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.
More junk science, I might add….
Looking at the graph on page 12, if he has the solar add about 50% more influence (by whatever causation), and the resulting error sure looks like PDO/AMO…
No, wait, it looks like CO2. I was wrong. Go back to sleep…
Off Topic: New York Times: Missing Its Spots: ‘Sun may be on verge of falling into an extended slumber’ could cause ‘extended chilly period’.
Is this the end for global warming?
No wait…temperature leads solar. My bad…
Gavin who ?
Phil. (18:12:45) : “ball of ice” … how many ppm of water vapor would be in the air at 0 degrees C?
Andrew, if indeed you are Weaver, given the recent post regarding how your model performs on climateaudit, I’d be a tad less smurk.
Reply: I don’t think Andrew W is attempting to claim to be Andrew Weaver. ~ ctm
So this was peer-reviewed.
Other flawed, even seriously flawed, works have passed peer-review into publication.
‘Scientific Misconduct And The Nature Of Science’ :
“…the whole thing prompted some further thoughts about scientific misconduct, objectivity, and the peer review system…. The peer review process that is at the core of science’s ability for self-correction consists of two phases….the editor reads it and sends it out to a minimum of two reviewers… This second part of the peer review process is what really matters…”
http://www.scientificblogging.com/rationally_speaking/scientific_misconduct_and_nature_science
Ed (19:22:00) :
No wait…temperature leads solar
LOL!!
Is there a reason that Schmidt & Benestad leave most of this century off his “Reconstruction of by Linear Models” chart? I notice that alarmists seem to do that quite often in their papers lately.
It’s as if they’re nostalgic for a warmer time… and don’t want to even think about these cooler years we’re in.
“Phil. (18:12:45) :
“Without that 330ppm of CO2 this planet would be a ball of ice.”
We’d better start pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere then – and quickly!
Somewhat OT:
Speaking of the Sun, the Aurora might be kicking up at least a little bit tonight:
http://www.softservenews.com/aurora.htm
Somewhat rare as of late. I saw a huge one when Solar Cycle 23 was in full bloom. The Sun has been pretty dead for the last few years though.
“Solar . . . negligible for warming”? All my life I’ve noted the temp goes up when the sun goes up and down when the sun goes down. Other factors enter into the equation as you experts point out, but the sun is still top dog when it comes to warming or cooling, at least to my simple mind!
Stepped in what?
Bob Tisdale (18:57:16) :
Benestad and Schmidt are still using Lean et al 1995 and 2000 data, though they do acknowledge that the newer datasets [Foukal et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2005] have a smaller long-term trends.
The trend in solar TSI is much smaller than B&S [perhaps remove the ‘&’ 🙂 ] assume [and even smaller than Bob T’s], so their solar input variation is much smaller than what they worked with. That may mean that their ‘7%’ might similarly be a lot less than 7%.
All I can say is it’s very, er, interesting that observations are cut off at 2000 for a paper published in 2009.
We know that Gavin et al’s models don’t work and they never have – and the never will – as prediction tools. Not one correctly predicted the current cooling period – and it is quite a long lasting period now so a valid model, which actually means something, would surely have seeen it coming? And they are really starting to struggle to be able to make current real data fit with the actual measured data. They can correctly ‘hindcast’ but what a joke that is! Try laying a bet today on last year’s Kentucky Derby for example.
I could ‘build a model’ to correctly hindcast old data – I’d just use Excel to fit a polynomial. Maybe that’s how they do it anyway – use whichever curve gives the ‘expected warming’ once they start to ‘model’ the future. And then go and hide it all in some fancy maths.
Way off topic.Can anyone verify these claims1) We are responsible to all the recent rise in CO2.
2) CO2 will absorb and re-emit longwave radiation.
3) If you shine more longwave radiation on an object it will either warm or cool less quickly.
I can’t seem to find any verifiable data to refute these.
regards . Stu
Jimmy Haigh (20:12:59) :
Oh fiddlesticks! I was distracted by the baby there!
That should read: “And they are really starting to struggle to be able to make current measured data fit with the modeled data. “
Bill Illis (18:47:20) :
Let’s recalculate gavin’s number (using his own assumptions) since he has to use a climate model to do his simple calculations.
Total solar irradiance change from 1900 to 2000 according to Lean 2004 – 2.0 watts/m^2.
Except as you know very well, because Lief has posted on here multiple times, Lean has revised that figure downwards. Of course that doesn’t suit your agenda so you keep going back to the repudiated data.
Check out the TSI reconstructions on Leif’s research site, (Wang & Lean).
http://www.leif.org/research/
P.S that I can understand ( I make signs for a living)
Ball of ice without CO2? Is that trying to say the Sun has no power to warm the Earth, last I checked it gets well over 100 degrees on the part of the moon baking in the Sun, any ice on the back side of the moon would melt when it recieves direct sunlight. If you stand outside and feel the warmth of sunlight hitting your face, you know the Sun has warming power.
Also, what are the clear differences between those two ice datasets, regardless of which one you believe it doesn’t show ice even close to being below 2007.
Geez Phil, you can’t spell Leif’s name? I before e except after L! 😉
Don’t know if you caught the question I asked you earlier.
The Copenhagen summary report attributes the recent cooling in part to low solar activity. It would seem to follow that normal to high solar activity would cause perceptibly warmer temperatures.
Patrick Davis (19:12:12) :
“Phil. (18:12:45) :
Without that 330ppm of CO2 this planet would be a ball of ice.”
So, by your logic, it was colder during the Medievil Warm and Roman Warm periods becuase there was less (Apparently) CO2 in the air than today? It seems history does not agree with your logic.
That history has nothing to do with my logic.
Jim (19:28:51) :
Phil. (18:12:45) : “ball of ice” … how many ppm of water vapor would be in the air at 0 degrees C?
About 0.09psi if saturated, but not particularly relevant since with no CO2 in the atmosphere not much of the planet would be that warm!