Study finds Global Warming over past 4 Centuries was due to increased Solar activity

A peer-reviewed paper published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics finds global warming over the 20th century "not significantly different" from warming episodes that occurred in earlier centuries. The paper finds that the increase in solar activity over the past 400 years explains the warming, without any need to search for a unique cause of late 20th century warming, such as greenhouse gas concentrations. The NIPCC website just posted this summary of the paper:

Authors de Jager and Duhau (2009) write that (1) "solar activity is regulated by the solar dynamo," that (2) "the dynamo is a non-linear interplay between the equatorial and polar magnetic field components," and that (3) "so far, in sun-climate studies, only the equatorial component has been considered as a possible driver of tropospheric temperature variations."

In the present study, based on "direct observations of proxy data for the two main solar magnetic field components since 1844," de Jager and Duhau derived "an empirical relation between tropospheric temperature variation and those of the solar equatorial and polar activities."

 

When the two researchers applied the relation they derived to the period 1610-1995, they found a rising linear relationship for temperature vs. time, upon which are superimposed "some quasi-regular episodes of residual temperature increases and decreases, with semi-amplitudes up to ~0.3°C," and they note that "the present period of global warming is one of them."

Viewed in this light, it is easy to see, as de Jager and Duhau state, that "the amplitude of the present period of global warming does not significantly differ from the other episodes of relative warming that occurred in earlier centuries." Why? Because the late 20th-century episode of relative warming, as they describe it, is merely "superimposed on a relatively higher level of solar activity than the others," which gives it the appearance of being unique, when it really isn't. Hence, there would appear to be no need to search for a unique cause of late 20th-century global warming (such as elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations), since this latest warming is merely a run-of-the-mill relative warming, sitting atop a solar-induced baseline warming that has been in progress for the past four centuries.

 

Via http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/06/study-finds-global-warming-over-past-4.html

The source of this posting.

The Sun, not a harmless essential trace gas, drives climate change.

Andy Semple

Comments

[Elizabeth]

1.

Who would have guessed the sun might have something to do with warming the earth?

A concept too difficult for AGW scientists and politicians to get their heads around - and no money to be made from something so uncontroversial as the sun.

Look to a sensible long range weather forecaster to find the truth. Lennox Walker knew it all the time.

[Lillith]

2.

This is a filthy Right Wing, Holocaust denying lie...everyone knows the sun is made of custard and therefore has no discernible warming effect on the weather...you people are just so stupid...pfftt!

[Lillith]

3.

Next you'll be telling me the moon isn't made of tasty, delicious cheese.

[James]

4.

The government will be introducing the Sun Tax next.

[Anton]

5.

Chris - Heard of Occam's (or Ockham's) razor?

Getting the answers you want yet?

[terra]

6.

This paper has been available since the end of 2008 and was disproven less than 12 months later. See:

http://home.kpn.nl/g.j.komen/zon.pdf

I thought you guys had given up on the peer reviewed stuff and were more in favour of a "peer to peer review" style ala James Delingpole. Scientific argument isn't really your strong point.

[Andy]

7.

If the theory of AGW is spot on, then why do the proponents of AGW have to lie all the time about it?

[terra]

8.

I'm going to assume you haven't put any thought into that question.

Perhaps a more pertinent question would be:

If the AGW theory is flawed, then why are the opposing arguments only coming from economists, right-wing commentariats, geologists masquerading as climate scientists , conservative/libertarian bloggers and looney viscounts?

[Anton]

9.

Are really prepared to engage in a scientific debate?

Go brush up on your thermodynamics, chemistry and quantum physics and let me know when you are ready.

My hypothesis will be that AGW is crap.

[Andy]

10.

Geologists know a lot more about the earth than "Climate Scientists".

So do Physicists, Geochemists, Astrophysicists, Volcanologists, Geo-Engineers, Geophysicists but we only hear from people who call themselves “Climate Scientists” who are on the UN/Government payroll, use bent “science” and “Pal” review each other’s bullshit reports.
The argument that the planet will “dangerously” warm is specious. Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide comprises 4% of the air and manmade emissions is only 3% of this and we are told this 3% of 4% is the tipping point and the planet is doomed? The biggest greenhouse gas is DiHydrogen Monoxide but I guess the UN thought it would be too hard to make Water the imaginary boogie man?
Why not pick on evil Nitrogen? No – it was decided that because man emits Carbon Dioxide we’ll make this the imaginary boogie man and use it as the excuse to redistribute wealth and bring on the eco-fascist world government.
The UN and EU already meddle in our affairs, just a nudge here and a nudge there.
It’s not until you have lost your liberty to you realise you really miss it.
The SUN, and not a harmless trace gas, Drives real natural Climate Change.

[Hockey Schtick]

11.

How about crediting the source of this posting?

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/06/study-finds-global-warming-over-past-4.html

[Andy]

12.

You're right.
Source noted.

Andy Semple
Assistant Managing Editor

[Dallas Beaufort]

13.

A little bit of truth, Oh dear Lillith, Inigo Jones, rip.

[terra]

14.

Oh yes I forgot, the pseudo-science of climate change is only practised by those individuals with a green agenda and collude with the UN and the powers that be to eventually create a one-world government.

Mmmm... I'm sure the IMF was supposed to fit in there somewhere...

I really should watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle" again, if for no other reason than to brush up on the names of the Marxist talking heads and scientists-for-hire that support your "argument".

I repeat Andy, that article you have linked to has been discredited. It is not the sun wot did it.

As for Anton, chest beating will get you nowhere. Just get on with it man.

[Grantley]

15.

Hmmmm....just follow along blindly.

or read on (& read the debate that follows in the comments):

http://notrickszone.com/2011/01/22/signs-of-strengthening-global-cooling/

and draw your own conclusions. I guess it is fair to say that "your" conclusion will be driven by many factors, like "hearing what you want to hear".
The one comment in the debate I think is the most pertinent is when one of them says it is difficult enough due to all the variables to predict the weather one (1) year ahead, never the less 100 years.

[Andy]

16.

The SUN Drives the climate, not a harmless trace gas that makes up less than 0.0385% of the atmosphere.
And Human induced Carbon Dioxide contributes 3% of the 0.0385% - 97% is natural.
CO2 is a consequence of temperature - not a cause.
Isn't just dandy that massive wealth redistribution is a consequence of taking action against (imaginary) manmade climate change.

[Elizabeth]

17.

Coming from a farming community, our family like everyone, followed Indigo Jones, Lennox Walker and of course, as I should have said above, Hayden Walker, our current long range weather guru of the line.

In the face of everything chucked about the place climate change wise, Hayden still reckons sun activity is the culprit and AGW is hooey. Reckon he's right.

[terra]

18.

You really have swallowed Martin Dhurkin's pill haven't you?

One minute you are claiming carbon dioxide makes up 4% of the atmosphere and then you follow it up with a claim of 0.0385%. Did you listen to Alan Jones in the meantime?

Could you can it with the socialist conspiracy rubbish. This nonsense is preventing you from distinguishing fact from fiction and does nothing to support what little argument you have.

[Andy]

19.

Atmospheric CO2 is approx 0.0385% you know this and you bang on about a simple typo @ 10.

Any time the Left bang on about the need for action you know its BS.

I suppose you think the Sun is small beer in terms of what drives our climate?

people like you just hate anyone who dares to have an sceptical opinion.
The AGW scam is unravelling and it just tears you leftards apart....

[terra]

20.

First and foremost I do not hate you or any other contributor on this site, I have never actually met you.

What on earth makes you think I am from the left? Is everyone that accepts the scientific consensus on global warming automatically a leftie? You are once again just oversimplifying things just like you do with your AGW argument.

Of course the sun plays an important role in driving our climate but other factors such as greenhouse gases are just as important.

And yes, a "trace gas" like CO2 plays a huge role in the whole scheme of things.

[mike]

21.

good to see scientific illiteracy is still alive and well amongst the loony right.

[David ONeill]

22.

Piers Corbyn from the UK is a Climatologist and Astrophysicist and has an 85% success rate predicting long range weather patterns by mapping the sun, solar flares, earth's magnetic fields, and position of the moon. Even predicted the QLD floods http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEmUS7PAWFw&feature=related and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl4R1x_R3fo&NR=1 ..... Oh, and yes, he's predicting a mini ice-age over the next 20 years.
Hear what he says about AGW.