New study claims low solar activity caused "the pause" in global temperature – but AGW will return!

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.

  1. 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.

STAUNING_fig1

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.

STAUNING_fig2

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.

STAUNING_fig3

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

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
180 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Janice Moore
January 17, 2014 8:38 pm

Dear Dr. Svalgaard,
I was just now reading (just trying to learn) the Introduction to this paper: “Solar Influences on Climate,”
L. J. Gray,1,2 J. Beer, et. al., at: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Gray_etal_1.pdf
and when I came to this:

Cosmogenic isotopes such as 10Be are spallation products of GCRs impacting on
atmospheric oxygen, nitrogen, and argon. The time series of 10Be abundance stored in reservoirs such as ice sheets and ocean sediments and of 14C from tree trunks show the 11 year cycle of the sunspot number. This makes sense physically since high sunspot numbers correspond to a
strong solar magnetic field, which is the source of the field in the heliosphere that (by virtue of both its strength and its structure) shields the Earth from GCRs.

{emphasis mine}
Recalling your comment to Carla just above about the tiny GCR flux, I thought, with narrowing eyes, “‘Shields the Earth from GCR’s? Makes GCR’s sound quite powerful (to a non-scientist like I); I’m going to ask Leif Svalgaard if such a statement indicates that this paper is a bunch of garbage so I don’t waste my time reading the next 50 pages or so.”
So, my question is:
Is a paper that talks about the GC “rays” in that manner likely to be worth my time?
(I’m reading it to find out more about how UV atmospheric chemistry, for Mario Lento’s thoughtful questions along those lines have got me wondering…)
Thank you for taking the time to read this (and to answer, if my question is posed such that a rational response is even possible),
Janice

January 17, 2014 8:49 pm

Janice Moore says:
January 17, 2014 at 8:38 pm
strong solar magnetic field, which is the source of the field in the heliosphere that (by virtue of both its strength and its structure) shields the Earth from GCRs
The paper is a good read. Don’t give up on it. As for the shielding: The incredibly weak solar magnetic field [at the Earth’s distance it is 10,000 times weaker than the Earth’s field, and in the outer heliosphere where most of the shielding takes place the solar field is another 100 times weaker still] will cause some of the low-energy cosmic ray particles to be diverted away from the inner heliosphere [where we are]. For the high-energy cosmic rays [that are supposed to influence our climate] that shielding is very weak [a few percent], so one would not expect any significant causal effect. E.g. at the Thule station in northern Greenland the cosmic ray count rate changes from 4500 counts per hour at solar minimum to typically 4150 counts at solar maximum. Not much a shielding in my book.

Janice Moore
January 17, 2014 8:56 pm

Oh, hurrah, for such a quick reply! Thank you, Dr. Svalgaard, for taking the time to give me such a thorough and thoughtful answer.
Okay (blast!!!) now, I will go read the next 49 pages (and it isn’t easy when you don’t have a background in physics — I–CAN–TELL–YOU). Despite my grumbling, I’m actually glad to learn more.
Thank you!
Janice

Janice Moore
January 24, 2014 9:00 pm

It has been a week since anyone was here….. so, I’m going to quietly use the bulletin board in this darkened classroom to post my little “Happy Birthday to me” message.
Before another week is gone, I will have started on my next 365-day journey around the Sun! And, following OssQss’s wise advice to us all about a week ago, I will do my best to “make it a good one!” Carpe diem!
With gratitude for all the “grace that brought me safe, thus far,” and with joy in the hope of the promise that “grace will see me Home,” I post my favorite version of this hymn (bagpipes, even!), just to play all alone after the class has long gone, because it, of all songs is what I (along with many, many, others) would call, “my song:”
“Amazing Grace” — Il Divo

Soli Deo Gloria
#(:))

January 25, 2014 4:43 am

Happy birthday Janice: Early maybe/

1 6 7 8