This is on a tip from Dr. Leif Svalgaard, WUWT’s resident solar expert. It was just published in the journal Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, and is open access. I found this study’s conclusion a bit amusing, because there are numerous claims that solar activity (and the slight increase in TSI seen in the last 30 years) can’t explain the global warming we’ve seen, but yet somehow the recent period of low solar activity can explain the pause, and when solar activity resumes, global warming will return anew. Dr Svalgaard gives the author, Peter Stauning, high marks for his work in general, but disagrees with him on this paper.

I’m also more than a little bit puzzled how the journal editor and the peer reviewers let this sentence pass, everybody makes typos, but this one takes the cake. I kid you not:
But secondly, there must be a fair global coverage such that localized climate variations like the North-Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), or the El Ninjo/La Ninja in the Pacific would not affect the result too much.
Yes, I really want to see what the La Ninja effect looks like.
Here’s the paper abstract and excerpts:
Reduced Solar Activity Disguises Global Temperature Rise
DOI: 10.4236/acs.2014.41008 Author: Peter Stauning
ABSTRACT
The question whether human activities seriously affect climate is asked with increasing voice these days. Quite understandable since the climate appears to be out of control with the significant global temperature increases already seen during the last three decades and with still heavier temperature increases to come in the future according to prognoses, among others, in the recent comprehensive IPCC reports [1].
However, the most recent climate data [2], show global temperature development levelling off or even turning negative since 2001 in contrast to the anticipated course related to the steady increases in the concentration in the atmosphere of green-house gasses, primarily carbon dioxide and methane [1]. The purpose of this communication is to demonstrate that the reduced rate in the global temperature rise complies with expectations related to the decaying level of solar activity according to the relation published in an earlier analysis [3]. Without the reduction in the solar activity-related contributions the global temperatures would have increased steadily from 1980 to present.
- Introduction
The alarming rise in global temperatures from about 1980 to 2000 gave much concern around possible serious future climate changes, global warming, that could result from the increasing levels of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere. However, as shown in [2] the strong rise in global temperatures faded after year 2000 and was replaced by a rather steady level or even small decreases in the global temperatures from around 2001 to present (2013). This development took away some of the incitement to cut down on human-induced growth in greenhouse gasses.
The question is now whether the present fading of the temperature rise is related to the concurrent decrease in solar activity scaled, for instance, by the sunspot numbers. Scientists have linked past climate changes to solar activity. The so-called “Little Ice Age” in the 17’th century was linked to the Maunder minimum in solar activity by [4]. Many later works have linked climate changes to changes in solar activity (see reviews [5,6]).
In the earlier analysis [3] from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) a quantitative assessment was made of the relation between solar activity represented by the cycle-average sunspot numbers and the terrestrial climate represented by the global temperatures averaged over the same interval length but delayed by 3 years. In the present communication the anticipated effects of the developments in solar activity on the recent global temperature changes are analyzed.
2. Sunspots and Global Temperatures
The former analysis [3] and the present work assume that solar activity can be represented through the classical international sunspot number SSN = k·(s + 10·g), where s is the number of sunspots, g the number of sunspot groups while k is a calibration parameter to ensure that different observatories derive the same sunspot number regardless of observational qualities. A discussion of this index and of modified versions of the sunspot number is provided by [7]. The sunspot number is used here rather than satellite-based observations of solar radiation be- cause of the extended length of the time interval of available data.
…
Presently (2013) we are about 4 years into cycle 24. Figure 1 also displays the extensions through 1.5 years derived at SIDC with different models (kfsm “clas- sical standard” and kfcm “combined” models). The fig- ure, furthermore, displays the predictions prepared by the Australian IPS Radio and Space Services [10] and the NASA solar cycle 24 predictions [11] as of October 2013.
The mean of the two SIDC extrapolations [8] 1.5 years ahead as well as the NASA prediction places the maxi- mum of cycle 24 in mid-2013. The currently observed and predicted sunspot numbers makes this sunspot cycle the weakest since cycle 14 which had a maximum in the smoothed data of 64.2 in February of 1906. When final sunspot data become available they may turn out still lower to make cycle 24 even weaker than cycle 14.
Sunspot numbers have been reconstructed back to around 1850 with quite good accuracy based on as- tronomers’ careful and detailed recordings of the ap- pearance of the solar surface. The yearly sunspot num- bers since 1850 available from SIDC [8] are shown by the thin blue line in the bottom panel of Figure 2. The extension shown by the dashed line from present through the remaining solar cycle 24 to 2020 is based on the mean of the IPS [10] and the NASA [11] predictions.
The bottom panel of Figure 2 also displays the averages of sunspot number from minimum to minimum (usual solar cycle) marked by squares and from maxi- mum in a cycle to maximum in the next cycle marked by filled circles.
…
The top panel of Figure 2 displays global temperature variations since 1850 through the deviations from aver- age level 1961-1990.
…
Presently, the series are extended up to October 2013 and comprise the combined land-surface/sea-surface global temperature series, HadCRUT-4gl [2], shown in the up- per panel of Figure 2, which is used here for the analyses. For the discussions here it should be noted that following
the steep rise between 1980 and 2000, the global average temperatures flatten out after year 2000. The extension of the temperatures beyond present shown by the dashed line represents the average of global temperatures from 2001 to 2013.
3. Relations between Solar Activity and Global Temperature
It should be recalled that solar activity-related changes in global temperatures must arrive after the activity changes. The former DMI analysis [3] examined the correlation between sunspots and global temperatures for the interval from 1850 to 1980 and derived a value of 3 years for the delay that provided optimum correlation. In Figure 2 the cycle-average global temperatures are presented by the squares and filled circles, respectively, for the min-to- min and max-to-max intervals shifted 3 years.
The averaging presented in Figure 2 over min-to-min or max-to-max solar cycle intervals delayed by 3 years include years beyond present for the last two points. In the summations a reference value equal to the mean value of global temperatures from 2001 to 2013 has been substituted for values beyond 2013. Error bars extending from the two points represent the results obtained with global temperatures beyond 2013 systematically defined 0.1˚C higher or lower than the reference value.
In Figure 3 the individual cycle values of the sunspot number, SSNA, averaged over either min-to-min or max- to-max intervals of the solar cycle (appr. 11 years) and the change in global temperatures, ΔTA, averaged over the same interval length but delayed by 3 years, are shown by filled squares and circles, respectively. This way of averaging reduces the scatter and makes it easier to se the persistent relation between sunspots and global tempera tures. The relation was found statistically in the former analysis [3] to be: ΔTA = 0.009 (±0.002)·SSNA − 0.70˚C.
…
6. Conclusions
The decaying solar activity makes the recently recorded global temperatures flatten out and thus disguises the real climate development. With a steady level of cycle-average solar activity the global temperatures would have shown a steady rise from 1980 to present (2013) in agreement with the increasing atmospheric concentrations of green-house gasses, primarily carbon dioxide and methane [16], and not the levelling-off actually observed since 2001.
The solar activity is now at the lowest level seen in the past 100 years and could not go much lower. Thus, the observed global temperatures may soon resume the steady rise observed from around 1980 to 2001. If solar activity starts increasing then the global temperatures may rise even steeper than that seen over the past three decades.
=============================================================
Open access to the full paper here: PDF (Size:544KB) PP. 60-63
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.



According to Wikipedia: “NinJo is a meteorological software system. It is a community project of the German Weather Service, the Meteorological Service of Canada, the Danish Meteorological Institute, MeteoSwiss, and the German Bundeswehr.”
See, he does know what he is talking about; el Nijo is about the weather.
La Ninja and El Ninjo are the superheros defending Los Angeles from Sharknados…..
Oh, brother — I was writing that while Dr. Svalgaard was posting his comment (I blush and quietly slip out the back door…).
Bob Tisdale says:
January 13, 2014 at 5:36 pm
Lawrence13: Teenage Mutant La Ninja Turtles?
You ‘kick shell’, Bob!
Janice Moore says:
January 13, 2014 at 7:34 pm
(I blush and quietly slip out the back door…).
But you are perfectly correct: correlation is not causation, but seems to be necessary if causation is claimed.
La Ninja! I cannot wait to see what Josh comes up with for that!
It’s nothing less than a late Christmas gift for the man.
Looking at the bright side (no pun intended), this paper says nature swamps the effect of additional CO2. Now, when the sun “perks up”, maybe more episodes of El Niño will coincide to help “prove” his point. If not, his hypothesis will probably fall to the big ninja of science history.
I heard that, Dr. Svalgaard, just before the door clicked shut. Thank you for that (although, it seems that I only managed to state the obvious…). Much appreciated.
P@t! How did you do that?
Perhaps El Ninjo/La Ninja are the phonetic spelling for El Niño/La Niña…….. in Castillian spanish?
@Janice Moore:
In homeport for the duration. Thinking of south seas and rum punch… Experiencing serious CAGW, I’m told: it was a chilly 6 degrees F here, last Monday, and today it was 60! Omidog! A rise with a factor of 10 in a week!! At that rate, the seas will all boil by the end of the month! We’ll have droughts AND floods and Category 10 (we’ll skip right past 6-9) Hurricanes and tornadoes the size of the “Polar Vortex” (what a cool name!)—in fact the “Polar Vortex WAS a tornado! Honest! And if you don’t believe me, I have a hockey stick to prove it!
Hype?! You ain’t SEEN hype yet! When people thought (hoped) Al Gore was lost in a blizzard after the record cold in Copenhagen…THAT was hype. THIS!! THIS is Legendary! Biblical! Epic!
(I don’t know how John Cook does it. Do you know how much work creative lying is…?)
Regarding the sun’s contributions to the Earth’s temperature…Didn’t I read somewhere that the the mean global temp of Mars increased a degree or two centigrade over the last 30-40 years? If so, was that too a result of AGW?
@ur momisugly Janice Moore:
Uh, whaddidIdo? Which what?
I received an Email a while back and SIDC states that this last century was the most accurate sunspot count at about 95%. Previous years are not so good due to some bickering between a couple of scientists.
One gets back better picture of sunspot activity if one takes their chart and stretches out a bit. That is the best way to judge a cycle. It shows more characteristics of the 11 year average cycle.
Two things we need to think about is in the Last 314 years of sunspot activity since the Mini-Ice age is how much accumulated heat is retained during a minimum beginning with the early 1800 minimum and the stronger minimum that took place in the latter part of the 1800s and early 1900s.
The difference is the earth had a kick start for the 20th century in terms of temperature. Now, we are in a minimum that has only begun to show its secrets.
The second item is the fault of most researchers. They study a slice of history without going back to the last Ice Age and come forward with a better picture of what is going on.
Where there pulses before and why?
Paul Pierett
The paper is interesting but it also contains the demonstration of its limits not noted by the author. Unfortunately Anthony forget to show their figure 4 that is where their argument stands and falls down.
In their figure 4 they “correct” the temperature record by taking off their evaluated solar signature and claim that since 1980 the temperature goes up as expected from the the anthropogenic GHG as assumed by the IPCC. Nothing new, also my models would show that.
The problem, however, is how correct their model is compared to mine, for example.
The problem is that their figure 4 does not show only a steady increase since 1980. It shows also a rapid increase from 1920 to 1940 and a very strong deep cooling from 1940 to 1970. This pattern cannot be explained by anthropogenic forcing.
The problem is always the same. When one proposes a model to try to fix a problem, another problem is made even worst.
The solution of the problem should reconstruct correctly all patterns, not just one by making others even worst.
So, what is wrong in the paper? Very likely what is wrong is their claim that solar activity is represented only by the sunspot number record (their figure 2), which more or less represents Leif’s flat solar model.
Solar forcings with different patterns than the sunspot number record alone must be considered as studied in numerous other papers.
For example see here:
Scafetta, N. 2013. Discussion on climate oscillations: CMIP5 general circulation models versus a semi-empirical harmonic model based on astronomical cycles. Earth-Science Reviews 126, 321-357.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825213001402
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model_1
p@ur momisugly Dolan says:
January 13, 2014 at 6:30 pm
That’s because those involved work vey hard to be politically correct, rather than scientifically accurate.
My dear Pat Dolan,
I was away for a bit writing an e mail — that is ALL. Heh, heh. Glad you are safely in port (and with a whole holdful of sea yarns, of course). Thanks for responding.
Re: “Regarding the sun’s contributions to the Earth’s temperature… .”
The Sun maintains the Earth’s homeostasis with very slight fluctuations. Other forces, e.g., oceans, drive climate changes. An imperfect analogy is this: When a violinist plays Beethoven’s Romance in F Major (aah, lovely — I’m playing it right now), the violinist’s heart, with minor fluctuations, keeps the body alive and, thus, the music flowing. It is the muscles, however, which cause the tone, dynamics, and tempo changes in the music. If the violinist’s heart suddenly stopped beating, the music would stop, but, the changes while the music was playing were not caused by the beating of the heart.
Re: the “kalte sun,” we must be careful not to rest our arguments against AGW (which was dead-on-arrival and now, beyond ALL DOUBT, dead) on a foundation of sand (so far as current knowledge of the Sun goes). There simply is not a wide enough fluctuation in TSI (or whatever sun “activity” measure is used) to created the climate shifts observed historically. There will, inevitably, come a time when the Sun is kalte, yet, temperatures are relatively high or, vice versa, a time when the Sun is “active,” yet the temperatures are relatively low. At this point, we don’t know enough to conclude that the Sun does more than maintain climate homeostasis.
There! That was a big long “my two cents-worth.”
Thanks for “coming back” with some chit chat — fun!
Your WUWT pal,
Janice
Nicola Scafetta says:
January 13, 2014 at 8:10 pm
So, what is wrong in the paper? Very likely what is wrong is their claim that solar activity is represented only by the sunspot number record (their figure 2), which more or less represents Leif’s flat solar model.
Solar forcings with different patterns than the sunspot number record alone must be considered as studied in numerous other papers.>/i>
Except that there is no evidence [claims, speculation, and circular reasoning notwithstanding] for any different pattern, such as an increasing ‘background’.
@ur momisugly Mac the (not my) Knight in Shining Armor — Hi!
Nicola Scafetta says:
January 13, 2014 at 8:10 pm
So, what is wrong in the paper? Very likely what is wrong is their claim that solar activity is represented only by the sunspot number record (their figure 2), which more or less represents Leif’s flat solar model. Solar forcings with different patterns than the sunspot number record alone must be considered as studied in numerous other papers.
Except that there is no evidence [claims, speculation, and circular reasoning notwithstanding] for any different pattern, such as an increasing ‘background’.
=========================================================================
I can see that. To a Spanish speaker seeing La Nina or El Nino without the tilde over the second N probably looks odd. I don’t know if either without the tilde means something in Spanish. But it’s still humorous.
(So, who do you think would win, La Ninja or El Zorro? 😎
[SNIP. yeah, thanks but we don’t need that – Anthony]
Oh, brother — be sure to spell “K-o-ch” like this (or in similar fashion). Sigh. I got the sittin’ in moderation blu-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoooooos.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 13, 2014 at 7:24 pm
..The ‘other’ mechanisms are just straws to grasp at IMHO, but proponents will of course reach for any straw, no matter how weak..
————————
Well you have tried hard to convince us all that its not TSI. Then left us with only straws to play with.
So .. Galactic Cosmic Rays GCR, Protons and Electrons get trapped and accumulate within the Radiation Belts during low solar activity. . They are easily freed by slower stream solar wind events, causing flux dropouts into the earth atmosphere? During high solar activity with higher speed wind stream they are just blown to oblivion? Just playing with the straws..
Working on blc bounce loss cone.
Too many Would Could May IF’s for me. NEXT!
Don Newkirk says:
January 13, 2014 at 5:58 pm
Of course, Ninjo and Ninja are transliterations of the Spanish words as they would be spelt in any if a number of northern or eastern scripts of the Latin alphabet. Google accepts these spellings implicitly. (Try it!) That I am a theoretical linguist might bias my eye, but this is not only no serious error, it is no error at all. Back to the contents….
—-
Yes, but the paper is written in English, which would mean the transliteration would be Nin-Yo not Nin-Jo. Likewise, the River Tems or would never be an acceptable spelling.
Carla says:
January 13, 2014 at 8:39 pm
Well you have tried hard to convince us all that its not TSI. Then left us with only straws to play with.
If you must find a straw because your agenda demands so, you probably can find one that you like.