Paper: The Pause Linked To Decreased Solar Activity

A scientists does scientists things, rather than looking into a crystal ball

(Daily Caller) A new paper claims that declining solar activity since 1998 could mean falling global temperatures in the years ahead — contrary to predictions of rapid warming made by virtually all climate models.

“The stagnation of temperature since 1998 was caused by decreasing solar activity since 1998,” wrote Jürgen Lange Heine, a physicist with the German-based European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE).

“From 1900 to 1998, solar radiation increased by 1.3 W / m², but since 1998 it has diminished, and could reach values ​​similar to those of the early 20th century. A drop in global temperature over the next few years is predicted,” Heine wrote.

Hmm. Real world data instead of palm reading

Heine argues that warming during the 20th Century was not caused by increasing carbon dioxide emissions, but instead by increasing solar activity, changes in cloud cover caused by cosmic rays and huge amounts of cloud condensation nuclei in the atmosphere from the nuclear weapons tests conducted from 1945 to 1963.

Personally, I’m not sure of that last bit. I’d have to see a lot more evidence.

This all comes via The Hockey Schtick, which provides charts and graphs and data and all those other things that the Climastrologers refuse to supply. Much of the information regarding nuclear weapons testing comes near the end of the paper.

Obviously, we can expect Climastrologers to immediately decry and refute the paper without reading it, because cult.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

10 Responses to “Paper: The Pause Linked To Decreased Solar Activity”

  1. Bob says:

    “… huge amounts of cloud condensation nuclei in the atmosphere from the nuclear weapons tests conducted from 1945 to 1963.”

    You’re not sure? That “condensation nuclei” from tests a half-century ago has not caused global warming?

    What the hell is condensation nuclei anyway?

    From wikipedia:

    Cloud condensation nuclei or CCNs (also known as cloud seeds) are small particles typically 0.2 µm, or 1/100th the size of a cloud droplet on which water vapour condenses

    The particles may be composed of dust or clay, soot or black carbon from grassland or forest fires, sea salt from ocean wave spray, soot from factory smokestacks or internal combustion engines, sulfate from volcanic activity, photoplankton or the oxidation of sulfur dioxide and secondary organic matter formed by the oxidation of VOCs.

    So. All that stuff above, having been generated 24/7/365 for the last 50-70 years is not what caused changes in the cloud cover, but a-bomb tests in 1945 was the real culprit. You bet.

    Dear old Jurgem Lange Heine apparently wants the truth to be told, but just can’t seem to break away from his anti-war brainwashing imposed during his college years.

    Sad.

  2. Jeffery says:

    The “paper” is not a scientific paper but a “sciency” review published at a German “skeptic” website. Christopher Monckton is on their board, lol. The subheading at the website is: “Not the climate is threatened, but our freedom!” No legitimate scientific journal would have that on their masthead.

    Scientists disagree with most of the author’s speculations, especially regarding cosmic rays and clouds.

    Is it possible to see cooling in the coming years? Yes! But not by magic – only by physical processes. Any cooling that takes place will always be opposed by the predictable warming from atmospheric CO2.

    What non-magical factors can cause variability in the temperature records? El Ninos transfer heat from the oceans to the atmosphere. La Ninas transfer heat from the atmosphere to the oceans. Volcanic aerosols impede/reflect sunlight. Oceans directly absorb heat. Melting ice absorbs heat. Longer cycle ocean phenomena, e.g., PDO, ADO move heat between the oceans and atmosphere. The Sun itself cycles between slightly warmer and cooler phases. Man can add aerosols and particulates too.

    All of these physical processes have been occurring for thousands of years, e.g., even since the end of the last glacial period and the beginning of the Holocene. During that 12,000 or so years the Earth has steadily cooled almost 1C with little bumps here and there of a few tenths of a degree C. In the past 100 years or so the Earth has warmed 1C and there is no reason to think it will stop soon. Scientists hope to stop the warming at no more than 2C.

    If all those listed physical phenomena caused only modest changes in global temperature over the past 12,000 years, why suddenly now would they cause this rapid and significant warming we’re experiencing? Even a massive El Nino (like in 1998) only caused a one year spike. Large volcanoes (like Pinatubo and Khzrrzieskkjllrzies (sp?) in Iceland) only caused a slight one or two year downturn. Even the “cool” Sun during the so-called Little Ice Age cooled the Earth less than 0.3C.

  3. Jeffery says:

    Hmm. Real world data instead of palm reading

    It’s not at all clear that Herr Professor Heine measured anything himself. Then, based on computer modeling, he predicts cooling.

  4. drowningpuppies says:

    In the past 100 years or so the Earth has warmed 1C and there is no reason to think it will stop soon. Scientists hope to stop the warming at no more than 2C.

    So, little jeffery, what caused the “rapidly increasing” 2 Deg C from 1659 to early 1700’s when there was negligible “anthropogenic forcing”?

  5. John says:

    So let’s see since 1998 we gave hD a dim cool sun but most of the hottest years have occurred. Since then. When the sun us cool
    Sounds like something other thT the sun is responsible
    Could it be CO2?

  6. Jeffery says:

    Sucking and denying,

    what caused the “rapidly increasing” 2 Deg C from 1659 to early 1700’s when there was negligible “anthropogenic forcing”?

    Nothing, since it didn’t happen.

  7. jl says:

    J “Rapid warming…” What’s the definition of “rapid”? And rapid compared to what? There’s no comparable data except for the recent past, which is not enough for any kind of a trend. “All these physical processes have been happening for thousands of years.” No, they’ve been happening for billions of years, which is why you can’t say this is anything out of the ordinary- because you don’t have the data for it. “Christofer Monckton is on their board-lol.” That’s the best you have-lol? Great rebuttal. “What non magical factors can cause variability in temperature records?” The same factors that have been causing variable temperatures for 4 billion years, and will continue to do so whether we’re here or not.

  8. Jeffery says:

    rapid: adj. marked by a fast rate of motion, activity, succession or occurrence

    Usage: Scientists are concerned about the recent rapid warming of Earth.

    __________________________________________________

    Do you have evidence that the same physical processes responsible for shaping today’s climate are responsible for the Earth’s climate 4 billion years ago?

    Not your opinion; not your speculation, but evidence.

  9. Jeffery says:

    provides charts and graphs and data and all those other things that the Climastrologers refuse to supply

    LOL. Who do you think supplies the actual data that propagandists like Heine and the Hockey Schmuck manipulate to create their misleading graphs?

    How much actual research does The Schmuck, Monckton, Teach and Watts do? Oh, none?

  10. Phil Taylor says:

    James Hansen weighs in on this and blames the sun and Chinese pollutuion for the lack of warming past 1998..

    Here is the brief 2 minute interview by the BBC:
    http://climatecrocks.com/2013/05/18/i-should-correct-what-you-just-said-hansen-on-global-surface-temps/

    Does he put a snotty BBC reporter in her place, or does she get him to be defensive about his cause?

    Jeffrey, your comments here are good at keeping everyone honest here so you need to apply the same logic to pro warming data as well.

    The increased temperature is not as great as implied and past temperature cooling or rising are educated guesses well within the margin of error.
    I am skeptical of this report as well but the sun’s influence on temperature during the 1990’s and now currently make more sense to me than the influence of CO2. According to warmers and their predictions. The influence would have been greater than it is.

    The events of the last two decades seem to support Sun over CO2. CO2 should have caused more rapid greater warming.
    The lack of real temperature numbers, and obvious misleading unchecked or un verified press releases such a the WWF Himalayas scandal says to me that warmers are hoping for the world to get back on track and are covering up for it until it does. To them the means justifies the end.

    If this report is true then we will see in the next few years, unless the data is kept from us like before. In the 1980’s we said “we will have to wait and see if the temperature warms by 4 degrees.” Remember? That did not happen. Now expectations have been reduced to 2 degrees. Even that seems a long way off.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9475 access attempts in the last 7 days.