2010-09-26 10:50:20ADVANCED 32: We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.148.215
I drafted up the advanced rebuttal to "we're coming out of the LIA" today.  Let me know what you think.
2010-09-27 01:00:55Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.201.109
I think its a good job but we have to consider that Figure 1, although much popularized. May not be the best choice. It gives the impression that the current warming could be solar caused (something you refute later on) but graphics still tend to leave those lasting images. My suggestion is you get the solar data going as far back as possible.

Here's a recent reconstruction
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/TSIReconstruction.jpg


2010-09-27 03:48:25new TSI graphic
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.148.215
Okay, I like that more up-to-date TSI figure.  Change made.
2010-09-27 07:47:49
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.165

having changed the figure you need to change the text accordingly, there aren't three separate minima now.

There's not a good correspondence between the text and the figures you show. Maybe just one figure instead of two could be enough, something like this (but it's sunspot and not irradiance). It shows both the Maunder minimum and the flat trend after 1950, which is what you say in the text.

Alternatively, you need something the shows the most recent period like in John Russel rebuttal but deleting the temperature curve (I have one ready).

In the last sentence of the post yuor repeat "due to" twice in a row.

2010-09-27 08:02:14Comments
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.185.151.34
Note a typo for the sporer minimum (146-1550). Question re Robert's figure of TSI - what is the running mean? Eg - how many years? I don't suppose you could email me the spreadsheet - I'd like to compare his reconstruction to Solanki's reconstruction going back to 1611. Would be good if the various minimums could be indicated on figure 1.
2010-09-27 08:09:46new figure
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.148.215

You can see all 3 minima in that figure, peaking around 1480 (Sporer), 1700 (Maunder), and 1820 (Dalton).  Perhaps you're referring to the discussion of the 3 temperature minima?  That's not particularly helpful, so I'll probably remove it.

Perhaps I'll just use the satellite TSI record for the second figure.

2010-09-27 08:30:08Figure 1
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.185.151.34
I was just suggesting a tiny change, add "Sporer Minimum", "Maunder Minimum" and "Dalton Minimum" on figure 1 below those dips in the graph. Just a small visual cue that helps people find those minima more easily. Not a big deal, I can update the graph if you like.
2010-09-27 08:45:44please do
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.148.215
Yes, that would be excellent if you could note those Minima on the graph, John.  Much appreciated.
2010-09-27 09:57:42Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.21.244
John the data is available from here:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/forcing.html

specifically it is under the solar section under
Antarctic 10Be and Reconstructed TSI, 1000 Years, Delaygue and Bard 2010

This website (the NOAA paleoclimate one) is very useful for this stuff. There are several other reconstructions there but this is the newest one that dates 1000 years so I thought I would use it. It is a 5-per running mean so it isn't an equal time interval. Hence why the difference between some points is longer than others.
2010-09-27 10:03:32Standardization
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.21.244
Also note with that figure I standardized the series just to make it more visually appealing.

Standardize is an excel function requiring the mean, stdev, and x value

So basically for any year I would take the TSI value or X - mean of the series / Stdev of series

It of course isn't necessary to be done and you could just anomalize it but with such sporadic measurements I thought standardization was best.
2010-09-27 11:34:495-per running mean
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.185.151.34
Thanks for the link. Did you apply the 5-per running mean? I can't see it in the original data.
2010-09-27 13:10:42Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.21.244
Yes I applied it. Only because the data looked kinda noisy. I can send you my worksheet if you prefer. I think I chose 5-per because 10-per still did not show the drop off which occurs after the solar maximum in the 1970s data. Perhaps we could call that cherry picking in itself but I would call it inline with what should be shown since there has been a decrease since the 1970s... either way let me know what you think
2010-09-27 14:44:04Comparing Solanki/PMOD to Delaygue and Bard 2010
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.185.151.34

Just out of curiosity (this has no bearing on Dana's rebuttal), I reproduced your 5-per running mean and compared it to the TSI reconstruction I use on the solar page:

Similar characteristics. Not sure why they're offset from each other. What I find most interesting is the Sporer minimum is even quieter than the Maunder Minimum. And yet global temperatures didn't drop down to LIA coolness until a few centuries later in the 1600s.

2010-09-27 14:54:04TSI
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.148.215

TSI is right around 1366 W/m2 right now, so Solanki is more accurate in that respect.

What were you trying to say about the Sporer there John?  Seems like you didn't complete your thought.

2010-09-27 23:16:51Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.21.244
Well the reason there's an offset is likely because you're dealing with an older proxy versus much more direct measurements. I would call Red as an analog for blue. So essentially what you should expect is if the blue existed the remainder then it would be offset the whole way likely. Red isn't the perfect measurement of course but it is a reasonably good analog. Also consider you don't get individual years in red. It's sporadic and usually nearly a decadal interval... Well consider that most evidence suggests that there was a very warm period during the 1450s (according to mann and so on (even their comment on Mcshane shows it prominently)) which could be caused by other factors and therefore the forcing causing that warm period was greater than the reduced forcing from TSI. Another thing to consider is once the sun passes a certain threshold where there is no sunspots, is the effect of any further reduction as prominent? I don't know the answer, just asking more or less. 

I think if solanki's estimate could be extended back further it would be excellent but at this point we are having to deal with proxies.
2010-09-27 23:18:51problem solved
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.21.244
Also think of it this way. Your 5-per is like just under 50 years whereas the 11-year one is ...well 11-years.

If we try to compare the two, perhaps plotting out just the data without any smoothing would be better for comparisons.
If you take a 40 year average on solanki you will see the offset lessen for example...
2010-09-27 23:47:47Direct measurements vs proxies
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.185.151.34

Actually, the red solanki is a combination of Solanki's reconstruction AND direct PMOD satellite measurements for the last 30 years. And the TSI values for the two match very closely in periods of overlap. So the blue line is direct measurement for the last few decades.

You're right about once the sun passes a certain threshhold, the TSI essentially flatlines as it does during the Maunder Minimum. That doesn't explain the rest of the data though.

If I take a 50 year average of Solanki's data, it doesn't change the amount of offset:

 

I'm not really having any sleepless nights over why the two proxies are different - I'm guessing the Delaygue proxy is calibrated differently. If I was really interested, I'd track down his paper or hell, ask the author. But I think we're getting off the topic which is Dana's rebuttal :-)

2010-09-28 01:52:11solution?
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.249

So perhaps for the LIA rebuttal purposes we can just use the Delaygue & Bard data?

2010-09-28 08:15:43Delaygue data
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.185.151.34
Yes definitely use that data.
2010-09-28 08:50:36figure
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.249
Are you still putting together a figure that I can use, John?
2010-09-28 09:38:56Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.21.244
Yeah John, I had a theory and you disproved it. You should consider making a website for that... oh wait?

Calibration differences or weak signal coming from proxies and such.. who knows... either way
2010-09-29 00:50:59Figure for Dana
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.186.160.198

How's this figure, having shamelessly plagiarised from Robert's figure:

 

2010-09-29 02:17:40thanks
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.249
Excellent, looks good JC.  Thanks to you and Robert.  I'll go update the figure.
2010-09-29 09:21:25all set
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.249
I'm happy with this one whenever you want to publish it, John.
2010-09-29 12:38:33Published
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.186.160.198
Of course, now you have access to publish these as blog posts yourself, Dana. I trust you :-)
2010-09-29 13:51:35timing
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.148.215
Well my feeling is that every new post should get its fair amount of time featured at the top of the main page.  So I'm just a bit concerned that I could screw up the timing if I post one when you're planning on posting another.  But I suppose I could always post while you're sleeping, due to the time difference.
2010-09-29 15:44:15Giving each post time to breath
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.186.160.198
I do like to give each post at least a few hours in the sun. Generally I aim for 2 posts per day, in the morning and evening. But now with more authors getting involved, I think we just go for it. If you're ready, just post. If I see you've just posted, I'll wait a bit before I post another one. But if you want maximum impact, probably posting while I sleep is the best option. I think the peak time is the early hours in the morning, Australia time, around 3am to 6am. So posting midnight Australia time gives you clear 8+ hours of peak traffic all to yourself on the homepage. :-)

I'd encourage all the 'full authors' (who have the ability to go live with their blog posts) to do this. And if you're a pending author who feel you've paid your dues and deserve full status, just let me know. I quite enjoyed waking up this morning to the pleasant surprise of Ned's post on Loehle's "vindication". Much better than the usual nasty surprises I wake up to like the website getting hacked or Anthony Watts conducting a personal smear campaign.