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.



Dear Carla,
Hi! Re: “left us with only straws” — Well….. there are the oceans, and…. and volcanoes and…. clouds. Pretty big straws!
Hope you are enjoying your life out in the country (you mentioned your happy new move last spring).
Take care,
Janice
El Ninjo/La Ninja is just an English spelling for El Niño/La Niña. Sort of like, for a German word, writing Tuebingen for Tübingen. It’s not a typo
Perhaps El Ninjo/La Ninja are the phonetic spelling for El Niño/La Niña…….. in Castillian spanish?
If it were English, would it not be written NinYO and NinYA? Would not the Spanish pronunciation be NinHO and NinHA?
First post on this site, probably my last, as much of the theoretical physics are well beyond my abilities to offer a cogent opinion. Nevertheless a great site for continued education (the humor ain’t bad neither).
I see a paper use Hadcrud4 pre-1979….
….. I don’t bother to read any further.
Hey, An-th-ony, I’m so sorry. I thought everyone would get the joke. If I may, I’d just like to say here that it was a video of The Andrews Sisters singing “Drinkin’ Rum and Coca Cola.” I’m really embarrassed about being SNIPPED and I hope this comment is allowed just so people know my post wasn’t lewd or some other awful thing people might imagine about it. I made a pun using the “K-o-ch” bros. as being part of a “Now, a word from our sponsors…”. Please forgive me An-tho-ny. I didn’t realize how offensive my attempt at humor would be to you.
Janice Moore says:
January 13, 2014 at 9:01 pm
I didn’t realize how offensive my attempt at humor would be to you.
It is best to stick to the science, if possible…
Thanks for the hint, Dr. Svalgaard. I guess I’ve just been mistaken (for over 9 months!) about the acceptability of my interjections of humor and fun stuff. I thought (mistakenly) they provided the occasional “comedy relief.” I was wrong. I’ll try to not do that anymore.
I apologize to all you scientists. I’ll try not to do anymore “just for fun” posts on a science thread. Thank you for so kindly, silently, enduring them all these past months.
James the Elder says:
January 13, 2014 at 8:52 pm
Would not the Spanish pronunciation be NinHO and NinHA?
That may explain things. A woman once told people she was in San Jose, and pronounced the J as in Jack. However she was told that in these parts, the js are pronounced like hs. She immediately said she was there in hune and huly.
Sippen Kool-Ade says: El Ninjo/La Ninja is just an English spelling for El Niño/La Niña. Sort of like, for a German word, writing Tuebingen for Tübingen. It’s not a typo. Get with it!!”
Entering “La nina” + climate in my search engine gives 1,899,424 results. “La ninja” + climate yields only 14,858 hits, less than 1%, far too little to regard the latter as an acceptable “variant” spelling. I didn’t bother checking Tuebjingen / Tubjingen, for some reason. Hahaha!
Sunspots are magnetic storms on the sun. There are 7 recognized types of sunspots and the magnetic strength of each sub-type varies from spot to spot and not necessarily in sync with the size of the spot. Therefore counting sunspots (and groups) is a crude way of measuring the changes in magnetic strength of the sun.
I have used the Wilcox Observatory data (Stanford Uni) to compare the absolute magnetic strength of the sun with SIDC sunspot numbers. While there is broad comparison the peaks don’t necessarily coincide nor do the troughs. For example for all of the period from 2002 to about 2010 the absolute magnetic field strength was greater than the sunspot numbers would have suggested it should have been. From 2013 the opposite seems to be occurring although it is too early to tell if a new trend has commenced. Certainly the last few month’s high sunspot count haven’t been associated with high absolute average magnetic strength values. Geoff Sharp kindly posted this graph on his website http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/311#comment-1076
So, we got:
1. Not happening, because: Chinese aerosols.
2. Still happening, but: Hidden in the deep blue sea.
3. Not happening, because: Low level volcanism.
3. Still happening, but: Hidden behind La Nina.
4. Not happening because: Solar, but, but , but …
What does unsettled science look like?
Yes I am sorry Sippen, jorgekafkazar above is quite correct it’s not even close as just a translation and I am guessing lack of any other close translations is the only reason google picks it up. Google images search on La Ninja is funny you get one or two of images of climate change but the rest of them are very funny.
So Sippen do you have any actual evidence for us that anyone in climate science or really anywhere uses these spellings because it appears not to be as you claim?
Interesting but I have found no lag time of 3 years with Temperatures above 80 N. Solar activity has influenced the temperatures above 80N days after activity occurs.
Not sure if this has happened in the past or it is a new thing but the sun’s activity controlled Arctic temperatures in All of 2013 and the cooler then average summer. Sun was very quiet all summer till the fall of 2013
Look at chart I put together using these 2 links.
http://www.solen.info/solar/
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Hope all is ok with this post Anthony and it is not cut, Tha
nks
https://twitter.com/NJSnowFan/status/422980424432775168/photo/1
Janice Moore says:
January 13, 2014 at 9:14 pm
I apologize to all you scientists. I’ll try not to do anymore “just for fun” posts on a science thread. Thank you for so kindly, silently, enduring them all these past months.
Hey Sweet Pea!
All have sinned and come short of the glory…. Don’t beat yourself up too much…. just about everyone commenting on WUWT strays out of bounds eventually. It’s just part of being human. And some of the stuffier contributors might well benefit from a greater sense of humor! Heck – If I couldn’t laugh and poke fun at some of this AGW fanaticism, I’d be cryin’ all the time for the immense damage being done to the country I love. Fortunately, A is fairly tolerant of our occasional ‘misfires’. };>)
Mac
That “El Ninjo/La Ninja” is going to come back to haunt him/them (author/reviewer/journal) big time. It shows the world just how “expert” they are. I mean, c’mon, shouldn’t they at least be familiar with the terminology?
Don’t these bods even bother with their homework anymore? Or do they just write drunk? I suppose they don’t care, they got their money. Sheesh. Does anybody take these fools seriously?
I hope somebody has saved this error because it’s going to disappear, you can be sure.
Oh, Mackie, did I need to hear that. Thank you, so much. Being sent out in the hall is just really painful for me even if I had it coming. I’m sure glad I came back here and got to see your kind words. A cup of cold water for a 10-year-old girl in a very good disguise.
Gratefully,
Janice
Here is all of 2012 with all of DMI data, I did not connect the lines yet but 2012 showed same as 2013
https://twitter.com/NJSnowFan/status/422990560022896640/photo/1
It’s obviously Ninja turtles all the way down.
Right. The sun can cool the planet, but never warm it, obviously. Sounds reasonable. Not.
“…the climate appears to be out of control…”
This phrase actually appears in a peer reviewed scientific article? Seriously? That’s on a par with La Ninja.
I also like: “This development took away some of the incitement to cut down on human-induced growth in greenhouse gasses.”
Took away some of the INDUCEMENT to cut down on human PRODUCED growth…
And their climatological thinking is just as incompetent. If the pause is solar-induced it shows that solar is a stronger driver of climate than CO2, so WHY should we expect warming to come roaring back? Oh, because the authors expect the 20th century’s grand maximum levels of solar activity to come roaring back. Brilliant!
Wait a minute, it’s actually worse. On closer reading, they aren’t assuming that high levels of solar activity will return. They are assuming that continued low solar activity will not have a continued cooling effect. In other words, the concluding paragraph of this paper is actually another example of climate scientists thinking that it is the rate of change in a forcing that drives temperature change, not the level of the forcing. I have compiled 18 such statements and I guess I’m going to have to add this one to the list:
No it won’t.
“The purpose of the present communication is not to predict”
Because prediction is not needed in the ‘science’.
“The decaying solar activity makes the recently recorded global temperatures flatten out and thus disguises the real climate development”
What is real is not real. Or something like that. Are they for real?
“With a steady level of cycle-avera- ge solar activity the global temperatures would have shown a steady rise from 1980 to present (2013)”
We have access to alternative realities in the lab and we can check them…
Amazing.
It’s just the quality of all these (recent) papers that really gets me. There have been too much rubbish being published by people that ought to know better. I remember my research days. It took weeks to get a paper peer reviewed and that was walking round to every reviewer and then chasing them every week.
There were never any spelling mistakes (we didn’t have spell checkers). Ninja is just criminally stupid and shows a complete lack of review process.
Sun + CO2 doesn’t tell the whole story, don’t forget the moon and its strong influence through the north atlantic multidecadal tide variations that are measured with the AMO. The two together + the random nature of weather variations is probably more than enough to explain the tiny variations in temperature over the last couple of centuries – there’s not much in the data that excludes an extremely low (0.5 or lower) CO2 sensitivity.
Ok, Ok I want to know why Bob Tisdale hasn’t found this La Niñja effect. Bob, come on in, you have some explaining to do. /sarc
It’s not the first time I’ve seen “El Ninjo” and “La Ninja” spelled that way in Danish and Norwegian texts, so it’s not necessarily quite as “criminally stupid” as some commenters think.