Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc. – Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory, Head of the Russian/Ukrainian joint project Astrometria – has a few things to say about solar activity and climate. Thanks to Russ Steele of NCWatch
Key Excerpts:
Observations of the Sun show that as for the increase in temperature, carbon dioxide is “not guilty” and as for what lies ahead in the upcoming decades, it is not catastrophic warming, but a global, and very prolonged, temperature drop.
[…] Over the past decade, global temperature on the Earth has not increased; global warming has ceased, and already there are signs of the future deep temperature drop.
[…] It follows that warming had a natural origin, the contribution of CO2 to it was insignificant, anthropogenic increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide does not serve as an explanation for it, and in the foreseeable future CO2 will not be able to cause catastrophic warming. The so-called greenhouse effect will not avert the onset of the next deep temperature drop, the 19th in the last 7500 years, which without fail follows after natural warming.
[…] We should fear a deep temperature drop — not catastrophic global warming. Humanity must survive the serious economic, social, demographic and political consequences of a global temperature drop, which will directly affect the national interests of almost all countries and more than 80% of the population of the Earth. A deep temperature drop is a considerably greater threat to humanity than warming. However, a reliable forecast of the time of the onset and of the depth of the global temperature drop will make it possible to adjust in advance the economic activity of humanity, to considerably weaken the crisis.
Full Study is here. (PDF patience, takes a bit to load)
Russian science is policy driven. Kind of like Western science.
Jon (10:12:07) :
Leif … I would be more than interested in the views of Dr. Abdussamatov regarding your comments. Do you converse with him at all?
No. He is welcome to weigh in on this blog. See if you can find his email address and invite him to join.
Seems a bit all over the place to me.
Does anyone have the a link to the referenced Borisenkov paper? What method does he use to determine that a 200 year cycle exists?
What’s the justification for the following statement?
The data on changing solar intensity that we will collect over about six years will enable an extrapolation to past and future periods and development of a more precise scenario of future climate change.
Mr. Alex (10:17:41) :
I have been waiting a very long time for an update from Habibullo Abdussamatov. Thanks very much for the article.
The essay was written a year ago.
Will (10:18:10) :
Russian science is policy driven. Kind of like Western science.
Likely. Abdussamatov may be their Anti-Hansen. Because Russia and the US disagree on climate change, any paper that disagrees with US policy [AGW] is good science by Russian standards.
kim (07:52:38) :
Hmmm, maybe sunspots cool and faculae warm.
============================
Hmmm, indeed. They quit measuring the faculae in 1977, estimating instead. Then they stopped estimating in 1982.
So, who’s interested in measuring (they are measured, not counted) faculae?
Calcium II K-line is on the kludge side of things, being that it is actually the Faculae + network that is imaged.
As for cooling, or getting very cold, we are having some of it right now. Southern California’s crops will freeze tonight after an Arctic blast that brought 50 mile per hour cold winds with gusts to 80.
Meanwhile, CO2 continues to increase.
One can only imagine how cold it would be if not for all that Global Warming.
“Russian science is policy driven. Kind of like Western science.
Likely. Abdussamatov may be their Anti-Hansen. Because Russia and the US disagree on climate change, any paper that disagrees with US policy [AGW] is good science by Russian standards.”
As the Russians will be practically exempt from emissions targets, I would have thought it would be in their own interests to support the Copenhagen targets. At least that way they can watch the death by a thousand cuts of the USA.
I e-mailed Abdussamatov and invited him to join this discussion. Hope he does
Is there a trend in TSI,it seems Froehlich thinks so.
Evidence of a long-term trend in total solar irradiance
C. Froehlich
ABSTRACT
Aims. During the solar minimum of 2008, the value of total solar irradiance at 1AU (TSI) was more than 0.2Wm−2 lower than during the last minimum in 1996, indicating for the first time a directly observed long-term change. On the other hand, chromospheric indices and hence solar UV irradiance do not exhibit a similar change
.
Methods. Comparison of TSI with other activity parameters indicates that only the open solar magnetic field, BR, observed from satellites at 1AU show a similar long-term behaviour. The values at the minima correlate well and the linear fit provides a direct physical relationship between TSI and BR during the minimum times.
Results. This correlation allows an unambiguous reconstruction of TSI back in time, provided the open solar magnetic field can be determined from e.g. geomagnetic indices or cosmogenic radionucleides. Since the solar UV irradiance has no long-term trend, the mechanism for the secular change of TSI must differ from the effect of surface magnetism, as manifested by sunspots, faculae, and network which indeed explain well the intra-cycle variability of both total and spectral irradiance.
Conclusions. The long-term trend of TSI is most probably caused by a global temperature change of the Sun that does not influence the UV irradiance in the same way as the surface magnetic fields
Enjoy global warming while it lasts. A Winter storm has forced the Boulder area schools and the University of Colorado to close today. NOAA is open but allowing employees to take leave. The snow is expected to continue for another 24 hours. We’re in for a white Halloween.
Quote from the article: ” a reliable forecast of the time of the onset and of the depth of the global temperature drop will make it possible to adjust in advance the economic activity of humanity, to considerably weaken the crisis”
A reliable forecast is precisely what can not possibly be done, any more that I, working as a hydraulics engineer, could possibly forecast or predict when the next 50 year frequency storm would occur.
Old adage: “Save your money for a rainy day.” Good advice. Wastefully spending money and using other resources in an attempt to prevent which can’t be prevented assures that there won’t be money or resources available to alleviate the bad effects of what will happen, and the last, alleviating the bad effects, is entirely possible.
Forget about average global temperatures. Forget about ice caps melting and Polar Bears floating across the Atlantic on ice cubes. Forget about rising sea levels, droughts, increased hurricanes, floods and on and on. Also forget about sunspot cycles or El-Nino and La-Nina, or whatever the hell else has been thrown into the mix as a distraction because none of it matters, none of it is relevant. All we have to do is drill down and focus on one thing only.
That one thing is CO2.
It is claimed that humans are responsible for Climate Change because of our CO2 emissions and that we need to have limits imposed because we need to reduce our emissions of CO2.
So first simply ask yourself this:
Can CO2 trap in heat?
Answer: NO, nothing traps in heat, substances can only absorb and re-emit heat but they cannot trap heat.
Next question, does CO2 absorb heat more strongly than the other gasses in the atmosphere?
Answer: NO, CO2 is only 0.03811% of the atmosphere and remains as solid ice up to a temperature of 194.65 K
Nitrogen and Oxygen which make up 99% of the atmosphere on the other hand, begin to melt at temperatures as low as 50-60 K and so are much stronger absorbers of heat and at the same time, make up most of the atmospheric gasses.
This puts the effect of CO2 into context. CO2 cannot trap heat as no gasses in the atmosphere can. CO2 is a tiny proportion of the gasses in the atmosphere, so tiny in fact that compared to Oxygen and Nitrogen it is barely noticeable. The effect of such tiny amounts of CO2 being a much weaker absorber of heat than Nitrogen and Oxygen, also show that the warming effect of CO2 is insignificant.
So the final question is, are we responsible for Climate Change through our CO2 emissions?
Answer: NO WE MOST DEFINITELY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE.
Take that to Copenhagen!
If you would like to know more about the AGW fraud and carbon tax, download this free .pdf book
[snip – self promotion ]
Leif Svalgaard (10:47:57) :
Somebody has to get in the face of AGW, else thier polyscience wins by default.
Some of the things I like about what they(Russian studies) are doing would be:
1.) Looking off-planet (Mars, etc.)
2.) Looking back over the past and identifying a need to explain coincidental solar activity to climactical value.
One thing is very certain: There will be no advance in understanding in a vacuum.
Too complicated and impossible-to-understand are guantlets thown down.
‘What else can it be’ and ‘the science is settled’ runs contrary to the human need to know.
Chicken-little has declared the sky to be rising/burning from a soap box.
Are we going to let him get away with it?
Chicken-little, for his part, gets the point that over time, the climate does change and does make for significant pressures on civilization.
Chicken-little does not seem to grasp that man is along for the ride, and deliberate monkeying with things that look too good to be true on paper are just that: Invitations to disasters due to the law of unintended consequences.
Alexander Feht (07:57:35) :
Meanwhile, it’s snowing hard in New Mexico.
Ahh, that usually happens in October. Global cooling is a straw man. 😉
Speaking of the sun and climate
Piers Corbyn is speaking in London today at the Imperial College London. He’s revealing some of his techniques there.
It may just be me, but I get the impression Lief sells himself as the one true credible solar scientist?
It’s just an impression, just my opinion, but does Lief himself believe in other credible solar scientists?
The Met, UK, predicts winter 2009-10 in the UK near or above average temps, with 1 in 7 chance of a cold winter.
Piers Corbyn, using the sun as the leading component for making forecasts, says 85% chance of a cold winter in the UK with some very cold spells.
He is revealing more details of his winter forecast at Imperial College London today :
So here we come to the value of a good peer review, because for us who are not competent solar scientists the questions are too many to be able to resolve: methods of measuring past solar irradiance and error bars on the measurements, why such large changes etc are too esoteric for a blog like this.
Maybe we would gain in understanding if Leif and dr Abdussamatov had an interchange here, and maybe not.
At least the Russians are proposing a direct measurement to test their hypothesis about the size of the sun, and do not rely just in reanalyzing old data.
Leif Svalgaard.
This plot is WAY out of date and its use basically invalidates the rest of the paper.
I think most people would agree that the older it is, the less chance there is of it having been distorted by alarmists. Therefore I would say that the exact opposite is closer to the truth. The use of plots ‘created’ recently invalidates the bulk of the warmist papers.
Waiting for the “heavy weights” to come in.
I recall a snow storm much like this in Oct 1971 or 72 I where it dropped 9″ of snow on haloween night (little kids stopped showing up at the door about 8:00). The ground was not free of snow here in the Denver area until about April, and we had a bitter cold winter.
It will be interesting to watch this develop and see if we flop into that same sort of pattern where we get almost weekly polar fronts coming down the front range.
They had so much snow that the City of Denver ran out of room to stack it and could not put any more into the Platte river, so there was a berm of snow about 3-4 ft tall down the entire length of Broadway, and travel in the city got real ugly as the warm man hole covers (from municipal steam) kept melted clean and the road had 4-5 inches of hard pack snow and ice on it. The resulting ice pot holes made the tire and suspension repair shops very happy. I think that was also the year that resulted in the local city governments getting in lots of trouble with the public over lack of snow plows.
Larry
Temperatures should be progressive upward to be accepted, as far as they remain conservatively at the same level or being un-progressively downwards they are surely politically biased.
OT, but the Science Museum count has suddenly gone to :
* 778 counted in so far
* 5317 counted out so far
Have they removed multiple entries?
maksimovich (11:25:10) :
Is there a trend in TSI,it seems Froehlich thinks so.
“Conclusions. The long-term trend of TSI is most probably caused by a global temperature change of the Sun that does not influence the UV irradiance in the same way as the surface magnetic fields”
He is not quite ready to throw in the towel. He is in the process of recalibrating his composite. PMOD has been drifting down compared to SORCE [which has the best calibration]. If you scale the two so that they match around 2008.0, you can see how PMOD is still drifting downwards: http://www.leif.org/research/Comparison%20SORCE%20PMOD%20since%202008.png the drift in a year-and-a-half being about 0.1 W/m2. This has to be resolve, before any conclusions can be drawn.
Bill Livingston has carefully measured the global temperature of the Sun and showed that it has no solar cycle variation and that it has been constant the past 35+ years.
rbateman (12:00:08) :
Chicken-little has declared the sky to be …
The West and Russia’s Chicken-littles declare opposite disasters…