New study claims low solar activity caused "the pause" in global temperature – but AGW will return!

This is on a tip from Dr. Leif Svalgaard, WUWT’s resident solar expert. It was just published in the journal Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, and is open access. I found this study’s conclusion a bit amusing, because there are numerous claims that solar activity (and the slight increase in TSI seen in the last 30 years) can’t explain the global warming we’ve seen, but yet somehow the recent period of low solar activity can explain the pause, and when solar activity resumes, global warming will return anew. Dr Svalgaard gives the author, Peter Stauning, high marks for his work in general, but disagrees with him on this paper.

I’m also more than a little bit puzzled how the journal editor and the peer reviewers let this sentence pass, everybody makes typos, but this one takes the cake. I kid you not:

But secondly, there must be a fair global coverage such that localized climate variations like the North-Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), or the El Ninjo/La Ninja in the Pacific would not affect the result too much.

Yes, I really want to see what the La Ninja effect looks like.

Here’s the paper abstract and excerpts:

Reduced Solar Activity Disguises Global Temperature Rise

DOI: 10.4236/acs.2014.41008  Author: Peter Stauning

ABSTRACT

The question whether human activities seriously affect climate is asked with increasing voice these days. Quite understandable since the climate appears to be out of control with the significant global temperature increases already seen during the last three decades and with still heavier temperature increases to come in the future according to prognoses, among others, in the recent comprehensive IPCC reports [1].

However, the most recent climate data [2], show global temperature development levelling off or even turning negative since 2001 in contrast to the anticipated course related to the steady increases in the concentration in the atmosphere of green-house gasses, primarily carbon dioxide and methane [1]. The purpose of this communication is to demonstrate that the reduced rate in the global temperature rise complies with expectations related to the decaying level of solar activity according to the relation published in an earlier analysis [3]. Without the reduction in the solar activity-related contributions the global temperatures would have increased steadily from 1980 to present.

  1. Introduction

The alarming rise in global temperatures from about 1980 to 2000 gave much concern around possible serious future climate changes, global warming, that could result from the increasing levels of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere. However, as shown in [2] the strong rise in global temperatures faded after year 2000 and was replaced by a rather steady level or even small decreases in the global temperatures from around 2001 to present (2013). This development took away some of the incitement to cut down on human-induced growth in greenhouse gasses.

The question is now whether the present fading of the temperature rise is related to the concurrent decrease in solar activity scaled, for instance, by the sunspot numbers. Scientists have linked past climate changes to solar activity. The so-called “Little Ice Age” in the 17’th century was linked to the Maunder minimum in solar activity by [4]. Many later works have linked climate changes to changes in solar activity (see reviews [5,6]).

In the earlier analysis [3] from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) a quantitative assessment was made of the relation between solar activity represented by the cycle-average sunspot numbers and the terrestrial climate represented by the global temperatures averaged over the same interval length but delayed by 3 years. In the present communication the anticipated effects of the developments in solar activity on the recent global temperature changes are analyzed.

2. Sunspots and Global Temperatures

The former analysis [3] and the present work assume that solar activity can be represented through the classical international sunspot number SSN = k·(s + 10·g), where s is the number of sunspots, g the number of sunspot groups while k is a calibration parameter to ensure that different observatories derive the same sunspot number regardless of observational qualities. A discussion of this index and of modified versions of the sunspot number is provided by [7]. The sunspot number is used here rather than satellite-based observations of solar radiation be- cause of the extended length of the time interval of available data.

Presently (2013) we are about 4 years into cycle 24. Figure 1 also displays the extensions through 1.5 years derived at SIDC with different models (kfsm “clas- sical standard” and kfcm “combined” models). The fig- ure, furthermore, displays the predictions prepared by the Australian IPS Radio and Space Services [10] and the NASA solar cycle 24 predictions [11] as of October 2013.

STAUNING_fig1

The mean of the two SIDC extrapolations [8] 1.5 years ahead as well as the NASA prediction places the maxi- mum of cycle 24 in mid-2013. The currently observed and predicted sunspot numbers makes this sunspot cycle the weakest since cycle 14 which had a maximum in the smoothed data of 64.2 in February of 1906. When final sunspot data become available they may turn out still lower to make cycle 24 even weaker than cycle 14.

Sunspot numbers have been reconstructed back to around 1850 with quite good accuracy based on as- tronomers’ careful and detailed recordings of the ap- pearance of the solar surface. The yearly sunspot num- bers since 1850 available from SIDC [8] are shown by the thin blue line in the bottom panel of Figure 2. The extension shown by the dashed line from present through the remaining solar cycle 24 to 2020 is based on the mean of the IPS [10] and the NASA [11] predictions.

The bottom panel of Figure 2 also displays the averages of sunspot number from minimum to minimum (usual solar cycle) marked by squares and from maxi- mum in a cycle to maximum in the next cycle marked by filled circles.

The top panel of Figure 2 displays global temperature variations since 1850 through the deviations from aver- age level 1961-1990.

STAUNING_fig2

Presently, the series are extended up to October 2013 and comprise the combined land-surface/sea-surface global temperature series, HadCRUT-4gl [2], shown in the up- per panel of Figure 2, which is used here for the analyses. For the discussions here it should be noted that following

the steep rise between 1980 and 2000, the global average temperatures flatten out after year 2000. The extension of the temperatures beyond present shown by the dashed line represents the average of global temperatures from 2001 to 2013.

3. Relations between Solar Activity and Global Temperature

It should be recalled that solar activity-related changes in global temperatures must arrive after the activity changes. The former DMI analysis [3] examined the correlation between sunspots and global temperatures for the interval from 1850 to 1980 and derived a value of 3 years for the delay that provided optimum correlation. In Figure 2 the cycle-average global temperatures are presented by the squares and filled circles, respectively, for the min-to- min and max-to-max intervals shifted 3 years.

The averaging presented in Figure 2 over min-to-min or max-to-max solar cycle intervals delayed by 3 years include years beyond present for the last two points. In the summations a reference value equal to the mean value of global temperatures from 2001 to 2013 has been substituted for values beyond 2013. Error bars extending from the two points represent the results obtained with global temperatures beyond 2013 systematically defined 0.1˚C higher or lower than the reference value.

In Figure 3 the individual cycle values of the sunspot number, SSNA, averaged over either min-to-min or max- to-max intervals of the solar cycle (appr. 11 years) and the change in global temperatures, ΔTA, averaged over the same interval length but delayed by 3 years, are shown by filled squares and circles, respectively. This way of averaging reduces the scatter and makes it easier to se the persistent relation between sunspots and global tempera tures. The relation was found statistically in the former analysis [3] to be: ΔTA = 0.009 (±0.002)·SSNA − 0.70˚C.

STAUNING_fig3

6.  Conclusions

The decaying solar activity makes the recently recorded global temperatures flatten out and thus disguises the real climate development. With a steady level of cycle-average solar activity the global temperatures would have shown a steady rise from 1980 to present (2013) in agreement with the increasing atmospheric concentrations of green-house gasses, primarily carbon dioxide and methane [16], and not the levelling-off actually observed since 2001.

The solar activity is now at the lowest level seen in the past 100 years and could not go much lower. Thus, the observed global temperatures may soon resume the steady rise observed from around 1980 to 2001. If solar activity starts increasing then the global temperatures may rise even steeper than that seen over the past three decades.

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

Open access to the full paper here: PDF (Size:544KB) PP. 60-63

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

180 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 13, 2014 5:18 pm

“La Ninja” Is where the Western Pacific Warm Pool suddenly appears in the Bearing Sea.

January 13, 2014 5:22 pm

“The former DMI analysis [3] examined the correlation between sunspots and global temperatures for the interval from 1850 to 1980 and derived a value of 3 years for the delay that provided optimum correlation. ”
But we are also told in a primer on global warming aka climate change that “The reason the planet takes several decades to respond to increased CO2 is the thermal inertia of the oceans. ”
So which is it, several years or several decades? Also doesn’t solar shortwave warm the oceans more effectively that longwave from increased CO2? So there should be more lag more solar than from CO2…

January 13, 2014 5:25 pm

El Ninjo and La Ninja? Blimey he should be for the chop if that’s in the paper. There’s no self defence for mistakes like that, actually if I’m right La Ninja is self defence!!

January 13, 2014 5:26 pm

The Sun explains 95% of climate change over the past 400 years
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-sun-explains-95-of-climate-change.html

Mark Hladik
January 13, 2014 5:26 pm

That’s why we can’t find the ‘missing heat’. It has disguised itself as a La Ninja (or is it El Ninja?), and we’ll all be dead before we even know it is there… … … …

January 13, 2014 5:27 pm

Isn’t La Ninja the massive cooling of pacific ocean that seriously affects leather backed turtles, you know heroes in a half shell.

ossqss
January 13, 2014 5:30 pm

That is a significant error. Makes me wonder if anyone actually read it for review. You don’t miss stuff like that in review. You just don’t. C’mon man! ……
Do we have a case of PAL review here or what?

graphicconception
January 13, 2014 5:30 pm

Ninjas are famous for stealth and invisibility.
Now we know how all that heat got into the oceans!
And why Kevin is struggling to find it.
It’s a travesty.

Paul Westhaver
January 13, 2014 5:31 pm

I am of the opinion that the sun’s activity dominates the climate on earth. Why? It is blatantly obvous. Night temps verses day temps. I get evidence nearly every day. It is hotter when the sun is out.
What I don’t see is a salient model for the immediate pause in warming though it seems that it must originate in the earth-sun energy exchange.
I don’t see it.

Bob Diaz
January 13, 2014 5:34 pm

Looking at Global Warming is REAL but NOT a Big DEAL: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/12/global-warming-is-real-but-not-a-big-deal-2/
and this article, yes there’s reason to believe that a drop in solar activity will cause a drop in temperature, but the reverse should also be true. If we are entering a “mini-ice age” due to a Dalton Minimum type of solar reduction, once we exit this, we still won’t see that major rise predicted by the IPCC.

Editor
January 13, 2014 5:36 pm

Lawrence13: Teenage Mutant La Ninja Turtles?

January 13, 2014 5:40 pm

I haven’t done a detailed read of AR5 yet, but the SOD said that temps would only vary by about 0.1 degrees due to solar activity. So… did they change their minds in the final draft? Or is this paper saying that AR5 is wrong?
Either way, a comparison from 1850 on? Are they serious? Line up a few centuries of sun spot data and a few centuries of ice core data, and I bet the correlation goes POOF! and disappears.

Louis Hooffstetter
January 13, 2014 5:41 pm

“solar activity (and the slight increase in TSI seen in the last 30 years) can’t explain the global warming we’ve seen, but yet somehow the recent period of low solar activity can explain the pause…”
They want to have their cake and eat it too.

Bill Illis
January 13, 2014 5:44 pm

We are at the top of the solar cycle. How can the top of the solar cycle produce cooling?
TSI is currently about 0.7 W/m2 higher than the low point of the previous solar cycles so this paper must be designed to “communicate” to the followers.

January 13, 2014 5:51 pm
Louis
January 13, 2014 5:52 pm

“The solar activity is now at the lowest level seen in the past 100 years and could not go much lower. Thus, the observed global temperatures may soon resume the steady rise observed from around 1980 to 2001.”

How do they know that solar activity “could not go much lower” based on just the past 100 years? That’s just a blink in history. Is there any scientific basis for assuming the past 100 years represents the lowest lows solar activity is capable of?

January 13, 2014 5:56 pm

davidmhoffer says:
January 13, 2014 at 5:40 pm
I haven’t done a detailed read of AR5 yet, but the SOD said that temps would only vary by about 0.1 degrees due to solar activity. So… did they change their minds in the final draft? Or is this paper saying that AR5 is wrong?

Ooops, I forgot part 2 of my question.
And if this paper is right, then this is yet another paper showing that the models are wrong?

timetochooseagain
January 13, 2014 5:57 pm

Let’s be clear here: warming needs to do a *lot* more than return to it’s general rate since 1980. In order to catch back up to warming predictions, it needs to go significantly *faster* than that, and that increased pace needs to be *sustained* not transient due to increased solar activity.
Even if this is right, which is highly questionable, it is far from rescuing the model projections.

Don Newkirk
January 13, 2014 5:58 pm

Of course, Ninjo and Ninja are transliterations of the Spanish words as they would be spelt in any if a number of northern or eastern scripts of the Latin alphabet. Google accepts these spellings implicitly. (Try it!) That I am a theoretical linguist might bias my eye, but this is not only no serious error, it is no error at all. Back to the contents….

John Greenfraud
January 13, 2014 5:59 pm

More proof that the models are wrong. The “AGW will return” part was thrown in at the last minute so years of hard research didn’t get tossed into the rubbish bin. Also, the La Ninja effect is almost impossible to observe, I personally believe the effect is hiding in the deep ocean, fighting with the missing heat.

Lew Skannen
January 13, 2014 6:01 pm

LA Nijas? I assume they are one of Los Angeles minor sports teams..?

Don Newkirk
January 13, 2014 6:02 pm

“Any of…”, not “any if”. Now, that was a serious (smartphone) error!

Leon Brozyna
January 13, 2014 6:02 pm

Turning science on its head … solar activity has no impact on the climate except when it does.
That La Ninja must be really powerful stuff.

Steve Fitzpatrick
January 13, 2014 6:03 pm

Anything, and I mean ANYTHING, to explain away ‘the pause’ without admitting climate sensitivity to GHG forcing is probably pretty low. The simplest answer is the most likely: climate sensitivity is far lower than the climate modelers have calculated (probably about half), so natural variation is easily able to dominate GHG driven warming for decadal and longer periods.
I wonder if many climate scientists, like the author of this paper, realize that they would be better off just accepting low climate sensitivity as most likely correct and then moving on? Insisting on high climate sensitivity in the face of clear and ever growing contrary evidence simply discredits them as scientists. Heck, it discredits them as people capable of rational thought. Climate sensitivity is most likely low… get over it.

January 13, 2014 6:04 pm

Anthony quotes “the El Ninjo/La Ninja in the Pacific would not affect the result too much.”
That statement makes a joke of the whole paper. Clearly they have no idea what the impacts of El Nino/La Nina might be because the’re not even familiar enough with them to spell them right…and yet they made the statement. Unbelievable.

1 2 3 8