Nir Shaviv, nice one: The Sun, still is.

Posted: August 11, 2015 by tchannon in Astrophysics, Geomagnetism, Natural Variation

Oh my, The Sun, still is.


The Sunspots 2.0? Irrelevant. The Sun, still is.
By shaviv

After being asked by 5 independent people about the new sunspot number reconstruction and that it doesn’t show that the sun should have contributed any warming to the 20th century, I decided to write about it here. I have one word to describe it – irrelevant. It is also a good opportunity to write about new results (well, one that saw the light of day a few months ago) showing again that the sun has a large effect on climate. Yet, the world will still continue to ignore it. Am I surprised? No I’m not.

There is indeed far more than sunspots.

Post by Tim

[Apologies Shaviv for writing Niv instead of Nir in the title. and M Simon for pointing this out]

  1. Bart says:

    Yeah. As others pointed out on the other thread about this, putting the SSN data through a low frequency filter (or, a straight accumulation) still shows plainly that the 20th century was a time of increasing activity.

    I can’t imagine professional scientists being so stupid as to just look at the peaks, and conclude since they don’t show a monotonic trend, the effect isn’t increasing. Don’t they teach Fourier analysis in schools anymore?

  2. Bart says:

    … low pass filter… You guys know what I meant.

  3. Gail Combs says:

    “Don’t they teach Fourier analysis in schools anymore?”
    ERrrr No, not unless you are in physics or engineering. At least not at the bachelor of science level in the USA and that was 50 years ago before they completely trashed the universities.

    They did not teach statistics either.

  4. tom0mason says:

    Shall I look forward to a future where ‘new sunspot number reconstruction’ happens more often, as the later data will alter how the past should be, just like it does with gobal temperatures.

  5. M Simon says:

    Uh. His first name is “Nir”.

  6. oldbrew says:

    ‘The longer 10Be data set reveals that the latter half of the 20th century was more active than any preceding time since the Maunder minimum.’

    So clearly something was going on that isn’t explained by ‘official’ climate science.

  7. tchannon says:

    Thank you for pointing out my spelling error M Simon. Corrected and an apology added.

    Errors in titles are bad, edit is liable to break links. I know what happened, double checked Shaviv with his blog article spelling not noticing the three letter name was wrong.😦

    Some people are very touchy about their name, the real issue here is bad manners

  8. Don B says:


    August 9, 2015 at 2:40 pm
    Fig. 2 on page 3 of Jasper Kirkby’s paper shows the correlation of Be10 and C14 with temperature. the earlier post…

  9. As I said yesterday the sunspot record reconstruction record as far as trying to say a solar/climate connection does not exist is meaningless.

    It is just more BS , led by an astronomer Leif, who knows next to nothing about climate.

    What I will do with his reconstruction of the sunspot data is simply ignore it and throw it in the garbage where it belongs.

    Sunspots are all subjective which is why even today they are still being counted differently.

    As this article so rightly points out the aa index is much better indicator or measure of solar activity.

  10. M Simon says:

    tchannon says:
    August 11, 2015 at 12:21 pm

    Your manners are excellent!

    Yeah – spelling errors in titles that have been up for a while and you HAVE to fix break links. I hate it when that happens.


    You can tell Nir’s understanding of the Sun’s influence has been evolving. And thanks to the ‘net we can evolve not too far behind him.

  11. Next watch these clowns try to adjust the aa index.

    What they are doing is really no different then all of the past temperature manipulated adjustments.

  12. Notice, I have never included the sunspot count as criteria to evaluate how active the sun is.


    Solar Flux avg. sub 90

    Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec

    AP index avg. sub 5.0

    Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute

    Total Solar Irradiance off .15% or more

    EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.

    IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.

  13. Power Grab says:

    Where is a good source for the cosmic ray counts?

  14. oldbrew says:

    Power Grab: this one gets used quite a bit.

    SdP: you could add solar cycle length to your criteria?

  15. Yes I could add solar length another relevant metric.

  16. E.M.Smith says:

    @Don B:

    Is that link supposed to end with .pdf ? [yes, corrected – mod]

    As given I got a 404 error, but with pdf something downloaded…

  17. tom0mason says:

    E.M.Smith says:
    August 12, 2015 at 4:07 am
    @Don B:

    Is that link supposed to end with .pdf ?

    As given I got a 404 error, but with pdf something downloaded…

    I believe this may be the document required…

    Try —Abstract.

    which has a link to —the PDF

  18. Paul Vaughan says:

    Without Understanding & Without Truth

  19. oldbrew says:

    Some ‘exchange of views’ going on between Dr Shaviv and Eschenbach at WUWT.

    It seems we’ve had a visitor at the Talkshop – see ‘Objection Two’.

    Eschenbach: ‘Let me say in passing that I enjoy watching how everyone loves WUWT and thinks it is great until it is their own work being discussed’.

    Everyone – really?

  20. Paul Vaughan says:

    If I wrote what I really think about WE & LS, it could not be allowed to pass moderation.

    Shaviv’s response:

    I like how he called out AW in the last paragraph.

    AW should ban the following people:
    LS, WE, PG, SM, MM

    Reasons why I would consider keeping them:
    1. a LARGE financial pay-off

  21. Paul Vaughan says:

    Shaviv’s climate disequilibrium double sunspot integral makes good sense:

    It got me thinking about the sea level – solar phase relation reversal ~1930.

    Way back in my forestry days I did a hydrology course and in a course like that there are some equations a student sees dozens upon dozens upon dozens of times. There are lots of variants on the same theme depending on the context, but they’re all just addition & subtraction. You see things like:

    precipitation – evaporation – runoff


    snowmelt + precipitation


    It got me thinking. Below some threshold the correlation could reverse if a lot of the precipitation was going into snowfall (& storage for a later effect) rather than immediate runoff …or if less of the precipitation made it over land …or if a lot of energy was going into melting ice in one era, but directly into heating in a contrasting era …etc., etc. The dominant term could switch.

    I’ll be exploring this double integral concept. It’s remarkable that the mainstream never even mentions this sort of thing. They just pretend everything is instantaneous, which is straight up crazy for a medium like water (including ice).

  22. oldbrew says:

    PV says: ‘Reasons why I would consider keeping them:
    1. a LARGE financial pay-off’

    What a shameless mercenary🙂

  23. Paul Vaughan says:

    OB if AW isn’t somehow getting very handsomely rewarded financially for letting WE post so much excessively verbose rudely framed accidental &/or deliberate distortion then AW’s judgement is conclusively fatally unsound. Without some kind of major financial reward for tolerating such deliberately flamboyant darkly excessive twisted distortion, the only sensible option for AW would be to show WE the door and never allow him anywhere near the property again. WE’s & LS’s mission appears to be to undermine climate realism by any means necessary, whether honest or devilishly dishonest. I cannot write here what I would say about LS as it could not be allowed to pass moderation.

    [reply] we hear you

  24. oldbrew says:

    Shaviv accuses Watts of libel or of allowing Eschenbach to libel him.

    ‘I should also add another point which is directed primarily to Anthony Watts. The Wattsupwiththat website used to keep very high standards. It also served as a very important outlet where discussions about various climate views, including those which do not conform to the dogmatic mainstream could be heard. However, the low standards borne from Eschenbach’s article, both in science and in style should be avoided. Anthony Watts should not expose himself to libelous type of writing, which is exactly what Eschenbach has done. Writing false statements is one thing, it is Eschenbach’s right for free speech, but writing that my colleagues and have “deceived” as well as other derogatory remarks that intend to tarnish our scientific integrity has no place in any scientific discussion.’

    Well said. Whether he would pursue it in the courts is another matter, very expensive of course.

    ‘The Wattsupwiththat website used to keep very high standards.’ Oh dear:/

  25. Gail Combs says:

    L.S. & W.E. (& A.W.) keep ticking off other skeptics. First it was Landscheidt (The name is banned) and the Sky Dragon crowd (also banned), then Steven Goddard, then Tallbloke, then Jo Nova and now Dr. Shaviv.

    The website has not gone after Judith Curry, but then again she was never a skeptic in the first place, just a very careful fence-sitting politician.

    Judith Curry
    Peter Webster (Curry’s business partner)

    The psychology she uses HERE

    That whole thread (Mosher/Curry Say There Is No Urban Heat Island Effect) over at Steven Goddard’s is an interesting read.

  26. oldbrew says:

    Back on the 11-year solar hobby horse again at WUWT. But the full solar cycle is 22 years.

    The piece says: ‘I like to have an absolute minimum of three cycles of data to use for my longest term analysis.’

    So that should be 22×3 = 66 years…

  27. Gail Combs says:

    Willis posts an ‘Apology’ in which he further insults Dr Shaviv. It is more a CYA to remove libelous statements so he does not get sued while still calling Dr Shaviv a liar, just in a more pleasant way.

    What Willis actually does is make it very clear he is ignoring Dr Shaviv’s rebuttal and the evidence that the ‘sine curve’ is based on the reconstructed Cosmic Ray Flux using iron meteorite exposure age data (Shaviv, 2002) I left a comment at WUWT to that effect.

    The fact that no one else seems to have caught it besides me does not say much about the people at WUWT.

    Salvatore Del Prete does a nice job of defense and as usual L.S. is using his own work to say it can’t be the sun.

    On a separate note, I see there is now an ‘organization of skeptics’ that A.W. is pushing. Now I wonder who actually came up with that idea?

    I wrote this several years ago…

    What global leaders want is people to have the illusion they are in control while the real power rests in the hand of a select few.

    Pascal Lamy was quite blunt about this.

    I see four main challenges for global governance today…

    The last challenge that I see is that of legitimacy – for legitimacy is intrinsically linked to proximity, to a sense of “togetherness”. By togetherness, I mean the shared feeling of belonging to a community. This feeling, which is generally strong at the local level, tends to weaken significantly as distance to power systems grows. It finds its roots in common myths, a common history, and a collective cultural heritage. It is no surprise that taxation and redistribution policies remain mostly local!


    The UN came up with a solution to the ‘legitimacy in global governance’ problem It is called NGOs.

    Perhaps the most brilliant move of Maurice Strong was the development of NGOs. It is said he got the idea from working for YMCA international as a young man.

    ..may have been the genesis of Strong’s realization that NGOs (non-government organizations) provide an excellent way to use NGOs to couple the money from philanthropists and business with the objectives of government.”

    NGOs give young activists something to join. It makes them think they are DOING SOMETHING. It gave them a“shared feeling of belonging to a community” It also controls their thinking. They can join Greenpeace or Organic Consumers or Food & Water Watch or any of a huge number of other organizations. However the one thing NGOs do not do is give the rank and file a voice.

    “Very few of even the larger international NGOs are operationally democratic, in the sense that members elect officers or direct policy on particular issues,” notes Peter Spiro. “Arguably it is more often money than membership that determines influence, and money more often represents the support of centralized elites, such as major foundations, than of the grass roots.” The CGG has benefited substantially from the largesse of the MacArthur, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations.

    So it looks like Realists are to be rounded-up and organized and given a collective voice that is NOT their voice as we have already seen happen in several of the scientific bodies.

  28. oldbrew says:

    Gail Combs says: ‘I see there is now an ‘organization of skeptics’ that A.W. is pushing’

    I remember reading about that a while ago – 1 or 2 years back at least. No interest here.

    ‘still calling Dr Shaviv a liar, just in a more pleasant way’

    How does that work😉

  29. oldbrew says:

    ‘it is time to acknowledge that the 22 yr magnetic cycle is the Sun’s “fundamental” mode and not 11 yr as reflected in the pattern produced by the interaction of the activity bands.’


  30. Gail Combs says:

    Alan Cummings/California Institute of Technology
    The Extreme Solar Minimum of Cycle 24: Consequences for Energetic Particle

    We propose a comprehensive study of energetic particle phenomena, taking advantage of new opportunities enabled by the extended cycle 24 solar minimum, during which the Sun continues to be at its quietest state in almost a century. This is providing a unique possibility to probe solar-heliospheric connections in an unexplored ‘ground-state’ of the Sun. Fortunately, very capable spacecraft, including ACE, Wind, STEREO and Voyager, are in place to provide comprehensive measurements of H to Fe ions from ~50 keV/nuc to >500 MeV/nuc.

    At high energies (>100 MeV/nuc) the quiet Sun and weakened solar wind have recently resulted in ‘super-fluxes’ of galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) from H to Fe, with the highest 1- AU intensities of the space age. These GCR intensities continue to increase, providing a unique opportunity to explore cosmic-ray access to the inner heliosphere and characterize a ‘worst-case’ GCR radiation environment that could be experienced by future explorers. The weakened wind may also lead to record intensities at ~100 AU. Lower energy (~0.5 to 50 MeV/nuc) anomalous cosmic rays (ACRs) are accelerated at the boundaries of the heliosphere.

    So there is another link between solar sunspot activity and cosmic rays that Willis E. missed….

  31. tchannon says:

    Magnetics, quite.

  32. Gail Combs says:


    They do not care about the true mavericks. All they want is enough numbers so that they can be used to say “SEE, even the skeptics agree” and get a ‘Consensus’

    It all goes back to the idea of group vs individual and objective phenomena vs ideas existing in the mind. The Hegelian Basis of The Philosophy Of Karl Marx

    … As a student, Marx accepted the philosophy of Hegel as the only sound and adequate explanation of the universe. According to this philosophy, “the only immutable thing is the abstraction of movement.” The one universal phenomenon is change, and the only universal form of this phenomenon is its complete abstraction. Thus, Hegel accepted as real only that which existed in the mind. Objective phenomena and events were of no consequence; only the conceptions of them possessed by human minds were real.….

    In the Hegelian philosophy no idea could exist without an opposite…. If an idea were labeled a thesis, its opposite would be its antithesis. Consequently, in this realm of the mind within which the universe had its only real existence, innumerable theses and antitheses existed. Struggle or conflict was the en-evitable fact in such a universe—conflict of the thesis with its antithesis. In this struggle thesis and antithesis acted and reacted on each other, and a new phenomenon—synthesis—was created. All action or change occurring in the universe was, under the Hegelian philosophy, the product of thesis, antithesis, and resulting synthesis….

    Therefore a group ‘representing the antithesis’, aka WUWT – Open Atmospheric Society, is needed and that group reacting with the CAGW crowd will produce a ‘synthesis’ or a ‘Consensus’

    Originally the plan was to declare a ‘Consensus’ had been reached among ‘scientists’ and the UN/IPCC was to move forward into “options for mitigation and adaptation” phase straight away.

    The IPCC mandate is:

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.

    So it never was about understanding the climate. It was really about ‘options for mitigation and adaptation. ‘ This is the change wanted by the Globalists like the UN, the World Bank, and the WTO. CAGW was the method used to give the Globalists ‘legitimacy’ for that change. If you read French Socialist, Pascal Lamy, two time WTO DIrector-General he spells that out in detail as he complains

    The reality is that, so far, we have largely failed to articulate a clear and compelling vision of why a new global order matters — and where the world should be headed.


    The IPCC even explains its ROLE

    The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

    So there it is again. ONLY “human-induced climate change” is of interest and the goal is to come up with “…options for adaptation and mitigation.”

    Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change point blank says:

    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution…

    She also said that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China is the best model.

    If you look at the Climategate e-mails you find the IPCC Lead Author who wrote those Scenarios. The IPCC lead author for scenarios is Ged Davis VP of Shell Oil. Another Shell Oil exec Doug McKay was at the IPCC scenario meetings (per e-mails). McKay was also Senior Financial Analyst with the World Bank. Robert Watson worked for the World Bank while Chair of the IPCC.

    And in the Ged Davis draft we find Sustainable Development aka Agenda 21. Of particular interest is in this optimum scenario, there is No Nuclear, Coal and Oil are phased out leaving Natural gas as the winner with ‘Green Energy’ also owned by BP, Shell and their internationalist buddies, as the big winners.

    4. Sustainable Development (B1)

    The central elements of this scenario family include high levels of environmental and social consciousness, successful governance including major social innovation, and reductions in income and social inequality. Successful forms of governance allow many problems which are currently hard or difficult to resolve to fall within the competency of government and other organisations….. The concerns over global sustainable development, expressed in a myriad of environmental and social issues, results in the eventual successful management of the interaction between human activities and the biosphere…. Besides cleaning up air quality, there is emphasis on improving the availability and quality of water. [no doubt the coming scam since the econuts are refusing to allow additional dams to be built. – gc]

    …The impact of environmental concerns is a significant factor in the planning for new energy systems. Two alternative energy systems, leading to two sub-scenarios, are considered to provide this energy:

    1. Widespread expansion of natural gas, with a growing role for renewable energy (scenario B1N). Oil and coal are of lesser importance, especially post-2050. This transition is faster in the developed than in the developing countries…


  33. Gail Combs says:

    Copenhagen 2009 is where the plans all fell to pieces.

    Clinton gave away the military advantage the USA had over China by giving China our technology and military secrets and even helping their military get up to speed. Clinton also gave away the USA’s economic advantage by convincing Congress to ratifiy the World Trade Organization and then bringing in China. Clinton also signed the five banking laws that lead to the housing market crash and the recent world economic crisis.

    When Obama showed at Copenhagen, the Chinese, having lost all respect for the USA, gave him the cold shoulder and sabotaged the agreement. link On top of that Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand…effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank. Developing countries HATE the World Bank because of the World Bank’s Structural Adjustment Programmes that completely trash their economies and starve their people.

    On top of that the Climategate e-mails were released and the nasty underbelly of CAGW was revealed to the public. So that was the situation at the end of Copenhagen in 2009.

    Enter Judith Curry.

    Judith is president of Climate Forecast Applications Network LLC, a company making money off taxpayers by helping pick the sites for new wind turbines. Her partner, Dr. Peter J. Webster, has connections to the Aspen Global Change Institute with its connections to Mikey Mann, Peter Glieck and the rest. See long set of comments starting HERE

    If you look at what Judith Curry said in her 2010 congressional testimony you can see she is squarely on the side of the IPCC with an eye to providing damage control, to schmoozing bloggers and ‘citizen scientists’ (Think WUWT)

    ……The IPCC’s efforts to consider uncertainty focus primarily on communicating uncertainty, rather than on characterizing and exploring uncertainty in a way that would be useful for risk managers and resource managers and the institutions that fund science….

    A person making a statement about uncertainty or degree of doubt is likely to become categorized as a skeptic or denier or a “merchant of doubt,”[5] whose motives are assumed to be ideological or motivated by funding from the fossil fuel industry. My own experience in publicly discussing concerns about how uncertainty is characterized by the IPCC has resulted in my being labeled as a “climate heretic”[6] that has turned against my colleagues….

    So why does Judith Curry host a somewhat neutral Climate Blog?

    This is where the lady shows she is a brilliant politician.

    Going back to her congressional testimony she says in her opening paragraph: “Over the past year, I have been actively engaging with the public (particularly in the blogosphere) on the issue of integrity of climate science, and also the topic of uncertainty.”

    She decides that muddying the waters with the truth is an excellent idea when you are trying to regain public trust.

    …the complexity of both the climate and energy problems and their nexus precludes the gigaton “silver bullet” solution to these challenges. Attempting to use carbon dioxide as a control knob to regulate climate in the face of large natural climate variability and the inevitable weather hazards is most likely futile. In any event, according to climate model projections reported in the IPCC AR4, reducing atmospheric CO2 will not influence the trajectory of CO2 induced warming until after 2050. The attempt to frame a “silver bullet” solution by the UNFCCC seems unlikely to succeed, given the size and the wickedness of the problem. The wicked gigaton climate problem will arguably require thousands of megaton solutions and millions of kiloton solutions….

    So she is NOT saying there is no problem she is just saying it is a complex problem and ‘Climate Scientists’ are needed more now than ever.

    …Engagement of climate researchers with regional planners, economists, military/intelligence organizations, development banks, energy companies, and governments in the developing world to develop a mutual understanding about what kind of information is needed can promote more fruitful decision outcomes, and define new scientific challenges to be addressed by research. The need for climate researchers to engage with social scientists and engineers has never been more important. Further, there is an increasing need for social scientists and philosophers of science to scrutinize and analyze our field to prevent dysfunction at the science-policy interface. …

    And so we get Loony Lew and Crooked Cook and their skewed ‘psychology studies.

    And finally, Curry says

    …climate scientists and the institutions that support them need to acknowledge and engage with ever-growing groups of citizen scientists, auditors, and extended peer communities that have become increasingly well organized by the blogosphere….

    So back in 2010 she recognized the threat of the blogosphere and the need to neutralize it. Now we see WUWT taking aim at other skeptics and trashing them, leaving only the ‘lukewarmers’ left as the standing. HMMMMmmmm…..

    In her own words, Judith Curry makes it clear her goal is to Rebuild Trust and she is smart enough to realize the sledge hammer tactics of the likes of Joe Rom and Cook and Loony Lew do not do that. This does not however mean she is not still on board the goal of ‘Radically Transforming America’ and the rest of western civilization. It just means that she , as most women, understand a frontal attack does not work against a strong opposition. So you infiltrate and use divide and conquer instead when the frontal attack fails.

    On the Credibility of Climate Research, Part II: Towards Rebuilding Trust

    Judith Curry, Georgia Institute of Technology
    .I am trying something new, a blogospheric experiment, if you will. I have been a fairly active participant in the blogosphere since 2006….

    Losing the Public’s Trust
    Climategate has now become broadened in scope to extend beyond the CRU emails to include glaciergate and a host of other issues associated with the IPCC. In responding to climategate, the climate research establishment has appealed to its own authority and failed to understand that climategate is primarily a crisis of trust.…

    Credibility is a combination of expertise and trust. While scientists persist in thinking that they should be trusted because of their expertise, climategate has made it clear that expertise itself is not a sufficient basis for public trust. The fallout from climategate is much broader than the allegations of misconduct by scientists at two universities. Of greatest importance is the reduced credibility of the IPCC assessment reports, which are providing the scientific basis for international policies on climate change. Recent disclosures about the IPCC have brought up a host of concerns about the IPCC that had been festering in the background: involvement of IPCC scientists in explicit climate policy advocacy; tribalism that excluded skeptics; hubris of scientists with regards to a noble (Nobel) cause; alarmism; and inadequate attention to the statistics of uncertainty and the complexity of alternative interpretations….

    In my informal investigations, I have been listening to the perspectives of a broad range of people that have been labeled as “skeptics” or even “deniers”. I have come to understand that global warming skepticism is very different now than it was five years ago. Here is my take on how global warming skepticism has evolved over the past several decades.

    In the 1980’s, James Hansen and Steven Schneider led the charge in informing the public of the risks of potential anthropogenic climate change. Sir John Houghton and Bert Bolin played similar roles in Europe. This charge was embraced by the environmental advocacy groups, and global warming alarmism was born….

    In the first few years of the 21st century, the stakes became higher and we saw the birth of what some have called a “monolithic climate denial machine”. Skeptical research published by academics provided fodder for the think tanks and advocacy groups, which were fed by money provided by the oil industry. This was all amplified by talk radio and cable news.

    If she believes that crud my opinion of her just sank to the bottom of the Pacific trench. A “monolithic climate denial machine”. …. which were fed by money provided by the oil industry.” Give me a F…king break the woman KNOWS that Shell and BP were funding the CAGW from the get go. Heck she was part of BEST with Muller who has a Shell Oil President on board his consulting firm!

    She continues

    ….The failure of the public and policy makers to understand the truth as presented by the IPCC is often blamed on difficulties of communicating such a complex topic to a relatively uneducated public… People have heard the alarm, but they remain unconvinced because of a perceived political agenda and lack of trust of the message and the messengers….

    My own experience in making public presentations about climate change has found that discussing the uncertainties increases the public trust in what scientists are trying to convey and doesn’t detract from the receptivity to understanding climate change risks (they distrust alarmism). Trust can also be rebuilt by discussing broad choices rather than focusing on specific policies.….

    And finally, the blogosphere can be a very powerful tool for increasing the credibility of climate research. “Dueling blogs” (e.g. versus and versus can actually enhance public trust in the science as they see both sides of the arguments being discussed…..

    You can read the rest at the link above. (It contains links to the rest of the material.)

  34. Paul Vaughan says:

    I left a string of 3 comments that really belong here in Suggestions-13:

    Gail, Curry’s not a competent & fair judge. Extended far more than a fair testing opportunity she (& her blog commentators as well) failed. After affording far more than a fair chance I’ve written her off permanently as decisively untrustworthy. Her opinion is totally irrelevant. I think there are some who still find utility in monitoring her blog to observe what US agencies want skeptics & authorities abroad (e.g. in China) to think. The only enduring utility I find for Climate Etc. is that each week I find 2 or 3 worthwhile links in “Week in review – science edition” which usually appears Friday evening.

  35. Paul Vaughan says:

    The obvious problem with a skeptic organization associate with wuwt is that it won’t be credible.

  36. M Simon says:


    Just because Newton was a fan of alchemy doesn’t make him wrong about everything. I wouldn’t blanket condemn WUWT just because Willis is not first rate.

    Willis and I had some very interesting mutual friends in another life. We gave each other the nod about it. None the less he is an amateur and not a very rigorous one. I tend to avoid what he writes because he is not self correcting. In the same mold as Leif.

    But this is not unusual in science. We just have to keep explaining what we think we know and be patient. If we are correct we will gain “weight”.

  37. oldbrew says:

    A “monolithic climate denial machine”. …. which were fed by money provided by the oil industry.”

    Sounds like a reference to the Heartland Institute.

    ‘the truth as presented by the IPCC ‘

    The what?? The IPCC would bury the truth pronto if they ever found it:/

  38. M Simon says:

    Paul Vaughan says:
    August 18, 2015 at 5:24 pm

    I think it is important to know Antony’s belief (understanding?). He is a lukewarmer – CO2 has an effect – but it is not amplified by water vapor.

    I used to hold that. And Nir did a blog post on it way back.

    I have since changed my mind (reweighed the evidence and reweighted it). I am now of the opinion that CO2 has near zero effect on climate. But for anyone over 30 to change their mind from new evidence is rare. The decline of endocannabinoid production after about age 25 militates against it for most people.

    And I forgot that I had been banned from Nir’s site. Too much off topic discussion of the value of cannabinoids in medicine. Ah. Well.

  39. Paul Vaughan says:

    M Simon, you are misunderstanding the reason why I have permanently written wuwt off as an incompetent, untrustworthy, & reliably unfair judge. I spent years doing testing at wuwt. The host & key associates failed the testing, which was based on a mix of grey & black-&-white cases (to assess ignorance, honesty, competence, & ability to discern). The really useful information that came out of the testing was that (a) the audience also could not discern the difference and (b) the timid audience is unwilling & unable to correct the host & key associates.

  40. M Simon says:

    And – WUWT has run quite a few technical articles on CO2 – the water vapor cycle etc. from lots of different points of view. It was one of those on the saturation of the CO2 absorption bands with water vapor that totally convinced me that CO2 was insignificant. I was already headed in that direction.

    So they publish poor stuff? No matter. It will get sorted over time.

    So how do I explain it all to my wife who has not followed it all in anything other than the national news?

    There are natural ocean cycles of about 60 (66?) years. On the last rising part of the cycle CO2 was aliased for the natural rise. When the cooling part of the cycle starts up we are going to be hurting having prepared for the wrong disaster.

  41. M Simon says:

    Paul Vaughan says:
    August 21, 2015 at 10:56 pm,

    The audience? Don’t make me laugh. There are a few worthwhile commenters. But 99% can contribute nothing in the way of math or technical expertise.

    But that is true at just about any high traffic blog. It is entertainment. And face it – food fights are more entertaining that technical exposition.

  42. Paul Vaughan says:

    I regard LS, WE, PG, SM, & MM as deliberate (devilish in the first 4 cases) distortion artists.

    The only 2 wuwt uses I find enduring:
    monitoring for:
    1. reporting of simple newsworthy developments (e.g. pointer to new paper on AMOC or IPO)
    2. occasionally excellent (there have been a few noteworthy slips) Bill Illis commentary

  43. afjacobs says:

    Dear Paul,

    Your “testing” of WattsUp failed because your entries were invariably cryptic. WUWT is a mixed audience and you did not communicate with it in a way that they could understand what you were doing. Sure, there is a lot of gaff, but that’s what the scroll button is for.

    There are a handful of worthwhile contributors on extra-terrestrial topics, who fulfill the function of letting the atmospheric physicists know that they should lift their eyes out of the GHE business and
    try to see what is really moving climate on the planets. You could help, you know.


  44. Paul Vaughan says:

    Albert, in the early unseasoned days I was naive enough to think there were fair, honest, competent judges in the audience. Here’s a full confession: I was wrong. In hindsight I gained a lot of information by not having time to communicate …and over time this naturally evolved (with constantly increasing awareness) into a deliberate strategy that clarified the absence of fair competent judges capable of independent firsthand verification. Writing cookbooks for morons is a waste of time. The distortion artists only want the cookbooks for intel on how to frame thought policing. Do you seriously remain naive enough to believe otherwise?? If so, I must advise you that you’re unable to be part of the solution because you’re part of the problem.

  45. afjacobs says:

    Paul, at my age I am anything but naive, I assure you, and I am also mature enough to realize that we have an obligation to impart information and wisdom to those who do not know what’s going on. It is a pity that you do not seem to see that and prefer to talk only to people within groups that share your views.

    As a geologist I see it as one of my tasks to impart insight in the aspects of time and space (and paleo-climates) that so many researches in the atmospheric sciences seem to lack.

    It does not occur to them that – like in meteorology – models of atmospheric projections at the climate scale are largely based on interacting linear processes of which their computers are capable, allowing that they sometimes may be able to predict the weather five days hence.

    It is no accident that IPCC does not seriously consider solar magnetic and solar system orbital processes and bases its lie on linear CO2 increase. In fact it has deliberately trivialized anything outside the atmosphere over the years. Those processes are largely cyclic and do not fit their models, nor their purpose. It is a major weakness in scientific research approach with a trillion dollar bill attached to it.
    You do not seem to see at least a part-time a task to contribute your knowledge to fighting the scam publicly.

  46. Paul Vaughan says:

    Albert, some of the people you consider “friends” appear to be playing the most crucial role possible in the scam. They haven’t even demanded retraction of ERSSTv4.

    What more proof does anyone need??

    (….unless they don’t know how to subtract one column of numbers from another in a spreadsheet …in which case why the f**k are we wasting our time discussing anything with them???)

  47. oldbrew says:

    It appears that WUWT policy is to complain about ‘cyclomania’, ‘barycentrism’, even solar cycle effects, so anything likely to be labelled as such is best discussed elsewhere.

  48. M Simon says:

    oldbrew says:
    August 22, 2015 at 10:17 am

    Have they eliminated sunspot cycles yet? Next up – seasons.

  49. Paul Vaughan says:

    M Simon, no they need seasons for the “weather whiplash” narrative — have a look at this smiley expert spin for some priceless entertainment on how to get your climate weirding narrative tuned up for prime-time:
    …helped by the fact that it snowed in Calgary yesterday (FYI it’s SUMMER in the northern hemisphere right now).

    They ARE however busy degrading AMO & IPO signals with the ERSSTv4 rewrite and I find it VERY telling that wuwt has NOT EVEN ADVISED THEIR AUDIENCE of the very d*mning result I’ve presented above (it literally could not be any more clear) and elsewhere that clarifies beyond all shadow of a doubt that if this sort of incremental degradation of nature recordings isn’t squarely confronted into well-deserved retraction, the public’s destined to be slow-walked to the incremental revisionists’ dream of a distorted nature that matches a fantasy model made in taxation heaven.

    That’s not even controversial. It’s clear-cut, simple, & TOTALLY undeniable even for the hottest ace distortion artists out there. It’s the perfect test of climate honesty and it’s a harshly condemning epic fail completely aside from whatever controversies any dictator might demand engineered by their shameless military thought-policing squad on the sun-climate relations psychological warfare front and it LITERALLY demands ONLY SUBTRACTION OF ONE COLUMN FROM ONE OTHER COLUMN in a spreadsheet to verify …so it would be transparently embarrassing & informative as h*ll if someone like Bob Tisdale for example couldn’t (or wasn’t allowed to) get a key message like this out to a public deserving to know the details of such a shameless revision of natural history. Again NO fancy algorithms are needed to verify this — just subtraction of one column from another in a spreadsheet and it’s easily understood by every moron in the audience that taxpayer-funded revision artists are f**king with perception of the IPO. It’s a scandal. And what do we hear from wuwt about this bold erasure of natural signals from recordings??? …Only curiously telling silence …which suggests they DON’T want to strike the deathblow to ERSSTv4. There’s something about it they like?? — something IN TUNE WITH whatever narrative they intend to push maybe??? It’s a highly informative blind eye that we see turned in a spectacularly revealing absolutely transparent lack of acknowledgement. That’s GAME OVER for credibility on a front completely aside from the dictatorial outright psychological warfare being viciously waged on the sun-climate military thought-policing front.

  50. Paul Vaughan says:

    “A top Canadian meteorologist warns that municipalities aren’t prepared to deal with the impacts of an increasingly volatile climate […] Canadian cities have been buried in record-breaking snowfall, scorched by unprecedented wildfires, blasted by tornadoes, hurricanes and lightning strikes, limping from one natural disaster to the next […] “You’ve got to keep pace with it and we haven’t kept pace with it,” […]” — priceless classic writing from the article to which I linked above

    Could wuwt regain it’s credibility by successfully spearheading a deathblow to ERSSTv4? Perhaps that’s a door that might be left open. Certainly this is a clear challenge and a perfect simple (subtract one column of numbers from a another) uncontroversial test of honesty & integrity …but I’m not holding my breath: I don’t think their ties & agenda allow them to take down v4 and that’s what I intend to test.

    A classic piece of Shaviv’s excellent work:

    This guy doesn’t deserve to be attacked by lesser beings.

    r^2 is over 70% even with the most clumsy measurement that can be mustered for the purposes of emphasizing exactly that (it goes much higher if you tune the rake carefully):

    Anyone denying that observation is (implicitly) asserting violation of one or both of the laws of:
    A. large numbers.
    B. conservation of angular momentum.

    You can run but you can’t hide.

    Take down your propaganda loudspeakers.

  51. Paul Vaughan says:

    Redistributed winds have a cumulative spatiotemporal effect. Where hypercomplex numbers would be a superior choice were they readily available in common software, plain old complex numbers & factor analysis get us started to first order:

    solar cycle length = SCL:

    derivative of SCL:

    2nd derivative of SCL:

    Quite simply:
    Solar-driven turbulence has bounded aggregate properties.

  52. oldbrew says:

    PV says: ‘it snowed in Calgary yesterday (FYI it’s SUMMER in the northern hemisphere right now)’

    Didn’t I read somewhere that Canada has two seasons: winter and July? It’s not July😉

  53. Paul Vaughan says:

    “Could wuwt regain it’s credibility by successfully spearheading a deathblow to ERSSTv4? Perhaps that’s a door that might be left open. Certainly this is a clear challenge and a perfect simple (subtract one column of numbers from a another) uncontroversial test of honesty & integrity …but I’m not holding my breath: I don’t think their ties & agenda allow them to take down v4 and that’s what I intend to test.”

    Testing Testing 1 2 3 . . .

  54. Paul Vaughan says:

    link correction:

    The link I meant to give here where I directed M Simon “above” was to my past-due confrontation of afjacobs on the undeniably fatal error in ERSSTv4.

    I’m intensely suspicious of anyone who’s helping NOAA (realize that’s what you’re doing) cover up this fatal error by not demanding it’s coverage at all climate blogs.

    This v4 error is providing a bounty of useful information about community structure and conflicting commitments — (here to explore nature, including human nature).

    Note to humorous evasion artists:
    You’re under the spotlight and this case is so simple there’s nowhere to hide.