It has become common practice in climate science for a press release reporting the findings of a new paper to precede the publication in the journal concerned. Thus, the Lockwood and Frohlich paper ‘Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature’ (M. Lockwood and C. Fröhlich Proc. R. Soc. A doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880; 2007, 10th July) was announced in the 5th July edition of the journal Nature under the headline ‘No solar hiding place for greenhouse sceptics.’
It came as no surprise that Real Climate’s Stephan Rahmstorf was first out of the woodwork:
“This paper is the final nail in the coffin for people who would like to make the Sun responsible for present global warming,” says Stefan Rahmstorf, a climate scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.
Normally papers are published because there is new research to report, but not this time it seems:
Mike Lockwood, says he was “galvanized” to carry out the comprehensive study by misleading media reports. He cites ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’, a television programme shown in March by Britain’s Channel 4, as a prime example.
But wait! There’s more:
Ken Carslaw, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Leeds, UK, points out that solar effects might still be possible. They might have acted to cool the climate in recent decades, but been overwhelmed. If so, the climate could be more sensitive to greenhouse gases than is generally thought, and future temperature increases might be greater than expected if a countervailing solar effect comes to an end.
Lockwood was “galvanised” again in response to criticism of his paper in the UK’s Daily Telegraph:
“I am one of the authors of the Royal Society global warming paper that you say is simple and fundamentally flawed (Comment, July 15). Simple? The idea was to present a straightforward demonstration, without recourse to complex climate models. Flawed? None of the three academic referees the paper was subjected to found any flaws.
Climate change is by far the greatest threat to everyone’s standard of living. Unlike political parties, companies, media stars, works of art, consumer products and even social trends and national economies, a scientific reality is immune to spin.”
(Prof) Mike Lockwood, Southampton University
Meanwhile, Piers Corbyn of Weather Action, who appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, had a letter published in The Guardian:
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?
Piers Corbyn
Weather Action
The BBC’s verdict was ‘No Sun link’ to climate change.
In Part 2 I’ll take a closer look at some of what the L& F paper did, and didn’t say.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Common practice for the eco-Freaks is to publish ahead of the publication, so that their spin will reach the press in advance of the actual paper.
When the actual paper is published, which will only be readable for those curious enough to spend $50 or more, it will be too late–the newspapers will have already spun everything into cotton candy.
Stinkin’ eco-Freaks. And the press hasn’t figured this out, yet? Of course not. They’re part and participle in the same scam.
Mr. 70% ??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn
Common practice for Schiller is to make outrageous claims, be proven wrong, and then not have the decency of admitting he was wrong. Stinkin’ Schiller.
Maverick Astrophysist ? 19th July
http://www.thecnj.co.uk/camden/071907/letters071907_02.html
Warning for August 29th July
http://www.pickinglosers.co.uk/blog_entry/bgprior/20070729/london_flooded_or_miami_wrecked_more_bad_weather_way
Lindzen’s opinion has been published in major newspapers and electronic media . He’s definitely not afraid of making his case publicly. Shaviv been published. Even the non-State / temporary State Virginia Climatologist Pat Michaels has had a book published.
Corbyn is a qualified meterologist who has also had papers on solar activity and the weather published.
Please stop playing the man rather than the ball – it’s just getting so predictable.
No it’s totally relevant Jim – any rebuttal to Lockwood and Frolich needs to get published. At the moment it’s all just whingey whinge. But but but.
Does Corbyn publish his own forecasting stuff – where’s the cross validation – why should we give him any credence. Do we have an substantive stats analysis on Corbyn’s wild assertions?
Have a look at Corbyn’s last quoted comment “What do the global warmers forecast” – answer “irrelevant for the period he’s referring too and he knows it”. Simply just waffly irrelevant bilge. A better question would be “what’s the difference between a duck”.
As for playing the man – take a very careful read of the lead post – that’s exactly what it’s doing. Spare us the political mumbo jumbo – get to the substantive peer reviewed “why”.
The lead post is substantially a whinge.
You’re back Schiller? I thought you’d left us.
Piers Corbyn is an authority on nothing at all. The day we attempt to validate science by claiming to win at betting on the bookies is the day I kill myself.
I love the Lockwood paper so much that I have a daily comment on it on Greenie Watch
Corbyn forecasts declining temperatures for 2007 and 2008. As he says – what do global warmers forecast?
Answer nothing in particular. Nice try at confusing seasonal climate forecasting with climate change. Surely you appreciate the difference? I mean do we really have to run ruses like this?
What would be interesting to see Corbyn’s total track record of hits and misses; or his cross validated scores on the last 100 years. Of course you won’t. And so he’ll talk up the hits big time and look the other way on the misses.
Indeed if anyone’s weather or seasonal climate prediction is “really very good” you’d have to be “very” suspicious.
I’ve just deleted a few recent comments from this thread. I probably should have deleted from the very beginning – but I haven’t. If you have nothing useful to add to this or other threads, please refrain from commenting.
If global warmers cant forecast ‘nothing in particular’ what are they really saying?
Nothing in particular
I suppose the thing certain public sector employees hate most about a guy like Corbyn is that people actually pay him on the basis of the information he provides. He actually has a value in a functioning market place.
In contrast, the notion that a public sector employee might be paid what the community thinks his/her information is worth would be enough to send a very severe chill up the old spine. For they know perfectly well that in most cases the value of what comes out of their own mouth, or off their keyboard, is about the same as what comes out their other orifices.
And more importantly, Corbyn is correct in stating that there has been no further warming since 1998. The NASA global temperature series includes data from Australia that is inconsistent with that from our own BoM.
Hansen and his cronies at NASA plucked some convenient data out of their backside to justify the urgent political objective of substantiating a claim that 2005 was just as warm. A cold year this year makes it a full decade against the so-called trend.
Corbyn works on 70% certainty, the IPCC works on up to 85% uncertainty.
Clumsy construction I know but, forecasts are being revised daily.
But as Luke should know by now, its not the weather its the climate
If Piers Corbyn is an authority on nothing at all then he is just the man for this job.
It’s the warmers who like to confuse climate with weather – hence the UK 2007 forecast for record temperatures and a drought – which of course would be due to man-made global warming. When we got floods instead – that were also due to global warming.
Corbyn gets paid on the basis of his success or failure as a weather forecaster – the Met Office staff get paid anyway – and the website is riddled with climate alarmism.
Corbyn’s claimed success in predicting Britains floods a few months ago, isnt really relevant to AGW – those forecasts of a record hot dry summer were mainly just media fodder.
But if Corbyn’s forecast of declining world temperatures through 2007 and 2008 actually comes good, then global temperatures will have declined three years in a row (from the record/near record year of 2005). That wouldnt prove CO2 is not having any effect at all, but it would make the more alarmist prophecies pretty untenable.
Nice try but doesn’t wash – people pay bookies all the time. Doesn’t mean it’s rational or useful.
You either have statistically demonstratable skill or you don’t – Anything else is a try-on.
Corbyn has a forecast. Lots of people have forecasts. Sometimes forecasts occur – either by skill or chance. People swore by Inigo Jones too – but run the stats over it and alas it doesn’t add up.
Failure to get skill tested means you have a product with zero specification sheet.
If you don’t know why global warming modelling doesn’t have a view on the next two years it proves a point that you’re all clueless to the max. Don’t bother trying to spin it – if you don’t know don’t go to sleep tonight.
And as usual Mottsa pulls opinion on Hansen science out of his backside with any review or substantiation. WHy bother with facts – it’s easier just to rave on.
Any you wonder why we treat you flakes with total derision.
Jim
“As Corbyn refuses to publish his methods in any journal, scientists are further critical of his methods due to the low probability of his results”
All he gives us is the word of a punter?
Piers Corbyn was a member of the International Marxists? Please, say it isn’t so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn
I’m impressed, Jen. You’ve brought Landon La Rouche via Paul Williams and two aging Marxists, Humphrey McQueen and Piers Corbyn, into your global cooling crusade inside one month.
This is starting to get reaaaal interstin’.
Deepak Lal drily observes;
“..A recent seriously flawed paper (Lockwood and Frolich, Proc. R. Soc. A, 25 May, 2007) hyped in the media seeks to reinforce the CO2 theory. It argues that, whilst the sun had an effect on the climate during most of the 20th century, since 1988 its activity has declined but global warming has continued. However, the paper’s data stop in 2000. In fact, the global temperature record shows that, when the sun was active the world warmed, and since “it peaked in the late 1980’s within a few years global warming stalled” (Whitehouse: “The truth is we can’t ignore the sun,” Sunday Telegraph, July 15, 2007). When the CERN CLOUD experiment is completed in 2010 and (hopefully) vindicates Svensmark’s cosmoclimatology theory, the CO2 theory of climate change will be buried. It will be recognised that humans cannot control the climate and must adapt as they have done for millennia to its continual changes.
More economists raving on about what they don’t know. zzzzz Why is the paper flawed. Well – he doesn’t tell us. It “just is”. ROTFL.
And so we’re prepared “in advance” !!? to accept a “cloud chamber” experiment at CERN but not any amount of measurements on atmospheric radiation. What a load of illogical goobleygook.
melaleuca, that’s twice you have tried to link me to Lyndon Larouche. I’ll repeat what I said on the technology thread, I have no association, affiliation or really any knowledge or interest in Lyndon Larouche, although I did look him up following this second post from you. The fact that the Jaworowski paper was on the LaRouche website is due to this
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=%22jaworowski%22&btnG=Search&meta=
So if you’ve got any more to say on the topic, start by coming out from behind that pseudonym.
If Luke was the same person who occupied his desk a few months ago he would recall that Arnost made a very good post on the variances between NASA’s temperature stats for Australia and those of the BoM. And the implications are that if NASA is fudging our data then what on earth could they be up to with data from Africa, West Asia and parts of Latin America where scrutiny would be even less?
The UK Met data makes it clear that 1998 was the warmest year, even before we exclude urban heat island effects. And we only have five months left before we have a whole decade of cooling trend.
The climate con-artists think nothing of extrapolating from just two or three years (ie, glacial melt rates) if it suits their purposes. But when one has the nerve to point to a decade long break of trend it is WE that are accused of confusing weather with climate.
Luke, readers have noticed how completely lost you are the moment you are required to actually apply some intellectual traction to an issue. You can fudge your way for some of the time with help from the departmental librarian but the fact that you resort to sneer and abuse so quickly betrays your limitations.
I guess you must be our Australian equivalent of the French civil servant who’s brain was found to be about 85% liquid. He had managed to bluff his way through over many years on an IQ of 56.
Moot it would be apparent to readers by now that you’re a fatuous windbag who doesn’t read anything before passing judgement. Haven’t seen it. Haven’t read it – but oh I have an opinion on “what are we talking about again”. Your continual goofs – e.g. thinking that greenhouse inventory from tree stumps drives GCMs indicates what a total loon you are. Intellectual traction – mate you are an imbecile with some of your comments. And the fact you don’t even know is more hilarious.
Read Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2007) 365, 1925–1954
doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2052 and tell us where he’s wrong. Come on put up ! Stop dicking around. Let’s see the intellect at full bore. zzzzzz
When the global temperature descends to about 1980 levels then you can start crowing. Anyway little bird tells me some review of climate trends is underway with come problematic consequences for denialist dillberries like yourself. Yes Virginia it all is about data quality.
The crux of the Svensmark thesis (as I understand it) is – more solar wind reduces the effects of Cosmic Rays thereby reducing cloud formation, as a consequence of which more solar energy reaches the surface and warms the Earth.
Sunspots are cool (magnetic) areas of the sun. However associated with sunspots are Solar Flares, Coronal Mass Emissions etc which generate the ionised particles that are solar wind. The Earth’s magnetic field varies as a direct consequence of fluctuations in the solar wind. High solar wind causes geomagnetic storms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_storm
The aa Index represents the variability of the geomagnetic field.
http://www.ga.gov.au/oracle/geomag/geomagnetism_indices.jsp
Here’s a graph of the aa index & sunspot numbers (by the way that date s/b 1868 not 1968 DOH!):
http://i11.tinypic.com/5498h8g.jpg
As you can see, sunspot numbers are not representative of the magnitude of the geomagnetic effects. Geomagnetic activity has increased over the last century (possibly levelling of a bit in this current Solar Cycle) – whilst the sunspot numbers have decreased from a peak mid century.
Here’s Fig 4d from the Lockwood & Frohlich paper:
http://i19.tinypic.com/4osa1p5.jpg
Be10 is an isotope produced by the interaction of cosmic rays and nitrogen in the atmosphere. If, as the graph indicates, the formation of Be10 declined oveer the last century, then one can conclude that cosmic ray flux penetrating the atmosphere has also declined.
And this lends support to the Svensmark thesis that a reduction in Cosmic Rays has reduced the cloud cover thereby driving temperatures up over the centennial period.
There is no good data on cloud cover and the Earth’s albedo prior to the mid eighties. However the global cloud cover HAS decreased since 1985:
http://i16.tinypic.com/4vdtdgy.jpg
From here: http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/climanal1.html
And especially so in the period where there has been the greatest temperature increase (and in the period where Lockwood & Frohlich say that there is no solar driven explanation for the increasing temperatures).
The jury’s still out…
Data sources for the aa Index and sunspots if anyone’s interested:
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/RELATED_INDICES/AA_INDEX
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/
cheers
Arnost
Stern would disagree with you Luke.
Motty mentioned that I pointed out a discrepancy in the NCDC/BoM temps. I haven’t done the analysis, but there appears to be a big diff between the Antarctic raw and the final “record” high temp in June this year. I’ll do some analysis on it and post up.
As a bye the bye, we have been bombarded in the last year or so with the record ice shrinkage apparent. Here’s the current Arctic ice anomaly:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg
This is the anomaly that was reported a year or so ago.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060207120009/arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg
Obviously as Luke’ little bird intimates in the post above – something like this is about to happen to global temps.
On topic…
The crux of the Svensmark thesis (as I understand it) is – more solar wind reduces the effects of Cosmic Rays thereby reducing cloud formation, as a consequence of which more solar energy reaches the surface and warms the Earth.
Sunspots are cool (magnetic) areas of the sun. However associated with sunspots are Solar Flares, Coronal Mass Emissions etc which generate the ionised particles that are solar wind. The Earth’s magnetic field varies as a direct consequence of fluctuations in the solar wind. High solar wind causes geomagnetic storms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_storm
The aa Index represents the variability of the geomagnetic field.
http://www.ga.gov.au/oracle/geomag/geomagnetism_indices.jsp
Here’s a graph of the aa index & sunspot numbers (by the way that date s/b 1868 not 1968 DOH!):
http://i11.tinypic.com/5498h8g.jpg
As you can see, sunspot numbers are not representative of the magnitude of the geomagnetic effects. Geomagnetic activity has increased over the last century (possibly levelling of a bit in this current Solar Cycle) – whilst the sunspot numbers have decreased from a peak mid century.
Here’s Fig 4d from the Lockwood & Frohlich paper:
http://i19.tinypic.com/4osa1p5.jpg
Be10 is an isotope produced by the interaction of cosmic rays and nitrogen in the atmosphere. If, as the graph indicates, the formation of Be10 declined oveer the last century, then one can conclude that cosmic ray flux penetrating the atmosphere has also declined.
And this lends support to the Svensmark thesis that a reduction in Cosmic Rays has reduced the cloud cover thereby driving temperatures up over the centennial period.
There is no good data on cloud cover and the Earth’s albedo prior to the mid eighties. However the global cloud cover HAS decreased since 1985:
http://i16.tinypic.com/4vdtdgy.jpg
From here: http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/climanal1.html
And especially so in the period where there has been the greatest temperature increase (and in the period where Lockwood & Frohlich say that there is no solar driven explanation for the increasing temperatures).
Mike Lockwood has a couple of papers where he highlights increase in geomagnetic effects up to the end of the 20th Century. That he does not really mention this is interesting.
Anyhow the jury’s still out… probably until some CLOUD results come in.
Data sources for the aa Index and sunspots if anyone’s interested:
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/RELATED_INDICES/AA_INDEX
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/
cheers
Arnost
Wow! Where to start on this. What an impressive amount of long-bowed leaps in logic.
Lets go with the last- clouds and the sun…
Arnos- “There is no good data on cloud cover and the Earth’s albedo prior to the mid eighties. However the global cloud cover HAS decreased since 1985”
Is this a result of your own analysis?? Have you shown that the ISCCP cloud data is more reliable than surface observations? Have you assessed the different versions of observed cloud data prior to the satellite record? Do you believe the satelitte record is consistent with obs? Have you solved problems related to the way the cloud column is remotely sensed? Have you shown that the ISCCP data suitably charcterises long term variability? Would you use it for precipitation trends? How does ISCCP do for cloud type? Have you shown that the change in cloud that you eyeball from the chart is significant in terms on natural variability? Have you shown that the change in cloudiness is significant in terms of its radiative forcing equivalent?
Cause if you have done ANY of the above, especially shown a robust downward trend in cloud cover- you should write that up and submit it to GRL ASAP- thats important work mate- such research is clearly wasted on this blog! Something stopping you from writing a paper?
I wonder, have you also simply chosen to ignore the numerous observational studies that show cloud is increasing over land? What about cloud changes inferred from changes in DTR, Summer-Winter surface T and precip?
You should probably include an analysis of how your sun-cloud forcing thesis is complicated by latitude,and how it relates to the zonal temperature signal over the 20th century, I’ll think you might find a few inconsistencies there.
Its absolutely incredible that you guys carry on a treat about the supposed lax standards of climate science but are willing to lap up this dodgy tripe.
A few questions regarding solar/cosmic that NEED to be answered to support your thesis.
Why is night-time temperature increasing more rapidly than day time temperature? Shouldn’t the cosmic-ray cloud interaction be almost simultaneous- or do you have some ingenious way of explaining that. One would have thought that its either that there is increased day time cloud damping maxt T or a radiative effect of greenhouse gases at night, or more cloud at night- modelling shows it’s a bit of all- a greenhouse signature funnily enough.
Why does the vertical temperature column not show warming but cooling in the stratosphere? What sort of vertical T profile would you expect from higher solar irrad Arnos? That also goes against your solar thesis and fits with expected CO2 response?
If the changes in global temp prior to 1940 show some association with solar forcing, with a direct correlation- why does this relationship change such that in the last thirty years an absence of trend in either insolation or cosmic rays somehow is magically related to increased in T?
What a massive polemic this thread is.
Space, thank you for such a constructive reply! Though I have to admit that I was tempted to ignore it and let what I said stand on it’s own merits…
OK – I may have inadequately phrased one sentence in my “polemic”. I should have said the following:
“However, according to the ISCCP, the global cloud cover HAS decreased since 1985”
Instead of:
“However the global cloud cover HAS decreased since 1985”
Sorry Spac, any one can make a bit of a mistake.
Everything else in my “polemic” stands…
As Gavin would say, Sigh… Look, the climate models don’t hindcast particularly well on the centennial or the millennial scale. There is something missing in this entire issue. CO2, or for that matter TSI don’t explain it well enough.
Here’s fig 2.17 from AR4 ch2 page 190:
http://i13.tinypic.com/52onkmd.jpg
This is a reconstruction of total solar irradiance from 1600. If we accept that solar irradience in Cycle 22 is about the same as in Cycle 23 (call the current ACRIM/PMOD debate a draw), we have to admit that there HAS been solar irradiance increase post 1950.
This is fig 9.5 from AR4 ch9 page 684:
http://i16.tinypic.com/62h10xw.jpg
The graph on the left (a) is reconstructed natural + anthropogenic forcings and the graph on the right (b) is natural forcings only.
Neither reconstruction accounts well for the +/- temperature anomalies from 1905 –1945, whilst the natural + anthro reconstruction fits the period post 1950 like a glove. If we accept that (from fig 2.17 above) solar irradiance has increased post 1950, (and it was the driver for the temperature increase to 1950), the natural only reconstruction for this period counterintuitively shows that the temperature should have declined!
Why do I think that something’s missing? Well TSI only contributed at most about +2W/m^2 forcing over the last 100 years (from fig 2.17). If one accounts for the curvature of the earth and the day / night cycle, this figure would reduce to about +0.5W/m^2 direct. This is probably why the natural forcing trendline to 1950 really only increases the global temp by +0.1°C, and the volcanic (negative) forcing from Agung, El Chinchon and Pinatubo overpower the solar component post 1950 resulting in a negative trend. So if as per the IPCC models TSI can not explain the temperature swings in the last 50 years, it therefore by the same token, can’t explain the temperature swings in the first 50 years!
I’m of the opinion that if the IPCC take on things holds, TSI is too weak to account for ANY of the temperature changes over the last 100 years – and I would therefore suggest that it can not explain the Maunder / Dalton etc minimums on the millennial scale – and CO2 was definitely not a factor in this! I suspect that Svensmark’s GCR / cloud theory may be an explanation. The geomagnetic / BE10 / ISCCP data seems to support it. But only time, and the outcome of CLOUD, will tell.
The jury is still out.
cheers
Arnost
Correction, Luke’s use of sneer and abuse confirms his limitations. Standard MO for avoiding the issue of discrepancies between NASA and BoM data.
Good posts, Arnost.
Moot Point’s aka Mean Grott usual duck out on the debate. Changes topic. Don’t try to fit me out on some NASA BoM issue as a diversion which incidentally was previously debated. NASA will get the data up to date at some point soon. They knew about it.
Do some work lazy butt and answer my question relevant to your assertion on Hansen. But you won’t because it requires reading before raving.
Grott tries to pretend Space’s comprehensive rebuttal doesn’t exist. ROTFL.
Great posts as usual Arnost.
Nir Shaviv’s professional answer to Lockwood and Froehlich:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/07/nir-shaviv-why-is-lockwood-and-frohlich.html