I saw this yesterday, but I decided to wait a day just in case it disappeared. It’s quite the surprise to see the New Scientist dedicate a story, much less an editorial saying that the sun has a role in climate.
Here’s some excerpts:
THE idea that changes in the sun’s activity can influence the climate is making a comeback, after years of scientific vilification, thanks to major advances in our understanding of the atmosphere.
…
So far, three mechanisms have come to light (see diagram). The best understood is what is known as the top-down effect, described by Mike Lockwood, also at the University of Reading, and Joanna Haigh of Imperial College London. Although the sun’s brightness does not change much during solar maxima and minima, the type of radiation it emits does. During maxima the sun emits more ultraviolet radiation, which is absorbed by the stratosphere.This warms up, generating high-altitude winds. Although the exact mechanism is unclear, this appears to have knock-on effects on regional weather: strong stratospheric winds lead to a strong jet stream.
The reverse is true in solar minima, and the effect is particularly evident in Europe, where minima increase the chances of extreme weather. Indeed, this year’s cold winter and the Russian heatwave in July have been linked to the sun’s current lull, which froze weather systems in place for longer than normal.
The second effect is bottom-up, in which additional visible radiation during a solar maximum warms the tropical oceans, causing more evaporation and therefore more rain, especially close to the equator.
…
The third solar influence on climate is extraterrestrial. Earth is bombarded by cosmic rays from exploding stars, which are largely deflected by the solar wind during solar maxima and to a slightly lesser degree in minima.
One theory held that cosmic rays cool the planet by helping to form airborne particles that water vapour condenses onto, increasing cloud cover. However, models suggest the effect is tiny (Nature, vol 460, p 332). Just to be sure, though, the idea is being tested by the CLOUD experiment at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland. Initial results are expected in the next six months.
A theory that has more traction with climate scientists says the rays may change cloud behaviour rather than formation. Using weather balloon measurements, Harrison has shown that clouds have charged layers at their top and bottom, and he suggests that ions produced by cosmic rays might be responsible (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2010GL043605). “The charge might make it easier for larger water droplets to form,” he says, causing rain to fall sooner during solar minima. “But that’s just one of many possibilities.”
Read the full article here
For the CAGW agenda, solar only counts while pushing it as a “sustainable” energy source, but not as a major agent of climate warming. I agree with others: Huh?
Andrew W says:
September 26, 2010 at 11:45 am
Bruce Cobb I look forward to your peer reviewed paper proving the temperature rise of the last hundred years is not unusual and that it can be explained by natural forcings.
If you were really interested you would know there is already plenty of scientific literature clearly showing that, and would have bothered to read it. But, your anti-science Warmist agenda obviously keeps you from doing so.
Oh, and try not to get so hung up on the “peer-reviewed” thing. In terms of scientific truth, it means nothing, particularly amidst the incestuous atmosphere of climate “science”.
vigilantfish:
At September 26, 2010 at 10:04 am you ask me:
“Are you going to the Naomi Oreskes bunfest at York U this week? I’m facing a paper deadline and am waffling as to whether or not to go. Is anybody else planning to show up?”
Sorry, but I do not have the time to attend the event because I have very recently returned from overseas and have much subsequent writing-up to do. Perhaps I could attend it if York were near here (i.e. Falmouth, Cornwall) but it is not and my attendance (with travel to and from the event) would require at least two days that I cannot afford this week.
However, if you – or others – do attend it, then I would appreciate a report of the event.
Richard
Bruce, I know there is plenty of “literature” much of which I’ve read, but little of which stands up to peer review, perhaps you should try to objectively examine the merits of the science yourself.
Moderator, could you check (and fix) to see if I’ve made an error with my closing of italics in my comment at 11:39am, and possibly subsequent comments,
[HTML error fixed. ~dbs]
Andrew W:
At September 26, 2010 at 11:39 am you quote me saying:
“There is no evidence – none, zilch, not any – that there has been any change to the rate, variability and/or nature of global climate change in recent decades and centuries.”
Then you reply with:
“Wow! Talk about disconnected from reality.”
You think my accurate statement is “disconnected from reality”?
OK. Then please provide some evidence that disproves my statement. I – and several others including the IPCC – would be extremely grateful for such evidence.
Richard
Richard, as you know the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are “very likely” the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability.
Despite the smears, the paleoclimate reconstructions that show that the rate of warming over the last century is unprecedented, though Mann’s methodology had some faults, the basic conclusion on this haven’t been successfully challenged. And in fact have been supported by subsequent investigations.
There is no doubt you will not change your beliefs no matter how compelling the evidence, so, unless you can present a link to some peer-reviewed study that refutes the IPCC conclusions, furthur discussion between us is pointless.
Its not enough to defeat evil ideas, we must also defeat the those that promulgate evil ideas. Who and how were used to infiltrate and undermind our formerly revered learning centers and other institutions of science. They need to be hunted down and put to trial. If convicted, they need to be stripped of all their honors.
Andrew W:
At September 26, 2010 at 4:24 pm, in response to my accurate statement that said;
“There is no evidence – none, zilch, not any – that there has been any change to the rate, variability and/or nature of global climate change in recent decades and centuries.”
you assert (in full);
“Richard, as you know the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are “very likely” the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability.
Despite the smears, the paleoclimate reconstructions that show that the rate of warming over the last century is unprecedented, though Mann’s methodology had some faults, the basic conclusion on this haven’t been successfully challenged. And in fact have been supported by subsequent investigations.
There is no doubt you will not change your beliefs no matter how compelling the evidence, so, unless you can present a link to some peer-reviewed study that refutes the IPCC conclusions, furthur discussion between us is pointless.”
I thank you for confirming that you cannot dispute my accurate statement, and I address each of the points in your response as follows.
The opinion of “90%” of IPCC AR4 Authors is evidence of their opinion and of nothing else. It says nothing about evidence of a change to “the rate, variability and/or nature of global climate change in recent decades and centuries”.
(Similarly, there many more people than there are IPCC AR4 Authors who have the opinion that Santa Claus exists, but their opinion is not evidence for the existence of santa Claus).
You assert that
“Despite the smears, the paleoclimate reconstructions that show that the rate of warming over the last century is unprecedented, though Mann’s methodology had some faults, the basic conclusion on this haven’t been successfully challenged. And in fact have been supported by subsequent investigations.”
Your assertion is so wrong as to be risible. Mann’s “methodology” is probably the most discredited piece of junk in the entire history of science.
Many studies provide data that conflict with the findings of that work of Mann et al. (e.g. Beltrami et al) (ref. Beltrami et al “Long-term tracking of climate change by underground temperatures”, Geophysical Research Letters v.12 (2005) ) and indicate that the report of climate variability in the SAR was correct. In 2005 McIntyre and McKitrick published two papers that together provide a complete refutation of that work of Mann et al. (ref. McIntyre S & McKitrick R, Energy & Environment, v 16, no.1 (2005)) (2005), Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 32, No. 3, (2005)). But, perhaps the most important of their studies of that work of Mann et al. was their publication in 2003 (ref. McIntyre S & McKitrick R, Energy & Environment, v 24, pp 751-771 (2003)) that showed it is not possible to replicate the work of Mann et al. There are several reasons for the inability to replicate this work of Mann et al.; not least that Mann refuses to reveal his source codes. The inability to replicate this work of Mann et al. means it has no scientific worth: i.e. this work of Mann et al. is anecdote of similar kind to a report of a ghost sighting.
Importantly, McIntyre & McKitrick deduced that when the methodology of Mann et al. provide a ‘hockey stick’ when it uses input of random data in the form of red noise.
The controversy was such that the US Congress established an Expert Committee to assess the matter. The resulting ‘Wegman Report’ can be read at
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf
It determined that the criticisms of McIntyre & McKitrick are correct.
And its Conclusion 7 says;
“7. Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the
hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium
cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 analysis. As mentioned earlier in our
background section, tree ring proxies are typically calibrated to remove low
frequency variations. The cycle of Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age that
was widely recognized in 1990 has disappeared from the MBH98/99 analyses,
thus making possible the hottest decade/hottest year claim. However, the
methodology of MBH98/99 suppresses this low frequency information. The
paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims
essentially unverifiable.”
Several other assessments have shown the same. A recent one of note by McShane and Wyner titled ‘A Statistical Analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures Over the Last 1000 Years Reliable?’
was discussed at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/30/breaking-new-paper-makes-a-hockey-sticky-wicket-of-mann-et-al-99/
It Abstract says;
“We find that the proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series generated independently of temperature. Furthermore, various model specifications that perform similarly at predicting temperature produce extremely different historical backcasts. Finally, the proxies seem unable to forecast the high levels of and sharp run-up in temperature in the 1990s either in-sample or from contiguous holdout blocks, thus casting doubt on their ability to predict such phenomena if in fact they occurred several hundred years ago.”
And you conclude your demonsration that you know my accurate statement is correct by saying to me;
”There is no doubt you will not change your beliefs no matter how compelling the evidence, so, unless you can present a link to some peer-reviewed study that refutes the IPCC conclusions, furthur discussion between us is pointless.”
My “beliefs” have nothing to do with this matter which only considers the evidence. However, I wonder what “IPCC conclusions” you are thinking about?
Importantly, your comments demonstrate that your beliefs outweigh any consideration of evidence that you could make. So, I understand why you have chosen to run away from consideration of the evidence.
Richard
It’s well known by Bob Carter that the sun has cycles and is largely responsible for our climate phases:
http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/warming-in-cycles-carter1.jpg
But what really worries me is the fact we have a deep ice age roughly every 100,000 years:
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif
After viewing and understanding the implications of both images, what do you think will happen next? There’s a very good chance we’ll need thicker jumpers..
Andrew W says:
September 25, 2010 at 3:06 am
Andrew30, yeah riiight, and relying on the null hypothesis, Gem(Germ) Theory cannot be proven either.
I see the point of your attempted analogy, but the fact remains that the Germ theory is not proven under Koch’s criteria, it requires the absence or reduced immune response, or other mitigating agents, such as a tapeworm for Cholera, (Beauchamp was lucky he had one when he swallowed Pasteur’s Cholera solution!) plus means of entry, such as compromised skin.
So if CO2 is the Germ, (which I don’t admit, see Miskolsci) then it too requires an amplifier, acknowledged by the IPCC,to cause warming enough to be alarmed about. The ‘forcing ‘ agents, positive feedback, are shown to be negative or neutral, so we are ‘ just having a mild fever’ or more likely, the Germ is not harmful.
“Andrew W says:
September 26, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Richard, as you know the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are “very likely” the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability.”
How are they only 10% certain that natural variability isn’t to blame? I’m 100% certain Hansen’s cooking the books:
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/1998uschanges5.gif
I’m also 100% certain that current climatic changes are NOT unprecedented in either rate or magnitude:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Easterbrook-Natural_global_warming.jpg
You likewise, will not change your beliefs despite the compelling evidence. Prove us wrong and that CO2 really is to blame.
Richard, the McShane and Wyner paper you site has a graph clearly showing the rate of warming over the last century is unprecedented (a change in temperature far more rapid that any other change in temperature over the preceding 1000 years.
The paper also states: “our model gives a 80% chance that [the last decade] was the warmest in the past thousand years”.
Richard said: “Importantly, McIntyre & McKitrick deduced that when the methodology of Mann et al. provide a ‘hockey stick’ when it uses input of random data in the form of red noise.”
More importantly, other methodologies that don’t produce ‘hockey stick’ shape when applied to random data, when applied to the Mann et al data still produce the ‘hockey stick’ shape.
The claim that the ‘hockey stick’ shape of Mann’s reconstruction was a result of the methodology is a lie.
Hi Julian, if I recall correctly, you and I debated these issues years ago on the NZ CSC web site before they closed comments.
If the present warming trend continued at the rate seen over the last 40 years for the rest of the century I’d agree, that’s not catastrophic in my book.
Will the tipping points that many climate scientists fear eventuate, and if they do, will the resulting changes be catastrophic? I don’t know, because, unlike Mr Courtney, I don’t claim to be all knowing in these matters.
I guess another analogy could be drawn with germ caused diseases, even minor infections should be treated seriously because there’s always the danger that they could turn into something far worse.
“the latest research has changed this view, and the next report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due in 2013, will include solar effects in its models.”
This is all rather encouraging for the 5th IPCC report, as it will finally begin to account for the wider macro inputs, as well as having the horsepower and sophistication to model their impacts on a micro scale.
Given that much of the ideological activism surrounding climate change has been discredited there is an excellent chance that regardless of which way the 5th report leans the policy response that results will be more effective and efficient than that which has gone before.
http://jedibeeftrix.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/at-the-gates-of-climate-hell-%E2%80%93-the-fifth-ipcc-report-will-hold-the-answers/
Andrew W:
At September 27, 2010 at 2:33 am you wrongly assert:
“Richard, the McShane and Wyner paper you site has a graph clearly showing the rate of warming over the last century is unprecedented (a change in temperature far more rapid that any other change in temperature over the preceding 1000 years.”
No! Read the paper.
It was an assessment published in a leading journal on statistics by expert statisticians that assessed Mann’s methodology by using Mann’s data then conducting an analysis using a conventional statistical technique. The assessment showed that the conventional technique provided an indication of global temperature 1,000 years ago that is similar to the global temperature now.
Furthermore, the recent rate of change being higher than in the reconstructions is a result of the recent data (i.e. since 1960) being indicated by temperature measurements while the reconstructions are from proxy indications: i.e. an ‘apples and elephants’ comparison. Indeed, the proxy indications from Mann’s methodology are that global temperature FELL after 1960 while the temperature measurements show the high rate of temperature increase. Please google “divergence problem” and “hide the decline” for information on this.
But, as you say, the paper also states:
“our model gives a 80% chance that [the last decade] was the warmest in the past thousand years”.
In other words, the paper reports that the error range on the determined historical temperatures make the indications from the proxies completely worthless.
I repeat, please read a paper before you selectively quote from it.
And your assertion saying;
“The claim that the ‘hockey stick’ shape of Mann’s reconstruction was a result of the methodology is a lie”
is a blatant falsehood as the references I provided clearly demonstrate. Please read them.
The Mann methodology is a ‘dead horse’ and I fail to understand why you – and some other AGW believers – keep flogging it. You would be well advised to copy the IPCC and to forget it (as the IPCC has done ).
Richard
Richard, I read the Wegman report when it came out.
The trick is hidden in this sentence “when the methodology of Mann et al. provide a ‘hockey stick’ when it uses input of random data in the form of red noise.”
What Wegman never covered, and the testing of which was never in his report, was that the hockey stick shape never changed when statistical methods that met his approval were applied to Mann’s data.
If you doubt that, find me the graph in Wegman’s report using the same data that doesn’t have the ‘hockey stick’ shape.
McShane and Wyner claim the proxy data was no better than random noise, but that evidently is not supported by the maths in their own paper.
The maths produced the graph in the McShane and Wyner paper, if the proxy data was no better than random noise, why the tidy graph?
Just about everyone involved in the AGW debate has some ideological ax to grind, so I’ve given up on scientifically unsupported opinions, and I don’t think that of the statements in their paper are supported by their results, similarly I’m not leaping to the defence of Hansens opinions about the rate of future climate change accelerating due to tipping points, all he gets is a “possibly”.
Andrew W:
You assert:
“McShane and Wyner claim the proxy data was no better than random noise, but that evidently is not supported by the maths in their own paper.”
Say what!?
Please explain your extraordinary assertion.
Richard
Richard S Courtney says:
September 26, 2010 at 3:28 pm
vigilantfish:
At September 26, 2010 at 10:04 am you ask me:
“Are you going to the Naomi Oreskes bunfest at York U this week?
Richard:
If I do go I will report. I don’t live as far away as you, but thanks to Toronto’s appalling transit system it takes two hours from where I live to get there, and I am right up against a deadline wall – I will go if a miracle happens with my writing.
16 years ago a student of mine completed her PhD examining Kondratief’s (the long waves of economic cycles). Using the data from Cornish tin mines (from the 10th Century), battle fatalities and the manorial figures for the production of bread (from the 14th Century) we hoped to detect the long wave in these economic proxies. No luck. However, fourier analysis supported by other techniques revealed a medium strength cycle of c. 11.4 years particularly in the tin mining data. Downloading solar cycle data from Greenwich demonstrated that the mining of tin was significantly influenced by the sun. The logic of course is that people turned to the mines when agricultural yields were low and vice-versa. The idea that the effect of the solar short cycle on climate is minimal as claimed in the NS does not appear to be sustained by the relevant evidence of economic activity.
Andrew W: Been there, done that. In fact, up until a few years ago, I assumed it was true. But I found, upon examining the “evidence” for CAGW/CC/CD that it simply doesn’t hold up to reality. It would have been far, far easier, and more convenient for me to have simply continued Believing, but above all else, I’m a realist, and a big believer in truth-telling. Apparently, you are not. So be it. Different strokes.
The rigors of scientific discipline demand ,inter alia,that a hypothesis or theory imply the kind of evidence that would prove it wrong.Einstein correctly asserted that one fact alone would prove him wrong.It does not take hundreds or even thousands of scientists.Predictions based on the theory are tested against the facts.If the predictions are not borne out,the theory is discarded.The AGW alarmists themselves lament that they cannot explain the lack of warming.Ergo the AGW theory has been discredited.End of story.BTW,the burden of proof lies on the alarmists.Skeptics do not have to prove,disprove or explain anything.