Open Mind

There Goes the Sun

July 12, 2007 · 96 Comments

A recent paper by M. Lockwood and Claus Frohlich in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A examines the evidence that the sun is responsible for recent global warming. Those who advocate such theories have proposed several mechanisms for this to take place. One proposal is that the sun simply got hotter, i.e., that the total energy output of the sun (”total solar irradiance,” or TSI) increased. Another proposal is that an increase in ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun has caused changes in high-altitude atmospheric chemistry, leading to changes in the lower atmosphere and hence to changes in climate. Yet another proposal suggests that changes in the sun’s magnetic field have blocked cosmic rays to strike earth, preventing the seeding of clouds by cosmic rays, and warming our planet in consequence.


All these changes are associated with changes in magnetic field strength, therefore with the cosmic rays incident on the earth. Also, satellites have directly measured total solar irradiance (TSI) for decades. Hence if some trend in TSI, or solar UV, or cosmic rays, were the root cause of modern global warming, we’ll be able to detect a trend in measurements of TSI or cosmic rays. If TSI is going up and/or solar magnetic field strength is going up and/or cosmic rays are going down, that would make the solar-cause more plausible. If not, then solar changes simply can’t be the cause of recent global warming.

Finding the trend in these variables is complicated by the fact that in addition to getting higher or lower, they oscillate up and down with the solar cycle. The sun has a roughly 11-year cycle, during which the sunspot count goes up and down, as do TSI and magnetic field strength. Because of the change in magnetic field strength, the count of cosmic rays striking earth fluctuates on this same cycle. Here are the measurments of sunspot counts (R), solar magnetic field (F_S), cosmic ray counts (C), total solar irradiance (TSI), and earth’s global temperature anomaly (\Delta T) for about the last 30 years (figure 1 from Lockwood & Frohlich, click to see the whole graph):

lockwood1.jpg

To determine the trend, we must remove the cyclic influence, leaving only the secular change: the trend. Lockwood & Frohlich used a novel, and (in my professional opinion) very robust and reliable method, to do so. They determined these trends:

lockwood3.jpg

Clearly solar activity was on the increase, as indicated by increased sunspot counts, increased solar magnetic field strength, decreased cosmic ray counts, and increase TSI, UNTIL about 1985. Since then, sunspot count is down, solar magnetic field strength is down, cosmic ray counts are up, and TSI is down.

Every one of these factors would tend to cool earth’s climate. But earth’s temperature (according to both GISS and HadCRU) has kept going up. None of the proposed solar influences which would warm the earth is going in the right direction to do so. In fact, over the last 30 years none of them has gone in a single direction; they’ve all gone up then down, or down then up. But earth’s temperature has marched inexorably higher. It’s called global warming.

The result is crystal-clear: it’s not the sun.

It’s greenhouse gases.

Categories: Global Warming · climate change

96 responses so far ↓

  • nanny_govt_sucks // July 12, 2007 at 6:37 pm

    The result is crystal-clear: it’s not the sun.

    It’s greenhouse gases.

    So, if it’s NOT the sun then it MUST BE greenhouse gasses? How, exactly does that follow?

    For what otherwise appears to be a pretty good science site, you really jump to a lot of unsubstantiated conclusions.

    And what’s with the mere 30 years of this study? Certainly sunspot counts, etc… go back much farther than that. What about CME’s and specific bands of Solar Irradience? Why did they choose to use the surface temp charts instead of satellite? Were they looking for a correlation to the temperatures of asphalt parking lots, air conditioner exhausts, and huge brick walls?

    [Response: That's exactly what I expected you to say. Cling to your delusions...]

  • Innocent sun « inel // July 12, 2007 at 6:45 pm

    [...] topic is well-summarised by tamino in his latest post ‘There Goes the Sun‘ where he explains Lockwood & Fröhlich’s Figure 3. (showing trends in solar [...]

  • Hugh // July 12, 2007 at 7:30 pm

    ngs

    Lockwood, quoted from the BBC:

    “All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that,”

    “You can’t just ignore bits of data that you don’t like,” he said.

    Did you ask why Durkin *stopped* his analysis ~30years ago?… I thought not.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6290228.stm

  • george // July 12, 2007 at 11:07 pm

    So, nanny_govt_sucks, if not the increase in greenhouse gases, what is causing the warming? (assuming you don’t deny that the warming is real, that is)

    Barring unknown effects, there are only a couple of possibilities and both were covered by Tamino:

    First, there are changes in the Sun, which, by all indications, do not seem to have been responsible (changes were in the wrong direction — over the past quarter century at least*).

    Then, there are the cosmic rays, which don’t seem to have been responsible, either (again, changes were in the wrong direction)

    What else is there?

    If we remove the bar on unknown effects, then there might be all sorts of possibilities, of course. The sky’s the limit.

    For example, there might be some mysterious completely invisible fluid permeating the space around the earth and its atmosphere (aether anyone?) that has been heating up in recent decades for some inexplicable reason.

    Unfortunately, scientists tried that route once (albeit to explain another phenomenon) and it got them precisely nowhere.

    Unknown effects, while certainly possible, don’t add much to the current scientific conversation other than a simple acknowledgment that “Well , such an effectmight exist and might be responsible”, which is really tantamount to saying nothing, from a scientific standpoint.

    When one has ruled out all the other known possibilities and what is left (greenhouse gas increase) logically explains the available data, there is no legitimate scientific reason not to draw the conclusion that the warming is due to the buildup of greenhouse gases.

    *at a minimum, whatever explanation one comes up with must explain the warming over the last quarter century.

  • nanny_govt_sucks // July 13, 2007 at 12:19 am

    When one has ruled out all the other known possibilities and what is left (greenhouse gas increase) logically explains the available data,

    By the same logic, “scientists” of the dark ages concluded that the Earth is the center of the universe. After all, the other known possibilities were ruled out.

    Greenhouse gasses do not “logically explain the available data”. It is only by hand waving an aerosol “explanation” for mid-century cooling into existence that there can be any discussion of a correlation at all. Temp increases lead CO2 increases in paleoclimatic reconstructions. Satellite data shows a leveling of temps since around 2002 while CO2 is still on the rise. Are you going to argue for other GHG’s? Water vapor, methane? Let’s hear it.

    The study at the link above compares a surface temperature record that may be grossly contaminated, and does not cover all known aspects of solar activity that may affect our climate. As such it cannot claim that the sun is not a culprit in any recent temp rise.

  • Alan Woods // July 13, 2007 at 1:51 am

    That’s quite interesting. So what they’ve done is use various smoothing mechanisms on TSI and then average these out, as if each smoothing mechanism is equally valid. So if you look at the graph of smoothed TSI, the average implies that there was less TSI reaching the earth in, say, 1992 than 1986. When you look at the unadulterated case you realise that isn’t actually the case.

    Tamino, if its crystal clear that its greenhouse gases, can you explain to me why global land and sea surface temperatures have ceased rising over the last five years, while greenhouse gas emissions are accelerating?

    [Response: For us in the northern hemisphere (and over the globe as well), 2007 is shaping up to be distinctly warmer than 2006, despite the fact that summer 2006 was still warmer than winter 2007. You must remove the cyclic part of the signal to know what the actual trend is.

    Likewise, TSI in solar cycle 23 was distinctly lower than in solar cycle 22, despite the fact that the high part of cycle 23 was still higher than the low part of cycle 22. You must remove the cyclic part of the signal, to know what the actual trend is. If you don't get that ... I can't help you.]

  • tamino // July 13, 2007 at 2:38 am

    As the favorite denialist alternative (”it’s the sun”) is shown to be patently wrong, they seem to be getting truly desparate. In fact, NGS and Alan Woods have summed up the same-old-same-old like a broken record.

  • nanny_govt_sucks // July 13, 2007 at 2:50 am

    In fact, NGS and Alan Woods have summed up the same-old-same-old like a broken record.

    These are the same-old-same-old that the credulists have no answers for. It is no wonder that you hear them again and again.

    [Response: On the contrary, they've been answered so effectively and so many times that for the those who have heard the answers repeatedly but still raise the same-old-same-old objections, it indicates that their "skepticism" is disingenuous. That's why you get called a "denialist" rather than a "skeptic."]

  • Alan Woods // July 13, 2007 at 3:08 am

    No need to resort to ad homs, Tamino.

    Was my analysis incorrect? Do you think its valid to equally weight each smoothing mechanism and take an average to get the trend? Does this show a statistically significant fall in solar irradiance?

    Is the HadCrut data denialist? It seems to show exactly what I said:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

    [Response: Lockwood & Frohlich didn't equally weight each smoothing and take their average. They took the midpoint of the smooth curves from averaging intervals from 9 to 13 years, in 0.25-year increments. And yes, their method is valid.

    I removed the cyclic part of the signal by using Fourier analysis to estimate the period, and performing what's called "pre-whitening." The result? No significant difference from the result of Lockwood & Frohlich.

    As for the statement that "global land and sea surface temperatures have ceased rising over the last five years," that's every bit as silly as the "global warming stopped in 1998" nonsense. Natural variation makes it impossible to identify the trend (or lack thereof) on such a short timescale. Odd that denialists love to talk about natural variation so much, but don't want to recognize its existence on short timescales.]

  • Alan Woods // July 13, 2007 at 4:06 am

    You’re right Tamino, they didn’t equally weight each smoothing and then take an average. But they did need to assume each smoothing was equally valid, and then take a midpoint. Aren’t they essentially assuming each smoothing is equally correct, even thought at the extremes they are very different? Because thats the bit I don’t get.

    “Global warming stopped in 1998″ is a silly statement because the spike in 98 was caused by an extreme El Nino. Absent 1998 and temperatures keep climbing another few years. But you can’t ‘deny’ that it has tailed off in the last five years or so. Maybe the natural variation on the short timescale that has led to cessation (without discounting the possibility it will re-commence) of global warming is reduced solar irradiance which is dampening AGW? I’m sure you like to imagine me as a ‘denier’, but I don’t deny we are influencing our climate. I just don’t try and play that game where we say it can be only one or the other. Like your strawmen seem to be doing.

  • george // July 13, 2007 at 4:07 am

    nanny_govt_sucks said:

    “By the same logic, “scientists” of the dark ages concluded that the Earth is the center of the universe. After all, the other known possibilities were ruled out.’

    What you and I are talking about are two completely different things. Your scientists of the dark ages were not doing experiments to rule things out. Theirs was a belief-based system. If they were “ruling” things out, it was in the sense that a king, judge — or perhaps Pope — “rules”: by decree.

    When i say ‘ruling out possibilities”, I mean it in the scientific sense. When one rules something out scientifically, one does an experiment (or preferably many experiments) to show that it could not be the cause of the effect one is interested in — or at least that it is unlikely to be the cause.

    Unfortunately, science will never “prove” (ie, demonstrate with absolute certainty) that global warming over the past century was caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases. In fact, science can not prove anything “true.” It is based upon falsification. In other words, ruling things out is the only game in town.

    And one can only rule out that which one can test. So, I’ll repeat my question again:

    If not the increase in greenhouse gases, what is causing the warming? (assuming you don’t deny that the warming is real, that is)

  • Hans Erren // July 13, 2007 at 9:18 am

    of course it all falls apart if you use the Willson TSI instead of the frohlich TSI
    http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/TSI_FLvsW.gif

    [Response: Not so. Using the PMOD composite (Frohlich & Lean) you get a downward trend in TSI; using the ACRIM composite (Willson & Mordvidov) you get no trend at all. Either way, TSI shows no increase which can be the cause of modern global warming.]

  • Fielding Mellish // July 13, 2007 at 11:42 am

    “But you can’t ‘deny’ that it has tailed off in the last five years or so.”

    Mr. Woods,

    The HadCrut temperature graphs you linked don’t appear to me on their face to support your statement (maybe you can elaborate). They clearly show advances and consolidations throughout the post-1980 period, indeed across the entire timeframe, and the graphs don’t show me that the past five years’ temperatures suggest different behavior in that regard. The past five years’ temperatures still are holding above the uptrendlines. Perhaps you are using the graphs to illustrate drilled-down events, but the graphs themselves appear to me to be internally consistent within the sample. I gather those data aren’t decycled to account for El Nino/La Nina (Tamino, would you remind me how those data would be processed to accommodate El Ninos/La Ninas with varying intensities?). One thing that always strikes me about that five-year period is that the usually dipping La Nina temperatures appear to be holding pace with the usually rising El Nino temperatures fairly well.

  • Boris // July 13, 2007 at 12:49 pm

    “Temp increases lead CO2 increases in paleoclimatic reconstructions. ”

    So? There’s a big difference between the paleo and now. We are adding CO2. The fact that CO2 was merely a feedback to orbital forcings is not proof that it cannot be a forcing today.

    Unless you are arguing either 1) the current CO2 rise is natural and in response to temperature increases or 2) CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Since both of thos arguments are silly, what exactly is your point?

  • Hans Erren // July 13, 2007 at 1:35 pm

    So we have another example where the magnitude of the signal is heavily dependent on the used processing method. Reminds me of the troposphere temperature controversy.

    PS Please don’t reply that this issue has also been “solved”.

  • nanny_govt_sucks // July 13, 2007 at 5:10 pm

    On the contrary, they’ve been answered so effectively and so many times

    Can you please provide a link to where this has supposedly occured? Thanks.

    [Response: RealClimate.]

    If not the increase in greenhouse gases, what is causing the warming? (assuming you don’t deny that the warming is real, that is)

    I don’t know, probably a combination of a lot of different factors, if indeed the climate is warming. I no longer have confidence in the surface temperature record based on individual station siting issues, and seemingly non-sensical “adjustments”. The satellite temps show warming only in the NH. I.e.: It’s not global. For a number of reasons pointed out above, I don’t think CO2 is a primary culprit. Some other things to look at are ENSO/ADO trends, Black Carbon deposits, Cosmic Rays and Earth’s magnetic field, trends in Water Vapor, … the list goes on.

  • george // July 13, 2007 at 7:41 pm

    It is my understanding that Willson has claimed an upward trend in total solar irradiance of about 0.05% per decade over the past few decades.

    If one does a quick back of the envelope calculation based on a very simple model, one finds that a 0.05% increase per decade in solar irradiance would cause a temperature increase of about 0.036K per decade (assuming a starting temperature for the earth of 288K)

    It’s easy to get that:

    Use the equation G=sigma*T^4 = S/ (1 - lamda)

    we can estimate how much the temperature would go up when S goes up by a factor of 0.0005

    Setting up a proportion,

    (T + delta_T)^4 / T^4 = (S + delta_S) / S

    using the binomial expansion for (T + delta_T)^4 and dropping the higher order terms (assuming delta_T

  • george // July 13, 2007 at 7:46 pm

    For some reason, the last part of my post appears to have been cut off so let me try again (excuse the repeat)

    It is my understanding that Willson has claimed an upward trend in total solar irradiance of about 0.05% per decade over the past few decades.

    If one does a quick back of the envelope calculation based on a very simple model, one finds that a 0.05% increase per decade in solar irradiance would cause a temperature increase of about 0.036K per decade (assuming a starting temperature for the earth of 288K)

    It’s easy to get that:

    Use the equation G=sigma*T^4 = S/ (1 - lamda)

    we can estimate how much the temperature would go up when S goes up by a factor of 0.0005

    Setting up a proportion,

    (T + delta_T)^4 / T^4 = (S + delta_S) / S

    using the binomial expansion for (T + delta_T)^4 and dropping the higher order terms (assuming delta_T

  • george // July 13, 2007 at 7:49 pm

    It did it again (doesn’t like my weird notation) so I’ll just post the last part

    and using T=288K and delta_S = 0.0005 gives delta_T of about 0.036K

    So, as a fraction of actual warming per decade over the past few decades (0.2C per decade), that would only be about 0.036/0.2 (or about 18%)

    I realize this is a very crude calculation (and that some other results do not support the trend that Willson claims), but it should nonetheless at least give a rough idea of whether the upward trend in solar irradiance claimed by Willson is even capable of accounting for all (or even most) of warming that has actually occurred in recent decades.

    That does not appear to be the case.

    So, even if we assume Willson’s claims, we are still left with the vast majority of the warming to account for.

  • nanny_govt_sucks // July 13, 2007 at 9:14 pm

    Not so. Using the PMOD composite (Frohlich & Lean) you get a downward trend in TSI; using the ACRIM composite (Willson & Mordvidov) you get no trend at all. Either way, TSI shows no increase which can be the cause of modern global warming.

    But use the ACRIM composite TSI, and the more accurate satellite temps adjusted for 2 massive volcanic cooling events in the 80’s and 90’s, and major ENSO events and you probably get a pretty good match.

    (note: I’m not advocating this as an explanation for any climate trends, just pointing out what you can get using slightly different but still justified selection criteria.)

  • nanny_govt_sucks // July 14, 2007 at 2:58 am

    Was it appropriate for Lockwood to use an 11 year solar cycle instead of a 22 year cycle?

    [Response: Yes]

  • Steve Bloom // July 14, 2007 at 4:00 am

    Part of the problem for anyone wanting to argue that there is a significant flattening of the trend since 2002 is that there are several other such flat spots in the record since 1975. Explaining global warming as a process with such abrupt stops and starts seems difficult at best. Even if one could do so, experience would seem to indicate that it’s likely to start again very soon.

  • tamino // July 15, 2007 at 5:19 pm

    Sorry to those who had to wait a few days for their comments to be moderated. The wife and I were on a weekend trip (with no internet).

  • george // July 15, 2007 at 7:57 pm

    nanny_govt_sucks said:

    [warming is] probably [due to] a combination of a lot of different factors, if indeed the climate is warming. I no longer have confidence in the surface temperature record based on individual station siting issues, and seemingly non-sensical “adjustments”.
    [bold added by me]

    Thanks for being honest, but that sounds to me like you really have doubts about the reality of the warming trend, or at least its size (0.7C over the past century)

    If you don’t believe the warming is real (or that it is as big as claimed), I guess there is not much point in arguing about it’s cause, is there?

    You must realize, of course, that by questioning the reality of the warming (or even its magnitude), you are going against the assessment of the vast majority of climate scientists (including those at the National Academy of Sciences, including Richard Lindzen who does not deny the warming).

    They have not drawn this conclusion from surface weather station data alone, but have looked at lots of different evidence — melting glaciers, warming oceans, satellite data, borehole data, the list goes on and on.

    Also,climate scientists have not attributed all the warming to CO2 alone, but have concluded that CO2 is responsible for most of the upward trend in temperatures — particularly over the last 3 decades (excluding the cyclical effects like El Nino)

    Take a look at the NASA GISS site some time. They are the ones who come out with a lot of the different proposals to explain recent warming (like the soot one that you mentioned).

    Saying that something is “due to a lot of different effects” is not a very useful statement from a scientific standpoint. you can’t test such a nebulous statement. The scientifically useful statements are the ones that say “this effect contributes X percent to the total” because we can test that.

    And to Alan Woods, who said above

    “I just don’t try and play that game where we say it can be only one or the other. Like your strawmen seem to be doing”,

    my only comment would be that if anyone is using strawmen, it is you.

  • nanny_govt_sucks // July 16, 2007 at 1:11 am

    Can you please provide a link to where this has supposedly occured? Thanks.

    [Response: RealClimate.]

    Can you please be more specific? Otherwise I’ll have to assume you are handwaving this away because you don’t have any arguments that will hold up to scrutiny.

    [Response: RealClimate has an excellent search function, and provides links to numerous specific topics. You can also, of course, post specific questions and elicit response from the moderators or regular readers.

    Do the work. Otherwise I'll have to assume you're not really interested in the truth, you just want to stir up doubt.]

  • nanny_govt_sucks // July 16, 2007 at 1:13 am

    Was it appropriate for Lockwood to use an 11 year solar cycle instead of a 22 year cycle?

    [Response: Yes]

    Can you please elaborate? It is well known that the sun has 11 AND 22 year cycles. Why were the numbers run for one and not the other?

    [Response: The time series from satellite observations is barely over 25 years long, which is not enough data to delineate the changes due to the 22-year cycle. Also, the 22-year cycle involves a reversal of the orientation of the magnetic field, rather than a large fluctuation in TSI or magnetic field strength.]

  • nanny_govt_sucks // July 16, 2007 at 1:36 am

    Tamino, here is what you said:

    they’ve [the "same-old-same-old" arguments] been answered so effectively and so many times

    Please back up your claim. It is not my job to research whatever you pull out of your hat. If you didn’t mean what you said, then please withdraw it. If you don’t have the links to reputable sources that backup your claim, then please withdraw it.

    [Response: And it's not my job to research whatever denialist claptrap you care to sling.

    You've been here many times, and commented on many posts. You have regularly indicated an unwillingness to accept the truth and an eagerness to repeat garbage even after it has been refuted. I don't dance to your whims; I'll save my words for those who are willing to listen.]

  • nanny_govt_sucks // July 16, 2007 at 1:45 am

    [Response: The time series from satellite observations is barely over 25 years long, which is not enough data to delineate the changes due to the 22-year cycle.

    So how can Lockwood make the claim that the sun is not to blame if there's not enough data to even examine a known 22-year cycle of the sun? Certainly there are numberous caveats that Lockwood should have included in his conclusion.

    Was Lockwood''s data based on only satellite information? If so, then why did he ignore satellite measured temperatures? Sunspot records don't require satellites and go far back in history.

    Also, the 22-year cycle involves a reversal of the orientation of the magnetic field, rather than a large fluctuation in TSI or magnetic field strength.]

    And what about Cosmic Rays? Certainly solar/earth magnetic fields affect incoming CRs. It would seem to be naive to ignore solar/earth magnetic effects when studying climate change.

    [Response: Sunspot (and other) data have been used as a proxy for TSI, but that too shows no increase since about 1950 (accounting for both the strong 11-year and weak 22-year cycles), so it can't be responsible for modern global warming. Interested readers can examine this post and this post for more details.

    Also, Lockwood & Frohlich used measurements of magnetic field strength, and of cosmic-ray counts, since 1975 to show there's no trend there that can be responsible for modern global warming either. And satellite temperature measurents show that the troposphere is warming while the statosphere is cooling, exactly as predicted by climate models.]

  • nanny_govt_sucks // July 16, 2007 at 2:44 am

    And it’s not my job to research whatever denialist claptrap you care to sling.

    So is this ablog where “anything goes” and I can just say “That’s been refuted” without having to supply anything to backup my claim?

    You made the claim, you should back it up.

  • Petro // July 16, 2007 at 12:44 pm

    Nanny wrote:
    “I no longer have confidence in the surface temperature record”

    Who cares, if you have confidence or not. If you are a reality-challenged person, shame on you, not science.

    Nanny wrote:
    “So is this ablog where “anything goes” and I can just say “That’s been refuted” without having to supply anything to backup my claim?”

    No.

    Your claims has been answered by Tamino as well as several posters ad nauseaum, often with appropriate references. When you still ask the same questions again and again, there is obviously severe problems in your perception.

    I wonder have you libertarians also problems in the other areas of scientific reality. It must be hard for you to visit a physician, since obviously his methods do not fulfill your criteria on science.

  • ChrisC // July 16, 2007 at 2:27 pm

    NGS:

    The 11 year solar cycle is actually a bit of a misnomer. The cycle is actually 22 years, with a reversal of polarisation of the magnetic field. Since just about every observation of magnetic fields is independant of field polarity (with the exception of instruments like vector magnetograms), it has become common to simply refer to the 11 year solar cycle.

    I cannot think of a reason (off the top of my head) why the polarity of the solar magnetic field would effect the Earth’s climate.

    As for ENSO/ADO trends, you should realise that ENSO is a naturally occuring part of the climate system. Forecasters have dug through tombs of data looking for trends in order to better forecast ENSO events. So far, the statistical models built around this work have been useful, but the dynamic models are fast becoming superior, eg POAMA:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/ocean/JAFOOS/POAMA/intro/index.htm

    My point is that trends in this data have been exhustivly searched for, and no simple trends have been found. It should also be noted that while ENSO is an important climatatic phenomena, it does not completely control the Earth’s climate and spends most of its time in the nutral range. As such, I’m happy to rule it out.

  • Dano // July 16, 2007 at 6:23 pm

    Poor denialists. Even NRO’s ship has sailed into the man-made climate change reality horizon.

    All they have left is…is…hmmm…the same arguments they always use ad nauseum, as Petro says above.

    Best,

    D

  • Fielding Mellish // July 16, 2007 at 8:25 pm

    To add a bit to ChrisC’s well-explained last post, I assert that there’s no difference between using a putative “full cycle” of 22 years and using an 11-year cycle, which effectively would be a putative “half-cycle.” I also assert that it doesn’t affect the final analysis, provided the lengths are used consistently throughout. If someone tells me a clock’s minute hand cycles every 60 minutes, and someone else tells me it takes 30 minutes for another clock’s minute hand to complete a half-cycle, I figure they describe the same setup. Now, if the putative solar cycle is 22 years and someone uses an odd period such as 9 years for the TSI evaluation instead, I probably would scratch my head a little. I get fooled plenty, but looking over the denialists’ ideas and claims would lead a person to think human thought relies entirely on superstition.

  • george // July 16, 2007 at 10:01 pm

    Chris C said: “I cannot think of a reason (off the top of my head) why the polarity of the solar magnetic field would effect the Earth’s climate.”

    I’m sure someone , somewhere (within the bowels of Exxon-Mobil?) is madly scrambling (and scribbling) to find one at this very moment.

    I can’t wait to see it — yet another example of Occam’s Upside-down razor: “All things being equal, the most complicated, twisted, outlandish, unsupported solution tends to be the best one.”

  • Chris C // July 17, 2007 at 6:03 am

    I just thought of a better way to describe the 22/11 year solar cycle.

    The cycle can (kinda) be thought of as a sineusoid. The curve has a period of 22 years in total. It starts from zero, increases to a maxima, decreases back to zero, and decreases to a minima of approximatly equal amplitude as the affore mentioned maxima, then increases to zero again.

    Now, on Earth, what really matters to us is the amplitude of the oscillation. Whether the amplitude is in the positive or negative phase has no impact. So in essence, you could draw the curve as mod(sin). Thus, the curve would have a period of 22/2 = 11 years.

    So Lockwood was perfectly justified in using the 11 year solar cycle.

  • george // July 17, 2007 at 3:45 pm

    Chris C said “It should also be noted that while ENSO is an important climatic phenomena, it does not completely control the Earth’s climate and spends most of its time in the neutral range. As such, I’m happy to rule it out”

    It should also be noted that ENSO events seem to have become more frequent, persistent and intense over the past quarter century than compared to the preceding 100 years (El Ni ˜no Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and global warming” B. Nyenzi and P. F. Lefale)

    At this stage, evidence is insufficient to attribute the recent apparent changes in ENSO to global warming (see above reference) — which does not mean that no such link exists, of course.

    But one thing is clear. If the apparent increase (in frequency, persistence and intensity) is real , then something would have to be driving it. There would have to be some energy source for such increased ENSO activity.

    If the recent increase in ENSO is real and solar variations and cosmic ray-induced changes in cloud cover (or changes to earth’s albedo, due to other causes ) are not able to account for increased energy input to the atmospheric/oceanic system over the past 3 decades (as evidence seems to indicate that they are not, at this point), then that energy would have to have come from somewhere else.

    Increased oceanic and atmospheric energy due to the buildup of greenhouse gases would be one of the potential sources of increased energy for ENSO, but as I indicated above, the jury is still out on that one.

  • nanny_govt_sucks // July 19, 2007 at 6:41 pm

    Also, Lockwood & Frohlich used measurements of magnetic field strength, and of cosmic-ray counts, since 1975 to show there’s no trend there that can be responsible for modern global warming either

    I guess this is the part I don’t get with regard to smoothing and cycles. Obviously it is important to look at magnetic effects since these affect Cosmic Ray counts. So why isn’t a reversal of the Sun’s magnetic field relative to the Earth’s magnetic field every 11 years deemed important?

    And why didn’t they consider any available solar cycles anyway? I understand that there are cycles of 11, 22, 36, 110 etc… years. Did they draw one cycle out of a hat and just use that? Why not run the numbers for all known cycles and let the chips fall where they may?

    Same with ACRIM/PMOD versions of TSI. Run for both and let the chips fall.

  • nanny_govt_sucks // July 19, 2007 at 8:23 pm

    Your claims has been answered by Tamino as well as several posters ad nauseaum, often with appropriate references.

    That’s what I keep hearing, yet no one seems to be able to supply the specific links to where this has supposedly occured.

  • Eli Rabett // July 19, 2007 at 9:29 pm

    If nothing else, when the solar field is aligned with the earth’s the fields will add, and when opposed, the fields will subtract. There also could be interesting channeling effects for ionized particles, since the force on the particles from the magnetic field will be F = e v X B. At the earth, in the ecleptic the solar field should be north-south so particles will be deflected in different directions depending if the field runs N-S or S-N

  • Dr. Richard C. Willson // July 20, 2007 at 1:46 am

    Nanny_govt_sucks’s open mind and questioning is one of a few bright spots on this blog.

    I agree that L&F’s article would have been more credible if they had contrasted the PMOD and ACRIM TSI composites. But they didn’t, which makes their effort look like a conclusion in search of justification.

    Bottom line:

    Even if L&F had used a more objective approach, it is premature to attempt to consign TSI variability to the dustbin of climate change forcings. The database of satellite TSI simply is not long enough yet.

  • inel // July 20, 2007 at 2:11 am

    Dear ngs,

    Perhaps your own blog (on WordPress, of course) would be a good solution, now that you have built up quite a repertoire of questions? Collect your favorite answers in one place and use the search box to find references worthy of a revisit.

  • Petro // July 20, 2007 at 7:20 am

    Nanny wrote:
    “That’s what I keep hearing, yet no one seems to be able to supply the specific links to where this has supposedly occured.”

    You have spoonfed with links and references all the time, but you have shown no effort to comprehend even the basic facts. Instead you jump to raise issues with another hackneyed denialist phrase.

    In the climate change debate, the denialists are Humpty Dumpties. Do you truly think, that it is responsibility of all the king’s scientists to put to Humpty Dumpty togethter again?

  • Fielding Mellish // July 20, 2007 at 7:12 pm

    11 is a harmonic of two of those, and nearly one of the third, so I wouldn’t expect your proposed longer periods to change the basic cycle structure.

    “I understand that there are cycles of 11, 22, 36, 110 etc… years. Did they draw one cycle out of a hat and just use that?”

    The data are available, and L&F’s method is disclosed, so why don’t the two of you do that yourselves and publish it? Reproducible method with data are what scientific inquiry is about. Willson–put your money where your mouth is; disprove their findings rather than re-validate the ideal hot gas law. NAGS’s posts have the appearance of hired FUD, indistingishable from the shortsellers’ FUD on the stock boards. So, who’s paying you to spread it?
    +++
    “Why not run the numbers for all known cycles and let the chips fall where they may?

    Same with ACRIM/PMOD versions of TSI. Run for both and let the chips fall.
    ” and “I agree that L&F’s article would have been more credible if they had contrasted the PMOD and ACRIM TSI composites. “

  • george // July 20, 2007 at 9:10 pm

    Dr. Richard Willson said:

    “Even if L&F had used a more objective approach, it is premature to attempt to consign TSI variability to the dustbin of climate change forcings. The database of satellite TSI simply is not long enough yet.”

    The graph on your website indicates you have been monitoring by satellite since about 1980.

    I am curious. Why is that ACRIM (I&II) database (from 1980-1989 and 1991-present) insufficient to draw conclusions about TSI variation since 1980?

    Second:

    Perhaps things have changed since it was written, but this JPL link on ACRIMSAT says “It is theorized that as much as 25% of the anticipated global warming of the earth may be solar in origin.”

    That would appear to me to leave 75% of the warming unaccounted for (or at least not attributable to the sun alone).

    Others have also made similar claims: Scaffeta said 10-30% based on your TSI data.

    I am not familiar enough with this field to know, but has someone (you or someone else) shown (based on your data or someone else’s) that the TSI change over the past 25 years is sufficient to account for all or even most of the warming over that time?

    If that is not true, then it seems to me that it is quite possible (and consistent) to hold that “TSI variation can not account for most of the recent warming (ie, over the past 25-30 years)” while nonetheless admitting that “solar variability has been responsible for climate change in the past.”

    but maybe I am wrong in this conclusion.

    Is saying that “solar variation can not account for most of the recent warming” somehow equivalent to “consign[ing] TSI variability to the dustbin of climate change”?

    If the two are not consistent please explain why because I just can’t see it.

    .

  • tamino // July 20, 2007 at 11:52 pm

    “Why not run the numbers for all known cycles and let the chips fall where they may?

    Same with ACRIM/PMOD versions of TSI. Run for both and let the chips fall.

    Stay tuned; the next post will report the results.

  • John Willit // July 21, 2007 at 8:19 pm

    Solar cycle 22 ending in May 1996 was only 9 years 8 months long (the second shortest cycle since 1755.)

    Why does the data above show it was 10.5 years?

    Answer: the study changed/processed/faked the data to show what the warmers wanted to hear.

    [Response: The solar cycle length you refer to is from minimum of the smoothed monthly mean sunspot number to the following minimum. This is only one possible choice; one can also compute the cycle from maximum to maximum, from inflection point to inflection point, or in fact from any phase point to the same phase point of the succeeding cycle. Also, the time determined by any such method depends on the way in which the smoothing is applied. The definition you have referred to, while standard practice, is also the single *least precise* way to characterize the length of the cycle.

    If you had studied the method used by Lockwood & Frohlich, you'd have known that their estimate of the solar cycle length refers to the average over all phase points of the cycle. This will necessarily give a different result than minimum-to-minimum estimation.

    Instead you choose to believe that they "faked" their results. That says quite a lot about your attitude.]

  • Heretic // July 22, 2007 at 1:18 am

    ngs: “You made the claim, you should back it up.”

    Obviously, someone with a questioning open mind like you (according to Dr. R.C. Willson) you would not throw that around unless you can back up your own claims.

    Can you back up the claim that GCRs can actually explain anything, including the current shift in tropopause and stratospheric cooling?

    Concerning these 2, which are observed phenomena, do you have a better explanation than increased GH effect?

    So far as I know, the GCR hypothesis is mainly that (a hypothesis) with a lot less going for it that GH effect. Can you demonstrate that it explains the past 30 yrs warming? If not, do you have any combination of factors with the appropriate numbers to account for the observations?

    Can you back up (seriously, with solid numbers) the claim that the surface temperature record is invalid?

    Can you back up the claim that the adjustments on the surface temp record actually are non-sensical?

    Can you back up the claim that the sun’s magnetic field orientation has a significant effect on climate?

    Since you ask for links from everyone, I’m sure you won’t mind posting some for these claims. Ideally, links should be to peer-reviewed publications or sites referring to them, without picking only what sounds good, as was done so many times with the Sulanki paper for, instance.

  • nanny_govt_sucks // July 22, 2007 at 5:50 pm

    Heretic, where have I made any of the claims you supposedly attribute to me?

    ex.: “Can you back up (seriously, with solid numbers) the claim that the surface temperature record is invalid?”

    I’ve said that I no longer have confidence in the surface temperature record. That’s not the same as saying it is “invalid”.

  • Heretic // July 22, 2007 at 6:46 pm

    If you were doing science, you would have to be more precise by attaching numbers to that too, describing exactly how unreliable you conclude the record to be.

    For a rethorical purpose, the difference is so subtle as to be negligible. You can then rethorically refute (or just say you’re unconvinced by) any argument involving the surf. temps by saying that you do not trust the record.

  • Heretic // July 22, 2007 at 7:14 pm

    By paying more attention, I noticed a statement much more engaged than the one you copied: “a surface temperature record that may be grossly contaminated.” I’m sure you wouldn’t disagree that, in science, this should be seriously substantiated.

    Furthermore, you made what constitutes a blanket claim that you even left open: “I don’t think CO2 is a primary culprit. Some other things to look at are ENSO/ADO trends, Black Carbon deposits, Cosmic Rays and Earth’s magnetic field, trends in Water Vapor, … the list goes on.” All the claims that I asked you to back up and more can be derived from that open list.

    And it has also been pointed to your attention by George how this should be analyzed if you are serious about it: “this effect contributes X percent to the total.”

    Of course, if all you do is rethoric, then you need not worry about all that, skillful language is enough.

  • nanny_govt_sucks // July 23, 2007 at 1:49 am

    By paying more attention, I noticed a statement much more engaged than the one you copied: “a surface temperature record that may be grossly contaminated.” I’m sure you wouldn’t disagree that, in science, this should be seriously substantiated.

    Sure. The more we look, the more it appears that the USHCN stations were not ever meant to be used in a global average temperature climate survey. Individual station sites were chosen to be at places where they could be checked 7 days a week - fire stations, sewage treatment plants, public works buildings - not out in the flat countryside away from buildings, trees and heat sources where they would be difficult to access. Some of these stations ARE out in the treeless plain and guess what, those are invariably the stations that show no warming for the last century. There are still more stations to check out, and we’re still only talking about USHCN here, but there’s enough info for this layman to lose confidence in the surface temp record. For more, see http://www.surfacestations.org.

  • Dave Embody // July 23, 2007 at 12:24 pm

    If you give me six hours (of my choosing) at the Bay of Fundy, I can prove that the world will be completely flooded in a week.

    [Response: What if we gave you six hours (of your choosing) of *global* data?]

    I would like to have seen a longer time frame on the data presented. Likewise, the selection of measurements of Solar Output seem a little narrow.

    I’m inclined to agree that we are in the midst of a bout of global warming, but like my six hour study of the tides in the Bay of Fundy, I believe as we expand the time frame we will get a better picture.

    [Response: This has already been done where possible. The purpose of Lockwood & Frohlich's study was to focus on the period of modern global warming.

    The only times series studied which has long-term data available is the sunspot series. In fact, it's the principal *proxy* used for reconstructions of TSI. Neither the long-term sunspot series, nor the long-term TSI reconstructions based on proxy data, support the idea that solar changes are responsible for modern global warming.

    In fact, that's why people concocted the idea that it's *not* TSI forcing that's responsible for modern global warming, but some other solar mechanism. The time series selected by L&F were designed to address those, chiefly the most prominent theory, that the reason is modulation of cosmic rays by changes in the solar magnetic field.

    Unfortunately most of the direct observations necessary depend on modern instrumentation, which was simply unavailable on century timescales.]

  • Carl Smith // July 23, 2007 at 3:49 pm

    Here is what astrophysicist Nir Shaviv has to say about the Lockwood and Frolich paper:

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/07/nir-shaviv-why-is-lockwood-and-frohlich.html

    [Response: Grasping at straws.]

    And here is another cat to throw among the pigeons:

    http://www.pmodwrc.ch/eugene1560/sowa/y2005.phtml

  • nanny_govt_sucks // July 23, 2007 at 7:32 pm

    [Response: Grasping at straws.]

    Are you Gavin Schmidt’s parrot?

  • EliRabett // July 24, 2007 at 12:36 am

    Rabetts are not carrots.

  • Heretic // July 24, 2007 at 12:38 am

    NGS, you should not get into ad homs. This is not the Seattle PI blog, keep the better tone you’ve used so far. Believe it or not, many of us are actually trying to understand stuff and stick to a corresponding type of discussion.

    Statements like the ones you repeat in you before-last post are rethorical arguments. That’s fine for a conversation between laymen like us, but it doesn’t show anything. In other words, you did not substantiate. Substantiation would include something like the Parker 2005 and 2006 papers. Or, at least, (as I mentioned before) a numerical analysis of how unreliable you (or someone else) think the data is.

    I noticed this in Carl Smith’s second link (conclusions section):
    “On the basis of the observational data analysis we found that there is a strong coupling between the solar wind parameters and the stratospheric temperatures and the ozone mixing ratio (Makarova and Shirochkov, 2004)” The big finding in the paper seems to be a link between solar wind and Joule effect heating of the stratosphere, which also appears affected by the ground’s electrical conductivity. As far as I remember, stratospheric temps are overall decreasing, so it appears to make sense, but this is a new finding and needs to be tried.

    As for the first link, Lubos elaborates with the assumption that GCRs have a proven quantifiable global effect on climate, which I dont’ t remember being so well established.

  • nanny_govt_sucks // July 24, 2007 at 2:21 am

    In other words, you did not substantiate.

    Heretic, the burden of proof and substantiation is on those promoting the hypothesis, and presenting this surface station data as “high quality” (see http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/newushcn.html ) and using it to justify more and bigger government intrusions into our lives.

    The data is not “high quality” (some stations are, but many are not) so the substantiation of the promoters has failed. What level of quality is the data? It’s not my job to figure that out, I leave it to the promoters of the hypothesis, but don’t tell me that it is “high quality”.

  • Heretic // July 24, 2007 at 8:18 am

    The assertion that the data is of high quality is referred on the very site that you linked (see the reference section), here is an excerpt: ” This is probably the best monthly temperature and precipitation data set available for the contiguous U.S. because station moves, instrument changes, urbanization effects, and time-of-observation differences have been considered and, where necessary, the data have been corrected. ” Easterling, D. R., T. R. Karl, E.H. Mason, P. Y. Hughes, and D. P. Bowman. 1996.

    Further substantiation that the flaws you are so worried about are unlikely to affect the big picture has been done by Parker 2005 and 2006. The “substantiation of the promoters” has not failed. It is in fact more solid and more abundant than you suggest.

    I’ll add that it is your job indeed to seek and read that info if you are serious about understanding the science. A few pictures on the internet are not enough to jump to the rethorical, quantitavely meaningless statement that some stations are good but many are not, half suggesting that more are bad than good. If that is really what you meant, you carry a “burden of proof” to actually demonstrate it.

    I see why Tamino ran out of patience, and I disagree with R Willson. You don’t seem really interested in finding out stuff and understanding it. You continually ask to be spoonfed info so that you can then go on with rethorical picking of it. Not a very productive way of looking at science, even for a layman.

  • Marion Delgado // July 24, 2007 at 9:27 am

    The burden of sanity is not to bandy words with trolls. Including those who want us to waste our time proving the world’s weather stations are NOT conspiring with the Socialist International to put us under One World Bilderberger Al Gore UN British Royal Masonic Enviroterror Stalinist Hegemonism and take our guns.

    I think the weather stations should file restraining orders on these brownshirts.

  • Dano // July 24, 2007 at 12:22 pm

    I think the weather stations should file restraining orders on these brownshirts.

    I disagree. I can’t wait to see the results of their stunt. I mean, really: stating they are documenting temperature problems without measuring temperatures? Come on. Let’s see their “paper”. Let us audit its quality.

    Best,

    D

  • John Cross // July 24, 2007 at 1:59 pm

    Dano: A good idea, if I may start.

    Nanny: that surface station site is a lot of fun. For example one of the sites they talk about is
    Redding
    . They describe the site as

    The site is surrounded by asphalt, and the surface is unnatural - its wood chips over weedmat. I’ll have to say it was very hot to walk on during mid-day.

    But notice the “accessories” they’ve added for convenience of running the hygrometer and for night observations. I wonder how many times they forgot to turn off the light?

    Now, the interesting thing is if we look at the
    temperature data for Redding
    we see that if anything it is showing a slightly negative trend.

    Thus we are left with three options:
    1) Factors like this don’t really matter all that much when looking at trends.
    2) Those sneaky climatologists put this is to throw people off the track
    3) There is actually an advancing glacier near Redding but no one has noticed it since glaciers are advancing all over the world anyway.

    John

  • nanny_govt_sucks // July 24, 2007 at 8:11 pm

    This is probably the best monthly temperature and precipitation data set available for the contiguous U.S. because station moves, instrument changes, urbanization effects, and time-of-observation differences have been considered and, where necessary, the data have been corrected. ” Easterling, D. R., T. R. Karl, E.H. Mason, P. Y. Hughes, and D. P. Bowman. 1996.

    But the “corrections” only weaken my confidence in the data, not strengthen it! Have you seen any of these corrections? For starters see:

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1603 , and
    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1628

    Absent from the list above are micro-site effects which are all too apparent from the pictures at surfacestations.org.

    Further substantiation that the flaws you are so worried about are unlikely to affect the big picture has been done by Parker 2005 and 2006. The “substantiation of the promoters” has not failed. It is in fact more solid and more abundant than you suggest.

    Parker did not consider micro-site effects.

    I’ll add that it is your job indeed to seek and read that info if you are serious about understanding the science.

    I’m familiar with Parker and it doesn’t apply here.

    A few pictures on the internet are not enough to jump to the rethorical, quantitavely meaningless statement that some stations are good but many are not, half suggesting that more are bad than good. If that is really what you meant, you carry a “burden of proof” to actually demonstrate it.

    Justification needs to be provided for the claim that USHCN stations are “high quality”. I didn’t make this claim. Others did. It is up to them to justify it, not me. The data is obviously not “high quality” as can be seen from what is basically a random sampling of the data.

    I see why Tamino ran out of patience, and I disagree with R Willson. You don’t seem really interested in finding out stuff and understanding it. You continually ask to be spoonfed info so that you can then go on with rethorical picking of it. Not a very productive way of looking at science, even for a layman.

    Is it more “productive” to just accept every published study as fact?

    You may not like it, but nitpicking is a part of the scientific process. And a lot of what you call “nits” are actually major flaws!

  • nanny_govt_sucks // July 24, 2007 at 8:16 pm

    I mean, really: stating they are documenting temperature problems without measuring temperatures?

    Here is an experiment involving temp problems with temp measurements:

    http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/07/the_stevenson_screen_paint_tes.html

  • nanny_govt_sucks // July 24, 2007 at 8:24 pm

    Now, the interesting thing is if we look at the
    temperature data for Redding we see that if anything it is showing a slightly negative trend.

    Actually John, I see the temp trend going up and down, but rising since about the 70’s.

    Thus we are left with three options:
    1) Factors like this don’t really matter all that much when looking at trends.

    How would you know? The picture is from a site that has been used since the mid-90’s. Any prior siting issues are unknown at this time.

  • Dano // July 25, 2007 at 12:21 am

    Good for you, nags, you are able to continually distract from the fact that the amateurs cannot tell if there is a temp anomaly because they aren’t measuring temps.

    Can’t wait for the blockbuster paper.

    Best,

    D

  • nanny_govt_sucks // July 25, 2007 at 3:11 am

    Some interesting feedback from Wilson and Scafetta: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Lockwood_and_Frolich_Review.pdf

  • John Cross // July 25, 2007 at 3:33 am

    Oh boy!!! I get to use the Bob Carter argument. Ahem … But it has been going down since 1997!!!!

    In regards to the siting, but we are sure of the site since then, so now you are saying that all the issues raised in surfacestations are not important and we can’t be sure if they are factors at all. Where are those auditors?

  • nanny_govt_sucks // July 25, 2007 at 3:57 am

    John, I’m not sure I see your point. Certainly there are siting issues currently at Redding. Asphalt parking lot nearby, the surface underfoot is not representative of the surroundings, there are nearby trees that likely have grown in the past 10 years and shade the screen for part of the day as well as block the wind. These on top of any surrounding urban growth issues, and of course the light bulb and additional electrics in the shelter.

    The sum total of these effects is unknown! No one, as far as I know, has done any kind of study that takes factors like these into account. Is it measuring the local climate, or the temp under a shade tree, or near a parking lot? All we know is this:

    The site is not “high quality”.

    As far as any past issues with Redding siting, maybe more investigation is needed to determine former locations, as was done with many of the other sites at surfacestations.org

  • Dano // July 25, 2007 at 5:03 am

    PRnags,

    it pains me to be so obvious to those with critical thinking skills, but just for the record, when you say:

    The sum total of these effects is unknown! No one, as far as I know, has done any kind of study that takes factors like these into account.

    Amateurs with cameras are not contributing to this dire “issue”. When the paper comes out and the Heritage Victory Tour begins, it will be of trifling effort to knock it over.

    And when decision-makers’ staffers brief their bosses, the groundbreaking paper won’t contribute to policy. But you’ll get your big fat denialist wish, and we’ll get more laughs at your expense.

    IOW: when they start measuring temps, you won’t look so sad in your defense of the effort.

    Best,

    D

  • Dano // July 25, 2007 at 5:06 am

    From nags’ link to the D’Aleo paper:

    s David Whitehouse noted in a response2 to the Lockwood/Frolich paper, that the temperatures of the world have leveled off the last decade after peaking in 1997/98. “Statistically the worldʹs temperature is flat. The world certainly warmed between 1975 and 1998, but in the past 10 years it has not been increasing at the rate it did.”

    Indeed, temperatures have declined and then leveled off in the past 8 years.

    HAHAHA. Good ‘un.

    Best,

    D

  • John Cross // July 25, 2007 at 10:22 am

    Nanny, you say that “there are nearby trees that likely have grown in the past 10 years and shade the screen for part of the day”

    But thanks to surfacestations.org we can check this out. If you look at the satellite photo of the location you can see that the only large tree nearby is to the north-east and about 8 meters away. So let me ask you, is your statement about shading reasonable?

  • nanny_govt_sucks // July 25, 2007 at 4:56 pm

    John. it looks like morning and evening sun will be partially blocked by nearby trees, possibly only at certain times of the year.

  • nanny_govt_sucks // July 25, 2007 at 4:58 pm

    Amateurs with cameras are not contributing to this dire “issue”.

    Well, documenting these issues would seem to be a partial contribution.

  • John Cross // July 26, 2007 at 1:26 am

    Nanny: Have you calculated the azimuth for the site? This is necessary since the only trees that are large enough to block the sun are north of the station.

    I think we can safely dismiss shadow effects. Thus the only factor that would reduce temperatures is eliminated. Which means we can get back to the initial question. If all these factors are so important why have the temperatures fallen?

  • nanny_govt_sucks // July 26, 2007 at 5:47 am

    John, as I said before, the sum total of the issues with the Redding site are unknown. Perhaps the installed blower is cooling off the enclosure. There’s also the posibility that these micro-site effects ameliorated a much cooler local trend. But that’s just guesswork. Why don’t we stick with what we DO know: The station is not “high quality” as it was presented to be.

  • nanny_govt_sucks // July 26, 2007 at 6:26 am

    If all these factors are so important why have the temperatures fallen?

    As an aside, I don’t see that the measured temperatures have fallen at the Redding station since the most recent move, which appears to be on 7/1/96. It looks to me like the temp trend is rising since then.

  • John Cross // July 26, 2007 at 5:17 pm

    Nanny, good idea, lets stick to what we do know. Whenever you talk about problems with the site you use very lose terms. In your previous post you said: unknown, perhaps, possibility and guesswork.

    The points that you raise that we can look at objectively (e.g. tree shading) have been shown to have trivial effects. And now it turns out that you don’t even know when the most recent move was.

    Sorry, but if you want to make a real argument you need to do a lot more fundamental research. Until then I can live with “high quality”.

  • nanny_govt_sucks // July 27, 2007 at 4:54 am

    John, if we apply the NOAA/CRN site classification scheme (see http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/X030FullDocumentD0.pdf, section 2.2.1) we can see that the Redding site easily falls to a Class 2 because of asphalt within 100 meters, and is likely a Class 3, 4 or 5 depending on the actual distance to the asphalt, and whether the light bulb and other electrics are considered heating sources. Anyway, it’s certainly not a high quality Class 1 site.

    Here’s a picture of a tree just to the East of the screen: http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=1287 . It looks like that tree could shade the screen at certain times of the day/year.

    If you’re still convinced that the Redding site is “high quality”, perhaps you could comment on the Tuscon or Paso Robles sites? Are they also “high quality”?

  • John Cross // July 28, 2007 at 3:01 am

    Nanny, what you are quoting from is for CRN sites. This site is not a CRN site.

    In regards to the tree, check the satellite photo and you can see the tree is east-north-east of the site. The key word being north.

  • nanny_govt_sucks // July 28, 2007 at 6:13 pm

    John, there’s also a tree to the West. Why are you so hung up on this? The site is not “high quality”. Are you arguing otherwise?

    I never claimed the site was CRN.

  • John Cross // July 28, 2007 at 9:50 pm

    Nanny: If you look at the satellite map you will see that the tree to the west is actually west north west.

    I would ask you why you are so hung up on trying to change definitions and create FUD. You said that site was “high quality” and quoted from the USHCN site . You then pull a switch and try to claim that “high quality” is the same as a class 1 site based on the CRN definitions. But the HCN and CRN are different things that you could have found out for yourself if you had actually taken the time to look.

    Keeping this in mind, you have done nothing that shows it is not a “high quality” site. Take your tree argument. Both trees are north of the site. Have you calculated the azimuth for the early and late morning sun at different times of the year (taking into account the 3 degree angle)? Based on a percentage of a typical day, how much sun is blocked? This is good basic research that you could actually look into instead of waving your arms and producing nothing.

    So, I have two points:
    1) you appear to know even less than myself and I know that the professionals know a lot more than I do. Should we take their word for it - of course not, but at least try to do some fundamental research and avoid the errors that make you look silly.
    2) I think that Dano has the right method for dealing with threads like this!!!

  • nanny_govt_sucks // July 29, 2007 at 2:03 am

    John, you seem to be ignoring the nearby asphalt at the Redding site, as well as a number of other issues I pointed out earlier, and that are apparent from the pictures at surfacestations.org. There clearly a tree West/Southwest of the station as you can see from this picture ( http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=1293 ). The shadow of the tree is at the right edge of the picture. You can also see it to the West/Southwest of the screen in this satellite picture: http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=1156 . So, you’re just playing games here, John. The pictures don’t lie and anyone can see the issues (tree and otherwise) at the site for themselves.

    You said that site was “high quality” and quoted from the USHCN site .

    I most certainly did not say that the site was “high quality”. More of your games?

    Should we take their word for it - of course not, but at least try to do some fundamental research and avoid the errors that make you look silly.

    You mean like claiming that there’s a cooling trend at the Redding site when you 1.) Didn’t know that the site changed, 2.) Claimed again that the there was a cooling trend at the new site when there wasn’t. Are those the kind of silly errors you are talking about?

    Keeping this in mind, you have done nothing that shows it is not a “high quality” site.

    The burden of proof is not mine. I’m not promoting any grand theory. See my conversation with Heretic above. Another of your games, obviously - twisting the Scientific Method around so that the burden of proof is on those critical of a hyp0thesis. Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way.

    So John, what will it be? More games in the next post? Over here ( http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1832 ) in a post by Anthony Watts, there’s talk of beginning to classify these sites as there is a fair portion of them documented at this point. Care to throw in your input? Perhaps you can argue that there are more “high quality” sites than there appear to be.

  • John Cross // July 29, 2007 at 4:16 am

    Nanny: You appear to not understand the pictures you are looking at. There are many trees west south west of the site all the way to the Pacific, but the one that is casting the shadow you refer to is west north west.

    While you did not call the site “high quality”, you did use the term in your post on Jul 24th 2007 at 2:21 am with a link to the USHCN. You then start to bring up criteria for CRN sites. Why? Do you think they are the same?

    In regarding silly mistakes, I am thinking more along the lines of the fact that the last relocation of the site was in March 2000, not in 1996 as you seem to think.

    In regards to the burden of proof, well at the very least you should know what the definition of “high quality” is before trying to criticize it. Again, do your research. As for more games, that is up to you.

  • John Cross // July 29, 2007 at 4:20 am

    Nanny, oh, by the way, I agree that the trend since the last relocation is up. Damn! But when I think of it, that argument didn’t well for Bob Carter either. History repeats itself.

  • nanny_govt_sucks // July 29, 2007 at 5:32 pm

    In regards to the burden of proof, well at the very least you should know what the definition of “high quality” is before trying to criticize it.

    I’d call a high quality site one that fits the CRN description of a Class 1 site.

    What would you call it?

  • John Cross // July 29, 2007 at 7:50 pm

    I’d call a high quality site one that fits the CRN description of a Class 1 site.

    That may be what you call it, but I do not believe that it is what is meant when the USHCN uses the term “high quality” (which you yourself linked to in your post above). However feel free to knock yourself out researching it.

    Again, this makes my point that you really don’t seem to know much about the topic. You pick up a term from one site and then think it applies to another. As I have said before, do your research.

  • nanny_govt_sucks // July 30, 2007 at 1:19 am

    John, if the USHCN uses the term “high quality” to actually mean “low quality” then the problem is much deeper than I imagined.

    I’ve noticed that you have consistently failed to answer my questions posted here. It is obvious that you are just a game-player and not interested in actally pursuing these climate related issues. Have a good evening.

  • John Cross // July 30, 2007 at 4:42 am

    “not interested in actally pursuing these climate related issues. “

    Nanny: you just broke my irony meter. In terms of the games that have been played here, I am pleased to let the record speak for itself.

    Good night.

  • dhogaza // July 30, 2007 at 5:36 pm

    The sum total of these effects is unknown!

    The site is not “high quality”.

    Statement “b” does not follow from statement “a”.

    For instance, the sum total of these effects may be negligable. Or may introduce a bias that’s been constant since the site was established, in which case the data is perfectly useful for establishing a trend.

  • nanny_govt_sucks // July 31, 2007 at 5:14 am

    Statement “b” does not follow from statement “a”.

    It wasn’t meant to.

    The site is not “high quality” primarily because of the nearby asphalt. CRN, NWS, and NOAA all have standards for station siting specifying that stations be 100ft from paved surfaces. If any of these standards are applied to the USHCN site in quesiton, it fails miserably.

  • John Cross // July 31, 2007 at 12:14 pm

    Nanny: we have established that you don’t even know what “high quality” means in regards to the USHCN. Does it refer to statistical QA/QC on the data itself, does it refer to the quality of the instruments, does it refer to site location as you say or does it refer to something else. I don’t know and you have not provided anything to indicate that you know either. Either put up something that supports your assertion or not use the term “high quality” as referenced in the USHCN.

    When dealing with a specialized topic like this definitions are very important. Again, do your homework.

  • Hank Roberts // July 31, 2007 at 7:25 pm

    Nan, yourconsistent postings themselves give evidence that

    “a bias that’s been constant since the site was established… is perfectly useful for establishing a trend.”

    Why should we not believe that you, and the weather stations, are both giving consistently biased and therefore useful information?

    As long as the bias is consistent, the trend can still be determined.

  • Petro // July 31, 2007 at 9:06 pm

    “It is obvious that you are just a game-player and not interested in actally pursuing these climate related issues. ”

    sayz Nanny, the Empty Master of Sophistry

  • nanny_govt_sucks // August 1, 2007 at 6:45 pm

    you don’t even know what “high quality” means in regards to the USHCN.

    There’s no such thing as “”high quality” in regards to the USHCN”. There is high quality, and there is not high quality. Unless of course what you’re saying is that the USHCN stations are such a pile of garbage that even the Redding site can be considered “high quality” with respect to the other garbage stations! In that case the issues are far deeper and more serious than I ever imagined.

    “a bias that’s been constant since the site was established… is perfectly useful for establishing a trend.”

    I would agree, but where are the studies showing that any bias is constant? (Please don’t bring up Parker - it does not apply to microsite issues)

  • nanny_govt_sucks // August 1, 2007 at 6:46 pm

    … any bias is constant?

    That should be “… any microsite bias revealed at surfacestations.org is constant?”

  • John Cross // August 1, 2007 at 11:04 pm

    Nanny: simple quesion, when you quoted the phrase “high quality” from the USHCN site, were you aware of what that meant? If so, can you back it up.

    If you can’t, then all your analysis is at best useless.

Leave a Comment