[Keith_McClary]

SPIEGEL interviewer asks some good questions.

SPIEGEL: You make concrete statements on how much human activity contributes to climatic events and how much of a role natural factors play. Why don't you publish your prognoses in a professional journal?

Vahrenholt: Because I don't engage in my own climate research. Besides, I don't have a supercomputer in my basement. For the most part, my co-author, geologist Sebastian Lüning, and I merely summarize what scientists have published in professional journals -- just as the IPCC does. The book is also a platform for scientists who apply good arguments in diverging from the views of the IPCC. The established climate models have failed across the board because they cannot cogently explain the absence of warming.

SPIEGEL: You claim that the standstill has to do with the sun. What makes you so sure?

Vahrenholt: In terms of the climate, we have seen a cyclical up and down for the last 7,000 years, long before man began emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. There has been a warming phase every 1,000 years, including the Roman, the Medieval and the current warm periods. All of these warm periods consistently coincided with strong solar activity. In addition to this large fluctuation in activity, there is also a 210-year and an 87-year natural cycle of the sun. Ignoring these would be a serious mistake …

SPIEGEL: … but solar researchers are still in disagreement over whether the cycles you mention actually exist. What do you think this means for the future?

Vahrenholt: In the second half of the 20th century, the sun was more active than it had been in more than 2,000 years. This "large solar maximum," as astronomers call it, has contributed at least as much to global warming as the greenhouse gas CO2. But the sun has been getting weaker since 2005, and it will continue to do so in the next few decades. Consequently, we can only expect cooling from the sun for now.

SPIEGEL: It is undisputed that fluctuations in solar activity can influence the climate. Most experts assume that an unusually long solar minimum, evidenced by the very small number of sunspots at the time, led to the "Little Ice Age" that began in 1645. There were many severe winters at the time, with rivers freezing over. However, astrophysicists still don't know the extent to which solar fluctuations actually affect temperatures.

Vahrenholt: Many scientists assume that the temperature changes by more than 1 degree Celsius for the 1,000-year cycle and by up to 0.7 degrees Celsius for the smaller cycles. Climatologists should be putting a far greater effort into finding ways to more accurately determine the effects of the sun on climate. For the IPCC and the politicians it influences, CO2 is practically the only factor. The importance of the sun for the climate is systematically underestimated, and the importance of CO2 is systematically overestimated. As a result, all climate predictions are based on the wrong underlying facts.

SPIEGEL: But you are doing exactly what you criticize climatologists of doing: Using a thin body of data, you make exact predictions. In your book, you estimate the sun's influence on the climate down to the last 0.1 degrees. No one can do that.

Vahrenholt: I don't claim that I know precisely whether the sun is responsible for a 40, 50 or 60 percent share of global warming. But it's nonsense for the IPCC to claim that the sun has nothing to do with it.

SPIEGEL: On balance, you predict a global cooling of 0.2 to 0.3 degrees Celsius by 2035. Why such a risky prediction?

Vahrenholt: If you want to revitalize the deadlocked debate, you have to have the courage to name a number. And we derive this number from scientific studies on climate history to date.

My favourite area of science/technology (thorium reactors, LENR, "hydrogen economy", asteroid mining, hyperloop, "smart" power, "X is the cause of disease Y", ...) is ignored/neglected/suppressed by the establishment for evil political reasons which I can only hint at. If only scientists would research it better and gubmints would fund a Manhattan-style project, all would be cogently explained and proven. I would do it myself, but I am not a scientist and I do not have a supercomputer in my basement.

[Keith_McClary]

Solar activity playing a minimal role in global warming

We conclude that cosmic rays and solar activity which we have examined here, in some depth, therefore cannot be a very significant underestimated contributor to the global warming seen in the twentieth century.

Journal article:
Cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate

[rockdoc123]

Dr Jasper Kiirkby Head of the CLOUD experiment at CERN

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2wStQYQafP8

something under study and not very well understood at this time

[Graeme]

Solar Activity Playing a Minimal Role in Global Warming, Research Suggests

Changes in solar activity have contributed no more than 10 per cent to global warming in the twentieth century, a new study has found.

The findings, made by Professor Terry Sloan at the University of Lancaster and Professor Sir Arnold Wolfendale at the University of Durham, find that neither changes in the activity of the Sun, nor its impact in blocking cosmic rays, can be a significant contributor to global warming.

The results have been published today, 8 November, in IOP Publishing's journal Environmental Research Letters.

Changes in the amount of energy from the Sun reaching Earth have previously been proposed as a driver of increasing global temperatures, as has the Sun's ability to block cosmic rays. It has been proposed that cosmic rays may have a role in cooling Earth by encouraging clouds to form, which subsequently reflect the Sun's rays back into space.

According to this proposal, in periods of high activity the Sun blocks some of the cosmic rays from entering Earth's atmosphere, so that fewer clouds form and Earth's surface temperatures rise.

In an attempt to quantify the effect that solar activity -- whether directly or through cosmic rays -- may have had on global temperatures in the twentieth century, Sloan and Wolfendale compared data on the rate of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere, which can be used as a proxy for solar activity, with the record of global temperatures going back to 1955.

They found a small correlation between cosmic rays and global temperatures occurring every 22 years; however, the changing cosmic ray rate lagged behind the change in temperatures by between one and two years, suggesting that the cause may not be down to cosmic rays and cloud formation, but may be due to the direct effects of the Sun.

By comparing the small oscillations in cosmic ray rate, which was taken from data from two neutron monitors, and temperature with the overall trends in both since 1955, Sloan and Wolfendale found that less than 14 per cent of the global warming seen during this period could be attributable to solar activity.

sciencedaily

[rockdoc123]

So Graeme it seems to be your opinion that by posting reference to the same paper twice in the same thread that it somehow adds extra importance to it?

Good grief, it was posted 2 posts above

[Graeme]

I'll fix it for you.

A review of the relevance of the ‘CLOUD’ results and other recent observations to the possible effect of cosmic rays on the terrestrial climate

The problem of the contribution of cosmic rays to climate change is a continuing one and one of importance. In principle, at least, the recent results from the CLOUD project at CERN provide information about the role of ionizing particles in ’sensitizing’ atmospheric aerosols which might, later, give rise to cloud droplets. Our analysis shows that, although important in cloud physics the results do not lead to the conclusion that cosmic rays affect atmospheric clouds significantly, at least if H2SO4 is the dominant source of aerosols in the atmosphere. An analysis of the very recent studies of stratospheric aerosol changes following a giant solar energetic particles event shows a similar negligible effect. Recent measurements of the cosmic ray intensity show that a former decrease with time has been reversed. Thus, even if cosmic rays enhanced cloud production, there would be a small global cooling, not warming.

springer

[rockdoc123]

OK what part of the "research is still continuing" did you not get?
Quoting from one of the Real Climate in group is fine, but their word is not the bottom line. The fact that research is still going on at CERN and the fact that they are still saying there are some interesting correlations that we need to understand strikes me as scientific endeavour.
Saying...well this is the opinion of someone from Real Climate therefore it is all said and done...is, I'm afraid, complete nonsense.
There are scientists continuing to look at this...there are a lot of papers which came out recently about the affects of solar on things like AMO etc that IPCC do not take into account.

[Keith_McClary]

A review of the relevance of the ‘CLOUD’ results and other recent observations to the possible effect of cosmic rays on the terrestrial climate

springer

http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.5067

[rockdoc123]

In the Erlykin et al paper the first sentence in their abstract reads:

The problem of the contribution of cosmic rays to climate change is a continuing one and one of importance.

which is what I was saying…the research continues, there are many unanswered questions. And that is demonstrated by a paper which appeared two months ago:

Svensmark, H, et al, 2013, Response of cloud condensation nuclei (>50 nm) to changes in ion-nucleation, Physics Letters A, 377, pp 2342-2347

From the Abstract

In experiments where ultraviolet light produces aerosols from trace amounts of ozone, sulfur dioxide, and water vapor, the relative increase in aerosols produced by ionization by gamma sources is constant from nucleation to diameters larger than 50 nm, appropriate for cloud condensation nuclei. This result contradicts both ion-free control experiments and also theoretical models that predict a decline in the response at larger particle sizes. This unpredicted experimental finding points to a process not included in current theoretical models, possibly an ion-induced formation of sulfuric acid in small clusters.

And from the conclusions:

So in conclusion it has been shown that an increase in ion- induced nucleation survives as the clusters grow into CCN sizes in direct contrast to the present neutral experiment and current theoretical expectations. It is proposed that an ion-mechanism exists which provides a second significant pathway for making additional H2SO4, as a possible explanation of the present experimental findings. Irrespective of the detailed mechanism leading to the results presented here they provide a possibly important missing piece ofthe puzzle as to why responses in aerosol to variations in ionization have been seen in cloud properties

Sounds to me like the story is hardly finished.

Interestingly enough going back to the Erlykin et al paper in the abstract they make the statement:

Recent measurements of the cosmic ray intensity show that a former decrease with time has been reversed. Thus, even if cosmic rays enhanced cloud production, there would be a small Global Cooling, not Warming

[/quote][/quote]

so lets see, the cosmic ray intensity has decreased which would favor cooling versus warming….and what has been happening to global temperatures over the last decade and a half? Certainly not rising. Seems there is no inconsistency here.

[rockdoc123]

Beyond cosmic rays there is a lot of research that points to indirect solar effects on climate.

Grey, L., et al, 2013. A Lagged Response to the 11-year Solar Cycle in Observed Winter Atlantic/European Weather Patterns, Journal Geophysical Research, DOI: 10.1002/2013JD020062

The surface response to 11-year solar cycle variations is investigated by analysing the long-term mean sea level pressure and sea surface temperature observations for the period 1870–2010. The analysis reveals a statistically significant 11-year solar signal over Europe and the North Atlantic provided the data are lagged by a few years. The delayed signal resembles the positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) following a solar maximum. The corresponding sea surface temperature response is consistent with this. A similar analysis is performed on long-term climate simulations from a coupled ocean–atmosphere version of the Hadley Centre model that has an extended upper lid so that influences of solar variability via the stratosphere are well resolved. The model reproduces the positive NAO signal over the Atlantic / European sector but the lag of the surface response is not well reproduced. Possible mechanisms for the lagged nature of the observed response are discussed.

Xiaohua G., et al, 2013, Preciptiation variations and possible forcing factors on the Northeastern Tibetan Plateau during the last millennium. Quaternary Research, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yqres.2013.09.005

Understanding precipitation variation, drought and flood history, and their associated forcing mechanisms are important to human society. In this study, five moisture-sensitive tree-ring width chronologies are used to represent variations in precipitation over the past millennium on the Northeastern Tibetan Plateau (NETP). We find a strong coherency between chronologies in the NETP, indicating a common response to regional climate during the last millennium. The first principal component of the five chronologies (PC1) correlates significantly with regional precipitation and can thus be used as an indicator of regional precipitation variations. Dry spells, even more severe than the 1920s drought, occurred during AD 1139–1152, 1294–1309, 1446–1503 and 1708–1726. Previous studies in this area using other proxies also identified these droughts. Multi-Taper spectral analysis demonstrates significant periodicities at 205 yr and 73 yr, plus a range of ~ 2 yr cycles, suggesting possible linkage with solar variation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). PC1 also shows coherent patterns with solar irradiance variation: the precipitation tends to reach low values during the well-known solar minimum.

Varma, V et al, 2013, Solar-forced shifts of the Southern Hemisphere Westerlies during the Holocene. Clim Past 7, pp 339-347

The Southern Hemisphere Westerly Winds (SWW) constitute an important zonal circulation that influences large-scale precipitation patterns and ocean circulation. Variations in their intensity and latitudinal position have been suggested to exert a strong influence on the CO2 budget in the Southern Ocean, thus making them a potential factor affecting the global climate. In the present study, the possible influence of solar forcing on SWW variability during the Holocene is addressed. It is shown that a high-resolution iron record from the Chilean continental slope (41° S), which is interpreted to reflect changes in the position of the SWW, is significantly correlated with reconstructed solar activity during the past 3000 years. In addition, solar sensitivity experiments with a comprehensive global climate model (CCSM3) were carried out to study the response of SWW to solar variability. Taken together, the proxy and model results suggest that centennial-scale periods of lower (higher) solar activity caused equatorward (southward) shifts of the annual mean SWW.

[Rune]

Everything that RockDoc has posted has also been discussed in The Neglected Sun.

I'm still in the middle of it. My routine has been messed up by a move. So I haven't had a lot of time to sit down and read.

Maybe tonight... I think the next chapter discusses the amplification factors of the Sun's varying but more-or-less constant output.

One that has already been discussed is that the wavelengths of Sun ouput are all not constant. - the wavelengths in the UV range vary as much as 70% and have significant effects in warming the upper atmosphere. Scientist have been researching whether this stratospherica warming can lead to warming in the lower atmosphere. It's not certain, but probable, according to some of the referenced papers.

But, like I said, the next chapter discusses amplifications.

It should be remembered, that the warming value of CO2 would not be nearly so severe with amplifications attributed to it as well. A key IPCC point is that a doubling of CO2 results in a 1.1 celcius warming, however, this modest warming feature of CO2 leads to increased water vapor, a much larger greemhouse gas. Thus, the IPCC relies on such amplifications for CO2 but neglects the amplifications of the Sun's modestly varying output.

[Lore]

Thus, the IPCC relies on such amplifications for CO2 but neglects the amplifications of the Sun's modestly varying output.

Where is your reference for this neglect? The sun is the most studied celestial body in the heavens. I just quoted a string of recent papers based in part on solar output.

[Rune]

Thus, the IPCC relies on such amplifications for CO2 but neglects the amplifications of the Sun's modestly varying output.

Where is your reference for this neglect? The sun is the most studied celestial body in the heavens. I just quoted a string of recent papers based in part on solar output.

I am afraid I have copy/pasted all I can out of this book.

But the IPCC and its methods are discussed throughout. It's only $9, man. It definitely would not be a waste of money for anyone interested in climate or the politics surrounding global warming.

[dorlomin]

Thus, the IPCC relies on such amplifications for CO2 but neglects the amplifications of the Sun's modestly varying output.

Good gravy you cannot be serious.

Do you actually believe that the nefarious Blofeld's at the IPCC send out instructions to every modelling team that they have to create some bizarre kind of hack to GCMs that they do not reproduce the clausius clapeyron relation if the energy change comes from the sun rather than CO2?

Rune, how do I say this, ........................

[Lore]

Here's a little run down on Fritz. It dissects the interview with Der Spiegel.

Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change

German electric utility executive Fritz Vahrenholt is co-author (along with geologist Sebastian Lüning) of a book expressing "skepticism" regarding the human contribution to global warming, which predictably has been trumpeted by the usual climate denial enablers. Why should we particularly care what Vahrenholt thinks about climate science? That is something of a mystery - he has a PhD in chemistry and has worked in the energy sector for Shell Oil and wind turbine maker RePower. Vahrenholt and Lüning both currently work for RWE Innogy, Germany's second-largest energy company (Vahrenholt as a manager, Lüning as a scientist in its oil and gas division).

Vahrenholt admits he has no expertise in climate science, but apparently his status as "Germany’s Top Environmentalist" (a title which Vahrenholt appears to have been awarded just recently by anti-climate think tanks and denialists) and his climate "skepticism" are sufficient for some people to take his climate claims seriously.

In an interview with Der Spiegel, Vahrenholt discusses why he chose to write a book rather than attempting to conduct and publish scientific research.

SPIEGEL: You make concrete statements on how much human activity contributes to climatic events and how much of a role natural factors play. Why don't you publish your prognoses in a professional journal?

Vahrenholt: Because I don't engage in my own climate research. Besides, I don't have a supercomputer in my basement. For the most part, my co-author, geologist Sebastian Lüning, and I merely summarize what scientists have published in professional journals -- just as the IPCC does.

However, as we will soon see, the difference between Vahrenholt and the IPCC is that the latter accurately summarizes the body scientific literature, while the former misrepresents his sources and only listens to a few select "skeptic" scientists.

Misrepresenting the IPCC

In the interview, Vahrenholt makes a statement about the IPCC which reveals that he simply has not done his research.

"The long version of the IPCC report does mention natural causes of climate change, like the sun and oscillating ocean currents. But they no longer appear in the summary for politicians. They were simply edited out."

Vahrenholt refers to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers (SPM). The following quotes are taken directly from the SPM, which Vahrenholt claims has edited out all mention of natural causes of climate change. The first quote is the first sentence in the SPM.

* "The Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report describes progress in understanding of the human and natural drivers of climate change, observed climate change, climate processes and attribution, and estimates of projected future climate change."

* "Human and Natural Drivers of Climate Change

Changes in the atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases and aerosols, in solar radiation and in land surface properties alter the energy balance of the climate system. These changes are expressed in terms of radiative forcing, which is used to compare how a range of human and natural factors drive warming or cooling influences on global climate."

* "Changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated to cause a radiative forcing of +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.30] W m–2, which is less than half the estimate given in the TAR."

* "It is very unlikely that climate changes of at least the seven centuries prior to 1950 were due to variability generated within the climate system alone. A significant fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphere inter-decadal temperature variability over those centuries is very likely attributable to volcanic eruptions and changes in solar irradiance, and it is likely that anthropogenic forcing contributed to the early 20th century warming evident in these records."

* "The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone."

----------------------

Vahrenholt is Indeed Duped

In short, we end the way we began, wondering why anybody takes Vahrenholt's comments on the climate seriously. Not only does he lack expertise in the subject, but he clearly has not done his research, and misrepresents most of the sources he references. Toward the end of the interview, Vahrenholt provides a comment which Der Spiegel used in the title of the article:

"...I feel duped."

Indeed Vahrenholt has been duped, by his own shoddy research, and has also duped many of his readers in the process.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/fritz-v ... hange.html

There are more such examples in the rest of the link.

The guy is just another self serving grifter, but don't blame me for bringing this to your attention, I just read stuff. Thought you all might be interested?

[Keith_McClary]

Warming since 1950s partly caused by El Nino

(Phys.org) —A natural shift to stronger warm El Niño events in the Pacific Ocean might be responsible for a substantial portion of the global warming recorded during the past 50 years, according to new research at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH).

"Our modeling shows that natural climate cycles explain at least part of the ocean warming we've seen since the 1950s," said Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAH's Earth System Science Center and the new study's lead author. "But we also found that because the globe has had more frequent La Niña cooling events in the past 10 or 15 years, they are canceling out some of the effects of global warming."
...
Spencer and co-author Dr. Danny Braswell used all of the usual climate modeling forcings - including carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas enrichment - in their study, but also plugged the observed history of El Niño ocean warming and La Niña ocean cooling events into their model to calculate the 61-year change in global ocean temperature averages from the sea surface to a depth of 2,000 meters.
"We used the observed ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation) history since the 1950s as a pseudo forcing factor of the model," Spencer said.
...
But the biggest change was when the model was allowed to change cloud cover with El Niño and La Niña in the same way as has been observed from satellites. The results suggest that these natural climate cycles change the total amount of energy received from the sun, providing a natural warming and cooling mechanism of the surface and the deep ocean on multi-decadal time scales.
...
Spencer said it is reasonable to suspect that the increased La Niña cooling might be largely responsible for an ongoing "pause" in global warming that has lasted more than a decade. If that is the case, weak warming might be expected to revive when this phase of the El Niño-La Niña cycle shifts back to a warmer El Niño period.
...
"What we found is, to explain the satellite data we had to invoke a change in clouds nine months before the peak of either an El Niño or a La Niña," Spencer said. "When the clouds change, it takes time for that to translate into a temperature change.
"We get the best fit to the observations when we let clouds cause some of the temperature change.

I didn't buy the paper, but from Physorg's description it sounds like they are taking climate models and sticking in "fudge factors".

Attention KJ - he is not saying "AGW is revealed to be either an outright fraud, or NOT of enough consequence to get excited about."

[sparky]

.
the IPCC AR5 working group 1 simply take the apparent diameter of the Earth and the solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere
There is no feedbacks

Anyway , there is some pretty good record for past solar activity ,
the most useful is the Beryllium 10 ,it can be measured for tens of millenniums in the ice deposits

conclusion , maybe yes maybe no ,
the solar variations match the climate pretty well in time but not in intensity .

Solar science is honestly at the same level as psychology and palm reading as far as predictions go ,
and that's the opinion of the guys at the NASA Marshall center .
They have plenty of data , but recently have been spectacularly wrong
no problem , they are scientists , they scrapped the old theories and follows the facts .


There is a scientific consensus ,for what it's worth , that the Sun is going into a deep quiet
if the IPCC is right , it doesn't matter ,
if they are wrong , we should see a decreasing rate of warming or even a cooling .