Continued from http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3159. Solar topics seem to draw out personal theories and Leif has been very indulgent in discussing such theories – far more indulgent than I would be. However, please limit your discussion to published literature rather than your own bright new ideas. (You know who I mean.) One topic that would interest me […]
Category Archives: Solar
continued from Svalgaard #1 here. . Continued at Svalggard #3.
We’ve heard a lot recently from RC about whether solar can account for temperature variations in the 20th century. While my primary interest in these ruminations is the possibility of pinning down a set of standards by which they agree that a study is “bad” – since it’s hard for me to determine any sins […]
Lif Svalgaard writes (moved from another thread for convenience”) Line 1: The Total solar Irradiance (TSI) has several sources. The first and most important is simply the temperature in the photosphere. The hotter the sun, the higher the TSI. Some spectral lines are VERY sensitive to even minute changes in temperature. Livingston et al. has […]
Francois O writes in: For those interested in the role of the Sun on the climate, and how reconstructions can be used to assess it, there is an interesting paper just out in JGR by Nicola Scafetta and B J West. The paper is available here. This is a continuation of their previous work. Basically […]
Here’s a post which I wrote last June but didn’t post up at the time because the NAS Panel report came out and I had other pressing matters to comment on. My post as then drafted started: Last week, through Chefen, Jean S and myself, here here here and here , we showed that MBH98 […]
There seems to be lots of interest in solar issues and lots of controversy among specialists. For now, let’s simply look at the millennial proxies for solar activity. For now, I don’t want to discuss issues like cosmic ray modulation or that sort of stuff on this thread – all in good time. Put it […]
One point that intrigued me about the Muscheler vs Solanki dispute was to see what the underlying data looked like. Here’s a graph and some comments. I don’t purport to know a lot about this; I just wanted to get a feel for the data.
realclimate has posted up a discussion of a recent Brief Communications Arising in Nature by Muscheler et al., commenting on Solanki et al. . They haven’t posted up the Solanki et al. reply, which argues that Muschelerr et al. have screwed up their normalization. However here it is . There are two points of interest […]