so why try to compare oranges and apples?
144
You make your own reconstructions from your preferred data and theory. You didn’t get many in the land of the midnight sun to go along with your solar flattening though did you?
What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. David is perfectly entitled to use his own judgement of which data and theory to use in his own reconstruction derived from the data he prefers. The proof of the pudding will be in the activity levels we see over the next decade.
Be patient.
And polite.
611
Solar flattening…?
Is that similar to the Mannian flattening of the MWP ?
Same agenda, I’m guessing.
190
Leif,
I wonder what you’ll say if between 2014 and 2017 the temperature starts to drop. We already have some considerable evidence for what may be ahead of us.
360
The criterion used by Evans is ridiculous low [0.1C] and is within expected random variations. As solar activity now is on par with that of a century ago, one would expect a [much bigger] drop back to the temperatures then.
But Evans could also be right [about the 0.1C] but for the wrong reasons, especially since his prediction is based in wrong input. You know: garbage in – garbage out.
David Evans replies: The notch-delay solar model predicts a 0.5C drop starting around 2015 – 2018. However the model trained on the land thermometer data from 1850 to 1978, so it produces that amount of temperature rise for the TSI rise during that period. Given the possible exaggeration by the land thermometers, it seems prudent to scale the prediction back to 0.3C. The CO2 models predict warming in the next decade of maybe 0.2C (and maybe more for catch up due to the pause), so the criterion of 0.1C of cooling splits the difference — none of the CO2 models predict sustained cooling. All of these temperature figures are for 1-year smoothed temperatures, that is, on a sustained basis, not just random monthly fluctuations.
144
I know GIGO quite well. It’s been a daily consideration for more than 45 years. I also know a few other things such as the benefit of not rushing to judgment and keeping my communication with peers on a professional level. I also know I’m not the ultimate authority on anything. Do you?
450
I know the data quite well [as opposed to Evans], and the data is the authority here. Wrong input data, wrong output. And there is no rush to judgement, we have known for some years now that the data used by Evans is not correct or that it therefore when put together by him into his private composite dataset does not give him a correct dataset to work with. Now, either Evans did not know this or ignored this. Which one do you think it is?
750
Being a patient man I think I’ll simply wait and see how it plays out. 🙂
320
Your arrogance may score points for you with your groupies over at WUWT, but the rest of us were tired of it after your first display. It would appear that you simply cannot fathom that perhaps you are wrong. Your snide comments towards Evans certainly don’t inspire anyone to listen to you. What it does do is make you look and sound just like Mann, Trenberth, and the rest who have behaved EXACTLY as you are doing now. If you can’t see that then you aren’t as intelligent as you think you are.
461
So let me get this straight Lief, your input to this blog is “garbage in” and rebuttals are “garbage out” in your way of thinking?
100
Not worth responding to.
121
That is a response… which only serves to further highlight your pathetic arrogance.
222
Lief, my model picks up on the recent fall in TSI, and the data used for that is PMOD and ACRIM — i.e. measurements — not any reconstruction.
By the way, as suggested by Figures 5, 6, and 7 above, your reconstruction also shows a recent fall in TSI. Running the model (parametrized for the composite TSI data I use, basically Lean/PMOD/ACRIM) on your reconstruction of TSI also shows a hefty temperature fall in 2015 (which will more likely be 2017 when the longer sunspot cycle is taken into account).
So, no matter whether we use the TSI measurements or your reconstruction, the notch-delay model predicts a hefty temperature fall in the same period (caveat: model parametrized for the Lean/PMOD/ACRIM data, not your reconstruction).
290
“Lief, my model picks up on the recent fall in TSI, and the data used for that is PMOD and ACRIM — i.e. measurements — not any reconstruction.”
The ACRIM data have large systematic errors, and the PMOD data suffers from uncorrected degradation, e.g. the insert on http://www.leif.org/research/No-TSI-Difference-Between-Minima.pdf In addition recent measurement by the institution that measures PMOD show [see the same link] that “Observed data do not support a measurable TSI trend between the minima in 1996 and 2008!”
“Running the model (parametrized for the composite TSI data I use, basically Lean/PMOD/ACRIM) on your reconstruction of TSI also shows a hefty temperature fall in 2015 ”
This is the wrong way of doing this. You must parameterize using the same reconstruction as for running the model.
So, the valid test would be:
1) parameterize using ‘my’ TSI
2) run the model on ‘my’ TSI
3) compare with the temperature record
I await your agreement to this collaborative work with anticipation. Science should be [as generally is, except for fringe pseudo-science] building on each other’s work, so please join me in this venture.
718
Leif’s adjustments do not effect the lower levels of TSI, which are zero, 10*0 is still zero.
Watts per square meter from the sun can be measured by shorting the circuit out!
11
How many working hours does this take? Ps:BTW, using good land temps is reassuring.
00
Leif – I’ll get to it, but finding the parameters for the model is complicated and slow, takes a few days. Might be a few weeks before I can get to it.
110
We did not use ACRIM data before 1992, which seems to eliminate the larger errors.
I notice PMOD revised their data sometime in the last few months with what looks like a steadily increasing upward revision from about 1998, as if correcting said downward degradation.
60
Leif Svalgaard July 5, 2014 at 3:23 pm
Leif, Go somewhere and buy a clue!
David does not want to use your “crappy data”, for good reason!
30
O, grate one, just because he didn’t initially use your guessed data set, doesn’t make him wrong.
310
He is wrong because he used his own dataset, which was wrong from the outset.
241
Do you know how the analysis that Dr Evans uses even works? Do you know how insensitive it is to transient error sources or constant biases? Do you know why engineers use this methodology?
210
Lief – I used the PMOD and ACRIM measurements — not any reconstruction — for the timing of the recent fall in TSI and thus the timing of the imminent fall in temperature. I used the Lean 2000 dataset for the longer view. They are not my datasets or my reconstruction, so when you say “his own dataset” you are being inaccurate and misleading.
On the other hand, you really are using “your own” reconstruction.
300
You made your own composite by splicing together various pieces, so it is ‘your dataset’. None of us are ‘inaccurate or misleading’, are we? We could be right or wrong, but I’m [reasonably] sure that neither one of us uses this forum to mislead anybody.
322
Leif,
You could have said this in one comment in this thread, given your justification for it and retained the respect of many readers who are now no longer going to respect you or your work because you kept pounding away with an arrogant demeanor insisting you are right and David Evans is wrong.
Even if that comment resulted in some debate between you and David it would have been a better deal for you all the way around if it was kept respectful as one professional to another. You have blown it, Dr. Svalgard.
180
His attitude is very similar to that of Mickey Mann……
… as is his agenda.
20
Leif,
Why does the success or failure of Dr Evans’ model matter so much?
Scientific curiosity would surely dictate waiting for results.
Or is it that there are a other vested interests?
260
I presume it matters to Evans. Not so much to me as there are dozens of other wrong ‘forecasts’.
242
Ahh, he doth protest too mucheth.
Leif, you argue constantly for the low solar influence viewpoint to the point of denying solar connections between solar minima and temerature minima. Strangely we have had this conversation before. Your viewpoint IS being challenged by Dr Evans, so much so that I sense you are as emotionally wedded to that view as you were when I last argued the point with you about it. That is not good for a scientist.
David’s hypothesis takes into account that there is something about sunspots that plays out differently to geometric influences of TSI. Being an engineer and knowing that thermal systems never have flat responses I must acknowledge that he is almost certainly correct about that. The solar impact on climate must be multifaceted, TSI must have multiple competing effects, not one effect, The only remaining issue being, is it important?
This is far better than your view which seems to be that TSI has a single effect, a fixed relationship with temperature in spite of the fact that spectral content varies over the cycle. You might be right, all things being equal variation of temperature change with TSI might be fixed an unvarying across the cycle with all the spectral changes, but if it does, in my experience as an engineer it’ll be by chance alone. It still leaves Dr Evans multifactor model or similar as a better description that a single factor TSI estimate.
280
Evans uses [a faulty] TSI to show that TSI is not the causative agent, but rather an unknown factor ‘x’ which he claims is delayed one cycle wrt to the sunspot cycle [or the TSI cycle which is the same thing]. This, in my book, is the equivalent to the ‘the dog ate my homework’ excuse, and I don’t any engineer would have his work approved by the necessary approving-agencies if he claims that his design is safe because of the magic influence of ‘x’.
232
No he didn’t Dr Evans used available data to extract a transfer function, a plot of the frequency content between TSI and temperature, he then used than knowledge to specify a lumped parameter filter that approximates the characteristics of that transfer function.
You continually fail to understand that even major problems with the reconstructions makes little difference to the results unless the ups and downs of the characteristics have significantly different timing or amplitude. Since all the datasets have similar cyclic variation, it doesn’t matter which one you choose within the limits of the method a similar transfer function will emerge. David wrote about that. In fact there are an infinite number of TSI and temperature series than could in fact represent this transfer function with ups and downs in different places.
When undertaking a simulation run any of the datasets could be used, and providing the models transfer function is something close to reality it will forecast pretty much equally well with any input data.
You really are reaching here, and unfortunately you are wrong, errors in the training dataset do not necessarilly cause the wrong model to be derived.
251
LS. If it doesn’t ‘matter so much to you’ just why are you feeling the need to get so steamed up about it?
140
Me, steamed up? Not at all. Try to read some of the other blokes spew.
128
Dr Svlgaard,
With all due respect, a model is only a representation of the principle under study. As such, the input data need only reflect the pattern and relative values of the observed empirical data. It does not need to include the actual value of each and every datum point.
You accuse Dr Evans of using incorrect data, because a) he is not using your construction; and b) he is using a combination of other data sources. In making this accusation, you may be perfectly correct in terms of the absolute accuracy of data values.
But that is not the issue, unless your construction shows an entirely different cyclic pattern of variation, to those used by Dr Evans.
Since all of the data sources are trying to depict the same phenomena, and since it is the pattern of trends that are of interest, I would expect them to be more or less interchangeable.
On that basis, I would personally choose to get as close as possible to the raw measurements, and bypass any adjustments or corrections that may have been inserted for purposes, unknown to me.
Dr Evans may well have made the same choices.
110
I do flood modeling.
Under Dr Svalgaard’s eye, all of my modeling would be wrong because I didn’t use the correct storm event to model the flood event.
Whereas a design storm event is a mathamatical represtation of a hypothetical rainfall event of a given return period (1 to 100 year return interval). (Ie: it’s a generalise model of a storm event as input. The internal paramaters are almost all assumptions. The output could be + or – 30mm, or + or – 100mm depending on the size of the catchment and lay of the land).
Output accuracy to three decimal places simply confuses the purpose of the model.
30
Leif,
May I then presume you argue as vehemently against each of the ‘dozens of other wrong forecasts’ as against the Evans’ forecast?
60
Lief – The notch-delay solar model predicts a 0.5C drop starting around 2015 – 2018. However the model trained on the land thermometer data from 1850 to 1978, so it produces that amount of temperature rise for the TSI rise during that period. Given the possible exaggeration by the land thermometers, it seems prudent to scale the prediction back to 0.3C. The CO2 models predict warming in the next decade of maybe 0.2C (and maybe more for catch up due to the pause), so the criterion of 0.1C of cooling splits the difference — none of the CO2 models predict sustained cooling. All of these temperature figures are for 1-year smoothed temperatures, that is, on a sustained basis, not just random monthly fluctuations.
190
It should have been trained on the whole dataset 1850-2013 to be valid.
123
Not true, remember what’s being built is based on the frequency content of the climate data. The model may be slightly more representative with more data but it is far from invalid without it.
150
There is another good acronym suitable for Leif.
PICNIC problem in chair not in computer.
60
David
“David Evans replies: The notch-delay solar model predicts a 0.5C drop starting around 2015 – 2018. However the model trained on the land thermometer data from 1850 to 1978, so it produces that amount of temperature rise for the TSI rise during that period. Given the possible exaggeration by the land thermometers, it seems prudent to scale the prediction back to 0.3C. The CO2 models predict warming in the next decade of maybe 0.2C (and maybe more for catch up due to the pause), so the criterion of 0.1C of cooling splits the difference — none of the CO2 models predict sustained cooling. All of these temperature figures are for 1-year smoothed temperatures, that is, on a sustained basis, not just random monthly fluctuations.”
That is not a proper prediction Question
1. Did you use Land or Land Ocean?
2. Your prediction should come with ERROR BANDS so anyone can judge the probability that the prediction is wrong. “spliting the difference” is the kind of crap science that people did when they split the difference on sensitivity estimates.
You have a model. It has a prediction. what are the error bands
IF you want to suppose that land temps are biased, and you are trained on biased inputs then that doesnt matter because you will be testing against the same biased record. unless you think it is magically healed.
If you dont wantto construct error bands then when and if you release you can be sure that someone else will.
Best to get ahead of the game.
210
Dear Dr. Evans,
First of all, let me apologise for all the grief I’ve given you in my professional… uh pride and uh.. ego, that I have not treated you kindly nor respectfully as I should have as a fellow scientist. I am sorry. I guess my position and knowledge got in the way, you know, “knowledge puffeth up?” I am aware I have also put a damper on open science as well, and discouraged a lot of people and fellow scientists as well by acting so blatantly… well.. not so nice. I hope you (and them) will accept my heartfelt apologies.
Now concerning the science, — If you’ll still have and allow me? — IMHO (in my humbled opinion!), your figure 4, that shows the cycle 23-24 minimum being 0.2 W/m2 lower than the previous minimum. It appears to me incorrect. There is no observational evidence for such a decline, please feel free to consult my http://www.leif.org/research/No-TSI-Difference-Between-Minima.pdf So there is no sharp drop in TSI. IMHO, TSI is now almost 0.5 W/m2 higher than during the 2003-2005 timeframe, contrary to your proposal. Correct me if I’m wrong! There appear to also be problems with the Wang et al. [Lean 2009] reconstruction, I have some other suggestions, but one at a time.
I now sincerely DO appreciate your courage and steadfastness in tackling this challenge of trying to empirically practice open source science with the help of so many of our confreres. I didn’t think it was possible. You are a brave pioneer. Thanks for taking all the corrections. I may be wrong, I have been wrong before! Ha!
Love and appreciation!
Yours’ cordially
Seif.
PS: My next comments will not be as apologetic and lengthy of course, if you and others do forgive me, but one thing is for sure, No more blood sport for me! Just friendly scientific teamwork without appeal to authority and all that carnal nonsense. I’m cured! I think? 🙂
320
There is an apparent drop in TSI Leif, how much correction would there be needed to show no apparent drop in TSI, in percentage please.
As I understand it Anthony has also noted this on WUWT in the AP several times.
90
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/ap-index-1932-2008.png
20
TSI on Evans plot after 2003 should be increased by 0.2 W/m2 which is 0.015% or about one-sixth of the typical solar cycle variation of 0.1%
411
Leif, seriously? is this what all this is about? ffs!
110
Very good by the way! 🙂
40
TSI on Evans plot after 2003 should be increased by 0.2 W/m2 which is 0.015% or about one-sixth of the typical solar cycle variation of 0.1%
So if Dr. Evans “corrected” the data by adjusting it exactly the way you describe above, would there still be a drop—slight or otherwise—in TSI from about 2003 or 2004?
40
Your question is ambiguous. Evans’ claim is that TSI now is lower than in 2003-2005. This is not the case. TSI right now is about 0.45 W/m2 higher than in 2003-2005. This is not the result of ‘adjustments’, but of direct measurements by SORCE/TIM and TCTE/TIM.
117
TSI right now is about 0.45 W/m2 higher than in 2003-2005.
Then why does the SORCE/TIM trends of the last few years appear lower on these graphs?
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/guillermo_image2.png
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/sorce_tsi_reconstruction_feb2013-feb2014.png?w=640
90
Mike Singleton
July 5, 2014 at 1:14 am
!Right or wrong, the positions taken and the antagonistic language used have done serious reputational damage. Childish, blinkered, arrogant and uncalled for”.
I agree with these comments.
This kind of arrogance is to be expected (usually) from people who have
been seduced by their own advertising.
Extremely disappointing and leaves a very nasty taste in ones mouth.
350
“The comments by Svalgaard and Eschenbach at WUWT are inexplicable.”
I don’t think the comments are “inexplicable”. I think you are just being too polite to explain the motivation behind those comments.
For some time now, the site WUWT has been polluted by just this sort of immature heifer dust that you have shown today in this post by example. (and what examples they were!) Sad and unfortunate.
380
Could someone please explain to me how this man justifies using the term psuedo-scientist towards others when, based on his own qualifications, he would appear to be one?
380
Projection.
180
It’s what magicians do.
20
I’d say there certainly is an agenda here. But Svalgaard seems to miss what it is. Someone who is certainly well qualified to think about the problem of climate change has developed a new model of what drives climate on Earth and he want’s to publish it and get feedback from the rest of the climate change world about it. And he wants ultimately to see if it works.
As was stated at the start, there appears to be no hope of getting this published in any scientific journal given the past history of what got published and what didn’t concerning global warming — you’re either in the mainstream of thinking or you’re an enemy or worse. So this is the available forum.
The proof of any theory is the same, can it accurately predict what happens when you test it? If that early morning Alamogordo test mentioned in a prior thread had not lit up the sky, think of what that would have meant.
The test is the same here, does it predict accurately, not whether Svalgaard or anyone else thinks it’s right. There will no doubt be debate for years to come if Earth cools off as the solar model predicts. And that’s good. And if it doesn’t cool off as predicted… …well, another theory ends up in history’s dustbin.
310
And the current theory has certainly gone into the dustbin. It’s been there for years. 🙁
200
None of this matters if the input data is wrong from the outset. One must assume that Evans knew that [now he most certainly does] and that that might even have been a contributing factor in not trying to publish the ‘theory’ in a respectable scientific journal.
348
Wrong in totality? Or wrong in construction? Or wrong in accuracy? Or wrong in relevance? Or wrong in providence? Or simply inaccurate for the purposes in which it is being used?
180
Wrong in all of the categories you propose. Wrong is wrong.
344
Which is something you may eventually learn about yourself.
270
Then ALL data from ALL sources is wrong because it must be measured and the act of measurement changes the thing measured to some finite extent. That change cannot itself be measured without it also being changed. Hence all measurement gives wrong results. By your own standard, no matter what conclusion anyone draws, it is wrong because the data used to derive the conclusion is wrong. Even your conclusions.
Since everyone, including yourself, is wrong from the get go and forever, why are you getting so hot and bothered by the fact that David is wrong? Are you afraid he is less wrong than you? Are you self absolved from your own standard by which you judge others as wrong? You can use wrong data and still draw correct conclusions?
I suggest something far afield from actual science is going on here and it isn’t pretty. In fact, it is all flavors of ugly.
310
Some are more wrong than others. I don’t make forecasts about the climate, only about what I know something about.
234
If you don’t know what is right, how do you know something is partly or mostly wrong?
280
Leif Svalgaard July 5, 2014 at 10:28 am · Reply
“Some are more wrong than others. I don’t make forecasts about the climate, only about what I know something about.”
Since you claim some knowledge of the Sun. Please list four other ways, beside thermal electromagnetic radiative flux, that do affect the total internal energy of planet Earth, in a measurable way?
40
Leif,
Do you have a perfect understanding of the Sun and its interaction with the Earth?
No? Then whatever you believe is WRONG because the universe only works in one way.
If you start from a position that you are wrong, you have some chance of learning something new. Think you are right and you have none. You cannot fill a cup that is already full.
The only thing that can be discussed is who is less wrong. Time and observations will tell that tale. Talk is cheap and pointless in the face of the universe.
230
This is not the issue.
The issue is that Evans should not have used ‘data’, that are demonstrably wrong. If he does anyway, what credence can be put on the ‘result’?
338
By your own standard, the data you use is wrong too. You say it is less wrong. Yet, you can’t know that unless you know what is right. Please stop talking and show us a better way – if you can.
Like I said: “I suggest something far afield from actual science is going on here and it isn’t pretty. In fact, it is all flavors of ugly.”
310
to Lionell G:
“Yet, you can’t know that unless you know what is right. Please stop talking and show us a better way – if you can.”
apart from that being nonsense, like if you claim you have seen a man run the 100m dash in 4 seconds, I would know you are wrong even if I don’t know his actual time.
“Like I said: “I suggest something far afield from actual science is going on here and it isn’t pretty. In fact, it is all flavors of ugly.””
Perhaps you are judging Mr Evans too harshly…
333
Leif Svalgaard July 5, 2014 at 10:38 am ·
“This is not the issue.
The issue is that Evans should not have used ‘data’, that are demonstrably wrong. If he does anyway, what credence can be put on the ‘result’?”
This is only your issue which is nonsense. It is not the issue.
The issue is “Why has Dr. Leif Svalgaard not made a public apology to Dr. David Evans, for publishing false, crass, and insulting comments here and elsewhere?
80
That is not correct, there are in fact degrees of wrongness by your own admission. Did you not say “All TSI reconstructions are guesses” meaning all TSI reconstructions are WRONG. Then you carry on about how the wrong one that David thinks works best is somehow worse that the wrong one that you prefer. By your own illustration wrong is not wrong. Then you illustrate a point about a single decade in a record from a century, and conclude that a model, built in a process that is insensitive to this sort of transient error, is going to be junk. Rubbish, it is merely going to be a little bit less representative than it otherwise would be.
By the way, David’s model is WRONG, clearly there are multiple filters and delays at work here, so David’s model, a simple lumped parameter approximation ( as we would call it) is WRONG but in the real world where Engineers live, these WRONG lumped parameter models work well enough to get Voyager to the edge of the solar system using a computer system less powerful than a commodore 64
170
some are MUCH more wrong than others. If I state that my height is 7 feet I would be VERY wrong. If I said it is 6 feet, I would still be wrong, but not by much.
015
This still assumes you know what your true height is. After all, wrong is wrong. Even a little bit wrong is still wrong. At least by your standard. That is except when you want the amount it is wrong not to matter. Apparently, you have decided that you are the infallible and universal judge of wrongness. Hence, you think we must ask your permission to use any particular wrong set of data which you grant or not on your whim.
Interesting.
200
Lionell Griffith
July 5, 2014 at 2:36 pm
“Hence, you think we must ask your permission to use any particular wrong set of data which you grant or not on your whim.”
You are, of course, welcome to use any and all wrong data you desire. And the results you’ll get will show you how wrong the datasets are. But perhaps that doesn’t matter to you as long the results supports your view of things.
217
Hmm, but suppose I was measuring your growth, is the fact that the data says that at age 9 you were 5′ 1″ tall, have relevance to the fact that you grew 2″ from age 9 to 10, if what I am interested in is growth? Would it matter, if instead you went from 4ft to 4′ 2″ ?
20
Gee. Thanks for giving me permission to use data. I am so relieved. Imagine, I have been using data all my life (77+ years) and never had your permission to do so. How did I ever get anything done?
80
Leif,
Engineering is exacting and unforgiving, but I continue to work within a margin of error called tolerance.
When I machine a specific peice within the tolerance I know it will work because I know the tolerance will allow for changes in both the internal and external environment of the equipment when operated.
I don’t understand how you can know the datasets used by Dr. Evans are less accurate than those you have.
All you can really say is that they are different.
That difference may be the key.
101
I suspect he means wrong because Leif Svalgaard told him it was wrong. Otherwise, why is he continuing along the same line of comment he started with?
230
Leif: You keep repeating the same BS over and over again. What are you so afraid of? Is there not one ounce of civility in your backbone? Can you not be missing something and heaven forbid be wrong? Come on man, quit being a d**k!!!
191
‘The proof of any theory is the same, can it accurately predict what happens when you test it?’
I have a theory that an alien spaceship is controlling the rotation of the Earth in order to use it for their navigation. My prediction is that the sun will therefore rise tomorrow morning at its usual time.
645
I shouldn’t answer this one but I can’t resist asking if there’s a link in there somewhere from cause to effect so there’s actually something to test.
140
yes, it is called force ‘z’ [as force ‘x’ seems to already used].
331
There you go again with your bias, that there is only a single factor that links from the Sol to good ole terra, let’s call it force T otherwise known as TSI.
You need to drop that precondition, it’s limiting your vision. By accepting that the Sun’s influence is multifactor (one or more), you lose nothing but potentialy have a lot to gain.
190
He seems to be arguing that TSI varies only in 11 year cycles, is he not? And those cycles have little or no effect on Earth’s temperature.
Once having staked his reputation on that he’s stuck with defending it no matter what. So a multifactor influence from old Sol that doesn’t agree with the 11 year cycle can’t be allowed to exist in his world, much less one with such a large effect as David suspects from his model. If it did exist he might turn out to be wrong — a bitter pill for some to swallow.
He may be very sharp, he may even turn out to be right. But that kind of attitude forever closes his mind to other ideas and other avenues of exploration. And that’s not how human knowledge advances.
That he has persisted with comment after comment isn’t a pretty picture.
50
He seems to be arguing that TSI varies only in 11 year cycles, is he not? And those cycles have little or no effect on Earth’s temperature.
I think it is Evans trying to show that the 11-yr cycles have no influence. Isn’t that what the notch-thingie is supposed to show?
All data we have points to the sun’s magnetic field being the cause of variations of TSI. The sunspot number has been shown to be a very good measure of the Sun’s magnetic field, so TSI should vary accordingly.
Once having staked his reputation on that he’s stuck with defending it no matter what.
What a stupid thing to say. Science progresses by correcting mistakes and scientists [most of them and certainly me] are very ready to admit to being wrong when the data doesn’t go their way. Let us see if Evans is ready to do that…
212
Nowhere in what I’ve read so far has David said the 11 year cycles have no influence. The whole thrust of his argument is that there is an additional factor that changes what those 11 year cycles do, not that they have no influence. In fact, if I understand correctly, David Evans claims the 11 year cycles have more influence than anyone previously thought.
You have insisted that Evans is wrong without having shown him to be wrong. Your personal word that there is no better authority than Leif Svalgaard is a fallacious argument.
Who has made the more stupid statement, you or me?
PS:
You prove my point by this kind of argument. Only seeing what the model can and cannot do can validate the model, your claims here and what Dr. Evans claims.
90
You seem to have a blind spot when it comes to the engineering practice of modelling, as opposed to the Climate Change use of modelling as a PR tool.
In engineering, the concept of “Force X” is used in the practice of reverse engineering cause and effect. You can only measure effects, and if the empirical effects you measure, do not fit the theoretical causes in your model, then something has yet to be identified and defined. That is all “Force X” is, in engineering terms.
With this definition, “Force X” may be a real force that has yet to be identified; or it could be a whole system of forces, acting as a single force, in regard to the overall model; or it could be a number of unrelated forces that just appear to act as a single force; or it could just be random variation in the external environment.
The presence of “Force X”, indicates to me that Dr Evans is not yet convinced that he fully understands all of the nuances in the system he is studying — a situation that is quite normal in prudent engineering practice.
90
Figure 6 is interesting. Leif’s 11 year smoothed TSI has the lows and highs reversed from where the lows and highs of the Sorce / Tim reconstruction are.
This is a point to watch out for that Greg Goodman has talked about before. Greg ?
70
“Leif’s 11 year smoothed TSI has the lows and highs reversed from where the lows and highs of the Sorce / Tim reconstruction are”
And so has Evans’ 11-yr smoothed TSI [look at his Figure].
This is a common defect in the simple running average. There are much better ways of doing smoothing that does not have this artifact, but I thought is was best to do it the same way as Evans. Don’t you agree that this is reasonable when comparing with his graph?
427
“Don’t you agree that this is reasonable when comparing with his graph?”
I honestly don’t know. I am out of my depth when it comes to such matters and would welcome comment from experts in this area. Such as Greg Goodman and others.
I do wonder, however, if this is all a fuss about not very big differences, David Evans data produces a drop to the temperatures of the 70s, putting your (Leif) data in will produce less drop, more drop, no drop, an increase ? But probably not a sufficiently big difference to be a concern to agriculture and our futures.
120
Leif,
Could you list the specific actions you would like David to take? Do you have any positive constructive input?
If not, why make any comments at all? You are currently not making any progress with your comments… If you think David is headed down the wrong path, why not sit back and let him fail?
190
I have already [a week or so ago] provided Evans with a dataset to try. So far, he has shown no interest.
David Evans replies: How would you know? I’ve graphed your dataset above, with a simple 11-year smoother, and see comment 24.2.1.1.4 above.
027
Leif,
When visiting this site you are in Australia, we tend to be a polite and patient people, we also tend to get a little pissed off with arrogant aggressiveness. That you have the effrontery to call back here, still making accusations, when all you have to do is shut up and wait. I have read much of what you have said about the sun and concluded that you believe the sun is a constant and has nothing to do with climate. That Davids work may prove you wrong is not our problem, it is yours.
270
Garbage in = garbage out is true in every country, no matter how polite and patient its inhabitants are.
I do not believe that the Sun is constant. On the contrary there is a well-documented cycle of solar activity [have you heard about that one? otherwise visit this website http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
Variations in TSI are caused exclusively [as far as we know and have observed] by variations of the sun’s surface magnetic field, which in turn varies very closely as the sunspot number [see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Stenflo.pdf ], reconstructions of the past TSI will look just like the sunspot number. Evans’ self-made composite does not. To spare him embarrassment [if he cores] I helpfully pointed that out to him and offered him a reconstruction which is much closer to what is believed to be the actual TSI so that he could see [and show his followers] what difference that would make. Such a ‘sensitive analysis’ is an important part of doing correct science. So far, Evans has not bothered. I understand he is a busy activist with many things to do, so perhaps he is excused. On the other hand, he has wasted a lot of time and energy on fruitless and ill-advised personal attacks on me [not that that bothers me], so perhaps some time can be found for the much needed sensitivity analysis…
——-
“Evans has not bothered” – except he has bothered. The biggest obstacle to David working with your dataset in the last week were the unnecessary fires in a flamewar lit by yourself with ill-informed, rash and defamatory zeal. Evidently, you have no interest in correcting your inaccurate statements. Finally, you say “I understand he is a busy activist” — I say, careful, you reveal a case of projection… Jo
435
Your suggestions are antagonistic Leif, But I will correct you nonetheless, it is the suns polarity that drives the magnetic field, it is the mass that produces the strength of the suns polarity by way of E=Mc2. If you don’t believe me? roll your sleeves up and prove Einstein to be incorrect.
141
“believed to be”(?!) Now you are appealing to belief. Worse, you are appealing to a reconstruction based upon a belief. What does belief have to do with what the TSI actually is? In other words, you still don’t know what it actually is but believe it be close to your reconstruction because “they” believe it is what “they” believe it is.
You call this science? I don’t.
Keep it up, you are exposing exactly what and who you are.
Like I said, the process works and converges onto the truth.
120
Show to us all where exactly David has done this?……
150
Sparks
Since when has E=MC^2 controlled strength of magnetic polarity?
Especially one pole at a time! Since when has anything that hot retained a magnetic field?
Do you see a problem with the math in this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q185InpONK4
Part 2 if you are interested. This is where your magnetic strength becomes infinite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHZ5O0jTH8A
Leif
I do wonder how many people here will demonstrate their humble co-operativeness each time that is proven to be correct?
Yet with this list of spotless days you say the TSI has not dropped.
“2014 total: 0 days (0%)
2013 total: 0 days (0%)
2012 total: 0 days (0%)
2011 total: 2 days (<1%)
2010 total: 51 days (14%)
2009 total: 260 days (71%)"
From spaceweather . com
This may be a better link.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/17jan_solcon/
I like the way it shows the effect continuing into the 20th century as an increase in solar activity, shows the warmth of the grand maximum and shows a far longer LPF delay than 11 years.
21
Oooops the rest of that list.
2009 total: 260 days (71%)
Since 2004: 820 days
Typical Solar Min: 486 days
10
There is no attack on you, Dr. S.
Most rebuttal comments are not about you personally; they are about your apparent refusal to hear what is being said without passing it through your own personal ‘notch-filtered’ hearing-aid.
240
That is, if an analysis not based on ‘Sun King’ Svalgaards’ data reconstructions and conducted with his approval, it must be wrong, and somehow fraudulent. This is an egotistical totalitarian obsession which inhibits productive debate in solar science.
80
“I…offered him a reconstruction which is much closer to what is believed to be the actual TSI”
Much closer to what is “believed to be” actual? This phraseology doesn’t sound convincing that your preferred data is significantly more robust than a presumption.
What percentage of the scientific community agrees with you about the “ridiculously” wrong ACRIM and PMOD data? What percentage of the scientific community agrees with Dr. Evans about the ACRIM and PMOD being more accurate measurements of TSI than your reconstructions?
Considering how frequently the latter are referred to, it seems that your presumptions of TSI accuracy are in the minority.
90
Siliggy
July 5, 2014 at 4:04 pm
The magnetic field of the sun is thought to be created by currents as opposed to crystalline (temperature) effects. And thus the sun does not in fact “retain” a magnetic field. From what we see on earth it reverses poles every ~11 years.
BTW interesting videos.
40
I rarely put in time on things that don’t bother me. Unless it is for entertainment purposes. I assume you are being well entertained.
40
Msimon
Yes am aware of the 22 year magnetic cycle. I was agreeing with L.S. that the currents you speak of are on the surface. More evidence of this is when you look down a sunspot vortex hole you see darker not brighter.
To Me the sunspots seem like a full wave rectification of the magnetic cycle (like vsqrd). Thus the natural resonance seems to be 22ish years. I suspect the 11 year cycle varies because it contains the double side band products of external modulation. Possibly the magnetic fields of Jupiter and Neptune etc give the natural frequency a kick like hiting a tuning fork at their orbital rates to hetrodyne with the 22 year cycle. This would slow it sometimes and speed it up others like a PLL that cannot lock.
The reason for the questions about the TSI not being the inverse of cosmic radiation are to tease L.S. about the sun being electric powered from outside our solar system via cosmic plasma currents. Which is about the only explanation I can see for a non correlation. That would make “Force X” partly extra solar.
Also think our planet may be partly electric or neutrino heated due to radioactive decay rates falling here just before a solar flare. How much energy do we loose as Hydrogen blown away by the solar wind?
00
Oh, no personal attacks on Evans in that quote are there? You are a nasty piece of work. The level of hypocrisy you demonstrate in the comments you make here is astounding.
Now for future reference, I have noticed you pouncing on others when they use the word “believe” as some justification for your claim that it therefore is not “science” yet you “offered him a reconstruction which is much closer to what is believed to be the actual TSI” so by your own arguments you are offering up something that is not “science” but is simply a “belief.”
You really should be more careful with those double standards.
70
Looking back over this i wonder what L.S.may mean by “sun’s surface magnetic field,”
I had thought of the surface as the outside bit we see. Others may take the surface to mean deeper down. Deeper down seems cooler.
00
Lief – How would you know? I’ve graphed your dataset above, with a simple 11-year smoother, and see comment 24.2.1.1.4 above.
110
Being just a hick from the (hockey) sticks, but it seems to me that one does not pre-judge any model or human beings until all the facts are in. That is, perhaps one can wait until the data, code etc. is given, then apply one’s own or anybody else’s data and see if the whole thing works. What is the hurry? What with internet speed, are there brownie points given out when you are the first one to try to shoot it down? Is this the scientific imperative nowadays?
60
Would it be possible to provide David Evans with data you find acceptable?
What is the percentage of difference you are concerned about Leif, 20%?
20
I have already [a week or so ago] provided Evans with a dataset to try. So far, he has shown no interest.
There are two issues. The first one being the more immediate:
1) There is no sharp drop in TSI
2) The Lean 2009 [corrected by Wang et al.] is not correct
The ‘20%’ has nothing to do with anything.
123
“Shown no interest”? I’ve graphed your dataset above, and applied a simple 11-year smoother, Figures 5 and 6 above. Also the first figure in an earlier post.
Also, see comment 24.2.1.1.4 above.
230
I’m starting to suspect that Leif Svalgaard has simply programmed a Bot to keep repeating the same thing regardless of your responses Dr Evans.
The Bot isn’t smart enough to acknowledge your responses or when the comments made on behalf of Leif Svalgaard should be corrected, retracted or apologised for. Perhaps comment privileges should be suspended until the bot learns to do so?
100
Thank you!
20
But according to Leif, wrong is wrong. So if there is any defect in the data, no matter how small, it is wrong and the conclusions drawn from it are wrong. Interestingly, he has not shared with us how he discovers data that is right so he can always make correct conclusions.
Sadly, Lief’s approach does not allow error, discovery, and correction. Once wrong, always wrong. Our mere mortal approach starts with the presumption that we can be wrong but that we can detect that fact and correct our errors. In fact, we relish the process of error, discovery, and correction because we learn more from or errors than from being right. It must be very uncomfortable to live the life of Lief. The slightest slip and he is doomed to be forever wrong. After all “Wrong is wrong.”
230
Nonsense. Small errors are always present, but don’t matter so much. Gross errors should be corrected.
Leif, you mean gross errors like: “And the fabrication [of data] is a fact as I showed above by Mr Evans’ own words.” Or, “”Both Willis and I have shown that Mr Evans invented the decline of TSI since 2003-2005.” ” Or “”So Mr Evans fabricates out of thin air about 900 days of TSI and tags that to the end of the curve.””? – Jo
423
How do you know what is small and what is large? Especially if you don’t know what is right? Precision and accuracy are two very different things. Precision is a measure of how closely measurements cluster. Accuracy is how close the cluster is to the correct value.
The precision of any set of measurements larger than one measurement can be always be computed (standard error, standard deviation, variance, range …) no matter how inaccurate. However, the accuracy of any set of measurements can be known ONLY if you know what the true value is. By inference, a wrong measurement can be corrected ONLY if you know what the right value is.
You seem to have lost contact with your early studies on Elementary Statistics and Measurement.
310
Well said Lionell.
110
You said it Leif, “Wrong is wrong”
70
… and pigs are MORE EQUAL than the rest of the animals! That is RIGHT, isn’t it Leif?
In order to judge ‘rightness’ of measured values, one must first know the ‘true value’ which you are trying to measure.
On present evidence, any judgment of ‘wrongness’ about solar output can only be a matter of opinion.
Nobody seems to know enough to say what the ‘true value’ is, so all data is subject to future proof of its correctness [or wrongness].
130
“one must first know the ‘true value’ which you are trying to measure.”
Especially an engineer should know that this is a question of error bars and measurement precision, not about ‘knowing’ anything.
019
Err, no, such a simplistic worldview, if I designed based on error bars and precision estimated, I’d have had my a*se sued off long ago. Error must also account variability in the processes, that is the actual measurement error, assumptions error etc. Since the processes are really unknown the measurements only have an “assumed” accuracy. For example, what frequency range is TSI measured over, might something else (say emission at the O-H bond natural frequency of from memory 2.4 Ghz) have an impact and need to be counted, that frequency works rather well in microwave ovens! We also need to be sure we are measuring the right thing, and that what we are measuring is what we think we are measuring. I can have an instrument with a precision of say 1 micron that could be misscalibrated and measure 5mm wrong very precisely. Your TSI radiometers are like that, because they are band limited, they measure only what they measure, it’s what they don’t measure that is at issue.
There is also the problem of carrying too much precision, from what I can see much climate science carries too much precision when they operate on data. This is important in engineering but climate science ignores this a lot. If I add 0.01 to 1.0 the result is 1.0, because I am not really entitled to carry three decimal points of precision.
If you think an Engineers life is as uncomplicated as error bars and measurement precision, think again! In the end, I’m rather glad you are not designing aircraft.
180
bobl
July 5, 2014 at 5:41 pm
It is comforting to see so many aerospace engineers around here. I feel really at home.
50
“Gross errors should be corrected.”
To coincide only with the Leif dictate. !!
60
You misspelt “diktat”
20
I haven’t wanted to weigh in, but with Leif (who I respect) giving Jo and David a hard time I will make mention of my own model.
In 2010 after Climategate I built it to test whether ECS was low or high based on the longest cleanest dataset we have: HadCET.
Here are three time signatured graphs showing how its going:
end 2009
end 2012
end 2013
The forward projection of the model in blue out to 2021 is pretty much the same as Jo and David’s model. What is interesting though is the four years since the end of solar cycle 23 has been tracking the prediction quite well (but with a lag because I use a composite PDO+AMO cycle in the model, whereas I should really have used just an AMO cycle).
Why do I mention this? Because the key variable I use is a proxy for TSI plus the additional forcing from the Sun. Leif will probably not like it: I use previous solar cycle length correlation with temperature as reported in Butler & Johnson 1996 for Armagh, which is geographically near to the Central England Temperature measurement location.
In short, it works. Others use integrated SSN with much the same predictive skill. The solar-cloud link is also firming up in the scientific press too. I suspect if the IPCC ensemble modellers include this overall solar effect, and also the ~60 year cycle, in their models their predictive skill would be much better, even for medium term predictions. Unfortunately they cannot do it because including these significant variable would show CO2 is a minor driver of warming, and they’d then all lose their budgets and their jobs.
370
Are you planning on using Dr. Evans’s EXCEL spread sheet to run your hypothesis?
50
CC – No, I’m happy with my own Excel spreadsheet 🙂
The value for ECS that I get using it is 0.7 C/doubling. Which is the same as Lindzen & Choi’s median TCR value. Since I’m using 250 years of data that suggests climate response is pretty quick, which is supported by the ~60 year cycle and the temperature effect of the solar cycle on SST’s. You wouldn’t have those quick cycles if equilibration was slow.
David Archibald posted Jo & David’s model applied to HadCET. You can see it here. Compare it with my end 2013 graph and you’ll see they’re pretty similar, apart from the 5 year averaging I do to smooth out the noise.
50
Thank you, Were you able to have your model published in a Journal?
10
CC – I have not attempted to write it up for a journal for several reasons. Being outed as a climate sceptic is dangerous to your employment prospects. Its also difficult to publish sceptical climate papers, and to do it I’d need to put in much more effort on aspects like error bars, correction for volcanoes, UHIE etc. Climate science isn’t my day job. The model was originally a test for my own personal interest. The first link gives all the information necessary to replicate it if anyone wants to. As I said down thread I was considering entering the field, but when it became clear that empirical ECS is low I gave that idea away.
20
Thank You!
20
Im self employed. Give it to me and Ill publish it for you. Worst case scenario a few of my regular warmist frightbats will buy their e-cigarettes and ford pills somewhere else.
40
Aaron – You’re welcome to use the concept. The Excel takes a couple of days and all the datasets are available online. It would be harder to do a proper error analysis, and for volcanic correction there’s a graph on my Flickr photostream, but you have to convert it from Wm^-2 to K. If you want to try extending the model back to 1659, the start of the CET dataset, I’ve seen the solar cycles through the Maunder split in three cycles of about 18 years each. David Archibald has published this data, but I can’t remember where.
Really, though, the thing which should happen is the IPCC ensemble modellers should include the total solar effect on their models (ie through modulating of cloud cover, which has a bigger temperature effect than they assume) and the ocean cycle(s) too. They earn the big bucks modelling climate, so that’s what they should do, not write expensive fiction.
30
Rigorous debate. It was never going to be anything less.
And with so much skin in the game, (a cheap $1 Trillion dollars a day for some), a blood sport it is.
20
NB. Oops. $1 Trillion a year. Sorry.
40
100 Trillion on offer here.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/07/04/five-chances-to-win-one-hundred-trillion-dollars/
30
I am confused about why Total Solar Irradiance is so hard to measure accurately.
We have leant so much about Black Bodies from this and other blogs. Does not a black body cavity collect all of the solar energy and convert it into sensible heat (Temperature)? That should be a good measure. Surely that has been done? Is there not a reasonable proxy, eg the midday temperature record from Death Valley, California, or any number of desert sites in Australia which get good exposure to the Sun with minimal cloud cover?
10
Because the Earth’s atmosphere blocks some of the TSI, so we must use instruments in space. These instruments degrade when hit by solar UV, so we need to try to measure and correct for that degradation. This is the hard part.
167
Oh, so the earths reponse to TSI is sensitive to spectral content, well blow me over with a feather
190
Oh dear.. 🙂
How many feet can Leif fit in his mouth. !?
60
That’s the problem.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/gs19_prd.gif
10
Yes, and the only way a change in spectral content is going to shift the jets and climate zones latitudinally is by altering the tropopause height gradient between equator and poles.
That means changing the balance of ozone destruction/creation differently at different heights and/or different latitudes (probably both).
That is my best guess for force x.
40
Except of course force X might not be spectral content related.
10
Possible but unlikely since force x needs to affect stratosphere temperatures (IMHO) which are largely controlled by ozone amounts.
One could include solar particles since some of them are involved in the ozone balance and those that are charged particles are directed in at the poles by the magnetic field.
I usually refer to ‘the mix of wavelengths and particles’ in order to cover both bases.
20
I do like your hypothesis, I was just keeping the thinking broad one doesn’t want to unfairly discard options prematurely. I tend to think it might be electrostatic in nature, don’t really know why, just a hunch. The atmosphere rises 200V per km from the earth up, that’s a lot of electricity, variations in charge profile have the potential for quite large effects. The top of the sunspot cycle also makes quite a large change in the earth’s ionosphere, huge in fact. Enough to bounce radio waves off!
Such a large change in our environment surely has possible interactions with climate, and particularly cloud nucleation? Is the fact that clouds are commonly associated with electrical discharges, significant, does the electrical environment affect cloud formation for example.
Frankly, we know no where near enough to conclude anything at all.
40
bobl,
The electrical / magnetic / cosmic ray approaches are reasonable as regards cloud nucleation but I prefer the tropopause height option because of the observation of latitudinally shifting climate zones from MWP to LIA to date. I don’t see how having more cloud nuclei could achieve that. One has to involve the polar vortices too and they are cloud free being situated in the stratosphere. Note that the polar vortices are separate from the circumpolar vortex which is in the tropsphere. Many confuse the two.
If one folows the sequence of climate and weather phenomena set out in my New Climate Model the real world has been behaving as expected. If the real world suddenly does the opposite then I will reconsider.
Leif used to berate me for putting forward a hypothesis that could not be falsified so I gave him a list of events that could falsify it. None have happened yet.
70
Yes.
20
That’s interesting, I have it down to something more basic, such as polarity! there should be an effect when the suns polarity tears past earths polarity at solar maximum, more so when it is slower. I believe it has the potential to become dangerous when it slows down as either polarity would be earth facing for longer periods. luckily the timing of Earths axial tilt should provide some cover.
The sun being uncontrollable should alarm some people but don’t have nightmares! we can control other irrelevant things such as CO2 and energy use and poor people! Mwhahahaha!
20
I bet it is. I mean, how do you know how much degradation has occurred? What is the standard used for comparison? Is the level of degradation the same for each satellite? Do they degrade at the same rate? Are there other potential causes of degradation, as yet unknown?
So many unknown unknowns. No wonder you say it is hard part. Perhaps tending towards impossible, might be a more accurate statement.
30
“how do you know how much degradation has occurred? ”
The standard method is to have several identical sensors, but expose them to sunlight a different amount of time. E.g. one open all the time, one open a shorter amount of time, and one open very rarely. These sensors will then have different degradation which can be used to gauge the degradation of the always-open sensor.
19
But these sensors are on satellites, in different orbital positions, are they not?
How are they exposed for varying lengths of time, and how is that physically achieved?
Also, how can you assess the sensitivity of each instrument to degradation? Even glass lenses, that are apparently optically identical, can have different hardness factors, that could cause them to deteriorate at different rates.
I am having a problem here in understanding what standard is being used, as a comparator against by whatever is meant by “degradation”, when we are referring to sensitive instruments mounted on satellites, and not the same instruments safely ensconced in the controlled environment of the lab.
Your previous answer implied that the sensors are standardised against each other. But this assumes that they are all in the same environment. But they are not, because space is not empty, and so some will be struck by high energy particles, whilst other are not.
The more I think about this, the more confused I become.
20
Generally, the sensors with different exposure time are on the same spacecraft [by design]. There are shutters that can open and close the sensor. No glass lenses are used: the sensor is open to the raw solar flux coming in through a small hole. And the most modern ones are compared to an absolute radiation standard in the laboratory [the same physical standard is used for all new sensors].
16
…. and those satellites are within the Earth’s atmosphere by how much?…. yes, they truly cannot accurately measure TSI, can they?
21
And to maintain accuracy and traceability such sensors are frequently recalibrated by standards traceable to NIST. Sometimes the recalibrations are done at NIST.
And you need to reclaibrate more often if you want to maintain accuracy. In some cases (high precision) monthly. And for radiation this is a high precision measuring device.
A new one of these devices should be sent up at least yearly. At least for a while. And they need to be placed as close to each other as possible in orbit. So the environment and time of observation are4 as similar as possible.
BTW for thermistors degradation is accelerated by heating and cooling. These instruments are not operated continuously (power limitations) so they thermistors are not being kept at a constant temperature to minimize curve shifts.
20
There does seem to be a drop in TSI, not sure if it is significant.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/plot/pmod/mean:132/plot/pmod/mean:66/plot/pmod/trend
I guess it hinges on whether this is all we’re going to see from Solar Cycle 24, and whether Solar Cycle 25 will also be depressed (very possible).
50
Starve the incessant fire by lack of oxygen. Ignore,Ignore Ignore.
30
It’s probably taking too stark a view to think that David Evan’s theory will either predict accurately, or not, and be abandoned. Think of the GCM’s relied on by IPCC. They have missed the historical temperature trends, but they did predict an increase, and sure enough, there has been some increase over 20 years, so the models are still alive. They may even be modified a little to make them more accurate, and while this is a bit comical, the modelers ought to be given a chance to see what they can do. So it is with the “Notch-Delay” model. If it is wrong, but wrong in the right direction, prudence argues for granting some leeway to make corrections. In fact, it’s worth going further: since the new model is both novel and complex, probabilities suggest that there will be at least some mistakes when the comparison with later observations is made. So, whatever the outcome in the next few years, it will probably usher in a period of refinement, but eventually a time of acceptance or rejection.
151
Truth only matters to engineers. For everyone else it is optional.
Thank the Maker engineers still respect it.
200
A bad data set is the wrong way to start a process that aims at finding a transfer function.
The dataset is bad. known bad even to those of us who dont work in the arena directly.
Of course when david’s model fails, he will go back and use the right data.
or he could just do that sensitivity test now.
or he could free the code and let people play.
432
I expect you will only have to wait a few days more based on the recent info release trend.
80
this is pretty simple.
if fact IT’S BASIC
This past fall we did a paper comparing Berkeley Earth to other datasets
For satellite there were 2 UAH and RSS
For other land there was GISS and CRU
For reanlysis there were 3
with multiple conflicting data sources the FIRST damn thing you do is test the sensitivity of your result to CHOICE OF INPUT DATASET
some bozos average the conflicting data
some bozos make arguments and only show you the best data
the pricipaled approach is to show them all
Leif has suggested this
I suggest it
What do you think the first test should be when your whole system depends on a dataset that IS IN DISPUTE
its brain dead simple
228
But is it true that the “whole system depends on a dataset that IS IN DISPUTE” ?
Have you run the code on different data sets? Have you run it on the data set you prefer?
IMO you are arguing without evidence. Fun stuff. If you are in it for fun. But generally unwise if you hope to make a point that sticks.
170
Ah… the paid mouthpiece for the BEST propaganda project returns..
170
This may appear to be coming out of left field but many of us who work out in the real climate/weather/environment. . .you know. . . people who work in fields like agriculture, transport logistics, building, construction, shipping, aviation, mining etc etc. . .are becoming more and more amused and less and less impressed.
Among other things, I am a SE Australian farmer. . .and when scientists and researchers genuinely unlock some of the mysteries of climate/weather forecasting, we applaud them and encourage their work.
Most of what we have seen in the last few decades is more about human ego and a meme that claims the ‘science is settled’.
From 2009 to 2013, many of us have been subjected to a litany of doom and gloom and very ordinary projections from entities like CSIRO and BoM accompanied by an attitude and a mindset that assumes we should unquestionably follow their advice and use their information as a major risk management tool in our businesses.
In 2009, CSIRO climate researchers informed us at various forums and workshops around the country that SE Australia was ‘drying up’ and the most worrying ‘trend’ was the drying Autumn trend.
The next 3 Autumns in SE Australia were the 3 wettest concurrent Autumns on record (go look it up 10/11/12) and this Autumn (2014, at least in a wide swathe of NSW, Vic & SA) we are witnessing the results of one of the best Autumn breaks we have seen in many a long year.
Last year (Autumn 2013) when BoM’s fancy, dancy and very expensive CGMs became officially live. . .their prediction was that Eastern Australia had an 80% probability of a wetter than average Winter/Spring 2013.
The result?. . .large areas of QLD and NSW had a damaging and severe seasonal drought that no one was expecting and no one was prepared for.
My conclusion is that the real climate/weather/environment is simply not interested in being owned and managed by human collected data and human invented trends at this point and that the advice being offered by entities such as BoM and CSIRO has not proved to be a good risk management tool at all.
It’s worrying that Natural Resource Management Government Departments are obliged to use this information as a major risk management tool because it has led to some very poor allocation of public resources.
I personally applaud Jo and David and many others who are humble and sensible enough to understand that we don’t have all the answers and that the REAL climate is apparently spectacularly uninterested in conforming to human invented trends. people like Jo and David are therefore still working on theories that might help to find further pieces of a very complex puzzle.
There will be no one happier than us farmers when seasonal variations and climate cycles are better understood and therefore easier to predict.
In the meantime. . .my humble suggestion to those who are arguing over which data set is the right or wrong data set and who has or hasn’t treated the data and records correctly and very particularly those who claim it’s ‘all settled’. . .FOR FOX ACHE!!!! . . .practice a little bit of humility and GO OUTSIDE and perhaps get an inkling that at this point….no one OWNS the weather and the REAL weather/climate/ environment is not interested in being managed by human collected data and trends.
Those of us who are living and working in the ACTUAL weather/climate/environment year in and year out at least know that it’s OK to be flexible and it’s OK to be wrong. . .as long as you learn from your mistakes and learn to be adaptable.
740
Debbie, like the “science is settled” folk I’m having trouble manipulating the “green thumb” data to multiply my input for the result of applauding your excellent post.
160
Yon,
There are farmers who have had their water taken off them from this nonsense over here, there livelihoods decimated. Advice about crop changes that failed to work and other PC nonsense that have cost real people real money. Farmers have been driven off the land and their resources usurped by impertinent and WRONG greenies. They attached water meters to private bores, withdrawing a right we’ve has since settlement to the water on our properties, without compensation. The government’s contractors TRESSPASSED on my property to install it, and interfered with my own private works without permission. Billions spent on desalination plants for rains that were to never come again, a pipeline was built here at a cost of about a billion dollars which has never been used. All in the name of climate change, my blood boils just at telling you about it. In the carbon tax legislation, the Commonwealth Government gave itself the power to enter your property if they reasonably expected you were using the wrong lightbulbs, not that the constitution stops them anyway… see above on water meters and tresspassing.
Constitutional breach after constitutional breach, it MUST stop NOW.
320
Sadly true, what’s the point of owning a Title for your land if government/NGO’s legislation become so restrictive that the owner of the Title cannot effectively use that land for any productivity?, as if we haven’t had enough useless ideas based on pseudo science that cripples a country with so much potential.
We recently looked into the possibility of buying land that had a Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO) on it, upon investigation I eventually spoke to a CFA “expert advisor” on BMO’s, the discussion lasted 30 seconds until the “expert” got nasty upon my questioning the authority and right to legislate how I manage my property.
Sorry to go OT so I’ll add this Leif character seems like a dead end for any constructive debate on David’s solar model, just think head and brick wall.
160
Yes indeed bobl.
We too have had water resources and land confiscated with no compensation and it has caused some real pain and hardship in my part of the world. . . nearly all of it impractical and pointless and expensive and wasteful and unnecessary.
Instead of once working with great people from DPI, CSIRO et al. . .we now have to deal with ‘the tree police’ et al.
The interesting point however is that farmers generally do know how to be flexible and do know how to admit to mistakes and immediately work to correct them. If they fail to be adaptable and responsive to seasonal variations then they are heading for trouble. People who work in the real environment/weather/climate know that there is no such thing as a ‘one size fits all’ rule and they always have a plan B or C or however many adaptions they need!
The ‘impertinent ones’ you mention generally have no concept of flexibility and/or adaptability or any idea how to be flexible and adaptable and can’t seem to understand that even though they claim to care deeply about ‘the environment’, the real climate/weather/environment seriously couldn’t give two hoots about them.
I sometimes imagine that if ‘mother nature’ really was the fragile, human, emotional entity as many of our ‘green betters’ represent her (which looks such a silly thing to write but that’s because the whole concept is merely cerebral & silly!). . .she must have an extremely wicked sense of humour 🙂
As far as those projections and trends for SE Australia goes. . .she seems to have deliberately produced the opposite result and I can very easily imagine their constructed representation of her laughing her head off at them 🙂
The sad part, as I mentioned earlier, is that NRM Government Departments are obliged to use this information and it has indeed led to some very poor decisions about Natural Resource Management and has probably caused more triple bottom line carnage than anything else!
(Triple bottom line being pollie/bureaucratic speak for social, economic and environment)
So once again. . .my humble advice to those who are arguing incessantly about human collected and produced data sets and trends and who is or isn’t doing it properly or treating the data correctly or even which data set is better smoothed or homogenised. . .we’re talking about the weather/climate here. . .a lot of you need to just GO OUTSIDE!
Quite clearly no one actually owns the weather/climate/environment and quite clearly the weather/climate/environment has no interest in being a reportable, tradable commodity for anybody or any entity at this point in time.
And as I also said earlier. . .there will be no one happier than us farmers when seasonal variations and climate cycles are better understood and become easier to predict.
Anyone who is genuinely working towards that goal (and is humble enough to know that we aren’t there yet) has my full respect and encouragement.
220
I had a wry smile there Debbie. It’s absolutely bucketing down with rain yet again here in Central Victoria…one of the reasons I can sit here with my laptop at this time of day instead of working at our little place!
70
Damn, that’s another laugh-line chiseled upon the old visage !
Good post.
90
Debbie,
I couldn’t agree more.
50
Debbie,
I am a farmer in SW Australia and inside due to it being too wet to do any work outside, shaping up for a magnificent season, except for some waterlogging.
I was a told that an analysis of BOM seasonal forecast found that guessing was just as accurate.
My question is, why bother, if they can’t get any semblance of accuracy the BOM should just say it doesn’t know.
BOM say they have a new model for seasonal forecasts, I think they just bought a new dartboard.
I use at least 4 websites/apps to follow weather and they have some use up to 4 days, anymore than that, very unreliable. So how can climatologists forecast a 100 years when a meteorologist can’t forecast 100 hours?
40
Yes Bob.
We use at least 4 different sites as well.
Unfortunately, since the new GCMs went live approx 12 months ago, BoM’s seasonal forecasting has not demonstrated any improved skill. . .and if anything it could be argued that BoM forecasting has become more generic and more dangerous as a business tool!
10
It appears some individuals think they have a patent on using statistics, means, or averages from data to plot, analyze, and hypothesize, to employ logical speculation, determine possible causation or generate scientific discussions which may lead to a better understanding of what is driving the climate to change from something other than the “predetermined CO2.” Weren’t early “scientists” as certain the world was flat and it was the “heretics” and “fools” who did not?
Keep up the great work, Jo and Dr. Evans. Many of us “regular” folks are learning a great deal from both of you!
160
As John Robertson said above, “The larger the EGO, the less room for other peoples ideas.”
I wish I could offer some sort of constructive criticism to both Leif and Willis that would create in them a change for the better, perhaps a dose of humility to calm their propensity towards arrogance, perhaps teach an old lesson about knowing what we don’t know or even reaching the point of Not knowing that we don’t know.
For David, I like your approach, manner and laid back attitude in dealing with this. As you said, time will tell. I wish you the best. This approach to science by weblog may indeed be the future.
For Bruce of Newcastle, very interesting and would like to read more of your model. Have you written an article or considered writing one?
90
Gregorio – No, I’ve not written it up as the model was designed to be a test for my own personal interest since for a while I was thinking of entering the field (I’m a R&D chemist). It was to test roughly whether sceptics were right that sensitivity is low or IPCC climate scientists were right that sensitivity is high. The results were pretty conclusive – you can argue about error bars and tenths of a degree but based on HadCET its clear that ECS is low, provided you include the overall effect of the Sun.
I put it up on Flickr because of a comment fight here at Jo’s, where someone called Blimey said “please present your own models that describe the observed warming without taking into account greenhouse gas forcings”. So I did. Floored him completely.
If you look at the first graph the full details of the model are given in the description. The paper by Butler & Johnson is here. They wrote it before CAGW was politically sensitive. The advantage of pSCL is it is easy to measure, impossible to fake and is available in a long consistent dataset. Whereas as Mr Mosher and Dr Svalgaard have been saying TSI measurement is not without issues and the dataset available is short. Its very hard to fake variations in the length of the solar cycle and the empirical relationship between solar cycle length and temperature in the next decade is pretty clear. You can see it yourself if you graph it, which I have done here. B&J applied filters to correct for issues such as volcanoes, but even the raw data shows it. (For Leif – yes I have read Lockwood and Fröhlich 2007 several times quite carefully. Its crap, which I can easily demonstrate from the paper. I suspect Lockwood (who I have a lot of time for) has been backpedalling since then, given the comments he has been making on solar influence in the last few years.)
The ~60 year cycle effect on temperature can be worked out by a simple sinusoidal regression curve fitted to HadCRUT, like this. Or you can use a sine curve fitted to the AMO, which is detrended North Atlantic SST. The AMO cycle is persistent over millenia, as found by Knight et al 2005 (in GRL).
The issue as I mentioned is that the IPCC ensemble modellers don’t include these significant variables. If they did their derived values for ECS would come out much lower.
120
Why is Lockwood and Fröhlich meaningless? Nir Shaviv
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/07/nir-shaviv-why-is-lockwood-and-frohlich.html
00
00
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/more-strange-adventures-in-tsi-data-the-miracle-of-900-fabricated-fraudulent-days/#comment-1504791
And that corresponds well to David’s Bode Plot.
00
Leif, you are being non-constructive and delaying the program. Either leave or shut-up and be mature…
110
“delaying the program”
A very constructive contribution has been offering my TSI reconstruction in order to do a much needed sensitivity analysis of Evans’ forecast. So far, Evans has not bothered. To me that speaks volumes.
You mean inferring with the activism-agenda. Well, it must be interfered with as such activism has long left the science behind. To get back on track, Evans should perform the constructive sensitivity analysis I suggested.
233
“has not bothered”? See figures 5 and 6 above, and the first figure in an earlier post.
Also, see comment 24.2.1.1.4 above.
210
bothered to do it correctly. And you have not graphed ‘my’ dataset. You should do that in a separate Figure with only mine and yours with no smoothing. I would do that myself if I could, but since you refuse to tell us what your data is and how it is constructed, it is hard for me to make the comparison.
—–
You have not bothered to correct your inaccurate and false statements. That would be a lot faster than reoptimizing the model. The double standards are breathtaking. – Jo
430
Oh dear.. Leif’s data set has not been graphed..
Sob. sob. sob !!!!
The world must surely come to an end. !!!
roflmao !!
201
Griss,
Just by the by, is it just me or does this segment seem to be turning into a ‘dead parrot’ sketch with Leif playing the shopkeeper.
I don’t think he is delaying the program, but I do think Leif is firing well past Top Dead Centre
at the moment.
How many times must he be referred back to his own dataset by Dr. Evans?
150
Actually, now you mention it – it is the dead parrot sketch!
Well done James. 🙂
40
mixed in with the “argument” sketch. 🙂
A sort of hybrid Monty.
30
Dr. Svalgaard, you said “So far, Evans has not bothered. To me that speaks volumes.” You were wrong. Evans had bothered. Admit you were wrong in saying that. It’s easy – just say, “Oops, I said something that wasn’t right.”
Even though you later changed the meaning by adding the words “bothered to do it correctly”, you have been called out on your original statement. Changing the statement after having been called on it is no defense. You made a statement which was not correct. Admit it.
Further, you needlessly used the word “bothered”, which is smarmy and bitchy. It speaks volumes. I think you are a nasty person with no honour. Prove me wrong.
170
That’s called bait and switch
20
Also note that Dr Evans was, for a period, referred to correctly. Then as Dr Svalgaard found himself being challenged more intensely, it became Mr Evans, and now we arrive at a stage where it is just “Evans”. That also speaks volumes.
60
As loud as the use of just ‘Svalgaard’ in the ’17 highlights of the post’.
111
Clearly you have read my challenge and declined to accept it. Therefore you remain in my estimation nasty and without honour.
60
Your egotism is unprecedented….
David has had your claims and data for a week or more. Based on his initial statements, he is fully willing to toss his analysis if proven wrong. Since he has not done that I would assume your claims are invalidated.
151
If he had he would gleefully have announced that he invalidated my suggestion. Your assumption is that of a true believer in the ’cause’. A member of Team DE.
——
Another case of projection? — Jo
429
Fast to accuse but short on allowing the process David chose to mature. Unfortunately, you refuse to understand or trust the process. However, the process will find the truth even if the initial data set is as wrong as you say.
The fundamental fact is that the process takes time and effort. Incremental discovery and improvement always does but it eventually converges onto a truth. This is how progress happens. Nothing happens instantly simply because you demand it.
My question is why are you so fearful of allowing the process to continue at the speed Jo and David are comfortable with? It is not as if you are paying them and they are on your time clock. Yet you expect/demand instant service to YOUR ideas without respecting or even trying to understand theirs.
Like I said: “I suggest something far afield from actual science is going on here and it isn’t pretty. In fact, it is all flavors of ugly.”
300
It is hard to find the truth from faulty data, regardless of how fast or how slow the process is.
230
Your data set is wrong too. Wrong is wrong and one shouldn’t use wrong data sets by your own principle. I know. You *believe* it is less wrong than the data set David first used because some unidentified magical others *believe* it is better. Yet, you still don’t know what the true values are but *believe* that merely because you *believe* makes it all good. This is NOT science. It is a faith based religion.
If you haven’t noticed, it is difficult to find the truth by simply *believing*. You may accidentally find the truth but you can’t know that you have. You only *believe*.
You can call it the truth but that is like calling a sheep’s tail a leg and saying therefore a sheep has five legs. We unanointed mere mortals hold fast to the old fashion notion that a sheep only has four legs. We don’t have the magical power of transmogrification by which something becomes something else merely by saying it is something other than what it is.
170
Leif, I can’t understand why you have so many red thumbs for this statement.
25
If you had followed the general lines of hostility on this blog, you might better understand why.
012
The hostility starts with the man who claims another scientist is an activist with an agenda whose data was fabricated and blatantly wrong.
The hostility (and irrationality) continues with every comment where the same man then refuses to correct his false and defamatory claims.
We are merely pointing out your flagrant errors. If you call that hostile, it says a lot about your understanding of science.
241
“That of a true believer in the cause. A member of Team DE”
Is this assumption the driver of your intolerance and rudeness?
How can there be any true believers in “Team D.E?
We have not seen the complete conjecture yet.
But you continue blathering on, your estimation of TSI is the only “true estimation.
Given the state of our knowledge of the sun is just barely started, your absolutism is pathetic.
You are stereotyping yourself, as the absolute expert on a subject of which we just found out, via solar sensors, that we do not know most of what we thought we did.
As for historic TSI, all guesses are just that.
240
See figures 5 and 6 above, and the first figure in an earlier post.
Also, see comment 24.2.1.1.4 above.
200
Leif Svalgaard July 5, 2014 at 12:18 pm ”
“If he had he would gleefully have announced that he invalidated my suggestion. Your assumption is that of a true believer in the ’cause’. A member of Team DE.”
Gots to be a BOT Ni one would appear that stupid!
40
Leif,
are you trying to say that SORC would not have gone with ACRIM and VIRGO back to 2002?
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI.jpg
00
Don’t know what you mean. ACRIM and VIRGO [PMOD] suffer from a design flaw [let in scattered and diffracted light], so have systematic differences from the better designed SORCE/TIM. In addition there are other known [instrumental or data reduction] errors in ACRIM and PMOD.
117
what i am asking is, do you not think that SORC would have the same peak in 2000 to 2002 that ACRIM and VIRGO did? it would be sensible considering BOTH of those sets show that there was a considerable drop in TSI from 2002 to current, so would most likely NOT be due to ‘design flaw’ which would show as a bias, not anomaly.
50
Of the two PMOD is the best [ACRIM has larger errors]. And PMOD suffers from a systematic downward drift due to uncorrected degradation, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/PMOD%20TSI-SOHO%20keyhole%20effect-degradation%20over%20time.pdf A drift that has become even worse since, as you can see in the insert on http://www.leif.org/reseach/No-TSI-Difference-Between-Minima.pdf
But SORCE would not have the same peak as PMOD [or even SORCE itself had it been operating in 2001] because TSI simply scales with the sunspot number which now is lower than in 2001.
314
well considering the bloodsport statement, are there any refences to the ‘uncorrected degradation’ other than your own slide show?
60
Try to click on the reference to the presentation by Schmutz.
or a simpler one:
http://theconversation.com/real-climate-debates-a-report-from-the-iugg-general-assembly-2060 [ignore the climate nonsense and read on to:
“An invited keynote talk by Werner Schmutz describes the radiative energy from the sun: total solar iradiance or TSI.
He concluded that the “data do not support a TSI trend between 1996 and 2008” (from one solar min to the next)”
215
So asked for references the best Leif can do is a “Conversation” blog link? And the quote only applies to solar minima, not maxima, and not trends?
The strawman bluster continues. When will Leif admit the obvious — that this is not about trends in solar minima, and not about comparing monthly TSI data from one point to the next? – jo
191
Leif,
I am no one’s student, simply trying to understand what is really going on.
I do understand bias as it applies to one’s ego and salary, I deal with it on a daily basis.
I have no ego or bias, I learn new things every day, and understand there could be multiple causes for the same symptom.
Do you?
130
“understand there could be multiple causes for the same symptom” So you understand that a forecast of a drop of temperature of 0.1C could have multiple causes and therefore cannot be taken as validation of any given single explanation, especially not when based on input data that is demonstrably wrong.
321
@LS
Just one question re. ‘data that is wrong‘
Is david the only one who is using it and thinks it’s OK or there others who think it’s OK too?
120
No, you can find this wrong dataset used on many websites that want to promote solar influence. Google is your friend, go find them yourself.
021
No, I was simply interested in why you keep saying this data is wrong.
Now I know. But what if David and others are right? Don’t you even give that a moments thought? People were wrong before, specially with something as tenuous as climate data.
170
You have to understand , Mark, ….
…… the ONLY correct data set is the one Leif made a guess at. !!!
180
You repeatedly talk about being wrong but provide nothing concrete?
Your opinion at this point is less than valid?
70
http://www.leif.org/research/No-TSI-Difference-Between-Minima.pdf should suffice for even the most bone-headed. You can prove me wrong on the suffice-bit.
021
And if you do not compare apples with oranges but use the same 11 years smoothing average as Dr Evans. What do you get ??
60
Silence, it would appear.
50
No… I do hear the crickets….
50
Brad, “I have no ego or bias” How do you know that?
00
Richard Hill
July 5, 2014 at 1:09 pm
Who else would know it better?
20
The big disappointment to me is the failure by the critics to address the issues and attack the researchers instead.
MR. Willis has lost ALL the credibility he built over the years and has proven that he is just an ordinary mann and not the great guru he portrayed himself to be. If I read ay of his writing in future it will be with a greater scepticism than in the past. His inaccurate and distorted tirade has not helped Anthony WUWT at all.
MR. Leif could have said “I disagree with these parts for these reasons … How can I help you to improve this so we can see if you are on to something?” Instead he displays typical behaviour I sometimes witness (I have a three year old grandson who is always right).
The problem with science is that (as Leif did allude to) you can be right for the wrong reasons. The Chinese believed tea prevented typhoid, not realising that it was boiling the water that was the reason tea-drinkers never got the disease. So if David’s predictions are wrong, then the hypothesis is wrong – and David will put a red pen through his own work. However, if his predictions come true, then much more needs to be done to demonstrate that he has the right reason.
Finally (while I have your attention, can ANYONE tell me where all this is going by answering two simple questions I have been asking for over three years:
1. what is the ideal level of CO2 we so earnestly and expensively seek. Is it;
a. 400ppm
b. 350ppm
c. 300ppm
d. 250ppm (at which point plants cease growing)
2. what is the ideal average global temperature? We appear to be currently at 14.9C and 17C is claimed to be a catastrophic tipping point, so is the ideal average;
a. 14C
b. 13C
c. 12C
d. 10C
If we do not know where we are going, how will we know when we are there>
330
“Common courtesy may seem a quaint anachronism, but without it, logic and reason die on the sword of uninformed passion. ”
Beautifully said. (Except for a missing comma.) This applies not only to scientific debate, but to human society in general. One of the important insights of Confucian philosophy is the vital role that manners and politeness play in maintaining civilisation.
I will probably quote you (with corrected punctuation) fairly often.
90
Evans’ ‘model’ predicts [his Figure 2] a drop of 0.6C by 2016-2017 [in two short years]. If this happens, I’ll, of course, concede that a correct answer could be extracted from garbage. If it doesn’t happen, I hope Mr Evans will, likewise, concede that garbage in gives you garbage out.
222
For people needing a reminder, here is one: http://www.leif.org/research/Evans-Prediction.png
220
I have this air conditioner to sell you Leif, it works by detecting the CO2 in the atmosphere and modulating output air temperature based on content -3.3 degrees per doubling of CO2 over 400 ppm, that should keep the air temperature constant eh? do you want to buy it?
110
I’ll swap it with the London bridge I recently acquired, but actually, where I live I don’t need an A/C so will have to decline your kind offer.
414
I see, so you’re keeping the London bridge, good to know for the londoners here, to know their tolls are going to a good cause.
40
Why the endless gratuitous use of MR when referring to DR Evans MR Leif S?
100
I think that is what passes for subtlety in the world of academic ad hominem.
150
Because he is a nasty little doctor.
60
Leif says: ” I’ll, of course, concede”
But based on your current performance, you will concede nothing — no matter how incorrect you are. Prove us wrong — respond to the quotes in the post.
150
“respond to the quotes in the post”
As always, you must be precise. What quotes exactly?
014
I could not have been more precise. See Svalgaard 1 to Svalgaard 17. I’m surprised you have not read the post we are all discussing?
190
Hmmm,
I wonder if Joanne and David were being evil knowing they would draw out the whackadoodles by not releasing everything up front?!?!?!
Yeah, they planned it this way to smoke out the faux sceptics!!
Just kidding, or am I??
Gotta admit I am enjoying watching Smellgaard and Etchinback make fools of themselves. Amazing how such intelligent people can lose it under pressure.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
140
Are you a “whackadoodl” just asking!
40
whackadoodle
The Grammar and Spelling Police Auxiliary –
50
I played whackamole in a pub in Melbourne once – great fun.
00
And that, they have managed, in spades. 🙂
30
In fact.. “oodles of whackadoodles” “-)
30
Jo, I don’t know why you use a 25 year smoothing as 10 or even 5 years gets rid of most of the noise but gives a much better indication of what is happening most recently. I use a 13 year binomial filter on HadCrut5 but taper it over the record end years until the last data point is a simple mean of the last two years. The tail wiggles around a bit but you get a much better feel for the current behaviour, IMHO. Accordingly I think the global temperature topped out in about 2005 with the NH leading the SH down. The hemispheric difference also maxed out at about that time, NH-SH exceeding -0.3˚C for the first OK with your notch delay theory as all I am saying is the real downtrend is still to come but the signature of the end of the previous (up) trend has clearly appeared, the cest of the wave so to speak.
Don’t fuss too much about Willis and Svaalgaard, I think they are jealous. LS last comment before min ( #46) is a bit precious to my mind. So if we get -0.6 by 2020 instead of 2017 or -0.04 by 2016 he is going to declare your model a fail? If we get a clear -0.2 by 2020 that will be about the same as the cooling circa 1900 – 1910 and will do me for the time being. It will be enough to blow the IPCC and their flock of starlings models out of the sky for mine.
80
“So if we get -0.6 by 2020 instead of 2017 or -0.04 by 2016 he is going to declare your model a fail? If we get a clear -0.2 by 2020 that will be about the same as the cooling circa 1900 – 1910 and will do me for the time being.”
As you can see http://www.leif.org/research/Evans-Prediction.png the predicted drop of ~0.6C pertains to a whole decade after 2016, so 2020 should also be 0.6C colder. And in 1900-1910 temps were 1.0C cooler than now, not 0.2C, according to Evans’ Figure 2.
” It will be enough to blow the IPCC and their flock of starlings models out of the sky for mine”
And this bit shows your agenda and bias. Regardless of the science you just want to blow the IPCC. [not that they don’t deserve it, IMHO]
218
According to the HadCrut4 record (as I view the data using a 13 year binomial filter, as I said) the cooling over the decade between about 1900 and 1910 was about 0.2˚C which is what I wrote. I did not say or imply anything else regarding that. I also wrote that I think that the cooling to which Evans refers actually began on about 2005 or so. I think you actually agree that a -0.2˚C drop be it by 2015 , 2016 or 2020 from the ‘peak” would pretty much wreck the IPCC groupie model concensus so just what is my “agenda and bias” that you find so irksome?
You have done a lot of excellent work in the AGW debate but you seem to suffer some of the symptoms of Mann et al methinks. Enviro Guru Ebola shall we call it? Chill out sir, you are not the enemy and please don’t drink the “climate expert” kool ade. In my world an “expert” consists of ‘x’, an unknown quantity and a ‘spurt’, a drip under pressure.
70
Of course I am not that far ahead of things to be analysing HadCrut5 but am stll stuck on HadCrut4. When will east Anglia catch up?
🙂
50
“If TSI fell from 1995 then the corresponding fall in temperature should have been evident from about 2006 — but since it didn’t happen that would mean the solar influence is weak”.
Not so fast. I mentioned previously that Usoskin found a 20 year average lag in solar reconstructions over the last 1000 years. It doesn’t have to relate to the 8-14 year solar cycle, a decline can develop over multiple decades, as it interacts in a complex way with changes in ocean phases such as the PDO.
I prefer the 20 year estimate after peak activity from 1985, but since TSI still remained high to at least 1995, best guess is 15-20 years after 1995, so somewhere between 2010 to 2015, or if the decline occurred more from ~2005, a slightly less delay, so somewhere between 2015-2020. Cant be more accurate than that I think, but an interesting debate.
10
Lionell Griffith
July 5, 2014 at 2:56 pm
“is believed to be the actual TSI…”
“believed to be”(?!) Now you are appealing to belief. ”
Do you believe that Evans’ is doing science?
121
Do you “believe” you are?
150
Ah, the pope of *believe* science asking if I *believe* Evans’ is doing science. No, I don’t *believe* it, I know it. When you have knowledge belief is unnecessary and unproductive. If you don’t have knowledge, belief doesn’t add to knowledge and is therefor also unproductive.
I described his process in quite some detail early on. It is the right process for the clean start of an actual science of climate rather than the pseudo scientific process you bring to the table. There is a difference between actual science and pseudo science though I doubt you would know it because you *believe* rather than know, assert rather than demonstrate, accuse rather than prove, and insist rather than watch and learn.
40
get rid of both of them
219
Here, let me help you Leif: “I am just totally pissed that David did not use my data!”
Feel better now?
220
But BS your data is crap MY data is the best in the land so if anyone should be totally pissed it should be me, and here in lies the problem after staring at TSI for God knows how long LS could not figure out what was happening then along comes a lowly electrical engineer with a flair for maths and puts it all together. But the worst part is he did not even use LS data surely that must be a kick in the guts. You spend all your life toiling away at something and in the end it was in vain.
Poor old bugger.
200
The English do have a way with words. I have always liked “Poor old sod.” You can even say it in polite company – in America. In America we have “sod busters” which means “hard worker for little reward”. The connotations ARE different.
61
“sod busters” ?? sounds a bit like gay bashing. Not PC.
00
See my http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/more-strange-adventures-in-tsi-data-the-miracle-of-900-fabricated-fraudulent-days/#comment-1502433
Which was supposed to be a reply to yours.
10
Well that is odd. Replies seem to be going to a new comment.
This is supposed to be a reply to: http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/more-strange-adventures-in-tsi-data-the-miracle-of-900-fabricated-fraudulent-days/#comment-1502416
We shall see.
10
Comment threading breaks at times…. prolly from too much BS flying around…
50
Backslider
July 5, 2014 at 6:11 pm · Reply
Good unwholesome entertainment though. It has significantly reduced my perusal of unclothed ladies.
130
I get the impression a lot more than perusal (;-)
00
When I was a student, I was given a book by my tutor. In it he had written:
I am indebted to Dr Svalgaard for reminding me of that advice, and in so doing, reintroducing me to that book.
410
Never stopped reading that same book over and over, believed every word and live happily ever after.
20
Spot on crakar24, spot on. Svalgaard reminds me of Captain Queeg.
40
What, you and Mosh ?
Not a bad idea, then a sensible scientific argument could ensue, rather than one governed by blustering egomaniacs.
220
“Every time we looked around there he was that hairy hound from Budapest. Never leaving us alone, never have I ever known a ruder pest…”
Henry Higgins – My Fair Lady
10
We know who to get rid of.
20
Robert
July 5, 2014 at 3:02 pm
“Please show us the proof that yours is correct, or “less wrong.” ”
The main part of the prediction is the sharp drop in TSI such that the recent solar minimum was considerably lower than the previous minimum. In http://www.leif.org/research/No-TSI-Difference-Between-Minima.pdf I refer to recent measurements that show “Observed data do not support a measurable TSI trend between the minima in 1996 and 2008!” This is from W. Schmutz, SORCE 2011 Presentation, http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/1g_Schmutz_SORCE_13.9.11.pdf
I have refer to this several times. Do you ever consult such links, or do you just blow them off without even looking?
122
Perhaps if you learned to behave in a more civil manner people would look at the links you provide. Once again, this appears to be a case of “the data doesn’t agree with mine so it must be wrong.”
In the future perhaps you could provide graphs where there isn’t a large text box containing the point you desire to make situated in the graph covering a large part of the data we’d like to see.
190
You cannot say ‘appears’ if you don’t look.
And should you care to click on the URL given in the box, you will be taken to the original paper. But, no, you prefer to shoot your mouth off instead.
119
Well silly me, you gave us something that you say supports your claim, I say there is a large text box covering the scale on the graph and therefore part of the data so as far as I’m concerned you are hiding something.
How do you know I didn’t look? You don’t do you? You are full of yourself.
Now, why are you hiding the x axis scale behind a text box, you could have just as easily provided the comment and link beneath the graph couldn’t you?
80
Dr. Svalgaard,
I visited your site, http://www.leif.org/research/ , where item N is “TSI-Reconstruction-2014(My Guess)”. In examining that graph I noted that the baseline for TSI doesn’t seem to agree with the baseline as corrected in http://www.leif.org/research/No-TSI-Difference-Between-Minima.pdf which you linked to above. Not sure if I’ve misunderstood what’s being shown so perhaps you could explain why the plots seem to differ.
Thanks, John
10
Roy Spencer in his book ‘The Great Global Warming Blunder’, outlines a theory that solar activity + associated changes in cloud cover + delay times in reaching atmospheric equilibrium + changes in the PDO from negative to positive can account for most late 20th century warming.
His key is that cloud changes are the missing solar amplifier. Worth a read.
If you factor in changes in ocean phases, things start to look grim for the alarmists, because it not only explains the current pause (which corresponds with the negative phase of the PDO), but also predicts that things might start to cool, the exact opposite of what we are being told.
Same as the argument above. If you believe the sun had a lot to do with 20th century warming generally, things might well start to cool over the next few decades.
60
The data is wrong….says who?
TSI reconstructions are guesses and each camp takes the reconstruction that suits their needs. Svalgaard keeps telling us that the Group Sunspot Number (GSN) is flawed, but there are new studies that suggest otherwise. The GSN is used in the Lean(2000)reconstruction.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/317
The new study suggests the SIDC values before 1848 need a 20% reduction.
Lockwood et al is also on board and also agrees that the L&P data is flawed.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/328
110
A paper in press [Space Science Reviews] concludes
“Based on these comparisons, it does not seem reasonable to apply a wholesale decrease of the Wolf Numbers by 20% before 1849, as advocated by Leussu et al. (2013).”
Lockwood et al. has a track record of trying to catch up, but they usually do it poorly. In their recent 2014 papers they after a decade of struggle arrive at the same conclusions and reconstructions as we did back in 2003. They should, of course, be congratulated for their ‘achievement’.
118
Lockwood et al are now leading the pack, and correctly acknowledge the work of Leussu et al. There is no doubt there is a modern maximum, your peers are deserting you.
McCracken Steinhilber and Beer are also in opposition to you in regards to solar planetary theory…time to give up Leif.
160
Lockwood et al. have always been trailers, still are.
The planets running the show does not have many adherents, except on the fringe.
But you are trying to hijack the thread for your own purposes. Slither back in your hole, please.
121
No just showing where your peers are deserting you…your time along with Watts is marked.
121
Not at all. The Sunspot number Workshops http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home reflect what the peers who matters have to say about this. But you wouldn’t even go there, let alone read the supporting papers, would you?
015
David and Jo’s article on this topic is a turning point….the public is catching on. Just loving watching you and Watts take the ultimate fall.
121
You are wasting a lot of time with us “no accounts” Leif. You should be spending your time with “peers who matters” where real work can get done.
Or as they like to say over at http://reason.com/ –> TOP MEN will sort it out.
Good to have a TOP MAN like you with us though So we can find out what the “peers who matters” think.
120
Just because you *SAY* these are the peers who matter, we are to drop and read a bunch of links? You *believe* they are the peers who matter. You should know by now what we think of your sacred *believe*. It is not worth a fart in a hurricane. In fact it is a very good reason not to read the content of your links. After all, we have real lives to live that matter to us. Wasting our time on your petulant ravings is not our idea of living.
10
OzWizard
July 5, 2014 at 3:15 pm
Dear Leif,
“You seem not to comprehend the clear meanings of the simple words written above. Please re-read the post and re-submit your corrected manuscript for marking.”
Indeed, I may not comprehend something, because you do not say precisely what those simple words were, and I don’t like to just guess. So, try again.
019
O/T, but an article in today’s Age reports an appeal by the Anglican Church, as follows:
Would that the government, and the Anglican Church followed this wise advice and “respect[ed] and act[ed] upon relevant independent evidence-based scientific advice” on climate change!
One can only sympathise with Henry II, when he is alleged to have said of Thomas Beckett, “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?”
140
Well I’m an Anglican and the Synod does NOT speak for me!
30
Annie
July 5, 2014 at 5:07 pm
Well I’m an Anglican and the Synod does NOT speak for me!
I’m Jewish and NO ONE speaks for me.
“Two Jews. Three opinions.”
80
I’m an atheist so I don’t know who speaks for me, or if that’s even a possibility. 🙁
60
I know that there is a correlation between sunspots and TSI, but sunspots cause TSI to go down not up.
Is it not the faculae that should be the main focus of attention when dealing with uncertain or absent measurements of TSI?
00
Judging by PMOD TSI and SIDC Wolf numbers…
Over the medium term of 22 years, TSI is proportional to SSN.
In the short term variance over 2 years or less you can sometimes cherry pick places where they move in opposite directions, but just eyeballing it a correlation still looks more plausible than anticorrelation. Intuitively, more dark spots should reduce total output, but it is difficult to show that in the measurements. In particular the SSN high of 1988 is closely followed by a TSI high, not a TSI drop. Also note where the zero line is after normalisation and recognise how far above zero the TSI would have to be wherever SSN is low for the anticorrelation to be true.
I think it’s the medium term effect which is important for these climate forecasts, and on that scale the TSI is clearly proportional to sunspot count.
In the longer term, even the baseline level of TSI can drop, allegedly in a 200 year oscillation. Since we are nearing the end of one of those TSI cycles now, even the statement “TSI is proportional to sunspot count” will soon have less truth to it than it did in the 1980s and 1990s.
10
Relations between the length of a sunspot cycle and the average temperature in the same and the next cycle are calculated for a number of meteorological stations in Norway and in the North Atlantic region. No significant trend is found between the length of a cycle and the average temperature in the same cycle, but a significant negative trend is found between the length of a cycle and the temperature in the next cycle. This provides a tool to predict an average temperature decrease of at least View the MathML source from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 for the stations and areas analyzed. We find for the Norwegian local stations investigated that 25–56% of the temperature increase the last 150 years may be attributed to the Sun. For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72% solar contribution. This points to the Atlantic currents as reinforcing a solar signal.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000417
10
So, where does the rest come from?…. let me guess, frying kjøttboller ?
20
honestly, my understanding with smoothed data you never plot beyond the point at which you can smooth. If you do plot the last few years you use the actual data, you don’t assume anything. Its just a random red line extension that should be labelled as “random line that has nothing to do with any data” rather than suggest it is some sort of extension of data.
08
Matt, that is probably prudent unless you are trying to prevent an artifact. Truncating data can cause artifacts in some integrations and adding a padding point can prevent that. It will also allow some inspection of the end of a trend providing that one understands the error increases at the end of the smoothed trend. It’s my conclusion that there probably isn’t a better way to tease the likely shape of the end of the trend.
Put another way, the smoothing is artificial (grossly erroneous with respect to the original data) anyway, and adding some padding to keep a smooth curve at the end probably doesn’t make it a lot worse than it already is.
20
This jump of ice in 2007 and 2008 could be explained by only by solar activity, because Antarctica is well insulated from the impact of sea temperature by strong ocean currents.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
20
Whether decrease sea temperatures in the south will lead to changes in ocean currents? It’s only a matter of time.
http://ziemianarozdrozu.pl/i/upload/zmiany-klimatu-zjawiska/cyrkulacja-oceaniczna.jpg
10
Stop the bus! Siliggy knows all about the sun “Especially one pole at a time!”
Elaborate for fun Siliggy 🙂
00
Sparks with so many comments on this thread did not notice this for a while. I was checking unde my comments but this time text searched for “Siliggy”.
No i do not know all about the sun but do have some theories and can point you to a lot of good info. First up you seem to either doubt that the suns poles flip one at a time or have a different take on that.
Just incase you or anyone else doubts that.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24977823
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/22apr_currentsheet/
http://www.space.com/22264-sun-s-magnetic-field-will-soon-flip-stormy-space-weather-ahead-video.html
10
bobl
July 5, 2014 at 5:03 pm
“providing the models transfer function is something close to reality it will forecast pretty much equally well with any input data.”
But if the input on which the transfer function is trained is not correct, then the function will not be close to reality. The training period should best be the ENTIRE dataset. If the early part, e.g. of temperature, is not reliable, then one might exclude that, but certainly the training period must include data up to present [where it is best] and not [as we learn] stop in 1978.
011
I did not disagree with that, I disagreed that it would “not be valid” unless trained on the whole data set, which is what you said is it not?
40
If the data is of uniform quality, the function should be trained on all the data. If the early data is less good, one can argue that it should not be used, but certainly the newest data should be used, so the training period should not stop in 1978.
P.S. the effect of atomic bomb tests does not look credible. Where is the link to where Evans got that data?
113
But it is not invalid if it does. I am not disagreeing with you here, but invalid is a step too far, your language needs to be more precise, perhaps suboptimal is a good word. I concur on the atomic bomb, something else is at work there, something probably inside the black box. It appears transient so internal variability seems likely. I think more likely it is postwar industrialisation and resultant smog, a problem right up till the early 80s. But given its transient nature it could be just about anything.
30
Siliggy is it you giving me the thumbs down? I think it is 🙂
04
No not me!
Here is a thought for you Sparks. If a current flows through the plasma of space from other stars to our sun and on to more could the path be compared to a transmission line like a waveguide or coax? That is could standing waves develope from distubances independantly on either side of our interstellar connection? If you wonder where the hell this current could come from remember that Q=CV and C is proportional to the inverse of the distance between plates. So all it takes for a huge differential to produce this current is a nonlinear conductive path and a change of distance between two charged bodies.
00
Correction.I did give you a thumb down for the E=MC^2 comment.
11
Figure 2: Time series of 81-day-boxcar-smoothed TSI (top panel) and similarly smoothed sunspot areas (bottom panel) over 1978-2007. The black lines are the observations, and the red bands indicate the +/- one-sigma range about the mean constructed from 1000 realizations of our best-fit model. The fits are quite good through most of the time interval. The gradual, excess downtrend in observed TSI starting around 2003 may be an artefact associated with instrumental drift, or part of a true, long-timescale dimming trend in luminosity. This remains currently under investigation.
http://glory.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/tsi2.jpg
10
And modern measurements show that, indeed, the downward trend is an instrumental drift, as W. Schmutz tells us http://www.leif.org/research/No-TSI-Difference-Between-Minima.pdf
110
Is that correct?
Figure 3: Temporal variation of the total solar irradiance from 1874 to the present, as reconstructed by our physical model. The orange curve shows daily values for a single representative solution, and the thick red curve mean +/- one sigma for 1000 realization of the best fit model.
http://glory.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/tsi3.jpg
10
“And modern measurements show that, indeed, the downward trend is an instrumental drift”
The ACRIM data do not show an “instrumental drift.” They are based on direct measurements, not reconstructions or extrapolations.
http://www.acrim.com/RESULTS/Earth%20Observatory/earth_obs_ACRIM_Composite.pdf
80
Kenneth Richard
July 5, 2014 at 5:34 pm
“What percentage of the scientific community agrees with you about the “ridiculously” wrong ACRIM and PMOD data?”
The people at the institution that is producing the PMOD composite tells us that PMOD suffers from degradation problems and that “Observed data do not support a measurable TSI trend between the minima in 1996 and 2008!” http://www.leif.org/research/No-TSI-Difference-Between-Minima.pdf
what more do we need?
Your ‘logic’ is like saying that smoking is healthy because so many people do it.
214
The ACRIM scientists certainly don’t agree that their data suffer from degradation problems. In fact, they present robust evidence that their data are better than the PMOD, relying on actual measurements rather than reconstructions for the ACRIM gap (thus reducing bias and the potential for tampering), and the ACRIM scientists have demonstrated their data provide strong validation for the continued correlation between TSI and temperatures between solar cycles 21-23.
So why do you opine/believe the ACRIM dataset to be “ridiculously” wrong?
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10509-013-1775-9
Our analysis provides a first order validation of the ACRIM TSI composite approach and its 0.037 %/decade upward trend during solar cycles 21–22. The implications of increasing TSI during the global warming of the last two decades of the 20th century are that solar forcing of climate change may be a significantly larger factor than represented in the CMIP5 general circulation climate models.
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2005GL023849.pdf
PMOD has been widely used in geophysical research. According to this composite, TSI has been almost stationary (0.009%/decade trend of the 21– 23 solar minima [Willson and Mordvinov, 2003]) and by adopting it, or the equivalent TSI proxy reconstruction by Lean et al. [1995], some researchers and the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2001; Hansen et al., 2002] deduced that the Sun has not contributed to the observed global surface warming of the past decades. Consequently, the global surface warming of DT1980 – 2002 = 0.40 ± 0.04K from 1980 to 2002 shown in Figure 2 could only be induced, directly or indirectly, by anthropogenic added green house gas (GHG) climate forcing. Contrariwise, ACRIM presents a significant upward trend (+0.047%/decade trend of the minima) during solar cycles 21– 23 (1980 –2002) [Willson and Mordvinov, 2003].
http://www.acrim.com/Reference%20Files/Scafetta%20%26%20West_Secular%20total%20solar%20irradiance%20trend%20..21-23%20(2003).pdf
Secular total solar irradiance trend during solar cycles 21–23
A series of satellite total solar irradiance (TSI) observations can be combined in a precise solar magnetic cycle length composite TSI database by determining the relationship between two non-overlapping components: ACRIM1 and ACRIM2. An ACRIM composite TSI time series using the Nimbus7/ERB results to relate ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 demonstrates a secular upward trend of 0.05 percent-per-decade between consecutive solar activity minima [during solar cycles 21-23]. The 0.05%/decade minimum-to-minimum trend appears to be significant. If so it has profound implications for both solar physics and climatology. For solar physics it means that TSI variability can be caused by unknown mechanisms other than the solar magnetic activity cycle. Much longer time scales for TSI variations are therefore a possibility, which has obvious implications for solar forcing of climate.
190
PMOD suffers from degradation problems and that “Observed data do not support a measurable TSI trend between the minima in 1996 and 2008!”
Considering that surface temperatures remained flat between 1996 and 2008 (literally—HadCRUT has temp anomalies at +0.392 in 1997 and +0.388 in 2008), wouldn’t having there be “no measurable TSI trend” between those two years serve to confirm, rather than undermine the connection between TSI trends (flat) and temperature trends (flat)?
And since temperatures rose from the (late) 1970s to the 1990s, we should also expect to see an increase in the PMOD version of TSI if we wish to agree that there is a correlation between temperatures and TSI. And, not surprisingly (to those of us who view the ACRIM data as a quality representation of TSI), we find that combining the PMOD and ACRIM data for the 1980s to 1990s period does indeed show a strong positive correlation between TSI and temperature…for both the PMOD and ACRIM data sets. This correlation is detailed here:
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/2008GL036307.pdf
The ACRIM-gap (1989.5–1991.75) continuity dilemma for satellite TSI observations is resolved by bridging the satellite TSI monitoring gap between ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 results with TSI derived from Krivova et al.’s (2007) proxy model based on variations of the surface distribution of solar magnetic flux. ‘Mixed’ versions of ACRIM and PMOD TSI composites are constructed with their composites’ original values except for the ACRIM gap, where Krivova modeled TSI is used to connect ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 results. Both ‘mixed’ composites demonstrate a significant TSI increase of 0.033%/decade between the solar activity minima of 1986 and 1996, comparable to the 0.037 % found in the ACRIM composite. The finding supports the contention of Willson (1997) that the ERBS/ERBE results are flawed by uncorrected degradation during the ACRIM gap and refutes the Nimbus7/ERB ACRIM gap adjustment Fro¨hlich and Lean (1998) employed in constructing the PMOD.
130
Dr., would you please comment on figures 5!and 6 now that they have been modified by adding your data. I have developed the habit of deleting any mail from Jo’s site that contains “Leif Svalgaard”.
Best Regards…
20
Dr. Svalgaard, would you please comment on figures 5 and 6 now that they have been modified by adding your data. Does your data support Dr. Evans model.
Best Regards…
10
“I have developed the habit of deleting any mail from Jo’s site that contains “Leif Svalgaard”.”
So my comments would not matter.
But the Figures do not contain ‘my’ data, only Evans 11-yr smoothed version thereof.
On Figure 5 you can see the very large difference.
07
Regrets, I must have inadvertently hit publish before I had completed proof reading. Thank you for you reply.
10
bobl
July 5, 2014 at 5:41 pm
“For example, what frequency range is TSI measured over”
The T in TSI means ‘Total’. TSI is measured over ALL frequencies. The integral from zero to infinity.
28
Leif Svalgaard
July 5, 2014 at 5:50 pm · Reply
bobl
July 5, 2014 at 5:41 pm
“For example, what frequency range is TSI measured over”
It would surprise me greatly if waves with energies of over a few KeV to infinite eV are well measured. BTW for a more poetic rendering of “zero to infinity” we in the electrical field like “DC to daylight”. Of course “daylight” is not infinite. Unless compared to DC mathematically. In the real world there are no DC signals. In reality it is only DC “for engineering purposes”. And then we start looking for variations. Starting with the granularity of the electric charge.
We couldn’t design without the math. And the assumptions. Everything engineers do is wrong at some level. So we like to look at “how significantly wrong”.
In some domains the wrongness is at the parts in 1E16 level or better (frequency). In others a ball park (initial cost estimates) will do.
Knowing what can be ignored is very much part of the engineering art.
My tag line:
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
160
I like that, green thumb
40
Dr S,
It might be except it’s only measured between 200nm and 2500 nm, with some of the very latest detectors going to 4000 nm, the older satellites didn’t even measure that bandwidth. Certainly the spectral resolution of the older platforms is particularly lousy. Then of course there is the issue of the different selectivity of the different platforms and how to make them agree since they don’t even measure the same value for TSI let alone spectrum.
So it’s not really 0 to infinity is it?
90
Lief: “TSI right now is about 0.45 W/m2 higher than in 2003-2005.”
Then why does the SORCE/TIM trends of the last few years appear lower, or at least not higher, on these graphs?
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/guillermo_image2.png
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/sorce_tsi_reconstruction_feb2013-feb2014.png?w=640
70
I suspect Willis and Leif derive much of their personal esteem from blogging. When someone comes along and challenges their established self established area of expertise the threat is almost existential. The reaction is not surprising. Thing is, if the Evans Notch Filter Theory is correct (and as one engineer to another I’d love to see the IPeCaC brought undone by a self funded engineer!) then their future credibility will be judged on how they responded to the challenge to their assumptive world.
Of course the reaction from the Church of Global Warming will be best understood from an anthropological perspective. Fascinating stuff.
Go David!
130
If we use the tip jar, we can say we helped fund the “unified hypothesis of climate science”. As far as I am concerned, this blog is what the peer review process should look like.
91
Something a mere serf has trouble with is why,
when someone, Dr David Evans fer instance,who
puts forward a falsifiable theory, must be
attacked with personal abuse, when doing such,
putting forth a testable proposition, is the
basis of the scientific method of conjecture
and refutation, What’s ter gain?
beth the serf.
250
Who knows how many drops absorption at the surface of when the TSI will fall by 0.5 W / m ^ 2?
http://glory.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/tsi2.jpg
http://oi58.tinypic.com/wgoxuh.jpg
00
O/T…
Aussie federal politics of carbophobia becomes even sillier with this revelation.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-04/glenn-lazarus-behind-clive-palmer-climate-change-move/5570262
Now both the IPCC and ex rugby footballers have more influence over carbon pricing than climate skeptics.
The hilarious part is the way the ABC talks up this guy like he’s a science genius.
00
Strange, looking at TSI, not long ago people thought of it as a constant. Look far from constant ! Hope you are on the right track, …., maybe not. I don’t like it when it’s cold. So I hope there is warming coming that’s way better.
Seem like Svalgaard is kind of angry because you are on his play turf and his anger is because he didn’t see it by himself. Of course they see you as minor to them self and coming with a new Einstein theory that actually may work, well you got enemies. But that’s good, now we know who they really are ! and a little what drives them too ! Not so different from a lot of warmistas 🙂
50
You can see that the TSI exactly mimics the magnetic activity of the sun. You can see that the magnetic activity of the sun in 2006 suddenly dropped. Chart TSI until 2006 behaves similarly as in previous cycles, and suddenly drops. In 2006 there was a jump of cosmic radiation. Is this a coincidence?
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/cfa/solar-radiation-peaks-magnetic-field-b.gif
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF-latest.gif
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=01&startyear=2003&starttime=00%3A00&endday=01&endmonth=01&endyear=2012&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
20
Very well shows this the chart Ap.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/Ap.gif
00
Let’s see what has happened in the stratosphere in 2006, the southern polar circle.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_SH_2006.gif
00
If ignore this graph 2004 (flaw?) You can see it remarkable decrease in 2006.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/solar-radiation/pmod-tsi-data-svalgaard-box.gif
00
Well, such a discussion of epic proportion and I am sure will continue. It must greatly exceed the original blogs. I am getting greatly confused jumping from each link in the discussion. It seems to boil down to:
1 the data is wrong ( but where do we find the correct data)
2 the data is correct and the prediction is valid
3 the data is correct but the prediction is invalid.
Must do some research into TSI measurement to decide. Meanwhile await the final instalments before passing judgement.
I think there is a new disease afoot akin to banging one’s head on a brick wall whereupon continually posting the same thing over and over, even after saying this is my final post, needs investigating and should require our sympathy.
20
I do not know why Leif is compelled to repetitively put his egomania on display, but perhaps his personality was trained on bad data.
And wrong is wrong.
61
Recent advances in reconstructions of solar activity can be described thus [I’ll number them for easy reference. Papers and analyses can be given for each point, but are better presented if and when a point is up for discussion]:
1) Variations of TSI are the result of variations of the Sun’s magnetic field.
2) The sunspot number is a very good measure of solar magnetic fields.
3) Variation of the UV flux is due to variations of the Sun’s magnetic field
4) The F10.7 microwave flux is a very good proxy for the UV flux and it at the same level at every solar minimum.
5) The variation of the diurnal variation of the geomagnetic field is caused by the UV and is a very good proxy for said UV since 1781
6) The solar magnetic field is dragged out into the heliosphere and can be measured directly by spacecraft or almost as accurately by its effect on the Earth’s ring current (Van Allen Belts) whose magnetic effect can be measured on the ground, since 1830s.
7) The magnetic effects caused by the solar wind can also be monitored at auroral latitudes, allowing determination of both the solar wind magnetic field and the solar wind speed. Different research groups agree on these determinations.
8) Cosmic Rays modulation depends [inversely] largely on the heliospheric magnetic field.
9) These various determinations [by several researchers] of the solar magnetic field agree, so we know with good accuracy the solar magnetic field back to at least the 1830s, and hence also TSI.
10) The sunspot number has recently been revised and the result is that solar activity in each of the centuries 18 to 20 is very similar: a minimum about every 100 years near the turn of the centuries.
11) There is therefore no Modern Grand Maximum.
12) A result of all of the above is that solar activity reaches almost the same low level at every solar minimum.
13) Early reconstructions of TSI assumed that the solar cycle variation was riding on a varying background level which itself varied as a function of solar activity
14) This background was assumed to be caused by a solar-cycle dependent emergence of small magnetic [so-called] ephemeral regions. Modern measurements show that this assumption is false and that the emergence rate of ephemeral regions is constant in time and thus does not vary with solar activity.
15) Thus, reconstructions that show varying background level [e.g. Lean, Krivova, Wang, and others] are not correct, and conclusions based on them are similarly suspect.
16) All our determinations show that solar activity recently are very much the same as a century ago.
17) This means that the decrease of solar activity from the 1870s to the 1910s is very much similar to the decrease from 1980 to now. In particular, TSI [and any force ‘x’] now is very likely the same as it was 100 years ago
18) If our climate depends strongly on solar activity [be it TSI, magnetic field, UV, cosmic rays, what-have-you] then our climate the last 30-40 years would be very similar to that a century before [even allowing lags of several solar cycles], and it is not.
313
Leif said:
Quite a nice summary and a lead into why long-term climate is always the sum of all forcings and related feedbacks, of which solar activity is a minor player– more akin to the natural variability we see in things like ENSO and the PDO. The transition from the MWP to the LIA is a great test case for the “sum of all forcings and related feedbacks” notion. The bigger driver to the LIA seems to the stratospheric aerosols, which increased dramatically in the period of 1225-1275, with 50 years of very active volcanic activity punctuated by the mega-volcano of 1257. This period was the “doorway to the LIA”. The fact that solar output was declining as well from an active period of the MWP (which was also a low volcanic activity period) was an added nudge through this door.
011
Gates, can you dismiss the Dalton the same way ?
70
Why would anyone want to “dismiss” the Dalton? Certainly there was a period of lower TSI during this time frame, but there was also significant volcanic activity at the time:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-Reconstruction-2014.png
and then see page 13 of this article: http://www.clim-past.net/10/359/2014/cp-10-359-2014.pdf
The Dalton is an interesting period. Lower TSI and higher volcanic aerosols– of the two, from a raw w/m^2 forcing perspective, aerosol effects would be higher. Sort of the last stand of the LIA.
08
By your own standard, all the data reported are wrong. For item 18, are you sure all the right things have been measured and correctly reported? After all, the integral from zero to infinity is rather larger than the energy spectra you report as having been measured. You *believe* the “right stuff” has been but has it really? More faith based religion.
How about purple unicorns with golden horns and pink hooves on Venus? Perhaps if you *believe* real hard and click your heels three times, they will appear and carry away all us mere mortals so we can no longer poke fun at your confabulations.
60
Why, Leif, do you prefer reconstructions and extrapolations and proxies—which, as you may acknowledge, can be modified in accordance with the biases of the ones doing the modifying—to the actual, raw measurements of the non-degraded ACRIM TSI data set? Why aren’t actual measurements of TSI better than reconstructions of TSI—or “guesses” as you yourself call reconstructions?
If we had actual satellite data available from the year 1,000 AD that showed the MWP to be 1.3 C warmer than present, would you still prefer, say, Michael Mann’s reconstructed tree ring data that showed the MWP was -0.8 C colder than present?
And then please explain how it is that you claim that “TSI right now is about 0.45 W/m2 higher than in 2003-2005” according to the SORCE/TIM data, but yet all of these SORCE/TIM graphs show that you are wrong…the trend is down in the last 10 years?
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/guillermo_image2.png
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/sorce_tsi_reconstruction_feb2013-feb2014.png?w=640
80
“And then please explain how it is that you claim that “TSI right now is about 0.45 W/m2 higher than in 2003-2005” according to the SORCE/TIM data”
Here is the SORCE/TIM data. See for yourself: http://www.leif.org/research/Monckton-Flaw-3.png
014
Then why does this conflict with other SORCE/TIM data that shows TSI declining in the last 10 years? And if there is such a stark difference between one set of SORCE/TIM data and another set of SORCE/TIM data, how does this help to confirm the overall reliability of the SORCE/TIM data?
It looks like it just comes down to a matter of preference for you. You prefer one graph reconstruction (and a reconstruction is a “guess” according to your own wording) to another…and if someone disagrees with your reconstruction/guess preference, you call him incompetent and insinuate he’s driven by an agenda. Hmmm.
By the way, please explain in detail what is wrong with the SORCE/TIM data that shows a decrease in TSI since the early 2000s.
110
“Then why does this conflict with other SORCE/TIM data”
There is only ONE SORCE/TIM dataset, namely that put out by LASP that operates the spacecraft. You can find it here http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt
This is simply a plot of that [one and only] dataset:
http://www.leif.org/research/Monckton-Flaw-3.png
113
Well, yes, now there is only one SORCE/TIM dataset. But there were past versions/graphs of the SORCE/TIM dataset that contradicted the latest manifestation (which you identify as showing a substantial increase in TSI since 2003).
I was therefore obviously referring to the fact that the SORCE/TIM dataset used to show a decline in TSI since the early 2000s…
http://www.sott.net/article/182868-Examining-SORCE-data-shows-the-Sun-continues-its-slide-toward-somnolence
110
“I was therefore obviously referring to the fact that the SORCE/TIM dataset used to show a decline in TSI since the early 2000s”
The SORCE/TIM data goes from 2003 to the present. From 2003 down to 2008 TSI decreased [as it should because the sunspot number decreased] and since then until now, TSI has increased again [as it should because the sunspot number has increased] to be now 0.45 W/m2 higher than in the 2003-2005 timeframe.
011
The SORCE/TIM data goes from 2003 to the present. From 2003 down to 2008 TSI decreased [as it should because the sunspot number decreased] and since then until now, TSI has increased again [as it should because the sunspot number has increased] to be now 0.45 W/m2 higher than in the 2003-2005 timeframe.
Then what is the reason for the BEFORE and AFTER screen shots of the SORCE/TIM that are so drastically different—that appeared “overnight” in February, 2014? If the SORCE/TIM data has been on the upswing since 2008, then why did it still show a decline in TSI until February, 2014, when the data dramatically changed (almost magically)?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3175172/posts
The steep fall shown in the graphs for the predictions in part VIII is from 11 year smoothing of the PMOD and ACRIM data. And it’s still there in the updated data (see the update in post VIII). But a funny thing happened to the SORCE/TIM dataset. Anthony Watts covered the strange rearrangement of TSI reported on Feb 6 2014. The SORCE / TIM data changed rather a lot overnight. Previously there were four high peaks in the late 20th Century, but now there was only one, and it was the earliest.
140
Leif, why are the spikes downwards much greater than the spikes upwards in you Monckton-Flaw-3 graph ?
Is the sun capable of dropping down to 1357 and staying there ?
10
Because of rare very large sunspots. Here are the ones that were the cause of the huge drop: http://hmi.stanford.edu/Press/18Aug2011/MDI_fd.jpg
“Is the sun capable of dropping down to 1357 and staying there ?”
No, clearly not, unless you have such big spots all the time, which we don’t.
17
Here is a data-only plot that supports Leif: http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_Composite.jpg
00
It was very politically incorrect until The Adjustment Bureau got their erasers onto it.
They simply revised the sunspot number?? 🙁 Welcome to the fishbowl.
Soon there will be officially no natural causes of anything.
110
Number 18 seems somewhat too firm a conclusion to me, it must be assuming “everything else being unchanged”, which is unlikely to be the case,
e.g. sea ice extent.
00
Sea ice is a response to an external forcing, or is a feedback to an external forcing, and not an external forcing in itself. In this regard, it is much like ENSO. See:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/abstract
08
It is not true that the number of spots corresponds to the magnetic activity of the sun. This is seen in the Ap since 2006.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/Ap.gif
http://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en
Region Number of
sunspots Class
Magn. Class
Spot
2100 9 β CRO
2102 13 β DAI
2104 21 β – γ DKC
2106 12 β – γ DAO
2107 9 β – γ EHO
2108 16 β – γ DAI
2109 20 β – γ EKC
2110 5 β BXO
2111 4 β CAO
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/Xray.gif
00
X factor for me are the oceans, which in the previous 6 short cycles accumulated solar energy. The heat capacity of the oceans is enormous.
30
He has copied and pasted this nonsense from the other thread *since* I have corrected him:
“17) This means that the decrease of solar activity from the 1870s to the 1910s is very much similar to the decrease from 1980 to now.”
Solar cycles 12 to 14 were in the Gleisberg Minimum and were far smaller than solar cycles 21 and 22.
00
David Evans
July 5, 2014 at 9:54 pm
“I notice PMOD revised their data sometime in the last few months with what looks like a steadily increasing upward revision from about 1998, as if correcting said downward degradation”
PMOD is a reconstruction before 1996 [as the SOHO spacecraft on which the VIRGO sensor sits started operation that year], measurements thereafter. I had pointed out to Claus Froehlich long ago that there were some undetected systematic errors http://www.leif.org/research/PMOD%20TSI-SOHO%20keyhole%20effect-degradation%20over%20time.pdf
W. Schmutz on the VIRGO/PMOD team reports http://www.leif.org/research/No-TSI-Difference-Between-Minima.pdf that there is no observable evidence for a decrease between minima. The reason for the VIRGO degradation problem turns out to be a false assumption: the spacecraft carries two identical sensors; one is exposed to the Sun all the time [so has been in sunlight 18 years], while the other one has a shutter which is only opened for a short time every week [so has only been exposed a few days in total]. The assumption was that the first sensor would degrade, but that the second one would not, and that therefore the difference between their measurements would be a measure of the degradation. Schmutz shows that this assumption is false and that both sensors have degraded. Using data from the PREMOS experiment he concludes that there is 0.2 W/m2 of uncorrected degradation, thus eliminating the difference between the two minima. There should be a 0.05 W/m2 decrease simply because the sunspot number was 5 lower in 2008 than in 1996 and a change of 1 sunspot number equates to 0.01 W/m2 in TSI, but this change is lost in the noise.
312
Leif:
Why would you continue to refer to the reconstructed/modified/proxy-based PMOD or SORCE/TIM for TSI data when we have actual, observable, measured data available from the ACRIM data set that has shown a high degree of precision?
http://www.acrim.com/Reference%20Files/Scafetta%20%26%20West_Secular%20total%20solar%20irradiance%20trend%20..21-23%20(2003).pdf
Monitoring TSI with sufficient precision and persistence for a climate database became possible when a new generation of electrically self-calibrating cavity sensors and opportunities for extended space flight experiments became available in the late 1970’s. The TSI record begun by the Nimbus7 Earth Radiation Budget experiment (NIMBUS7/ERB) in late 1978 was continued by the first Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM1) during 1980 to 1989, the first experiment designed specifically for high precision TSI monitoring. These were followed by the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) in 1984 and the UARS/ ACRIM2 experiment in 1991. The SOHO/VIRGO and ACRIMSAT/ACRIM3 missions began in 1995 and 2000, respectively, and are the only currently operational TSI monitors.
The uninterrupted series of TSI observations since 1978 can provide a valuable multi-decadal record for climate change and solar physics if the measurement scales of the contributing experiments are related precisely. Key to constructing a composite TSI database is determining the relationship between measurements of two critical non-overlapping experiments: the ACRIM1 on the Solar Maximum Mission (1980 – 1989) and the ACRIM2 on the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (1991 – 2001). Two TSI experiments, the NIMBUS7/ERB and the ERBS, overlap ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 including the two-year ACRIM gap. NIMBUS7/ERB and ERBS comparisons can therefore be used to link the ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 results at the level of mutual instrument precision and traceability.
The set of satellite TSI monitoring results shown in Figure 1 is a plot of the originally published results by the experiments’ science teams. The spread of results in absolute units reflects the bounds of self-calibration uncertainty, which have varied from about ±0.3 to 0.1 percent between 1978 and the present. Results are reported on the experiments’ ‘native scales’, which rely on their independent sensor metrology to represent the absolute radiation scale in the international system of units. The most recent results are considered the most accurate due to continuing improvements in sensor calibrations.
140
“Why would you continue to refer to the reconstructed/modified/proxy-based PMOD or SORCE/TIM for TSI data when we have actual, observable, measured data available from the ACRIM data set that has shown a high degree of precision?”
Because we do not have that at all. We have an ACRIM dataset which is a composite of three sets of ACRIM data with a gap in the middle http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-Raw-Data.png and the composite depends on how you bridge that gap. Greg Kopp discusses some of the problems with the datasets [especially ACRIM] http://www.leif.org/EOS/CreatingComposite_Greg.pdf
114
Greg Kopp is the one who has shown in the past that there has been a decline in TSI since the early 2000s. So he’s changed his mind now. Changing one’s mind, and consequently, the reconstructions, certainly doesn’t boost one’s confidence when it comes to determining which TSI data set is less wrong than another.
And the TIM baseline is quite a bit different than the PMOD and ACRIM. What’s the justification? Or is this just a preference too?
http://www.sott.net/article/182868-Examining-SORCE-data-shows-the-Sun-continues-its-slide-toward-somnolence
“The TIM measures TSI values 4.7 W/m2 lower than the VIRGO and 5.1 W/m2 lower than ACRIM III.”
50
“Greg Kopp is the one who has shown in the past that there has been a decline in TSI since the early 2000s. So he’s changed his mind now.”
Five years ago, TSI had inceed come down from 2003 to solar minimum, but since then TSI has gone up to be now almost 0.5 W/m2 higher than in 2003-2005, so Greg has not changed his mind, the data has simply gone up.
“And the TIM baseline is quite a bit different than the PMOD and ACRIM. What’s the justification? Or is this just a preference too?”
Do you even read my replies? How many times do I need to explain things?
The baseline difference is due to a design flaw of the VIRGO [PMOD] and ACRIM sensors, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc130036-Kopp-TSI.pdf and http://www.leif.org/EOS/2010GL045777.pdf
114
The baseline difference is due to a design flaw of the VIRGO [PMOD] and ACRIM sensors
And why is this opinion/belief of a design flaw with the PMOD/ACRIM more valid than all those (the majority of the scientific community) who disagree with your opinion/belief?
In other words, this once again comes down to a personal preference for one data set over another. You have not come close to establishing that your opinion/belief of the superiority of one data set should be regarded as less wrong than the opinion of the scientific majority (that the ACRIM and PMOD baseline is more accurate).
All you’ve got is an opinion. And since its different than the opinion of most scientists, that doesn’t mean that your opinion is right and all others are wrong, and therefore you get to call those who disagree with your opinion incompetent, dishonest, and ignorant.
120
Do you even look at the links I gave you? I think not.
And why is this opinion/belief of a design flaw with the PMOD/ACRIM more valid than all those (the majority of the scientific community) who disagree with your opinion/belief?
Because the design flaw has been demonstrated, and the scientists who measure TSI have all agreed that the flaw is there.
the majority of the scientific community
Not correct. Only the people who are fighting to maintain their old [obsolete] beliefs rather than be cognizant of progress in the field.
Evans is one of those.
115
“Because the design flaw has been demonstrated, and the scientists who measure TSI have all agreed that the flaw is there.”
Oh, they’ve “all” agreed that your preferred SORCE/TIM TSI reconstruction/guess is right, and that the ACRIM and PMOD data are completely wrong.
Please provide evidence for this dramatic shift in overall scientific opinion on the accuracy of SORCE/TIM TSI guess versus the ACRIM, PMOD.
130
“We have an ACRIM dataset which is a composite of three sets of ACRIM data with a gap in the middle http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-Raw-Data.png and the composite depends on how you bridge that gap.”
And the ACRIM gap has been bridged, and bridged precisely and accurately, with actual, and not reconstructed data.
Not only that, but when lowering the ACRIM baseline to be in close agreement with SORCE/TIM, the relative variations/trends in the ACRIM do not change. In other words, the ACRIM TSI data still stand as the best measurement of TSI for the past 35 years—including the last 10. That’s not only my opinion, but the opinion of many scientists.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7194
“The satellite total solar irradiance (TSI) database provides a valuable record for investigating models of solar variation used to interpret climate changes. The 35-year ACRIM TSI satellite composite was updated using corrections to ACRIMSAT/ACRIM3 results derived from recent testing at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics/Total solar irradiance Radiometer Facility (LASP/TRF). The corrections lower the ACRIM3 scale by ~5000 ppm, in close agreement with the scale of SORCE/TIM results (solar constant ~1361 W/m^2). Relative variations and trends are not changed.”
80
Looks more and more like WUWT concentrates on becoming the new orthodoxy; trying to stop all solar or cycle related theorizing in its tracks where possible. Lukewarmism is the new warmism. While we haven’t even killed mainstream political warmism yet.
82
Quite a nice window into the thought processes of a faux-skeptic. “Killing” mainstream “political warmism”. Wow. Is that the agenda then? As I am a true skeptic in the broadest sense of the word, it’s nice to clearly see what separates me from the faux-skeptic.
18
David Evans
July 5, 2014 at 9:51 pm
“Leif – I’ll get to it, but finding the parameters for the model is complicated and slow, takes a few days. Might be a few weeks before I can get to it.”
Is your computer code that slow? Or is it just a manual process? If so, that would explain your reluctance to reveal the process.
214
“If so, that would explain your reluctance to reveal the process.”
You appear to be insinuating that Dr. Evans is behaving dishonestly. What would be his motivation, if so?
And what is your motivation for characterizing those who disagree with your interpretation of reconstructed TSI “guesses” (your wording) as dishonest, incompetent, and ignorant?
120
On the contrary, I note that Evans has been quite honest to admit that it may not be a computer process, but a manual process. If so, that might be a natural explanation for not revealing anything.
“And what is your motivation for characterizing those who disagree with your interpretation of reconstructed TSI “guesses” (your wording) as dishonest, incompetent, and ignorant?”
There is only one person who matters in this: Evans. Your ‘those’ might refer to many of the commenters here and they certainly sound ignorant. This may be OK as the issue for them does not seem to be science, but politics. And in politics we are all experts.
111
Agreed! Why then are you causing such a fuss? Was it because David did not stand and deliver instantly to your demands to process YOUR data that you *believe* to be more correct?
You say “wrong is wrong” and “reconstructions are guesses”. However, you *believe* your data is less wrong and your reconstructions are better guesses so using them is OK. The fact remains, they are still wrong and still only guesses, no matter what kind of spin you try to put on them. You still don’t know the right data and reconstructions. Hence, using them will still give the wrong answers. That you *believe* the answers will be less wrong is nothing but a faith based religion with sciencey sounding words. After all, wrong is wrong.
As an engineer, one must produce working things that at least meet the documented requirements. That meeting only half of the requirements is less wrong than meeting a quarter of the requirements is still not meeting the requirements. In other words it is still wrong and you haven’t met the requirements. Spinning and cherry picking the facts won’t “save the day”. So also saying that it does because you *believe* it does won’t work either. But we are not discussing the real world. We are dealing with matters of your faith based religion.
150
What we know is that Evans’ assertion that there was a sharp drop in TSI and that TSI is now lower than in 2003-2005 is wrong. That is what matters, as his forecast hinges on that.
113
It now is obvious that Leafblower has accepted that Dr. David Evans work will indeed sink all of the Alarmists Bulldust. Leafblower now wants to become part of scientific excellence, while having no qualifications for that!
50
You’ve essentially called Dr. Evans ignorant, dishonest, and incompetent. How is this justified considering all this gratuitous vitriol is all based on your opinion/belief that one preferred TSI data set (yours) is less wrong than others?
140
A necessary part of scientific research is to do ‘due diligence’. This means to scour the recent scientific literature on the subject. This Evans has not done.
Make your judgment on why not.
one preferred TSI data set (yours) is less wrong than others?
The only correct dataset is the SORCE/TIM date since 2003. The others have systematic errors and calibration errors and design flaws, so are less accurate. As simple as that. If Evans had done due diligence he would have known this. Why didn’t he do due diligence?
113
“The only correct dataset is the SORCE/TIM date since 2003.”
This is nothing more than an opinion. It is not a fact. A true scientist should recognize this.
And, as you yourself have characterized reconstructions, they are guesses.
So your opinion/belief is that your preferred guess of what TSI is is less wrong than the opinions/beliefs of most scientists, who disagree with you.
And because you can insist on a comment board like this that your opinion/belief is right, and other opinions/beliefs are wrong, apparently this justifies calling those who disagree with you ignorant, dishonest, and incompetent.
Are true scientists really supposed to operate this way (devolving to put-downs and name-calling when someone disagrees with their opinions/beliefs)?
170
You did not read the papers I referred you to. The SORCE/TIM measurements are hard data, facts of highest carat. No scientists disagree with that. The reconstructions before 1976 are guesses. The ‘data’ between 1976 and 2003 is derived from many spacecraft, all with various design flaws and calibration issues.
111
If they’re “hard data,” then why is it that they changed so drastically from one day to the next back in February? See the graphs change “overnight” in the below link. How does “hard data” change like that?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3175172/posts
“But a funny thing happened to the SORCE/TIM dataset. Anthony Watts covered the strange rearrangement of TSI reported on Feb 6 2014. The SORCE / TIM data changed rather a lot overnight. Previously there were four high peaks in the late 20th Century, but now there was only one, and it was the earliest.”
Please empirically demonstrate that “no” scientists disagree that the PMOD and ACRIM are and have been completely wrong, and the only one that “all” scientists agree is correct is the SORCE/TIM (whichever version of it that you prefer).
Since you cannot demonstrate this, then it would appear you are only offering an opinion here that your version of the truth is more accurate than others’.
And what happened to your statement that the SORCE/TIM is a derived “guess”? How’d it transform from a “guess” into “hard data”?
160
Leif Svalgaard July 6, 2014 at 5:48 am
SORCE/TIM measurements are CRAP! They measure things at wavelengths not before measured and run counter to the previous. It will be decades before this data can be assumed to be a measure of anything! All of your spouting is but frivolous hand waving!
100
Leif Svalgaard July 6, 2014 at 5:02 am ·
“A necessary part of scientific research is to do ‘due diligence’. This means to scour the recent scientific literature on the subject. This Evans has not done.”
Dr. David Evans has never claimed he was doing your brand of “scientific research”, which has now been obsoleted by engineers.
I suggest you invest in a pet store to provide for your declining years.
100
Leif, like he doesn’t have to earn a living and have a family life. No doubt David Evans will find it interesting to put your data into his model one day. He might even go as far as training the model on your data as well.
What do you expect the outcome to be ? climbing temperatures ?
If the outcome is still a falling temperature, do you think it will be significantly different ?
It might even show the same temperature drop. Will you then admit that you have created a storm in a teacup ?
70
No doubt David Evans will find it interesting to put your data into his model one day. He might even go as far as training the model on your data as well.
The model should be trained on the input data [and all of it, or at least since 1850]
It might even show the same temperature drop. Will you then admit that you have created a storm in a teacup ?
since the forecast was based on flawed data, it is not reasonable to have any expectation at this point. Do the training, then run the model. How hard can that do?
Now, if the model is just a manual fiddling with the data, then I can understand why it would take several days to do this. If the model is done by a computer code, then it is just a question of a few minutes to direct it to use a different dataset.
114
Computer code is not magic. If the data is provided in the exactly correct format that the code can digest, then it is easy. If not, it takes effort either to modify the data so that it is correctly formatted for the software or modify the the software so that it can input the data in its existing format. This is a non trivial exercise. Especially since they don’t have an army of cooperative coders at their beck and call.
There is no such thing as woulda, coulda, shoulda in existing software. There is only is. If the is can’t do it, it won’t get done with out some major effort providing for the mismatch. I have been down this road countless hundreds of times for millions of lines of code during my 40 plus years as a professional software engineer. I know were of I speak.
Even if there were no format issues, David has his own path to follow and all you are doing is complaining it is not your path. Get over yourself. This is Davids project and not yours. In the scheme of things, your wishes and expectations are important only to you. Most of the rest of us couldn’t care less about them. However, you could elevate their importance to Jo and David by dropping a few hundred $K into their cooky jar. I am sure that would get their attention. Results expected for free? Not so much.
120
Since Evans claims he has already plotted my data, he has already demonstrated that he is capable of reading the data.
112
Then we are left only with your complaint that David’s path is not your path. Rather petty looking.
I quote myself:
130
Most of the rest of us couldn’t care less about them
Yet you blather on and on and on.
118
That is not the same as putting it into a format which is suitable for his software as written. But being the expert you are in this sort of thing you knew that. Didn’t you?
50
Individuals with inflated egos are as easy to manipulate as useful idiots are for a sly agent provocateur, and that’s what have happened. Blocked from the WUWT blog, using some aliases, he managed to turn the WUWT-thread to a flame war.
10
Leif:
Dr. Nicola Scafetta has had nearly 60 peer-reviewed papers published just since the year 2001 alone. He believes that the ACRIM data set is the best TSI measurement available, which is what he uses for his published papers on the Sun-Climate connection.
Would you characterize Dr. Scafetta as ignorant, dishonest, and incompetent (like you have Dr. Evans) because he doesn’t agree with your opinion/belief that the reconstructions of SORCE/TIM are superior to the ACRIM? Has Dr. Scafetta not done his “due diligence” either because he disagrees with you?
130
Roy Hogue
July 6, 2014 at 5:59 am
Nowhere in what I’ve read so far has David said the 11 year cycles have no influence. The whole thrust of his argument is that there is an additional factor that changes what those 11 year cycles do, not that they have no influence.
What he claims is that the combination of TSI-cycles and factor ‘x’ has no 11-yr influence on temperatures and that is why we don’t see any such cyclic influence. Although is seems to be a bit strange that he shows 25-yr average temperatures, but let that slide.
The main issue is whether TSI since 2003-2005 has dropped such that it now is lower than in 2003-2005. This, as I have shown, is false. I’ll show it again: http://www.leif.org/research/Monckton-Flaw-3.png From false assertion only garbage follows.
19
Leif.
OK, I’m confused. On the one hand you say TSI varies wits sunspot counts. The current counts are lower than 2003-2005. Or do you not agree with that?
And yet, you link to the (monckton) chart showing TSI greater now than then.
What’s up with that?
20
The current counts are lower than 2003-2005.
No, the average for 2003-2005 was 44.6, and for the last three years [2012-2014] 69.5, with 2014 so far being at 85.8. The difference in Watt/m2 between 2003-2005 and 2014 comes to 0.41 W/m2.
I wonder why you even can say something like “The current counts are lower than 2003-2005”? What compels people to make such false statements?
15
The current counts are for the current peak.
I’m looking at “Leif Svalgaard – Active Region Count: (updated weekly)” on http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/solar/
It appears to be your own data. So you are saying the sunspot count at the last peak is the same as now?
10
you must be precise about what you mean by ‘last peak’ and ‘now’.
The fact is that solar activity 2014 is about twice that of 2003-2005.
05
From that same page, I see a peak count of about 250 for 2000-2003 peak. For the current peak I see about 175.
So do you dispute that?
10
First you talked about the 2003-2005 peak, now it is the 2000-2003 peak. A bit slippery, perhaps. Of course, the maximum of cycle 23 is higher than the maximum of cycle 24, and the maximum of cycle 22 was higher than that of cycle 21.
The issue is not what the maxima are [they simply follow the sunspot number], but what the minima are, because they determine if there is any long-term background trend such as seen in Evans’ Figures.
05
OK, so you do agree that TSI has a postive correlation with sunspot counts. The sunspot counts are on a downtrend, so I would have to conclude so is TSI.
I can’t quibble that the minimun sunspot count is essentially the same from trough to trough. But for a given 11 year cycle, it’s all the TSI over the entire 11 year cycle that matters to Evans, I would think. I say this because he used an 11 year smoothing to illustrate his point.
I also understand you believe he is using the wrong data. I can’t quibble with that.
But a technical questions. Why do you say only the minima matter? I have read your other (many) posts, and I didn’t see the explanation – or perhaps I missed it.
30
Minimum spots it was in 2005-2010. Do not you see?
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Cycle22Cycle23Cycle24big.gif
00
I am reposting using the “reply” to your link instead of my post.
OK, so you do agree that TSI has a postive correlation with sunspot counts. The sunspot counts are on a downtrend, so I would have to conclude so is TSI.
I can’t quibble that the minimun sunspot count is essentially the same from trough to trough. But for a given 11 year cycle, it’s all the TSI over the entire 11 year cycle that matters to Evans, I would think. I say this because he used an 11 year smoothing to illustrate his point.
I also understand you believe he is using the wrong data. I can’t quibble with that.
But a technical question. Why do you say only the minima matter? I have read your other (many) posts, and I didn’t see the explanation – or perhaps I missed it.
I do see where you said the minima would indicate a “long term trend.” By long term, do you mean order of 10,000 years, 1,000 years, 100 year, or something else?
Thanks.
30
I haven’t taken issue with what TSI has done over any time period. I’ve taken issue with a man who has become obnoxious through repeatedly commenting as if defending himself against the slightest criticism or comment about what he said was a matter of life or death — hint: it’s not.
Put succinctly, you have made a fool of yourself. You aren’t debating, you’re hitting people over the head with Leif Svalgaard’s infallibility.
That wastes my time as a reader of this blog and I don’t like that.
40
Kenneth Richard
July 6, 2014 at 6:03 am
Oh, they’ve “all” agreed that your preferred SORCE/TIM TSI reconstruction/guess is right, and that the ACRIM and PMOD data are completely wrong.
You are not paying attention. SORCE/TIM are not reconstruction/guess but the best, hardest, and most reliable measurements we have.
Please provide evidence for this dramatic shift in overall scientific opinion on the accuracy of SORCE/TIM TSI guess versus the ACRIM, PMOD.
Read the links I provided. And SORCE/TIM TSI is not a guess, but the best, hardest, and most reliable measurements we have.
A team of all experimenters from ACRIM, PMOD, and SORCE has been formed to revise the TSI scale and agree on a common value http://www.issibern.ch/teams/solarirradiance/Meetings.html
You can read about their deliberations there.
A final result is expected soon, but I know all the actors involved and there is no disagreement that SORCE/TIM is the best. Slide 30 of http://www.issibern.ch/teams/solarirradiance/Meeting2_Presentations/Bayes_Thierry.pdf shows the estimated errors for the various spacecraft measurements.
110
“SORCE/TIM TSI is not a guess, but the best, hardest, and most reliable measurements we have.”
Which, again, is your opinion. Not a fact.
And according to the SORCE website, the ACRIM and SORCE/TIM “are in basic agreement.” If the ACRIM is so wildly wrong compared to the SORCE/TIM, then why does the SORCE webpage call the ACRIM and SORCE in “basic agreement”?
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/
“Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) monitoring using electrical substitution radiometers (ESRs) from the vantage point of space began with the launch of the Nimbus 7 satellite in November 1978. This was soon followed by an Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM) instrument on the Solar Maximum Mission and by the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE). More recently, second and third ACRIM instruments have been launched, in addition to the launch of two instruments on the NASA/ESA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO). The various data sets are in basic agreement and show conclusively that variations of TSI track the passage of sunspots across the solar disk with an amplitude of about 0.2%, and that long-term solar cycle variations are only on the order of 0.1%. The SORCE TSI data set continues these important observations with improved accuracy on the order of ±0.01%.”
90
“SORCE/TIM TSI is not a guess, but the best, hardest, and most reliable measurements we have.”
Which, again, is your opinion. Not a fact.
That is not my opinion but the assessment of all experimenters. Even your own quote shows that: The SORCE TSI data set continues these important observations with improved accuracy on the order of ±0.01%.”
The issue with ACRIM has to do with the splicing together of the three pieces that make up the ACRIM dataset. And that is not done correctly. The latest piece ACRIM III is in basic agreement with SORCE/TIM, while still having some drifts and problems, hence the ‘basic’.
110
Assessment – opinion – assertion: differences without distinctions. You cannot state accuracy accurately without knowing what the correct value is. If you know what the correct value is, why not use it rather than the measured value? But then you don’t know what the correct value is. You only pretend to know it so you can give a number to your let’s pretend accuracy statement.
What you report is not accuracy it is precision. Your problem is you don’t actually know the units of measure let alone the offset from the correct value.
Give it up. We aren’t buying your faith based religion.
90
Educate yourself:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt
010
I see a page of assertions. I can generate such things by the hundred weight. It is not who said it, it is not who approves what was said, it is not even what was said.
It is the design of the instrument, the quality of its calibration, and the integrity of the measurement process that gives trustworthiness to a splattered page of numbers. This I have not seen. Hence, I am not buying your endless bluster of “I believe”, “they believe”, “they say”, reference to references of references, and on and on and on. Dave’s data is bad and yours is good by your assertion. Your assertion and $3.95 can get you a cup of coffee at the local coffee bar.
You are the one who said science is a blood sport. When we bring the blood sport to you, you don’t like it. Tough!
Come up with something substantive that demonstrates you know what you are talking about. That you point to what others are saying or doing is irrelevant. Show something that proves YOU have uniquely added value to human knowledge and technology. That is something besides being pissed that David didn’t immediately bow to your command and do your bidding. Which, by the way, is not all that unique or useful.
If you want respect on this list PROVE you are worthy of our respect. Stand and Deliver or Watch and Learn!
90
from –
http://www.issibern.ch/teams/solarirradiance/Meeting3_Presentations/ACRIM-Dick.pdf
“A solar magnetic activity area proxy for TSI has been used to demonstrate that the ACRIM TSI composite and its +0.037 %/decade TSI trend during solar cycles 21 – 23 is the most likely correct representation of the extant satellite TSI database.”
20
1. There is no design of the measurement instrument presented. So I can’t determine its theory of operation.
2. It is said that it measures TSI but does it? No proof of what it actually measures is presented.
3. The so called calibration is the comparison of two measuring devices and an examination of variations. Were is the verified and validated standard that can be used to measure the instrumental response of the two instruments? None is presented.
To me it looks like it is nothing but looking at two uncalibrated sensors of indeterminate band width, sensitivity, and response functions. What is being measured is unknown and the units of measure is also unknown.
That it properly measures TSI is merely an assertion and not a proved fact. Yes, it measures something, that something is called TSI, but what it actually is no one knows.
It is the same old “if you can’t dazzle them with the facts, misdirect them with elaborate BS so they won’t notice.”
If that is the best you have, you don’t have very much.
70
I note from Leif’s link:
Climate models including a sensitivity to solar forcing estimate a global climate change of up to 0.2° C due to solar variations over the last 150 years.
20
Also this:
To determine long-term changes in the Sun’s output, which may have time scales extending much longer than the 11-year solar cycle, the TSI climate record requires either very good absolute accuracy or very good instrument stability and continuous measurements. To date, no TSI instrument has achieved the necessary absolute accuracy, and the TSI record relies on measurement continuity from overlapping spacecraft instruments (see TSI Database Figure below). The SORCE/TIM instrument continues the 3-decade long climate record of spaceborne TSI measurements. The TIM has an estimated absolute accuracy of 350 ppm, where 1 ppm = 0.0001%, and a long-term repeatability for detecting relative changes in solar irradiance of 10 ppm per year.
That would be .035% accuracy. About 1 part in 3,000.
BTW thermistors are very sensitive. But their calibration has a tendency to drift over time. Well made RTDs are not so sensitive but they are low drift in comparison.
Accurate temperature is one of the most difficult measurements to make.
I also note no bandwidth is given for the instrument. Nor band vs sensitivity numbers.
I have done a fair amount of instrumentation work (aerospace). It is VERY difficult. And the DSP that ties all the bits together? Nothing on that. Or the ADCs used. How good is the reference? How good is it in space?
If I was doing such a project I’d want a 64 bit DSP (at the calculation level – the actual chip could be a 32 bitter or even 16) to eliminate for practical purposes numerical error.
I did a thermistor jet engine gear box (for the generator) temp measurement device. I insisted on doing the calculations at 32 bits to eliminate significant calculation errors (we used an 8051 so I had to write my own 32 bit routines). Then I could devote my error budget to everything else. IIRC we planned for a 3C error budget at the alarm temperature. Calculation error was well under .1C. For the device shown I’d want significantly better results. Thus 64 bit calculations. To “zero” out calculation errors.
50
The assessment of all the experimenters who also share that/your opinion. Opinions are not magically transformed into facts just because you want them to be.
There are plenty of other scientists who do NOT share that/your opinion. For example…
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/scafetta-and-willson-the-acrim-composite-as-the-most-likely-and-precise-representation-of-35-years-of-tsi-monitoring/
Scafetta and Willson: “the ACRIM composite as the most likely and precise representation of 35 years of TSI monitoring”
Looks like Leif’s credibility has already been undermined here…as well as his professionalism in issuing put-downs and calling people names whom he disagrees with.
100
Willson is also on the ISSI Assessment team http://www.issibern.ch/teams/solarirradiance/Team_Members.html
Scafetta is not for obvious reasons as he knows very little about TSI.
Their ‘paper’ contains a Figure 15 [shown at Tallbloke’s] which has a 0.6 W/m2 drop in TSI between 1996 and 2008. As Schmutz has shown, there is no such drop. I would not put any value on Scafetta’s stuff.
111
And Dr. Scafetta, who has published 56 peer-reviewed papers since 2001, and co-authored several with Willson, does not put much value on your “stuff.”
In fact, he has written that your understanding of science is “modest,” and that you can’t accept that the universe is more complex than what you are able to imagine it. See below:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/scafetta-and-willson-the-acrim-composite-as-the-most-likely-and-precise-representation-of-35-years-of-tsi-monitoring/
Dr. Nicola Scafetta:
The problem with the Willis/Anthony/Svalgaard axis is that these people have a modest understanding of science.
In their opinion if something is not fully understood it is not “science” and people who try to advance the scientific knowledge by investigating the new phenomena are not scientists. Essentially these people think that “science” is only what already written in the college textbooks. They have no understanding of frontier science where things are developed.
Among one of the curious synchronizations within the solar system in my paper I discuss the synchronization of Venus rotation with the Earth orbit. At every Venus-Earth conjunction the same face of Venus points toward Earth. See more in my paper
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/2/1/2014/prp-2-1-2014.pdf
It is evident that there is something out there that cause the entire solar system to synchronize and the distance is not a problem.
Willis/Anthony/Svalgaard simply do not accept that the universe is more complex that what they are able to think.
90
“It is evident that there is something out there that cause the entire solar system to synchronize and the distance is not a problem”
This claim puts Scafetta on the outer fringe of pseudo-science.
113
90
“And Dr. Scafetta, who has published 56 peer-reviewed papers since 2001”
he has 1284 relevant citations to his work [of which most are by himself]. I have 3211 citations under my belt. But such counts [and your 56] does not say much, and are weakly veiled arguments by appealing to authority.
26
We note this in pendulum clocks. It takes very little energy transfer to get such clocks to synchronize. It is a problem (except where it is useful) in all kinds of oscillator circuits. Closely tuned oscillators tend to synchronize.
This shows the principle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqFc4wriBvE
Of course the coupling is exaggerated to make the sync happen in a reasonable amount of time. But it doesn’t take much energy transfer to make it happen if you are looking at longer time frames.
Look up “Huygens Synchronization” for more. This has been well known for a LONG time. I’m surprised Lief has not heard of it.
50
Should be Leif. Apologies.
00
Let us not forget, LEIF knows all.
We must capitalise his name, since he is sooooo grand. !
70
the Griss July 6, 2014 at 4:03 pm
“Let us not forget, LEIF knows all.
We must capitalise his name, since he is sooooo grand. !”
Hail to the LEIF!!
Grand is a nice word. But when my older brother became a Grandfather,
I was simultaneously a Great Uncle. Never let him forget that!
50
Then how about …..
“Let us not forget, LEIF knows all.
We must capitalise his name, since he is sooooo grate. !”
30
So basically, Leif, it comes down to you think that you’re right, and others think you’re wrong.
And others think they’re right, and you think they’re wrong.
And so the opinion-fest continues.
And we’ve gotten where, exactly, by calling people names and insinuating that those who disagree with you are dishonest?
100
It seems to me to have been a two-way street.
A lot can be learned from the sensitivity analysis that I [and correctly also Mosher] suggest by simply training and running the model on an alternative TSI [using data after 1850 if Evans insists], so I’ll await the result of this collaborative effort.
46
Ahh……. the warmist agenda bought fully to the fore.
FLATTEN THE SOLAR, STEEPEN THE TEMPERATURE.
No wonder you and Mosh have teamed up to attack David’s work. !!!
But which is the bigger mouthpiece…….
I can see a major demarcation dispute erupting there ! 🙂
91
Collaborative effort?
What collaborative effort?
50
Classic.
20
Kenneth Richard
July 6, 2014 at 6:39 am
Then what is the reason for the BEFORE and AFTER screen shots of the SORCE/TIM that are so drastically different—that appeared “overnight” in February, 2014?
You are not paying attention. SORCE/TIM is a dataset of measurements by the SORCe/TIM instrument since 2003. What you refer to as SORCE/TIM is not that, but a reconstruction you find on a website. The dramatic change is that the website abandoned the ‘Lean 2000 as modified by Wang et al’ reconstruction that Evans uses and replaced it with the Krivova et al. reconstruction. In doing so, they forgot to take into account that there is no evidence for any difference between the minima in 1996 and 2008.
111
“What you refer to as SORCE/TIM is not that, but a reconstruction you find on a website.”
Yes, on the SORCE/TIM website itself, as seen here:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/
60
and on the website it says that SORCE/TIM data only extends from 2003 on: “SORCE/TIM annual averages from 2003 onward”.
You are perhaps a bit more dense than the average ranger.
19
Exactly. And yet the BEFORE…
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/sorce_tsi_reconstruction_feb2013.png?w=640
… and AFTER…
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/sorce_tsi_reconstruction_feb2014.png?w=640
…versions of SORCE/TIM graphs that appeared overnight in February, 2014, do not just apply to 2003 and beyond, they apply from the last few decades of the 20th century and beyond.
In other words, they changed/reinterpreted data that they did not determine (pre-2003) that they had originally reinterpreted it a different way.
70
“versions of SORCE/TIM graphs that appeared overnight in February, 2014”.
Your big mistake is to call those ‘SORCE/TIM graphs’. They are not. The SORCE/TIM data start in 2003.
17
Your big mistake is to call those ‘SORCE/TIM graphs’. They are not. The SORCE/TIM data start in 2003.
For the 3rd time, yes, the SORCE/TIM data start in 2003. And yet Kopp has plotted a long-term reconstruction of TSI that includes pre-2003 data that was not determined by SORCE/TIM. And, even that pre-2003 data, which was again not determined by Kopp/SORCE/TIM, changed (dramatically) overnight in mid-February, 2014, along with the post-2003 data that had been determined by SORCE/TIM. The last 4 decades changed suddenly, not just the last 1.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_tsi_reconstruction.jpg
And as for claiming this 400-year graph (link above) is not endorsed by Kopp/SORCE/TIM…
“The values from this group’s [pre-2003] SATIRE model have been offset a small amount (-0.30 W/m2) for agreement with SORCE/TIM values and replaced by SORCE/TIM annual averages from 2003 onward. The historical [400-year] reconstruction provided here was computed using TIM V.15 data in February 2014.”
100
“For the 3rd time, yes, the SORCE/TIM data start in 2003”.
Good that you finally have understood that.
“And, even that pre-2003 data, which was again not determined by Kopp/SORCE/TIM, changed (dramatically) overnight in mid-February, 2014”
Because Kopp abandoned the Wang-Lean reconstruction that Evans claim to use and replaced it with the Krivova reconstruction adjusted by 0.3 W/m2.
“The historical [400-year] reconstruction provided here was computed using TIM V.15 data in February 2014”
is a misrepresentation as TIM V.15 data only exists after February 2003. And the current version is BTW V.16.
18
This was a copy/paste directly from the SORCE/TIM website…
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/ (see about a third of the way down, below the historical graph changed overnight last February)
But perhaps you need to let the SORCE team know that they are “misrepresenting” themselves by saying…
…on their own website.
80
Dr. Svalgaard on 19-23 May 2014, you attended the last of four conferences on SSN ‘s. I have appended an extract from Dr. Stenflo’s Summary. Since this conference has just concluded, how can you act as if all the information that you have presented is the consensus on the sun’s interaction with earth?
http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Presentations_4
http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Stenflo.pdf
Transform the current SSN 1me series, from Galileo to the present ,me, to a scale that is homogeneous in terms of coun,ng criteria
(those of Wolf and Wolfer) and has no k factor (i.e., k = 1).
• The transformed ,me series will not be called “Interna,onal Sunspot Number” any more, but the “Wolf number”.
W = 10 G + S .
• While W should be used by the interna,onal community as the reference solar ac,vity index, other coun,ng methods (spot weigh,ng) and proxies will be explored in parallel, and their correla,ons with the W number will be studied.
• We are grateful to Leif Svalgaard for his magnificent and thorough explora,on of previous coun,ng methods and puRng his finger on the problem areas, iden,fying what will be needed to eliminate these problems and leRng us see the way to move forward.
50
how can you act as if all the information that you have presented is the consensus on the sun’s interaction with earth?
The consensus is not about the Earth, but about what the Sun puts out. We have identified and quantified the corrections needed and when they must be applied. A major review of this is in press in Space Science Reviews as we speak. What is remaining is to apply the corrections in their final form, to evaluate error bars, and to publish the series. This will be completed at the fifth workshop early next year [to be held in Boulder Colorado] at which time the series will be submitted to the International Astronomical Union for approval.
48
The sun’s interaction with Earth is Leif’s weak point.
In general, Leif considers that the amount of energy involved in the Earth/Solar interaction above the tropopause is too small to have any significant effect at the surface.
I disagree because the chemical reactions involving ozone in the stratosphere determine the tropopause height and the gradient of that height between equator and poles. It is that height gradient that I suggest determines global albedo and cloudiness and thereby alters the proportion of TOA insolation that gets past the atmosphere and into the oceans.
However much Leif seeks to flatten the historical TSI record it still retains the basic pattern of activity/inactivity that has given us the albedo changes that led to the MWP, LIA and recent warming.
101
“However much Leif seeks to flatten the historical TSI record it still retains the basic pattern of activity/inactivity that has given us the albedo changes that led to the MWP, LIA and recent warming.”
Yes, this seems to be what this all comes down to. Leif has an agenda, and his agenda drives the TSI data preferences.
90
“Leif has an agenda, and his agenda drives the TSI data preferences”
Just like Mann. ! And the same agenda.. to remove the solar variations that have been the cause of the warming in the latter half of last century, and were also responsible for the MWP and LIA.
Mann wasn’t successful in removing the MWP and LIA in the reality of temperatures (except in his own mind and those of his grovelers)..
…. so now Leif is attacking from the other direction.
100
FYI: the MWP and the LIA were very real and were not caused by SUVs or lack thereof. Hard to believe, isn’t it?
57
Leif,
Since you also exclude the sun I think you put both MWP and LIA down to internal system variability. I seem to recall you saying that to me some time ago.
Given the amount of energy held by the oceans and the presence of internal ocean cycles I initially found that to be plausible.
However, observations show that a simple bottom up effect is not enough to explain changes in ozone amounts and thermal changes in the stratosphere and mesosphere so one needs to add a top down effect as well.
Furthermore there is correlation, albeit imperfect, between solar activity and global air circulation changes from zonal to meridional jet stream patterns and back again.
So, the answer must be that the oceans influence climate from the bottom up AND the sun influences climate from the top down such that what we perceive as climate change is the natural net result of that ever varying interplay.
I note that since I side-stepped your objections to a direct solar TSI effect by switching to wavelength and particle variations affecting atmospheric chemistry your responses to my contributions here and elsewhere have been more muted.
101
Stephen, I think I have previously pointed you to this report which clearly shows the large changes in ocean penetration of UV of different frequencies, especially the changes in the 300-350nm range and especially where ocean vegetation is involved.
http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/uploads/fileadmin/Documentation/Reports/Global_Vegetation_Monitoring/EUR_2006-2007/EUR_22217_EN.pdf
Possibly one of the myriad of components of the “delay”
20
As an aside, can anyone direct me to info about the magnetic inductive warming effect of the solar magnetic field on the Earth’s plentiful iron and steel and related ore bodies ?
20
Chapter 2: Models of Solar Total and Spectral Irradiance
Variability of Relevance for Climate Studies
by Natalie Krivova and Sami Solanki
19 densely packed and gripping pages
in: Climate and Weather of the Sun-Earth System (CAWSES): Highlights from a Priority Program
Lubken,F.-J (ED)
Springer, 2013
Therein; 94-odd references dating from 1981 through 2011, and not a single one containing the name ‘Svalgaard, L.’.
Curious, Watson.
Does this tell us that solar science (like many other fields of science) is simply also just another intensely inclusive/exclusive tribal activity?
Maybe that well known ‘sporting shooter’ LF simply spilt too much blood on the floor a little too frequently (but remains a top notch solar scientist nonetheless)?
OR (and again I speculate, Watson):
If a recent (2013) reputable international review on TSI and related subjects written up by Krivova and Solanki doesn’t have a single citation by Svalgaard out of a total of 94 or so papers, does this mean that Svalgaard is basically a lone voice of little clout and there really is no obligation by David to run his model using the Svalgaard version of the modern TSI record (as Svalgaard explicitly requested)?
Thus far, the implication seems to be that David seems to agree that he can ignore Svalgaard (and his view of the TSI record) on the grounds that Svalgaard’s version of the TSI ‘just doesn’t rate’ in the bigger picture of peer review and scientific ‘consensus'(ahem).
It appears to me Krivova, Solanki and even the editor Lubken would likely agree with David.
All rather intriguing.
Does this also says something interesting about the readership and role of Svalgaard at WUWT (just mere speculation)?
Can’t wait for that model to be tested a little more, err, broadly…Watson
70
No reference to me as I do not participate in their Model building. I am more concerned with real data. Furthermore I am critical of their use of the flawed Group Sunspot Number.
27
Will Janoschka
July 6, 2014 at 10:29 am
Since you claim some knowledge of the Sun. Please list four other ways, beside thermal electromagnetic radiative flux, that do affect the total internal energy of planet Earth, in a measurable way?
Internal energy? Does not come from the Sun. Here you can see the energy input to the Earth: http://www.leif.org/research/Energy-Input-to-Earth-Surface.png
26
Is this not a resonant cavity rather than a black body cavity? Resonant at what wavelength? You seem to be way out of your league/paygrade, when dealing with folk that design such instruments, and carefully know what they do approxamatly measure.
10
Got stuck in the wrong place Sorry
00
No, the instruments are not resonant cavities, but simple black-body cavities. The interior of the cavity is painted black and absorbs all incoming radiation [definition of black body] of all wavelengths.
14
Leif Svalgaard July 7, 2014 at 9:19 am · Reply
Do you understand any of the statement, using an ambient temperature active cavity radiometer. Using electrical substitution radiometers (ESRs).
I have tried to paint things black using everything from fine graphite, to coal tar epoxy. None of this crap has 1.0 emissivity at each wavelength and at each direction from normal. Profiles abound with every attempt!
The active cavity radiometer adjusts its own temperature and radiance at its unique spectrum absorptive/emissive surface to carefully measure “changes” in the irradiance from the Sun at its absorption spectrum.
There is no total to be observed or measured.
No slight to the instrument makers, they are professionals.
It is your sloppy characterisation of the instrument, that is total Bull Dust. Your instrument surface is highly reflective at all wavelengths less than 0.1 micron, and by design, all energy at wavelenths greater than 50 microns is discarded.
Your instrument has no capability for measuring power flux between the Sun and Earth, outside or your trivial and poorly measured thermal electromagnetic radiation.
Dr. David Evans has discovered that the “trivial” may have a signal/indicator of what may happen later or earlier.
60
You might benefit [and be suitably educated] by studying the original design paper: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Kopp-Lawrence-TIM-Design.pdf
Abstract. The Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) instrument is designed to measure total solar irradiance with an absolute accuracy of 100 parts per million. Four electrical substitution radiometers behind precision apertures measure input radiant power while providing redundancy. Duty cycling the use of the radiometers tracks degradation of the nickel-phosphorous absorptive black radiometer interiors caused by solar exposure. Phase sensitive detection at the shutter frequency reduces noise and simplifies the estimate of the radiometer’s equivalence ratio. An as-designed uncertainty budget estimates the instrument’s accuracy goal. The TIM measurement equation defines the conversion from measured signal to solar irradiance.
Your instrument has no capability for measuring power flux between the Sun and Earth, outside of your trivial and poorly measured thermal electromagnetic radiation.
“100 parts per million” is poorly measured? Perhaps your understanding is poor. All the other things that influence the Earth are way down [only 0.02%] on the energy scale http://www.leif.org/research/Energy-Input-to-Earth-Surface.png
And it is also time for you to adopt a different tone, perhaps to wash your mouth out with soap first.
16
“perhaps to wash your mouth out with soap first”
Send him your soap once you have finished, Leif.
If there is any left.
50
He’ll need more than all the soap in China.
15
comic gold Leif
14
If there’s any left once you have finished with it.
20
But Leif,
The web site delineating the instrument only claims 350 ppm accuracy – not 100 ppm as in the pdf. Perhaps you would care to query them on the discrepancy.
It certainly indicates sloppiness.
On top of that you are out of your league here. There be among us actual instrument designers. You are in that field a mere layman. Which means if you dropped your attitude you could learn something.
On top of that with 10 ppm repeatability the precision can be no better than 10ppm – no matter how many bits in the ADC. This may have something to do with the pointing accuracy of the satellite and other things such as the noise inherent in the op amps. Power supply noise. etc.
60
Leif Svalgaard July 6, 2014 at 11:53 am
Will Janoschka
July 6, 2014 at 10:29 am
“Internal energy? Does not come from the Sun. Here you can see the energy input to the Earth: http://www.leif.org/research/Energy-Input-to-Earth-Surface.png”
Your reference is blah, blah, done by alarmist script kiddies!
Yes “Internal energy”, ever heard if it? The sensible heat of the earth is part, orbital kinetic energy is part, earth magnetic field is part, both orbital and rotational angular momentum play a part. In order for solar system and galactic angular momentum to be conserved, with all the wiggles of everything, what does that do to the very cyclic sensible heat stored in Earth’s oceans and elsewhere. How does the Sun play a part in the modulation of total internal energy as has been evidenced for a million centuries!? You seem to be locked into the alarmist concept of thermal electromagnetic radiation does everything! You appear not to be capable of observing past your crib! Your silly CO2 bull dust is about to explode!
40
You are spouting complete nonsense, but it does not seem worth the trouble to try to educate you on those those things.
18
I have no desire to be educated by an idiot such as you! Bye, bye!
31
Yes, you do seem to be TOTALLY WASTING YOUR TIME here..
The question is… WHY?
Unless of course you see David’s works as something that is dangerous to the CO2 meme.
Perhaps, since you consider David’s work so badly compromised, the sensible thing on your behalf would be to just walk away and let it fall.
But you CAN’T do that, can you.. because its ramifications scare the crap out of you.
70
It would only be dangerous if there were some validity to it, but with garbage in, you get garbage out. The CO2 meme does not need to be combated, it is already dead. Perhaps you didn’t know.
16
Then let it fall, instead of braying like a donkey. !!
Or is it just a big-noting ego thing for you, that is stopping you walking away and getting on with something worthwhile. ???
Love it when these rabid egotists get stuck in a thread their ego won’t allow them to escape from !! 🙂
Quite hilarious watching you. 🙂
80
Quite hilarious watching someone as important as you think you are, spending so much time stuck on a blog.
You obviously must think it is worth destroying your reputation for. 🙂
70
the Griss July 7, 2014 at 12:15 pm
Yes, you do seem to be TOTALLY WASTING YOUR TIME here..
“The question is… WHY? Unless of course you see David’s works as something that is dangerous to the CO2 meme.”
“Perhaps, since you consider David’s work so badly compromised, the sensible thing on your behalf would be to just walk away and let it fall. But you CAN’T do that, can you.. because its ramifications scare the crap out of you.”
Dangerous? Is that like keeping a large male Goose away from my kitten.
or is it “terror”? I must “now” run elsewhere at maximum velocity, to hell with kitten! You must put the emphasus on the correct sylable!!!
I like your new avatar. I wish my Borg could “wink”
40
468 comments so far, Has anyone counted the number from Leafblower? Does anyone care?
50
Leafblower. Lovely comparison. I have a Stihl 80C. I’ve never tried blowing bulldust with it though.
40
What would be more telling is doing a thumb count.
Leif is finding that JoNova is not the echo chamber that WUWT seems to be morphing in to …
20
Leif has pointed out that TSI is currently much the same as it was in 2003.
David has pointed out that on the 11 year smoothed TSI record there is a steeper drop commencing around 2003. Leif’s own smoothed data and the smoothed data from other sources also show the effect clearly to varying degrees.
I see no real inconsistency because the 11 year smoothed TSI record accommodates the drop since the peak of cycle 23 whereas the 2003 to date record does not.
The fuss is all a result of Leif’s insistence on not recognising the statistical effect of 11 year smoothing just so that he can raise scurrilous allegations.
Here is a list of the strengh of all the solar cycles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_cycles
Cycle 24 looks like coming out close to cycle 14 (1902 to 1913) at 64.2 hence Leif’s suggestion that the climate now should be much the same as it was around the beginning of the 20th century.He conveniently ignores lag times but no matter for present purposes.
That assertion by Leif is wrong because cycle 14 followed cycle 12 at 74.6 and 13 at 87.9 whereas cycle 24 has followed cycles 21 at 164.5, 22 at 158.5 and 23 at 120.9.
One cannot reasonably say that the climate after a series of low cycles should be the same as after a series of high cycles just because the following cycles are similar.
I find it difficult to believe that Leif would not be able to work those points out for himself.
161
Leif has pointed out that TSI is currently much the same as it was in 2003.
No, TSI now is significantly higher than in 2003 [2003: 1361.07; 2013: 1361.33; 2014: 1361.43]. If you start with something false, all the rest of your comment becomes meaningless.
212
Up from 1361.07 to 1361.43 is not what I call significant given the variability seen over short periods of time.
I used the ‘term ‘much the same as’ to cover that minimal difference.
Basically, Leif is straining to find fault.
101
That ‘minimal’ difference is the crux of the matter. And it is easy to find fault with you.
013
So this all comes down to the opined difference between a “much the same as” descriptor and a “minimal difference” descriptor, with Leif preferring the latter phrasing.
And this was worth losing all manner of professional respect and dignity over?
120
I see that since I put up my photo, following David’s example, a number of others have now followed including Leif.
Interestingly, we are all wearing jackets and ties.
It also seems that 3 piece suits are coming back in the UK.
Cooler climates do generally lead to more formal clothing 🙂
121
I wear sunflowers.
30
BTW that is an original painting by the First Mate.
30
best I can find. !! (if it works) 🙂
20
ok, doesn’t work.. oh well. 🙁
20
Lionell Griffith
July 6, 2014 at 1:17 pm
1. There is no design of the measurement instrument presented. So I can’t determine its theory of operation. etc
You seem incapable of reading simple engineering descriptions. The design and operation of SORCE/TIM are described in detail here: http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/instruments/tim/
At the left is a series of details. Click on those and study them carefully. If you run up against something you don’t understand, feel free to ask me and I’ll explain at a level commensurate with your ability to understand.
2. It is said that it measures TSI but does it? No proof of what it actually measures is presented.
3. The so called calibration is the comparison of two measuring devices and an examination of variations. Were is the verified and validated standard that can be used to measure the instrumental response of the two instruments? None is presented.
To me it looks like it is nothing but looking at two uncalibrated sensors of indeterminate band width, sensitivity, and response functions. What is being measured is unknown and the units of measure is also unknown.
That it properly measures TSI is merely an assertion and not a proved fact. Yes, it measures something, that something is called TSI, but what it actually is no one knows.
17
Obviously, points 2 and up were junk left over from a copy-n-paste. You may safely ignore that junk.
06
Leif Svalgaard July 6, 2014 at 1:55 pm
Lionell Griffith July 6, 2014 at 1:17 pm
1. There is no design of the measurement instrument presented. So I can’t determine its theory of operation. etc
What arrogance! The ambient temperature cavity resonator radiometer, is a fine repeatable instrument for measuring “something”, perhaps radiative, about a 6000 Kelvin gaseous spheroid, way over yonder! What exactly does it measure, what wavelengths, what wavelenghts does it ignore? How was that verified? To what precision? Why should such a measurement of the unknown, be used in the calculation of some other unknown? Please explain at a level commensurate with my ability to understand.
70
You can start by studying http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/instruments/tim/ which is held at a level suitable for a general audience.
When you have specific questions I’ll expand [to the best of my ability] the explanation, but to take a simple one first: TIM measures the unfiltered, raw solar radiation flux at ALL wavelengths by letting plain sunlight into the sensor. The sensor is kept at a constant temperature of 31C by an electric heater. The amount of current needed to keep the temperature constant can be measured in the laboratory and allows conversion to W/m2 which then becomes the measured quantity. The precision of this measurement is 1 in 200,000.
16
Is this not a resonant cavity rather than a black body cavity? Resonant at what wavelength? You seem to be way out of your league/paygrade, when dealing with folk that design such instruments, and carefully know what they do approxamatly measure.
50
I looked at the “tim” link document. They presented as “The Science” the non existent greenhouse effect driven by a non physical back radiation adding to the energy absorbed by the surface of the earth. Why should I consider anything else on that website to be valid or relevant to anything in this universe? Don’t you have anything better than this kind of pseudo scientific garbage?
Again, I don’t have to prove a damn thing to you. It is YOUR responsibility to prove you are not a troll sent here by your puppet masters to disrupt the process.
There is a fundamental principle of systems analysis: The purpose of a system is what it does.
I judge you by what you have done. So far it is the work of a troll dancing on the end of strings controlled by someone else. There is no substance to anything you say.
40
Still one more link following an assertion about my competence. A link that was not in evidence in the post to which I responded. The content of the document the link pointed to had the defects I specified. THAT is what is relevant here and not other documents somewhere in the universe.
It is not my responsibility to prove your position wrong. Nor is it my responsibility to prove anything thing at all to you. You are the one presenting yourself as the all knowing infallible authority here. It is YOUR responsibility to prove your position is right. This you have not done. All you have done is assert, accuse, deflect, and attempt to disrupt a project that is not yours. You exhibit a pronounced tendency to *believe* because others *believe* (aka faith based religion). It is all pretense, bluster, and endless word salads but not one iota of science that you have contributed. Then you act like a petulant child when your demands are not instantly met.
It is your responsibility to prove that you are not the arrogant braggart who is pissed off that someone is doing something without your permission that you present yourself to be. Surprising as it may appear to you, the world does not revolve around you. None of us have any real reason, need, nor responsibility to believe anything you say. A list of links to the works of others is not proof of your worthiness to be believed or respected. Show your own work. Earn our respect.
Stand and deliver or watch and learn!
120
Well said, LG ! 🙂
40
Nah Lionell, . . . Leif is . . ummm . . .collaborating ! 😉
40
Reducing the amount of hurricanes in the Atlantic suggesting a decrease in the temperature of the Atlantic. Hurricanes dissipate excess energy into the atmosphere.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=-35.57,29.76,481
00
You can see that it is mainly the oceans absorb energy by solar. What happens when a rises cloudy over the ocean?
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/swarm1_prd.gif
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/atmosphere/clavr/m01_des_cld_height.html
00
Joanne Nova
July 6, 2014 at 2:48 pm
The hostility starts with the man who claims another scientist is an activist with an agenda whose data was fabricated and blatantly wrong.
Regardless of what you think, my analysis stands.
120
Your analysis stands as an opinion of what you believe to be true. It’s nothing more than that.
120
Leif, we have shown how you were simply misreading a graph by quoting the graph itself, so your mere assertion that your “analysis stands” appears to be abject denial rather than an argument of reason.
230
Yes it does. The Internet is forever.
I wish you well on your long road to recovery. It starts with the first step. There are way more than twelve of them.
90
I’ve arrived late at a messy long thread, so have added a few comments and well as in line remarks at #24. #29.1.2.1.1, #29.1.4.2.1, #40.1.1.1, #41.1
80
Sorry about the strange comment threading. I have reinstated all the 3 trashed comments to see if that restored the orphans, alas, I know not why these comments here at the bottom do not flow correctly. : -(
80
Do you have any stats on the ratio of (Leafblower/Total) comments? This may be a record thread Hijack.
Joanne, I admire your composure in the face of hurricane strength bulldust!
60
How can Leif be hijacking a post that’s about him?
20
Well that is a good question! anyone have an opinion?
10
Joanne Nova
July 6, 2014 at 3:05 pm
I cannot fathom why he keeps insisting on the strawman that there was “no drop” in TSI when the discussion is about the trends of TSI (11 year smoothed) from 2003.
Because you should not extend an 11-yr smooth more than 5.5 years before 2013 when your data ended.
Nor why he will not admit his defamatory claims of “fabrication of 900 days of data”
Fabrication with whatever ‘justification’ is still fabrication.
I have 18 points myself in comment #77.
Respond to those.
I also did not get any explanation of whether or not training and running the model is a manual or an automatic process. An automatic procedure should take minutes [or seconds] to run, so why does David say that it will take him many days and that he will only have time several weeks from now? Now, if the data and code are revealed before several weeks from now, then the whole question is moot as I can do it myself. Perhaps what David is saying that no revelation will be forthcoming until several weeks from now. Is that correct?
117
Please explain why you think anyone would respond to your demands?
70
Something tells me, very strongly that Dr Svalgaard feels his self appointed top seat on the pedestal is being threatened. Why else would he spend so much time on a blog thread on something which he feels is completely wrong ? If it is so wrong why not just go to the beach, enjoy the summer and forget it because it will not go any where –it’s so wrong so it cannot be worth the effort.
I’m not sure if has been linked already but Pointman’s article is well worth a read ( as usual) http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/07/03/is-science-a-bloodsport/
90
We are arguing over angels on pinheads here. It doesn’t matter if the exact solar numbers are correct here what matters is the relative trend. Can we say that the last cycle was weaker than the one before? Can we say that THIS cycle is weakest we have seen in some time? The exact numbers don’t really matter, what matters is the shape of the waveform.
We saw a weak cycle in the 60’s, we saw cooler temperatures in the 70’s. I don’t care if the exact numbers are the same or not, the cycle in the 60’s was weaker than the cycles before and after.
Let’s just see.
60
“we saw cooler temperatures in the 70′s”
Evans ascribes that to ‘Atomic Bomb Tests’, not to the Sun. And BTV that 1C change is much too large. Where did Evans get that data from?
18
He mentions atomic testing as one of the things going on but there was also industrial aerosols peaking about that time, too, so it might have been a combination of several factors. We clearly do see some cooling during the Dalton which had no such testing, and the Maunder and other solar minima do seem to have some impact.
Bottom line is that all this arguing isn’t going to change what is going to happen. The reality that unfolds will either validate or invalidate the hypothesis and that would be expected to unfold fairly soon. So arguing is wasting energy, in my opinion. Let’s just see how things go.
40
Kenneth Richard
July 6, 2014 at 5:21 pm
The trend from 2003 to 2009 was (way) down. It’s gone up since, but the overall trend, when smoothed, is still down. That was my understanding, anyway, of what Dr. Evans has been contending.
Here is the real trend http://www.leif.org/research/Real-Trend-TSI-since-2003.png
Way up since 2009 to 2014.
Do you think we shouldn’t include 2003 to 2009 as part of the overall (2003 to 2014) trend, though, Leif? If so, why?
The overall trend from 2003 to 2014 when 2003-2009 is included is as shown in the picture-link above, thus up. So, yes, it should be included, but the overall trend is still up.
08
Here’s what another “real trend” looks like…from maxima to maxima…
http://www.acrim.com/acrim3_RESULTS.htm
50
The issue is not from maximum to maximum. There is no doubt that is one maximum is lower than another, then TSI would be correspondingly lower. In fact, we have a simple formula for that TSI = 1360.6 + 0.01 SSN.
The issue is whether there is a trend between minima, and there is not. This means that the TSI during the Dalton and Maunder Minima was close to 1360.6 W/m2 if one postulates that the Sunspot Number SSN was zero. Another way to state this is that TSI at every minimum in Figure 2 above should be nearly the same and not vary as much as shown. This is the real issue.
19
Why is that the issue? Because you say so? Did you consider that the trend in maxima may be the more important trend in terms of influencing earth temperature? Assuming that it is not TSI that is influencing the temps. That TSI is only a proxy.
BTW I saw a graph a while back that says that SSNs above 40 heat the Earth and below 40 cool it. There may be something to that if you consider the grand minimums (Dalton, Maunder, etc.).
I consider it amusing that you are so locked into “it can’t be the sun – because TSI change is not enough.” But what if it is not TSI? What if it is magnetic field? Or UV? Or charged particles? Or? Or a combination?
I suppose in the end you can always claim that the dogma ate your homework. Unfortunately the ‘net is forever.
60
” that you are so locked into “it can’t be the sun – because TSI change is not enough.” ”
And he is doing everything he can to adjust the TSI record to make sure any change is minimised.
Almost Mannian in agenda and proportion.
60
Kenneth Richard
July 6, 2014 at 5:41 pm
But perhaps you need to let the SORCE team know that they are “misrepresenting” themselves by saying…The historical [400-year] reconstruction provided here was computed using TIM V.15 data in February 2014.
They are not, you are misrepresenting what they mean which is that the [small] part of the graph that is SORCe/TIM data was calculated using V.15. Do you think they are morons?
19
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_tsi_reconstruction.jpg
No, I think you have wrongly claimed that Kopp/SORCE/TIM do not take ownership of, or endorse as theirs, this historical graph of TSI, as their endorsement/ownership of this “SORCE/TIM…G. Kopp, 20 Feb 2014” graph is confirmed by the wording on their own website.
80
Regardless, Evans is not using that reconstruction anyway, so your opinion is really not relevant.
010
Backslider
July 6, 2014 at 6:23 pm
…. and those satellites are within the Earth’s atmosphere by how much?…. yes, they truly cannot accurately measure TSI, can they?
The closest is 645 km up and the farthest is a million miles away, and Yes, they can really measure TSI accurately, with a precision of 0.007 W/m2 which is 1 part in 200,000.
19
In what wavelengths?
40
Leif,
Your boys from Colorado only claim one part in 2,857 (.035%). How did you get nearly 10X their claimed accuracy? You making stuff up again? That is bad form. Worse. It indicates you are ignorant of that which you claim knowledge of. What else in your knowledge base is in error? You ought to check. In order to maintain what little credibility you have left.
But I have no intrinsic objection to your continuing on as you have. It is very entertaining.
It is not often you get to witness a breakdown such as yours on line. If it wasn’t free I’d be selling tickets.
And if you are referring to short term repeatability the Colorado boys only claim 10 ppm (1 in 100,000). With a degradation on the order of 160 ppm over time. So there must be other errors to get them up to 350 ppm.
60
Your boys from Colorado only claim one part in 2,857 (.035%). How did you get nearly 10X their claimed accuracy?
You are missing that there is a difference between accuracy and precision.
You see, what is important for the trend is the precision, that is the repeatability. And that is 0.0068 W/m2 or one part in 200,000 (.0005%), as you can see here: http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt
[columns 6 and 7]
28
Assuming climate models include a realistic sensitivity to solar forcing, the record of solar variations implies a global surface temperature change on the order of only 0.2° C. However, global energy balance considerations may not provide the entire story. Some recent studies suggest that the cloudy lower atmosphere absorbs more visible and near infrared radiation than previously thought (25% rather than 20%), which impacts convection, clouds, and latent heating. Also, the solar ultraviolet, which varies far more than the TSI, influences stratospheric chemistry and dynamics, which in turn controls the small fraction of ultraviolet radiation that leaks through to the surface.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/science/
00
Uh. Let me repeat. From the link to the “technical details”. They claim 10 ppm error in repeatability. You claim 2X better than that.
You should let them know they are doing 2X better than they claim. So they can revise their claim.
30
They claim an instrument precision of 0.0068 W/m2 which is 5 ppm
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt
so I guess they know already. Perhaps you should write a paper pointing out the inconsistency between the design goal and what is actually achieved.
05
Variations of the solar radiation field are still largely unknown, but in the visible they are likely far less than one percent. The observations therefore require precision and accuracy that can only be achieved from space. Although the ultraviolet radiation from the Sun varies by much larger factors, its measurement also requires access to space since the radiation does not penetrate the atmosphere. Precise space measurements obtained during the past 20 years imply that TSI varies on the order of 0.1% over the solar cycle (see Figure 1), but with greater variations on a short-term basis. For example, the passage of sunspots over the disk produces 2-4 times that amount. The variation apparently occurs over most time scales, from day-to-day variations up to and including variations over the 11-year solar cycle. How TSI variations are distributed in wavelength is still poorly understood. The largest relative solar variations are factors of two or more at ultraviolet and shorter wavelengths, but the greater total energy available at visible and longer wavelengths makes their small variations of potential importance.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/science/
You can see that cosmic rays in peaks 24 of the cycle is at least 5% more than in peaks 20 and 23 of the cycle.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=06&startmonth=06&startyear=1965&starttime=00%3A00&endday=07&endmonth=07&endyear=2014&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
00
Work cosmic radiation is cumulative over time. More GCR is more interference in circulation and more clouds over the oceans. This means a gradual cooling of the oceans in medium latitudes.
00
The claimed instrument precision is overwhelmed by the repeatability number. The precision of the SYSTEM can NOT exceed the repeatability.
If you measure the same thing twice the precision is limited to all the most significant bits that do not change. As an expert instrument designer I’m sure you already know that.
You are out of your league here Leif.
I think your faulty assumption is that only the experts who designed the system are capable of understanding what the specification means. You are probably being fooled by the average expertise found at WUWT. In my estimation the level of competence around here is significantly higher. At least when it comes to EE.
40
Take up your problem with the experts at LASP http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/instruments/tim/references/
14
BTW I don’t write papers. At least not the kind that get published in journals. My job is to make things that work to specification.
Although I was for about 3 years a technical writer for ECN Magazine.
40
Let me simplify the question for you.
Resolution does not equal precision. You are confusing resolution with precision. A typical amateur mistake. But being the highly capable person you are I’m sure – given enough time – you can learn the difference.
I am working with a 24 bit ADC. It has 24 bits of resolution (that would be 1 part in 16,777,216). 20 bits of precision (that would be 1 part in 1,048,576). 16 bits of accuracy (that would be 1 part in 65,536).
I hope that helps.
40
Here is a www site that may help clear up your confusion Leif. It corroborates what I have been saying. Just in case you need confirmation.
http://www.tutelman.com/golf/measure/precision.php
40
Then….
Are you quite sure it is not you who is confused?
30
Here is a good explanation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision
06
I referred to accuracy, but all you can talk about is accuracy/precision, while confusing the two terms yourself:
30
The closest is 645 km up and the farthest is a million miles away, and Yes, they can really measure TSI accurately, with a precision of 0.007 W/m2 which is 1 part in 200,000.
So you say they can measure accurately and then give the precision? What is the point of that? And on top of that you give the precision wrong. Maybe you meant resolution.
Because of repeatability issues the precision is 10 ppm. The resolution could be greater. But there is no way to judge given the exceedingly sparse amount of information available at that site.
I regularly work with 24 bit voltage ADCs. The accuracy at full scale is 16 bits. The precision is 20 bits. The resolution is 24 bits. Do you see how that can work? And the accuracy of the voltmeter that the device is part of is only 10 bits because of the accuracy of the voltage divider (.1%). The accuracy of the current shunt is .1%. So if I’m measuring power the accuracy is .2%.
30
No, because at only 645Km it is too close to the earth – the TSI is significantly influenced by what is up there from 60,000Km surrounding the Earth.
10
BS,
I’m sorry. But you too are confusing precision with resolution. I use those two words in a very precise fashion. From what I can tell the ADC (which is really a balanced bridge with a DSP doing calculations on the power used for balance to give the resolution)has a resolution is 1 part in 200,000. However only 1 part in 100,000 is significant. And the accuracy is only 350 ppm. About 1 part in 2,857.
I am only speaking of the specifications of the machine. The effects you point out are confounding factors with respect to the data generated. Which is another question altogether. The confounding factors will further lower the precision without changing the resolution. They will also affect the accuracy unless the magnitudes during measurement are known.
30
I’m sorry. But you too are confusing precision with resolution
I am just quoting the TIM specifications and they do not operate with the concept of resolution so neither I nor the TIM experimenters can be confused about that. Read the design document again and learn http://www.leif.org/EOS/Kopp-Lawrence-TIM-Design.pdf
14
Leif,
You may not be aware of this but the radiometer is a digital instrument. Digital instruments have a DEFINITE resolution. Digital guys talk in bits. But these instrument designers prefer to discuss the meaning of the bits. Either is acceptable. For analog instruments (meters) the resolution is a little more difficult to determine and is to some extent an approximation. If the bearings are good (jewels) in such a meter the width of the pointer is often used as the resolution. Especially if the meter has a mirrored scale. Otherwise the amount of change necessary to overcome stiction is used.
That is evident. It is also evident you do not understand what those specifications mean when it comes to resolution, precision, and accuracy. Evidently you missed the meaning of the words in the design document.
Your ignorance is not your fault. You didn’t take the right classes in college. Me? Well I became an aerospace engineer/test instrument designer with out benefit of a college.
30
those specifications mean when it comes to resolution, precision, and accuracy. Evidently you missed the meaning of the words in the design document.
The design document does not contain the word [nor the concept of] ‘resolution’ [as it is not applicable to the way the instrument works] so nothing is missed. Perhaps you could quote the section in the document about ‘resolution’ [that would at least make you read the document]?
13
Your ignorance of instrument design is no surprise. But I will give you a hint. Every instrument has a minimum resolvable change. And it IS mentioned in the document. That is how you got your 1 in 200,000 number. You are just too ignorant to know the meaning of what you read.
May I suggest a few decades studying instrument design so you understand the concepts better? Well probably a waste of time for you. You are either too thick to get it or too smart by half.
30
Stephen Wilde
July 6, 2014 at 6:28 pm
your responses to my contributions here and elsewhere have been more muted.
Just getting tired of the same, sorry story, I guess.
210
Likewise.
You have no answer.
“Beware the person who insists that their analysis is correct, and in so doing denigrates all other views.
For that is a person who is fighting for ego, and not for knowledge.”
H/T Rereke Whakaaro
July 5, 2014 at 7:46 pm
132
“Beware the person who insists that their analysis is correct”
Likewise…
214
In all the notch posts so far on both JoNova and WUWT, rgb from Duke has yet made a comment. Holding back till he has seen it all perhaps, and also waiting until he can run it himself.
Given that the subject has been so contentious, on WUWT in particular, perhaps he won’t enter the fray.
10
I am dismayed but not surprised by the responses to Leif’s postings. He has been quite patient and even-tempered given the tone and I commend him for this. Science advances by fits and starts and sputtering is normal and maintaining an open mind involves looking at all data/approaches/analyses and arguing the facts rather than using innuendo and accusations.
Thanks to Leif for these contributions and thanks to David for his determination. What comes from this can only be good so bear that in mind as far as resisting the urge to take sides. Every issue has at least as many as there are individuals to look at it. Only the synthesis that results from all points of view can provide a complete picture.
18
His temper has been even. But I would not call him “even tempered” in the conventional sense.
In the decimal system 2 + 2 always equals 4. In some cases there is only one correct point of view.
OTOH Nir Shaviv agrees with David Evans and disagrees with Leif on the effects of the sun on Earth’s climate. See this bit Nir wrote in 2007 (I highlighted the points where Nir disagrees with Leif):
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/07/nir-shaviv-why-is-lockwood-and-frohlich.html
L & F assume (like many others before) that there should be a one-to-one correspondence between the temperature variations and solar activity. However, there are two important effects that should be considered and that arise because of the climate’s heat capacity (predominantly the oceans). First, the response to short term variations in the radiative forcings are damped. This explains why the temperature variations in sync with the 11-year solar cycle are small (but they are present at the level which one expects from the observed cloud cover variations… about 0.1°C). Second, there is a lag between the response and the forcing. Typically, one expects lags which depend on the time scale of the variations. The 11-year solar cycle gives rise to a 2-year lag in the 0.1°C observed temperature variations. Similarly, the response to the 20th century warming should be delayed by typically a decade. Climatologists know this very well (the IPCC report, for example, includes simulation results for the many decades long response to a “step function” in the forcing, and climatologists talk about “global warming commitment” that even if the CO2 would stabilize, or even decrease, we should expect to see the “committed warming”, e.g., Science 307), but L & F are not climatologists. They are solar physicists, so they may not have grasped this point to the extent that they should have.
Leif is, like Lockwood and Fröhlich, stuck in the conventional wisdom on the effects of the sun on Earth’s climate. And that hinges on the fact that “TSI does not change enough” to produce a climate signal. Which is true as far as it goes. Where Leif is failing is that he extends that beyond its limited bounds to “Nothing on the sun changes enough”. Which is probably not true.
Over the coming months (for understanding) and over the next few years (for evidence) we will know if Leif is correct or if those who favor the sun as the climate driver are correct. I currently favor the solar hypothesis.
20
MSimon:
How true is it that the sun doesn’t change enough to produce climate change if it’s been demonstrated that the climate is highly sensitive to solar changes: a 0.1% change in TSI can yield up to a 1.0 C change in temperature (and therefore a 0.01% change in TSI can yield a 0.1 C change in temperature)? Considering there was a +0.04% per decade increase in TSI during the 1980s and 1990s according to the ACRIM, and temperatures rose by about 0.4 C during those decades, a correlation between TSI and temperature can be reasonably established for the last two decades of the 20th century.
http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-013-1925-3?utm_content=bufferfa222&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Antarctic “Vostok” station works most closely to the center of the ice cap among permanent year-around stations. Climate conditions are exclusively stable: low precipitation level, cloudiness and wind velocity. These conditions can be considered as an ideal model laboratory to study the surface temperature response on solar irradiance variability during 11-year cycle of solar activity. Here we solve an inverse heat conductivity problem: calculate the boundary heat flux density (HFD) from known evolution of temperature. Using meteorological temperature record during (1958–2011) we calculated the HFD variation about 0.2–0.3 W/m2 in phase with solar activity cycle. This HFD variation is derived from 0.5 to 1 °C temperature variation and shows relatively high climate sensitivity per 0.1 % of solar radiation change.
10
You are confusing TSI with the total sun signal. The TSI signal itself is not thought to be strong enough to affect temperatures on earth. On a strictly linear basis (probably valid for small changes) and assuming an earth at 300K for convenience a .1% change in TSI produces a .3 degK signal on earth. That is down in the noise level. And if it is filtered the actual signal will be less. And the earth is a filter.
The breakthrough here is that the model is making folks take a look at everything. Not just TSI. And there are numerous papers on it. It is just that they haven’t gotten much attention until David pointed.
What you are doing is using TSI as an indicator or marker. Just has David has done.
When I say TSI I mean TSI. If I had meant to say Sun I would have done so.
01
TSI is the total amount of energy [that can heat a surface] emitted by the Sun in the direction of the Earth. No confusion there. Various other stuff fly around in the solar system. Here is an assessment of the energy content of that ‘other stuff’ hitting the Earth http://www.leif.org/research/Energy-Input-to-Earth-Surface.png
12
The “blue dot” idiocy makes your “blood sport” opponents look really stupid.
20
Dr. Evans, thank you for all of your hard work. I am a bit appalled at the way others are out of line with their criticism’s and believe humility and science go hand in hand. I ma reminded of some years ago when a Physicist (PhD) sat beside me during the electricity deregulation process at a Public Utilities hearing. The commissioners asked each of us a simple question, our names and what we did. When it came to the physicist’s turn, he answered the question and then in detail went on about just coming back from sunny El Salvador teaching them how to make cheap battery chargers etc.. The commissioners grew quickly tired of his spiel and asked him to stop. I got a chuckle about that as this guy was a left over hippie and was short on common sense. I then left the association he was president of shortly thereafter. I hope that the critics here are aware they just burned a lot of bridges and have some serious fence mending to do.
That said, I do have a question. With regard to the atomic testing, would there have been any changes (briefly) in the earths magnetic field by the detonations? i am aware of EMP’s caused by them and wonder if they would have had an effect?
Thank you and appreciate what you and Jo are doing.
50
jim2
July 7, 2014 at 1:09 am
OK, so you do agree that TSI has a positive correlation with sunspot counts. The sunspot counts are on a downtrend, so I would have to conclude so is TSI.
Of course, that is the whole point. And it is good that you see that TSI has a positive correlation with SSN, in fact it is TSI = 1360.6 + 0.01 * SSN.
But a technical questions. Why do you say only the minima matter? I have read your other (many) posts, and I didn’t see the explanation – or perhaps I missed it.
Look at Evans’ Figure http://www.leif.org/research/The-Background-in-Wang-TSI.png
See the upwards bulges. Those are the assumed background in the reconstruction. This background is based on a wrong assumption by the modelers and most likely does not exist. The explanation is given in comment #77. So you missed it. ‘My’ TSI is essentially a TSI following the sunspot number without the background.
18
Thanks, I’ll look at #77.
00
OK, I see what you mean about the minima now. Thanks.
Guess we’ll see what comes out when the unveiling of the model occurs.
00
jim2
July 7, 2014 at 1:09 am
But for a given 11 year cycle, it’s all the TSI over the entire 11 year cycle that matters to Evans, I would think. I say this because he used an 11 year smoothing to illustrate his point.
If you do 11-yr smoothing the data essentially reduces to just the background bulges [plus an average cycle amplitude]. Since the background does not exist, Evans is analyzing something that doesn’t exist…
19
Your highness still thinks this is something about, measurable Solar radiative exitance. Get over your self, all that is important is elsewhere/elsewhen!
20
Well this is nice.
Over 500 comments, mostly by Leif Svalgaard, which consist of Dr Evans is Wrong, for various specious reasons.
Because he, Leif, is right.
Who has the best guess of TSI?
Do we even have a sound comprehension of what TSI really consists of?
I think we will see, however the absolute accuracy of the sanctified guess is irrelevant to the proposal made by Dr Evans.
Treating climate as a black box.
If the operation of the box is thus , specified input variations will produce predictable outputs.
Predictions are being made.
Excellent they can be tested.
It is possible the predicted behaviour will happen, but the reason has nothing to do with the specified variation.A false positive.
Or that the opposite can occur, the inputs matter but unknown effects change the output.
Science is designing as specific a test as possible.
So tell us more, soon.
As the picture is not full yet.
How do you props to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Leif is not too far off base, I too wonder how the box behaviour can be defined with such crappy inputs, but unlike Mr Impatience, I will wait for more info.
I am rather saddened by Dr Svalgaard’s self exposure here, however thats life.
David and Jo, I would suggest you carry on with your schedule, as the one thing made clear above, is these pedants are not open to the picture/conjecture you are presenting.
Sure I will try to shoot your idea down, but I do not have enough info, nor a full grasp of the concept yet.
And I have enjoyed the process so far, even these some what bumpy diversions.
Having to earn a living, leaves me limited time to peruse the theology of climatology.
92
Leif, I can’t follow your furry about the solar data, especially about the decline in the 2000s. I took the monthly SSN-data ( inclusive the Waldmeier- adjustmant before 1945) and a 25a- Smoothing with Loess-filter and the result is: http://www.dh7fb.de/ssnano/sval001.gif .
Then I downloaded the TSI-data from here: http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/ and also a 25a smoothing with Loess-filter. The result is: http://www.dh7fb.de/ssnano/sval002.gif . As you can see there is no remarkable difference after 1945 and in both figures you can see the decline in the 2000s. What’s wrong?
10
Why the arbitrary choice of a 25a LOESS smooth? Notice how it gives you arbitrary phase delay. At the most basic level – why not 22a? If your basic point is the merest soupcon of a hint of a rough contemporary similarity to the Dalton minimum (thus far) I’ll maybe ‘buy’ it.
Otherwise, if anything your 25a LOESS smooth provides clear evidence of the highly misleading nature of LOWESS data smoothing using a forward/back running mean that is not an even multiple of the principal phase evident (if one is evident). That is why a FT is far superior.
00
Steve, as you could read in my message, it was NOT my intention to optimize a smoothing, I took randomly 25 years but it WAS my intention to show that there is no remarkable difference between the SSN-record as suggestend bei Dr. Leif and the TSI- record since 1945. In both records you can see the same decline in the 2000s. So I don’t understand the rumble about the solar data. You can take what you want, the “take home message” is the same.
00
the “take home message” is the same.
Yes: solar activity down, temperatures up.
14
But you assume no delay between solar activity and effects on earth. If there is a delay on the order of 11 years as David postulates then it will be a (short) while until we know the correct answer. And who knows it is possible you are correct.
Now let us assume you are correct. To what to you attribute the divergence between solar activity (down) and temperatures (up)?
10
To what do you attribute the divergence between solar activity (down) and temperatures (up)?
As they clearly are not related, no attribution need be given.
13
Here I compare our images of the variation since 1750:
http://www.leif.org/research/Comparison-Frank-Leif.png
The issue should be clear.
04
The difference before 1945 comes from the adjustment to Waldmeier, my fig. http://www.dh7fb.de/ssnano/sval001.gif is the same as your 2nd. Anyway… the decline after about 1998 is the same, of course. So the only difference between the data of Krivova (also used in IPCC AR5 Working Group I) is … the adjustment of SSN. It seems to me, that it’s not accepted by IPCC? Your statement: “Yes: solar activity down, temperatures up” is o/t in this case because the discussion was about SOLAR DATA.
Your statement that TSI is now higher than 2003..05 ( about 4 years after the Max of SC 23 vs. the Max of SC24- see the polar fields-) is also not so strong, isn’t it? Evans used the Krivova- Data and they show the same behviour as the SSN- derivated TSI- values after 1945. Why are you so … stroppy to him?
10
The difference before 1945 comes from the adjustment to Waldmeier
No, it does not. That adjustment goes the wrong way. And the difference starts in 1885.
they show the same behaviour as the SSN-derivated TSI-values after 1945
Again No. The difference in SSN between 1996 and 2009 should give a TSI difference of 0.05 W/m2 which is negligible. The reassessment by the PMOD team shows that there is no measurable difference between the minima http://www.leif.org/research/No-TSI-Difference-Between-Minima.pdf
03
One deviation is the Waldmeier “re jig” post 1945. This is correct and adds at least 20% to the modern SSN record. There are other smaller deviations back to 1848, but the trend is still on the up allowing for the adjustments.
Pre 1848 the record is now being tested…Svalgaard likes to stay with the SIDC values and discredit the GSN values as it suits his cause for a flat universe, but recent studies are showing that Wolf’s (SIDC) reconstructions prior to 1848 are too high and that the GSN is now more likely to be correct.
The growing consensus is that the modern maximum is indeed on the mark.
20
There is no doubt about the decline in solar activity the past 30 years and no doubt about the increase of temperature during that same period.
There are two sticking points:
1) the decline in TSI since 2003 has been grossly overestimated by Evans. TSI now is higher than in 2003-2005, as it should be simply because the sunspot number now is higher than then.
2) going back in time, solar activity and thus TSI reconstructed therefrom has not decreased as the Krivova/Wang/Lean/Etc reconstructions assume. Here is our best determination of the variation of the yearly average number of solar active regions since 1749 http://www.leif.org/research/New-Group-Numbers.png
TSI should vary just like this, in particular there should be no ‘bulges’ as assumed by the reconstruction used by Evans http://www.leif.org/research/The-Background-in-Wang-TSI.png
25
Spoken like a true AGW guru.
The world temps have remained flat for the past almost 18 years, before that solar conditions fell slowly. Hardly a temp rise over 30 years. The planet is responding how it would be expected when considering oceanic heat uptake and PDO trends.
Your rhetoric is shameful. No one is listening here.
60
Here is a schematic of the trends in Temperatures [blue] and Solar Activity [pink] the past 30 years: http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-and-Sun.png
02
This statement doesn’t seem to fit the facts, as there has been an increase in solar activity of +0.05% per decade in the past 30 years, namely between solar cycles 21-23, or between about 1980 and 2000.
http://www.acrim.com/Reference%20Files/Scafetta%20%26%20West_Secular%20total%20solar%20irradiance%20trend%20..21-23%20(2003).pdf
A series of satellite total solar irradiance (TSI) observations can be combined in a precise solar magnetic cycle length composite TSI database by determining the relationship between two non-overlapping components: ACRIM1 and ACRIM2. An ACRIM composite TSI time series using the Nimbus7/ERB results to relate ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 demonstrates a secular upward trend of 0.05 percent-per-decade between consecutive solar activity minima [during solar cycles 21-23]. The 0.05%/decade minimum-to-minimum trend appears to be significant. If so it has profound implications for both solar physics and climatology. For solar physics it means that TSI variability can be caused by unknown mechanisms other than the solar magnetic activity cycle. Much longer time scales for TSI variations are therefore a possibility, which has obvious implications for solar forcing of climate.
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2005GL023849.pdf
PMOD has been widely used in geophysical research. According to this composite, TSI has been almost stationary (0.009%/decade trend of the 21– 23 solar minima [Willson and Mordvinov, 2003]) and by adopting it, or the equivalent TSI proxy reconstruction by Lean et al. [1995], some researchers and the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2001; Hansen et al., 2002] deduced that the Sun has not contributed to the observed global surface warming of the past decades. Consequently, the global surface warming of DT1980 – 2002 = 0.40 ± 0.04K from 1980 to 2002 shown in Figure 2 could only be induced, directly or indirectly, by anthropogenic added green house gas (GHG) climate forcing. Contrariwise, ACRIM presents a significant upward trend (+0.047%/decade trend of the minima) during solar cycles 21– 23 (1980 –2002) [Willson and Mordvinov, 2003].
30
This statement doesn’t seem to fit the facts, as there has been an increase in solar activity of +0.05% per decade in the past 30 years, namely between solar cycles 21-23, or between about 1980 and 2000.
Here is a graph of solar activity http://www.sidc.be/silso/monthlyssnplot
04
All you’ve done is introduce graphs that you prefer—because they support what you believe to be true, Leif.
Sunspot number since 1850:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/mean:50/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/mean:50/offset:-40/integral/normalise
A James Hansen graph depicting how closely solar activity and temperatures correlate:
http://i1264.photobucket.com/albums/jj484/rlcina71/HansenTSI1988_zps08ef107a.jpg
Here’s website that compiles a database of hundreds of peer-reviewed papers establishing a Sun-Climate connection. There have been over 100 papers published just since the year 2013 alone.
http://chrono.qub.ac.uk/blaauw/cds.html
Below are just a handful of papers that contradict what you believe to be true about there being no significant connection between solar activity and temperature…and you, of course, will dismiss them. Is that what scientists are supposed to do—dismiss evidence that contravenes their beliefs?
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/8505/2013/acp-13-8505-2013.html
“…[A]n increase of 2.7 W m−2 of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 1.4% or 2.3 W m−2 absorbed by the surface.” [between 1979 and 2007]
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/472/2/891
In this case, the solar and greenhouse combination accounts for 92% of the observed long-term temperature variance during 1880-1993. The simulation implies that the solar part of the forcing alone would account for 71% of the global mean temperature variance.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004JD004873/abstract
A statistically significant atmospheric signal, which represents the influence of solar radiation changes on our climate, is found in global data (1958–2003). Using a nonlinear, nonstationary time series analysis, called empirical mode decomposition, it is shown that atmospheric temperatures and geopotential heights are composed of five global oscillations and a trend. The fourth mode is synchronized with the 11-year solar flux almost everywhere in the lower atmosphere. Statistical tests show that this signal is different from noise, indicating that there is enhanced warming in the troposphere during times of increased solar radiation.
https://pangea.stanford.edu/research/Oceans/GES205/Hu%202003.pdf
Our results imply that small variations in solar irradiance induced pronounced cyclic changes in northern high-latitude environments.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0021916994000886
Solar data have been used as parameters in a great number of studies concerning variations of the physical conditions in the Earth’s upper atmosphere. The varying solar activity is distinctly represented by the 11-yr cycle in the number of sunspots. Recently, this variation has been found to be strongly correlated with long-term variations in the global temperature…The correlation between solar activity and northern hemisphere land surface temperature is confirmed.
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/DouglassClader_GRL.pdf
We have determined the solar effect on the temperature from satellites measurements (available since 1979) of the solar irradiance and the temperature of the lower troposphere. We find the sensitivity to solar irradiance to be about twice that expected from a no-feedback Stefan-Boltzmann radiation balance model. This climate gain of a factor of two implies positive feedback.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2001JA900027/abstract
In this paper it is shown that the right cause-and-effect ordering, in the sense of Granger causality, is present between the smoothed solar cycle length and the cycle mean of Northern Hemisphere land air temperature for the twentieth century, at the 99% significance level. This indicates the existence of a physical mechanism linking solar activity to climate variations.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148198007770
We illustratively report clear relationships between global and regional temperature variations on one hand and variations in the peaks of 11 year sunspot cycles on the other from the year 1730 onwards. We show that a major change in the variation pattern (or state) of global temperature takes place during each rising and falling phase of the peaks of 11 year sunspot cycles.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007JD008437/abstract
Under this scenario the Sun might have contributed up to approximately 50% (or more if ACRIM total solar irradiance satellite composite (Willson and Mordvinov, 2003) is implemented) of the observed global warming since 1900.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0360544293900156
It has been found that the long term variation of solar activity represented by the varying length of the approximately 11-year solar cycle is the parameter that is probably best correlated with global temperature, both with respect to the modern instrumental temperature record from 1860 to 1990 and with respect to a reconstructed temperature record extending back to 1750 when sunspot observations are believed to have been reliable.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS0016793210061027
The result serves as an additional argument in favor of the reality of a sun-climate connection and probably points to its probable nonlinear mechanism.
30
All you’ve done is introduce graphs
that show the official sunspot number.
All your various links are irrelevant to the question whether or not solar activity has decreased the past three or four cycles. Here is one again: http://www.sidc.be/silso/monthlyssnplot
06
I’ve already posted (twice) some of the many links that confirm that the data clearly show that solar activity increased significantly, or at a rate of between +0.037% and +0.047% per decade, between solar cycles 21 and 23 (1980 and 2002). This significant increase in TSI for the last two decades of the 20th century has been known and written about in the scientific literature for more than ten years. You just don’t happen to agree with this data (because it doesn’t fit your beliefs). So you dismiss data you don’t like and say it’s “irrelevant.” Here, I’ll provide the data for you once again…so you can dismiss it once again…as is your wont.
First off, some graphs showing the TSI increase…
————————————
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20030320/sun4m.jpg
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/VariableSun/Images/willson_acrim_rt.gif
————————————
Then, some peer-reviewed papers showing the increase…
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10509-013-1775-9
Our analysis provides a first order validation of the ACRIM TSI composite approach and its 0.037 %/decade upward trend during solar cycles 21–22. The implications of increasing TSI during the global warming of the last two decades of the 20th century are that solar forcing of climate change may be a significantly larger factor than represented in the CMIP5 general circulation climate models.
————————————
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2005GL023849.pdf
PMOD has been widely used in geophysical research. According to this composite, TSI has been almost stationary (0.009%/decade trend of the 21– 23 solar minima [Willson and Mordvinov, 2003]) and by adopting it, or the equivalent TSI proxy reconstruction by Lean et al. [1995], some researchers and the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2001; Hansen et al., 2002] deduced that the Sun has not contributed to the observed global surface warming of the past decades. Consequently, the global surface warming of DT1980 – 2002 = 0.40 ± 0.04K from 1980 to 2002 shown in Figure 2 could only be induced, directly or indirectly, by anthropogenic added green house gas (GHG) climate forcing. Contrariwise, ACRIM presents a significant upward trend (+0.047%/decade trend of the minima) during solar cycles 21– 23 (1980 –2002) [Willson and Mordvinov, 2003].
————————————-
http://www.acrim.com/Reference%20Files/Scafetta%20%26%20West_Secular%20total%20solar%20irradiance%20trend%20..21-23%20(2003).pdf
A series of satellite total solar irradiance (TSI) observations can be combined in a precise solar magnetic cycle length composite TSI database by determining the relationship between two non-overlapping components: ACRIM1 and ACRIM2. An ACRIM composite TSI time series using the Nimbus7/ERB results to relate ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 demonstrates a secular upward trend of 0.05 percent-per-decade between consecutive solar activity minima [during solar cycles 21-23]. The 0.05%/decade minimum-to-minimum trend appears to be significant. If so it has profound implications for both solar physics and climatology. For solar physics it means that TSI variability can be caused by unknown mechanisms other than the solar magnetic activity cycle. Much longer time scales for TSI variations are therefore a possibility, which has obvious implications for solar forcing of climate.
————————————-
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/2008GL036307.pdf
The ACRIM-gap (1989.5–1991.75) continuity dilemma for satellite TSI observations is resolved by bridging the satellite TSI monitoring gap between ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 results with TSI derived from Krivova et al.’s (2007) proxy model based on variations of the surface distribution of solar magnetic flux. ‘Mixed’ versions of ACRIM and PMOD TSI composites are constructed with their composites’ original values except for the ACRIM gap, where Krivova modeled TSI is used to connect ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 results. Both ‘mixed’ composites demonstrate a significant TSI increase of 0.033%/decade between the solar activity minima of 1986 and 1996, comparable to the 0.037 % found in the ACRIM composite. The finding supports the contention of Willson (1997) that the ERBS/ERBE results are flawed by uncorrected degradation during the ACRIM gap and refutes the Nimbus7/ERB ACRIM gap adjustment Fro¨hlich and Lean (1998) employed in constructing the PMOD.
————————————-
Clouds, aerosols…also significantly affect how much solar energy reaches the earth…which affects temperatures, of course…
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/8505/2013/acp-13-8505-2013.html
“…[A]n increase of 2.7 W m−2 of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 1.4% or 2.3 W m−2 absorbed by the surface.” [between 1979 and 2007]
————————————–
But, alas, all this data will be ignored by you…as it doesn’t fit your belief system. You’ll just keep pushing the graphs and data that you prefer…the ones that confirm your biases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Confirmation bias is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. [P]eople show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.
30
Kenneth Richard
July 8, 2014 at 4:16 pm
There may be some problems with PMOD:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=131
Douglas Hoyt
August 12, 2007 at 1:18 pm
The PMOD solar irradiance reconstruction is definitely incorrect. It is based upon an assumption that the Nimbus-7 ERB radiometer suddenly got more sensitive towards the end of its life and based upon that assumption they adjust the solar irradiance values down. As someone who spent more than 20 yeats designing, building, and analyzing radiometers and more than 10 years on the N-7 radiometer, I say unequivocally that the PMOD adjustment is physically impossible and erroneous. The Willson irradiance is correct.
10
Completely agree. The ACRIM dataset is by far the best, most accurate measure of TSI. The PMOD has bias issues with reconstructing the ACRIM gap.
The only reason I mentioned the PMOD (via a paper) was to show that even when PMOD and ACRIM data are combined, they together still show an upwards trend in TSI during the 1980s and 1990s.
20
OOPs.
After the optimum number of comments, this site will self destruct?
00
Hardly, after sufficient entropy, the thread will evaporate!
20
It will actually disappear over the event horizon due to gravitational effects.
Of course the there is some question if black holes/event horizons exist.
10
Jo & Dave,
Conrgats, you clearly are on to something to gin up so much angst among the old guard science. Interestingly enough, when you look at the history of scientific advancement, the ones who scream the loudest against the new theories are the ones who were most stuck in the mud of the old thinking.
Suggest you put an end to the Willis and Leif pissing wars and go back to your science. You have smote them well with that 11 year TSI smoothing verses annual TSI. Their world is up ended and they are acting like spoiled PhDs – not unlike The Mann himself, who also throws out ad hominen attacks and legions of straw men.
I have experienced the same when I pointed out the warming of the Western Pacific in advance of El Nina:
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/18084
This is the second of two posts (please read both). The response I got from the establishment was the warm waters move along the surface from West to East, building the warm anomaly. My point was the warm spot that builds to the West and then flows east is ALSO driven by large “bubbles” of warm water coming sea floor rifts/volcanoes off the West Coast of Central America. It is this additional energy that tips the Pacific into an unusual warming.
My belief is The Nina/Nino phenomena requires much larger changes in basic energy flow to be caused by TSI and atmosphere alone. Too much energy must be captured or loss to produce those changes, which occur at any time of year. So Climate is probably not the source, but the response.
I firmly believe we know so little about the 1000’s of kilometers of hot (and mostly molten) metal and rock beneath our feet we ignore the fact small changes in heat flux coming from the Earth’s internal dynamo can have a huge forcing effect on the TSI coming in from the Sun.
Your 11 year delay is another piece of the puzzle which really reject all atmospheric heat transfer models – which act over night to cool the atmosphere, and over a year show the “floor” of cooling change dramatically. Transfers that work over hours are simply transients on a large mechanism.
The “ambient” Earth (black body) begins with a heat source. A big one. It has daily fluctuations based on solar energy, but these dissipate quickly. Even oceans capture and export heat quickly at the surface.
Hints on my upcoming post: It takes a photon between 4,000 and 170,000 years to be emitted from the Sun if it starts out in the core (depending on the model/theory). Estimates for ocean current cycles (water to travel from surface current at equator to poles, then back through cold bottom current to upwell later) is around 1,000 years.
Convection times of air to move energy is hours. Convection times to move water is a 1000 years. Radiation from Sun’ core is many, many thousands of years.
So what would be Force X? And how is it tied to the Solar Magnetic field? Interestingly enough, while TSI and Heat flux from the Earth are orders of magnitude different, Magnetic field strength between the Sun and Earth are on the same scale. And one other source of Earth’s internal heat dynamo is radioactive decay which acts at the outer layers of the Earth.
Hmm. Looks like we may have a candidate for a mechanism that takes 11 years to respond to the solar cycle. One that is not hours/days, or one that is not thousands of years….
70
How could I have missed this choice comment? It says it all. It is not about ‘knowing’ anything. Finally an honest statement from the man. He doesn’t know anything but thinks that doesn’t matter.
Because of his lack of knowing and abundance of *believing*, he gets to assert anything and the rest of us are supposed to genuflect in front his superior mystical insight into the hidden workings of the universe. We mere mortals are unworthy of such awesome magnificence. Even the Wizard of OZ must bow to his brilliance. Toto, not so much. Calling him a putz is an overvaluation of what he is.
Isn’t it interesting? The more he posts the more he exposes himself for who and what he actually is. That is the way it works. If we say anything at all, we expose our inner self. If we say enough, we become totally exposed. Here he stands stripped of all pretense for all to see in his own words. This even as he desperately tries to hide behind a squid like squirting of words.
As was once said, it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and prove it.
There is justice in this universe. Sometimes it is subtle and often delayed but it is certain.
100
a fool than to speak and prove it.
which you evidently do with great self-effacing gusto.
110
Giggle!
40
I think you are beating a dead horse!
30
That horse was dead with his first post on this blog. His purpose was to disrupt or delay the project. My primary purpose was to offload most of the necessity of responding to his confabulations by Jo or Dave so they could continue working their project. My secondary purpose was to show he has nothing positive to contribute. I accomplished both purposes for the most part. As is in evidence by his pathetic response to my post at #114. Sadly, being the marionette he is, keeps dancing to the tune played by his puppet masters.
I knew from the start that I had no hope of driving him away or to convert him to our way of thinking. A marionette will simply keep dancing until someone cuts the strings. I have no power to do that and Jo thinks it is best that he be permitted to keep dancing. I tend to agree because he keeps showing himself for who and what he is for all to see. It is painful to watch but it is justice.
60
Does a dancing marionette have an ego? Isn’t he simply a reflection of his puppet masters? Where is self in any of his posts? The purpose, the words, the reference is all other – endlessly and forever other.
It is painful for me to watch human potential being so profligately wasted. The effort would be so much more productive if the focus was on watch, learn, and then contribute positively toward the effort. Interference and destruction just because the process is not yours to control is such a waste.
If the process is unworthy,it will self destruct. There is no need to push it. If the process is worthy, at least don’t interfere. If you don’t like what you see, start your own project. Show the way. A dancing marionette can do neither.
However, sometimes the choice is to laugh or cry. It is often better to laugh and know that this too will pass. We have survived our D day and the city of lights is being liberated. Soon, the remainder will follow. Then, the transient words of the dancing marionette won’t matter.
90
Nicely put, Lionell.
20
Thank you for getting to the heart of the matter. I’ve learned quite a bit on WUWT. But I started noticing several months ago that Lief and Willis and one other were strident on the solar issue, in a way that contradicts the whole ethos of the skeptic movement. And I began to wonder.
Credibility established by agreeing that the current models are wrong, but then misdirection from the reason. Appeals to authority and insistence on adherence to a specific interpretation right in line with the climate science establishment.
It will be interesting to see whether Anthony Watts figures out what’s up 😉
50
It is painful to watch but it is justice.
I’d call it entertaining. But I often have a perverse sense of entertainment.
20
After a somewhat detailed discussion with Dr. Svalgaard, it seems what Dr. Evans should do is simply use the sunspot record as input to the black box.
20
Since the analysis is not changed by a linear transformation of the input, even better would be TSI = 1360.6 + 0.01 * SSN, which is essentially ‘my’ TSI.
27
Oh.. I thought it was the Sun’s TSI..
Must have forgotten your grateness. !!
50
Akhenaten.
10
My mummy said was polite to cover my mouth when I sneezed. !
00
Given the flame wars that have erupted from the series of posts, perhaps Dr. Evans should release his code earlier than planned for others to look at. Allowing this to go on as it is won’t be helpful–he and Jo are already having to spend time away from presenting the material to fight these accusations. Let Svalgaard run whatever wrong-but-not-as-wrong-as-the-wronger-stuff data he wants through the model and then fight it out afterward.
10
Siliggy
July 7, 2014 at 8:12 am
Looking back over this i wonder what L.S.may mean by “sun’s surface magnetic field,”
The surface is what we see. To be more precise: what we see may come from a thin surface layer.
Deeper down seems cooler
Generally, the temperature goes up when we go deeper. A strong magnetic field [like in a sunspot] is cooler because the convection that brings heat up from the deep is less effective due to the field.
36
Leif Svalgaard
Re your reply (and thankyou for it). I gave you a thumbs up for lack of pomposity but disagree.
If sunspots were a lack of convection caused by a magnetic field then this would need to act via some means like repulsion of ionisation in counteraction to the convective force. This is not how it works. Magnetisim exists at right angles to current thus this situation always causes rotation.
Rotating storms such as cyclones on earth do not occur much at or cross much at the equator. This is linked to the coriolis force. Sunspots occur north and south of the solar equator again hinting at rotation.
In this video you can see the rotation of two sunspots as parts from one counter clockwise rotate into a clockwise rotation of the other.
The video should begin at 1:36 the relevant part begins at 1:47.
http://youtu.be/2U3ucaVzRqQ?t=1m36s
00
Your notion of why sunspots are cooled by magnetic fields is completely wrong. Here is perhaps an accessible explanation: “One interesting aspect of the Sun is its sunspots. Sunspots are areas where the magnetic field is about 2,500 times stronger than Earth’s, much higher than anywhere else on the Sun. Because of the strong magnetic field, the magnetic pressure increases while the surrounding atmospheric pressure decreases. This in turn lowers the temperature relative to its surroundings because the concentrated magnetic field inhibits the flow of hot, new gas from the Sun’s interior to the surface.”
or here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot
and 857,000 other places according to Google.
12
It is just a theory but not of just the spots being cooled but the interior of the sun as the rotating storms are the convection. Thus more heat means more cooling spots.
Well that seems to be the inner magnetic layer while this video shows the outer layer also has spots. Do these spots (they call them bubbles) show a lack of “normal” convection here at the heliosphere? If the convection is “Normal” then you may have explained how our suns magnetic field shape is externally modulated from the galaxy. Thanks!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq3U5o4Yblw
This simple explanation of eddy currents seems to explain both.
Notice how a rotating current spot forms just beneath the surface of the metal disc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJ23gmS3KHY
00
Author: Leif Svalgaard
jim2
July 7, 2014 at 1:09 am
But for a given 11 year cycle, it’s all the TSI over the entire 11 year cycle that matters to Evans, I would think. I say this because he used an 11 year smoothing to illustrate his point.
If you do 11-yr smoothing the data essentially reduces to just the background bulges [plus an average cycle amplitude]. Since the background does not exist, Evans is analyzing something that doesn’t exist…
That is hilarious Leif.
Yeah I can see those bulges.
Since the background does not exist, Evans is analyzing something that doesn’t exist…
I still see the bulges which do not exist. I must be getting old (I AM old). I’ll have to have my eyes checked. Because I’m seeing something which you claim doesn’t exist.
BTW who writes your material? Have you considered a comedy show?
And if TSI is invariant why do we need to keep measuring it? Wouldn’t once be enough?
91
You can see the bulges on the Figure, but they do not exist on the Sun [in TSI]. They are artifacts of the reconstruction models created by assuming that there is a large ‘background’ population of tiny magnetic fields which waxes and wanes with the size of the sunspot cycle – large cycles have more background fields, so you get a bulge upwards. Careful measurements the past decade have shown that this assumption is wrong, so there are no bulges. A bit more explanation can be found at comment #77.
And if TSI is invariant why do we need to keep measuring it? Wouldn’t once be enough?
It is not invariant, but waxes and wanes with the sunspot number. We need to keep measuring it to test our assumptions and preliminary conclusions and to keep solar physicists and spacecraft engineers gainfully employed.
36
Would be nice, if you had any clue as to what is measured!
32
Leif says:
See the upwards bulges. Those are the assumed background in the reconstruction. This background is based on a wrong assumption by the modelers and most likely does not exist.
But it is not models. It is data. Even your data. Is there something wrong with your data?
If you really want to flatten those “bulges” may I suggest a 10,000 year running mean? That also has the advantage of eliminating the last 10,000 years of questionable data. I see a win-win here. Maybe you should write a paper and get it published.
Also I’m a little unclear. How does background make bulges?
31
But it is not models. It is data
No, there is no ‘data’ before 1978 and no ‘good data’ before 2003.
What you [and perhaps Evans] think as ‘data’ is output of models using the lowly sunspot number as input.
Maybe you should write a paper and get it published.
There are several such already, but one of mine is in press in the prestigious Journal ‘Space Science Reviews’
Also I’m a little unclear. How does background make bulges?
Read comment #77
27
Ah. So your prestige is being called into question. This has been suggested up thread as your motivation. Nice of you to confirm it.
Given your position on the question, if David is correct, your prestige will further evaporate.
In any case prestige is not evidence.
BTW if there is no evidence before 1978 how did David derive it from your data set? Are you putting out false information? That would be bad form. According to you.
30
There is no data before 1978, only reconstructions, guesses, and models.
02
Well you work with what you have got.
You seem to think guess are OK. You appear to have published a raft of them.
30
Leif,
what is this paper about? Is it relevant to this thread?
This journal has a policy of releasing its in press papers to “online early”, before they have been assigned an issue/page number. I could not see any such paper. Could you please let me know the DOI so I can read the paper.
btw a nice review in the online early
01
Before a paper on press can be released there are a number of clerical steps: copyediting, typesetting, figure sizing and placement, proof-reading, and such [for four authors]. These things take time for a paper of 80 pages of text with 70 color Figures, so it will be perhaps another couple of weeks before release. I’ll also put the released version on my website [ http://www.leif.org/research/ ] as is my wont, so check there now and then, if you are interested.
12
I am very familiar with the process of publication but thanks for clarifying for others. OK so it is accepted but not yet in press. Thanks, I can check with the journal.
I take it this is a review paper?
You have mentioned it often in this post: is this because it is relevant?
11
It is a review of the four sunspot number workshops bringing together the evidence for the need of revising the sunspot number record, identifying the errors, and setting out how to correct them.
It is clearly relevant. Would I mention it several times, if it were not?
14
Am I meant to answer that last question? That is for you to tell us. Now that you have, well done.
21
Greg Cavanagh
July 7, 2014 at 1:01 pm
I do flood modeling.
mathamatical
represtation
paramaters
I guess you know best the shortcomings of your model.
05
Just going through the comments here and the sheer number of sniping, negative, snippy comments by Leif Svalgard is quite stunning. They read like Michael Mann having a psychotic episode frankly.
By way of analogy, some people look at the picture and see a candlesick while others see two faces, perhaps in conversation. Leif seems to see two faces conspiring against him by candle light and is obsessed by every word they might be saying ( sshhh – the voices have started again …….)
80
He desperately needs to step out… for his health’s sake.
but I don’t think he can.
20
I hope Jo recognises this and takes appropriate steps.
20
Please enable animation which shows the drop in temperature in the southern oceans (larger absorbs CO2).
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=MOP_CO_M
00
MSimon
July 7, 2014 at 6:11 pm · Reply
The web site delineating the instrument only claims 350 ppm accuracy – not 100 ppm as in the pdf. Perhaps you would care to query them on the discrepancy.
One can do no better than quoting what the experimenters themselves say on the matter. I have several time given a link to their explanation, but people here clearly do not read [or care about] supporting material, so I’ll simply quote the material here at length. And let that be the final word on the matter:
Background for the SORCE TIM instrument and TSI measurements
The SORCE Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) measures the total solar irradiance (TSI), a measure of the absolute intensity of solar radiation integrated over the entire solar disk and the entire solar spectrum. The SORCE Level 3 TSI data products are the daily and 6-hourly mean irradiances, reported at both a mean solar distance of 1 astronomical unit (AU) and at the true Earth-to-Sun distance of date, and zero relative line-of-sight velocity with respect to the Sun. These products respectively indicate emitted solar radiation variability (useful for solar studies) and the solar energy input to the top of the Earth’s atmosphere (useful for Earth climate studies).
The TIM instrument is proving very stable with usage and solar exposure, its long-term repeatability having uncertainties estimated to be lessthan 0.014 W/m^2/yr (10 ppm/yr). Accuracy is estimated to be 0.48 W/m^2 (350 ppm), largely determined by uncertainties in the instrument’s linearity. This uncertainty is consistent with the agreement between all four TIM radiometers. The lower TSI value reported by the TIM from predecessor TSI instruments has been resolved as being largely due to internal instrument scatter in those prior instrument designs (Kopp & Lean 2011) and has been validated on the new TSI Radiometer Facility (described by Kopp et al. 2007). The following paragraphs discuss the four different uncertainties reported with the TSI measurements.
INSTRUMENT UNCERTAINTY reflects the instrument’s relative standard uncertainty (absolute accuracy) and includes all known uncertainties from ground- and space-based calibrations plus a time-dependent estimate of uncertainty due to degradation. This value is roughly 350 ppm, and varies slightly with measured instrument temperature or the time to the nearest on-orbit calibration. This value is useful when comparing different TSI instruments reporting data from the same time range on an absolute scale.
INSTRUMENT PRECISION reflects the TIM’s sensitivity to a change in signal, and is useful for determining relative changes in the TIM TSI due purely to the Sun over time scales of two months or less (so that degradation uncertainty does not have significant effect). This value of 5 ppm is constant, and indicates the instrument’s noise level.
High-cadence Level 2 data are averaged (un-weighted mean) to produce daily and 6-hourly averaged Level 3 data. The standard deviation of the Level 2 values averaged to produce each Level 3 value is indicative of the solar variability during the reported Level 3 measurement interval, and is called the SOLAR STANDARD DEVIATION. This uncertainty redundantly includes — but is generally much larger than — the Instrument Precision. The Solar Standard Deviation is useful for estimating potential variations in TSI within the time range of a Level 3 data value, such as when comparing TIM TSI values with solar images or other TSI instruments reporting data at slightly different times.
MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY is the net uncertainty of a reported Level 3 data value, and is the root sum square of Instrument Uncertainty and Solar Standard Deviation. Measurement Uncertainty is the value that should be used when comparing absolute scale TSI data from non-identical time ranges.
14
It is all mere assertion.
The first verse is: they say they are measuring TSI but saying it and doing it are two different things. They may be measuring a spectra of electromagnetic radiation that is absorbed by a pseudo black body but how about microwaves or x-rays. Even a pseudo black body has spectral specificity that is determined by its size, shape, and material. Yes, it is a broad spectra but is it total? This has yet to be demonstrated.
The second verse is: they are NOT measuring all of the energy transfer from the sun to the earth: they are missing magnetic field, charged and uncharged particles, gravity field, and the effects upon cosmic radiation by those things. These things and possibly others are not mentioned and a pseudo black body can’t measure them.
The third verse is: even if it actually did measure the TSI, it doesn’t measure all of the variable impact of the sun on the earth.
The last verse is: it is a start but it is far from being everything that is or might be relevant about the interaction between the sun and the earth.
40
Lionell,
Yes. The assumption is that TSI (heating) is all that matters. When, as you point out and David has alluded to, parts of the spectrum may have inordinate effects. Parts not adequately measured.
I read the paper Leif provided and did not see anything about tests for interfering effects (microwaves say). That is a gross omission for an electronic device IMO. There are low frequency waves emitted by Earth (down in the 5 – 30 Hz band) that are within the bandwidth of the instrument. Given the instrument sensitivity you have to be exceedingly careful that nothing outside what you are measuring is influencing your instrument.
It is possible such tests were done. None of it is well documented in the pdf.
I also wonder what the maximum TSI the instrument can handle is. If we go by the accuracy it is [0.48 W/m^2 (350 ppm)] .48/350ppm = 1,371.429 W/m^2. That does not seem like an adequate margin to me. At the sacrifice of some added error I would have gone to 1,500 W/m^2. That would reduce the chances of instrument saturation from temporary peaks.
30
I also wonder what the maximum TSI the instrument can handle is. If we go by the accuracy it is [0.48 W/m^2 (350 ppm)] .48/350ppm = 1,371.429 W/m^2.
Shows how little grasp you have of this type of instruments and of TSI in particular. The limit is set by the range where the instrument has a linear response and is many hundreds of Watt wide around the mean. Also for the simple reason that TSI measured at the instrument varies from some 1310 to 1410 W/m2
All your interfering ‘effects’ are way below the noise and have no measurable effect, neither on the instrument nor on the climate.
11
Ya know Leif,
You could be right. But it is not in the specification. Nor in the document. Although it is possible I missed it. Care to point out where I missed it?
As to linearity – it has to be determined from about zero to some level above the expected input to be able to compare it to the other radiometer which is used as a reference.
It is obvious that reading such a specification and the attending document is not your forte. Nor would I expect it. You are not an EE. However, it is possible to learn it without going to school though. I became an aerospace engineer without benefit of a degree. You have probably ridden on a plane with some of my work in it. Ever get a ride on an F-16? A320? 747-400? CRJ-700? There are a few other programs I assisted on but those are the main ones.
20
According to the bit of the paper you quoted. So your 100ppm number is erroneous. And my reading of 350ppm is correct. Are you still sticking with 100ppm?
30
All numbers are from the experimenters themselves. If you have problems understanding the numbers and how they are derived, you could try to consult the professionals who build the instrument, or just read their papers a bit more carfully.
22
Well that was a direct quote from the paper. I don’t think you can get more careful than that.
30
I think you are just trying to cover up your own sloppiness with accusations.
30
Solar activity in June.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/index.html
10
just as I predicted back in 2004: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
“peak smoothed monthly sunspot number of 75 ± 8, making it potentially the smallest cycle in the last 100 years”
14
Your prediction is already busted, SC24 is following SC5 when apples are compared (which you obviously knew about in 2004?)
SC24 is nothing like SC14 as you predicted.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sc5_sc24_1.png
30
It is telling that you in one comment say that the GSN is the best and in this one ignore the GSN ]the dashed black curve] and use the SIDC.
But, hey, who cares about the truth when it comes to supporting the agenda, as your comment so vividly illustrates.
13
Good one Leif, we both know the SC5/6 values are little changed when looking at the SIDC/GSN records, it is the other cycles that count.
Another sophist attempt at smearing the record…would love to know who is paying you to spread the propaganda?
41
Nice to see that you agree with me. But you are wrong about SC5. It is very different between GSN and SIDC and since you claim SC24 is like SC5, SC5 is the one that matters. And the SC24 SIDC it should be, not your invalid LSC. BTW, you say that Wolf’s sunspot series is ‘under attack’, and that one should go back to what Wolf said. Here is Wolf’s version [blue curve] of SC5: http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-SSN-for-SC5.png
who is paying you
The US Taxpayer, ultimately.
15
The GSN/SIDC values for SC5/6 are very close when comparing pre 1848 values. The GSN/SIDC values for other pre 1848 cycle vary on a much larger scale.
If you doubt me show the evidence.
Wolf’s pre 1848 reconstructions are now in doubt and we both know the SC5 Wolf values were over ridden by Wolfer and the SIDC (which I show in my pink line). Wolfer found sunspot drawings for SC5 that Wolf did not incorporate, that showed the magnetic needle lied….as it did on a greater scale on higher cycles pre 1848.
The pre 1848 Wolf count is now very much in doubt…your original Wolf count shows that? But arguing that SC5/6 are much higher than 50 SSN on the old scale is something you will have to tackle on your own.
40
Can clearly see a the minimum spots in 2006-2010 and a remarkable decrease of magnetic activity, 2006-2010.
10
and the strong increase in 2011-2014. The decrease towards 2009 is just the usual [unremarkable] decrease to solar minimum that happens every cycle. And, of course, the increase towards 2014 is just the usual [unremarkable] increase to solar maximum that happens every cycle. What may be special is that the current maximum [as predicted] is the smallest in a 100 years.
14
Hardly a strong increase.. compared with recent cycles. But interesting to see the magnetic strength although subdued is following the weak sunspot number. Also interesting to see EUV values are around half of the last sunspot maximum.
20
For comparison, the previous minimum.
http://www.climate4you.com/Sun.htm#Ap-index
10
and with the past ~180 years
http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png
Take home message: no trend
13
In your chart, you can see that the drop Ap in the last minimum is extremely violent .
http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png
00
no more than 1880, 1900, 1910, 1965.
This last minimum was not ‘extremely’ special.
02
Is it the same?
http://oi58.tinypic.com/289bnsg.jpg
10
Here you can see the exact collapse the TSI, in 2006, as Ap.
http://oi60.tinypic.com/8w0aid.jpg
What Ap you anticipate in the coming minimum?
00
Only a strong drop in temperature in the atmosphere explains such a strong decrease of the temperature in the south.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=31.04,-82.20,419
20
Well what a read!
The only person who comes out of this well is Mr Evans whose interactions have been those of a professional. Measured and polite. Kudos to him.
Of the others, including Svalgaard (and Esenbach and Monckton elsewhere), very unimpressive.
60
Geoff Sharp
July 8, 2014 at 12:59 am
Pre 1848 the record is now being tested…Svalgaard likes to stay with the SIDC values and discredit the GSN values as it suits his cause for a flat universe, but recent studies are showing that Wolf’s (SIDC) reconstructions prior to 1848 are too high and that the GSN is now more likely to be correct.
The careful work by the experts at the 4th SSN workshop indicates that the GSN is flawed and that the ‘recent studies’ you mention are spurious.
The growing consensus is that the modern maximum is indeed on the mark.
There is no ‘growing consensus’, but there is no doubt that there was a ‘modern maximum’ as there was also a ’19th century maximum’ and an ’18th century maximum’ as you can see here http://www.leif.org/research/New-Group-Numbers.png [based on Hoyt&Schatten’s Group number data, no SIDC].
But it is comforting that you no longer use the moniker “Grand Modern Maximum’, because as you acknowledge, the was no Grand Maximum.
03
Experts…do you include yourself in that description?
Workshops organized by yourself are worthless. Most of us rely on the literature as a starting point.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/317
51
Workshops organized by yourself
The SSN workshops are organized, endorsed, and run by the National Solar Observatory (NSO), the Royal Observatory of Belgium (ROB), the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), and the Specula Solare in Locarno.
23
Here is some literature for you: http://www.leif.org/research/CEAB-Cliver-et-al-2013.pdf
A major paper is in press in Space Science Reviews. But it is doubtful if you would care to read it.
13
Just looking at the authors it is hard to read further.
Cliver, Clette, Svalgaard.
Same old stuff…
51
same old GOOD stuff.
The group counts do not use the SIDC sunspot numbers but the Hoyt&Schatten raw group number data http://www.leif.org/research/New-Group-Numbers.png making the ‘recent studies’ you mentioned irrelevant.
15
Still waiting to see the Leussu et al paper rebutted.
50
bad papers are rarely rebutted, but are simply ignored and forgotten.
The group counts do not use the SIDC sunspot numbers but the Hoyt&Schatten raw group number data http://www.leif.org/research/New-Group-Numbers.png making the Leussu paper irrelevant.
16
There is no new GSN record. Only something you have tried to create with authors of failing minds. The recently digitized Schwabe pre 1848 sunspot drawings according to Leassu et al verify the original GSN record.
I await a solid rebuttal to Leassu before you have an argument.
40
verify the original GSN record
No need to rebut Leussu as we do not use Wolf’s sunspot numbers, but the original group counts given by H&S:
http://www.leif.org/research/New-Group-Numbers.png making the Leussu paper irrelevant.
13
Leif:
Bad papers = papers that don’t support what I believe to be true.
Good papers = papers that support what I believe to be true.
40
Bad papers = papers that don’t support what I believe to be true.
Good papers = papers that support what I believe to be true.
If that are your beliefs, I’m afraid we must part ways.
15
These definitely appear to be your beliefs.
Or do you now agree with all the peer-reviewed papers that show a strong increase in solar activity (and connection to the solar forcing of climate) in the last few decades?
When you run across papers that contradict your point of view, you dismiss them.
60
“Workshops organized by yourself are worthless. Most of us rely on the literature as a starting point.”
“us?”
hearing voices again I see.
07
The question always is – do the voices tell you something useful.
I do a lot of designing based on what my voices tell me. It has worked out well so far (59 years of designing).
30
Geoff Sharp
July 8, 2014 at 2:10 am
The GSN/SIDC values for SC5/6 are very close
No, the evidence is here http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sc5_sc24_1.png and here
http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-SSN-for-SC5.png
Clear as day.
13
lol…you need to get some better ammunition…its getting tired.
The SIDC values are in red in your graph which is the pink line in my graph. Wolf gets it wrong?
What is clear is that the pre 1840 Wolf values that rely on faulty magnetic needle readings are incorrect (even more so for cycles outside Sc5/6) If you were a real scientist you would acknowledge this difference and explore all SIDC cycles before 1848 to make your “workshop” credible. This of course would ruin your agenda, so i don’t expect this issue to be pursued, but the Leussu et al paper stands in your way?
50
The SIDC values are in red in your graph which is the pink line in my graph.
And neither of them looks anything like the GSN [black dashed line in your graph and cyan line in mine]. Enough on that.
Wolf gets it wrong?
Yes, Wolf’s numbers do not match Wolfers. Now which one is correct is hard to say as there were almost do data for SC5.
What is clear is that the pre 1840 Wolf values that rely on faulty magnetic needle readings are incorrect
This is a persistent myth which is not true. Wolf did not rely on magnetic needle readings, see e. slides 28-32 of http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard15.pdf
“But, to reiterate: Wolf’s adjustment was not determined by comparison in 1874 with the ‘magnetic needle’ data as assumed by Hoyt and Schatten [In Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 21, No. 18, Pages 2067-2070, September 1, 1994,
doi/10.1029/94GL01698 Hoyt and Schatten write: “Curiously, our Group Sunspot Numbers are similar to the Wolf Sunspot Numbers published by Wolf prior to 1868. In 1874, Wolf revised his original sunspot numbers by multiplying them by a factor of 1.25
for 1826 to 1848 and by about 1.2 to 1.5 for the earlier years. Wolf’s correction was apparently determined using variations of the magnetic needle at Milan. Based upon our analysis, this correction is erroneous.”] and others, but by comparison with Carrington and Hornstein in 1860-1861, and consistent with Schwabe’s use of a smaller telescope at lesser magnification.
but the Leussu et al paper stands in your way
Not at all, as the revision is based of the Group Data given by H&S, not using Wolf of SIDC in any way.
13
And neither of them looks anything like the GSN [black dashed line in your graph and cyan line in mine]. Enough on that.
The Wolfer value using real sunspot counts found after Wolf, ultimately used by the SIDC are much closer to the GSN values…this is the issue, the magnetic needle lied…so if one cycle at least is wrong the others need to be checked?
Yes, Wolf’s numbers do not match Wolfers. Now which one is correct is hard to say as there were almost do data for SC5.
Your standard answer when cornered…Wolfer found real observations.
The Leussu paper would need to compare original GSN values…that is the point. The GSN is vindicated in general terms.
50
You are not paying attention [what else is new?]. Wolf did not use the magnetic needle at all and as you can see here http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sc5_sc24_1.png your two SC5 curves do not match at all.
The Leussu paper would need to compare original GSN values
But it does not, that is the flaw in it.
http://www.leif.org/research/New-Group-Numbers.png makes the Leussu paper irrelevant as we use only the original GSN data.
14
Wolf’s magnetic readings are not used in my graph…so not sure what your argument is?
Lets cut the crap Leif…This paper you say in print that rebuts the Leussu et al paper needs to be discussed in an open forum. Once it is published, open a thread on WUWT and talk to your mate Anthony so I can respond..if not ask Jo to run an article here. If the rebuttal stands up I am ready to come on board as will the rest of the community interested in this vital field.
Are you up for the challenge?
51
Wolf’s magnetic readings are not used in my graph…so not sure what your argument is?
Wolf did not use magnetic needle readings in constructing his SSN, so any reference to magnetic needles can be cut out.
This paper you say in print that rebuts the Leussu et al paper needs to be discussed in an open forum.
No detailed rebuttal is needed as the Leussu paper is not relevant as the reconstruction of the Group Number only uses H&S published counts and does not use Wolf’s, SIDC, magnetic needle, etc at all.
Are you up for the challenge?
What challenge? You have no challenge, but you are most welcome to study the paper in due time, and to learn.
14
And it will be submitted to an open forum, e.g. WUWT or/and what other ones you would like, as the paper [all 80 pages of it] will not be pay-walled.
A preview of the construction of the new Group Number series can be found here http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard11.pdf
13
Wolf did not use magnetic needle readings in constructing his SSN, so any reference to magnetic needles can be cut out.
This would go against several of your presentations in the past?
I can see you are not up to the challenge.
You will be judged by your refusal.
50
Kenneth Richard
July 8, 2014 at 3:33 am
Or do you now agree with all the peer-reviewed papers that show a strong increase in solar activity (and connection to the solar forcing of climate) in the last few decades?
If those papers disagree with the official solar activity record published by SIDC they are no good and must be dismissed out of hand: http://www.sidc.be/silso/monthlyssnplot and http://www.sidc.be/silso/monthlyhemisphericplot and http://www.sidc.be/silso/yearlyssnplot
Or perhaps it is just your opinion that must be dismissed. Take you pick.
06
That’s exactly like saying: “If these [hundreds of papers establishing the Sun-Climate connection published just in the last few years] papers disagree with the IPCC’s conclusions that there is no correlation between solar activity and climate, they are all no good and must be dismissed.”
There really is no difference between these two statements.
Here’s a graph of the last 400 years from the Colorado people:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/images/science/solar_infl/Surface-Temp-w-paleo.jpg
Even John Cook, the skepticalscience blogger, admit that this graph shows a “close correlation” (his words) between TSI and temperature.
Cook’s only contention is that TSI and climate have not correlated “for the last 35 years.”
But they have, of course. As established by the ACRIM data set, solar activity increased by +0.05% per decade between 1980 and 2002.
This latter point is probably rather inconvenient to what you believe to be true….so you’ll dismiss it and say that the papers that show an increased TSI between 21 and 23 must be “bad.”
40
800 plus comments.
I am wondering how long the good doctor will continue to dig.
Having shot his feet off at the beginning, he goes on and on and on…..
Is the real Leif Svalgaard enjoying a summer holiday while a poorly programmed BOT destroys his public image?
This started with heated accusations and insinuations about David Evans, his motives, methods and integrity.
Because….???.. Leif’s version of estimated TSI differs from that used by D.E?
Sure Dr Svalgaard may have the best opinion, most accurate estimation of TSI of the moment, but that is no justification for the amusing character defects he shows throughout this thread.
If this is how “science” is conducted in academia small wonder the public avoids scientists, dismissing them as irrelevant.
If you chose to condemn,insinuate,insult, condescend,sneer and carry on as Dr S does.
You look really insipid when you then complain about the “hostility” shown by the host and victim of your crass behaviour.
Jo
Please do not shut this insane thread down, I would love to see how long the insanity continues.
40
Geoff Sharp
July 8, 2014 at 3:50 am
This would go against several of your presentations in the past?
So? H&S suggested Wolf used the magnetic needle. He did, but for verification only. This was not crystal clear early on, but a thorough reading of the original sources as set out in detail in the link I gave you [do you even look?] slides 28-32 of http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard15.pdf
I can see you are not up to the challenge.
You have no challenge. What is your contribution? Bring it on.
You will be judged by your refusal.
As it should be to vacuous nonsense.
13
**OFF TOPIC**:
Am I the only one to receive email notifications of new posts to this thread where the link given is to the main comment body, rather than to the particular post one is being notified of?
Deej
00
Kenneth Richard
July 8, 2014 at 4:16 pm
I’ve already posted (twice) some of the many links that confirm that the data clearly show that solar activity increased significantly,
Solar activity is measured by the sunspot number and here you can see the decline the last 30 years http://www.sidc.be/silso/monthlyssnplot
The ACRIM TSI has problems with its calibration, but still shows the decline http://www.leif.org/research/Acrim-Decline.png
02
Now that’s funny. I guess you think if you casually insert a downwards-pointing arrow on a graph, you can convince people that it says what you want it to say…even when the data shows the opposite trend. Just another brilliant example of your untamed confirmation bias.
Yes, Leif, NOW, or since 2003, TSI cycling has gone down—which is exactly what Dr. Evans has been pointing out since the beginning of this entire discussion (!). Between the 1980s and 1990s, TSI was going up, and significantly, at +0.04% to +0.05% per decade.
As peer-reviewed science has shown us, a change in TSI of + or – 0.1% can yield a change in temperature of between (+ or -) 0.5 and 1.0 C. So a +0.04% to +0.05% increase in TSI (per decade) like we saw in the 1980s and 1990s could yield a temperature change of about 0.2 to 0.5 C…which is actually right in the range of what we got.
So not only does TSI and temperature closely correlate from the 1600s to the 1970s…
http://lasp.colorado.edu/images/science/solar_infl/Surface-Temp-w-paleo.jpg
…it correlates from the 1980s to the present as well. This is well-established in the peer-reviewed literature, of course.
http://www.acrim.com/RESULTS/Earth%20Observatory/earth_obs_ACRIM_Composite.jpg
So, in sum, if we remove your silly arrow, Leif, the widely accepted ACRIM data set doesn’t say what you want it to say anymore…and that’s very, very unfortunate for you and your beliefs about TSI declining during the warming years of the 1980s and 1990s….and the subsequent dip since 2003…just like Dr. Evans has said.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/mean:50/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/mean:50/offset:-40/integral/normalise
Using this same SIDC data and plugging it into the woodfortrees calculator (above), we get the exact opposite of your “30 year decline” claim. In fact, we only begin to see the decline since about…2003…which is, again, just as Dr. Evans has suggested. Isn’t it interesting how you prefer to find graphs that suit your purposes.
Perhaps if you can put a down-arrow in this woodfortrees sunspot graph, you can convince people you’re still right after all. Somehow I don’t think you’ve been particularly successful with convincing people here of that. Not to mention you’ve lost a great deal of credibility, honor, and the presumption of genuineness. And that’s an even worse consequence.
40
Svalgaard and Eschenbach are dismissive of any theory that exposes the weakness of their investigative chops and their failures of perception and logic. For supposedly intelligent men they get mightily agitated when anyone covers ground they perceived as barren when they invested their own time in the past. They failed to find any connection so why should whipper-snappers deserve anything more than contempt and spite for even attempting to follow in their hallowed footsteps?
No-one could discover anything after their great brains failed to, surely?
11
Not only dismissive of theory. Leif is under the impression that he understands instrument design.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/more-strange-adventures-in-tsi-data-the-miracle-of-900-fabricated-fraudulent-days/#comment-1505221
Leif is agitated when anyone brings up a point where his understanding is limited. He is the smartest man in the room. With the widest knowledge. Just ask him.
I’m going to work him on the meaning of signal to noise ratio when it comes to instrument design if he continues on. I intend to leave a lot of blood on the floor. His.
31
We all have limited understanding on something. Some more than others, you, for example when it comes to the TSI radiometers. I have pointed you to the relevant documents and you don’t seem to get the main inda. But, well we can’t all be experts, even the ones like you who are self-professed geniuses.
On the other hands, those of us who builds instruments to study the Sun http://www.leif.org/EOS/1977SoPh-54-353.pdf have a documented expertise that stands up to any comparisons. So, time for you to acknowledge that and try to stay on topic.
13
OK my genius friend. Please explain to me how signal to noise ratio limits resolution.
I don’t think you can. Care to prove me wrong?
20
No, I would not care at all. The issue here is not about ‘resolution’ and your understanding or lack thereof of that concept, as this is irrelevant to Evans’ model and the merits/demerits that we are discussing. So, perhaps you should make an effort to stay on topic.
13
[…] http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/more-strange-adventures-in-tsi-data-the-miracle-of-900-fabricated-f… Rate this:Share this:GoogleTwitterFacebookStumbleUponRedditDiggEmailLike this:Like Loading… […]
00
I have been increasingly disappointed by WUWT?. Anthony refused to post my father’s most recent book. Dr. William Gray (look him up if you’ve never heard of him, but don’t go to wikipedia, for obvious reasons) said my father’s book is one of the best books he has ever read. Father knows the science as well as anyone, and also the gatekeepers of the science, and the political machinations used to further the CAGW meme.
I suggest you read it if you can find the time, Jo.
20
A link to the book? The Title? Possibly the Author’s Name?
00
http://www.amazon.ca/Deliberate-Corruption-Climate-Science-ebook/dp/B00HXO9XGS/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1405436754&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=Dr.+Tim+Ball+The+deliberate+corruption
20
http://www.amazon.ca/Deliberate-Corruption-Climate-Science-ebook/dp/B00HXO9XGS/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1405436754&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=Dr.+Tim+Ball+The+deliberate+corruption
10
Apologies for the double post,….
00
“Anthony refused to post my father’s most recent book.”
Refused, like he has obligation to do so but did not ??
Perhaps you meant “declined to post” or “chose not to post.
Tim Ball gets quite a few articles posted at WUWT. Though I do read what he has to say, I find him less than objective, on the whole.
04
If you mean by “less than objective” he may have an axe to grind.
I don’t doubt it. Mann put him through the wringer of the courts and it must have cast Dr. Ball a fortune in litigation. Fortunately, the case was heard in Canada, and the court insisted on Mann’s work which he wasn’t about to deliver, so lost the case. Dr. Ball had made the witty remark that Mann “belongs in the State Pen rather than Penn State.
I think the article his son alluded to was published on WUWT just the other day.
I find Dr. Ball’s writing quite enlightening. But then, we share the same Alma Mater. Perhaps one must be from Winnipeg to understand the wit.
20
David Evans: “The obvious and simplest way to remove most of the sunspot cycle and reveal the underlying trend is to apply an 11-year smoother to the TSI.”
Sadly, though simple, running mean “smoothers” are a crock. The sudden drop is largely a result of artefacts in that filter.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/triple-running-mean-filters/
There is a notable drop but the ‘falling off the cliff’ effect is an artefact.
I’ve already pointed this out. It is surprising that you don’t question how you can have such a steep and sudden drop when you imagine you have removed all changes faster than 11 years.
11
If you are looking for an inflection point and not magnitudes it seems like such a filter would be very useful.
00
If you are looking for an inflection point and don’t mind whether it is real or not it’s great.
Otherwise any filter that shows peaks where the data has troughs and vice versa seems worse than useless, it’s frankly misleading.
Now if you are looking for an “inflection point” you need to develop some filter or other processing that detects such features, not choose a crap low-pass filter and arbitrarily imagine that’s out put is meaningful.
00
Mr Svalgaard,
You put on quite a performance in this thread and others and of the same self-belief system in things which you claim you know but don’t, which was the reason I gave for dismissing you in January at WUWT. You likewise put on a ripe display of the very same rudeness and resort to paranoia about motives and agendas which you accused me of then, and which I have now repeatedly observed you apply to anyone who questions your opinions and belief-edifice in things you actually don’t know. Clearly it’s what you do.
I dismissed you then, as I clearly stated at the time simply because your insistent claim to know things you definitely didn’t know left me no alternative at all but to dismiss you entirely. And frankly it is astonishing the people you’ve attacked so falsely and baseless above didn’t dismiss you as well.
Count yourself fortunate, I would not have been so generous towards someone so undeserving of polite due-regard.
41
You noticed. Heh.
20