Posted on 10/02/2007 12:46:02 PM PDT by EPW Comm Team
[Note: The new study from the Danish National Space Center was conducted by Physicist Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen. Svensmark previously published his finding on the influence that cosmic rays have on cloud production in the Proceedings of the Royal Society Journal in late 2006 and he has a new 2007 book entitled “The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change.” This new study was released within the past week or so and it is a rebuttal to a July 2007 media hyped UK study alleging there has not been a solar-climate link in the past 20 years. ]
New Study: “Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich – The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing” (From Danish National Space Center) Excerpt: The Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change. < > But they (the authors of the UK July study) argue that this historical link between the Sun and climate came to an end about 20 years ago. Here we rebut their argument comprehensively. Their analysis relies on data on surface air temperature which, they say, "does not respond to the solar cycle". Yet over the past 20 years the solar cycle remains fully apparent in variations both of tropospheric air temperature and of ocean sub-surface water temperature. < > When the response of the climate system to the solar cycle is apparent in the troposphere and ocean, but not in the global surface temperature, one can only wonder about the quality of the surface temperature record. For whatever reason, it is a poor guide to Sun-driven physical processes that are still plainly persistent in the climate system. As for the upward linear trend removed from Fig. 2 (lower), it is customary to attribute to greenhouse gases any increase in global temperatures not due to solar changes. While that is reasonable, one cannot distinguish between the effects of anthropogenic gases such as carbon dioxide and of natural greenhouse gases. For example, increased evaporation means that infrared radiation from water vapor, by far the most important greenhouse gas, will tend to provide positive feedback for any global warming, whether driven by anthropogenic or solar forcing. In any case, the most recent global temperature trend is close to zero. < > By Lockwood and FrÄohlich's own data, solar magnetic activity is still high compared with 100 years ago. As to when the recent easing of activity began, counts of cosmic-ray muons at low altitudes were historically low when the muon record-keeping ended in the early 1990s (ref. [7]). That implies an increase in relevant solar magnetic activity continuing till that time. A scarcity of muons can be linked to elevated global temperatures by a reduction in low cloud cover (ref. [8]) and low cloudiness was indeed at a minimum around 1992-93. By other solar indicators, like those cited by Lockwood and FrÄohlich, the minimum muon counts may well be a little higher in the current solar cycles. That would explain the pause in global warming evident in our Table as well as in Lockwood and FrÄohlich's own Fig. 1e.That would explain the pause in global warming evident especially in the ocean (Fig. 1) and the troposphere (Fig. 3). The continuing rapid increase in carbon dioxide concentrations during the past 10-15 years has apparently been unable to overrule the °attening of the temperature trend as a result of the Sun settling at a high, but no longer increasing, level of magnetic activity. Contrary to the argument of Lockwood and FrÄohlich, the Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change. http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf/view (Full PDF report available here)
NOTE: This Danish study follows multiple other studies debunking the claim that there has not been a sun climate link in the past 20 years.
Several recent scientific studies have debunked a media hyped UK study alleging there has not been a solar-climate link in the past 20 years. Excerpt: “The earth temperature does respond to the solar cycle as confirmed by numerous studies. The 11 year solar cycle is clearly shown in sediment cores obtained from Effington Inlet, Vancouver Island, B.C. by Dr. Tim Patterson, and in records of the Nile River , to name just two studies.” (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK)
Flashback: UK Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn Debunks recent ‘No Solar-Climate Link Study’ (Corbyn heads the UK based long-term solar forecast group Weather Action) Excerpt: In desperate attempts to shore up their crumbling doctrine of man-made climate change, Professor Lockwood and Henry Davenport (Letters, July 14) themselves cherry-pick data. Prof Lockwood’s “refutation” of the decisive role of solar activity in driving climate is as valid as claiming a particular year was not warm by simply looking at the winter half of data. The most significant and persistent cycle of variation in the world’s temperature follows the 22-year magnetic cycle of the sun’s activity. So what does he do? He “finds” that for an 11-year stretch around 1987 to 1998 world temperatures rose, while there was a fall in his preferred measures of solar activity. A 22-year cycle and an 11-year cycle will of necessity move in opposite directions half the time. The problem for global warmers is that there is no evidence that changing CO2 is a net driver for world climate. Feedback processes negate its potential warming effects. Their theory has no power to predict. It is faith, not science. I challenge them to issue a forecast to compete with our severe weather warnings - made months ago - for this month and August which are based on predictions of solar-particle and magnetic effects that there will be periods of major thunderstorms, hail and further flooding in Britain, most notably July 22-26, August 5-9 and August 18-23. These periods will be associated with new activity on the sun and tropical storms. We also forecast that British and world temperatures will continue to decline this year and in 2008. What do the global warmers forecast?
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002191.html (Links to discussion blog with Corbyn’s comments reprinted)
Flashback: An Interview With Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist and co-author with Physicist Henrik Svensmark of a new 2007 book entitled “The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change” Excerpt: Q: How do you respond to the paper by Lockwood and Froehlich, which claims to comprehensively 'settle the debate' on the cosmic ray hypothesis (& Solar-climate link) you describe in The Chilling Stars ? NC: How often we've heard it before, that the debate has been settled! But this is an interesting case because these scientists accept that the Sun has played a big part in climate change over hundreds and thousands of years, just as we explain in the book. They even allow that it was involved in the warming in much of the 20th Century. And when Lockwood and Froehlich go on to say that the intensification of solar activity seen in the past hundred years has now ended, we don't disagree with that. We part company only when they say that temperatures have gone on shooting up, so that the recent rise can't have anything to do with the Sun, or with cosmic rays modulated by the Sun. In reality global temperatures have stopped rising. Data for both the surface and the lower air show no warming since 1999. That makes no sense by the hypothesis of global warming driven mainly by CO2, because the amount of CO2 in the air has gone on increasing. But the fact that the Sun is beginning to neglect its climatic duty -- of batting away the cosmic rays that come from 'the chilling stars' -- fits beautifully with this apparent end of global warming.
http://www.londonbookreview.com/interviews/nigelcalder.html
Flashback: Meteorologist: Shining More Light on the Solar Factor- A Critical Review of the Lockwood and Frolich (No Solar-climate link) Paper Excerpt: “Statistically the world’s temperature is flat. The world certainly warmed between 1975 and 1998, but in the past 10 years it has not been increasing at the rate it did.” Indeed, temperatures have declined and then leveled off in the past 8 years. This year despite the predictions by Jones (Hadley Center) as early as January that the year would end up warmest on record, looks to be cooler than 2006, with the record cold Southern Hemisphere winter and a cooling Pacific, and continuing that trend. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Lockwood_and_Frolich_Review.pdf
Flashback: More No Solar-climate link debunking Excerpt: Solar activity is higher than it has been for at least 1000 years. IPCC AR4 rates the ‘level of scientific understanding’ of ‘solar irradiance’ as ‘low,’ other solar factors have a LOSU of ‘very low.’ The emphasis is always on irradiance rather than eruptivity, which I believe is much more important. Small solar changes seem to have a much larger influence on climate than expected, suggesting an unknown amplification mechanism. Global mean surface temperatures have leveled off since the 1998 El Nino, and there has been little or no ocean warming for the past 5 years according to the ARGO network. Solar cycle length, sunspots, irradiance, are general indicators of solar activity. Nir Shaviv sees no reason why the length of the solar cycle should be related to solar activity – it could be a coincidence, and it is largely a phenomenon of the Northern Hemisphere. That said, the correlation between solar cycle length and a long mean surface temperature series has also been observed http://star.arm.ac.uk/~ambn/abstract196.html at Armagh Observatory in Northern Ireland.
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002198.html
# #
These guys were in “The Great Global Warming Swindle” (off UTube now, don’t know if it can be found elsewhere.)
They were great.
THAT’S IT.
WE MUST STOP THE SUN FROM KILLING THE EARTH.
Bring all tubes to bear, flood tubes, open outer doors
Mark final bearings and SHOOT ...
Al Gore
He’ll save us.
Whoa, never saw that coming. The Sun. Who’d of every guessed that?
The only way to get the MSM to cover this technical study is to get a snake oil salesman dressed as Bozo the Clown and tooting a horn claiming we're all going to die because Bush and his cronies let the Sun get too hot. (Good article, thanks for posting it.)
The first thought to pop into my head after reading the title of this post was “well duh!”
bump
NO WAY!!!!!!! This almost made my head explode. How could that thing that is 93 million miles away have any affect on the temperature of the earth and the melting of the ice caps and glaciers? How could it make the polar bears all drown? It is just a big shiny ball out there so far away. Maybe we should just go to where it is night all the time.
Hey, didn’t the ancients use to sacrifice people to appease the sun? Maybe if we offered the sun Al Gore, it would cease to smite us with it’s mighty smiting? It’s certainly worth a shot. Somebody please think of the children!
How about a bumper sticker that reads “Fight Global Warming, Destroy The Sun.
“...one can only wonder about the quality of the surface temperature record.”
I’ve been making that same point for years now as the thermometers in use now and the ones used earlier are far different in design, automated for the most part and placed indiscriminately to proximal influences.
Who verifies them?
There are too many people driving SUVs on the sun.
So for billions of years the sun was the main influence that caused cooling and warming trends and 20 years ago it stopped. Do the people who put this idiotic nonsense out realize how asinine they sound?
I say we tax the sun. To death!
Tax it
This is not a scientific conclusion but four golfers believe that it is warmer in the sun and cooler in the shade. Could be something to investigate, call algore.
Hillary’s plan: Universal SolarCare paid for by a 50% tax on sunscreen and sunglasses.
Muon alert!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.