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
The author is apparently Danish (http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/staff/stauning/homepage.html) so we should cut him some slack on La Ninja. As to the rest ….
Slowly climate scientists are being forced to confront a very inconvenient truth: that solar variability is a very powerful climate driver.
But their response is bizarre: they show that a fall in solar activity does cause cooling. But, according to them, a rise in solar activity will not have any corresponding warming effect. Bearing in mind that the sun was extremely active in the last century, the obvious conclusion would be that the sun caused most of the warming – and that therefore the effect of increased CO2 must have been small. That really woud be inconvenient.
If a fall in activity causes x amount of cooling, then an equal rise in activity must cause x amount of warming. Otherwise, after millions of years the earth would end up boiling hot or freezing cold.
Chris
http://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ninjo
Latvian?
So the Japanese are now responsible for the warming and cooling? 😉
ON a serious note, if indeed the sun’s low activities are influencing the temperature, then why do none of the models reflect that apparently big factor?
Of course AGW “will return”. These fraudsters make their living off AGW, so if they predicted anything else, it would end their income.
So the sun is not important, apart from when it is convenient. Do the IPCC models take account of the low in Solar activity? If not, then why not and when will they?!
Have to love the Anthropogenic zealots.
They hold to the that man’s influences are superior to nature, admit that nature is superior to man, then ignore what they just admitted.
It is amazing these guys can tie their own shoes.
@ur momisugly Newkirk writes;
“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. ”
Perfectly right. I don’t see any references to Asian martial arts in the abstract, so let us cut out this childish nonsense about ninja turtles. There are much more important problems in the paper to discuss.
“Dr Svalgaard gives the author, Peter Stauning, high marks for his work in general, but disagrees with him on this paper.”
Cough. Lol.
Yes, I expect he will.
Alec Rawls (January 14, 2014 at 12:56 am) “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…”
Nice resource.
lsvalgaard says:
January 13, 2014 at 8:24 pm
Except that there is no evidence [claims, speculation, and circular reasoning notwithstanding] for any different pattern, such as an increasing ‘background’.
**********
Well not, Leif. Everybody is talking about a change in the “background” radiation and other things that make solar activity patterns “differ” from the sunspot number record alone which coincides with you flat solar model. For example, Hoyt, Lean, Frohlich, Shapiro, Willson, many others and, of course, me. It is only you who denies it.
The paper by Stauning has demonstrated, once properly interpreted, that your flat solar model does not work as a proper solar/astronomical model for interpreting the climate patterns because when adopted some temperature patterns cannot be properly interpreted any more, as I explained above.
A proper solar model must look as my model with peaks around 1940s and 2000s, minima in 1910s and 1970s and an approaching minimum in 2030s (the ~60 year Jupiter-Saturn oscillation) to properly interpret climate changes with their 60-year oscillation.
Read well my papers, Leif.
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
and see well the performance of my model here
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model_1
Same issue with the deep oceans as per Dana Nuttercelli. He says the missing heat went deep and is responsible for the surface temperature standstill. What about the other way round too? I want to have my cake and eat it. So there.
Nicola Scafetta says:
January 14, 2014 at 6:46 am
Well not, Leif. Everybody is talking about a change in the “background” radiation and other things that make solar activity patterns “differ” from the sunspot number record alone which coincides with you flat solar model. For example, Hoyt, Lean, Frohlich, Shapiro, Willson, many others and, of course, me. It is only you who denies it.
You are a bit economical with the facts here. E.g. Lean says that such a background has ‘not been observed’, Froehlich says that there has been no background change since ~1900, Schrijver that solar radiation at the 2008 minimum was the same as that during the Maunder Minimum, Schatten acknowledges that their reconstruction was wrong, etc, etc. My own work shows that there has been no long-term trend in solar magnetism since the 1830s.
“…solar activity is now at the lowest level seen in the past 100 years and could not go much lower.”
Yes, it could go lower. Another Maunder minimum with no sunspots at all for extended periods of time is not beyond the realm of possibility.
Implication: the change in solar forcing as a consequence of the decline in sunspot activity is equal to the radiative forcing due to CO2.
Don’t know why they didn’t do the calculation ….or even just cross-plot the delta change and the solar activity numbers, then deconvolve (?) the resultant curve.
Any attempt to explain the recent pause in the rise of global temperature anomalies , that does not consider the impact of changes in ocean SST cycles and deep ocean currents , will prove to be questionable .
Northern Hemisphere SST show a decline since 2004 during every season of the year and annually as well.
.
The North Atlantic Ocean SST and AMO are declining slowly, the Pacific Ocean SST is flat and the North Pacific Ocean SST is flat but declining since 2005. The PDO index is also declining but PDO is a pattern change indicator and this tells us that there is now more colder water at the eastern side of the Pacific than in the western or central part of the Pacific than we had 10 years ago. There are also fewer strong El Ninos. These factors can all combine to keep the global temperatures flat and now slightly declining as they did 1880 to 1910 and again 1945-1975. The slow decline in global temperatures is likely to continue as ocean cycles pole to pole tend to be long [65-70 years]
Slow down in solar activity take some years to ‘percolate’ from the interior to visible and counted sunspots or other measured metrics. Slow down in geological activity across the globe started long before observed slow down in the observed solar activity:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/APS.htm
precursor, cause, consequence, coincidence ???
For anyone interested, the Japanese ideogram (kanji) for Ninja is “忍者”.
The character on the left “忍” means stealth/perseverance and is comprised of two radicals, the top one “刀” is for sword (an image of the tip of a sword with a drop of blood on it) and the bottom radical “心” means heart or spirit (the image of two ventricles/atriums).
The combined image created is that of the heart and spirit of an assassin must exhibit stealth and perseverance in order to kill his target.
The right kanji ” 者” means person and is the image of a person “土” in a field holding a scythe “ノ” working hard under the sun “日”.
The ninja were very highly trained and skilled assassins in the 15th~17th centuries hired by samurai to spy on or assinate their enemies. Under the very strict code of honor (bushido) of the samurai class, it wasn’t proper for a samurai to personally assassinate an enemy, but it was perfectly acceptable for him to hire ninja to do their dirty work.
The ninja also lived under a very strict code of honor and we’re oblige to commit suicide rather than risk capture/torture and disclose the name of the samurai that hired him.
Anyway, it seems very disingenuous for CAGW advocates to blame the 17 years of no warming trend on decreased sunspot activity and then conveniently ignore the fact that sunspot activity from 1933 to 1996 were the strongest 63-year string of sunspots in 11,400 years…
They can’t have their cake, without heating it, too….
This is very amusing. The last 70 years or so are what’s called the Modern Maximum, the highest level of solar activity in 1000 + years. This extraordinary activity has nothing to do with recent warming, but yet the current solar cycle, which is low like those before the Modern Maximum, explains the pause? HA!
Of course, who knows what the “recent warming” is, either. The data has been tortured into a meaningless heap by all the adjustments and homogenizations, etc.
Wasn’t the “Kill Bill” franchise based on “La Ninja”???
La Ninja – Dressed in black because of all the Carbon: an organic, non-GMO assassin of peer-reviewed Journal Summari!
Seems like we’ve been mostly Ninja-neutral lately!
It looks like you can already see the strategy for obfuscation in the face of IPCC admission of no further warming and the next phase of outright cooling. That strategy is “all the above” factors including the sun to employ as needed, along with blocking patterns, volcanoes, El Ninos, and the blue plate special of the day if need be. This is the strategy that comes with the move away from fixed position exposure of models and forecasts. Call it the Tactical Mobility Strategy. It’s still an extension of bunker mentality though.
We can make excuses for an author all day long: the editor mailed it in; the author made a few typos but is generally a ‘good scientist; etc.
Anyone who writes this poorly, even when relying on an absent editor, is a weetard.
steveta_uk says:January 14, 2014 at 3:15 am
http://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ninjo
Latvian?
_____________________________
Yes, Latvian. In Latvia they are called El Ninjo and La Ninja.
http://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ninjo
The Lithuanians call it El Ninjo too.
http://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ninjo
And I might add that many of these northern languages pronounce the ‘J’ as a ‘Y’ – just as it is in Aramaic and Hebrew (Jacob is Yakob etc:). So this actually reads as El Ninyo and La Ninya.
.