Not sure that “sceptical fringe” would apply here, but I’ll take the press where we can get it. See my comments below. – Anthony
Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled | The Australian
DEBATE about the reality of a two-decade pause in global warming and what it means has made its way from the sceptical fringe to the mainstream.
In a lengthy article this week, The Economist magazine said if climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, then climate sensitivity – the way climate reacts to changes in carbon-dioxide levels – would be on negative watch but not yet downgraded.
Another paper published by leading climate scientist James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by increased emissions from burning coal.
For Hansen the pause is a fact, but it’s good news that probably won’t last.
International Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years “at least” to break the long-term warming trend.
But the fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expected global warming pattern is now widely accepted.
Research by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.
“The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations,” says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
“If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change,” he says.
Whitehouse argues that whatever has happened to make temperatures remain constant requires an explanation because the pause in temperature rise has occurred despite a sharp increase in global carbon emissions.
The Economist says the world has added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010, about one-quarter of all the carbon dioxide put there by humans since 1750. This mismatch between rising greenhouse gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now, The Economist article says.
“But it does not mean global warming is a delusion.” The fact is temperatures between 2000 and 2010 are still almost 1C above their level in the first decade of the 20th century. “The mismatch might mean that for some unexplained reason there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-2010.
“Or it might mean that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period.”
The magazine explores a range of possible explanations including higher emissions of sulphur dioxide, the little understood impact of clouds and the circulation of heat into the deep ocean.
Read it all here: http://m.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/twenty-year-hiatus-in-rising-temperatures-has-climate-scientists-puzzled/story-e6frg6z6-1226609140980
================================================================
The fact is temperatures between 2000 and 2010 are still almost 1C above their level in the first decade of the 20th century.
I think siting and adjustments, along with natural variation, account for a good part of that, as I demonstrate here:
New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial
While the effect is only quantified in the USA for now, there is anecdotal evidence that it is a worldwide problem.
Related articles
- Climate science: A sensitive matter (economist.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Donald: “Just a few months ago, I was hearing in WUWT that we had 16 years of no warming. A couple months ago, I was hearing 17. And now it’s 20?”
There’s a temperature trend calculator at http://skepticalscience.com/trend.php. RSS data shows 23 years since the warming trend exceeded the error bars.
But I think the 20-year reference includes the 5-year projection to 2018 published by the UK Met Office – and rounded to 20 years by the BBC.
Implications and Consequence of Flat Temperatures for 16 plus years and No Tropical Troposphere Hot Spot
The fact that there has been no planetary warming for 16 plus years and the fact that atmospheric temperatures have not increased at roughly 10 km above the surface, in the tropics as the CO2 warming theory predicts when CO2 increased, disproves the extreme AWG paradigm. A lack of warming can be explained away, in the short term, with heating hiding in the ocean or some unexplained mechanism that is cooling the planet. Hansen’s particulate reflection hypothesis fails to explain the lack of warming, as particulates do not move from hemisphere to hemisphere unlike atmospheric gases such as CO2 which equalize in about a year between hemispheres. The particulates are emitted in the Northern Hemisphere which is where the warming has occurred, particularly at high Northern Latitudes. The lack of warming has occurred in the tropics and in the Southern Hemisphere. (i.e. The lack of warming mechanism must explain the fact that observed warming has not been global.) There is no explanation for the fact that there is not observed warming of tropical troposphere (10 km) tropical troposphere hot spot. (The lack of a tropical troposphere hot spot is just ignored.)
Unequivocal planetary cooling, as opposed to a lack of warming is a game changer. The public will require, will demand a definite, logical, physical explanation for global cooling. There is now observation evidence of the start of a mechanism change which will lead to significant planetary cooling. (If and when there is unequivocal evidence of cooling, I can provide an explanation of how the sun is causing the cooling and what to expect if a solar forced Heinrich event is unfolding.)
It is difficult to imagine how the public and the media will react to planetary cooling, after years upon years of statements that the 20th century warming was cause by the 20th century increase in atmospheric CO2. The so called ‘skeptics’, ‘deniers’ have noted that that the planet was cyclically warmed and then cooled in the past in cycles, 1450 years plus or minus 400 years (Daansgaard-oescherger cycle) and roughly every 6000 years to 8000 years (inhibited during the interglacial period due to orbital position) abruptly cooled (Heinrich event).
Implicit, fundamental to the extreme AGW warming paradigm is that observations and analysis confirmed by 1000s of specialists with 95% confidence, confirm that the planet will continue warm (possibly dangerously), if CO2 levels are not reduced from the current 0.039%, back to 0.035%. CO2 will increase by 2100 to around 0.0560% unless the world moves to a war type effort complete with multiple technical and economic science miracles to reduce CO2 to 0.035%.
It is odd the specialists have not explained that there are periods in the paleoclimatic record of millions of years when atmospheric CO2 was high (0.15%) and the planet was cold and periods when CO2 was low and the planet was very warm (0.03%, i.e. no ice sheets and so on.). The proxy data indicates the greenhouse gas forcing mechanism saturates, it is expected due to physical processes in the atmosphere which resist climate changes and attempt to maintain the planet at a constraint temperature. It is odd the specialists have not explained that they do not understand what causes the glacial/interglacial cycle (there has been 22 past glacial/interglacial cycles) and that the past interglacial cycles have ended abruptly rather than gradually.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png
What will the public reaction be to the obvious massive scientific effort to hide these facts and the media effort to push the extreme AGW paradigm myth if the planet starts to cool?
The creation of the climate hockey stick (remove the Medieval warm period, remove the Holocene interglacial Optimum super warm period, remove the Little Ice Age, and so on) was necessary as the creation of the flat part of the hockey stick hides the observational fact that planetary temperature increased and decreased driven by an unknown forcing mechanism.
If planetary temperature warmed and cooled cyclically in the past, then the late 20th century warming could also have been caused by the same cyclic forcing mechanism that caused cyclic climate change in the past.
There is now the first observational evidence that planet is starting to cool. The planetary cooling is coincidental with an abrupt, unexplained change to the sun.
It is odd that the paleoclimatic specialists have do not publically acknowledge that they do not understand what cause the glacial/interglacial cycle. Interglacial periods end abruptly rather gradually. There is evidence in the paleoclimatic record of cyclic abrupt climate changes that correlates with changes in ice core and sea floor sediment of cosmogenic isotope changes which indicates there is in every occurrence of the abrupt climate change event an abrupt change to the sun. It is only in the last 10 years that geomagnetic proxy analysis specialist have reached a consensus that there is an abrupt geomagnetic field change that is concurrent to the abrupt climate change event and to the abrupt solar change event.
The proxy data (climatic and geomagnetic) indicates that there abrupt changes to both climate and to the geomagnetic field. As discovery of the abrupt changes was by proxy researchers who specialist in proxy researcher and do not not attempt to explain what physically caused what happened cyclically in the past, the first effort by the proxy researchers was to attempt to remove the anomaly rather than to create an anomaly that is physically impossible to explain based on the assumed mechanism for the creation of the geomagnetic field and for the mechanisms that affect planetary climate.
For example, during the Younger Dryas abrupt climate (12,900 years ago) change cycle, the planet when from interglacial warm to glacial cold with 70% of the cooling occurring in less than 10 years. The discovery of abrupt climate change was not expected. There is no mechanism explanation for it. Due to mechanisms (what causes abrupt climate change and the interglacial/glacial cycle, during part of the cycles the Arctic warms while the Antarctic cools. This is called the polar see-saw by the specialists. The polar see-saw phenomenon inhibits the abrupt change event from the Antarctic ice sheet record. The evidence of cyclic abrupt climate change (Heinrich events) has discovered by analyzing the Greenland ice sheet ice cores. The ice core analysis specialist did not initially believe the evidence of cyclic abrupt change was correct and hence drilled a second ice core in the Greenland ice sheet to confirm there has cyclic abrupt climate change. (The specialists called the cyclic abrupt climate changes RICKIES rapid climate change events)
In Australia, even though the Bureau of Meteorology fiercely bangs the warming drum, their own ACORN-SAT data they rely on for climate trends shows absolutely no warming- absolutely flat- for 18 years and for 25 years a trend of at most +0.1C (when their best thermometers are accurate to +/- 0.2C). See http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/warming-has-paused-bom-says/
The penultimate paragraph of the Economist article made that blunder: It said that a doubling and a tripling the amounts of CO2 added to the atmosphere will add equal amounts of warming to the global temperature.
There was not one mention of the sun in the article. It’s like the elephant in the room. Solar cycle 22 ended in May 1996. Cycle 23 was noticeably weaker than cycle 22 and 24 is much weaker than 23. The average EUV emissions of Cycle 24 are 61% of those in cycle 23. These emissions provide the energy to create ozone. This process has a byproduct of heat. So as a result the ozone layer has thinned and the stratosphere is colder. Hence the effect on the jet streams, which because of the sometimes more north/south or south/north movements slows the west/east progression of the weather systems. This results in more extreme weather.
What bothers me is that instead of concentrating on the immediate risks posed by the change in the sun mankind is intent on finding a solution to a problem he thinks will arise more towards the end of the century.
Consider if you were driving in 45 C deg heat in outback Australia and a 130 ton road train was coming towards you at 100km an hour on the wrong side of the road. What would you do? Drive off the road to avoid a collision or turn up the air conditioning?
Brent Walker says:
March 29, 2013 at 9:29 pm
There was not one mention of the sun in the article
And for a good reason: the sun has little, if anything, to do with it. Solar activity now and the past several cycles is what it was a century ago and the climate is not.
Thanks Gail for the link.
So Hansen had a new computer model in 1971 that showed fossil fuel “dust’ was cooling the planet to a new ice age. In 1988, fossil fuels were adding CO2 which was going to fry the planet. Now, once again, in 2013, fossil fuel “dust” (i.e. coal) is going to cool the planet again….
Can anyone anywhere in some position of power call BS on this guy and make it mean something?!
@ur momisugly vukcevic
“Today this may not be exact science, or according to some not science at all, but you never know about tomorrow. 🙂 , :)”
Beautiful, and elegant, vukcevic. Tomorrow is coming sooner than many expect, is my belief.
I think I’m starting to ‘get it’…been immersed daily, since our last comment exchange, in watching SOHO, Stereo, SDO, GOES, GONG, the HAARP Data Meters and the ENLIL spiral, and reading voraciously everything I can get my hands on…
Just BTW, I’m following a guy online who is, in turn, following the frequency and intensity relationships between helio- and geo-centric planetary alignments, earth-facing coronal holes, – and earthquakes (surely not as a sole factor, of course). Me not good at stats but apparently his method is running ~ +80% predictive power…something like that – setting 6.0 Richter as the pass gate – he calls ‘watches’ when the factors align, and reports daily. About 78,000 subscribers, and it’s his hobby, given freely.
He’s just put it out Open Source, and asking for contributors and collaboration – perhaps it’d be of interest for you to contact him, as it appears you’re examining the same gem, different facets.
Anecdotally, I freaked myself out the other day…was watching one of those 10 min. loops on EVE couple of days ago when SS-1710 was just cresting the limb (wasn’t numbered yet). While I was watching it made a wee little “wink”, followed by the usual ‘snow’, and…I swear I saw the instrument shake as it peaked going by. Made my hackles stand up. Maybe I imagined it…but….
A lot of things fell into place for me at that instant.
Including, with greatest respect for the ‘religion’ of many here, I’m sure, the necessity to start meditating on just what a hollow sun {or rather, anything but a ‘nuclear furnace in the sky’} is gonna MEAN, for so much of what we think, “we know”. I mean, it’s just about getting to that point – ’cause between a choice to ‘believe in’ “Dark Energy” and “Dark Matter” making up most of the known universe, and the redshift fiasco, and supernova computer simulations that won’t blow up, and young stars with plentiful hydrogen going nova – the list goes on – and believing my lying eyes, …I think I’m just going to have to choose the latter.
Having grasped a ‘lay understanding’ of what’s emerging as the 4th phase of water, it’s becoming both apparent and obvious to me on multiple fronts and via diverse disciplines – Our weather here is being driven by that big Arc Light in the sky, and the dance we all do in it’s sphere of influence.
Where he is dancing (Sol), and with whom, is well and WAY beyond my pay grade….
@ur momisugly resourceguy
“Better get the keyboard short cuts programmed now because you have your work cut out for you…….for say the next 15-25 years.”
😀
I find it interesting that CAGW advocates (CAGWa) can constantly talk from both sides of their mouth (at the same time) and are still treated as credible by the media and the population at large (more on this latter).
A prime example is the “Extreme Weather” meme. I could probably find at least five news stories every day where Climate Change or Global Warming is credited with creating “Extreme Weather”, while elsewhere, perhaps from the same news source, we now can find admissions of stalled global warming. It amazes me that so many can’t synthesize these two issues.
Another example revolves around the “Climate versus Weather” discussions. It is clear to those who are thinking critically that weather is trotted out by CAGW advocates when it suits them. A critical thinker who turns to address an aspect of this is circled by the advocates and is speared with either “You idiot, weather isn’t climate!” or “You idiot, climate is the sum of weather!”
Some insight, and some confirmation of my sense of the discourse came from reading the Tyndall Centre’s 2004 study “The Social Stimulation of the Public Perceptions of Weather Events and their Effect upon the Development of Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change”. This study models the public’s perception of reality and the best use of the phrase “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” base on an individual’s personal experience with weather.
This study is then cited in “Design Empowerment: The Limits of Accessible Visualization Media in Neighborhood Densification”, which “…may help overcome the tension between the urban densification requirements of climate change planning and the political infeasibility of rapid change.”
This demonstrated LIAR and climate clown is trying to deceive. It has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age ~1850. The revered ‘consensus’ says man began having a discernible effect on climate post 1950. Pachauri’s statement is an attempt at deflection away from the FAILED IPCC projections. They are failing now so we don’t need to wait 30 to 40 years to prove him and his outfit wrong. They are wrong now.
Leif Svalgaard says in response to Tallbloke:
“And for a good reason, as the Sun has very little to do with this. Of course, every ’cause’ has its own holy grail, so dream on…”
Leif – I am interested to know why you ridicule anybody who suggests that the Sun may have some part in driving our climate (or changes that have been observed). I find it amazing that you (or anybody for that matter) could assume that you know all there is to know about the Sun and it’s effect on this planet. As with many scientific topics there is probably more we don’t know than what we do and will continue to be an endless path of discovery.
If you are implying that all there is to know about the Sun and it’s effect on our climate has been discovered then surely the honorable thing to do would be to resign from your current university post and take up another endeavor of research where there is more to learn for the benefit of mankind.
I agree with AW I suspect that ALL the rise is/was due to bad sitting/setting and artificial “adjustments”. In other words there has been no significant change in real data since 1880 (flat line). I think CET really shows this
Brent Walker says:
March 29, 2013 at 9:29 pm
Broadly correct but with a problem in that the stratosphere cooled when the sun was active and may now be warming with the less active sun.
Bear in mind too that one needs a warmer stratosphere above the poles to push tropopause height down and force the polar air masses to expand and surge across the mid latitudes.
The solution is provided by recent data which showed that, unexpectedly, ozone amounts increased above 45km when the sun was becoming quieter between 2004 and 2007. An update is awaited.
It seems that conventional climatology has the sign of the solar effect on ozone amounts wrong for the upper levels and it must logically be the case that the reverse sign effect above 45km dominates overall so as to produce the events that we observe.
RS says:
March 29, 2013 at 11:12 am
In real science, when the model doesn’t predict reality, you know the model is WRONG.
But that doesn’t seem to work in climate science.
Must be like Keynesian economics, it’s just too politically useful to be wrong.
Unlike those economic theories that gave us the Great Depression or those that have given us the worst slump since the 1930s?
Your general point, that climate models are no more reliable than economic models in general (including those based on whatever version of economics you approve of) is correct, however.
Gail Combs says: March 29, 2013 at 5:37 pm
………….
Hi Ms Combs
I wasn’t sure where I came across the term, looks like it was from the
accuweather.com which I occasionally take a look at.
Polar, Siberian or Daily, whichever ‘express’ it is, it has brought lot of misery to the UK this spring
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/387878/Britain-s-colder-than-the-Arctic-10c-freeze-over-Easter
kenskingdom
A Reality Check on Global Warming
« How Angry Was Summer?
Warming Has Paused, BOM Says!
Ken Stewart, 19 March 2012
Sorry, that title is a little misleading, isn’t it. The Bureau of Meteorology didn’t actually say this, but the BOM’s own data does. Loudly and clearly.Acorn 1995-2012
The Bureau’s brand-new, best quality dataset, ACORN-SAT (Australian Climate Observation Reference Network- Surface Air Temperatures) clearly shows the linear trend has been flat for 18 years.
So what of the Climate Commission’s report on “The Angry Summer” , and the Bureau’s apparent fixation with maximum temperatures in the past summer?
In the past, the BOM has been at pains to make clear that trends in climate can only be analysed over long periods of time. See for example, http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/glossary/climate.shtml Three cold months have barely rated a mention in the past for this very good reason. So why all the fuss over three hot months? And if it is now OK for them to use a three month period in this way, surely it is OK for sceptics to point to a “pause” in warming over the past several years. A period of 18 years is 72 times longer than the “Angry Summer”!
In my last post I demonstrated how well Acorn annual mean anomalies from the 1981-2010 mean, match with UAH (the dataseries of atmospheric temperatures since late 1978 compiled by the University of Alabama- Huntsville):Acorn UAH 79-12 new
I was astounded that some commenters at the various sites where this was published had doubts about the accuracy of the UAH data. You can’t help some people. That’s why I decided to play the warmists’ at their own game, by using only the Bureau’s own data, which shows, among other things, that there has been zero trend in the data since 1995.
Finally, as the Climate Commission is not likely to mention these, here are some other not so widely known facts straight from Acorn:
2012 had the coldest winter minima since 1983 Acorn winter min
2012, at +0.11C, was the 36th warmest year- equal with 1995, just ahead of 1957.
The past three years- 2010, 2011, and 2012- were the coolest of the decade.
2012 was cooler than 9 of the previous 10 years- beaten by 2011. 2011 was exactly at the median anomaly for the past 103 years, at -0.13C, according to Acorn’s homogenised record.
Meanwhile the Climate Commission would have us believe that because a three month period has been a record, this is somehow proof of man-made global warming.
Why? Because that’s all they’ve got left.
About these ads
.
This entry was posted on March 19, 2013 at 8:42 am and is filed under climate, CO2, temperature, uah, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
4 Responses to “Warming Has Paused, BOM Says!”
anthony Says:
March 19, 2013 at 12:19 pm | Reply
Great work Ken.
Ian Says:
March 20, 2013 at 8:52 am | Reply
Just a rant
Comment from the BOM’s Special Climate Statement 43 on this summer.
‘However, the most extreme aspects of the 1972–73
event were confined to inland areas, whereas in late 2012 and early 2013, 40 °C was reached at least once in every capital city except Brisbane and Darwin.’
Makes you think – wow! A profound statement to make us believe that this summer was extremely hot. Until you check the data.
In the summer of 1972/73, all capitals except Darwin, Brisbane and Sydney reached 40C. Sydney reached 39.9C at Sydney Obs but Sydney Airport reached 40C twice in Dec 72.
So it’s true but only by 0.1C in Sydney.
However, the Statement at least cites the real reason why both 1972/3 and 2012/13 were hot.
‘Like recent events, the 1972–73 heatwave coincided with the late onset of the northern Australian monsoon, preventing moisture and cloud of tropical origin from moderating temperatures inland.’
I wonder what caused the hot summers of 1938/39 and 1894/95?
Ken
I can find the ACORN records for individual stations but not any trend graphs. Can you help me with the links for those?
Ken Stewart Says:
March 20, 2013 at 10:18 am | Reply
Ian, I agree with you absolutely. It’s amazing what you find when you check the facts.
There are no time series graphs for individual stations, you need to download the data from Acorn (AND from Climate Data Online for raw data) and make your own graphs, comparing raw data with Acorn. If you subtract Acorn from Raw you may find some surprises too.
Ian Says:
March 20, 2013 at 12:32 pm | Reply
Thanks, Ken.
Recently I ran the raw data for Bourke, Jan 1939 and compared it with ACORN. Every temp over 30C was adjusted downwards and temps under 30C adjusted higher.
This adjustment reduced Bourke’s 17 day +40C heatwave to 11 days.
By the way, still can’t find out why 2009 has gone from the second hottest year to the third hottest year (behind 2005 and 1998) in just 12 months.
Leave a Reply Sorry mods for posting the whole lot in of Ken Stewart’s comment@march 29th at 8;13 pm
It would be a good one to put into the ready refrerence on climate facts that may be used in debate.
Gail,thanks for the article on Hansen, which goes to some length to prove my thoughts about him. He is a self-publicist who will jump on any passing bandwagon, and woe betide science getting in the way.
Actually Mr Hansen you should be considering the definite probability of a Klingon cloaking device!
Roy says:
March 30, 2013 at 1:11 am
“Unlike those economic theories that gave us the Great Depression or those that have given us the worst slump since the 1930s?”
The Great Depression was a bubble bursting; inflated by a spending binge initiated by Hoover.
The Big Financial crisis was caused by the bursting of the housing bubble; that bubble got inflated by Greenspan’s low interest rate policy before.
So we can track both bubbles back to decisions of central planners. Was there an economic theory behind it? I would call that theory “interventionism”… or “central planning”… is it any different from Keynesianism? Dunno… I don’t see a difference… Central planners will use any pretense to interfere with the market.
Natural climate change deniers?
Stephen Wilde says:
March 30, 2013 at 12:19 am
“It seems that conventional climatology has the sign of the solar effect on ozone amounts wrong for the upper levels and it must logically be the case that the reverse sign effect above 45km dominates overall so as to produce the events that we observe.”
Please do you have a source or link for that?
Thank you.
Tim from Australia says:
March 29, 2013 at 11:43 pm
I am interested to know why you ridicule anybody who suggests that the Sun may have some part in driving our climate (or changes that have been observed). I find it amazing that you (or anybody for that matter) could assume that you know all there is to know about the Sun and it’s effect on this planet.
This argument applies equally well to those who assert that ‘it is the Sun, stupid’. They assume that we know enough about the Sun and its effect on this planet’ to be able to state that the Sun is the main driver of climate. The main driver turns out to be Jupiter, not the Sun. The Sun simply does not vary enough: http://www.leif.org/research/On-Becoming-a-Scientist.pdf
And while Europe and North America has deep winter, coldest since 18h00’s..hellooo does this ring a bell?…. now and will continue into April….it has to be global warming? The same idiots believing they landed on the moon are the same believing in AGW. If no one can see the similarities between the sunspot trend and weather, they are blind or do not want to see. The bigger Picture plan here…..nature will reduce human population drastically with the food shortages coming and that’s exactly what they want. The sun is the only driver here for us and life. Take the sun away and everything won’t exist and this is no rocket sience to believe!!
REPLY: “The same idiots believing they landed on the moon are the same believing in AGW.”
Go talk to Lewandowsky, your rants have no place here. – Anthony
slow to follow:
Here you go:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7316/full/nature09426.html
“Here we show that these spectral changes appear to have led to a significant decline from 2004 to 2007 in stratospheric ozone below an altitude of 45 km, with an increase above this altitude. “
Stephen Wilde says:
March 30, 2013 at 7:09 am
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7316/full/nature09426.html also states:
“We also show, using the SIM data, that solar radiative forcing of surface climate is out of phase with solar activity. Currently there is insufficient observational evidence to validate the spectral variations observed by SIM, or to fully characterize other solar cycles, but our findings raise the possibility that the effects of solar variability on temperature throughout the atmosphere may be contrary to current expectations.