I really wish Gavin would put as much effort into getting the oddities with the GISTEMP dataset fixed rather than writing coffee table books and trying new models to show the sun has little impact.
This paper gets extra points for using the word “robust”. – Anthony
Solar trends and global warming (PDF here)
R. E. Benestad
Climate Division, Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway
G. A. Schmidt
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York, USA
We use a suite of global climate model simulations for the 20th century to assess the contribution of solar forcing to the past trends in the global mean temperature. In particular, we examine how robust different published methodologies are at detecting and attributing solar-related climate change in the presence of intrinsic climate variability and multiple forcings.
We demonstrate that naive application of linear analytical methods such as regression gives nonrobust results. We also demonstrate that the methodologies used by Scafetta and West (2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2007, 2008) are not robust to
these same factors and that their error bars are significantly larger than reported. Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980.
Received 17 December 2008; accepted 13 May 2009; published 21 July 2009.
Citation: Benestad, R. E., and G. A. Schmidt (2009), Solar trends and
global warming, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D14101,
doi:10.1029/2008JD011639.
hat tip to Leif Svalgaard
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Another question, how is 7% of .6 not “negligible” in the first place? How is ~0 anymore negligible than .042 in such a wildly fluctuating system known to change by several degrees? This shows a fundamental difference in how the numbers are processed by the alarmed. No wonder .6 degrees warming scares them, its more the than an order of magnitude above “negligible”. And don’t even get me started on their “projections”…
How to make a global warmist career:
1) build a global mean temperature curve using convenient data points and processing showing great, unprecedented warming
2) design GCM models that fit these so called “observed data”
3) call it robust -easy since both are manufactured by the same Team-
4) analyze anything else through this prism and call them wrong
5) publish in a peer reviewed journal with selected “peers”…
Latest news from Asia:
The current solar minimum is over.
Scientist observed a sunspot as big as the moon.
Such a pity that [snip] are only about to get their papers published in E&E.
“I am curious what caused so rapid increase of global temperatures between 1905-1940, when the gas-which-must-not-be-named was almost constant.”
Between 1905 and 1940, CO2 concentrations rose from about 297ppm to about 311ppm. It would be perverse to call a 5% rise “almost constant”. And as is rather well known, the early part of the 20th century saw a lull in volcanic activity, and an increase in solar output. The combination of these three effects accounts for the observed warming.
Just how much research had you done into this, before posting here?
“Btw, warming IS negligible since 1980.”
Using all four major measures of global temperature, we can see that the warming since 1980 is not negligible. What data did you use to reach this erroneous conclusion?
“What will these people do after few years, when the downward trend will be more and more pronounced?”
Will it? According to whom?
“We use a suite of global climate model simulations for the 20th century to assess the contribution of solar forcing to the past trends in the global mean temperature”.
Translation:
We first select the most crooked climate models we could find for the 20th century and what’s finally left is contributed to the also screwed up mean temperatures.
Now you don’t have to read any further because the rest of the publication is bogus.
This solar obsession of the Hockey Team indicates that it’s a real hot button issue for them. Else, they would not expend so much energy trying to discredit the contribution of total solar energy flux and any side effects it may impart. I find this fascinating. So, obviously, this is a fruitful area of study. I eagerly await the next wave of CERN results regarding cloud formation.
Where do I wipe this BS off my boots?
“ur analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980.”
But Gavin dear, what about the climate sensitivity response (you know, that positive feedback) from that 7% warming? I mean, you keep asserting an AGW warming where 3/4 of the assertion modelled is actually from water vapor, not directly from CO2, so why doesnt solar influence get to play the same sensitivity game?
Warmist response to the record cold in the North this summer:
“Thanks to the thick blanket of CO2 temperatures have only dropped 10 degree Celsius below normal”.
Show us the data, Gavin. Show us your methodology. I’d bet he’s going to hide both and refuse to reveal them to Steve McIntyre.
Climate models from the 20th century? Too bad we’re in the 21st century!
What is the basis for the anomaly? An average from 100 years worth of data forced into a model that is not fit for prediction, only description.
Before you do that, chisel off the dried muck of murky speculation from Gavin et al. – It’s like you’re wearing high heels, hm?
Oh…I read that incorrectly….they used models instead of the actual data. Why work in reality when it’s more fun to make believe?
If you go back to the period between 4,000 BC and 1700 AD, the climate models would produce a flat line.
There is no forcing as defined in the climate models which changed one iota over the period (other than an occassional volcano which only has an impact for a few years). There is no aerosols, no GHG changes, no black carbon, no solar changes etc. etc. worth mentioning.
Go back a little farther and there are changes for the peak solar forcing during the Holocene Optimum and there were still some ice age glacier remnants around then, …
… but, according to the manner in which the models are constructed, the climate has been a flat line for the 6,000 years before GHGs started increasing.
Go back even a little farther, say 4.3 billion to 500 million years ago, and the climate models show that the Earth was frozen solid iceball.
Doesn’t particularly add up very well.
Richard deSousa (16:49:49) :
Show us the data, Gavin. Show us your methodology. I’d bet he’s going to hide both and refuse to reveal them to Steve McIntyre.
Why?? He used robust or some variant of it about 18 times in the link. That should be
goodrobust enough for you.Well, it appears that the arctic is not melting as much as 2008, this trend could change, however it appears it won’t. Let’s face it, the climate is cooler and it’s kind of hard to not think it’s the sun to me. CO2 may be a factor, a very slim one if you ask me. How can 330ppm affect anything? It’s like a few grains of sand hidden in a gallon bucket of sand.
“Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980.”
Your analysis is rubbish Gavin.
You’d think he had a set of crayons rather than a computer.
Average sunspot number 1800 – 1820 = 19.85
Average sunspot number 1986 – 2001 = 73.11
The oceans make a net gain at anything over about 42 sunspots on the monthly count.
How would it be possible for water vapor to act as a feedback? If CO2 is receiving its energy from the water vapor in the atmosphere (doesn’t it have to pass through the water vapor?) how is it possible that water vapor would emit more energy than it receives? Or does the CO2 emit more energy than it receives? Either way, we would be looking at a great new source of power.
RW (16:34:16)said (excerpt) :
Between 1905 and 1940, CO2 concentrations rose from about 297ppm to about 311ppm. It would be perverse to call a 5% rise “almost constant”. And as is rather well known, the early part of the 20th century saw a lull in volcanic activity, and an increase in solar output. The combination of these three effects accounts for the observed warming.
Question:
Based on what raw data?
CO2 levels pre-1958 are highly questionable, imo.
********************
“Btw, warming IS negligible since 1980.”
Using all four major measures of global temperature, we can see that the warming since 1980 is not negligible. What data did you use to reach this erroneous conclusion?
Comment:
There has been no net warming since 1980 – based on UAH LT;
Hadcrut3 ST shows a ~0.07C/decade warming bias.
“What will these people do after few years, when the downward trend will be more and more pronounced?”
Will it? According to whom?
Comment:
Cooling predictions, in chronological order:
In 2003, Dr. Theodor Landscheidt wrote a paper predicting serious global cooling: “Analysis of the sun’s varying activity in the last two millennia indicates that contrary to the IPCC’s speculation about man-made global warming as high as 5.8° C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected.” http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen/Landscheidt-1.html
In 2005, Piers Corbyn predicted cooling by 2040:
On the 2nd February 2005, he gave this presentation to the Institute of Physics Energy Management Group. It contained the following:
In the next 5 or 10 years warming is likely to be maintained as a transpolar shift occurs. This will be followed by the magnetic pole moving away from the geographic pole, a decrease in solar activity, a southward shift in the Gulf stream and considerable world cooling by 2040 AD.
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/05/trying-to-bet-on-climate-with-piers.html
In 2006, NASA predicted that “Solar Cycle 25, peaking around the year 2022, could be one of the weakest in centuries”. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm
Global cooling could develop on Earth in 50 years and have serious consequences before it is replaced by a period of warming in the early 22nd century, a Russian Academy of Sciences’ astronomical observatory’s report says. http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/08/25/globalcooling.shtml
–MosNews, 25 August 2006
The Kyoto initiatives to save the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off until better times. The global temperature maximum has been reached on Earth, and Earth’s global temperature will decline to a climatic minimum even without the Kyoto protocol.
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/08/25/globalcooling.shtml
–Khabibullo Abdusamatov, Russian Academy of Science, 25 August 2006
If you look back into the sun’s past, you find that we live in a period of abnormally high solar activity. Periods of high solar activity do not last long, perhaps 50 to 100 years, then you get a crash. It’s a boom-bust system, and I would expect a crash soon. http://www.newscientist.com/unpwlogin.ns
–Nigel Weiss, University of Cambridge, 16 September 2006
Sunspot numbers are well on the way down in the next decade. Sunspot numbers will be extremely small, and when the sun crashes, it crashes hard. The upcoming sunspot crash could cause the Earth to cool.
http://www.newscientist.com/unpwlogin.ns
–Leif Svalgaard, Stanford University, 16 September 2006
*************************
THE COMING GLOBAL COOLING?
World Climate Report, 16 March 2007
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/03/16/the-coming-global-cooling/
An article has appeared in a recent issue of Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics with a curious title “Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years.” … …”Despite the increasing trend of atmospheric CO2 concentration, the components IMF2, IMF3 and IMF4 of global temperature changes are all in falling”… …”the effect of greenhouse warming is deficient in counterchecking the natural cooling of global climate change in the coming 20 years. Consequently, we believe global climate changes will be in a trend of falling in the following 20 years.”… …”The global climate warming is not solely affected by the CO2 greenhouse effect. The best example is temperature obviously cooling however atmospheric CO2 concentration is ascending from 1940s to 1970s. Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate changes is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to re-consider the global climate changes.”
Reference
Zhen-Shan, L. and S. Xian. 2007. Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 95, 115-121.
********************
Timo Niroma:
http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html
Alert note 31.10.2007 – A probable new Dalton minimum.
According to my theory about Jovian effect on sunspots, based on facts measured since 1700 and estimated since 1500 (Schove)
– The Jupiter perihelion and sunspot minimum never coincide and the nearing perihelion will slow the rise of the height of sunspot cycle, as happened to the cycle 23 and will happen still more dramatically to cycle 24.
– The Gleissberg cycle has almost reached its lower limit, which is 72 years.
— In fact this low it has not been ever after the Maunder minimum.
— So it must go up, the short cycles of the 20th century has created a debt that must be paid.
Now the next Jovian perihelion is in late March in 2011. I predict that the length of the cycle 23 is in the range of 12.2-13 years. This means a minimum earliest in October 2008 and latest in July 2009 (I use the minimum of 1996.6). This means that the cycle 24 is very low, in the range of 40-70, or a Dalton level. This means that the maximum will be reached only in 2014. All this means there will be a cooling for decades, probable one Geissberg or nearly 80 years. (A sidestep: The rise of the CO2 in atmosphere from 0.03 to 0.04 % does not have any meaning in this play. The rise should be to more than 1 % to affect the complicated feedback system of Earth if the last 200 million history of Earth is used as a proxy of what has happened yesterday.)
Assuming that the last 500 years in solar behaviour can be used as a proxy for the normal behaviour of the Sun, the estimated probability of the first prediction is .91 and for the latter .96, making the total probability of this prediction to be true as 87%. (A sidestep: I’m a statistician and this is a statistical study, but a remark for those, who urgently for years have asked me about the physical reason: I find the Svensmark theory (2006) of cosmic rays oscillating to the rhythm of the Sun’s magnetic field as most promising. The CERN investigations in 2008 probably will settle the issue.)
**********************************************************
Since then there have been too many predictions of global cooling to count them – even some warmists are predicting global cooling for the next twenty years…
About this issue, two important documents:
Nicola Scafetta´s lecture video:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/wkshp.nsf/vwpsw/84E74F1E59E2D3FE852574F100669688
The case UN vs. UN (UN FAO vs.UN IPCC): One following, as Gavin, Playstation meteorology, the other using Length of the Day (LOD) to forecast temperatures to the year 2100:
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/
“The paper is divided into 2 parts, of which the first explores
the danger of applying linear statistical methods to data
from a complicated and chaotic system.”
There is a place to find these chaotic (non-harmonic systems):The lunatics´asylum.
An usual feature of psychic projection is to see outside what in reality happens INSIDE.
If glaciers start forming on Mt Washington again, and along the shores of the Great Lakes. To name but 2 places. I’m sure Gavin and NOAA will come up with proof that it’s one of the warmest years ever.
From Icecap.us, Third Column, “They Say It”
Jul 21, 2009
Biased Criticism of Anthony Watts For His Report “Is The U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?”
By Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science
There is a You Tube video by Peter Sinclar titled “Climate Denial Crock of the Week” which ridicules the important contribution of Anthony Watts in identifying poor siting issues with the US Historical Climate Network (see his report). The video is clearly a biased presentation of what Anthony has accomplished, even resorting to the absurd connection of climate to how the health issues of tobacco were reported. The video fails to recognize that the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) invited Anthony to present his work in Asheville, and recently, one of the NCDC scientists invited him to co-author a research paper with him.
I will report if NCDC refutes this personal attack against a well respected colleague who has provided a much needed analysis to the climate science community. Stay tuned also for at least two peer reviewed papers which are quantitatively analyzing, using Anthony�s data, the impact of the poor sitings of the HCN sites on the long term surface temperature trends and anomalies.
This is typical knee jerk reaction of the alarmists when they have no answer for the science, go after the scientist and any supporting affiliation. In this case they go after the Heartland and make the tired false claim they are funded by big oil and tobacco. Anthony will have the last laugh. Science in the end will win out against the agenda-driven, rent-seeking phonies like Sinclair.
If global warmers are right then the next sun´s eclipse won´t drop temperatures, because as “respectful” scientists say :the sun is cold.
So the 1989 Quebec electricity transformers were burnt not by the sun but surely by a mob of french speaking canadians vehemently exhaling CO2 at the spot. 🙂