No surprise here. Just more inconvenient results for CO2 broken-record dogmatists.
New paper: GISS temps and solar activity
A recent paper published by the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar Terrestial Physics (74) 2012 87-93 and authored by Souza Echer et al. suggests that solar cycles, to a substantial extent, drive global temperatures, and that likely through amplification mechanisms.
Solar particles interact with Earth’s magnetosphere. (Source: NASA)
The paper is titled: On the relationship between global, hemispheric and latitudinal averaged air surface temperature (GISS time series) and solar activity.
The authors decomposed average air surface temperature series obtained from GISS and sunspot number (Rz) from 1880 – 2005 to see if a correlation could be found. They performed a cross correlation analysis between band-passed filtered data around 11-year and 22 years.
Although the authors did not find a strong correlation with the 11-year solar cycle, they found a “very significant correlation” in the 22-year Hale cycle band. The abstract states:
A very significant correlation (Rz 0.57 to 0.80) is found in the 22 yr solar Hale cycle band (16–32 years ) with lags from zero to four years between latitudinal averages air surface temperature and Rz. Therefore it seems that the 22 yr magnetic field solar cycle might have a higher effect on Earth’s climate than solar variations related to the 11-yr sunspot cycle.”
Well then, can we not assume that if the 22-year cycles have an impact, also the 78-year, 210-year, and 1000-year solar activity cycles must have a “significant correlation” with the earth’s climate too? Already there are dozens of proxy records showing that this is precisely the case.
Recall that the CO2 warmists in their half-baked models stubbornly keep focusing only on total solar irradiance (TSI), which itself varies only about 0.1% over an 11-year cycle (and thus by itself is no real climate driver) and ignore all the other amplification mechanisms. Well, the results of this study, as do dozens of others studies, show you can’t do that. Like it or not – the sun is a real player. Eventually the CO2 warmists will have to admit this, as anyone with even just an inkling of intuition would do.
New paper: investigating the cosmic ray link
Obviously there are others who feel the same way when it comes to the role of the sun on the earth’s climate. Another paper just published at the same journal shows that other scientists are hot on the sun’s trail. Here Magee and Kavic in their paper titled: Probing the climatological impact of a cosmic ray–cloud connection through low-frequency radio observations suspect a solar mechanism and so propose a method of observation. In the abstract they write:
…in order to establish whether or not such a relationship exists, measurements of short-timescale solar events, individual cosmic ray events, and spatially correlated cloud parameters could be of great significance. Here we propose such a comparison using observations from a pair of radio telescopes arrays,the Long Wavelength Array (LWA) and the Eight-meter-wavelength Transient Array (ETA). These low-frequency radio arrays have a unique ability to simultaneously conduct solar, ionospheric and cosmic rays observations and are thus ideal for such a comparison.”
The direction of climate science and investigation is clear. The real discoveries will involve unraveling the solar mechanisms, and not baking simplistic, straight-line CO2-temperature models. With each new study, the CO2 warmists look more and more like broken records that keep repeating: CO2…CO2…CO2…CO2…
Obviously some scientists just aren’t clever enough to snap out of it.
Additional resources:
http://climaterealists.com/attachments
Its been said before but I will say it again…
It’s the S U N not the S U V
On a water planet it is impossible not to have a correlation between solar activities and the air temperature, but that tells little about the source of warming and cooling, and nothing about what is responsible for climatic changes, which –IMO- is a matter of the oceans;
Wishing everybody a fine, sunny, and Happy Year 2012,
With best ArndB
Hi Arnd,
I agree with you there to some extent. Surely, through its sheer inertia and dynamics, the oceans most likely act as a sort of shock absorber which introduces lags. But there are a number of papers out there that show a faie amount of correlation between solar activity and air temperatures – so I’m not sure this can be ignored.
Hi Pierre,
For understanding all physical mechanism of our earthly system the solar activities (plus/minus) should not be ignored, but such academic findings are (presumably) of little, if any help to understand and minimises human activities on the “weather & climate” system. More on that subject (human activities & climate change) pretty soon by a bigger workout, which hopefully will find your and other readers interest;
wishing a good RUTSCH
The most impressive cycle is the 8×22 years= 176 years.
Counting back from 2012 you get the following ‘grand minima’:
ca. 1836= Dalton minimum
ca. 1660= Maunder minimum
ca. 1484= Spörer minimum
ca. 1308= Wolf minimum
These years fall in the periods of 22 till 44 years that these minima last.
The next ‘grand minimum’ will start in ca. 2014 and it is proposed to mention this the ‘Landscheidt’ minimum (Prof. Theodoor Landscheidt is the ‘inventor’ of this cycle).
Looks like we’re due!
176 is two Gleissberg cycles (87 years).
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6645
“How The Sun Could Control Earth’s Temperature”.
I remember a comment by Piers Corbyn back in Jan 2011 also emphasising the importance of the 22 Yr magnetic cycle:-
…The consequence of the Sun-Earth linking AGENT being cosmic rays modulated by the size of the solar magnetic field would be:- (i) An 11 year cycle in Earth’s weather – this is NOT observed – world temperatures primarily follow a 22 yr cycle (the magnetic direction cycle of the sun). (ii) Changing solar magnetic effects would take months to influence Earths’ weather and be very blurred in timing and position on Earth because the changed sun’s magnetic field would have to permeate the whole solar system to influence incoming cosmic rays adequately and the solar wind which holds the field doesn’t move fast enough. In fact solar influences on the Earth’s weather can be seen and predicted to change weather patterns in HOURS or a few days. That is because they come directly and are magnetically guided by the sun-earth connections – nothing to do with cosmic rays.(iii) For information the total energy flux of solar particles is about 300 x that of Cosmic Rays so if the CR influence amounted to anything it could reasonably be estimated as no more than 0.3% of that of direct effects, so the GCR theory is at least 99.7% useless. The pioneers of GCR effects did GREAT work on the importance of charged particles in cloud nucleation but the particles that are the agents on sun-earth connection are from the sun itself.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article1106044.ece
By modulating cloud nucleation the absolute energy of GCR’s is not that relevant – the cloud albedo would work as an amplifier.
As long as Corbyn doesn’t publish his theories I see no reason to discard Svensmark.
[…] The Sun’s Impact On Earth’s Temperature Goes Far Beyond TSI – New Paper Shows from NoTricksZone by P Gosselin […]
2Like it or not – the sun is a real player.”
Yup, and the oceans of course – our a/c……….er….. [+ some other stuff:>) ]
Solar cycle #19 which ran between 1954 and 1964[peak 1957 ]was the strongest cycle[ sunspot #] in recent times yet the global temperatures were in a trough 1944-1976. If there is a direct connection it is a significant lagged because the peak temperature was not until 1998. No , I support the sun to ocean to atmosphere connection and the ENSO , AMO and ocean currents cycles as to the timing
I noted recently that the METOFFICE use a 4 year Total Radiation time lag for their short term forecasts but the forcast of 0.44 C anomaly[hadcrut3 gl or similar data] for 2011 looks high as we are running closer to o.375 C
And what about Cycle No.20?
More than 50 years ago, I was a young USAF officer assisting Dr. Paul Jose, an internationally renowned Solar Physicist, in designing a large solar furnace scheduled to be built at Sunspot, NM.
On more than one occasion, Dr. Jose commented to me that he had been involved for at least 20 years in evaluating the effects of sunspots on earth’s weather and climate. He was convinced, even then, that the effects were real and significant !
It seems tragic to me that the “warmists” cannot see beyond their “CO2 noses.” They are not unlike the 19th century scientists who couldn’t give up the “ether” even after the Michelson Morley experiments were verified. G. H. Parker, Senior Fellow, retired, Westinghouse Electric
I think it was Max Planck who said “science advances one funeral at a time”. That means the stubborn ones will first have to die off before things can move on again.
In German, most people are actually more familiar with the original than the succinct paraphrase:
“Eine neue wissenschaftliche Wahrheit pflegt sich nicht in der Weise durchzusetzen, daß ihre Gegner überzeugt werden und sich als belehrt erklären, sondern vielmehr dadurch, daß ihre Gegner allmählich aussterben und daß die heranwachsende Generation von vornherein mit der Wahrheit vertraut gemacht ist.”
(A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. Wissenschaftliche Selbstbiographie. Mit einem Bildnis und der von Max von Laue gehaltenen Traueransprache. Johann Ambrosius Barth Verlag, (Leipzig 1948), p. 22, as translated in Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, trans. F. Gaynor (New York, 1949), pp.33-34 (as cited in T.S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).)
Paraphrased variants:
Die Wahrheit triumphiert nie, ihre Gegner sterben nur aus. Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out.
Science advances one funeral at a time.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck
Michelson-Morley is, of course, a prime example of a Kuhnian paradigm shift: the idea of the ether did not die out by being flatly ruled out, but because its proponents were forced to introduce an increasing amount lot of “epicycles” into the concept to get rid of all those pesky contradictions, such as the speed of light remaining constant for any observer at any speed. “Life on Mars” is another perennial favorite – as is the “more warmth causes more snow” meme.
Newt Gingrich just threw Katharine Hayhoe under the bus. See Climate Depot. No reaction in German media by now.
A funny one:
“Die Welthungerhilfe sieht den Klimawandel als Hauptursache der meisten großen Naturkatastrophen der vergangenen Jahre. ”
“Welthungerhilfe (World Hunger Help, German org against, well, hunger?) sees Climate Change as main cause of most big catastrophes of the past years. ”
Hmm… Earthquakes???
… and a link for that. But it’s only a small blurb.
http://www.stern.de/news2/aktuell/klimawandel-als-hauptursache-grosser-katastrophen-1767081.html
Oh. Interesting. The Welthungerhilfe gets about 30 Mill EUR annually from private donors but 100 Mill from : EU Commission; Bund, AND: WFP – the UN’s World Food Program…
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welthungerhilfe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Food_Programme
From the cold and windy Kittitas Valley
east of the Cascade Crest of Washington State
Happy Twenty-twelve
Just googled you John, looks like you are nestled on a plain along the IS90 between the cordillera and some big forests! [Wonderful.]
Bet you can see some snow! Happy new year to you and to all who come this way – on this blog.
Happy New Year to everybody!
BBC stops pretending it’s a news organisation, starts GLORIFYING Greenpeace et.al. ; uses war rethoric with regard to environmental causes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16295830
… can we not assume that if the 22-year cycles have an impact, also the 78-year, 210-year, and 1000-year solar activity cycles …?
Bad idea, aside from the old saw about assumptions, assuming is just bad scientific practice. The problem with AGW was the assumption that CO2 could significantly affect the climate. You can hypothesize that the cycles are, but other than an argument from analogy, there is not a lot of support for the assumption proposed. They found a correlation with just one of two known solar cycles. CO2 has laboratory properties that support the GW hypothesis, but the hypothesis is still not supported by empirical and geohistorical data. So, no, don’t make assumptions unless there some real and testable properties that can be highlighted and tested.
My very next sentence was:
“Already there are dozens of proxy records showing that this is precisely the case.”
The assumption has in fact been tested many times.