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)
Leif Svalgaard (16:14:57) :
I say ’snake oil’.
REPLY: Maybe not snake oil, but some variant. Perhaps “reptile balm”. I get these forecasts from him regularly, and they are so full of self promotion I can hardly stand to read them. Mostly I just press delete rather than try to wade through it. Too much noise. – Anthony
Monckton has done his own credibility and his cause serious damage by endorsing this nonsense, and by ‘congratulating’ Corbyn and ‘Private Enterprise’.
Global warming explained ?[see graph below] not entirely .I think that a possible cause of global warming trend of 0.5C /CENTURY is the gradual rise of the proton flux especially the higher level ones . OmniWeb has some plots but only to about 1970. It is difficult to get trends going back 100 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1900/to:2010./plot/sidc-ssn/from:1900/to:2010/trend
Has anyone done a similar graph for proton flux [ not solar flux]
I read the essay carefully through a couple of times, and I remain uneasy on the lack of solid justifications of the 200 years oscillation.
At the paragraph below fig.8 the calculation of the warming shortage expressed in nuclear plants equivalent is badly wrong. Assuming a typical 2000 MW plant, the energy shortage due to 0.19W/m2 less TSI gives more or less 12000 plants, not 21 million ! (12000 is not bad either!) .
Dr Svalgaard’s dismissal of Dr Abdussamatov’s paper, due to taking issue with one figure on historic TSI (and using a conference poster plus an instrument calibration argument for support) seem a little too ambitious.
The Russian paper does not rest only on historic TSI: it involves a number of other components:
(1) A serious inspection of climate history (19 cooling periods over 7500 years) which contrasts with the almost creationist approach by the AGW camp of ignoring climate history. Taking the past climate seriously is something that sets apart the pre-AGW and skeptic scientific cultures. Pro-AGW studies such as Pollock et al.’s reconstruction from bore-holes and BACKWARD extrapolation of global temperature – to an asymptotic flat line – illustrate the contempt the AGW movement have for past climate history.
(2) The transition of the ocean heat budget from positive to negative in 2003 – well documented by several peer reviewed papers. Svalgaard has been silent on this part of Abdussamatov’s paper.
(3) Recent TSI and the current decrease in sunspots and solar output, and the delayed cycle 24. (As distinct from historic reconstructed TSI.)
(4) Several decadal and century scale empirically visible climate cycles.
All these together lead the authors to make bold and highly testable / falsifiable conclusions: climate will stay flat-ish out to 2013 then nosedive. This fulfills the Karl Popper criteria of falsifiability for a scientific hypothesis. Again in striking contrast to AGW models which their rubbery flexibility to explain everything (Popper himself pointed out that a hypothesis that explains everything actually explains nothing).
Abdussamatov’s paper survives even if figure 3 is wrong.
2013 is only 4 years away – a shorter time than many research grant timescales. Looking forward at the accuracy or otherwise of their predictions is at least as important as looking back at the TSI reconstruction which is only on out of several supporting pillars of the paper’s arguments.
Could increased proton events coming from the sun lead to increased ozone depletion lead to more direct UVB penetration and eventually to more heating of lower levels of Stratosphere and upper levels troposphere and thus affect the terrestial climate to cause a low level of global warming? You need about 0.005Cper year of background heating to raise the climate by 0.5C /century. The short term decadal warming like 1994-2008 are from natural innternal variation causes like ENSO/PDO,AMO and NAO
http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/ao/ThompsonPapers/Hartmann.pdfof
Phlogiston (18:50:47) :
(and using a conference poster plus an instrument calibration argument for support) seem a little too ambitious.
Of course it does rest on these things alone. It is generally recognized that the early reconstructions were incorrect. My criticism is also based on the deception attempted in Figure 3.
It is, indeed, likely that there will be some cooling [PDO, etc], but not because of the Sun and not because of the arguments presented.
Leif Svalgaard (22:24:34) :
Phlogiston (18:50:47) :
(and using a conference poster plus an instrument calibration argument for support) seem a little too ambitious.
Of course it does NOT rest on these things alone….
Leif Svalgaard (22:24:34)
Deception of course would be out of order. But perhaps it was accidental – for instance bulking up the reference list without checking further than the abstracts in some cases..
Phlogiston (17:05:52) :
Deception of course would be out of order. But perhaps it was accidental – for instance bulking up the reference list without checking further than the abstracts in some cases…
are you suggesting Abdussamatov did this?
There is little or no doubt that the Sun defines Earth’s climate.
But I wonder if Dr. Habibullo Abdussamator has considered the multitude of space-age measurements since 1960 that indicate:
a.) The Sun is NOT a ball of hydrogen, but this lightest of all elements accumulates at the top of most stellar atmospheres;
b.) The Sun formed on the remnant neutron star that remained after the precursor star exploded 5 Gy ago and ejected all of the material that now orbits the Sun; and
c.) The Sun is heated by repulsive interactions between neutrons [1-4].
Has he considered how a compact, energetic solar core might produce changes in solar surface activity?
1. “Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy”, J. Fusion Energy 19,(2001) 93-98.
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf
2. “Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source”, J. Fusion Energy 20 (2002) 197-201.
http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf
3. “On the cosmic nuclear cycle and the similarity of nuclei and stars,” J. Fusion Energy 25 (2006) 107-114.
http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0511051
4. ” The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass,” Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) 847-1856.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel