Leif Svalgaard claims “TSI has not fallen since 2003”. It’s technically true in a sense, but demonstrably false when discussing 11 year smoothed trends (which is written on the graph he was criticizing). Willis Eschenbach sadly was carried along. This post is in response to an overheated thread at WUWT. Both men owe David Evans an apology.
The fuss is over the big fall in TSI. Leif Svalgaard said it was “almost fraudulent” that we claimed there was a fall in TSI since 2003 since there wasn’t a fall in this dataset. He says: “There is no such drop.” I say, look at the graph below, it’s even in your own data. Svalgaard provided the link to his TSI set, and we’ve included that line in the graph below. It’s the light-purple line. (Has he paid attention for the last ten years?)
In his rush to call it “totally wrong” and to declare “the model is already falsified” he didn’t notice we were talking about a trend in 11 year smoothed TSI, and the fall is evident in whole cycles (but takes some wisdom to find in daily or monthly data). I guess that’s a mistake that could happen to anyone — but some of us might ask politely before we started calling “fraud”, and saying things like “Mr Evans assertion is false [and I maintain seems to be agenda driven…” Likewise, Willis Eschenbach unskeptically follows: “as Leif points out, he’s using a bogus set of TSI data.” If skeptics toss out careless accusations, it rather cheapens the real ones.
Obviously the 11-year smoothed effect is news to Svalgaard, perhaps it’s news to a lot of people. It’s something David found because his Fourier work suggested a notch, and the Solar Model that was made with a notch filter predicted a big fall to come. From that David inferred there must have been a corresponding large drop in TSI and then he created the 11 year smoothed graph and found it (in response, it must be said, to an email from Lubos in April asking if there was an easier way to see there was going to be a big fall in temperature than through the model output).
The comments at WattsUp has been unseemly, and entirely unnecessary. (I’m sure it doesn’t help Anthony.) We will deal with other misunderstandings from the same thread (yes there were more) in a future post. The uninformed ad homs are a waste of time. What happened to common courtesy?
Compare the major datasets of TSI or proxies:
The major TSI datasets all agree there has been a large fall since 2003, in terms of 11 year smoothing (which is obviously required to remove the sunspot cycle and reveal the underlying trend). The SORCE/TIM reconstruction shows the fall starting in 1994. The “composite TSI” is that used by David to drive the model, averaging Lean 2000 (to the end of 2008), PMOD, and ACRIM (from the start of 1992).
As to whether the SORCE data should have been used in the Notch-Delay Solar Model — it’s rather trivially clear that since it starts in 2003 it’s not very useful for 11 year smoothed graphs, because there is only a single point of 11-year-smoothed data. It’s no use for finding the model parameters, because the delay of about 11 years means it cannot be used to check predicted temperatures against observed temperatures yet. And SORCE might be wonderful but it isn’t useful for Fourier analysis of long term climate cycles either (it’s hard to find an 11 year delay in only 11 years of data).
Strangely too, for a commenter who I hear is familiar with solar data, Svalgaard seems to forget that the last peak of solar cycles was 2001-2002, which is not visible in the graph he linked to (SORCE wasn’t operating then). Svalgaard compares data that starts after the peak with the next peak and says “they are the same” as if it means something. It’s a tad misleading (to be polite). I’m sure he didn’t mean it that way.
The graph below pretty clearly shows how TSI from the 2003 to 2012 fits — at least in the larger PMOD scheme of things (SORCE data only covers this short era). Yes, it’s technically accurate to say that TSI now is the same as 2003. Svalgaard declares ” If anything TSI is now higher than it were in 2003.” But it is obvious that the peak of the latest cycle is a lot less than previous ones.
In PMOD data (like SORCE data) obviously TSI now is similar to 2003. Equally obviously, that’s a meaningless comparison. The current peak is nothing like the last one.
Svalgaard thinks science is a bloodsport
Svalgaard emailed me this morning saying “science is a bloodsport”.
I replied that it “doesn’t have to be… You could use logic and reasoning instead.”
All the facts could be uncovered faster by honest enquiring minds without malice. People who brought preconceived assumptions about “motivations” and bad-will into a science debate failed to read what was put before them. We knew David’s work was going to be difficult, and that’s why we’ve released it bit by bit. They aren’t the only ones who have not read carefully enough.
Svalgaard admits reconstructions are “guesses”
Noteworthy is Svalgaard’s honesty about reconstructions. Commenter Brad, here asked why Leif used the term “TSI-guess” in his file label, Leif responded saying: “All so-called ‘reconstructions’ of TSI are Guesses. Most of them bad. The TSI-Guess.xls file is my guess.”
He elaborated:
TSI varies because the magnetic field of the Sun varies, and the field varies as the Sunspot Number does, so the variation of TSI is essentially that of the sunspot number [which is known] on top of a fixed background that does not vary. Based on the past decade of SORCE/TIM precise measurements of TSI, we can calibrate the sunspot number in terms of TSI. That gives me a Guess, which will not be correct in details, but will capture the gross features of the variation.
A brief history of TSI datasets
David Evans looked at all the major TSI datasets he could find in 2013, and downloaded the data available on 8 Aug 2013 when he froze the data used by the project. It’s harder to measure the sunlight than you might think, because there is a wide spectrum of light from UV to infra red. Everyone thought there was essentially no variation to measure up ’til late 1978 when people started observing it with satellites — it’s telling that TSI used to be called “the solar constant”. But there is really only one observed record that runs through the last 35 years, namely PMOD. ACRIM provides data from 1978, but before 1992 or so its results disagreed with PMOD and Lean (which is a reconstruction guided by PMOD). Like everything in climate, there is a war going over the adjustments and reconstructions and no one can agree. Fans of the IPCC now say the TSI was falling for decades, while others think TSI pretty much stayed high til the 23rd cycle and the 24th has been strikingly small.*
The PMOD dataset is the longest running continuous TSI record. ACRIM data got compromised by the Challenger Shuttle exploding, and then its results apparently didn’t quite make sense until the early 1990s. Bring on SOURCE, a new hot tool in 2003, which seems to work well. Lean and co used the PMOD data with sunspots during the same period and figured out a kind of calibration to use so we could estimate TSI from the old sunspot data. Yes, it’s difficult and we all wish Napoleon had fixed his satellite program, but it was not to be. The data is what it is. We are all doing the best we can.
Hmm. That’s a sudden adjustment in the reconstruction of TSI dataset?
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.
Note the dramatic change in the last three peaks. (It’s a 3 second slow blink)
The animation makes it clear the shape of the last few peaks is quite different.
The next data battleground is going to be when the fall in TSI occurred. If it occurred in 2003 as per the PMOD and ACRIM data, then a corresponding fall in temperature is on the cards for about 2017. If it started in 1995 as per the new SORCE/TIM reconstruction now favored by the IPCC suggests, 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. In the return of a previous theme, the measured data favors the former, while the later relies on reconstructions (the SORCE/TIM data only starts in 2003, and is not relevant to the 11 year smoothed values in the mid 1990s) that flatly disagree with the measured data.
The bottom line here is that perhaps SORCE/TIM is a better guesstimate of TSI than PMOD, but whatever PMOD is measuring seems to be a better predictor of Earth’s temperature. So in future if we can elucidate what makes PMOD useful and the new SORCE/TIM reconstruction not so much, then we may get clues as to the mystery force that operates with an 11 year lag. Obviously temperature is not following the SORCE/TIM reconstruction with an 11 year lag, but it does seem to follow PMOD.
———————————————————————————
SOURCES
TSI, Satellite Observations – PMOD (At 1-AU distance.)
- KMNI index
- KMNI (PMOD data)
- Download mean TSI by month in W/m2 KMNI: from Dec 1978 to the present (the “raw data” option).
- PMOD absolute scale presumably (the data is from PMOD).
TSI, Monthly Reconstruction – Lean 2000 + Wang Lean Sheeley
- KMNI
- KMNI (WMO FUB TSI Data)
- Download file “, mean TSI by month in W/m2 from Jan 1882 to Dec 2008.
- PMOD absolute scale. Lean (GRL 2000) with Wang Lean Sheeley (ApJ 2005) background. “Spectral reconstruction based on a flux transport model of the open and closed flux using the observed sunspot record as the main input.” At 1-AU distance.
SSN, Observed – SIDC
- KMNI http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectindex.cgi?id=someone@somewhere
- KMNI SIDC Data Sunspots
- Download file mean SSN by month from Jan 1749 to the present.
- Or download the same data in a more convenient format at MSFC NASA .
- Data from the Solar Influences Data Analysis Center (SIDC), .
f10.7 Solar Radio Flux at 10.7cm, Observed – Space Weather Canada
- KMNI Solar Flux Radio
- Download file observed radia flux at 10.7cm, by month from Feb 1947 to the present.
- Data from Space Weather Canada.
- Earth-distance (their “observed flux” data; their “adjusted flux” is at 1-AU)
—-
Somewhat post-edited for clarity. – Jo
* Typo: 24th and 25th cycles corrected to 23rd and 24th. Thanks Richard C.
**Typo in 3rd link of Lean and Wang fixed.
It seems very strange to me that researchers cant even agree on what the output of the sun has been in recent decades, or even when it peaked, or whether it stayed high or not. How can there be a debate about future temperature changes associated with a decline in solar activity when they cant even agree if the sun has, or when, declined?
There is one thing clear, there is a temperature lag, the same as occurs every day after noon, the peak in temperature is around 2:30pm not noon, when solar max is highest.
If solar output stayed high until 2003-2005, then add a decade two, according to all that we know, but please sort out when, and if, it has peaked?
261
In case you don’t have these from Chiefio
“Search Results for: the real TSI
← Older posts
Does Anybody Really Know What TSI It Is?
Posted on 15 December 2013 by E.M.Smith
Turns out TSI is a mess an one of the best solar researchers on the planet (IMHO) thinks were up for a Grand Minimum and lower TSI leading to a little ice age. Continue reading →
Posted in AGW Climate Perspective, AGW Science and Background, Earth Sciences, Science Bits | Tagged LIA, Solar, sun, TSI | 66 Comments
More TSI variation and big UV variance
Posted on 26 April 2013 by E.M.Smith
An interesting paper that finds TSI more variable in the past than is frequently believed, and finds a very large change in UV. Continue reading →
Posted in AGW Science and Background, Science Bits | Tagged climate, Solar, sun, TSI, UV | 24 Comments “
90
That’s only 0.02% of the TSI.
I’m still amused that Hansen publishes a straight face when he writes 0.41 W/m2 of “Earth gained energy at a rate 0.58 W/m2 during a deep prolonged solar minimum reveals that there is a strong positive forcing overwhelming the negative forcing by below-average solar irradiance.” The drop has been similar to the uncertainty of what it actually is. Maybe I just don’t get modelling.
30
I’m still amused that Hansen keeps a straight face when he writes 0.41 W/m2 of the extra “Earth gained energy at a rate 0.58 W/m2 ” that goes into the oceans…. ±0.5W/m2 ?
20
Of course those lags are different, the two hour lag in daily temps are due to the fact that tue earth starts cold, and sufficient energy needs to be added to warm it. While the energy in from the sun exceeds the energy lost the surface warms, at around 2 PM the Solar input has fallen enough so that the energy in is less than the energy out and it starts to cool down. Put another way, the earths temperature never reaches equilibrium with peak solar input. If the sun were locked overhead at noon, It would be hotter.
At 1 and 11 years the planet has enough time to to pretty much reach equilibrium with the average of solar output, so the hottest times do tend to be around the solstice ( atmospheric circulation permitting). There are other lags like oceans that will play into this, but they are a smoothing influence mostly ( low pass filter ) they won’t cause an 11 year notch.
30
Its interesting that October and November are Darwin’s hottest months because the humidity lags behind the increase in temperatures. Here where its dry, it’s January. There is very little difference in humidity so the Feb average max is 1.5°C higher than the Dec average. Maybe a good example how two effects on local climate that are out of phase and so lessen the effects of each other (only 1.3°C difference between July and January in Darwin) but you still see an effect in the output that doesn’t line up with one or the other input because its not exactly half a period out.
10
Maybe Rochampton and Alice Springs are a better comparison (just on the edge of the tropics). Jan maximum is higher than December by 1°C and Feb is higher than Nov, by 1.5°C, in AS, while Dec is the warmest month for Rock. and Nov and Feb are the same.
00
Also consider that summer in the tropics, does not work the same as in the subtropics. Maximum insolation in the tropics occurs at the point that the sun is directly over head rather than at the point the sun is most southerly, and there are two annual peaks. At the equator it’s at the equinoxes. Seasons are pretty blurred by this.
00
I did. Just a bit slow.
00
Joanne, you are blessed with the patience of Job.
580
Here, here!
230
“This post is in response to a bizarrely overheated thread at WUWT. Both men owe David Evans an apology.”
One hopes that both you and David were not surprised at the reaction of these two men. This is fairly typical of their brand of “science”. I am reminded of the positive joy and glee that was exhibited over the closing of a physics journal once upon a time. (the journal talked about cycles don’t ya know!)
Science as “blood sport”??? Oh my.
621
Engineering is a blood sport.
70
Only when you get it wrong….
🙂
110
Mark, you used the wrong smiley — it should have been 🙁
50
Maybe not.
It’s the Commission of Inquiry following the `getting it wrong’ which has the sport and does the blood-letting.
🙂
20
I think it’s best that this study is treated the way it is, with as much critique as possible. If it survives it can be published?
10
So is full-body contact chess.
40
DIY motorcycle mechanics is a blood sport (looks at fingers…)
10
It is getting more and more clear that WUWT have become a victim of their own success and have decided to be the gatekeeper for all that is “skeptical”. They are hypocritically performing the same restrictive agenda control that they have accused the alarmists of on many occasions. The following shows a consistent theme;
1. Willis making a fool of himself in trying to debunk the work of Nikolov and Zeller (which they themselves said was in a very early stage of development).
2. Anthony having a hissy fit because Roger (Tallbloke’s Talkshop) alerted N&Z to Willis’s post so that they could prepare a response … what a crime! (/sarc).
3. Anthony refusing to let any “Slayer” arguments to be even aired on the site
4. WUWT only accepting Leif Svalgaard’s view of the workings of the solar system as shown by a consistent dismissal of the growing number of orbital patterns found by Roger and his compatriots
5. The whole “Pattern Recognition in Physics” special edition fiasco where the WUWT fell for the three-card trick performed by the alarmist thought-police.
6. Tallbloke’s Talkshop – an award winning blog as voted by the general public – listed as “Transcendent Rant and way out there theory” in the WUWT blog roll.
7. The complete misunderstanding and public dissing of Steven Goddard’s thorough and detailed work about the fabricating of USHCN land temperature data which he then had to back-track and apologise for.
8. Within the apology for number 7, were statements about how Steven was “wrong” on a number of previous occasions, all of which just showed Anthony’s lack of English comprehension.
9. This latest episode of the WUWT crowd dissing without understanding the new work being put forward by David and Jo.
Clearly you can only be skeptical if you are the right type of skeptic …
763
When a gang gets too big sub gangs or rival gangs form. Just another part of human nature.
161
Noticed the same thing myself over the years. About the only time I ever show up there is if I find a link at some other site such as this which points us there to see what “they” are saying about whatever is being discussed at the site I am visiting.
Which is really rare anymore since more often than not I don’t even need to go there to know what “they” are saying.
Indeed, it would appear Anthony has turned into the skeptic version of an alarmist. It would seem that “we” must stifle dissent and present a unified stance, of course no one sent me the memo to inform me that he gets to pick the stance and decide what is dissent which is how things appear.
310
Struth!!!!
And we wonder at the Sunni fighting with the Shiite?
Or the Catholics and the Protestants?
our entire species is MAD I tell you!
350
… the Sunni fighting with the Shiite … Or the Catholics and the Protestants?
Which would make this site, the Coptic Church … ?
Good analogy, Rod. 😉
71
I find it particularly telling that, after having spent hours on the WUWT thread in question, with increasing feeling of distaste finally bordering on nausea, that Anthony, as far as I could notice, made no attempt to instill some measure of civility into the behaviour of his two favourites. After all, it is his blog? This is no credit to him. Leif and Willis? My word.. what can one say. In this entire affair it is clear that the only agenda is that of the hubris, self-importance and juvenile jealousy of the two ‘gentlemen’ in question. This is my restrained version. I am really trying.
I find Jo and David’s thinking here elegant and pursuasive. A breath of fresh air. Can’t wait to see how it all pans out in the long term. Bravo!
611
Leif and Willis?
I think, in the interests of fair and free exchange of ideas, that they both need to turn over a new Leif.
90
Truthseeker is being a little hard on Anthony Watts, who maintains a superb blog with great subtlety and care. He is, as we all are, a little nervous of allowing hose who say there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect to be given coverage, for they are unduly aggressive and – in my experience of them, monstrously unscientific in their approach. Likewise, I can understand his hesitation about whether the orbital cycles of the major planets affect the Sun and, through it, the Earth’s climate, though for various reasons I am open to the possibility that some connection may exist. The skeptical science at WUWT is – and needs to be seen to be – mainstream science: i.e., open to new ideas, but only if they are properly scientific.
4318
Furthermore, it’s important for WUWT not to feed the already popular meme of “skeptics” actually being fake skeptics that blindly jump onto any hypothesis that doesn’t place CO2 at the forefront. Also, let’s not forget some of the other regular contributors to WUWT like Robert Brown and Jim Steele.
That being said there does seem to be overly zealous attacks on anything that might suggest cycles in GAST especially with any sort of solar connection. I personally wish more time would be taken to consider new ideas before drawing conclusions and taking sides (do we really have to have sides?). I’m not an EE, so I’m still in undecided territory with regard to this new idea of Dr. Evans. I have to read, re-read, think about it, re-re-read, mull it over, re-re-re-read, contemplate, re-re-re-re-read, consider, re-re-re-re-re read, re-consider, re-re-re-re-re-re read, cogitate, re-re-re-re-re-re-re read, ruminate, re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re read, deliberate, re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re read, research, re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re read, investigate, re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re read, and finally come to a tentative conclusion based on the available evidence and information at hand but subject to change with additional data. FWIW, I find Willis’ thermostat hypothesis compelling but incomprehensive, TSI component influence tragically under investigated, and data sets woefully inadequate for satisfactory cycle determinations.
171
Well, I trained as an Electrical Engineer, and the first questions you always ask are: What does my input look like; what output is required; and, what is my power source, and how stable is it?
If you don’t have a power source, nothing works. It is a fundamental necessity. If your power source wanders all over the place, and is full of noise; it impacts the quality of the output unless you take serious steps to stop it happening.
It seems to me that most of the mainstream climate scientists have been assuming that the sun is just there, and that its output remains constant. I think David knows better.
491
Rereke,
Insightful, no engineer uses an assumption of a flat response of a system with frequency either. Leif Svalgaard seems completely opposed to the idea that subcomponents of TSI could have similar or more influence on temperature than TSI as whole.
Paint a wall green and shine a white light on it, gee a frequency selective absorber, the wall warms up. Now take that light, don’t change the power but make it green, the wall gets colder. Why? Green walls don’t absorb green light. (they reflect it). Increase or decrease the power of the green light – no effect, the green light isn’t absorbed anyway. Conversely take the same white light,but make it red, the wall gets warmer, becuase what was before lost to green reflection is now being absorbed.
A much better model would be to divide TSI into buckets based on the influence on temperature.
230
I’m only a civil engineer, I know a lot about concrete, and electricity has always been white man’s magic to me.
However, I have studied acoustics and the sound frequency/amplitude does make a similar if different analogy. Sound will reflect and refract off a hard surface with the original wave form intact. The only way a substance can absorb part or all of the sound frequency is to convert that sound into heat. Different substances are sensitive to different frequencies.
So if the sun is a sound source, and you measure the sound reflection from world (the world having a soft atmosphere and a hard surface underneath). You would expect the atmosphere to absorb the high frequencies and let the lower frequencies pass through ( very hard to stop low bass sounds *duf*duf*duf*. Which is pretty close to what the atmosphere does with light.
10
And that is very insightful. Energy works as energy does. But it is all energy, at the end of the day, and it has to obey the rules. Especially the one about conservation.
10
I still like mains power with big caps and linear regulators for my most sensitive circuits.
00
I certainly don’t read it that Jo Nova has a problem with WUWT. I believe WUWT has made an amazing contribution to ‘fighting the good fight’ for diligence, accuracy and openness in climate science. I don’t even think Jo or David have any problem whatsoever about the questions and criticisms being raised about the new solar theory. In fact I’d be very surprised if they hadn’t expected it.
What I think is most disappointing is some lack of courtesy, and the readiness to make statements where questions should have been asked instead.
Anthony Watts can hardly be held responsible for that. Just as Jo Nova shouldn’t be held responsible for what the commenters at this site believe.
591
Well said, Jaymez. My thoughts exactly.
40
Absolutely correct Jaymez – It’s obvious Jo and David did expect questions, disagreement, criticism, disagreement and perhaps even abuse and so their staged disclosure with an effort to answer. Their common responses have been “read what we said!”, “wait for the rest of the information”, “try to look at the idea from this perspective” etc. Their responses are, by enlarge, clarifying, constructive and helpful much to their credit.
It is sad and very disappointing if indeed Wills and Leif have ‘shot from the hip’ and not used the proper scientific approach because Jo and David clearly want this new hypothesis to get all the CONSTRUCTIVE criticism available from friend or foe – anybody who can approach with an OPEN and enquiring mind.
CONGRATS David and Jo for your restraint, patience and perseverance wrong or right your approach is admirable.
160
The obsessive-compulsive thought-policing that has taken over WUWT is a case of cure worse than disease.
In particular:
The solar-climate thought-policing is corrupt and intolerable. It’s strictly at odds with observation, so it can’t be defended as “scientific”.
You guys need to sober up and face this honestly. If you won’t, you’re part of the problem.
221
Paul,
Which guys are you talking about? Those conducting the thought-policing, or the regulars on this site?
41
Monckton of Brenchley
Basically I agree with you but I think AW would have done his blog a great service if he had stopped Willis E’s continual ranting on this subject which went on for a few days. Several of us ,and especially your contributions, tried to explain in a civil manner about the matter of when the data and code would be released. But his ego and arrogance got the better of him. It made WUWT look bad and I’m not surprised at some of the comments above.
310
Monckton of Brenchley WUWT June 28,2014 12:58 pm
“Mr Svalgaard, having been caught out in a false, nasty, libellous allegation against the blameless Dr Evans, fails to have the grace to apologize when his error is drawn to his attention. ”
“Mr Svalgaard, confronted with the near-identity of the official IPCC graph and Dr Evans’ graph, must now apologize publicly and without reserve and without further circumlocution, evasion, excuse or delay, or forever forfeit all scientific credibility.”
Mr. Svalgaard, has not so far apologized!
BTW, He also looks like a duck, walks like a duck.
182
Good Lord, what I am really saying is that Watts does not seem to hold his inner circle to the sames standards he seems to demand of everyone else. By the way, if you think an argument is nonsense, the best thing to do is to let it be argued so that the nonsense can be made plain for everyone to see. Shutting an argument down is an indication that your theory is weak. Strong argumensts stand up to scrutiny. Weak ones do not.
210
Truthseeker,
You look at the issues from the perspective of “seeking the truth”. It is how science ought to be, not how climatology is pursued.
Anthony Watts (like most of us) has formulated his own views on climate. I think it is fair to say that this comes through in some of the output. That said, Wattsupwiththat also serves a forum for a range of skeptical views, some of which he is not completely in sympathy with. It is also hugely useful for latest published papers, particularly when they go against the mainstream.
I do not worry about robust arguments, even when they are wrong. Countering them encourages refinement of your own case. Open exchanges lead to the development of science. Contrast this with the climate consensus, where trying to even understand a different point of view is taken as apostacy. That has led to dogma, utterly banal language and crackpot ideas being swallowed without question. The result has been a failure of the science to advance in the last twenty years, either in quality or direction.
70
I agree,
The most that AW’s moderators should have done is pounce on the incivility, Anthony is not the problem, he presents a pretty balanced view, for example he published the Archibald post to begin with. Both LS and WE have taken a huge beating over the thread, the reputation of both of them has been severly undermined by their own actions. Lord M’s (and my own) action over there are pretty much limited to pointing out how they discredit themselves though their display of arrogance.
There was also an unnerving group dynamic in the thread, Leif, and Willis have plenty of groupies, to egg them on.
Lord Monckton, I have to say I was really impressed by your willingness to out the injustice in Leif and Willis’ positions. Injustice, bullying, lies and government overreach are my biggest gripes. You sure you don’t want to stand for the seat of Wright in Australia instead? Maybe UKIP needs an antipodean branch…
140
You may think that ,but given the pause, plateau , is it conceivable that perhaps the Slayers are , if not correct, have a a more realistic view grounded in basic physics than the deniers of thermodynamics?
The slayers have science in their favour. = CO2 has not been the cause of global warming. Moreover every single model predicting AWG has failed.
Good luck to David and Jo but until they produce the data they will be subject to abuse.
If it is rocket science then good , if not the
n
Look forward to more derision from the id iotic clowns promoting their own agenda
31
Watts is so open to disputation that he abused me for saying ‘look at the graphs, figs 4 c,d,e… There is an uptick’ to which he and his fans had no answer other than repeated abuse, to the point that he repudiated the data he had highighted for discussion in two sections, now declaring it “miniutae”, telling the person who has the temerity to disagree to “pull your head out of your rear end” and that he is now tired of the repeated disputation but not the repeated abusive comments to which the reply was made, then is aghast when his own personal abuse is turned back on him, banning me from his blog.
43
Lordy, Lordy Lordy.
You’re not looking for sympathy I hope?
I doubt that you will find much in these parts.
[snip. You made your point, no need to go that far. Mod oggi]
00
Not looking for sympathy Rod, merely disputing the statement:
“I believe WUWT has made an amazing contribution to ‘fighting the good fight’ for diligence, accuracy and openness in climate science.”
12
Christopher Monckton writes:
” I can understand his hesitation about whether the orbital cycles of the major planets affect the Sun and, through it, the Earth’s climate”
If it was just ‘hesitation’ then Anthony would still have me alongside. Instead, he got all biblical and told me “You are now a Pariah”, and cast me, and a number of world class scientists like Jan-Eric Solheim, Niklas Morner and Nicola Scafetta into the outer darkness.
Well nuts to that, there has to be a rational explanation for the regular as clockwork series of 45 year separated beach ridges found on the post glacially uplifting beaches around Hudson bay and the Siberian coastline. Anthony averts his eyes from this multi billion ton elephant in the room, I’ve asked him several times what he thinks their cause is, and he has ducked the question every time. Not very scientific.
Rick Salvador, one of our research group is continuing to develop our solar-planetary model, which now does a nice job of replicating 4000 years of TSI reconstruction with the orbital periods of a few planets and their principle harmonics:
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/salvador4k-fit2.png
When we run the model forwards in time, we find the same solar slowdown several other researchers including David Evans have found.
Does Anthony, Leif or any of the co2 driven climate aficionados have a model which hindcasts this well?
No.
Do we claim to have the scientific truth yet?
No.
So why the venom and nastiness?
Leif Svalgaard accuses David Evans of “having an agenda”. This is projection.
100
David’s ONLY agenda is trying to understand how the climate system works.
Pity Leif et al seem to have another agenda. (Whatever that agenda may be)
When you see LS teaming up with SM, you can get a pretty good idea though.
20
SM?
00
Mosh
20
“It is getting more and more clear that WUWT have become a victim of their own success and have decided to be the gatekeeper for all that is “skeptical”.”
I have worried this for some time and in fact rather shyly suggested it in comments to this Blog a few months ago. (No takers on that one!)
Primarily because of AW’s expressed contempt for, and more-or-less banishment of the Dragon Slayers, whom I have some sympathy with; which I thought an immoderate reaction. But his attitude is now bleeding out into other alternative schools of skeptics.
Let’s hope we skeptics don’t self-destruct because of internal schisms – history shows similar parallels, usually with unfortunate outcomes.
260
Agreed: he associates those who argue similarly to the Slayers, as linked to the slayers, so delays posts.
The problem is that being a Meteorologist taught false ‘back radiation’ physics, he is a luke-warmist.
161
Sorry, but back radiation (scatter) is quite a reasonable internal description of a system, but it is completely unnecessary. The filament of a light globe wrapped in alfoil does get hotter. If you do what David does and bound the system properly you don’t need back radiation (scatter) though, back radiation just confuses matters, which in the end just relies on nett energy in to nett energy out. Put back-radiation into the black box and it goes away.
Nett in VS Nett out is how it’s always been done, and I see no need to change.
41
You’ve got it completely wrong.
1. Net IR emission of the Earth’s surface in the main GHG bands is zero; radiative physics 101 – Irradiances add as vectors at a plane so because the main GHG bands are self-absorbed and their amplitude is the same as that of the black body surface, they mutually annihilate.
2. The remaining net GHG IR, in the non self absorbed H2O bands, the 23 W/m^2, is absorbed by atmospheric humidity but none of this energy can thermalise; that would breach Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation and the Law of Equipartition of Energy, straightforward statistical thermodynamics giving quantum exclusion. Thermalisation of GHG-absorbed net energy can only take place at ‘Planck cavities’ at the surface of condensed matter.
3. Therefore there is no direct back radiation from the atmosphere and that which is indirect is too small to matter, even as an ‘impedance to Space’.
If you don’t know the above physics, read up the physics so you stop parroting IPCC nonsense.
110
if you grow veggies in a northern temperate zone in the fall, you know that clouds can make a difference whether you need to wrap the vines to protect them from frost during the night.
this has nothing to do with psittacines or international fraud or misperception of reality.
it’s first hand, empirical observation. hope this helps you with that.
now, do you need some help distinguishing a person from a parrot?
10
70 years or so ago, Meteorologists devised the idea of ‘back radiation’ based on the real observation that the presence of clouds caused ground temperature to rise. However, their argument that the clouds emitted a real IR energy flux to the ground was totally wrong. Instead, the ground emits less IR to the sky in the ‘atmospheric window’, the 40 w/m^2 in the 2009 ‘Energy budget’.
The reason for this is that the cloud has a higher temperature than the cosmic microwave background of Space, so reduces aw IR emission by c. 85%. Because the same amount of heat has to leave the ground, its temperature rises to ensure convection plus evapo-transpiration plus IR remains the same.
Another issue is that no body emits net IR at the Stefan-Boltmann rate, the ‘Irradiance’, except to a sink at absolute zero. Irradiance, what is measured by a pyrgeometer, is a potential energy flux, not a real flux.
Meteorology and Atmospheric Science textbooks need rewriting. the degree course teaching must be brought up to data with standard physics. There is no ‘back radiation’; to claim it exists is to fail to understand the difference between ‘Irradiance’ and a real IR flux.
This bad physics must be eliminated otherwise we’ll persist in this fake IPCC Climate Scam.
142
i guess you know that a pyrgeometer uses a thermopile and that a thermopile directly converts heat to voltage.
when i burn my neighbor’s ants at 100 paces with my 30W CO2 laser, they are not irradiancing or even river dancing. they are cooking.
so thanks for the reply. i think i’ve got it sussed now.
btw- a funny notion- the hadith’s say a man should sit to pee.
i was wondering- if a guy is wearing a jellaba, does he really need to be told?
i decided i would never tell- just so it would be easy to recognize a dummy at a distance from the wet spot.
01
The pyrgeometer thermopile converts the cooling of the sensor in radiative equilibrium with the same temperature atmosphere** to a voltage. That voltage is then converted by a calibration constant to the difference of pyrgeometer irradiance and atmospheric Irradiance. The irradiance difference, a negative value, is added to the theoretical pyrgeometer Irradiance estimated from its temperature. The output is an estimate of the atmospheric Irradiance.
**The sensor equlibrates by emitting aw and non self-absorbed H2O band IR until its temperature fall is sufficient for the IR energy from the interior plus convection from the interior is at steady state equilibrium. Thermistors are used to offset the convective signal by a complex algorithm.
This is not a good instrument. A bolometer is absolute; a thermally resistive semiconductor is a good substitute: both of these are cooled detectors so are a lot better.
41
Yes: my grandparents had a vacuum 25 W lamp which was made in WW1. It was so dim you fell into the bottom stair at night.
10
turnedoutnice:
So you think a molecule has to check with the future to see what the final destination of the radiation is going to be before deciding how much to emit.
LOL.
The confidence and certainty with which anonymous posters assert their napkin science conclusions never ceases to amaze.
10
It has absolutely nothing to do with back-radiation. The filament gets hotter because convective cooling is stopped.
It is impossible for a cool body to transfer energy to a hotter body.
61
What is the convective medium? The inside of a light globe is a near vacuum, so how does that work?
21
Electric lamps are gas filled, with argon. This is needed to reduce evaporation of the tungsten filament. An added halogen is also used in some.
‘Back radiation’ does not exist because in a system with two plane emitters, in radiative equilibrium, the net energy transfer at each wavelength is set by the Poynting Vector of a travelling wave with the difference of amplitudes of the two emitters. This is superimposed on a standing wave of amplitude twice that of the cooler emitter. This standing wave transfers no energy flux.
The idea that every body continuously emits IR energy at the S-B flux, which comes from a misunderstanding about the ‘two stream approximation’, is an abomination of radiative physics. It has never been proved experimentally. It is an artificial construct. If you believe it, expunge the term ‘back radiation’ from your mind by learning the real physics: qdot = – DIV Fv where qdot is the monochromatic heating of matter per unit volume and Fv is the monochromatic radiation flux density.
This is the statement of Conservation of Energy between matter and the aether and idiots who believe in the Perpetual Motion Machine of the 2nd Kind in the Trenberth and Kiehl Energy budget should be banished back to the class room with the rest of the 12 year olds, until they learn this basic principle of science.
Do I make my point clear?……:0)
110
Absolutely!
You made the point much better than I could have done. I was just hoping to suck Jock into a bit of a hole, and then start him digging.
BTW the original Edison light globes were vacuum filled (now there is an oxymoron for you). That was in the good old days, prior to the Argonauts. 🙂
20
PS the reason why an Al foil wrapped lamp gets hotter is because the operational radiative emissivity of the foil is much less than that of the glass bulb.
50
“…the real physics: qdot = – DIV Fv where qdot is the monochromatic heating of matter per unit volume and Fv is the monochromatic radiation flux density.”
How does – DIV Fv vary in the presence of cloud?
00
Your critique paints with perhaps too broad a brush, missing nuances. Not allowing slayer arguments is probably appropriate. Goddards computational method concerning infilling was wrong. That does not mean the other proofs of data alteration by simple comparisons were wrong, and Anthony apologized for missing the bigger point. Given that this blog and his blog are purely volunteer ‘spare time’ efforts, it is not surmising that the quality will vary. What is disappointing is the frequent lack of quality in the comments. But that is the Internet, where faceless/anonymous interactions seem to abet uncivilized conduct all too frequently.
186
“Goddards computational method concerning infilling was wrong.”
You are now doing here the, same as WUWT. Goddards computational method is correct for what he was using it for. You like “anomalies”, that may be better for the ocasional error in measurement, but completely covers up an deliberate attempt to push trends in a particular direction.
Bad data shall be discarded, never adjusted by any means.
241
Will, you miss nuances. The method Goddard used for the hockey stick finding is mathematically correct but gives a misleadingly wrong answer. I am well aware of the differences between Actuals and anomalies. Wrote an essay on that; anomalies can be used to hide fiddles. And whether your last sentence is correct depends on the circumstances. Your watch is off a couple of minutes; you don’t discard it (silly example). This post by Jo on a matter different in substance but not style is otmthe place to debate Goddard, other than to note that the temp data David used has the past unjustifiably cooled, which might make the model oversensitivity. This is something he has already posted well aware of.
The better issue is Leif’s dissing of TSI change. I went and read everything suggested here and elsewhere, for example on the background suggestions on instrument drift and such. Have concluded that JO and Dave have taken a reasonable approach using mainstream, long accepted data, being clear how they are processing it. If the data is bad (temps, TSI) that may challenge their conclusions but not their process. That data was not, is not, and will never be their responsibility.
And, all the auguries say their prediction will likely prove much more correct than CMIP5. Which will rather end the big background discussion.
56
Rud,
For crying out loud. Go and actually read the work that Goddard has done. He is not using or calculating anomolies. He is not interested in anomolies. He is not doing an analysis of climate trends over time. He is just showing the increasing proportion of USHCN reported data is being made up of estimates rather than observations and those estimates show a increasing warming trend that does not exist in the observational data.
Try some basic language comprehension before making incorrect statements in public.
230
Rud Istvan
July 2, 2014 at 9:09 am
Well if you are in bomb disposal and your watch is off by a couple of minutes…. Your data gets discarded for you….. quite messily.
Yes, I know, I’m arguing over analogies. But it pays to think clearly right through a process.
30
Rud,
Steven Goddard is not doing any computation on infilling data. If you believe that you are just believing the straw men created over at WUWT. Steven is just comparing RAW, UNADJUSTED data (you know, the stuff scientists are meant to work with) and comparing that to the FINAL REPORTED data and has found an increasing warming trend due to the fabrication of data where “estimated” values are used to fill in the empty data slots where there are no observational values. There is no computation other than averaging of values over time. Steven Goddard has meticulously documentated and analysed the effect of these “estimates” and to the consistent practive of adjusting previously reported data so that the past becomes cooler and the present becomes warmer. Try going to his site and actually reading what he has done.
240
This is why I have moved WUWT to the forth climate blog I now read. YeeHawwww Jo and David!
230
I think you are exaggerating. Watts allows for David Archibald and other people that disagree with Leif and Willis to make guest posts, so you can’t say they are censoring everything. And you can’t claim the the guys at PRP were angels. They did what they did, Watts and other people thought it was wrong. No alarmist trick, really.
21
Re pt3 of Truthseeker Prof Claes Johnson is to be awarded the Ludwig Prandtl medal for his wprk in aerodynamics showing Prandtl’s equations were incorrect (http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/perspective-on-prandtl-medal-model-vs.html ). Prof Johnson’s view about cut-off frequencies of the Planck curve for radiation to explain the 2nd law of Thermodynamics makes a lot of sense. Maybe he will be proved correct in this as well and be on the way to a Nobel prize in Physics ( should be engineering science or mathematics but there are none)
10
I wouldn’t go that far. The post that started that tread wasn’t all that critical of the theory. Just some of the comments. Frankly I’d rather have somewhere we can have an open (and boisterous) debate.
[That’s what ‘unthreaded’ days are for Schizree, as long as you play nice. – Mod]
00
Those types of reasons are why I sadly abandoned WUWT – victims of their own success
00
Poetry is a blood sport.
Eugene WR Gallun
20
Whats up with that Willis?
I am claiming the above headline!It is mine ! Although I allow anyone to use it since it is funny.
Anyway who or what is a willis?
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/10/who-is-willis-eschenbach.html
10
I did try to warn you about the blogosphere. It has cesspools as well as inspiring high points. Flame wars are hard to pull yourself out of, but hopefully Leif and Willis will pull out of their tail spin.
They may not. I have seen sane, calm people snap and never return to steady state. Remember, you can only control yourself in these moments. If they are unreasonable, ignore them.
Keep up the good work, and simply rebut the claims as they did here. I have also been the brunt of skeptic arrogance. Older scientists do get set in their ways and beliefs – they are after all only human. Leif cherry picked his window of data and came up wanting. Sadly similar to the alarmists who don’t look back to the LIA and see the record lows we are recovering from.
BTW, been researching my Earth’s molten core theory behind Force X and hope to blog on it soon. One tool we engineers use in our logical process is the deductive filter – which eliminates possible sources. This way you can cull out a lot of false paths and, like Sherlock Holmes, you may find the only answer left is the one it MUST be.
230
Hey Jo and David, someone offered this bet if anyone wants to take it up. I don’t have that kind of money, maybe a bunch of us could share in it. I have $100 to throw at it, otherwise I will buy more ‘chocolate’.
Read more: http://bit.ly/1pAJfLj Physicist Christopher Keating is giving away prize money to anyone who can use the scientific method to show man-made climate change isn’t happening.
00
Jo, David,
Have you ever come across work on the way the solar magnetic field couples with the earth magnetic field. I would expect to see some different climatic behavior when the two fields are oriented in parallel as opposed to being pointing in opposite directions.
150
No, we’ve only got the model the detected force X, but don’t have any firm idea of what it is.
We will be crowd sourcing force X in a post pretty soon now (it was scheduled for last Saturday, but our time has been taken up with responding to certain people).
351
David,
looking forward to this. Dr. S at WUWT just went all out to stamp UV variance in the solar record flat 😉
“When you’re taking flak, you’re over the target”
100
Yes, I did ask at WUWT whether Leif was seriously suggesting that the peak of cycle 24 was not significantly less than the peak of cycle 23.
Sometimes I think that when Leif is feeling that his position is weak he engages in misdirection. Comparing today with 2003 rather than the 23 peak with the 24 peak appeared to be just such an attempt.
As for that sudden ‘adjustment’ it really does look like an attempt to bolster the idea that solar activity has been declining significantly for longer than the pre adjustment charts indicated. That tends to make the 23 to 24 drop look less substantial than previously which appears to be an attempt to bolster Leif’s attempt to minimise the size of the drop from 23 to 24.
Taking that with all those suspect temperature adjustments revealed by Steven Goddard and others it really does seem that nothing was learned from the Climategate farrago.
450
Now I see below that Leif is comparing minima with minima. Minima do not vary much.
Anything other than comparing maxima with maxima.
170
I am sitting here wondering, when did semantics became a branch of science?
110
Sorry to burst your bubble but 7t has always been thus
10
Which seems to sum up most of the arguments presented by the Learned Gentlemen and Ladies of the climate change fraternity.
60
Leif Svalgaard is far too up himself. He has a nasty disposition to anybody or anything that is contrary to his ‘understanding’. Watts should cut him loose from poster boy status at WUWT.
192
Leif’s a real pip. He really imbodies the Viking spirit when it comes to his passion for solar science. What leif ISN’T however is a AGW skeptic. He’s made it clear he doesn’t support much of any of the skeptic arguments for solar being the primary driver for recent warming. What makes him WUWT’s solar guru is that he provides a lot of easy to read graphs on solar dynamics on his webpage’ and he’s willing to come to WUWT to argue his opinion.
Personal, I’m glad Leif is a regular there, even if I don’t agree with all of his opinions.
40
Another graph of TSI that goes back before Leif’s starting point..
Shows pretty clearly that the peak was in about 2001. Leif just started in 2003 iirc., WELL AFTER THE 2001 PEAK..
(This slightly older graph finishes in early 2010, but you can see that it is essentially the same over its range as the 2nd figure in the post.)
171
“finishes in early 2010” DOH! early 2011 !!
41
As an amateur (ham) radio operator I would agree with a 2001 peak. We hams rely on sunspots to provide reliable world wide communications on HF. 2001 was definitely the peak from our point of view.
Ron (call sign VK3JRC)
R-Coo- K+
“born to be a chemist”
180
Jo, David, A word of encouragement; keep up your good work. I don’t claim to understand all your theories but what I do understand fits in with my knowledge base.
Cheers
Ron (an AGW skeptic forever)
R-COO- K+
230
Let’s see a sudden change of temperature in the stratosphere in 2001, and compare with Ap in this cycle.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2001.gif
Now it looks like this.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2013.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2014.gif
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/Ap.gif
30
TSI falling since 2003. When did the temperature data stop rising?
60
The temperature started its slight downward trend at the beginning of 2001.
50
Good question. Probably a bit more useful is to ask when TSI/Temp peaked. Apparently about 1984 -1986 for the former, and 1998 for the latter. Lockwood and Frolich spoke of a 1987 peak. But on the graphs above, the peak in TSI lead the peak in temps (complicated by El Nino and volcanoes) by 12 -14 years. But then, probably we need an 11 year smoothed temperature graph, rather than a single El Nino year.
80
Back in 2007 I began telling everyone that the jet stream tracks had stopped becoming more poleward/zonal and started becoming more equatorward/meridional from about 2000.
Meanwhile it was being said that the poleward drift up to then was induced by our emissions and permanent.
140
The jetstream being more North and South lately:
http://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/francis_amplification.png
Which I think of as a cooling mode. The cause of this is unknown but may have coincided with a regime change.
50
Thank you for your help and encouragement (and your patience).
PS: I fixed the blinking image of the changes to the TSI SORCE/TIM graph (third graph).
110
You have been unbelievably gracious in the midst of all this. I am not always so calm.
I had a few further words here: http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/the-solar-model-finds-a-big-fall-in-tsi-data-that-few-seem-to-know-about/#comment-1499713
60
I stopped discussing this with Willis about a week ago. Not long after I got a sneer at “EE understanding”. I really don’t get it. There seem to be a multitude of experts in a domain they don’t understand.
I kind of get it though – unless you use the kind of analysis David is using to make a living you don’t feel it in your bones.
160
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/10/who-is-willis-eschenbach.html
02
If you do not understand the language it is just gibberish.
40
Unfortunately this type of perspective among scientists seems to be ever more common, especially the more “known” the scientist is, or thinks they are. We definitely have those who are more interested in proving themselves right, protecting their pet hypothesis, or preserving their reputation and therefore their ability to obtain grants than anything else.
Science can only be a “bloodsport” when one approaches it as a competition where the goal is to win at any cost. In the halls of academia I have no doubt that is what it has turned into which says quite a bit about how reliable those scientists, or any scientist who holds such a competitive view, should be considered.
When getting the grant, being selected for the award, etc. is the real goal what else should we expect?
190
Or is it just plain ordinary jealousy, envy, covetousness, resentment, suspicion, distrust, resentfulness, or all those things??
320
Could be, we are after all only human and history has shown those to be strong motivators for we human types.
90
I read MOST of what went on over at WUWT and both Svalgaard and Eschenbach carried on like little SPOILT CHILDREN.
If either one of them were a child of mine they would be doing “corner time”!!
Monckton was very sophisticated and polite in his defense of David (and Jo). I don’t know that I would have lasted the distance without calling them (Svalgaard and Eschenbach) for what they truly are.
How many times does one have to ask them to wait for the complete release of David’s theory BEFORE they go into melt down?
Rude Bas…ds!!
Cheers,
380
Haven’t gone there and don’t intend to. One of them is here now and it isn’t hard to see his arrogance. Egos are nasty things, one of the reasons I prefer people in very small numbers when I deal with them, I have my own demons to tend with I don’t need to tend with theirs as well.
110
Willis appears to be hugely impatient, and almost intolerant of anything/anybody getting in the way.
I’m sitting on my mouth (mostly!) because I want to see it all, complete. Then I will go away to a quiet place and go through it from start to finish and think about it.
FWIW, this little mudball (Planet Earth) orbits it’s parent star, the Sun, Sol, deep inside its atmosphere in the `Goldilocks zone’ where water mostly remains liquid. The parent star is known to be a variable star. Why are we surprised at Climate Change?
Svensmark et al have/are investigating the atmospheric effects of some GCRs (Galactic Cosmic Rays), particularly the secondary rays (muons) produced at the top of the atmosphere. His ideas about cloud cover modulation are supported by experiment (SKY etc and to a degree, Kirkby’s CLOUD experiment at CERN with a notable paper on aerosols (press release))
When the Sun’s magnetic output declines, the high energy GCR flux increases with a consequent increase in cooling cloud cover.
On the greatest cycle of them all, 250 MY or so long, Shaviv points to a possible link between the Solar System’s crossing of galactic spiral arms on its orbit of the galaxy as a contributor or cause of the gross fluctuations (to Ice Age or not to Ice Age.)
The Milankovic Cycles are also implicated, their footprint seems to appear with some clarity (to Stadial or InterStadial?) and most of their effect seems to require an Ice Age.
Dr. Evan’s hypothesis is intriguing as it provides the possibility of a concrete local (solar system) mechanism which can be measured and, particularly, tested.
The sum of these musings suggests to me there is much ado in the climate arena with no one variable as a primary cause of CC (Climate Change — my version), with the possible exception of Shaviv’s idea, but several. The Ice Age is the extreme cycle, but within each Ice Age there are Stadials (glaciations) and Interstadials (Warmings).
How much is contributed by each? When?
What happens when they are all out of phase with each other?
What phases of each are necessary to produce what climate change, eg
—another glaciation?
—another warming?
Maybe, instead of arguing over and being distracted by each side show in this fair, we should making the connections, finding the links, and measuring their contributions, if they contribute …
80
I think CV – or Climate Variation, is more appropriate.
30
Wrong phrasing. I should have used:
… are partially supported by experiment.
I note his experimentation in this area continues, as the original SKY experiment did not make a full and indisputable link between cloud formation droplets and the charged nuclear debris of the tropospheric collisions of the muons and atmospheric molecules.
30
More importantly, Svensmark has a paper out on the influence of local supernovae on marine biodiversity and climate. The results are quite surprising:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.2963
The paper has been published now, but is accessible at arxiv.
00
It’s a very interesting paper, and is worth reading.
10
Jo,
Chin up. It’s hard finding yourself relentlessly criticised, particularly when you believe you are correct. You would expect them to be more gracious in any comments they make. I was pleased to see the dear Lord standing up for you.
It is interesting how some people are so precious about their area of speciality. Leif in the solar system, and Willis in data analysis.
It is sad to see that Leif won’t have a bar of Svensmark, and his theories. I am afraid he won’t have too many friends if he thinks science is a blood sport, and when he is so stubbornly blinkered to other scientists views.
Wills likes pulling other peoples theories apart, but tread into his area and all hell breaks loose. As one other commentor said – some jealously there? Many of us have been “rained on” by Wills, and so don’t take it to heart. Let the water run of the ducks back.
Regards.
180
To see what is going on with solar “activity” and when it peaked – just use the Oulu neutron count instead of TSI. See e.g. Fig 9 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html
This will eliminate all the discussion about spot counting methods etc. Also the minima are more clearly defined especially the 23/24 minimum low relative to earlier cycles.
110
Further observations .The same Fig 9 shows the solar activity peak about 1991. Add on the 12 year delay for this to appear in the global temperatures and it corresponds to the roll over of the 1000 year quasi periodicity in the global temperatures in about 2003
See the MWP and modern peaks in the temperatures in Fig 3 at the same link.
70
Great idea but perhaps better to look here. Do not forget to invert all you see.
http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/common/All_CR_stations_M.htm
10
Thanks for links – In general these data make my point even more clearly on runs longer than my Fig 9.
40
For a good quick look, the Moscow one. Click the link then hit the monthly button.
http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/mosc/main.htm
31
Nice.
30
Siligy – If you want to see the 20th century solar maximum ie that the sun was more active in the 20th century than at any time in the last 600 years see the 10Be concentration and flux in the Dye3 ice core at Fig1 at
http://www.eawag.ch/forschung/surf/publikationen/2009/2009_berggren.pdf
The climate modelers and certain astrophysicists have a limitless ability to ignore the obvious, have no idea of how to deal with the science of complex systems and lack even common sense.
100
Thanks am already comparing Fig 1 to this.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/the-brutal-cold-of-the-maunder-minimum-and-the-great-irish-frost/
20
The Irish frost of 1739 -41 was actually the result of the eruption of Mt Tarumae in Northern Japan in Aug 1739. It shouldn’t show up in the 10Be data. The Maunder minimum and Dalton minimum both show up quite well.
00
After reading that through the enthusiasm quitens down. 30 percent affected by local weather. Worse the two data sets contradict each other about important stuff like how many solarcycles there have been. While they do both peak just a cycle or two before 1739, the authors note a common spike in 1460 and yes the volcanic activity about the place went mad then too.
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/Kuwae27.pdf
00
[…] Leif Svalgaard claims “TSI has not fallen since 2003″. It’s technically true, but completely misleading when discussing 11 year smoothed trends (which is written on the graph they are criticizing). […]
50
Most/all scientists are biased, as someone famous once said. biased towards their own work. Trying to pick your way through the swamp is very difficult. And for we very scientist there is another that disagree with them and their theory.
KBO
40
I’m going all-in on Jo Nova and David Evans.
Eugene WR Gallun
50
I think the real problem is using TSI rather than trying to pin down the source of solar variability on the weather/climate more specifically. I know in your article acknowledges this but by using TSI you’ve invited the criticism. The UV portion of solar irradiance does vary by more than 10% http://www.pages.unibe.ch/download/docs/meeting-products/presentations/2012-1st-solar-forcing-wshop/woods.pdf and it has a tremendous effect on the height of the thermosphere around the earth. I believe that shortly after solar minimum in Dec. 2008, NASA measured the lowest atmospheric height since it started measurements in the 1950’s. I suspect that a shallower atmosphere may magnify some of the polar oscillations leading to cold air pouring out of the poles into the temperate latitudes but this is just a gut feel based upon what I’ve read. These changes will be overlaid with the ocean driven changes in wind patterns so sorting out the real drivers in the solar, atmospheric, ocean coupled system will be difficult.
50
Sean The best proxy for solar activity is the Neutron count and the 10Be record. It is not necessary to specify the mechanism in order to make predictions. See my comment #16.In the link given there
I say
” Furthermore Fig 8 ( in the link in comment#16) shows that the cosmic ray intensity time series derived from the 10Be data is the most useful proxy relating solar activity to temperature and climate. – see Fig 3 CD from Steinhilber
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/30/1118965109.full.pdf
NOTE !! the connection between solar “activity” and climate is poorly understood and highly controversial. Solar ” activity” encompasses changes in solar magnetic field strength, IMF, CRF, TSI ,EUV,solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events etc. The idea of using the neutron count as a useful proxy for changing solar activity and temperature forecasting is agnostic as to the physical mechanisms involved.”
80
A thermoluminescence chart from before the fudging (1990).
Lots of interesting 1730/40ish spikes here and a big roll off toward the current time end.
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1990SoPh..127..357C/0000362.000.html
[Try THIS link. Mod oggi]
00
Siliggy,
Your reference URL seems to be corrupt.
00
Hmmm paste the whole thing in and it works. I think wordpress just does not like “..”
Search “Title: On the solar origin of the thermoluminescence profile of the GT14 core
Authors: Cini Castagnoli, G., Bonino, G., Provenzale, A., & Serio, M.” “The Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System” and click on the fulltext article when you get there. Then find page 362.
00
Try this. Click here.
00
Dr NP
Fig 1 in the PDF you link to clearly shows all solar activity up at the end of last century as you say but here is a twist.
What if the TSI and Neutron counts can be shown at times to contradict each other but Svensmark’s main theory turns out to be correct?
Here is another good one.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/Ap-Index%20Since199001.gif
Sean
I like to remind people what it was that brought Skylab down.
00
Siligy As you are probably aware , I think the best clue as to the future is to know where we are relative to the 1000 year quasi – periodicity.
For a geologist’s view of the climate question watch Luenings presentation
http://notrickszone.com/2014/06/29/german-geologist-ipcc-models-a-failure-have-no-chance-of-success-sees-possible-0-2c-of-cooling-by-2020/
I don’t know what your German is like but follow the slides. Note especially the spectral analysis at about 10:48.
20
Are these guys really worth an entire thread?
I think that both should just go and study something they might get good at….. like painting garden gnomes (one can just do self portraits).
120
I left that discussion a long time ago. It was nasty and acrimonious and I was learning nothing new from it. A shame. I regard Svalgaard fairly highly. But I guess we can all get biased – especially when it is our own field.
100
The bottom line here is that perhaps SORCE/TIM is a better guesstimate of TSI than PMOD, but whatever PMOD is measuring seems to be a better predictor of Earth’s temperature. So in future if we can elucidate what makes PMOD useful and the new SORCE/TIM reconstruction not so much, then we may get clues as to the mystery force that operates with an 11 year lag. Obviously temperature is not following the SORCE/TIM reconstruction with an 11 year lag, but it does seem to follow PMOD.
That was just beautiful David. Not because it is correct (it is an investigative hypothesis) but because it illustrates the kind of thinking engineers do to solve problems.
160
I can’t see much of a TSI change since 1980, see this plot from Gregg Kopp’s TSI page:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_Composite.jpg
I suspect that the official annual “composite” TSI data series suffer from “fake” changes at the times when different data are spliced together.
There is such a splicing time in 2003.
30
Another tricky issue is the unusually long delay (13-14 years) between the previous (2001) and current (2014/2015) maxima.
A fixed 11-year average will fall towards the mid-point (2007) simply by not having a maximum within the averaging window.
10
“The sunspot number, already high, ticked upward again today with the arrival of another large active region over the sun’s eastern limb.”
http://www.spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=03&month=07&year=2014
00
We can’t be blamed for misinterpreting David’s model and for thinking it is way too complex. After all, the climate science establishment has been telling us for decades climate is extremely simple to predict – the major driver is human greenhouse gas emissions. That was nice and easy to follow; you increase atmospheric CO2 which causes dangerous global warming which is responsible for every extreme weather event from snow storms to droughts and hurricanes – simple!
Eventually we will hit a “tipping point” and it will be the end of the world as we know it! Sure the theory might not fit our empirical evidence, and the climate models are lousy predictors, but it was so easy to understand and sell to the masses!
Now you are expecting us to suddenly grasp something much more technical. Of course we are going to make mistakes!
OK sarcasm off now.
Since the 1980’s the climate science establishment have been telling the people that the “science is settled”, that we should all stop questioning the “consensus view”. Our politicians have not only repeated that refrain, they have funded these people with billions of dollars to confirm this mental bias and find tenuous links between CO2 and Climate Change.
Anyone who wanted to be a real scientist and question the theory, or work on new ones, were called at best ‘climate skeptics’ at worst ‘climate deniers’. They were certainly painted as being fringe extremists.
The science academies around the world endorsed that blinkered approach to climate science.
I do not have the knowledge and skills to argue effectively about Atmospheric, Physical, Earth and Biological Sciences but my post-grad qualifications certainly allow me to spot when the data doesn’t fit the claims being made, and when spin is overtaking knowledge. Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ was the best thing that could have happened in terms of alerting people like me to the fact there was definitely something fishy going on in climate science. After all, if everything was so settled and certain, why were they hiding historical facts or making obvious exaggerations? You don’t need to do that when the facts are on your side.
Thank goodness for brave souls like Jo Nova and Dr David Evans who kept asking questions and doing research which conflicted with the “settled science”. Without people like them who knows where we would be now? Faulty climate science has already created a raft of costs and regulations which adversely impact our lifestyles in the fist world. But those regulations are killing people in the third world! Denying their rights to have life saving, labour saving, wealth creating reticulated energy. This is done making fossil fuels too expensive or unaccessible, or by denying them the right to use them. (e.g. the World Bank refusing to fund coal-fired power stations in developing countries).
I really don’t know whether Dr Evans’ new Solar Model will stand the test of time, though unlike the CO2 model, I can’t find obvious flaws. However, I thoroughly congratulate him for pursuing the science wherever it takes him, i.e. with the CO2 blinkers off! And well done Jo for getting the information out there!
450
With the end result, for me anyway, being that no matter how sound the work if it comes from someone who has been supporting the “consensus” and flinging the D word around at anyone who questions them then my first and quite possibly only reaction will be to ignore their work.
THAT is the legacy of climate “science”. The real concern is that we don’t move to a point where ANY science is met with the same lack of trust.
140
Butter bad. Margarine good. Was once a truism. Now it is the opposite.
I no longer pay attention to food “science”. I just eat what I like. I don’t intend to live forever. Just enjoy myself along the way.
60
That has been an issue with me for a number of years.
Not sure if you are in the US but we had commercials for some butter alternative featuring “The Buttertons” with this happy American family eating their meals with complete sticks of butter on their food. Quite ridiculous.
The question I always asked was, what is the real motivation behind demonizing butter? I’ve known plenty of farmers over the years who cook up their bacon, fry their eggs in the grease, butter up their toast, and generally eat “unhealthy” according to those “nutritional scientists.”
Then they go out and work their tail off for most of the day getting more exercise in their first hour of work than the rest of us get all week. Healthy buggers every one of them.
The way I reasoned it out:
Butter – if you have a cow, a churn, and can put forth some physical effort you can make your own.
Butter alternatives – generally some proprietary recipe that we don’t know by which the manufacturer can assure that only they can make it so we have to buy it from them.
Then a big marketing campaign to vilify butter so we all feel the need to buy this proprietary concoction instead of butter.
As I’ve said elsewhere, I’m getting somewhat cynical as the years go by.
40
David and Jo,
Your patience, and maturity, in dealing with dissenters is amazing!
This process has exposed me to a lot of new issues, both scientific and psychological…:)
As I tell my wife, the day I quit learning is the she can bury me.
Brad
220
Joanne Nova wrote:
“[…] emailed me this morning saying “science is a bloodsport”.”
University Warns Citizens:
“We’ve decided your belief system and we’re going to enforce it by any means necessary.”
I recommend responding by drawing an unmistakably clear line underscoring unshakably firm resolve:
=
No you haven’t and No you’re not.
Free speech doesn’t warrant interminable stalking & harassment (now including terrorizing references to “blood”) of those prioritizing different values and expressing different beliefs.
The following is non-negotiable:
We flatly reject the mainstream’s darkly ignorant &/or deceptive solar-climate narrative.
We have work to do, so this exchange is terminated.
=
Joanne Nova, David Evans, & scores of others have my unconditional support for daring to:
1. Publicly explore the beauty of nature.
2. State the truth: The sun drives Earth’s climate.
272
“There is also an insidious danger to this sort of interaction with them; you start to get imprinted by them. If you’re not careful, you soon start to take on the same fanatical traits that you’re fighting, which is an even worse outcome.”
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/some-thoughts-on-fanatics-and-how-to-fight-them/
Judging by the tenor of some of those comments at WUWT, people need to take a break from their keyboard.
Pointman
240
The PMOD data suffers from uncorrected sensor degradation and the latest minimum is not lower than the previous
http://www.leif.org/research/Monckton-Flaw-4.pdf
533
Minima don’t vary as much as maxima.
Are you suggesting that 24 is not lower than 23?
150
Leif,
I suspect none of them have read
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/1g_Schmutz_SORCE_13.9.11.pdf
223
Ah! the BA English speaks with ‘authority’.
93
He did not “speak” he just link a document. WTF has that to do with his BA? At least he’s qualified to read, which is more than you seem to be capable of.
You’re not going to earn must “street cred” with dumb ill-founded sneers like that.
Mosh is smart and has far more integrity than you display.
The linked slide show is relevant to the scientific discussion, which is more than can be said for you.
19
The fisherman has a lot to say as well
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/10/who-is-willis-eschenbach.html
I know I,m writing this for the third time , but it is too delicious not to repeat.
40
Mosher, wrong. I did. And it does not support the point Leif tried to assert. What that paperdoes say is that there is an inherent uncertainty in all the sat measurements of TSI, and that one in particular seems off. And that says need to be inter calibrated, just like the instrument changes to radiosonde specific humidity data that the IPCC rejected. The earlier instrument cold dry bias was known, measured, and enables corrections to be applied so long as one knows what instrument on which ballon. Which is part of the station metadata.
My opinion only, but neither you nor Lief are covering yourselves in glory here, of the scientific/technical, logical/sceptical, or civilized/human sorts. And, to take on directly your arrogant assertion that none of us rest know as much as or are as smart as you, you have still not explained why BEST QC removed 26 monthly lows from station 166900, which is not just some ordinary weather station. And you have not explained how BEST kluged up a regional climatology for the South Pole to substitute 26 warmer monthlys for the Amundsen scientific research base’s reported data that BEST decided in its own algorithmic wisdom was incorrect.
Now I do not think 166900 by itself proves BEST is as hosed up (a polite technical,phrase from my professional worlds) as USHCN or GHCN. But your results are questionable given that example. As Albert Einstein famously said, no one can prove me right. But a single experiment can prove me wrong. Deal with that.
290
Pah! The mods usually delete this kind of linking as SPAM.
So, Mr mosher, how about you give to us your fine, educated understanding of what you are linking to…. huh?
51
*crickets*
00
Leif it is with common decency that people such as your self should deal with ideas in science that are different from your own. Over at WUWT you have said some pretty ordinary things about Dr Evans and the people on this site. That you are even tolerated to post here is a testament to the tolerance of the hosts of this site.
If in the fullness of time when all the data and codes are released and you have some thing constructive to say, please do so, but until that time please stop being a troll.
41
Willis says in a comment to Jo and David at WUWT : “I’m sad to see you and David Evans and Joanne taking up the habits of Mann and Jones…” . Ironic, as Willis seems to have taken up their habit of verbally trashing someone whose work he doesn’t agree with.
710
I don’t particularly mind it when people like Luboš make honest comments on their own blog about how they perceive the work of others.
I however baulk at the behaviour of Svalgaard and Eschenbach as they appear to defnd their fait on another’s blog. Svalgaard has his own blog but all that he has is the stock WordPress “Hello World!” blog entry. And that’s all, since 2009. Comments are falling under that entry. Sure; Leif’s got his own (non blog) “research page” but lacks lacks any interactive nature.
Willis is an interesting but stubborn man. He has no individual web presence. (Facebook doesn’t count.) While he’s demonstrated an aptitude for number crunching and observational skills, it seems that he cannot make the two come together when looking at the physical world from somebody else’s perspective. He’s even deleted my comments that challenged his beliefs.
I no longer partake in discussions at WUWT as I despise the mobbing for holding a different point of view. It really doesn’t add to anybody’s understanding of the universe to be participating in such “discussions”.
150
Bloody shame that things have spun up this sharply. I really like what David and Jo have done with this new theory. Also have enjoyed what Lief and Willis have done over the years. When the two meet sometimes it is like trying to mix oil and water – there are incompatibilities that we all are trying to sort out in near real time. And the sorting out becomes a lot more difficult when one or the other or both go into defensive mode.
I am not a EE, but an Aero, so understand filters just well enough to be dangerous, which makes what David and Jo are suggesting difficult to digest. Am still in the cogitating part of that.
Ran across a book many years ago by Henry Petroski: To Engineer is Human: the Role of Failure in Successful Design. It really put things into perspective. I see echoes of what Petroski wrote about in this discussion. We humans do things loudly at times, especially when our world view is challenged. Usually it is limited to arm waving. Occasionally it degenerates into chair throwing. The WUWT thread went quickly into chair throwing as positions (manhood?) was thought to be challenged by lesser individuals.
Keep doing what you are doing. It is great stuff. And the reaction indicates that it is hitting pretty close to the mark. Cheers –
210
Still stand by this then Leif?
Just want to be sure we understand what kind of a scientist you are.
lsvalgaard says:
June 28, 2014 at 7:47 am
“… 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. Here is TSI since 2003”
“There is no such drop. If anything TSI is now higher than it were in 2003. 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]…”
——–
Or this:
June 28, 2014 at 12:07 pm
“As I pointed out the most blatant error and the one on which the forecast hinges is the assertion that there has been a sudden and unprecedented drop in TSI in the 2003-2005 time frame. I showed that that is false.”
——–
Or this:
June 28, 2014 at 2:08 pm
An issue here is whether this was deliberate. Now most of what we do is deliberate, and I have a hard time believing that Evans did not know what he was doing,”
————–
lsvalgaard says:
June 28, 2014 at 4:04 pm
“Apologize…?”
“Of course, that is what honest scientists do.“
364
absolutely.
432
Ok then, please elaborate on:
230
who are you?
237
I could ask you the same question…..
302
Backslider
Not really!
While your answer seems valid, it is pointlessly incomplete and a bit rude without your real name.
BTW mine is Lance Pidgeon. I am a little self employed electronics tech and think Leif Svalgaard should elaborate. Just for those of us who respect David and Jo and with them are trying hard to contribute to a seemingly worthwhile effort. As for there being an agenda, is it not obvious that exposing errors in “science” that will cost us all dearly is enough of one.
101
Piffle.
00
Piffle? I could assume that is your name but would rather assume you have good reason to remain anon. My name and lowly status was used to rub his nose in it a lttle more. At your expense though. Sorry for that.
00
I am not anonymous at all. You simply do not know me.
Yes, I have very good reasons to not reveal my identity to the whole World.
The question was not “What is your name?”, but rather “Who are you?”, two entirely different questions.
I think that others here have rightly nailed Leif’s tone… why can you not see it?
60
No BS, he meant “who are you” as in “who are you to question a God like being like myself”
And yes i used my real name just so there was no confusion.
Regards
111
“who are you?” says Svalgaard.
And who am I – or who might I be?
The interesting part of your POMPOUS LOUSY question is that you don’t have a clue about many of us here or who we are and yet by that very question you feign righteousness over those who are beneath you (in your own [snip] mind)!!
How about addressing the science issue here and interacting with David in a NICE way and either proving your point NOW or shutting up until David has released his spreadsheet and then TRYING to pick it to pieces!!
SHEESH – some people??????
Cheers,
394
Pompous git.
130
As Mr Monckton very perceptively acknowledges and has the moral courage to say
Monckton of Brenchley says [on WUWT]:
June 29, 2014 at 2:24 pm
Mr Svalgaard is using incorrect data. Plainly he has an agenda.
Since [alleged] incorrect data is used, one can plainly conclude that an agenda must be the driving force.
Mr Monckton with his sharp eye for such things is someone you can trust in this respect.
Now, on the other hand, if incorrect data is not used, no such conclusion can be drawn from the use of correct data, capice? In Mr Evans case, however, he did not do due diligence and furthermore fabricated 900 days of data out of thin air, so the data he used is simply not correct. Draw your own conclusion.
[link to the quote would be useful Leif so that people can read it in context without sorting through different posts to find the date and time stamp. – Mod]
339
Please do not post supposed quotes here without a link to the exact source. Thank you.
170
Fair enough
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/a-cool-question-answered/
at June 29, 2014 at 2:24 pm
[ link directly to June 29, 2014 at 2:24 pm ] ED
516
Leif, I have read and re-read Monkton’s comment and can’t see that it supports what you are saying. On the contrary, it supports Dr Evans:
Specifically Lord Monckton writes:
Notice that that is an entirely different URL. And if Mr Svalgaard could not be bothered to do enough homework to check the thread to find the URL, he had only to go to the SORCE website and type in “Krivova plot” and the graph would appear at once. But no.
I agree with vukcevik earlier: Mr Svalgaard is not good at apologizing when – as often – he is caught out not knowing his own subject.
I have given Mr Svalgaard every opportunity to apologize to Dr Evans but he has chosen not to take it. I shall now consult the statistician, verify Mr Svalgaard’s employment status and, if any academic institution is employing him, refer his allegation against Dr Evans to the appropriate authorities as an instance of gross and persisting research misconduct.
What you did Leif, was take a little bit of Lord Monckton’s comment at the beginning, completely out of context to serve your own purposes, then added YOUR bit to conflate them:
Lord Monckton: Mr Svalgaard is using incorrect data. Plainly he has an agenda.
Leif: Since [alleged] incorrect data is used, one can plainly conclude that an agenda must be the driving force.
Mr Monckton with his sharp eye for such things is someone you can trust in this respect.
Now, on the other hand, if incorrect data is not used, no such conclusion can be drawn from the use of correct data, capice? In Mr Evans case, however, he did not do due diligence and furthermore fabricated 900 days of data out of thin air, so the data he used is simply not correct. Draw your own conclusion.
That is what you are saying, not Lord Monckton, and I don’t see that you have any evidence to support it. If anyone’s motives should be questioned it should be yours surely?
For the record, what Lord Monckton wrote immediately after the bit you selectively extracted was:
The Krivova graph to which I had referred, demonstrating that Dr Evans’ data were remarkably similar and that [meaning the Krovova graph], therefore, it was inappropriate for Mr Svalgaard to accuse Dr Evans of having deliberately used incorrect data. The Krivova graph, the URL of which I had supplied, is not, repeat not, by Wang et al. No doubt Wang et al. better suits Mr Svalgaard’s attempt to smear Dr Evans with his false allegation of fraudulent use of incorrect data. But who is it that is using incorrect data? [my emphasis]
To remind Mr Svalgaard, the URL of the Krivova graph, given by me earlier in this thread, is here:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/
It just seems you are digging a hole for yourself Leif.
240
Aaron James holds a PhD from Harvard and is associate professor of philosophy at the University of California, Irvine. He has a very interesting theory regarding social behaviour.
“Assholes-A theory”…….Aaron James, ISBN 978-1-85788-593-4 PAGE 5
To a great extent, the behaviour of SOME folks can be deciphered through a thorough understanding of this theory. Joanne could benefit from the ideas put forth by Aaron James in chapter 5, beginning on page 119 entitled “Asshole Management”.
If she so desires, I can send her a complimentary copy of the very useful book.
—
Email coming your way. ta. _ Jo
110
“Asshole Management”
a beautiful concept. It should be taught in schools. 😉
50
Rod Stuart
July 2, 2014 at 2:44 pm
Me, Tello, and Bubba had worked this out empirically around ’68 or ’69. Our conclusion was:
A**holes are everywhere.
30
Asshole management?
They make pre-moistened wipes for that you know?
[Good grief! Lets not take this string any further! 🙂 – Mod]
30
@Leif – if you “click” on the time/date of the comment, it will actually take you to the exact comment in the address bar.
Just an FYI.
00
That was explained in the text and plotted in a different colour, so this is not “Mike’s Nature Trick”, or Phil Jones even more outrageous data fraud.
That has nothing to do with 11y RM result for 2003-2005 which in a result of actual data, not 900 days.
350
You can’t be serious!
“blatant error”, “complete nonsense” “no such drop”,”the model is already falsified”, “I showed that that is false”, “An issue here is whether this was deliberate”
Leif, there is nothing wrong with being mistaken, and you can say you don’t like the TSI source used or the 11 year smoothing and try to justify why. But you can’t make comments like those above and still say you stand by them when it has been shown you were wrong – or at least misinterpreting what was being presented.
430
I and others have shown that my statement is accurate. What more is needed?
250
Which statement? You have made a number, several of which imply dishonesty (I have only ever known scoundrels who do such)…. but you appear too cowardly to be precise.
Either put your cards on the table, or stop wasting space.
[ We moderators are going to make every effort to keep this thread civil. Lets be very careful with words please? ] ED
240
Stop wasting space?
Nice place u run here
Cool it’s a full on blood sport
135
Rude people cannot expect us to be nice.
150
But those who are not can, so please try even when replying to rude people.
Pouring oil on the fire is not going improve things. It’s not a bar fight.
60
Can we start commenting on the subject of David Evan’s paper again. Why keep responding to provocation. Can’t believe I am thinking along the same line as Moshy here.
I’m sure the peanuts from SKS are loving this.
30
Right on Greg. Save the oil for troubled waters.
30
“but you appear too cowardly to be precise”
Your words should have been snipped, I find them unecessary, unhelpful, inacurate and over the top, and a clear ad hom.
02
Dr. Svalgaard: Re “I have shown that my statement is accurate”.
I have read the thread at WUWT, and nowhere have I seen that you have “shown” that the use of the words “almost fraudulent” and “agenda” is “accurate”.
I appreciate that scientists deal with numbers and data, but if you have a point, why distract from it with things that your numbers and data cannot “show”.
Best regards, Bjørn Barstad, Norway.
(Or John Smith from Australia or Jose Sanchez from Peru.) 🙂
280
One thing needed is a large dose of humility.
330
Maybe he collects thumbs down like trophies? Some people get off on the strangest things…..
71
Well said Roy, I am just catching up on comments and my first thought after reading Lief’s contribution was his total lack of humility.
110
Willis Eshenbach and Leif Svalgard do not share the same universe as humility.
120
That your groupies agree with you will not change the fact of the matter. You overreached, Dr Evans deserves an apology for that overreach. Unfortunately it reflects on you that you don’t acknowledge the unfounded accusations of Fraud, implication of an Agenda and Incompetence that you have libelled Dr Evans with.
I’m sorry Leif but you HAVE libelled him and you should apologise for that.
250
You haven’t Leif. Your comment at #32.1.1.2 was completely misleading and inaccurate as I have shown at #32.1.1.2.1
Why do you persist?
90
Well, regrettably, in my rather long life I have come to suspect that people who put forward their point of view with such pompous arrogance as Leif has in all this are nearly invariably wrong in what they proclaim, and are trying to bluster and bully their way out of that knowledge in the hope that everyone will just roll over. It all stems from a feeling of insecurity. Just on that basis Leif’s credibility is shot in my eyes. Why pay any further attention to him? Oh, and I know he does not care, but just in case he wants to know ‘who I am’, my name is Gabriel van den Bergh from Hout Bay in Cape Town.
370
I lost complete faith in Leif when he insisted with absolute resolution that the Solar Scientists new the exact history of the sun going back 9 Billion Years. What Hubris.
Joanne, I am going to try one more time, I know you are P*ssed Off with WUWT but Mr Watts has had to man up and admit Steve Goddard was absolutely correct about the Falsification of the US and Global Land Surface Temperature data by NCDC/NOAA/GISS as mentioned above.
This has serious ramifications for your wonderful study as you are not actually comparing Real Temperature Data to Solar Output.
Which means that your conclusions could be wrong due to the total bias introduced by the Adjustments that have been made to the real data.
It is no longer a case of it could be biased, it has been proved to be biased.
152
Work here is based on global temps , not CONUS.
US is what , 2% of surface?
In any case the object is to model the _accepted_ temp record using a non_GHG model. So even if the record is biases, that aim can still be attained (allegedly).
The aim is to counter the IPCC and Hadley Centre and other modeller’s claims that if you remove AGW the models don’t work therefore AGW is TRUE.
This is a deliberate falsehood since it only shows that a model tuned to reproduce ( rather poorly ) one period of the historical record, won’t work if you pull one of its legs off.
It is a nonsense claim that is erroneously presented as having much more general scope and implication.
91
Greg, GHCN is as bad as ushcn. And similar bias can be found in recent HadCrut4, whichnis based in part on GHCN stations. And NASA GISS has publish four successive versions sine the one Hansennused in 1988 to make his famous predictions. Each cooled the past more than the previous version, showing progressively more spurios warming. The sat record begins in 1979, probably not a long enough time period to properly fit the model
There will be a chapter on this in my next book. Uses simple irrefutable raw final and before after comparisons to prove the point. Best estimates from others (Steriou, based on a sample of 163 GHCN starions) are that something like half the AGW rise has been fabricated through various means. The list includes for sure faulty gridding, zombie stations, faulty homogenization (at least via scalpeling, the Dedekind hypothesis), and individual reading QC procedures. This last is visible for station 166900 in the BEST process, available at their website. That is the Amundsen research base at the South pole. BEST rejected 26 extreme cold months and replaced them with warmer estimates from the ‘regional climatology. Those were either fabricated from whole cloth, or some model result derived from the other Antarctic research stations— all of which are along the coasts, and not inland. The fail is self evident. Made Mosher as huffy puffy as Willis on TSI when this was pointed out over at WUWT.
140
Rud doesn’t know what he is talking about
There is no replacing of data.
He can’t even read the readme
028
So then, what is the reported widespread “estimates” in the ‘raw’ data where actual readings are available, mmm ?
100
You have done it again. This time, asserting I cannot read.
From your own website (archived lest you change it) 26 reported lows (BEST count) were removed because of warmer ‘estimated regional climatology’ (BEST words) and the result converted no trend for 166900 to a slight uptrend.
You really must do better than ad hom asserting that I cannot read your own website. I would urge others to go judge for themselves.
The harder you protest simple obvious things drawn directly from BEST itself, the more the critique appears to be on target.
300
A link to this Admundsen thing, so I don’t have to chase it down?
00
Wrong again
There are 3 data series produced
1. The raw data series
2. The Prediction for the station
3. The regional expectation.
The approach of GISS and CRU is as follows. They take the raw and adjusted data and they EXPLCITLY and individually ADJUST the data values. Then they AVERAGE using IDW.
We dont do that. We take the raw data. Then we fit a model. This model is a PREDICTION of what one would have measured in any arbitrary location.
The model is this
T = C + W + e
Where T, the temperature field, is decomposed into two elements. The first element is the deterministic Climate. That is the portion of the Temperature that is determined by geography
C = F(y,z,t) Climate is expressed as a function of latitude and elevation and time ( or seasonality ) You can think of it as a regression of T using y,z, and seasonality as regressors.
This captures the portion of temperature that is determined by geography.
Next you subtract C from T and you are left with the random component called the weather.
The weather is then interpolated and you have a weather field.
When you look at C + W what you have is a prediction or the expected value of Climate + Weather at any location and time.
This is the prediction.
Now you can, and we have, tested the prediction by holding out data. And of course the prediction validates. Of necessity since the prediction is a surface fit to the data there will be residual between this prediction and th raw data. But the surface minimizes this. It does not eliminate it.
Now with 40000 stations you will, you must, see differences between the EXPECTED value given the model and the raw data that was used to build the model. These “misfits” can come from many
sources. A) bad data, B) a local climate effect not captured by the Climate function, Random error.
The prediction for the station is just that. It is the values we would EXPECT given
a) the raw data
b) the geo statistical model.
Here is the readme you missed
In many cases, raw temperature data contains a number of artifacts,
% caused by issues such as typographical errors, instrumentation changes,
% station moves, and urban or agricultural development near the station.
% The Berkeley Earth analysis process attempts to identify and estimate
% the impact of various kinds of data quality problems by comparing each
% time series to neighboring series. At the end of the analysis process,
% the “adjusted” data is created as an estimate of what the weather at
% this location might have looked like after removing apparent biases.
% This “adjusted” data will generally to be free from quality control
% issues and be regionally homogeneous. Some users may find this
% “adjusted” data that attempts to remove apparent biases more
% suitable for their needs, while other users may prefer to work
% with raw values.
Now I cannot help you Rud is you cannot follow close language or follow the method.
The series are not adjusted. In GISS and CRU they take a series. Suppose a month said 12C.
They run adustment code which says “oh the time of observation changes” change 12 to 12.5 C
That is not what we do. We take all the raw data and a geostatical model of climate. Looking at that station and its neighbors we would say ” Our Best estimate for that station value is 12.35″
That is there is no explict adjustment made for TOB. There is just a prediction that considers all sources of bias. So the raw data series says 12C and the prediction say 12.35
What is that difference .35c? Well its not an adjustment. We dont judge whether or not the deviation from the model is a bias or freak event. We ascribe no cause. We point out
Here is what the raw data says. Here is what you would expect to see GIVEN the raw data and the geostatisical model.
Of course people like to compare this product to what explicit adjustments do. Remember, They apply FIXED adjustments to raw data from a bottom up approach. First adjustment x for TOB, then adjustment Y for station move, then adjustment Z for instrument change. And they dont propagate the error. Instead, we take a top down approach. Given all the data, given the geo model, what do you EXPECT to see. You can look at this difference as an adjustment, but its not. its the deviation between the predicted value and the raw data.
Another way to see this is by modelling the whole world by using 100 series. You would get a global average that is very close to what we get with 40000 station. The global number would be close the the local detail would be very smooth. If you compared this smoothed surface with the underlying station data you would see large deviations. Suppose you went to 1000 stations.
Your global average would not change much.. but you get more local detail. Still looking at a grid cell value versus the station values you would see variance. make it 5K stations again the global average changes a tiny bit, but you get more local detail. 10K same story, 20K same story, 40 K stations same story. The global average doesnt change and you get more local detail.
But even at 40K stations you will, you must, kind certain local areas where the deviation between the expected value and the raw data has structure to it. Where you find structure,
such as Amundsen, the probably cause is a local weather phenomena that is actually deterministic and could be accounted for in the climate function ( C = F(y,zt)) by adding terms.
It all depends what you want to DO with the local data. If you want to study the region. Use the raw data. If you want to test a GCM output? then use the expected value.
If you want an estimate of the global average, then use the regional expecatation and integrate the whole field
04
You provide an annoyingly long tome that does not refute Rud. Furthermore your “read me” is nothing more than fluff. Is that the best you have?
60
Re #33.1.1.1.2
>”The approach of GISS and CRU is as follows. They take the raw and adjusted data and they EXPLCITLY and individually ADJUST the data values. Then they AVERAGE using IDW”
In HadCRUT4, CRU use NIWA’s NZT7 for mainland New Zealand and ACORN-SAT for Australia i.e. they don’t take any raw data, each series is pre-adjusted according to the respective methodologies: BOM – CAWCR Technical Report No. 049, NIWA can’t/wont provide an established methodology even after a court case over it.
>”% The Berkeley Earth analysis process attempts to identify and estimate
% the impact of various kinds of data quality problems by comparing each % time series to neighboring series.”
Except not necessarily the appropriate neighbouring series. Case-in-point Hamilton New Zealand. BEST estimate for the Waikato region where Hamilton is but do not pull in the station data from Ruakura, Hamilton. There is also some data from Te Aroha station within 50Km of Hamilton.
BEST pull in Auckland and Tauranga which are both outside the Waikato region. Comparing trends and absolute values BEST estimate for Waikato to Ruakura and Te Aroha station data, BEST is wildly astray on both.
50
Re #33.1.1.1.2
>”In HadCRUT4, CRU use NIWA’s NZT7 for mainland New Zealand and ACORN-SAT for Australia”
Not quite. Srill the old HQ series for Australia:
CRUTEM4 Temperature station data
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/crutem4/station-data.htm
New Zealand
http://www.niwa.co.nz/climate/information-and-resources/nz-temperature-record
Australia
ftp://ftp.bom.gov.au/anon/home/ncc/www/change/HQdailyT/HQdailyT_info.pdf
Don’t be misled by NIWA’s “Peer review”. BOM’s audit was not a technical review i.e. they checked spelling and arithmetic.
Neither be misled by NIWA’s “Judicial review”. The court didn’t rule on the science or statistics. The judge didn’t even address the NZCSET’s alternative NZ 7SS compiled in it’s ‘Audit’ by Dedekind et al in accordance with established Rhoades and Salinger (1973) methodology (0.34 C/century trend NZCSET vs 0.91 C/century trend NIWA).
NIWA’s “Peer review” and “Judicial review” here:
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/nz-temp-record/review
30
thanks, I missed the Amundsen thing.
I lost confidence in the openness of BEST when they first published code but only supplied such massive data files that you needed mainframe access just to load it.
That prevented diligent, competent people like McIntyre ( and me 😉 ) from looking into it.
McIntyre raised this problem and it was ignored.
I waited about 12mo and there was not change, so I gave up on the idea of BEST being open and verifiable.
Then the data presentation got very warmist. BEST is not different to the rest.
102
Then an actual cooling trend should be quite dramatic.
62
Watts is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome and wants to be loved by the Alarmistas.
His views are increasingly in fine tune with the perpetual motion radiative forcing concepts of the CAGW and I fear he has had his head turned by fame.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/10/who-is-willis-eschenbach.html
I am Surprised DR Svalgaard does not ask Willis who he thinks he is ,given the fishing background , I suspect , Jesus.
71
http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2010/03/science-as-a-bloodsport/
[If posting a link you should explain it’s relevance. For anyone interested this is a link to a commentary about Stephen Schneider‘s book, Science as a Contact Sport. – Mod]
133
Having looked at that link all I see is an alarmist article containing no science and for that matter nothing that convinces me of your assertion that “science is a bloodsport.”
230
Totally agree. Perhaps Leif is using that article as a parallel to his own writings.
50
I see that you like digesting crap, like this:
These were natural, precedented weather events, not climate.
270
Well Leif, how about we become the team that reintroduces science as a “gentlemans sport”, maybe golf is a good model. There is no reason the game needs to be played by those rules.
170
Human nature works against us here.
215
Never trail blood before sharks while you are still in the water.
80
Leif,
Assuming that (theoretically anyway) scientific advances may equally come from both boorish, arrogant personality types or from quiet, timid and thoughtful types, I’m curious to know how does the art of a “blood sport” speed up the human practice or understanding of science?
Perhaps you feel that turning a polite discussion into a playground for the loudest most domineering bullies will somehow help the quieter truths to rise to the top of the pile?
That would mean science is a kind of competition of ego’s rather than of ideas — The one prepared to throw the most baseless insults is closer to the truth…
Do I understand your philosophy correctly?
360
Jo,
David is an engineer. And from what I can tell a good one. I am positive he has met this sort of thing in his work frequently. It is particularly prevalent in aerospace (I did a few years in that industry). Weak egos do not survive in that environment.
What I learned from that is to give in AT ONCE when I see I have made an error. It reduces the odds of me making the same mistake twice. And the smallest twinge of humility gives an aura of honesty. And that is one thing I value greatly. Honesty. It is my estimation that you can’t do good engineering work without total honesty. I have seen a few try. None of them succeeded.
Gun decking will make your circuits fail and your bridges collapse. I think it will do the same to what is currently referred to as “climate” science”. The bigger they make the rise the harder they will fall.
90
Also see my http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/the-solar-model-finds-a-big-fall-in-tsi-data-that-few-seem-to-know-about/#comment-1500285
For a bit more on the subject.
30
Thank you sir being an old engineer myself, making mistakes can be rather costly in lives and money so prudence and long thought processes, is the best policy.
Leif and Willis are indiscriminately shooting from the hip, that can result in shooting ones self in the foot, WUWT has been some what of a leading light in fighting the BS of global warming, recently it seems to be highjacked by egos of a not pleasant kind.
30
A significant strategic advantage can be gained by a General who deliberately avoids using the strategy expected by his opponent. [Hsun Tzu (c. 320-235 BC)]
40
All the scientists I know would not survive a contact sport – Mr Svalgaard should stop romanticizing about “blood sport” contact and work on “civil discourse” contact
10
“It’s amazing how much can be accomplished if no one cares who gets the credit.”
Putting sizable egos aside is next to impossible for some
10
If you are taking flack, you must be closing in on the target.
I have no idea as to the “correctness” of this theory, but it fits my understanding of systems and cyclic behaviour.
So I am biased toward attempting to comprehend.
You have encapsulated the Feynman Approach in this roll out and I like it.
As you correctly surmised, far too many would glom onto segments of the picture and react without further thought.
A good guess,as certain as noting how few of the Alarmed Ones have actually read the IPCC reports.
Chiefio has made some inspired posts on the lunar influence, the way the tidal effect drives ocean currents.
The solar-earth-planets electro-magnetic mechanisms also seem a logical source of heat to us who fight these effects at the small scale in industry.
Ditto the heating effect of induced currents through a semiconducting medium.
The certainty of the “Team Consensus” has always offended me, as we live on a water world.
Dismissing the lag effects of 70% of our planetary surface is just stupid.
As for the flame war at WUWT, this will self correct.
Big ego’s are needed to challenge authority and orthodoxy and eventually they will collide.This is our nature.
Also as Pointman has hit on, what you fight you become, after 25 years of resisting the arrogance, ignorance and ugliness of the Team IPCC ™ there will be scars.
A certain staleness has pervaded the sceptical blogs of late, I suffer an”Enough Already” attitude toward the consensus propaganda and media that carry it.
Since Climate gate and the fine work of Climate Audit I am sorry but my mind is made up(mostly certain), the people in our governments who are promoting the CAGW scheme are fools or bandits.
CAGW is an intelligence test.
My only question is ; “When do we fire those who fail it?”
350
just because you are over the target does not mean you have any ordance of consequence to drop. Sometimes it means you have flown into an airspace where you dont belong and where you are ill prepared to do battle.
343
HA-HA-HA! Such self-awareness! Sounds almost like an apology for all his past sorties????
(Sorry Steve, couldn’t resist. You left your self wide open for that one.)
291
Bombs away! –
http://i42.tinypic.com/315nbdl.jpg
Do enjoy your JADM Mr. Mosher 😉
No, the oceans don’t freeze in the absence of atmospheric cooling and DWLWIR. The atmosphere is cooling the oceans, not warming them. Now how does the atmosphere in turn cool? Could it be radiative gases? Good bye AGW.
111
Ordnance is spelt this way not your way,Ordance , are you sure you got a degree in English?
62
It isn’t science that is a blood sport.
It is the attempt to profit from science that is a blood sport.
That puts Leif and Willis in their correct box.
Profit in the sense of not only money but also self esteem and careeer advancement.
300
WOW, another great observation. Since I agree that profit, in all the aspects mentioned above, are at the base of this disrespect, I wonder what would happen if everyone stopped visiting WUWT or at least never opened an article by Willis on that or any other site.
I have put WUWT at #10 on my “Climate Bookmark”, right below junk science. I mean no disrespect towards junk science.
10
What ever happened to the days of collaboration and constructive criticism? It seems we only have bazookas and bombshells now.
Thanks for doing what you do Ms. Nova!
It is appreciated by many, and we don’t seem to tell folks that enough in todays world.
Regards Ed
300
Re: The Greenhouse Effect, slayers, etc …
“I don’t like the term ‘greenhouse effect’, because it implies a sweatbox.”
Quote from Joe Bastardi, though I can’t find link atm.
140
The best scientist is a humble scientist. If their ego blows the windows out of a room when they walk into it, they’re in the wrong line of work.
301
This applies to more than just scientists. I deal with some people whose egos show up to a meeting 15 minutes before they do…:)
281
Sounds like a meeting of aerospace engineers.
70
TSI is good, because the temperature in the stratosphere is not falling for no reason.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_NH_2013.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_SH_2013.gif
Growth of ice in the south is the result.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_SH_2014.gif
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
80
Appart from TSI (even the measured portion) getting rewritten part of the reason for this drop is data processing errors.
Firstly I suggest you read my article , that got also got published on Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/triple-running-mean-filters/
Learn the difference between “smoothing” and designing/choosing a filter, it seems you intended to do latter.
Running means are a mess and let through quite a lot you thought you’d filter out. The real cool bit is that it also inverts what it lets through.
Look at a specific 11y example. Here I’ve used SIDC monthly SSN rather than anyone’s disputed TSI data/reconstructions:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=982
Look at all the rather unsmooth variability you thought you were getting rid of.
Unfortunately good filters need a longer kernel that poor filters, so I’ll draw attention to pertinent features in other years. Look at how quickly 1790 drops even though all high frequency changes are supposed to have been removed.
Look at 1790 and 1970, not how the runny mean manages to show a local peak instead of a trough.
The kink you found in TSI in 2003 and the rapidity of the drop is largely due to this leakage of the sloppy running mean filter.
Yes solar activity is notably down in the current cycle but there was not sudden drop in 2003-2005 in the data so there certainly should not be by the time you’ve low-pass filtered it.
An engineer should have found that odd and questioned it.
So Svalgaard, despite his bad manners, is correct, there was no sudden drop. What you have is an artefact.
That does not refute the marked general drop but after 11y filtering it should be a drop that takes 11 years to happen.
I hope that is useful in understanding that part of the graph.
David Evans replies: I disagree, see this answer.
91
Greg, two questions;
But does it make any significant difference to the output of the model ?
What dataset and smoothed in what manner would you suggest David uses. Perhaps his model ties him to an 11 year smoothing.
Perhaps you can provide a Greg version of smoothed TSI suitable for input into the model.
Currently the temperature drop shown by the model only takes us back to the 1970s, the OTT argument at WUWT is about a storm in a tea cup, as a drop to the 1970s is not going to seriously impact society.
I guess one of the problems with climate science is that too many science departments that rely on data interpretation don’t employ proper statisticians, too many scientists think their own capability with statistics is more than good enough when in fact it isn’t good enough. I invariably enjoy your insight into statistics, at least when I can follow them, sometimes its over my head.
80
Re #41
>”Yes solar activity is notably down in the current cycle but there was not sudden drop in 2003-2005 in the data”
Yes I didn’t see why 2003-2005 was of any interest. PMOD by 2006 was still at the same level as the previous SC 22 minimum:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1995/to:2010
The sudden drop came at 2006.5 according to PMOD as I see it:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:2005/to:2008
1365.5 down to 1365.33. Now compare 1365.33 2007 level to SC 22 minimum 1365.5 1996-1997:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1995/to:1997.5
1365.33 2007 is off that chart.
20
Continuing on from #41.2
Taking 2007 as the TSI drop from the level of the previous 2 SCs gives a point in time from which to add planetary lag (lag, not time constant).
Lags are identified in Part VIII #40.1.2.2 here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/are-transfer-functions-meaningless-the-white-noise-point-beware-your-assumptions/#comment-1500303
First characterization:
Time Constant
4 < τ < 17 Schwartz
6 < τ < 12 Scafetta and West
10.5 Schwartz
9 Scafetta and West
Second characterization:
Lag
τ is approx 63.2% of lag (final asymptotic value). Therefore the respective lags are:
6.3 < lag < 26.9 Schwartz
9.5 < lag < 19 Scafetta and West
16.6 yrs Schwartz
14.3 yrs Scafetta and West
14 yrs Abdussamatov
Third characterization:
Equilibrium
“The ocean requires several decades for reaching a thermodynamic equilibrium with a change in the forcing” – Scafetta and West (20 yrs oceanic lag – Abdussamatov. 10 – 100 yrs – Trenberth).
# # #
Planetary lag from 2007
2007 + 16.6 = 2023.6 yrs (Schwartz)
2007 + 14.3 = 2021.3 yrs (Scafetta and West)
2007 + 14 = 2021 yrs (Abdussamatov)
20
Got “yrs” in the wrong place obviously.
10
In electronics work lag and time constant are commonly synonymous. We use the term “delay” (such as “delay line”) to indicate delay that is not a function of integration time.
This is frequently seen is process control where after a command to a plant there is a delay in response and after the delay the integrator shows up with its characteristic “lag” (time constant).
So David says there is a delay and others say there is only a integrator (low pass filter – LPF). I’m inclined towards David because of the wiggles at short times (3 to 5 years).
But it is a very complicated system. So I would not at this time rule anything out – other than CO2 being a big driver of climate.
00
So a charging of a capacitor is “synonymous” with a delay line !?
If you feed an 100us RC network with a 10kHz cosine, what is the lag between input and output. Now feed the same cct with 1MHz, now what is the lag.
How does this relate to the RC time-constant?
Is the lag synonymous with the time-constant?
00
00
MSimon #41.2.1.2
>”In electronics work lag and time constant are commonly synonymous.”
Maybe so, I don’t know but I’m inclined to think it would be loosely. The important distinction to make in regard to planetary lag was, as I saw it, here wrt Scafetta and West (2007):
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/are-transfer-functions-meaningless-the-white-noise-point-beware-your-assumptions/#comment-1500303
>”the relaxation time τ” [S&W07]
Time constant τ (tau),
Physically, the constant represents the time it takes the system’s step response to reach 1-1/e, approx 63.2% of its final (asymptotic) value
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_constant
As I see it, the time constant is an intermediate time characteristic of the entire delay (lag).
The entire delay (lag) is the final (asymptotic) value and is a second time characteristic of the lag (and more useful for our purposes than time constant I think).
If you know the time constant you can calculate the lag and vice versa in the application we’re considering using that definition above.
00
You are confusing integration time with delay time. They are not the same.
Take a plant with long control pipes. Those pipes cause delay. Once the delay has passed integration begins.
Or you could have a sticky valve that will not operate until the process error is sufficient. Delay. Due to the nature of sticky valves the delay is variable. Sometime the control algorithm is DESIGNED to make the valve “sticky” to minimize valve wear. Intentional delay.
Or take the 8 minute delay for a change in magnetic field on the sun to propagate to the earth. Or the delay for a command from Earth to change the operation of a satellite 10s of millions of miles away.
Delay is real (speed of light if nothing else) and is not the same as integration. You might want a very elementary text on process control to get a handle on all this. Look up “David St. Clair” for a good short book on process control.
In a PID loop the plant delay sets the integration time “I” and the “tau” of the plant sets the “P” (gain). Generally.
I’m starting to see why people outside electronics have so much trouble with this. Unless you live this every day the concepts are unclear.
00
MSimon #41.2.1.2.1
>”You are confusing integration time with delay time. They are not the same.”
Reading further you’re putting “delay” in terms of interplanetary sun-earth delay and integration time in terms of planetary lag in the surface insolation – ocean/land – atmosphere system (see below).
>”Or take the 8 minute delay for a change in magnetic field on the sun to propagate to the earth.”
Planetary lag in the literature doesn’t consider that delay. Time constant and response delay (lag) when applied to earth is the lapse in time after the step change in solar forcing at the surface of ocean and land to when atmospheric temperature responds. The integrator/accumulator is the ocean because it’s the major heat sink.
The calculated planetary lags in the literature span several years i.e. a wide range. The fixed lag periods quoted are merely central estimates to indicate the timeframes in which time constant, overall lag, and equilibrium occur (i.e. nominal figures).
There is no reason (as Greg has already pointed out to a lessor extent) to adopt a fixed lag period for the planet e.g. 11 yrs, 14 yrs, or 20 yrs, in order to model insolation transfer to the atmosphere via the ocean and land. Seems to me this makes the solar-temperature transfer function rather more complex than the N-D variant (dead as far as I’m concerned, as per Mikky “drop the notch”).
I’m not sure how a “smeared” solar-temperature lag can be implemented in a relaxation model so I’ll be interested to see if that approach progresses at all.
>”I’m starting to see why people outside electronics have so much trouble with this”
With all respect to EE (and not being completely unfamiliar having spent years in electrical generation, transmission, and distribution along with the associated electrotech), the planet is not an electronic system.
If anything, it is a thermal time constant that is the more appropriate, scroll down here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_constant
That links to lumped system analysis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumped_system_analysis
But that doesn’t account for the massive oceanic heat transport e.g. see:
‘Improved estimates of global ocean circulation, heat transport and mixing
from hydrographic data’
Alexandre Ganachaud* & Carl Wunsch (2000)
http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/ganachwunschnature.pdf
Refer page 4:
Figure 2 Zonally integrated layer mass transports
00
Before page 4, page 2:
Figure 1 Hydrographic sections and heat fluxes.
00
David shows a notch which indicates a delay – some where in the system. Aside from lags.
So how might we create a delay in a natural system? This is fanciful but not entirely improbable:
A plant (Greenus Fireus) [atrocious Latin] absorbs solar energy. The plant is an annual (to keep it simple). After a number of years the plants spontaneously combust returning the CO2 and energy back to the Earth system.
Of course this is pure fancy. But it is an indication that a purely natural system COULD delay the energy. So what else might do this?
Delays are not lags.
As to multiple lags – we see this in some electronic systems especially some types of capacitors. The lags are effectively in parallel. Look up “dielectric absorption”.
And let me be perfectly clear – I’m not saying any of this is the case. All I’m saying is there is no reason to dismiss delays out of hand. We can infer possibly some of this is going on from the annual modulation of the CO2 curve. It probably needs a deeper look.
Also note – man is currently using about 1/10,000th as much energy as the sun puts into the system. This is on the edge of significance. Up that by a factor of 10X (not unreasonable as the rest of the planet industrializes) and you have an energy input on the order of TSI variations over a sunspot cycle.
00
What is N-D?
00
>”What is N-D?”
Notch Delay.
00
>”What is N-D?”
Notch Delay but invalid in the case of globally averaged temperature and an 11 yr delay.
The 11-yr signal is evident as found by analysts other than David.
Planetary lag has been estimated by, among others (see references in the following), Swartz (2007), Scafetta & West (2007), Abdussamatov (2012).
00
Re #41.2
2005 1365.5 drop to 2007 1365.33 = 0.17 W/m2.
Doesn’t look like much but it’s just the start of what, in worst-case (Maunder-type – Shapiro et al/Abdussamatov), could progress to 6 W/m2:
http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Variations-in-Total-Solar-Irridiance.png
Or any scenario less than 6 W/m2 (e.g. Dalton-type – Duhau and de Jager).
But let’s put 0.17 W/m2 solar forcing 2005 – 2007 in context using the IPCC’s formula dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co) and ML CO2 data. I’m not suggesting the IPCC’s RF methodology is valid (it isn’t) but the exercise is instructive.
ML CO2
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
2000 369.52
2010 389.85
dF = 5.35 ln(389.85/369.52)
Opposing forcings wrt warming:
dF CO2: +0.29 W/m2 2000 – 2010
df SUN: -0.17 W/m2 2005 – 2007
This is what it is all about. In the space of one year (2006) solar forcing achieved an offsetting forcing 59% of CO2 forcing for the entire decade.
The IPCCs CMIP5/AR5 simulations did not account for this solar eventuality. Solar forcing was held constant at early 2000s levels i.e. SCs 21, 22, 23 repeating but not including SC 23 minimum.
In AR5 Dhapter 3: Radiative Forcing, they cite G. Jones, Lockwood, and Stott (2012) who, using almost least-case solar scenarios in GCM modelling, reckoned solar change would make minimal difference by 2100.
But since he co-authored that paper, CO2-centric solar specialist Mike Lockwood changed his views when it became apparent that the 2014 SC 24 peak would be well below the preceding SC peaks i.e. over 0.3 W/m2 less approx (indicatively – not measured), about double the 2006 0.17 drop.
Abdussamatov projected a 0.5 W/m2 drop SC 23 peak – SC 24 peak (see graph above) so he looks to have over estimated but we don’t have actual data yet – he might be right. It is still easy to see that the 2000 – 2010 decade of (supposed) CO2 forcing will be wiped out by opposing solar forcing in the space of 9 years (2005 – 2014) and the wipeout will get progressively greater past 2014.
And that’s in terms of the IPCC’s own (very dodgy) RF methodology.
30
Re #41.2.2
>AR5 Chapter 3: Radiative Forcing, ….cite G. Jones, Lockwood, and Stott (2012)
‘What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near surface temperature changes?’
Jones, G. S., M. Lockwood, and P. A. Stott (2012)
http://www.eiscat.rl.ac.uk/Members/mike/publications/pdfs/2012/283_Jonesetal_2011JD017013.pdf
10
http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Variations-in-Total-Solar-Irridiance.png
404ed
00
http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Variations-in-Total-Solar-Irridiance.png
Works for me.
00
I think you need something better than a fixed 11-year average to show the variation of TSI.
The varying lengths of the sunspot cycles will give considerable ripple, even for an unchanging (apart from cycles) TSI.
The current cycle is 13-14 years long, that alone gives a falling 11-year average towards 2007, the centre of the cycle.
Cycles that differ a lot from 11-years will also give more output from the 11-year notch filter.
This thing amplifies very small changes in TSI into substantial temperature variations.
I would worry a lot about excessive sensitivity to changes in model parameters, and to uncertainties in TSI.
Problem might go away if you drop the notch and beef-up the lowpass filter (Hint).
40
No. The transfer function is what it is,
40
See my http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/the-solar-model-finds-a-big-fall-in-tsi-data-that-few-seem-to-know-about/#comment-1501395 for why a strictly (or even mainly) “lowpass filter” is unlikely.
One thing that may help is to recognize that variations in TSI (day/night) show up quickly in the system. So that very high frequency (relatively) is not filtered much (there is in most places about a 45 degree phase difference between the TSI “instantaneous” rate and temperatures.
00
The effect of a drop in temperature stratosphere in 2007 and 2008, is immediately visible in the jump sea ice.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_SH_2007.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_SH_2008.gif
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
60
“Anthony Watts covered the strange rearrangement of TSI reported on Feb 6 2014. The SORCE / TIM data changed rather a lot overnight. ”
Thanks, I’d missed that one.
There seems to be no data on this planet that has not been “corrected” to fit the agenda.
Having maintained for years that the sun has no significant effect on climate , they now need it help explain the “pause”.
And guess what, TSI does us the honour of moving to lower values at just right time to explain the lack of warming.
That and all the massive volcanic activity we’ve been seeing since 2000. 😉
310
Having maintained for years that the sun has no significant effect on climate , they now need it help explain the “pause”.
Excellent. +1
240
Are you subscribing to the “rice bowl” theory of science. If one puts rice in my bowl, will starve if I bite that entities hand. Since a person has to eat, that person might say anything you want about their branch of science. Unfortunately, the rice being put in the bowl has been collected from me and the person your science hurts most is me.
50
It’d be quite funny if the output of the model is a bigger drop to a lower temperature when Leif’s data is input into it.
70
Even funnier if the cooling has already begun.
10
Jo, over in your side bar you link to the blog of statistician Matt Briggs.
May I, politely and with all due respect, remind you of one of his famous posts?
NEVER SMOOTH TIME SERIES, YOU HOCKEY PUCK!
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=195
It is with Mr Brigg’s admonishment in mind that I am skeptical that a data point representing an 11 year smooth of TSI provides a useful input datum for a lagging global temperature anomaly index datum to be determined soon. It may be correct — but it may not be useful. We can’t rely on it because we don’t yet have reliance on the two posited factors both introduced at one go — “Force X” and whatever “force” drives the nuclear fallout processes affecting the global temperature anomaly.
That is, there is an extremely high level input, smoothed, correlated by a lag (notch?), adjusted by a short-term irreproducable fudge factor (nukes), and predicting the direction of change (not the value) of a NON-physical number (anomaly index, not heat or weather or number of storms…)
I happen to agree with you and Davie regarding the direction of change in the index, based on nothing more solid than my belief in “regression to the mean”. Gambler’s fallacy, if you like. What has been up, must eventually go down. We’ll see.
But the exercise here is not yet persuasive for me.
110
Pouncer, I do like Matt Briggs indeed.
We don’t use the 11 year smoothed TSI as an input.
The lag is independently verified. As for nukes, I was skeptical too. But 503 bombs went off in the atmosphere with a yield of 440Mt. Everything over 1Mt reaches the stratosphere (and the Soviets did a lot of testing near the Arctic where the Strat is low.) The C14 isotope was recorded as still higher than background in the mid 1980s. Obviously the nukes did some cooling. How much? That’s up for debate. No one seems to have any argument that suggests the nukes would have no effect and thus should not be in a climate model. I posted links to papers in the hindcasting post VII.
Of course, other factors could have contributed to the lack of warming in the same era. It would be good if we could add those to the model. Suggestions welcome.
190
Empirical data on ocean cycles might be good for a start. The difficulty with that is how do you project it? I suppose you could contrive a model….
But there are difficulties. The ocean temperature cycles are not independent of TSI. Difficult unraveling cooked spaghetti and getting it – unbroken – back in the box.
30
world wide industrial pollution may make more sense. “solar dimming”.
If you missed my earlier comment on running mean distortion, have a look at this plot and the article it links to:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=982
30
From the Oxford Dictionary, a definition of Science:
So let’s keep on exploring the intellectual possibilities combined with practical activities like David’s to better understand the world through observation and experiment. Is the science settled (i.e. completely understood)? Not even close.
I’m hoping at least some scientists are continuing to explore the unknowns with an open mind.
110
I have 3 questions.
1. How can one smooth an 11 year trend and show it up to and including 2009? This implies having data out to the end of 2015 doesn’t it?
2. The dip in the 2009 TSI trough is 0.25 W/m2. Is this significant?
3. The peak in 2012 is 0.5 W/m2 below the previous peak in 2001 or less than 0.04% variation. This difference is responsible for global warming / cooling?
The first graph goes back to 1950 while the second graph goes to 1979. In fairness to the discussion the second graph needs to be extended back to 1950.
40
“1. How can one smooth an 11 year trend and show it up to and including 2009? This implies having data out to the end of 2015 doesn’t it?”
There’s two things wrong with that question: “smooth” and “trend”.
If you wish to filter some high frequency variation out of some data you need to define what you want to remove and then find a FILTER to do it, “smooth” is totally arbitrary and fluffy criteria which is why most people make a hash of it when trying to “smooth” data.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/triple-running-mean-filters/
What does “trend” mean? Is it a linear model or a quadratic or some other “trend”. If you mean linear “trend” you can’t smooth a straight line.
You can’t effectively 11y low-pass filter upto 2009 or even 2005, there is not enough data,period.
You could filter, say at 5y, that would leave some variability but make it more readable (which is often one of the aims).
40
1. I’m not sure which graph you are referring to? Obviously 11-year smoothed trends could only go to Dec 2008 at most with June 2014 data.As far as I know the only graph we’ve put out is the 400 year one where the resolution is so low a debate over 2008 or 2009 seems a little odd? I think people are mixing up his 3 year dotted and differently-colored extension of the TSI in a 400 year graph where he has clearly labelled that tiny extension as “assumed average”. It’s not portrayed as data, it isn’t material to anything much and was merely added to show that the downward slope of the TSI will probably level off soon, rather than continue to plummet. Is this the graph?
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/evans/graphs/prediction/total-solar-irradiance-1.1.gif
2. As we’ve repeatedly explained the main effect on Earths climate does not appear to be the tiny changes in TSI. The delayed path is 10-20 times more powerful than direct TSI.
3. See point 2.
4. I don’t see how extending the PMOD Graph back to 1979 would be fair. We can’t graph PMOD data before 1979, because there isn’t any. Those 3 decades were more than enough to show how misleading it is of Svalgaard to repetitively link to a 10 year graph as if it has any relevance to our arguments.
130
Hi Jo,
I’ve only had time to quickly browse the comments here, (and not the study itself), that being partly because I have had “difficulty” with Willis since 2008 and had a particular interest, (and wonder how he gets away with it and is so popular at WUWT).
Concerning the Centre Point Averaging smoothing end-data criticism, I think that would go away if the more modern LOESS methodology were used and I understand it is a better indication of curvilinear trends, (and the treatment of outliers). Steve McIntyre has used it for a start.
A quick write-up is here:
http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pmd/section1/pmd144.htm
20
So science is a blood sport now? I wonder where that leaves politics. Pretty low I would guess since the world is deteriorating into warring factions faster than I can count them. Science might as well follow along.
I still want to see the whole thing. Then maybe I can make a comment pro or con. Or maybe I just shut my mouth and let those who know more about the subject make the comments.
In the end, if it predicts well then it will win the game (bloodsport now, you know). And if not, then it loses.
In the meantime I will mourn the loss by some of their basic manners and their ability to look before they leap off the cliff.
130
That science should be framed in terms of a game by anyone hoping to be taken seriously is a great tragedy. So many have worked and fought so hard to advance our knowledge of the world around us by forming a theory, investigating it and finally proving it right or wrong that I can’t count them. And then along comes a moron willing to tell another scientist with whom he disagrees that science is a blood sport.
Damn! 🙁
170
This ain’t a sprint, even if instant communication may make it feel like one.
Take your time Joanne and David et al.
I’ve learned thru hard experience that my snap decisions are not to be trusted.
Looking forward to further dissemination.
100
I think WUWT lost about 70% of its continuous (go there first, elsewhere, later) loyal fans with the Goddard Saga. I think maybe Watts did not realize that the AGW’ers have to be dealt with very harshly as they are in fact committing a crime by fabricating data. The costs are enourmous. Basically lukewarmers or people believing that NOAAect can be trusted are feeding the warmist conspiracy and its continuation. None of the important stuff (such as Goddards findings) is getting to mainstream media because of this attitude
280
Of course others feeding us this constant crap (temp records are OK) are the BEST crowd modelers who are just the same as the likes of Gavin SChmidt, Rahmsdorf ect etc who have vested interests in AGW. In any case it wont matter as most likely temps will stay flat or go dawn during the next 10-20 years and AGW will just fade away as an issue (it already isfading… no one really cares much, that is apart from people on these blogs every day) LOL
180
Even during the Classical Greece and Age of Enlightenment periods there was dissention from many who simply could not or would not understand the beautiful balance of discussing ideas and the freedom from persecution to do so, when the majority followed such honest and rational methods human progressed bloomed in all aspects of life.
Today in 2014 we are still having the same arguments and making the same mistakes as anytime in the past when we’re near the lower part of our development cycle, this is evident with groupthink organizations mandating how we should progress with models like the UN’s Human Development Index which like other agendas have no consideration for critical discussion.
People clashing with each other over something as simple as an exchange of ideas is nothing new and sadly will continue for some time until the curve of the natural development cycle peaks once more, I hope we are heading up towards this peak as the people trying to get us there have predicted earths temperature may go the other way and it’s times like those when cool heads are needed.
100
Perhaps those of us who think, solve problems, and are productive make the lives of those who don’t much too easy. They have little to no contact with the reality that to produce you must solve problems. To solve problems, you must think. To be able to think you must be free to learn, make mistakes, try things, fail, and finally succeed.
The takers assume the makers do what they do by magic and thus can be forced to use that magic for the good of the sacred *other* (aka the takers). The fact is, the makers don’t use magic and force used against them ultimately destroys their ability to make. Both the makers and takers loose in the long run (aka the dark ages).
The makers can survive and thrive quite nicely without the takers. The takers not only cannot thrive, they cannot survive without the makers. The takers are terrified that the makers will discover that fact and leave the takers out in the cold. It is about time that we do exactly that.
201
Yes Lionel, compassion is a doubled edged sword, it leaves you open to fraud. A balance is required.
80
The “makers and takers” is an interesting idea in the “two types of people in the world” theory, I could never completely accept this simple idea due to the multitude of variables involved considering the psychology of human behavior, but maybe we should apply Occam’s Razor to this for a simpler explanation for a self described complex species.
30
Four legs good, two legs bad.
60
Or the solution to the Gordian knot perhaps?
The makers and takers meme certainly extends into a huge subset of philosophical questions which may not be very helpful in the current enterprise but will I am sure become of profound concern in later times.
Bring on the Meritocracy!
10
This is bringing out the real divides in the debate. There are actually three types of sceptics:
1) skeptical of CO2 or GHG warming
2) skeptical of inflated estimates of GHG warming
3) skeptical of the good intentions of the Gorebull Warmers/IPCC types
I come under 2 and 3 and, on bad days, 1 also. The people slamming you only come under 2 and that is arguable as they still seem to not have that much problem with much of the agenda for stopping the release of man made CO2. I think we are seeing that some sceptics really are not. They were just the pressure relief valve to keep the real sceptics from blowing up the scam.
80
I would also point out that there is still some real question as to whether the sun follows black body assumptions. We have data that would seem to show that some UV has dropped more than a black body assumption would allow. When Leif talks about TSI GUESS he hasn’t said the half of it!!!
60
Since I am a Simple Red Neck, I depend on comments from more learned readers. On the referenced WUWT thread, the tenor of the comments was distressing and singularly unhelpful. WUWT is usually a valuable forum where people can present ideas and research for thoughtful criticism. We castigate alarmists for their anti-science behavior, among other things in avoiding serious critique. The WUWT post was put up there by the author and I assume it was posted for critique. A careful, thoughtful, and civilized critique would have been appropriate. THAT would have been science.
Thank you, Jo for this post.
180
A pleasure.
We did indeed expect skeptics to be our harshest critics, we did not expect the lack of civility and irrational malice.
410
I agree, whatever, the technical flaws in the present model, the name calling exceeds Svalgaard’s usual level of condescension.
Willis is getting increasingly bad-tempered with many posters, don’t take it personally. 😉
200
I think “the crime” is deviating from the normal, business as usual, skeptical critique of the science, as traditionally practiced by the likes of Svalgaard, Willis, et al, and coming up with a whole new approach to explaining climate change, in terms of solar influences, and doing it in engineering terms dammit!
Suddenly, they feel as though they are no longer in the box seat. Hence the comments about blood sport.
You are allowed to be right, but only on their terms, and with their permission.
Unfortunately, that makes them start to look like part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.
220
The entrenched position hates the new idea that renders all the previous hard work & status acquisition null & void.
100
Yep. And of course this is interesting because so many in the active on line sceptic audience are engineers.
10
David and Jo,
The true nature of Dr. Leif Svalgaard and Willis Eschenbach has been revealed
to all by their recent posts at WUWT. The condescension and acidic-bile spewed forth by
both of these men is a dark stain on the scientific community. The sad thing is that they
actually delude themselves into believing that they are helping the scientific debate.
It is commendable that Anthony Watts has realized that he needs the scientific
opinion of others to help him decide if an article or paper is worth publishing at his blog
site. However, a person is identified by the company that he keeps. So, even Anthony must
(now) realize that his chief scientific advisers, Dr. Leif Svalgaard and Willis Eschenbach,
are little more than intellectual thugs. They actually seem to get enjoyment out of bullying
and intimidating others with their so-called expertise.
Over the last year, Anthony Watts attack dogs have effectively alienated large
sections of the skeptical community (e.g. Lord Monckton, Jo Nova, David Evans, Rog Tallbloke
etc.) with their take-no-hostages approach to scientific debate.
I appeal to Anthony Watts, who I believe is basically a good man, to bring his
scientific rottweilers to heel. The damage they have inflicted upon scientific debate is
already considerable. Please rein them in before it is too late.
520
Rog Tallbloke alienates himself by banning those who dare to question his pet theories, that is not the fault of W. or Dr. S
212
Greg the problem is that we as a society put these people up on a pedastle and revere them as “men amongst men” because they passed a number of subjects spanning a 3 year period at some university. The truth is though greg they are just mere men nothing more nothing less, the behaviour of Dr S here at this site is no different than anyone else and i ask you, should we have expected anythng better?
I believe the answer is no. They are not Gods just simple men.
Regards
104
looks like two people have read my comment, bring on the red thumbs boys dont bother to reply just add the red thumbs.
42
Greg,
steady on. If you are referring to Willis, then you should read what Willis wrote at Rog’s site in 2011.
This is the true motivation behind much of the acrimony. Willis made a spectacular blunder in 2011, claiming DWLWIR could slow the cooling rate of the oceans, raising their temperature from -18C to 15C.
This was not a small error. That one’s a “fist biter”. An error so bad you end up wincing so hard while biting your fist you find you’ve swallowed your eyes and are missing fingers.
This is the problem with the “Reign of Willis” at WUWT. Unless he admits this error there can be no progress. It is the sum of the thing, it is the whole of the thing.
Only by understanding what is heating the oceans above their theoretical blackbody temperature of -18C can you understand climate on this planet and why AGW is a physical impossibility.
WUWT can never get it right while Willis reigns. No matter how he twists and turns, no matter how he thrashes and flexes, nothing is going to work. He got the most fundamental questions wrong. All he is doing is spinning his wheels, pointlessly hoping there can be some “lukewarmer” solution.
There isn’t.
Willis was wrong.
Spectacularly wrong.
221
Greg
Konrad has addressed your Rog Tallbloke reference as far as Willis is concerned. Now I’ll do so re Leif. If you read the following post at the Talkshop from July 2013, you’ll see Lief behaving in just the same way as he has done here and refusing to give a full and frank apology:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/07/30/poppenhaeger-hd-189733a-has-been-tidally-influenced-by-the-hot-jupiter/
Almost the entire thread consists of Rog trying to elicit that apology for a serious slur on his character. Leif said:
“I see a blatant lie as the word ‘keeping’ does not appear in her paper at all….
Nor ‘it’s possible’. The quote is a fabrication. This exposes you as dishonest. And utterly destroys your credibility [if any].”
Reference link for comment with this quote:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/07/30/poppenhaeger-hd-189733a-has-been-tidally-influenced-by-the-hot-jupiter/comment-page-1/#comment-56589
Rog doesn’t get an apology despite giving Leif unequivocal proof of his being in the right and Leif’s accusation being unfounded. This is the last comment and to this day, no apology has been forthcoming:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/07/30/poppenhaeger-hd-189733a-has-been-tidally-influenced-by-the-hot-jupiter/comment-page-1/#comment-56592
Would you have him back if he was still refusing to make that simple apology? It means he’s liable to do it again- and refuse to apologise again. It’s not worth it. It’s not just the unwarranted character assassination, it’s the dismay at seeing the scientific discussion on your site totally subverted. As has happened here.
As for the above debacle, the constructive scientific discussion was suffocated as Svalgaard’s ego arrived to suck the oxygen out of the thread. A pity as this post had relevance to the very things being discussed here for the 11 year delay. But everyone just scarpered.
90
Oh, and I may be maligning Rog inadvertently because I think I may have seen comments from Leif knocking around the Talkshop since the above fracas which would mean there never was a ban anyway.
30
>”Fans of the IPCC now say the TSI was falling for decades, while others think TSI pretty much stayed high til the 24th cycle and the 25th has been strikingly small”
Shouldn’t that be:
“high til the [23rd] cycle and the [24th] has been strikingly small”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_cycles
50
Richard, of course. Thanks. Corrected. – Jo
50
“The bottom line here is that perhaps SORCE/TIM is a better guesstimate of TSI than PMOD, but whatever PMOD is measuring seems to be a better predictor of Earth’s temperature. So in future if we can elucidate what makes PMOD useful and the new SORCE/TIM reconstruction not so much, then we may get clues as to the mystery force that operates with an 11 year lag. Obviously temperature is not following the SORCE/TIM reconstruction with an 11 year lag, but it does seem to follow PMOD.”
Jo, your comment above is a good summary of the real state of affairs in the evaluation of David’s model.
He proposed a “force X” that he didn’t specify which one it is. Therefore, to use new observation to invalidate his analysis is bogus logic, after all he is not trying to say that the TSI is directly causing the observed variations of Earth’s temperatures, but as you said some unknown “force X” (probably related with albedo, but not even this was a final conclusion). He suggested that “force X” is probably related with the intensity of the polar field, more than any other variable that he considered in his study.
Leif’s own data show that Sun’s polar fields are decreasing steadily since the 1970’s,
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png
but some kind of critical-point/step-change seems to have happened in the last cycle (#23) and now the field seems to go slowly down to zero, with ever smaller oscillations around this point.
I’ve been asking myself *what if* the field stays at zero or near zero for a long period?
Would this be a repetition of what happened in the Maunder Minimum? Leif believes that we could be entering a period similar to that, because he believes that the L&P effect is essentially real.
In support to David’s findings I’d note also that the polar fields at the maximum of cycle #20 were kind of “oscillating around zero”, similarly as they are now, and ~ 11 years later we had important cooling in the end of the 1970’s. Something similar could happen in the coming years.
I’ve noticed also that the aa-index from the UK Solar System Data Centre (http://www.ukssdc.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wdcc1/secure/geophysical_parameters.pl)
https://twitter.com/dhm4444/status/449725575452565505/photo/1
shows the present cycle as much less “intense” than the previous ones, including cycle #14 at the beginning of the XX century, that Leif usually says is similar to the present cycle #24.
I disagree, the present solar cycle seems quite unusual and the possible connection with the Sun’s polar fields to explain the difference sounds very reasonable in my mind.
Congratulations for the great work you and David are doing here! 🙂
80
The problem with using smoothed data is that strange things happen when your smoothing window starts to overrun the end of the data. If you are using some automatic smoothing function built into some package (like excel) you may not be aware of how this problem is being dealt with by the function. I suspect that the drop off you are seeing may be an artifact of the smoothing procedure. Smoothing with an 11 year window is likely to rsult in distortion of the last 11 years of data. Do you see a similar drop off in unsmoothed data?
Statisticians are very down on using smoothed data as input to a subsequent procedure. Smoothing of data is similar to rounding of numbers. It should always be the very last thing you do. Smoothing changes the properties of the data in subtle ways, and errors can result if smoothed data is used in a subsequent procedure. Smoothing is useful to make a graph look more comprehensible to the human eye after all calculation has been completed but should be avoided at other times.
60
Wise words indeed.
40
Semi-wise.
running any filter beyond a full buffer will produce spurious output. However, it would affect the last 5 years of a 11y running mean, not last 11y.
Also Jo has already stated that they don’t use the 11y “smoothed” data as input to further stages. I was also under the impression they did but until we see the code, we can’t tell.
50
I should add that David does not seem to be running the “smoother” beyond the end of the data. What is a problem is the distortions introduced by a running mean “smoother”.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/triple-running-mean-filters/
20
Thank you for the correction Greg. Sometimes I can be overly cryptic.
My comment as solely related to Ian observation that smoothing should always be the very last thing you do.
40
“Smoothing” is a visual effect to aid visual appreciation of data. It is not part of data processing and should only used for display purposes.
Filtering data may be required to remove a strong signal or noise in order to study some other aspect of the data. This is why Briggs’ simplistic “you should never..” is wrong.
30
I am just a humble actuary who has been following the AGW debate for some years because I didn’t believe that Charles Dickens would have been making up his depictions of the weather in 17th C England in his books that I read when a child. Yet that was the implication of the IPCC reports and the Mann hockey stick.
I don’t understand the fixation with TSI. It is not homogeneous. The emissions of the sun range from infra-red through to UV and beyond through FUV, EUV and to X-rays. The shorter the wavelength of the emissions the more energy these emissions contain. Surely if the infra-red end of the spectrun doesn’t vary much at all and the x-ray end of the spectrum varies enormously shouldn’t research be centered on the variable end and what long term variations in this end of the spectrum do to the climatic order of things? As it happens I have been keeping tabs on the EUV emissions through the data made available by University of Southern California. http://www.usc.edu/dept/space_science/semdatafolder/semdownload.htm. This indicates that the emissions of EUV in cycle 24 so far are a little over 40% down on cycle 23 to the same point in that cycle. I would have thought that was huge! Using F10.7 CM flux as a proxy to compare to cycle 22, it seems that EUV emissions in the current cycle could have reduced by as much as 60% to the same point in cycle 22. These orders of magnitude also appear in the absolute magnetic strength data provided by Wilcox Solar Observatory. http://wso.stanford.edu/.
140
Search for this paper Brent as it touches on UV and O3 etc to explain AGW
COSMIC-RAY-DRIVEN REACTION AND GREENHOUSE EFFECT OF HALOGENATED MOLECULES:
CULPRITS FOR ATMOSPHERIC OZONE DEPLETION AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Q.-B. Lu
Department of Physics and Astronomy and Departments of Biology and Chemistry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, CANAD
30
” This indicates that the emissions of EUV in cycle 24 so far are a little over 40% down on cycle 23 to the same point in that cycle. I would have thought that was huge!”
It’s not that much in W/m2 but it may be significant in its effect upon stratospheric ozone.
30
Especially if the changes in stratospheric ozone differ between poles and equator so as to shift the jets and cliate zones thereby changing cloudiness.
Note that the presence of ozone reacting directly with solar energy creates the temperature inversion that starts at the tropopause.
A warmer stratosphere pushes the tropopause down and a colder stratosphere pulls it up.
Tropopause heights between the equator and each pole constitute a pair of giant see-saws which are susceptible to top down solar and bottom up oceanic influences.
70
Especially when such variation is obviously linked to volcanic activity rather the atmospheric CO2.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=902
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/tropical-feedback_resp_ci.png
30
Yes, you can add volcanic influences too but they tend to be temporary and the effect depends on how high the eruption products rise.
50
Maybe you should look at what I posted before replying !!
12
It is a starting hypothesis. If the results from that investigation look interesting a deeper look will e taken. The results do look interesting and some people are looking deeper.
30
What it measures, or represents, also happens to be fundamental to all life on this planet, including our existence.
30
Brent #62
“EUV emissions through the data made available by University of Southern California”
Thanks for the data link. A useful adjunct to this Solar Terrestrial Activity Report:
http://www.solen.info/solar/
Historical Flux (F10.7 proxy), Ap, SSN, but no EUV.
>”EUV in cycle 24 so far are a little over 40% down on cycle 23 to the same point in that cycle”
F10.7 monthly average 27% down, 23 to 24, peak to peak.
10
By the way its been a while since my last report from ground zero and thats because after the Omni Potent Force Of A Trace Gas (OPFOATG) finished wreaking havoc here in Adelaide it then drifted over to Sydney where it caused mayhem by inducing a record breaking run of days above 20 Degrees C, it then drifted over to the Queensland outback where it created low rain/drought, it then drifted back to te alpine region where it generated near record snowfalls but now it has drifted back into Adelaide.
Now at some point in the past the OPFOATG was blamed for causing a drought but as we all know what the Lord giveth the lord can taketh away and Adelaide has now seen the most rainfall in the first six months of the year since 1971!!!!!!!
Surely this has to be the work of God……sorry that was uncalled for, for the omni potent force of a trace gas is far more powerful.
Regards
Crakar24
110
Jo the title underlines the mistake here: “The Solar Model finds a big fall in TSI data that few seem to know about”
Everyone knows this cycle has been very weak so presumably you are not say that is “few know about”.
The idea of a sudden drop around 2003-2005 is a data processing error, not a discovery.
I’ve explained that more fully above. Perhaps you need to look at that.
20
Leave it to a benchtop chemist to distill an argument to its essence, as days ago on WUWT I noted:
“So the TSI is indeed falling but is noisy or chaotic in short term trend. The debate here seems to be about how the level of Leif’s bowl pulls down the average since 2003 even though the level itself recovers to that lower 2003 value.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/a-cool-question-answered/#comment-1671953
My subsequent wine fueled rhetorical inquiry about what Napoleon would do even foreshadowed Joanne’s mention of him here.
30
“Hmm. That’s a sudden adjustment in the reconstruction of TSI dataset?”
Why do writers and commentators feel it necessary to use the irritating prefix ‘Hmm’?
00
It is supposed to imply a degree of suspicion regarding the motivation for an unexplained change.
It is more vague, and therefore less inflammatory, than saying something like, for example, “I think you are lying through your teeth, and fiddling with the data, in order to prove a point.”
130
Thanks for the comment Rereke!
Your example “I think you are lying through your teeth, and fiddling with the data, in order to prove a point” made me smile, it’s entertaining and truthful, unlike the somewhat mealy-mouthed ‘hmm’.
Whatever happened to turns of phrase such as ‘in contrast to’, ‘does not support your statement that’, and ‘it would appear that’? – much more scientific, and better English!
40
Maybe less typing Carbon500? For me that wins every time. I never got above 32 words per min.
Besides that, it helps to convey inflection. Something that the typed word can’t easily do. As Another Ian says down below his clan starts out with “Um”. How may ways can you say those two letters? They can be stern, they can question, they can buffer the harsh truth, they can buy time while you think up a lie and even more.
Of course these words can also be used as camouflage and shelter (weasel words) when one is called out. Handy right?
30
Carbon
In our clan this starts as “Um”
20
Here’s the way I think Rereke’s comment “I think you are lying through your teeth, and fiddling with the data in order to prove a point” could be reworded:
Let’s split it into two parts:
‘I think you are lying through your teeth’ : a scientific paper might say: ‘This view does not accord with those expressed by Bloggs et al’ or perhaps ‘In contrast to the interpretation of the data by other authors’
“and fiddling with the data to prove a point” : ‘The author’s data review contrasts with earlier work by Bloggs et al’
Any more offers re. science speak?
10
Jo,
I just found this http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/06/edge-cold-deep-abyss/ I am wondering how they generated these numbers 2 days before David posted part 8 ?? Without looking closely it appears to be a gross exaggeration based on whimsical coincidence and old tree ring stuff.
Why would Aunty (Quadrant) put this up and not check or say anything about it’s source David’s work? Surely something far more relevant, interesting and closer to home?? – Ohhh of course it is CAGW Aunty!!
20
If you mean the ABC when you say “Aunty”, you could not be more misinformed if you were a close colleague of Michael Mann.
The current editor of the magasine is Keith Windshuttle.
The article was submitted by David Archibald, Author of the book “Twilight of Abundance” and a professor at the University of Tasmania. Presumably, Mr. Archibald is one of the close colleagues with who Dr. Evans shared his paper for feedback.
20
Backing away from the trees to better see the wood, I feel there is a worrying lack of self consistency in the story presented so far.
The starting point is that the climate does not respond to solar cycles,
but at the same time there are predictions of major changes in temperature,
resulting from relatively minor changes in those solar cycles.
Are there are any examples from history of a correlation between small changes in solar activity and “sudden” changes in global temperature?
22
Your starting point is demonstrably false. The sun is the source of all of the energy used on the planet, with the possible exception of nuclear radiation.
Have you actually read anything that David Evans has written on this subject? And if you have, have you managed to understand it? And if you have achieved that feat, and have some modicum of understanding, can you take the giant leap to understanding the implications?
72
Well the data seem to be time-smoothed, so you’re not going to see sudden changes. Thermodynamics is fundamentally non-linear. (It’s only conductivity through isotropic solids where linearity is a viable assumption.)
The act of time-smoothing means that the peaks are lopped and the troughs filled; (usually) in a quasi-linear fashion. One can try to be clever by applying different types of smoothing but they are fundamentally a-physical. (Richard Feynman recounts being rightly castigated by his supervisor for presenting a beautiful model; which had no evident physicalities.)
For the most part, time-averaging isn’t even needed for analysis. Energy integrals over time will do just fine, preserving physicality in the algorithms. (Apologies for mentioning Al Gore. ;-))
Of course total global insolation, including atmospheric is also spatially variable; through albedo and emissivity, so one also has to integrate over the area(/volume!) exposed to sunlight as the planet rotates.
Using any sort of average for further analysis requires one to be constantly on one’s toes; especially when drawing conclusions from what appear to be results.
51
“The act of time-smoothing means that the peaks are lopped and the troughs filled”
Or in the case of a running inverting the troughs. No, I’m not joking.
See the first graph here (RRS TLT).
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/triple-running-mean-filters/
The 5y running mean manages to be in anti-phase with the majority of the peaks!
20
To be honest, I’ve not had the time to give David Evans’ theory lots of consideration. I wish that I could print out the articles by themselves to consider their contents offline, undisrupted by the chatter of comments. It seems to take a lot of time to get into David’s brain-space and it would be unfair to criticise without making the effort.
The fragmented presentation didn’t help me either, but that was of course necessitated by the publish-by-blog mechanism.
Have you considered adding the whole thing as a Reference Page? A “wiki” could be more useful for updates and making the change history visible.
60
Bernd
I just scan and highlight the article with my mouse then Ctrl-C to copy, open WORD and paste Ctrl-V and print on a colour printer. You have wait as WORD interprets the diagrams after the paste that takes some seconds.
00
Jo,
FWIW, I have had a dip at in particular Willis on that thread. I was extremely disappointed with his treatment of Tony Brown, and amazed that he had not heard of him – THE main commentator on historic climate change on the blogosphere and for quite some time, including many insightful posts at WUWT. I’m also disappointed because he would have been one of the bloggers I would have looked to to have this solar model unpicked and poured over. Very disappointed with his and Leif’s carry on. Even here he has not really responded to the points in the main post.
I wonder whether being able to set a date on the release of the model with the data and code would head off the implication that Dr Evans is “refusing” to show it?
100
TSI is a composite and it’s cobbled together. UV, IR and visible spectra need to be separated – they all react differently with sea, land and atmosphere.
80
Hi Jo
Re the blinking graphs of TSI: 10.7cm flux shows the 1958 maximum as the highest magnitude and the 3 most recent lower but about the same magnitude whereas the current cycle looks like it won’t make the 1969 peak. May be relevant if radio flux correlates with TSI?
Ken
30
I’ve marked December 15, 2017 and December 15, 2021 to check predictions. The consensus seems to be folks make really nice graphs but it’s all Ouija board stuff (ref. the comment about all constructions are wrong).
It the predictions for 2017 and 2021 turn out to be close, then I’d rather have the Evans Ouija board on the parlor table than all the other IPCC ones or, for that matter, any of the alarmist ones.
Of course, since we may only have intermittent green/renewable/non-hydrocarbon power generation by them, it may be difficult, if not impossible, for either side to boast about the results.
40
have appreciated some of what Willis has done and I have defended him against unfair criticisms in the past. But his behavior here is not defensible. While scientists do argue vehemently, Willis went over the top. I am ashamed for him and he should be ashamed of himself. Vitriol isn’t a part of science, it’s part and parcel of a boorish, rude, cretin. I hope he can see how ugly he has been and apologize.
162
I understand the implications in your statement. I’ve had some disputes with colleagues and one in particular over how something should be done. We argued back and forth for days. There are strongly held opinions about nearly everything. But it was always kept respectful and civil — professional is the right term. And when the matter was finally decided, the arguing was over and no one was bitter or carried around a grudge, not even me when I was overruled.
Life is like that and those who would be any kind of a leader, no matter what field of endeavour it is, should recognize that they are not God delivering the absolute truth from atop Mount Sinai.
80
> Vitriol isn’t a part of science, it’s part and parcel of a boorish, rude, cretin.
Its rather amusing that you can’t complain about vitriol without descending into it yourself.
312
In this respect the work of Nicola Scafetta is highly recommended. Scafetta’s work on solar influence is greatly unappreciated:
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/
20
underappreciated ?
20
Congratulations to Jo Nova and David Evans for exposing misinformation on solar TSI.
Criticism from Leif Svalgaard and Willis Eschenbach is an encouraging indication their solar model has confirmed flaws in the Standard Solar Model.
I also endorse Nicola Scafetta’s reports on the Sun’s influence on Earth’s climate and the reports by Tony Heller, aka Steven Goddard, and Paul Homeward on human influence (adjustments) to the official record of global temperatures.
52
[SNIP ad hom]
04
Leif, Willis and Lord Monckton, are all robust and passionate commenters. I fear though, that they have on this occasion allowed their passion to become overheated and have lost sight of the point of the discussion. Threats of legal action seem inappropriate to me, hopefully someone will dissuade him from such a course. I think they all need to step back, reflect and chill.
30
FWIW, here’s what I’ve just posted at WUWT:
I came here from Jo Nova’s blog to check what all the fuss was about. I saw this post when it was first raised (because I visit practically every day), but I hadn’t been following the comments.
I’m just a layman who’s been coming here ever since Climategate broke; no one of any significance. But I’ll tell you what: I never thought that one or two hitherto respected people were capable of behaving so stupidly and vindictively before now, nor so intransigently. Comparing David Evans with Michael Mann because he hasn’t yet released his data after only a few weeks? Accusing him of intentional malfeasance? What’s that all about?
This blog has gone way down in my estimation. I wouldn’t be surprised if that applied to many others who’ve been regular and loyal readers for quite some time now. Anthony, keep an eye on your visitor hits from this point on. I know I won’t be visiting as often, and it’ll be interesting to see whether others won’t be, either.
I’m no climate scientist. I don’t really understand Evans’ model, and await the Cliff Notes version. For all I know it could be right or wrong, but for crying out loud, whatever happened to civility and patience? Whatever happened to the capacity to introspect and see what a damn fool one might be making of oneself, not to mention how much damage one might be doing to WUWT’s reputation?
I despair, I really do. I don’t care how smart people are or how many letters they might have after their names. If they behave like a brats in a tantrum, then they lose my respect, and even more importantly, my inclination to trust them.
210
Given that Svalgaard likes to spill blood on the solar physics floor – how come he didn’t turn up with his sabre to the most recent SORCE meeting in February?
http://lasp.colorado.edu/media/projects/SORCE/documents/sns/2014/2014_02_SORCE_News_SORCE_Mtg_Summary.pdf
After all, the usual assorted baddies like Krivova and Solanki were there.
We are all aware (presumably) how much angst instrumental degradation has caused to the raw SORCE dataset and many others, how much discussion, corrections and yes, infighting, has been poured into the TSI spectral problems over the last decade and more….
http://lasp.colorado.edu/media/projects/SORCE/documents/SSI_Workshop_2012/2l_Woods_reanalysis_slides.pdf
In my experience professional academic blood spillers usually can’t resist the smell of blood. Science ‘settled’???
50
The IPCC does not have a solar chapter. The NIPCC does:
Climate Change Reconsidered II
3
Solar Forcing of Climate
Key Findings
The following points summarize the main findings of this chapter:
• Evidence is accruing that changes in Earth’s surface temperature are largely driven by variations in solar activity. Examples of solar controlled climate change epochs include the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and Early Twentieth Century (1910–1940) Warm Period.
• The Sun may have contributed as much as 66% of the observed twentieth century warming, and perhaps more.
• Strong empirical correlations have been reported from all around the world between solar variability and climate indices including temperature, precipitation, droughts, floods, stream flow, and monsoons.
• IPCC models do not incorporate important solar factors such as fluctuations in magnetic intensity
and overestimate the role of human-related CO2 forcing.
• The IPCC fails to consider the importance of the demonstrated empirical relationship between solar activity, the ingress of galactic cosmic rays, and the formation of low clouds.
• The respective importance of the Sun and CO2 in forcing Earth climate remains unresolved; current climate models fail to account for a plethora of known Sun-climate connections.
• The recently quiet Sun and extrapolation of solar cycle patterns into the future suggest a planetary cooling may occur over the next few decades.
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a/pdf/Chapter-3-Solar-Forcing.pdf
# # #
See #42.2.2 upthread for IPCC CO2 forcing vs solar forcing 2000 – 2010/14
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/the-solar-model-finds-a-big-fall-in-tsi-data-that-few-seem-to-know-about/#comment-1500802
40
Arctic amplification is a mis-reading of the evidence.
Changes are stronger in the Arctic because they start there.
The Arctic is a magnetic funnel,
10
I expect there will be further cooling over the next five years as reduced solar activity starts to bite. But the “discovery” of a sudden drop in 2003 is an artefact.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=983
This should be obvious from the headline graph in this article, where it is clear to the naked eye that there is a lot variability on a scale of less than 11y that is still present. Look at the period 1980-1990.
There is notable variability in the period which should be a slow even curve after passing an 11y low-pass filter.
Not a word about this from Jo or David, despite my raising it several time, nice and polite, without insults and accusations of agenda bias and malfeasance.
22
When is an artefact not an artefact?
The thing is that there has been a reduction in TSI and solar activity in general between the peaks of cycles 23 and 24.
Who cares precisely where on a line drawn between the two peaks the slope of decline is greatest?
The 2003 issue is a bit of a canard as David and Jo point out in the header to this post.
“The fuss is over the big fall in TSI. Leif Svalgaard said it was “almost fraudulent” that we claimed there was a fall in TSI since 2003 since there wasn’t a fall in this dataset. He says: “There is no such drop.” I say, look at the graph below, it’s even in your own data. Svalgaard provided the link to his TSI set, and we’ve included that line in the graph below. It’s the light-purple line. (Has he paid attention for the last ten years?)”
As I understand it, David’s claim is that his solar climate model reflects reality just as well as a model based on CO2. That is the important issue. The CO2 model does not follow solar variations at all whereas David’s model does and has no need for anything else. Yet up to around 2000 both models indicate a similar thermal response for the Earth system.
Since 2000 the divergence between the solar and CO2 models has been becoming more and more apparent.
All that remains is to identify the factor x which enables David’s model to show that temperatures track solar activity despite the very small variations in TSI that are observed. Simple logic suggests that there is some form of amplification and delay involved.
My proposal has been out there for several years now as has that of Svensmark and I understand that David thinks he may have another alternative proposal.
The real world observations will soon enough separate out the competing hypotheses but it looks like the CO2 variant is already dead.
61
Well it’s a “canard” since they are making a specific claim that they’ve “discovered” something that “few are aware of”.
They are also implying from that that there is a sudden drop in the pipeline that is about to hit us in the next year or two. I think that is fundamentally mistaken and is based on them reading too much into artefacts of their running mean.
Everyone is well aware that cycle 24 is notably lower the recent cycles, so there’s not discovery or “Big News” there.
If there is sizable solar effect we should see recent (post-2005) cooling continue but I don’t thing there will the huge drop they seem to be predicting.
Since they are making specific predictions and suggesting they are to be seen as a test of their model, they’d be well advised to evaluate what I’ve pointed out and make sure that they do not make predictions that will flounder.
Jo says at the top:
Actually as takes some wisdom to realise that nothing special happened around 2003, it’s just that the current cycle is lot lower that c23.
It takes some wisdom to realise that if you see a sharp drop in data that has been through an 11y LP filter that is not visible in the unfiltered data, you have a defective filter.
There is a mistaken idea that they have “discovered” something hidden by the noise which is only revealed by skilful 11y filtering.
They are rightly annoyed about the remarks that two rather visible characters at WUWT have made, but having put their work up for criticism and discussion don’t seem to doing much discussion about issues raised.
c24 is very low and I think this is starting to show by 2005 and will start to be seem more clearly in the next few years, but I don’t see any reason to expect the sudden dramatic drop they are predicting.
22
“They are also implying from that that there is a sudden drop in the pipeline that is about to hit us in the next year or two”
Didn’t they mention an 11 year time lag?
Also, force x is supposed to offset the effect of the TSI changes on an 11 year time scale so they are not predicting a sudden drop imminently.
Force x is supposed to then, after a delay of 11 years, amplify the thermal effect of the TSI change.
That is a more sophisticated approach than just saying that the TSI drop will shortly result in a temperature drop.
The notch concept suggests that nothing much happens for 11 years then the effect of the TSI change comes through in amplified form either as warming if TSI is rising or cooling if TSI is falling.
“they are making a specific claim that they’ve “discovered” something that “few are aware of”.”
Isn’t the notch supposed to be a representation of force x rather than the TSI change? It is the notch that is claimed to have been discovered, not the downward slope in TSI itself.
30
At some point one needs to know the level of solar activity at which force x switches from amplifying cooling to amplifying warming. Without knowing where that point lies a prediction will be very difficult. I am waiting to see how David’s model deals with that.
Currently we have nearly 11 years of force x effects in the pipeline as TSI dropped from the peak of cycle 23 to the lower peak of cycle 24 but until we know the crossover point we do not know whether force x is still amplifying warming (but to a lesser degree) or whether it has switched to amplification of actual cooling.
I suspect that so far we have only seen the net warming effect slowly dissipating with another solar minimum required to get us into true cooling.
30
is there any reason ‘force x’ has to amplify warmth? i don’t even see there has been a claim made for that.
i could be slow on the uptake but it seems the hypothetical lagging mechanism has been presented as purely a negative feedback.
maybe the author can clear that up for me?
00
Well, the changes in TSI are too small to explain the climate changes observed and no significant thermal response to a single solar cycle is observed so something must amplify both the warming effect of a little more TSI and the cooling effect of a little less TSI and it has to operate via albedo changes which then alters the proportion of TSI reaching the surface to drive the system but the system then takes 11 years to respond (the notch) and the response is smeared across 3 to 15 years.
Initially David thought that clouds must increase (cooling) when TSI increases which would serve to offset the effect of more TSI but I pointed out that observations show a decrease in clouds (warming) when the sun is more active.
At present I think David is of the view that force x both changes albedo and causes the delay but I think it works better if the albedo change is caused by the sun and the delay is caused by the ocean response.
That is the best way of dealing with the observation that force x causes less clouds rather than more clouds. If force x causes less clouds one cannot really say that it is a cooling effect which offsets more TSI as per David’s initial interpretation.
I await hearing David’s more detailed analysis.
Note that the debate about interpretation does not derogate from David’s discovery of the existence of the notch. The notch remains a diagnostic indicator for a force x which is associated with TSI but works on the atmosphere differently to TSI.
I understand that David will shortly introduce a post to discuss the appropriate interpretation of the notch and the nature of force x.
20
Stephan #82.1.1.1.1
>”David’s discovery of the existence of the notch”
Based on inadequate analysis. The 11 yr signal is in globally averaged surface temperature, see:
‘On the relationship between global, hemispheric and latitudinal averaged air surface temperature (GISS time series) and solar activity’
Souza Echera et al (2012)
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/233853522_On_the_relationship_between_global_hemispheric_and_latitudinal_averaged_air_surface_temperature_%28GISS_time_series%29_and_solar_activity/file/9fcfd50c209b0f2370.pdf
And also in the troposphere from near-sfc up, see Coughlan and Tung (2004) and Zhou and Tung (2012). And another 9 papers at regional and local level.
How many times does this have to be stated?
>”the system then takes 11 years to respond (the notch) and the response is smeared across 3 to 15 years”
No not 11 yrs, no not the notch, no not 3 to 15 yrs, and not the 11 yr cycle basis anyway,
As Greg has urged, a simple relaxation model would suffice. This is the Swartz and Scafetta & West approach, the time constants and lags have been ascertained:
First characterization:
Time Constant (yrs)
4 < τ < 17 Schwartz
6 < τ < 12 Scafetta and West
10.5 Schwartz
9 Scafetta and West
Second characterization:
Lag (yrs)
τ is approx 63.2% of lag (final asymptotic value). Therefore the respective lags are:
6.3 < lag < 26.9 Schwartz
9.5 < lag < 19 Scafetta and West
16.6 yrs Schwartz
14.3 yrs Scafetta and West
14 yrs Abdussamatov
Third characterization:
Equilibrium (yrs)
"The ocean requires several decades for reaching a thermodynamic equilibrium with a change in the forcing" – Scafetta & West (20 yrs oceanic lag – Abdussamatov, 10 – 100 yrs – Trenberth).
Persevering with the N-D variant of a lagged solar-temperature model is blinkered to a large body of literature. Are you (and David) hoping that if you ignore it all it will go away Stephan (and David)?
01
Re #81.1.1.1.1
Time constant, lag, and equilibrium characterizations upthread at #42.2.1 here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/the-solar-model-finds-a-big-fall-in-tsi-data-that-few-seem-to-know-about/#comment-1500476
00
Yes they did mention an delay, that is why this model has some claimed predictive ability and yes they most certainly did predict a sudden drop, that was what Svalgaard was railing against as being unfounded.
They noted a sudden change identified as 2003-2005, that I have shown is a spurious result of bad processing. They applied the 11y fixed delay and concluded we can expect a sudden drop in the next year or two.
This is put forward as a falsifiable prediction to test their model. And I think it will. That is why I’m suggesting they look at this again.
Now I take it that you mean sophisticated in the sense of more complicated but that does not mean it is better. Usually the most parsimonious explanation is favoured.
10
Greg and Richard,
I was attempting to summarise my understanding of what David has said. I am not qualified to assess whether his numerical methods are valid or not.
I previously mentioned that I found the simple relaxation method attractive.
I am aware of the many works that recognise the existence of effects other than TSI and internal system lags.
Personally I find adequate predictive skill in my own simple conceptual model though it only predicts direction of trend rather than speed of trend.
I was hoping that David’s model could produce more detail about speed of trend and await more information before deciding what his methods can add.
I also doubt a sudden large imminent temperature downturn before the next solar cycle minimum but there should vbe a slow irregular shift towards cooling under my model.
10
Stephan #82.1.1.1.1
>”I am aware of the many works that recognise the existence of effects other than TSI and internal system lags.”
The works I have cited are in respect to 11-YR TSI CYCLICITY and TEMPERATURE at 11-YR FREQUENCY coinciding with TSI.
Read the freaking papers why don’t you!
00
Stephan #82.1.1.1.1
>”I am aware of the many works that recognise the existence of effects other than TSI and internal system lags.”
There are 2 sets of works.
1) In respect to 11-YR TSI CYCLICITY and TEMPERATURE at 11-YR FREQUENCY coinciding with TSI (nullifying the N-D):
Souza Echera et al (2012)
Coughlan and Tung (2004) Zhou and Tung (2012)
9 more papers at regional and local level
2) In respect to internal system lags (alternative to 11-yr lag):
Swartz (2007
Scafetta and West (2007)
Abdussamatov (2012)
00
Stephan #82.1
>”Who cares precisely where on a line drawn between the two peaks the slope of decline is greatest?”
Huh? The slope of decline is exactly the same all along the line.
Focussing on peaks misses the picture. Think of solar input in terms of forcing (but not the IPCC’s definition of it).
SCs 21, 22, and 23 were repetitions up to about 2005 i.e. there was no forcing. After 2005 there was a perceptible drop in TSI i.e. a solar forcing commenced. I’ve put the forcing in context at #41.2.2:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/the-solar-model-finds-a-big-fall-in-tsi-data-that-few-seem-to-know-about/#comment-1500802
Basically,
Opposing forcings wrt warming:
dF CO2: +0.29 W/m2 2000 – 2010
df SUN: -0.17 W/m2 2005 – 2007
In the space of one year (2006) solar forcing achieved an offsetting forcing 59% of CO2 forcing for the entire decade.
It’s a step change that defines where the forcing begins. There was a MUCH greater forcing at the SC 19 step change in TSI peaking 1958 than there was in the SC 23 step change. SC 19 was the beginning of a major solar forcing that lasted until 2005/6
00
Richard,
One of the papers is behind a paywall, another gave me a 404, another was a table of numbers and in relation to another it was far from clear what your point was.
Could you not just say in simple words what you are getting at?
I suspect you are suggesting that the climate response to variations in TSI strong and direct enough to account for large climate changes such as the MWP and LIA without needing resort to an amplification such as by means of a force x.
Is that your point or not?
There is a lot of work that suggests that the system response to the variations in a single cycle is not discernible.
10
Stephan #82.1.2.1
>”One of the papers is behind a paywall, another gave me a 404, another was a table of numbers and in relation to another it was far from clear what your point was.”
I’ve been able to find, download where necessary, and read all of the 12 N-D relevant papers except 8 or so in a review parer. Same for the 3 lag papers. It has taken time and effort. I’ve been referencing and linking these since part II. It is not now for me to hand-hold you in order to access these papers. There’s plenty already for you to do so and I’ve tried to cross-reference between Parts and leave a trail for anyone willing to follow. If you can’t that’s a problem you need to rectify, not me.
I have however been keeping something of a log at Climate Conversation Group (CCG) if that is any help here:
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2014/06/david-evans-devises-solar-model-to-tame-climate-chaos/
>”I suspect you are suggesting that the climate response to variations in TSI strong and direct enough to account for large climate changes such as the MWP and LIA without needing resort to an amplification such as by means of a force x. Is that your point or not?”
Yes, yes and no, and no. Yes in terms of long-term solar cyclicity (2×200, 1000 yrs) but in even longer timeframes solar is not necessarily the primary driver. Yes there’s enough forcing in solar change over the last 200 yrs to account for climate response when 65 year periodicity is accounted for but no I don’t think amplification mechanisms are not a factor either. No in regard to force x because the N-D basis for it is not valid.
But see again, Time constant, lag, and equilibrium characterizations upthread at #42.2.1 here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/the-solar-model-finds-a-big-fall-in-tsi-data-that-few-seem-to-know-about/#comment-1500476
And read #82.1.2 above again.
>”There is a lot of work that suggests that the system response to the variations in a single cycle is not discernible.”
Hand waving. I’ve presented 4 papers that clearly identify the response (including GISTEMP) plus another 8. Nothing from you.
00
Stephan
>”One of the papers is behind a paywall, another gave me a 404, another was a table of numbers and in relation to another it was far from clear what your point was.”
If you’re having trouble ask me for them one by one and I’ll give you the link and why each is relevant.
There are no paywall or 404 problems if you know where to go. The list is:
Souza Echera et al (2012)
Coughlan and Tung (2004)
Zhou and Tung (2012)
Han, Ma, Yan, and Song (2011)
8 more papers at regional and local level (a review paper – old and less relevant than above).
Swartz (2007
Scafetta and West (2007)
Abdussamatov (2012)
BTW “table of numbers” included the 11-yr frequency signal in GISTEMP.
00
Richard,
Thanks for that and I will do some delving but there is a lot of time consuming detail and lots of differing opinions and interpretations all jostling for attention. As far as I know none of them are definitive as yet.
Could you not just crystallise your problem with David’s presentation into a few logical and succinct sentences?
This comment from you is a star:
“in terms of long-term solar cyclicity (2×200, 1000 yrs) but in even longer timeframes solar is not necessarily the primary driver. Yes there’s enough forcing in solar change over the last 200 yrs to account for climate response when 65 year periodicity is accounted for but no I don’t think amplification mechanisms are not a factor either. No in regard to force x because the N-D basis for it is not valid.”
Some clarification would be appreciated, in particular:
i) When TSI varies so little from one solar cycle to the next how do you come to the conclusion that such minimal variation can produce periods such as the MWP and LIA without some other factor amplifying the effect.
ii) Natural variation from ocean cycles and chaotic variability within the system are way larger than any TSI effect over a single cycle so how do you separate out the TSI effect?
ii) THe 65 year periodicity presumably refers to the PDO cycle of warm and cool phases but that begs the question as to how such small TSI variations can significantly affect ocean temperatures without albedo changes amplifying the effect.
iii) What is the N-D basis and how does it invalidate force x as a proposition?
To be helpful here you need to distill your basic points and express them clearly rather than simply referring to vast amounts of other material.
10
Stephen #82.1.2.1.1
>”a lot of time consuming detail”
I can assure you I know rhat.
>”As far as I know none of them are definitive as yet”
None? There is the concept of corroboration. But yes there are non-definitive papers to read unfortunately because they are all there is to go on. I would point out that David’s N-D proposition isn’t definitive either.
>”Could you not just crystallise your problem with David’s presentation into a few logical and succinct sentences?”
David’s frequency analysis was inadequate. Others have found the 11-yr signal in temperature including globally averaged surface temperature (GISTEMP) with more exhaustive and appropriate methods. Therefore, the N_D has no valid basis.
>”i) When TSI varies so little from one solar cycle to the next how do you come to the conclusion that such minimal variation can produce periods such as the MWP and LIA without some other factor amplifying the effect.”
I don’t, you think I do apparently. The 11 yr cycle is inconsequential and not a forcing unless there is a departure from the prevailing solar regime. There certainly was a departure from the Maunder period, therefore there was a large forcing. There was a large departure at SC 19 and a large forcing. There was a small departure at end of SC 23 and a small forcing.
See:
‘Natural forcing of climate during the last millennium: fingerprint
of solar variability
Low frequency solar forcing and NAO’
D. Swingedouw • L. Terray • C. Cassou • A. Voldoire • D. Salas-Me´lia • J. Servonnat (2010)
See page 12,
6 Discussions and conclusions
Here, in spite of the different forcing included (volcanoes, CO2, solar), the low frequency forcing of the system by the solar forcing leads to a statistically significant low frequency forcing of the NAO, that helps to understand paleo reconstructions from Waple
et al. (2002) and also from Luterbacher et al. (2002b). In particular, a delay of more than 50 years after the Maunder Minimum and a negative phase of the NAO, which appears both in the data (including instrumental after 1700 in Luterbacher et al. (2002b)) and in the model, is explained by our analysis.
http://dods.ipsl.jussieu.fr/dssce/public_html/Papier/Swingedouw_et_al_CD_2010.pdf
>”ii) Natural variation from ocean cycles and chaotic variability within the system are way larger than any TSI effect over a single cycle…”
See i)
>”ii) THe 65 year periodicity presumably refers to the PDO cycle of warm and cool phases but that begs the question as to how such small TSI variations….”
PDO + AMO. And again, see i).
>”iii) What is the N-D basis and how does it invalidate force x as a proposition?”
The N-D basis is that David failed to find an 11-yr frequency in globally averaged temperature coinciding with the 11-yr solar cycle. Others succeeded therefore the N-D is invalidated (and see 2nd reply top of comment)
>”…rather than simply referring to vast amounts of other material”
You’re literature adverse then? If you read the papers you will find that they in turn refer to “vast amounts of other material”.
There is much to be gleaned from the References (see bottom of each paper) and “Related articles” on the net to guage the relevant body of science on any topic.
BTW, a comment ref# would help for the email feed. Just the thread header would do e.g. #82 for #82.1.2.1.1
00
82.1.2.1.1
Richard C (NZ)
July 4, 2014 at 9:36 pm
Ok, we are getting somewhere:
i) You agree that “The 11 yr cycle is inconsequential and not a forcing unless there is a departure from the prevailing solar regime”
ii) You seem to accept that there is some form of amplification of the TSI change.
iii) You accept the role of oceans (and possibly other system features) in connection with the observed delay.
I now see that N-D means David’s Notch Delay idea and you say it is invalidated simply because some sources identify or purport to identify an 11 year signal despite system noise arising from ocean interference and inherent chaotic variability.
I think that is inconsistent because the N-D approach essentially amounts to amplification and delay which you accept.
The fact that an 11 year signal might still show up from time to time in some specific climate parameters does not derogate from the fact that overall there is amplification and delay as per David’s work.
TSI changes occur on an 11 year cycle but the effect is delayed for a period of time and then a thermal effect comes through larger than it should from simple TSI variations. David has narrowed it down to albedo changes altering the proportion of TSI that reaches the surface and I agree.
I don’t think your comments do anything other than obscure and confuse.
10
Stephan #82,1,2,1,2
>”iii) You accept the role of oceans (and possibly other system features) in connection with the observed delay”
The observed delay I’m referring to is planetary lag as found in the literature – not the Notch Delay which is invalid (see below).
>”N-D means David’s Notch Delay idea and you say it is invalidated simply because some sources identify or purport to identify an 11 year signal…”
You haven’t read the papers have you? The signal is specifically found in TEMPERATURE (David’s metric of choice). The signal is specifically found in GISTEMP by analysis of globally averaged (David’s metric of choice) and latitudinally averaged datasets (David didn’t look). It is found from near-sfc up in the troposphere by analysis of NCEP (David didn’t look). It is found in regional and local datasets (David didn’t look).
>”The fact that an 11 year signal might still show up from time to time in some specific climate parameters”
Yes, GLOBALLY AVERAGED TEMPERATURE for a starters (E.G. GISTEMP) – David’s metric of choice.
00
“The observed delay I’m referring to is planetary lag as found in the literature ”
Please explain what you mean by that so that I and others need not trawl through what you term as ‘the literature’. A couple of sentences should suffice.
“The signal is specifically found in TEMPERATURE”
Please link to specific graphs or charts to substantiate that since it goes contrary to the plethora of data that I have seen which seems to carry no clear 11 year temperature signal in response to single solar cycles.
Since the Notch Delay is merely a graphical representation of observations how can it be ‘invalid’.
It could simply be a representation of your planetary lag (delay) and the amplified longer term solar signal that you accept.
10
Stephan #92.1.2.1.4
>‘the literature’
Swartz (2007)
Scafetta and West (2007)
Abdussamatov (2012)
And referenced papers in the above.
>”Please link to specific graphs or charts”
Those are in each respective paper, viz:
Souza Echera et al (2012)
Coughlan and Tung (2004)
Zhou and Tung (2012)
Han, Ma, Yan, and Song (2011)
8 more in a review paper but the 4 above should suffice.
>”Since the Notch Delay is merely a graphical representation of observations…”
No it isn’t. David’s first analysis was of frequency. He didn’t find the signal in the datasets he selected by the analysis technique he also selected i.e. there was no observation. Hence he deduced there must be a notch. If the 11-yr signal is observed (it has been), there is no notch to be deduced.
>”It could simply be a representation of your planetary lag (delay)”
It could be and in effect it is. This has been pointed out long ago. But because the N-D is invalid – it isn’t.
>”…and the amplified longer term solar signal that you accept.
I accept solar is amplified whether it is a signal or not. The variation in EUV within the spectrum for a start. And there’s all number of feedbacks to consider. But this has nothing to do with a posited N-D, especially if the N-D has no solid basis or simply invalid.
00
“It’s a step change that defines where the forcing begins. There was a MUCH greater forcing at the SC 19 step change in TSI peaking 1958 than there was in the SC 23 step change.”
Just what are these “step changes” ?
I don’t see a step in the monthly / annual data , nor in correctly 11y filtered data.
What steps?
00
Greg #82.1.2.2
>”I don’t see a step in the monthly / annual data”
Go back to #42.2 here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/the-solar-model-finds-a-big-fall-in-tsi-data-that-few-seem-to-know-about/#comment-1500458
And back to #41.2.2 here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/the-solar-model-finds-a-big-fall-in-tsi-data-that-few-seem-to-know-about/#comment-1500802
>”nor in correctly 11y filtered data.”
Not at the recent step down no. But look at the SC 19 step up.
>”What steps?”
As above.
00
thanks, but no.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:2005/to:2008
How do you differentiate such a “step” over 6 months from other variability in the record?
Try to give a rough description of an AlGoreithm to detect such “steps” in the record.
00
Greg #81.1.2.2.1
>”thanks, but no.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:2005/to:2008”
No? That’s a step (0.17 W/m2 approx) below the level of the previous SCs 21 and 22 i.e. the beginning of a forcing and the SC 24 peak followed suit.
>”How do you differentiate such a “step” over 6 months from other variability in the record? Try to give a rough description of an AlGoreithm to detect such “steps” in the record.”
Sure. Break-point analysis. This is no different to adjustment to raw temperature data either. BEST use their “scalpel” method, BOM use Menne and Williams, NIWA use a corruption of Rhoades and Salinger. All are a form of break-point analysis.
There’s a clear break-point in PMOD at 2006.5. If PMOD were raw temperature data, the entire series prior to 2006.5 would be adjusted down about 0.17 W/m2.
00
I asked for a description of an algorithm and your reply is merely a name “break-point analysis”.
That does not answer the question.
What I’m trying to establish is whether there is some objective method that can extract the “steps” you identify by eye as being more significant that other changes or noise in the data.
It’s all too easy to think you’ve spotted something like that but find it’s not any different from much of the surrounding variability.
It looks to me as if you’re fishing around in the noise and finding what you expect to see.
I think you’ll need something better than a vague mention of “break-point analysis” to make a case for “steps” in the data.
I agree the rate of change is quite sufficient to challenge AGW.
00
Greg #82.1.2.2.2
>”What I’m trying to establish is whether there is some objective method that can extract the “steps” you identify by eye as being more significant that other changes or noise in the data.”
Yes there is – break-point analysis e.g.
‘Breakpoint Detection within the Time Series. Modeling Approach Upon Paleoclimatic Proxy Data’
http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/37296/ssoar-hsr-2012-2-luder_et_al-Breakpoint_detection_within_the_time.pdf?sequence=1
Chow Break Test:
‘Did the global temperature trend change at the end of the 1990s?’
Tom Quirk, Institute of Public Affairs, Melbourne, Australia
http://ipa.org.au/library/publication/1339463007_document_break_paper_apjas_ipa.pdf
>”It looks to me as if you’re fishing around in the noise and finding what you expect to see.”
The SC 23 minimum is clearly weel below the Sc 21 and 22 minima, look:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod
The break (departure) is at 2006.5. The forcing, relative to SC 21 and 22, began then.
>”I agree the rate of change is quite sufficient to challenge AGW.”
The solar forcing challenges AGW:
dF CO2: +0.29 W/m2 2000 – 2010
df SUN: -0.17 W/m2 2005 – 2007
In the space of one year (2006) solar forcing achieved an offsetting forcing 59% of CO2 forcing for the entire decade.
00
“Yes there is – break-point analysis e.g.”
So perhaps you should apply one of those techniques to establish the “steps” that you have eye-balled.
00
>”So perhaps you should apply one of those techniques to establish the “steps” that you have eye-balled.”
Well that would one approach I agree. Someone should establish when the recent solar change actually started but is it really necessary when the Modern Grand Maximum steps are so readily apparent – SCs 18/19 and SCs 23/24 (even PMOD at 2006.5)?
In other words, I don’t think I’ll bother.
BTW, it was my initial reasoning, similar to here, that got Dedekind et al going on the ‘Statistical Audit of the NIWA 7-Station Review’:
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/docs/Statistical%20Audit%20of%20the%20NIWA%207-Station%20Review%20Aug%202011.pdf
See Appendix A, page 31, for the break-point analysis methodology.
That method, Rhoades & Salinger (1993), and audit was reviewed by 3 independent professional statisticians, was presented as evidence in court (NZCSET v NIWA), and completely ignored by the Judge i.e. break-point analysis can be fraught.
The R&S93 method above assumes a known break (site change say). BEST’s “scalpel” method looks for any break and might be an appropriate method to be applied to SC 23 but it wont be me wasting my time on it.
00
Somehow I thought you might say something like that. Not going to “waste” your time proving the little glitch you dug out of the noise is anything but random noise.
Just make an assertion about there being a “step” and if anyone disagrees let them do the leg work.
10
The best indicator of changes in global temperature is the temperature over Antarctica, because it is insulated from the influence of warm ocean currents. Simultaneously cooling the Southern Ocean will also result in changes in these currents that run around South Africa.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/850hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=30.32,-37.68,419
20
Those are winds not currents.
10
[…] Trying to cool it down. […]
10
http://spacecollege.org/isee3/notes-on-the-isee-3-vector-helium-magnetometer-from-the-original-principal-investigator.html
20
Both Svalgaard and Eshenbach are too entrenched in their ways to have it pointed out to them that temperatures ALWAYS drop because of minima. ALWAYS. Sometimes lag, sometimes not, sometimes little, sometimes lots.
They aren’t the only ones.
Related they are. Get your head around it you must.
22
That’s rather long winded way of describing what is classically described as a lack of correlation.
Get your head around it you must. 😉
20
Correlation is not proof of a connection. Nor is lack of correlation a proof of no connection.
Take the variable lag of CO2 rise vs warming (ice cores). Climate is not an F=ma situation.
10
I was replying to Henry’s comment which tried to suggest there was proof of a link because there was essentially no correlation and made the untrue assertion :
“…temperatures ALWAYS drop because of minima. ALWAYS. ”
Simply wrong. They are often in complete anti-phase.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=984
20
Simply wrong. They are often in complete anti-phase.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=984
If the delay is variable that would do it and still confirm Henry Galt
July 4, 2014 at 12:53 am.
And we know that the delay can be variable on longer scales (ice cores – CO2 vs temperature).
As I said – it is a system with a LOT of moving parts (complicated).
10
Look, I’m not saying is a simple linear system nor that correlation prooves causation or that lack of ….etc.
But you can’t twist that to say that because there’s variable phase shift, sometimes big sometimes small, it shows the two are related. It shows nothing of the sort.
What Henry said was nonsense, and with respect to minima and “ALWAYS” was flat wrong.
00
Take a look at how SST has a fairly constant phase drift w.r.t. solar cycles and displays a lunar 9.1 y cycle.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=984
20
Unfortunately the comments of this post have got off the subject a bit and been more focused on Willis bashing. Something he has clearly brought upon himself. I’ve long since stopped reading his posts at WUWT and I understand he has been banned at the Tallblokes talkshop.
Unfortunately I think Anthony has picked up on his anti cyclomania position. A position Willis appears to have arrived at by using high level maths with little if any understanding of the relative science.
I’m afraid that Willis’s level of self importance far exceeds my level of tolerance.
However that doesn’t reflect my attitude towards WUWT overall. I still look at the site and particularly enjoy posts by Bob Tisdale, and most of Anthony’s own posts.
So don’t abandon WUWT, but if you are like me you will simply scroll past anything posted by Willis. I’m sorry Willis but you have brought this on yourself.
100
I agree that I will not bypass WUWT; however, I also will not visit it as much as I did. I do not understand the scientific jealousy that has been displayed here. There are comments by people like S Wilde, Richard C and Goodman that are critical BUT respectful. I hope Dr. Evans’ hypothesis pans out! If it does, then scientists will be able to use the RATs and pipes to modify and incorporate their own theories. The gate keeper of climate “science” will no longer the holders of the keys to the super computers or the grouchy old senior professors….
40
“Will no longer be the holders”
“Senior professors that see their place/name forgotten in the science.
10
“I do not understand the scientific jealousy ”
Egos and hubris, affects all walks of life. Don’t let it become more of a debate than science.
40
“… and I understand he has been banned at the Tallblokes talkshop.”
That’s actually not that hard to achieve, despite the site claiming to have no rules, rule no.1 is don’t disagree with Rog Tat.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/talkshop-immoderation/
00
Chapter 2: Models of Solar Total and Spectral Irradiance
Variability of Relevance for Climate Studies
by Natalie Krivova and Sami Solanki
19 pages
in: Climate and Weather of the Sun-Earth System (CAWSES): Highlights from a Priority Program
Lubken,F.-J (ED)
Springer , 2013
94-odd references dating from 1981 through 2011, and not a one containing the name ‘Svalgaard, L.’.
May we never forget that Science is very often an intensely inclusive/exclusive tribal activity. Planet of the apes we remain….
00
Steve,
I’ve had a look at that paper and it says:
“The Earth’s global surface temperature has being growing rapidly over the last
decades”
which did not inspire confidence as a sensible description of a 0.6C rise since about 1850.
Especially in light of UHI and all the adjustments.
Could you say, simply, what your point is and how it relates to this thread?
20
Huh!!! That is not a ‘paper’. It is a 19 page chapter in a review book. Given that numerous RECENT previous posts have dealt with the ‘tribalism’ effects apparent in climate and related science (both sides of many fences) e.g. WUWT/Svalgaard/Eschenbach etc, etc., I believe it was relevant to point out that of the 94-off references in the review by Krivova and Solanki on a subject in which Svalgaard works and has published, not one paper which Svalgaard has authored or co-authored appears in that set of 94-odd. The same could be said for the names ‘Eschenbach, W.’ or ‘Wilde, Stephen’ too (even though we already know they don’t actually work in science). FYI I have published over 60 peer reviewed papers and book chapters in general geochemistry, applied isotope geochemistry and geochronology. Forty years in mainstream science and loved every minute of it. A sceptic too.
Hey there, while I have your ‘attention’ and your did raise the subject of what might relate to this thread (or not) perhaps you could please explain why you even bother to maintain a highly imaginative, non-blogged web site advancing a set of personal, idiosyncratic ‘climate science-related’ hypotheses (which you repeat herein and everywhere, over and over and over again), with not one single supporting scientific reference on that web site….!? I am (very mildly) intrigued…
12
To what exactly are you replying?
00
I think it was this: Stephen Wilde July 4, 2014 at 9:23 am
Steve Short, This site has multilevel threading, using it would help clarity.
00
Steve Short said:
“please explain why you even bother to maintain a highly imaginative, non-blogged web site advancing a set of personal, idiosyncratic ‘climate science-related’ hypotheses (which you repeat herein and everywhere, over and over and over again), with not one single supporting scientific reference on that web site….!?”
i) My hypotheses fit observations.
ii) Thay also fit basic well known scientific principles from before the radiative theory.
iii) Allowing blogging would be a waste of my time.
iv) It is fun to set up and maintain.
v) It allows me to compare my hypotheses over time, in public, with ongoing climate developments and is so far looking accurate.
vi) Many of the articles do have supporting scientific references.
vii) I repeat components of my hypotheses whenever I wish to test them against other ideas, to point out errors in the hypotheses and / or observations of others and to show how well my hypotheses are fitting recent observations. So far nobody has come up with any observations of real world events that falsify my hypotheses and there are many possible such events that could do so.
I am sure that the basic components of my New Climate Model are more accurate than the available alternatives and could fit well with David’s Solar Climate Model with a few adjustments by either or both of us.
And you still haven’t stated clearly what was the point of your reference to that 19 page chapter in a review book apart from to use it as a means of downgrading Leif Svalgaard’s efforts. Rather than using your contributions here as ad hominems I’d prefer to read some substantive scientific points set out in accessible language.
Does that page chapter in a review book help to advance this thread?
20
“I am sure that the basic components of my New Climate Model are more accurate than the available alternatives and could fit well with David’s Solar Climate Model with a few adjustments by either or both of us.”
Well, one thing I will concede – you display the same astronomical level of arrogance and stupidity that many other lawyers of my experience have exhibited.
Take number ii) ‘Thay (sic)also fit basic well known scientific principles from before the radiative theory.’
I recall that is not quite what Roy Spencer thought! Still, at least he remained the ‘southern gentleman’. His forebearance over your bizarre understanding of the Ideal Gas law placed a whole new twist on the word ‘Ideal’.
But of course; down in Alabama they know how to handle peckerwoods.
02
“not quite what Roy Spencer thought!”
Roy thinks that an atmosphere without radiative gases would become isothermal and convection would stop. I respectfully suggest that he is wrong.
There would still be uneven surface heating and a decline in temperature with height so density differentials in the horizontal plane would still exist and lead to convective overturning as less dense parcels continued to rise adiabatically relative to more dense parcels.
“bizarre understanding of the Ideal Gas law”
I don’t think so.
Any energy converted to gravitational potential eneregy on ascent must return to kinetic energy on descent unless radiated to space in the interim.
That simple well known fact is being ignored and the logical implications are not being considered.
This is not the place to go into more detail. You are just trying to engage in ad hominems.
Although a lawyer by profession my weather and climate interest pre-dates my choice of career and has not diminished in a lifetime of relevant observation and study.
31
Only a Stephen Wilde could read the 1st sentence only (;-) and then take exception to a ‘paper’ (actually the intro to a comprehensive and highly relevant review chapter) which reads on the 1st page:
The Earth’s global surface temperature has being growing rapidly over the last
decades [see, e.g., Solomon et al., 2007]. This has in large measure been attributed
to human activity. However, a quantitative assessment of the anthropogenic contribution
to the change in climate is still hampered by inadequate understanding of the
relative roles of different climate drivers, both internal and external [e.g., Hansen et
al., 2002, 2005; Jungclaus et al., 2010; Schmidt et al., 2011].
The main external driver of the Earth’s climate system is the solar radiative output
Hansen et al., 2002; Camp and Tung, 2007; Gray et al., 2010]. The strength of
Sun’s influence and which process plays the main role remain, however, unclear.
Variations in solar total and/or spectral irradiance are the prime suspects. Solar total
(i.e. integrated over all wavelengths) irradiance (TSI) is the total solar energy flux at
the top of the Earth’s atmosphere, and thus any changes in the TSI affect the overall
energy balance of the climate system. Variations in the spectral distribution of the
irradiance, in particular in the UV but also in the visible and IR, have a pronounced
effect on the chemistry and dynamics of the Earth’s atmosphere [e.g., Haigh, 1994,
2007; Haigh et al., 2010; Rozanov et al., 2004; Kodera and Kuroda, 2002, 2005;
Langematz et al., 2005; Matthes et al., 2006; Gray et al., 2010].
Space-based instruments have being monitoring solar total and spectral (SSI)
irradiance since 1978 [e.g., Willson et al., 1981; Fröhlich et al., 1997; Floyd et
al., 2003; Willson and Mordvinov, 2003; Skupin et al., 2005; Kopp et al., 2005;
Fröhlich, 2006; Harder et al., 2009]. Different mechanisms have been proposed
to explain the observed changes in the irradiance [see review by Domingo et al.,
2009], of which most successful was the modulation by the solar surface magnetic
field. Models assuming that solar brightness changes due to the varying relative
contributions of dark sunspots, bright faculae and the bright network explain over
90 % of the measured TSI variation on time scales of days up to the solar cycle
[Fröhlich and Lean, 1997; Fligge et al., 2000; Preminger et al., 2002; Ermolli et
al., 2003; Krivova et al., 2003; Wenzler et al., 2006, 2009; Ball et al., 2011].
Despite the great success of the models in reproducing TSI measurements, a
number of open questions remain, including the presence and the magnitude of the
secular trend in the irradiance during the last 3 cycles [Fröhlich, 2009; Scafetta and
Willson, 2009; Krivova et al., 2009a, 2011a], the absolute level of the TSI [Kopp et
al., 2007; Kopp and Lean, 2011] or the contribution of different spectral ranges to
the irradiance variation [Krivova et al., 2006; Harder et al., 2009; Pagaran et al.,
2009; Morrill et al., 2011].
And so it goes…..
Personally I think that 1st sentence is just a ritual nod (possibly for/by the editor) to the current AGW orthodoxy. However, it is apparent it requires somewhat more than a certificate in massage therapy to get past that 1st sentence.
And of course the point – where is Svalgaard amongst those 94 citations, stands.
01
Re: your point about the first sentence bolt on:
“growing rapidly” is a rather odd turn of phrase for temperature.
00
And what about:
being growing rapidly
00
Obviously MSimon don’t work in science. Many scientists who publish internationally don’t have English as their 1st language. Bad grammar tends to leak through on occasion.
But let’s get away from the SW club syncophancy and back to the key point (of relevance to David and Jo and the Solar Model….
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 there really is no obligation by David to run his model using the Svalgaard version of the modern TSI record (as Svalgaard explicitly requested)?
Note for the peanut-heads with nit picking language inclinations; that is a question – not a statement.
Thus far, the implication seems to be that David seems to agree that he can ignore Svalgaard on the grounds that Svalgaard’s version of the TSI ‘just doesn’t rate’.
Clearly; Krivova, Solanki and even the editor Lubken would agree with David.
Intriguing. IMHO this says something curious about the role of Svalgaard at WUWT too (that’s not a question kiddies).
01
There might be an obligation if the model is not released. Otherwise, when released – run it with any data set you prefer.
===========
SW club syncophancy
I favor Forth for software. That is what you mean by SW innit?
===========
This will get sorted over time when the models/spread sheets are released. In the mean time it is one of the most enjoyable blog cat fights I have engaged in.
Plus the “Slayers” slay me. Radiation does not reflect from clouds.
So let me see if I get the general idea. A mirror at absolute zero absorbs all the light directed at it. There can be no reflection if the reflector is colder than the emitter. Is that the slayer argument?
00
I work in a related field. I’m an engineer.
http://spacetimepro.blogspot.com/
00
[…] http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/the-solar-model-finds-a-big-fall-in-tsi-data-that-few-seem-to-know-… […]
00