Surprisingly, this is one of the few papers that actually makes sense, to a degree (via Watts Up With That?)
Reduced Solar Activity Disguises Global Temperature Rise
DOI: 10.4236/acs.2014.41008 Â Author: Peter StauningABSTRACT
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.
Interestingly, the paper seems to blame the warming on anthropogenic causation, but the pause, and flat and even declining 21st Century temps on natural causes. As Marc Morano notes, this is the 5th Warmist explanation for the pause, which includes
- Chinese coal use
- The Montreal Protocol
- Readjusting past temperatures artificially to claim no pause has occurred
- And my favorite, the heat is doing a Where’s Waldo? in the deep oceans.
Or, it could be El Ninja, as Anthony Watts points out
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.
Me too. Anyhow, here’s the paper conclusion
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.
I see what you did there. Blame nature for the pause, saying it is masking the real warming, caused by Mankind. Why couldn’t the warming be due to mostly natural activity, including the Sun? Because it’s a cult. Even though the Sun explains 95% of the climate change over the past 400 years (really, much longer).
Hahahaha, La Ninja effect… it usually sneaks a big karate chop in the earth’s atmosphere! This is a classic. I am guessing that both the journal editor and the peer reviewers are teenagers armed with a liberal education.
English must be Stauning second language or La Ninja must be a Danish term!
Stauning’s figure 2 plots sunspot activity vs time correlated with HadCrut surface temp. If you believe his assumption that sunspot activity correlates with insolation than the sun has been gradually cooling since the late 1950s, yet we see a steady rise in surface temps from 1970 until 2005 (and the “pause” since).
If it’s the sun, how did the Earth continue to warm in the face of sustained solar “cooling” (Figure 2)?
Figure 4 shows the HadCrut series with sun’s variability “averaged out” showing that from 1980 to 2013 something other than the sun was responsible for ALL the warming! In fact, the cooling sun limited warming (thank goodness)! With the sun’s influence included the Earth warmed 0.6C, but when subtracted out it would have warmed 1C! Since the sun is “cooler” now than in 1950, how is it causing the Earth to warm? Are there other mechanisms involved?
If you believe the results in this paper (and that sunspot number is an important measure of the sun’s output) than clearly a change in the sun’s output is not responsible for the rapid warming we see in the last 50 yrs or so.
Let’s recap the warming cycle. Several inputs determine the surface temperature including 1a) the sun’s radiation output and any 1b) blocking of radiation (clouds, aerosols) 1c) albedo or reflectivity (i.e., ice reflects, land and ocean absorb, 2) the insulating influence of the atmosphere, especially the so-called greenhouse gases and 3) distribution of heat between land, air and oceans. We know strong El Nino’s (e.g., 1997-1998) transfer heat from the oceans to the air and La Nina’s (e.g., 1999-2000) transfer heat from the air to the oceans. Related to this, we know heat is removed from the air to melt ice. Dr. Stauner appears to show that the sun’s radiation output is more than offset by some other force, with the most likely candidate being the Earth’s insulation. Is there a reasonable hypothesis to explain why the Earth would be retaining more heat the past decades – more heat than can be explained by variance in the sun’s output or from ocean-air exchanges?
and the Pirate typed:
“Why couldn’t the warming be due to mostly natural activity, including the Sun? Because it’s a cult.”
If you believe the paper you would see (as I explained above) that the Earth was warming as the sun was cooling.
The impacts (what climate scientists call “forcings”) do not have to be all natural or all man-made. If the sun is cooling and we have La Nina, we have a cooler year or so. If we have a huge volcanic eruption (aerosols) we have a cooler year or so, like after Mt. Pinatubo erupted. El Nino’s transfer ocean heat to the atmosphere. All natural. And all of this is superimposed on the impact of increased greenhouse gases added to atmosphere which cause the retention of whatever heat is there.
This is climate 101. Why do you call it a cult? My suspicion is that you oppose the science of climate change for reasons other than the actual evidence, possibly because it could lead to “gubmint interference” which most right-wing reactionaries hate even more than they hate science.
Jeff,
Does climate 101 include how CO2 gets to the upper atmosphere or the manner of acidification of the oceans (like what is the predominante acid that is accumulating)? You still haven’t answered the fundamental questions at the core of the AGW hypothesis.
He also still hasn’t answered the fundamental question of “what percentage of the warming (that’s stopped)is caused by CO2?” “You oppose the science of climate change for reasons other than actual evidence.” No, we oppose it because you don’t have any “actual evidence. J-“Which most right wing reactionaries hate even more than they hate science.” No, love science but hate politics. Which is really what your cult is about.
jl –
According to the paper that the Pirate cited, about 140% of the warming is due to CO2, since the solar forcing would be resulting in cooling.
daisy KKK duke,
I’ve answered your questions. Carbonic acid. Bulk flow of air, currents, storms, convection, wind… not diffusion. And CO2 does not accumulate around our ankles.
Where did you say you learned chemistry? They’re likely not pleased that you keep mentioning their name.
We’re done here until you supply your erroneous mythology at which time I will humiliate you once again.
Sorry Jeff, You are making a fool of yourself and have still not answered the questions. In your defense, you are looking at several, very biased, web sites that say something about the interaction of H20 and CO2, but they never give the concentrations of acid. So someone like yourself will be fooled into believing. Now, what is the predominant acid responsible for lowering the pH and why is it increasing and how does in compare to carbonic acid. I actually got the answer by research. Now you need to answer the question to establish your bona fides. By, the way, did you see MIT discounted climate change?
140% of the warming…..that’s a good one, Jeff. Didn’t know that could happen, because it can’t. Now, if the climateers could prove what’s causing the warming (that’s stopped), you’d be in business. You still have that inconvenient fact that it’s been warmer before to deal with. And even better, why won’t Mann release his “increasingly flaccid hockey stick” data? If the science is settled, what is there to hide?
jl –
One lie at a time, please…
This a common tactic with you science deniers – changing the subject.
Climate scientists have proven what’s causing the warming – greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The mechanism has been well understand for at least a century.
Every little bit of the raw data are available and not hard to find. You are either lying or ignorant of this fact.
That it has been warmer on Earth (or colder) has no relevance to the current warming.
You keep recycling the same ignorant nonsense. These zombie lies keep coming back!
daisy KKK duke,
One lie at a time, please…
If you have solid information showing that H2CO3 is not responsible, by all means share it. I am willing to be corrected and to learn something. I may be wrong.
Frankly, I do not trust you when you say “MIT has discounted climate change” without documentation. Again, you may be right, but I find deniers to be particularly untrustworthy and manipulative.
Well, let’s go here:
On the IPCC report:
Oh, and there are those who remember JeffyPoop saying the government had nothing to do with the funding of AGW:
guttercleaner,
So, you’re saying it WASN’T MIT that dismissed climate change, but a retired professor, formerly at MIT, who did. That is different from what KKK david claimed.
That’s a forgivable error on the part of you and KKK. I’ll assume it’s from ignorance and not deceit. I actually suspected that is what KKK meant when he typed the statement, but I could have missed some big announcement on climate change from one of the world’s most prestigious technical universities.
Professor Lindzen, a former climate researcher, is part of that 3% of climate scientists who identify as climate “skeptics”.
Really, goatkisser, I said that government had nothing to do with funding climate research? I must have misspoken or you’ve misquoted me once again.
Why can’t far-right tools ever tell the truth?
Is because the truth has a liberal bias?
JeffyPoop,
Having reading and comprehension problems again?
Let’s go to the article:
the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT
Hmmm…. doesn’t seem he is retired.
Let’s try Wikipedia, since you like that crowd sourced site as a definitive source of facts:
Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
That’s funny….. they don’t say he is retired either. Surely MIT knows he is retired, right?
Nope.
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences
Professor Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability.
Now, you were saying something about people lying and misrepresenting facts?
Once again, he is not a “former climate researcher.” One wonders why you have to lie in order to protect your cult?
Or you lied (again.) Given your track record, I am going with that choice.
Caught in a blatant lie, you want to question why others can’t tell the truth? Clean your own house Jeffy. We’ll stay on the side of truth and let people like you live a morally deprived life of lying, deceit, hate and envy.
We all knew you were in trouble JeffyPooperScooper when you started attacking the man instead of what he was saying.
Typical of you.
jeff,
You must really get a charge out of calling people names. It is nice to have the internet so that cowards can get by with unpleasant activity. But, in doing so, you clearly lose any ability to be taken serious. Then you lie and are caught in the act.
Now, you go on and on about carbonic acid in the oceans and how tons of CO2 is deposited there and turns the ocean acidic. But, you can not indicate the concentration that has been measured. That is because the measurement does not fit the theory. Then, you and your group say the pH is low, but they don’t indicate where. Many maps show that the lower pH is concentrated in only certain areas. Then they leave out the fact that carbonic acid is not stable but rapidly breaks down into bicarbonate, a base. So, once again, what is the predominate acid resulting in the lower pH?
And, how does CO2 get to the upper atmosphere? So far you have only indicated mountain climbers and others that don’t make sense.
As to KKK references, that is very, very racist. How do you know my color? Because I don’t agree with you? So you are saying that a black man only thinks like you. For that matter, what is my religion, after all, my name is David. So, you go beyond being unpleasant but are a confirmed racist and bigot. You need help.
goatcuddler,
My source was not Wikipedia, but the MIT Dept of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences where they recently wrote:
Faculty News
Helen Hill
May 31, 2013
“Professors, now Emeriti, Dick Lindzen and Carl Wunsch step aside as EAPS looks forward to Mick Follows’ appointment as Associate Professor: Shining a spotlight on EAPS evolving faculty line-up.” http://eapsweb.mit.edu/about
It was a minor point that you characteristically blew out of proportion to change the subject from the real topic, that KKK had misrepresented that MIT, the institution, had dismissed climate change, when in fact, it was a single retired professor. I said that it was a minor error based on his (and your) ignorance. But you are ignorant no more, as you now know that R. Lindzen is Professor Emeritus.
What Dr. Lindzen said was not relevant, only that he was speaking for himself, not the University. I did not attack him, merely characterized him as retired and a former researcher (both true).
david,
Am I mistaken that name-calling is just part of the game here? If you prefer that I use your name david, no problem. Certainly you notice that other commenters and the Pirate himself routinely call others names.
JeffyPoop,
It is interesting to me that the citation you gave doesn’t give the quote you mention. I wonder why that is?
Once again we see that you are caught in a lie and try to wiggle out of it.
No one but you changed the subject here, Jeffy.
You have a real problem with the truth.
Certainly you notice that other commenters and the Pirate himself routinely call others names.
It should be noted that you were treated with respect until you started calling others name. Like a typical liberal, you can dish it out but can’t take it.
gullywasher,
You’re a consistent and untalented liar. And a pathetic waste of flesh and energy.
I’m not surprised you didn’t find the faculty news…
http://eapsweb.mit.edu/news/2013/spring-newsletter-faculty-news
I’m not complaining about your namecalling, david was.
You started calling me names first, and still do. They’re the same names used over at the Gateway Pudendum so I suspect you’re one of the stupid regs there too.
gitarcarver typed: “It should be noted that you were treated with respect until you started calling others name.”
That’s a lie, pure and simple. The Pirate has routinely called me a “warmist”, and you and gumballs, when backed in a corner, started the jiffypop, jiffy, jeffy, jiffypoop nonsense. I don’t complain about it, but I do give back – e.g., guttercleaner and gummyballs.
I did probably start calling the arrogant and obnoxious white supremacist, david, names first. So I’ve stopped.
Factually false, but you have never let facts get in the way of your beliefs.
If you want to draw down from the name calling, I am willing to do the same thing.
Geez, now you are getting things all screwed up. I haven’t commented on Gateway Pundit ever. (see? There you are calling things names again) Not once.
I visit the site when Teach links to them and the article is of interest, but it is not one of my stomping grounds.
Oh well….. continue to live in your little fantasy world.
So let’s recap this thread. The Pirate posted and applauded a paper that says the warming since the 1950s could not have possibly resulted from the sun, since the sun was/is cooling. That’s what I discussed in a comment. Next I addressed the Pirate’s continued use of the slur “cult”.
Then david and jl wanted to change the subject to ocean acidification (he still refuses to tell me what he thinks is causing it – that would be discussing something, which is verboten here), Michael Mann’s data, funding of climate research and MIT.
I pointed out that MIT did not dismiss climate change but that a retired professor from MIT did. My statement was absolutely true.
In another change of subject, I was called a liar for referring to Lindzen as retired (he is), although the key point was that MIT did not dismiss climate change, although a retired MIT professor did.
This is why I have my One Lie at a Time policy. You guys like to wriggle away from false statements by making other false statements.
If you wanted to discuss the paper that the Pirate favored, why didn’t you? Do you think the current warming is caused by a warming sun or is it caused by something else? I can assure you that the something else is not Michael Mann, carbonic acid or MIT.
Conclusions:
MIT DID NOT dismiss climate change.
Richard Lindzen DID retire.
The current rapid warming is NOT from a warming sun (if you believe the paper the Pirate touted).
jl, gitarcarver and david did not want to discuss the topic of the Pirate’s post.
I know it is futile to try to reach Jeffrey, but here goes with one more scientist and a few things she has said:
Curry: I am Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. I have devoted 30 years to conducting research on topics including climate of the Arctic, the role of clouds and aerosols in the climate system, and the climate dynamics of extreme weather events.
…
Curry: ‘The IPCC does not have a convincing or confident explanation for the current hiatus in warming’ – ‘The stagnation in greenhouse warming observed over the past 15+ years demonstrates that CO2 is not a control knob on climate variability on decadal time scales’
Sea Level: ‘Global sea level has been rising for the past several thousand years. The key issue is whether the rate of sea level rise is accelerating owing to anthropogenic global warming. It is seen that the rate of rise during 1930-1950 was comparable to, if not larger than, the value in recent years. Hence the data does not seem to support the IPCC’s conclusion of a substantial contribution from anthropogenic forcings to the global mean sea level rise since the 1970s.’
Ice: ‘The increase in Antarctic sea ice is not understood and is not simulated correctly by climate models. Further, Arctic surface temperature anomalies in the 1930’s were as large as the recent temperature anomalies.’
‘If the recent warming hiatus is caused by natural variability, then this raises the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural climate variability.’
Heat waves: ‘The EPA also cites evidence that summertime heat waves were frequent and widespread in the 1930s, and these remain the most severe heat waves in the U.S. historical record.’
Extreme Weather: ‘There is a large component of natural variability seen in the 100+ year data record particularly for drought and heat waves, each of which had maximum extremes during the 1930’s. Sea level rise also shows a maxima during the 1930’s to 1940’s’…In the U.S., most types of weather extremes were worse in the 1930’s and even in the 1950’s than in the current climate, while the weather was overall more benign in the 1970’s. This sense that extreme weather events are now more frequent and intense is symptomatic of ‘weather amnesia’ prior to 1970′
Curry’s conclusions: ‘The science of climate change is not settled, and evidence reported by the IPCC AR5 weakens the case for human factors dominating climate change in the 20th and early 21st centuries
With the 15+ year hiatus in global warming, there is growing appreciation for the importance of natural climate variability
The IPCC AR5 and SREX find little evidence that supports an increase in most extreme weather events that can be attributed to humans, and weather extremes in the U.S. were generally worse in the 1930’s and 1950’s than in recent decades.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/01/16/climatologist-dr-judith-currys-testimony-at-senate-climate-hearing-attempts-to-modify-the-climate-through-reducing-co2-emissions-may-turn-out-to-be-futile-un-ipcc-now-making-a-weaker-case/
Trish,
I’m well aware of Dr. Curry. She is one of the small cadre of genuine, active climate scientists who are not persuaded by the data. She may be right, but most other genuine, active climate scientists disagree with her position. For every Dr. Curry or Dr. Lindzen, there are 20 climate scientists, just as qualified, who are persuaded by the data.
There are still scientists working for the Discovery Institute who claim that evolution is a fatally flawed theory. At the height of the AIDs epidemic there were a few respected scientists who claimed that HIV was not involved. Just because these scientists were wrong doesn’t prove that Drs. Curry and Lindzen are wrong on climate change, but it does illustrate that there are typically scientists who are late or reluctant to accept data.