Highly Controversial German Climate Book To Appear Worldwide In English September 1st

theneglectedsunPierre Gosselin writes:

Amazon is now showing that Fritz Vahrenholt’s and Sebastian Lüning’s controversial book Die kalte Sonne (The cold sun), released in German last year, is now coming out worldwide in English.

The title of the English version: The Neglected Sun, and the publisher is Stacey International in London.

Their book created quite a stir in Europe, especially in Germany. The warmist establishment pretty much had seizures over it.

Fritz Vahrenholt, chemistry professor, is also the author of the 1986 book “Seveso ist überall” (Seveso is everywhere), a book on the deadly risks of chemical pollution. That book made him one of the fathers of Germany’s modern environmental movement. Until just a couple of years ago Vahrenholt was a big believer in anthropogenic global warming, and accepted the IPCC gloomy reports as the final word on the subject – until one day he began taking a closer look at the real data. He couldn’t believe some of the shenanigans going on in the science, and so together with geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning, he co-authored Die kalte Sonne.

Despite a massive orchestrated campaign by environmental activists against Die kalte Sonne, it soared to No. 1 on the Spiegel bestseller list. That success has obviously served as the springboard to the English edition. Now it’s going to be hitting bookshelves worldwide.

According to Amazon, the book will be available on September 1 and it can already be pre-ordered. Interestingly its release is right before the IPCC’s 5th assessment report. Talk about timing. The Neglected Sun can be pre-ordered at any bookshop.

Here are some reviews on the original “Die kalte Sonne” version from German media outlets:

“Author’s high profile assures there’s going to be a debate”.

- Jochen Marotzke, Director, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg (Spiegel 06/2012, p-134)

Book’s assertions “challenge the results of climate science and the IPCC.”

– Süddeutsche Zeitung, 13 September 2012,

“With his book, the departing CEO of RWE Innogy, Fritz Vahrenholt, has rekindled the climate debate in Germany.”

- Cicero, 27 February 2012,

“A book co-authored by environmental activist and RWE manager Fritz Vahrenholt revitalizes the debate: ‘Die kalte Sonne’ will bring us cooling.”

- Die Presse Österreich, 10 February 2012

“Commotion over Fritz Vahrenholt’s clams on climate change. But our society needs to accept maverick thinkers. The head is round so that we can think in all directions. In Germany blockheads govern all too often.”

– Hamburger Abendblatt, 20 February 2012

“New fracas erupts in the climate crusade. … A book attacks international climate science. … ‘Die kalte Sonne‘ has stormed the bestseller lists.“

– Bild der Wissenschaft, 07/2012

“This book is a must for those who cherish the value of scientific research.”

– getabstract, 2012

=================================

65 thoughts on “Highly Controversial German Climate Book To Appear Worldwide In English September 1st

  1. Carbon inquisition 0, Good Guys 1

    If it really upsets the serial alarmists, then it must be right.

  2. Typo

    “Commotion over Fritz Vahrenholt’s clams on climate change. But our society needs to accept maverick thinkers. The head is round so that we can think in all directions. In Germany blockheads govern all too often.”

    Or is it? Hehe.

  3. “Commotion over Fritz Vahrenholt’s clams on climate change. But our society needs to accept maverick thinkers. The head is round so that we can think in all directions. In Germany blockheads govern all too often.

    – Hamburger Abendblatt, 20 February 2012

    That’s gonna leave a mark!

    I hope Josh sees that one. It is just begging for an illustration.

  4. I don’t see it on Amazon yet, for purchase or pre-order. But will order as soon as it shows on Amazon’s site. I’d love to donate a few to the local high school library.

  5. A must read me thinks.
    [Just read Rupert Darwell’s “The Age of Global Warming: A History” – it is excellent.]

  6. ColdinOz, just click on the link at the top.
    I wonder what prompted Fritz to begin taking a closer look at the data? Perhaps something didn’t smell quite right, and once he looked, scientific impulse took over. I can just imagine the double-takes and disbelief at first, at what he was seeing.

  7. Eli Rabett says:

    July 14, 2013 at 3:51 pm

    This original discussion
    =============
    Excerpt from your link:
    “This entry was posted on June 11, 2012 at 16:24 and is filed under English, Skeptics, Climate science.”
    —-
    49 comments in a year+, and the thread devolved into arguments about smoking.
    Why would you link it ?

  8. Oddly enough, the real debate on climate change is BETWEEN skeptics — and it is over what does cause most climate change. There is the solar camp that favors external forcing. Vahrenholt subscribes to this viewpoint. Then there is the terrestrial camp that suggests that the dominant mechanism is unforced chaotic changes by the earth itself.

    Of course the alarmists have little interest in learning about this basic question in climate science, being tied to their sinking anthropogenic cause.

  9. Bruce Cobb, exactly as happened to me, and I suspect most skeptics.

    First it was “self-evident”, and skeptics were nut jobs.
    Then it was, hmmm… maybe this and that detail are wrong.
    Now it’s… not even close. CO2 DOES NOT DRIVE CLIMATE. It never has, it never will, and those who continue to believe it does don’t understand even the most basic realities. Ironically, the least scientific people in the world are getting away with labeling Science people as “anti-science”.

    There’s no cure for stupid.

  10. I have just pre-ordered 5 copies. I want to make sure this gets spread around. I did the same with “The Chilling Stars”.

  11. NucEngineer says:

    July 14, 2013 at 4:31 pm

    I have just pre-ordered 5 copies. I want to make sure this gets spread around. I did the same with “The Chilling Stars”.
    ===================
    Not sure, but I think local libraries put new releases front and center.

  12. So Varenholt is a big believer in Svensmark’s cosmoclimatology theory. Good for him. The CLOUD Project continues on…

    On 24 August 2011, preliminary research published in the journal Nature showed there was a connection between Cosmic Rays and aerosol nucleation. Kirkby went on to say in the definitive CERN press Release “Ion‐enhancement is particularly pronounced in the cool temperatures of the mid‐troposphere and above, where CLOUD has found that sulphuric acid and water vapour can nucleate without the need for additional vapours. This result leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could also influence climate. However, it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed.[5][6]

  13. Wait for the response:

    Yes, but we can’t do anything about the sun, so why bother discussing it?.

    So it should be left out of climate change discussions…..

    it should be left out of climate change policy…..(chinese whispers)…

    it should be left out of the models…….

    it doesn’t have any effect on recent climate.

    sarc/off

  14. In reply to :
    Pierre Gosselin
    Thanks for the heads up concerning the English release of ‘The Neglected Sun: Why the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe’. Best wishes William

    In reply to:
    Eli Rabett says:
    July 14, 2013 at 3:51 pm
    This original discussion “The dominant influence of greenhouse gases follows not only from their basic physical properties, but also from their “fingerprint” in the observed warming. The sun, in contrast, has not exhibited any warming trend over the past 50 years. The sun is thus not responsible for the warming seen during this period. Greenhouse gases in all likelihood are.”

    William:
    The ‘discussion’ which you provide a link to ignores obvious data that disproves the above statement. The following are five (5) observations and analysis results which support the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was due to the solar magnetic cycle changes which modulate planetary cloud cover rather than due to the increase in atmospheric CO2.

    Specific comments related to your blog link:
    Please note that a reduction in planetary cloud cover will also cause the lower atmosphere to warm and as there is less short wave radiation reflected off to space and as there is short wave absorbing ozone in the upper atmosphere, less short wave radiation reflected off clouds will result in cooling of the upper atmosphere. (Your blog link stated incorrect that low atmosphere warming and upper atmosphere cooling is unique caused by CO2 and hence proves the warming is due to CO2. The blog link ignores the five points noted below which disprove the CO2 forcing hypothesis.) Note cloud cover changes can explain the latitudinal pattern of warming, the CO2 forcing mechanism cannot. The observed warming is not global. How solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary cloud is interesting and more complicate that a count of sunspots. If you are interested I can provide an overview of the mechanisms. The rapid change in the solar magnetic cycle inhibits the cosmic ray flux modulation of cloud cover for roughly one solar cycle. CRF is once again modulating planetary cloud cover, the planet is cooling and there is an increase in precipitation in the same regions matching what was observed in the Little Ice age.

    1) There has been a warming plateau for 16 years which is a more serious discrepancy than a lack of warming. As atmospheric CO2 has been increasing continually for the last 16 years and as there is a lag from an increase in forcing to a change in temperature, the general circulation models predicted a wiggly increase in planetary temperature where the wiggles are caused by natural variability in the climate and the gradual increase is caused by the increased forcing due to the increase in atmospheric CO2. What is observed is not only a lack of warming but rather a plateau of planetary temperature. … ….The logical constraint on the forcing mechanisms is different for a lack of warming (planetary temperature is still increasing but less than the general circulation models prediction) and a plateau where there is no increase in planetary temperature. … ….Aerosols or heat hiding in the ocean could explain a lack of warming, where planetary temperatures are increasing but less than model predictions, they cannot explain a plateau of warming. … ….The CO2 forcing mechanism cannot be turned off, if it is real. As atmospheric CO2 is continually increasing the aerosols or the heat hiding in the ocean would need to exactly balance the CO2 forcing and to start in 1998. i.e. There needs to be a mechanism that hides the CO2 forcing that is suddenly turned on in 1998 and that hiding or cooling mechanism must increase overtime to create the observed plateau in planetary temperature. To explain a plateau where there is no increase in planetary temperature during a period when atmospheric CO2 is steadily increasing, the CO2 mechanism must saturate. The logical constraints of the other observational discrepancies indicate that the CO2 mechanism saturated at say 200 ppm, less than the pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 level, 280 ppm and that the solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary clouds caused the Little Ice Age cooling and the James Hansen warming in the last 70 years.
    Climate Expert von Storch: Why Is Global Warming Stagnating? (William: Why did global warming plateau in 1998?)

    Lack of warming

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/19/the-unraveling-of-global-warming-is-accelerating/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/monckton-on-his-smashing-u-n-wall-of-silence-on-lack-of-warming-and-censure/

    2) Observed warming is not global. As atmospheric CO2 is evenly distributed in the atmosphere (less than 5% variance by latitude) the potential for CO2 forcing in the atmosphere is roughly the same for all latitudes. The actual forcing at the latitude in question due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 should be proportional to the long wave radiation that is emitted off to space prior to the increase in atmospheric CO2. Based on how the CO2 mechanism works therefore the observed warming should be global with most of the warming occurring in the tropics, based on the CO2 theory. What is observed is that the Northern hemisphere ex-tropics experienced twice as much warming as the planet as a whole and four times as much warming as the tropics. Furthermore the Greenland Ice sheet experienced the most warming on the planet (2 to 3C). The observed latitudinal pattern of pattern cannot be explained by the CO2 mechanism.

    Comment:
    The aerosol forcing is highest in the Northern Hemisphere. If aerosols in the atmosphere were the reason for a plateau in warming the Northern Hemisphere should have warmed less than the global as a whole. The aerosol forcing does not explain why the Greenland Ice sheet warmed the most of any region on the planet or why there is very little warming in the tropics.

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf

    Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth

    3) Tropical tropospheric hot spot is missing. The general circulation models predict that the most amount of warming in terms of change in temperature should be in the tropics in the troposphere at around 8km above the surface of the planet. This warming is due to increased water vapor due to warming of the tropics by the CO2. The warming at 8 km if it occurred would amplify the CO2 forcing. There is no observed tropical tropospheric warming. In addition, analysis of changes in radiation when there is a change in ocean temperature indicates the planet resists forcing changes by an increase or decrease in planetary cloud cover in the tropics which results in more or less radiation being reflected off to space, rather than amplifies forcing changes. These two discrepancies are logically supportive. Part of the reason why there is no tropical tropospheric hot spot is that the clouds in the tropics increase or decrease to resist forcing. Part of the reason why there has not been significant warming in the tropics is planetary cloud cover in the tropics increases to resist forcing.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/models-get-the-core-assumptions-wrong-the-hot-spot-is-missing/

    Roy Spencer: Ocean surface temperature is not warming in the tropics.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/02/tropical-ssts-since-1998-latest-climate-models-warm-3x-too-fast/

    There is no tropical tropospheric hot spot, Douglass et al’s paper.

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

    A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
    Lindzen and Choi have again found that the planet resists climate forcing changes

    http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf

    4) There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo-climatic record that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes (9 in the interglacial period and 13 in the glacial period). The same regions of the planet that warmed in the last 70 years are the same regions that warmed in the past. An example of the past cyclic warming is the Medieval Warm period which was followed by the Little Ice age when the solar magnetic cycle entered the Maunder minimum. The past warming and cooling cycles were not caused by changes to atmospheric CO2. The general circulation models cannot produce the past warming and cooling cycles that is observed.

    Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.

    http://www.climate4you.com/

    5. The planet has started to cool with the observed cooling and increased precipitation matching the regional pattern of climate change observed in the Little Ice Age. There has been a sudden change to the solar magnetic cycle. Planetary cooling requires a step change in forcing. Solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover is the step change in forcing.

  15. William Astley says:
    July 14, 2013 at 7:11 pm
    the warming in the last 70 years was due to the solar magnetic cycle changes which modulate planetary cloud cover
    There is no good evidence for that: http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-Cosmic-Rays-Climate.pdf
    “In this paper we have examined the evidence of a CR-cloud relationship from direct and indirect observations of cloud recorded from satellite- and ground-based measurement techniques. Overall, the current satellite cloud datasets do not provide evidence supporting the existence of a solar-cloud link.”

  16. a minor quibble, I know, but… Why couldn’t the English version just go with the straight translation, “The Cold Sun”??? It’s got far more emotional resonance than “neglected” does.

  17. Blade (July 14, 2013 at 3:36 pm) suggested:
    “I hope Josh sees that one. It is just begging for an illustration.”

    Agree. I bet he will get some good tips in the tip-jar for drawing the sawed-off thinking like it actually is.

  18. Recent work has shown that a) neutral clusters dominate small aerosol formation and growth b) that SOx was rate limiting for aerosol growth and c) that most cirrus clouds nucleate around small mineral dust particles. This, while not a direct death blow to cosmic ray influence theories, is difficult to reconcile with them.

  19. wws: already taken. Even tho you can’t copyright a title, a book with a similar title on the same subject tends to not make a lot of sense. (google the title in English)

  20. CodeTech says:
    July 14, 2013 at 4:27 pm

    Bruce Cobb, exactly as happened to me, and I suspect most skeptics.

    First it was “self-evident”, and skeptics were nut jobs.
    Then it was, hmmm… maybe this and that detail are wrong.
    Now it’s… not even close. CO2 DOES NOT DRIVE CLIMATE. It never has, it never will, and those who continue to believe it does don’t understand even the most basic realities. Ironically, the least scientific people in the world are getting away with labeling Science people as “anti-science”.

    There’s no cure for stupid.
    ————————————————————————-
    Best quote I ever heard as follows…
    “Ignorance I can cure with a book. Stupid … That takes a shotgun and a shovel.”

    And no, I am not in any way advocating violence, it was just damned funny at the time.

  21. wws says:
    July 14, 2013 at 7:52 pm

    a minor quibble, I know, but… Why couldn’t the English version just go with the straight translation, “The Cold Sun”??? It’s got far more emotional resonance than “neglected” does.

    How about “The Cold-Shouldered Sun”? Or “The Chilling Sun”?–to chime with “The Chilling Stars”. Or “The Marginalized Sun”.

  22. PS: I’ve got it! “Here Comes the Sun”!
    (This implies that the sun previously was “away”–or “off the table.”)

  23. roger, pretty sure that’s taken too… ;)

    Although, it’s actually one of my favorite Beatles songs

  24. The subtitle of the German version (“Warum die Klimatekatastrophe nicht stattfindet”) is much more potent. (“Why the climate disaster will not happen”). Pity that they haven’t taken that one as English title instead of the rather lame “The neglected Sun”. The original title translates as “The cold Sun”.

  25. Let’s get the book to the top of the ‘best seller list’ That will give it even more publicity and help to silence the AGW brigade once and for all,

  26. clipe says:
    July 14, 2013 at 3:36 pm

    Typo

    “Commotion over Fritz Vahrenholt’s clams on climate change. But our society needs to accept maverick thinkers. “The head is round so that we can think in all directions. In Germany blockheads govern all too often.”

    Or is it? Hehe.
    ***********************************************************************************************
    Brilliant line , so stolen. But note, not just Germany.

    Steve T

  27. I look forward to reading “The Neglected Sun”. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. The specialists have made great progress in working out how solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary cloud cover.

    Solar cycle 24 is anomalous as sunspots are being replaced with tiny short lived pores. The change is related to Livingston and Penn’s observation that the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly. Based on observations the sun will be anomalously spotless by roughly the end of this year. As noted above warming observed in the last 70 years has started to reverse due to the solar magnetic cycle change. The regions of the planet that are cooling and experiencing increased precipitation are the same regions that experienced cooling and increased precipitation during the Little Ice age.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

    The following review paper outlines the mechanisms by which solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary cloud cover.

    http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf

    See section 5a) Modulation of the global electrical circuit in this review paper, by solar wind bursts and the process electroscavenging. Solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions. As the electroscavenging mechanism removes ions even when cosmic ray flux (high speed protons from super nova, CRF is also called galactic cosmic rays GCR for historical reasons as the discovers thought incorrectly that the high energy protons were a new type of radiation) is high, electroscavenging can make it appear that CRF does not modulate planetary cloud if the electroscavenging mechanism is not taken into account.

    http://www.albany.edu/~yfq/papers/Yu_CR_CN_Cloud_Climate_JGR02.pdf

    The solar wind affects the galactic cosmic ray flux, the precipitation of relativistic electrons, and the ionospheric potential distribution in the polar cap, and each of these modulates the ionosphere-earth current density. On the basis of the current density-cloud hypothesis the variations in the current density change the charge status of aerosols that affect the ice production rate and hence the cloud microphysics and climate [e.g., Tinsley and Dean, 1991; Tinsley, 2000]. The underlying mechanism is that charged aerosols are more effective than neutral aerosols as ice nuclei (i.e., electrofreezing) and that the enhanced collections of charged evaporation nuclei by supercooled droplets enhance the production of ice by contact ice nucleation (i.e., electroscavenging). Both electrofreezing and electroscavenging involve an increase in ice production with increasing current density [e.g, Tinsley and Dean, 1991; Tinsley, 2000]. The current density-cloud hypothesis appears to explain solar cycle effects on winter storm dynamics as well as the dayto-day changes of Wilcox and Roberts Effects [e.g., Tinsley, 2000]. Kniveton and Todd [2001] found evidence of a statistically strong relationship between cosmic ray flux, precipitation and precipitation efficiency over ocean surfaces at midlatitudes to high latitudes, and they pointed out that their results are broadly consistent with the current density-cloud hypothesis.

    http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oGdV5fyuNRqDkAyxxXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1YWMxbW50BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA01TWTAxMV8xMTA-/SIG=12ns5rhgr/EXP=1373911775/**http%3a//sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf

    Once again about global warming and solar activity
    The geomagnetic activity reflects the impact of solar activity originating from both closed and open magnetic field regions, so it is a better indicator of solar activity than the sunspot number which is related to only closed magnetic field regions. It has been noted that in the last century the correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity has been steadily decreasing from – 0.76 in the period 1868- 1890, to 0.35 in the period 1960-1982, while the lag has increased from 0 to 3 years (Vieira et al. 2001). According to Echer et al. (2004), the probable cause seems to be related to the double peak structure of geomagnetic activity. The second peak, related to high speed solar wind from coronal holes, seems to have increased relative to the first one, related to sunspots (CMEs) but, as already mentioned, this type of solar activity is not accounted for by the sunspot number.

    In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied.It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.

    So the sunspot number is not a good indicator of solar activity, and using the sunspot number leads to the under-estimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JA014342.shtml

    If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals.

  28. George Lawson says:
    July 15, 2013 at 2:17 am

    Let’s get the book to the top of the ‘best seller list’ That will give it even more publicity and help to silence the AGW brigade once and for all
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    And send copies to Mike Mann, Phil Jones and our government representatives.

  29. I wouldn’t be surprised if some kind of false flag terrorist or *natural* disaster caused by China makes it so this book gets pulled from the shelf within a month of it’s release.

  30. I anxiously await smug voices telling my it has been “thoroughly debunked” before I or they actually open a copy.

  31. Grey Lensman says:
    July 15, 2013 at 5:29 am
    “The Link provide by Dennis Ray Wingo

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/wind-energy-encounters-problems-and-resistance-in-germany-a-910816.html


    “Even Winfried Kretschmann, the governor of Baden-Württemberg and the first Green Party member to govern any German state, is sounding contrite. But his resolve remains as firm as ever: “There is simply no alternative to disfiguring the countryside like this,” he insists.”

    It’s amazing that technology-heavy catholic Baden-Württemberg (home of the Swabians) has elected an ex-communist fiend of technology.

    They have picked their poison.

  32. William Astley says:
    July 15, 2013 at 3:38 am
    So the sunspot number is not a good indicator of solar activity, and using the sunspot number leads to the under-estimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming.
    The cosmic ray flux is strongly correlated with the sunspot number, so the cosmic ray flux is then also not a good indicator of solar activity…But it really doesn’t matter as the is no evidence that the cosmic ray flux has any influence on climate: “the current satellite cloud datasets do not provide evidence supporting the existence of a solar-cloud link.” http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-Cosmic-Rays-Climate.pdf

    The current density-cloud hypothesis appears to explain solar cycle effects on winter storm dynamics as well as the dayto-day changes of Wilcox and Roberts Effects
    As a co-‘discoverer’ of the Wilcox effect [ http://www.sciencemag.org/content/180/4082/185.short ] I note that it appears that the ‘effect’ was spurious and did not hold up when more data was added.

  33. William Astley says:
    July 15, 2013 at 3:38 am
    deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.
    There has been no increase on geomagnetic activity since 1844 http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png so it is hard to ascribe the increase of global temperature to a non-existent increase of geomagnetic activity.

  34. William Astley says: July 14, 2013 at 7:11 pm

    WA does a good job of addressing specific complaints by the warmists. But, like the complaints by the skeptics, the debate/disagreements won’t go away yet. You would think the debate etc. would be resolved by now, what with so many “fingerprints” being mentioned. The problem is that the so-called unique signatures of global warming by CO2 are much softer than the non-technical, socially sensitive eco-green thinks, and the data less determined.

    The skeptics think that CO2 as a problem must still be proved; the warmists think that it is proved “enough” that the reverse case must be proved, i.e. that CO2 is not a problem. But the softness of the signatures allows each side to interpret them differently; there is no “one” interpretation of what the temperatures are of the midl-troposphere, for example. So one side’s definite sign is the other’s indefinite. Then the data: temperatures are either very high or not so high dependent on the quality or reasonableness of adjustments. In fact, like proxies, much of the “data” is not data but calculations. This includes temperature “anomalies”, satellite “observations” of sea-level rise, glacial mass changes, TSI changes, and oceanic energy content (especially deep ocean). If the calculations are even off a minor amount, the conclusion is off a large amount, as the actual changes since 1975 are small, despite what they look like when put on a graph with a large Y to X ratio.

    I will read the book when it comes out in English, but by now there should be a large review collection out there in German or in English from those who read the German orginal. Where is the post that collects all this? I’m always suspicious when an obvious point, like the opinions of the German-speaking world are not clearly available – by both sides, if I see the blogosphere correctly! It seems that the warmists are not jumping all over pre-English availability with a mainstream attack based on the German-only version. I see this situation (both sides) as indicative of my main points, that the “signatures” are soft and the fundamental data/calculations are less solid and deep than either side would like at this time.

    I’ve said many times that 2015 is the critical year. The public accepts a period of uncertainty exists within a system such a climate that has considerable variability. The period can’t be too long, especially since the IPCC/warmists say that the science is settled etc. on CO2-as-global-assasin. I cannot imagine how anyone would argue that since 2001 there has been no rise in temperatures consistent with a linearly-forced rise in CO2, however. That same anyone might concede, however, that the first few years were in a “warmer” period of variability, with the later ones, in the “cooler” portion, so that overall a rise still existed, hidden in natural variability. Yet such a position would mean that, being in the cooler part now, a reversion to the warmer portion of a natural cycle will cause temperatures worldwide to ramp up suddenly. This is where my thoughts about 2015 come in.

    By 2015, a minimum of 14 years will have passed since temperatures last had a signficant upwards rise (excluding El Nino of 1998). If temperatures are actually down in 2015, the position those of the Quiet Sun set must hold, the trend will be definitely going the wrong way, and CAGW will be in big trouble as proposed. If temperatures are actually following CO2, by 2015 they could be expected to be up from today another 0.2C or more as a reversal of cooling to warming doesn’t just suppress a rise but positively enhances it. The two positions are diametrically opposed in what should be going on within a “reasonable” period of natural variability, with a difference of perhaps 0.4C. Even the IPCC’s AR5 Fig. 1.4 of Scenarios will show it: cooling has observation below Scenario C and outside the lower 5% outcome probability, while warming will be solidly back into the range of Scenario B.

    Not long to wait.

    P.S. It all comes down to a “reasonable” period of time. Warmist or skeptic, there is a date at which temperatures have to ‘behave” for the theory to be validated. On top of that, there is a public tolerance for any +/-. No recent government puts out more than 5-year plans because the unexpected is too powerful to allow longer term planning. 2015 will be more than twice a 5-year span of uncertainty. I figure that will be enough.

  35. In reply to the resident supporter of the ‘solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary cloud naysayer’ hypothesis. There is now a testable means to differentiate between the two hypotheses by observation rather than theory.

    William:
    It should be noted that I am quoting peer reviewed papers and presenting a supporting lattice of observations and analysis results to support the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 70 years is due to solar magnetic cycle change modulation of planetary cloud cover rather than due to the increase in atmospheric CO2.
    Leif you have completely ignored the majority of the logical points presented below and in my other comments and continue to quote ‘revisionist’ papers, provide links to power point presentations, and provide links to graphs which you assert supports the solar magnetic cycle and modulation of planetary cloud cover naysayer hypothesis. …. …..A ‘revisionist’ paper states the opposite of what a prior peer reviewed paper stated, a power point presentation is not peer reviewed and a graph with no reference is also not peer reviewed.
    As there is a climate war going on it is asserted that revisionist papers may be incorrect. i.e. A revisionist paper may have been written to support an agenda as opposed to search for scientific truth, to provide an explanation for observations. …. ….The revisionist papers also ignores planetary temperature observations such as the 16 year plateau of warming and the latitudinal pattern of warming can be explained by the solar modulation of planetary cloud cover hypothesis and cannot be explained by the increase in atmospheric CO2 forcing mechanism. …. ….When evaluating hypotheses it is important to look at all observations and analysis results. Can the hypothesis in question explain all observations? Your hypothesis, the ‘solar magnetic cycle cloud modulation naysayer’ hypothesis cannot. Based on what the ‘solar magnetic cycle cloud modulation naysayers’ have told us for the last 10 to 15 years, the recent solar magnetic cycle change should have no significant influence on planetary temperature.

    Some of the key observations and logical points are:
    1) There has been an observed 16 year plateau of no warming. A plateau of no warming is different than a lack of warming where the general trend in planetary temperature is a wiggly line up and the general trend is slower than predicted. There is currently no accepted explanation for the plateau in warming based on the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 70 years is due to the increase in CO2 rather than solar magnetic cycle changes.
    Lack of warming

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/19/the-unraveling-of-global-warming-is-accelerating/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/monckton-on-his-smashing-u-n-wall-of-silence-on-lack-of-warming-and-censure/

    As atmospheric CO2 continues to increase the CO2 forcing should increase if there are not fundamental errors in the mechanism modeling. The CO2 forcing cannot be turned on or off. The solar magnetic cycle mechanism on the other hand can saturate and can reverse. As there has been an abrupt change to the solar magnetic cycle, it is asserted the planet will now cool, if a significant portion of the warming in the last 70 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes. There is now the first observational evidence of cooling.

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    2) The observed latitudinal pattern of warming in the last 70 years does not match that predicted by the CO2 forcing mechanism. The CO2 forcing mechanism is of course proportional to the increase in atmospheric CO2. As CO2 is more or less evenly distributed in the atmosphere the forcing due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 all else being equal should be roughly the same for the entire global, further more as the amount of CO2 warming is also proportional to the amount of long wave radiation that is emitted off to space the most amount of warming on the planet should be in the tropics. The actual warming pattern observed is not global with most of the warming occurring in the tropics as predicted by the CO2 forcing mechanism and the general circulation models. Most of the warming occurs in the Northern hemisphere at high latitudes (twice as much warming in high latitudinal Northern regions as the planet as a whole and four times as much as the tropics). The latitudes where there is the most amount of warming in the last 70 years are the same latitudes where the electroscavenging mechanism (solar wind bursts) has the strongest affect.

    Georgieva, Bianchi, & Kirov “Once again about global warming and solar activity” Notes there is close correlation of changes in planetary temperature with solar wind bursts.
    In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied. It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf

    Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth

    http://www.ann-geophys.net/27/2045/2009/angeo-27-2045-2009.pdf

    On the long term change in the geomagnetic activity during the 20th century Published: 5 May 2009
    The analysis of the aa index series presented in this paper clearly shows that during the last century (1900 to 2000) the number of quiet days (Aa<20 nT) drastically diminished from a mean annual value greater than 270 days per year at the end of the nineteenth century to a mean value of 160 quiet days per year one hundred years later. This decrease is mainly due to the decrease of the number of very quiet days (Aa<13 nT). We show that the so-evidenced decrease in the number of quiet days cannot be accounted for by drift in the aa baseline resulting in a systematic underestimation of aa during the first quarter of the century: a 2–3 nT overestimation in the aa increase during the 20th century would lead to a 20–40% overestimation in the decrease of the number of quiet days during the same period.
    Fig. 2. Long-term variations of aa indices (12-month and 20-year running averages; scale on the left) and of sunspot numbers (12- month running averages; scale on the right) from 1868 until now.

    3) There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo climatic record which correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. The regions that warmed during past warming phases are the same regions of the planet that warmed during the last 70 years. The regions that warmed in the past and in the last 70 years cannot be explained by the CO2 forcing hypothesis.

    Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.

    http://www.climate4you.com/

    http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf

    Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years by S. K. Solanki, I. G. Usoskin, B. Kromer, M. Schussler & J. Beer 2004 Nature
    Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.

    http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/1999/QuatSciRevvGeel/1999QuatSciRevvGeel.pdf

    "The role of solar forcing upon climate change"

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3256

    Solar activity and Svalbard temperatures
    The following is a link to the late Gerald Bond’s paper “Persistent Solar influence on the North Atlantic Climate during the Holocene”. Bond published this paper in 2001.

    http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/spring2006/Mar1/Bond%20et%20al%202001.pdf

    https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/74103.pdf

    Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate during the Holocene
    A more recent oceanographic study, based on reconstructions of the North Atlantic climate during the Holocene epoch, has found what may be the most compelling link between climate and the changing Sun: in this case an apparent regional climatic response to a series of prolonged episodes of suppressed solar activity, like the Maunder Minimum, each lasting from 50 to 150 years8. ….. …..Each of these cooling events coincides in time with strong, distinctive minima in solar activity, based on contemporaneous records of the production of 14C from tree-ring records and 10Be from deep-sea cores. For reasons cited above, these features, found in both 14C and 10Be records, are of likely solar origin, since the two records are subject to quite different non-solar internal sources of variability. The North Atlantic finding suggests that solar variability exerts a strong effect on climate on centennial to millennial time scales…

  36. The Der Spiegel (The Mirror) article only begins to hint at the destructive effects of wind turbine installations. It also doesn’t seem to note that on average, those 85,000 megawatts of rated capacity will work out at best to somewhere between 6,800 and 17,000 megawatts actually delivered, and not infrequently to nothing at all. And not only that, but the highly inefficient fast-start fossil generation without which wind is totally useless will burn several times as much fuel as is saved by having the wind. And all at a true cost of 80 cents to $1.10 per megawatt-hour, when all the taxpayer subsidies are factored in.

    WHY?!??!!????

  37. William Astley says:
    July 15, 2013 at 10:15 am
    It should be noted that I am quoting peer reviewed papers
    There are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers supporting the CO2 theory.

    due to solar magnetic cycle change modulation of planetary cloud cover rather than due to the increase in atmospheric CO2.
    You are ignoring the possibility that there can be other causes [e.g. internal to the climate system itself]. This is not a binary choice CO2 or the Sun. There are contributions from a variety of sources [including small ones from CO2 and the Sun].

    The papers I quote are peer-reviewed. E.g. http://www.leif.org/research/JASR_9142.pdf for geomagnetic activity and http://www.leif.org/research/swsc130003p.pdf for solar activity. Powerpoint slides from such papers are this also peer-reviewed.
    Your favorite stock of ‘evidence’ papers tend to be rather dated in this rapidly-moving field.

  38. Chad wrote “WHY?!??!!????”

    After WWII intellectuals and CEO’s realized that a substitute for war must be found, mans destructive capacity had reached a critical threshold that made all out war too dangerous. Up to this time war was a great way to stimulate the global economy and a way to deplete durable goods and expand manufacturing capacity for goods/weapons built cheaply and quickly in the industrial age. Lots of money was made by a few. Failure to find a substitute would mean 15 hr work weeks and an economic system that allowed for widespread prosperity for the masses (with government subsidies from government printed money), and time to scrutinize their political leaders . With idle factories, and little opportunity for the rich to get richer at the middle classes expenses, this was unacceptable. The neo-Malthusians and Darwinists were equally alarmed at the possibility of exploding populations with increased living standards and a possible de-evolution of a species free of stress .

    A secret study was conducted in the 1960’s that explored such substitutes, leaked as a book published by the name Report from Iron Mountain The substitutes included a common threat that people would find believable and promote globalization (international cooperation). Ideas included threat from UFO’s and aliens, environmental threats (include pollution, population, resources, climate), health threats, financial disasters, terrorism, etc. None was deemed sufficient to replace total war, so they adopted all of them, including limited wars on a much smaller scale (Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc).

    So anyways, wind power makes no sense from your perspective, but it keeps the manufacturers of turbines occupied and profitable, poses no real threat to conventional power plants, raises energy prices to limit living standards and preserve resources and perpetuates the myth of limited fossil fuels which help keep these prices high.

    The world is a much better place than it was 50 years ago, at least from a global perspective, so whose to say they are wrong.

    ..

  39. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 15, 2013 at 1:05 pm
    Your favorite stock of ‘evidence’ papers tend to be rather dated in this rapidly-moving field.

    A little self deprecation? Or is this as close as you can get to admitting that you have little idea of how the sun has behaved over the eons?

  40. By 2015, a minimum of 14 years will have passed since temperatures last had a signficant upwards rise (excluding El Nino of 1998). If temperatures are actually down in 2015, … CAGW will be in big trouble as proposed.

    That’s what it will take. Two or three more flat years. Or, better, cooling ones.

  41. OKay Mr. Astley. Hit back. Answer Leif’s criticism. And don’t take it personally. He skewers everyone!!!! This forum; for those that visit, and in this kind of debate exactly, is our best chance of getting to the bottom of why there is climate change at all, what a risen CO2 percentage means to our future. SHow us where he’s (Leif) wrong.

Comments are closed.