More fresh climate science just out showing that the sun is the main driver of our climate.
The Dutch-British publishing company Elsevier B.V. has put online a paper entitled “Earth Climate Identification vs. Detection and Attribution”. This publication, referenced on the ScienceDirect website, was revised in the due rules by a peer committee in Annual Reviews in Control (ARC), one of the seven scientific journals of IFAC, federating thousands of international experts in automatic control and modelisation of complex systems.
The paper’s author, Professor Philippe de Larminat, applied the proven techniques of dynamical systems identification to the Earth climate, using paleoclimatic databases available from the major institutes and international organizations. It follows that “with a 90% probability level, one cannot reject the hypothesis of a zero anthropogenic contribution”. While “the hypothesis of a low sensitivity to solar activity must be rejected with a probability level greater than 90%.”
Conversely, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) considers that “it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the middle of the 20th century”, this on the basis of the “Detection and Attribution”, a theory explicitly dedicated to anthropogenic attribution of recent climate change.
The paper presents and clarifies the causes of this contradiction:
• The main one is due to the durations used for climate observations: a thousand years for identification, at most one hundred and fifty years for the Detection-Attribution, thereby eliminating the millennia events of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, notoriously correlated to solar activity. “It has the effect of minimizing the contribution of solar activity,” says the author.
• The second contradiction is due to a confusion between cause and effect, about the El Niño events. The author examines the reasons for this “heavy methodological error, which is obvious to any expert in systems science”.
Could the Philippe de Larminat publication challenge the prevailing consensus on anthropogenic climate change, consensus which is turning the world economic issues (COP 21, 22) as far as the moral issues (Laudato si)? Questioned on the eventuality that a new consensus can emerge, that of a preponderant influence of solar activity on the climate, the author only recalls:
Neither the consensus nor the votes have any place in science; only the evidence matter. To the argument of authority, French philosopher Descartes opposed the authority of the argument. But the consensus is only a submission to the argument of authority, the lowest ever.”
This publication, whose part is accessible even to the non-experts, confirms the conclusions already advanced by the author in his previous work “Climate change – identification and projections” (ISTE/Wiley, 2014).
Open access journal link: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1367578816300931
Philippe de Larminat (Graduate Engineer, 1964, Ph. D., 1972) was Professor at the Institut National des Sciences Appliquées (Rennes, France) and École Centrale (Nantes). He is the author of 6 books and more than 100 papers in journals and international conferences.
The Academia de la science ruled that global warming is real and due to man. Allegro and Courtillot both gave evidence against but were overruled.
Man made global warming is deeply entrenched in france. Socialists and communists dominate the political landscape and it will take decades to stop. In the meantime the shutdown of nuclear power and the collapse of the EU will be occupying all minds as winters become more extreme
The next step is discovering what does cause climate change.
The sum of an approximation of the effect of ocean cycles, the time-integral of sunspot number anomalies, and the contribution to warming of increasing water vapor results in a 98% match to 5-yr smoothed measurements of average global temperature 1895-2015. This same equation, calibrated using data through 1990 calculated AGT about 0.05 °C lower than when calibrated through 2015. The difference is attributed to increased significance of observed rising water vapor.
The problem with that thesis is that water vapor feedback is negative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2K1uHvfaek
Very well argued!
It is an interesting article, and I especially enjoyed the “tingling of elementary independent causes”
Unfortunately, the sun’s total irradiance over a solar cycle has been decreasing since the 1960s.
Next ridiculous theory?
Decreasing from a 10,000-year high http://www.geosci-model-dev-discuss.net/gmd-2016-91/
I should think it would take several decades for temperatures to have peaked and then begin to fall again- say, from the 1960’s to the early 2000’s?
A most misleading use of statistics, Mr. Appell. The fact is that the second half of the 20th century was the most active the planet had seen since observations began some 400 years ago. Next ridiculous claim?
This looks like the decrease
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/93620main_sun5m.jpg
No, no. Don’t hold it right side up. There, that’s right, you have to hold it upside down to see the decrease properly. 😉
Well we already got a ridiculous theory that the sun never varies and therefore can’t affect the Earth.
Yep, the guitarist turned down from 11 to 10..
Next mis-direction, rotten-appell?
Its all you have.
Solar cycles 19 was the highest in at least 250 years.
Solar cycles 21 and 22 were 2nd and 3rd highest.
And all of those would have fed energy into the oceans.
But guess what.. this last El Nino got rid of a lot of that ocean warmth, as the planet tried to balance itself with the current low solar cycle.
That is the end of the Solar warming. And with the current and predicted solar cycles, it will take a long time to recharge.
correction..
“Solar cycles 19 was the highest in at least 600 years.
http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/11266_large_Solar_Activity_Proxies.png
The Grand Solar Maximum is, unfortunately, finished.
Let’s all hope that the temperature doesn’t drop too far with the current and projected weak solar cycles.
Oregon could be in for a heap of severe cold over the next couple of decades.
Did anyone notice that the drop in temperature since the peak of the 2015/2016 El Nino was the deepest and fastest 8 month drop in the whole satellite record?
https://s19.postimg.org/coreji0ab/RSS_8_month.png
https://s19.postimg.org/makyzsrg3/UAH_8_month.png
I hope it doesn’t drop much further, the planet desperately needs to climb further out of the desperate cold of the LIA.
CO2 causes CAGW?
David Appell 16. November 2016 at 4:30 AM | Permalink | Reply
“Unfortunately, the sun’s total irradiance over a solar cycle has been decreasing since the 1960s.
Next ridiculous theory?”
An ex science journalist should be excited to hear of that new theory by Svensmark. Well not exactly new.
Did they fire you because you are just not interested in new scientific discoveries?
Fired !!… so he doesn’t even do his low-end sci-fantasy in that little backwater rag any more..
His poor granny, having to put up with him around the place all day… on the dole, no doubt !!
what if the record cooling over earths land surfaces continues since march as shown at the RSS graph, over the winter Europe and North america should be bracing for a very cold winter later on.
That very cold winter has already started in northern Europe.
Here’s the RSS temperature graph.
.
Excel Graph: http://www.durangobill.com/TempPictures/RSSanomalies.png
RSS Graph: http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
Data source: ftp://ftp.remss.com/msu/graphics/tlt/time_series/rss_ts_channel_tlt_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.txt
Alternate Data Source: “RSS: Lower troposphere”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/msu/overview
.
Note that the trend is up.
.
As for incoming solar heat energy:
Historical Total Solar Irradiance
http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html
.
Note that the trend has been down since 1958.
roflmao..
I love to see the anti-science twerps drawing monkey type linear trends across step events.
It proves that they HAVE to use the El Ninos to create a trend, and at the same time proves their abject ignorance about how the climate operates.
But its all they have, the El Nino step changes.
Please keep doing it.. Its funny. 🙂
Lets sum up the facts,
1. No warming in the UAH satellite record from 1980 to 1998 El Nino
2. No warming between the end of that El Nino in 2001 and the start of the current El Nino at the beginning of 2015.
3. No warming in the southern polar region for the whole 38 years of the satellite record.
4. No warming in the southern ex-tropicals for 20 years.
5. No warming in Australia for 20 years, cooling since 2002
6. No warming in Japan surface data for the last 20 years, No warming from 1950-1990.. ie, a zero trend for 40 years through their biggest industrial expansion
7. No warming in the USA since 2005 when a non-corrupted system was installed, until the beginning of the current El Nino.
8. UAH Global Land shows no warming from 1979-1997, then no warming from 2001 – 2015
9. Iceland essentially the same temperature as in the late 1930s as now, maybe slightly lower
10. British Columbia (Canada) temperatures have been stable, with no warming trend, throughout 1900-2010
11. Chile has been cooling since the 1940s.
12. Southern Sea temperatures not warming from 1982-2005, then cooling
13. Even UAH NoPol shows no warming this century until the large spike in January 2016.
That is DESPITE a large climb in CO2 levels over those regions and time periods.
THERE IS NO CO2 WARMING EFFECT EVIDENT ANYWHERE.
The ONLY warming has come from REGIONAL El Nino and ocean circulation effects such as the PDO and AMO.
@Bill Butler 16. November 2016 at 3:32 PM
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/files/2011/09/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.png
And from Solar physicist Dr. Leif Svalgaard has revised his reconstruction of sunspot observations over the past 400 years from 1611-2013. Plotting the “time integral” of sunspot numbers from Dr. Svalgaard’s data shows a significant increase in accumulated solar energy beginning during the 1700’s and continuing through and after the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1850. After a ~30 year hiatus, accumulated solar energy resumes a “hockey stick” rise for the remainder of the 20th century, followed by a decline beginning in 2004, all of which show remarkable correspondence to the HADCRU3 global temperature record:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wLCEUB9Aw28/U-cGLCEaBPI/AAAAAAAAGMQ/NAl4KtFKmog/s1600/sunspot+integral+2.jpg
And still some wish to say “Note that the trend has been down since 1958.”
“Note that the trend has been down since 1958.” – Bill Butler
Not according to NASA…
“Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.”
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html