New study pounds another coffin nail into solar warming theory

[mamooth]

Basically, they find there hasn't been any 20th century increase in solar activity. The supposed increase was an artifact of better instruments being able to spot more sunspots. And if there was no 20th century increase, then warming can't be blamed on an increase that didn't happen.

One of the authors is Leif Svalgaard, a WUWT regular contributor and darling of the deniers. Hence, it's going to be tough to declare it's all part of the big socialist conspiracy. That is, unless you want to toss Svalgaard under the bus.

New sunspot analysis shows rising global temperatures not linked to solar activity - physicsworld.com
---
The new correction of the sunspot number, called the sunspot number version 2.0, led by Frédéric Clette, director of the World Data Centre for Sunspot Index and Long-term Solar Observations (WDC–SILSO) and based at the Royal Observatory of Belgium, Ed Cliver of the National Solar Observatory in the US and Leif Svalgaard of Stanford University in the US, nullifies the claim that there has been a modern grand maximum. Indeed, the researchers say in their abstract that their study is "the first end-to-end revision of the sunspot number since the creation of this reference index of solar activity by Rudolf Wolf in 1849 and the simultaneous recalibration of the group number", and that their results mean that there is no longer any substantial difference between the two historical records.

Clette and colleagues’ results make it difficult to explain the observed changes in the climate that started in the 18th century and extended through the industrial revolution to the 20th century as being significantly influenced by natural solar trends. According to the researchers, they have identified the apparent upward trend of solar activity between the 18th century and the late 20th century as a major calibration error in the GSN. Now that this error has been corrected, solar activity appears to have remained relatively stable since the 1700s.
---

 

[Pete7469]

Solar Warming theory?

It's not a fact that the sun warms the earth?

God these fucking bed wetters are stupid.

 

[Crick]

Well, someone is.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Sun spot cycles is what they're talking about.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Another Baseless paper that passed pal review....

 

[MaryL]

Solar Warming theory?

It's not a fact that the sun warms the earth?

God these fucking bed wetters are stupid.

It's a fact you don't comprehend this thread, for someone that likes to point fingers at stupidity. Ok, Solar activity is out, what other alternative to CO2 pollution is there that can be attributed to warming?

 

[Crick]

Cosmic rays affecting cloud formation?

Socialists?

 

[flacaltenn]

Don't care how many sunspots you count or how you change the counting rules.. It doesn't give you the baseline solar irradiation. It only describes the depth of modulation due to solar cycles. Gonna be hard to get rid of that baseline Total Solar Irradiation increase since the last Solar Minimum. Solar "activity" measured by sun spot counting does not equal solar radiance as measured by actual multi-spectral power measurements..

This is likely an INTERPRETATION of what is a mundane data processing adjustment that needs to be done to harmonize ancient historical records. And I would need to see that the AUTHORS of a paper that it not even IDENTIFIED actually jumped to a conclusion about solar radiance over the past couple centuries.

You got that cat ??? Or are you relying on 3rd party interpretation of the work??

 

[jc456]

Solar Warming theory?

It's not a fact that the sun warms the earth?

God these fucking bed wetters are stupid.

It's a fact you don't comprehend this thread, for someone that likes to point fingers at stupidity. Ok, Solar activity is out, what other alternative to CO2 pollution is there that can be attributed to warming?

First prove CO2 has warmth. Can you? Link with experiment please.

 

[Pete7469]

It's a fact you don't comprehend this thread, for someone that likes to point fingers at stupidity. Ok, Solar activity is out, what other alternative to CO2 pollution is there that can be attributed to warming?

It's a stupid thread.

First of all, there have been numerous threads explaining that THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING, and that the lack of solar activity is the reason why.

So when mamdouche posts a thread that ignores the data showing the fact that there has not been a significant rise in global temperature and insinuates there's another reason why something that didn't really happen caused something that didn't really happen I can say with full confidence that it's a stupid thread.

Just like every other bed wetter's asinine ecobullshit thread based on psuedoscience. The hysteria following the hurricanes of Katrina and Rita, it was all supposed to get dramatically worse every year, but it hasn't. For all the feverishness of the leftard loons to prove a negative, reality comes crashing down in spite of them.

Second of all, just to continue ridiculing the premise of this bullshit stupid thread, CO2 accounts for %3 of the atmosphere. Humans create about %3 of that. The rest comes from nature. So if you're naive enough to believe that your contribution to %3 of %3 of "the greenhouse gases" is enough for you to do something "productive" for the earth goddess, duct tape a clear plastic bag around your neck for about 12 hours each day to trap that CO2 "pollution".

I promise you the world would be a cooler place if everyone who believes in this glababble whining bullshit did so.

 

[flacaltenn]

Still waiting for those AUTHORS actually said and not what a "reporter" for a physics magazine put in their mouths.

ANYBODY?? Cant' find paper -- only the conference it was presented at..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Still waiting for those AUTHORS actually said and not what a "reporter" for a physics magazine put in their mouths.

ANYBODY?? Cant' find paper -- only the conference it was presented at..

Dr. Lief Salvagaurd has info on his blog site but I too could not find a link to the paper. I've dropped Lief an E-mail asking for it. Lief is a luke-warmer and denies that the sun has any role. We disagree on many things but I respect his work as he is very thorough.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Weird, how all these studies are coming out refuting hundreds of years of observed knowledge. Like Karl 2015,,,this is something I'll remain highly skeptical of until some more papers come out to support it.

I can at least understand Karl 2015 as it is "a estimate" of how much warming took place within the areas we don't have observations for. When we challenge the sun spot climate theory,,,,we're challenging something that observations directly.

I am extremely sceptically. This doesn't help our science institutions creditability in a time they need it the most. Makes me sad.

 

[MisterBeale]

Any one that would trust anything coming from this source is a fool. Of course they would readjust any data to say anything they need it to say. Here is the first line of their article. . . let's be discerning shall we?

A re-calibration of data describing the number of sunspots and groups of sunspots on the surface of the Sun shows that there is no significant long-term upward trend in solar activity since 1700, contrary to what was previously thought.

So, in essence, you re-calibrate the data to get it to say what you need it to tell you about the paradigm you are selling, is that it? But wait, before you protest, let's look into the integrity and motivation of this source, shall we?


The Institute of Physics is corrupt
- Bishop Hill blog - The Institute of Physics is corrupt

The sample was padded with irrelevant papers. An article about TV coverage on global warming was taken as evidence for global warming. In fact, about three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsements had nothing to say about the subject matter.


Requests for the data were met with evasion and foot-dragging, a clear breach of the publisher’s policy on validation and reproduction, yet defended by an editorial board member of the journal as “exemplary scientific conduct”.

Global warming consensus claim does not stand up (author's cut)
Richard Tol Global warming consensus claim does not stand up author s cut
Although there are large areas of substantive agreement, climate science is far from settled. Witness the dozens of alternative explanations of the current, 18 year long pause in warming of the surface atmosphere. The debate on the seriousness of climate change or what to do about it ranges even more widely.
The Cook paper is remarkable for its quality, though. Cook and colleagues studied some 12,000 papers, but did not check whether their sample is representative for the scientific literature. It isn’t. Their conclusions are about the papers they happened to look at, rather than about the literature. Attempts to replicate their sample failed: A number of papers that should have been analysed were not, for no apparent reason.

The sample was padded with irrelevant papers. An article about TV coverage on global warming was taken as evidence for global warming. In fact, about three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsements had nothing to say about the subject matter.

Cook enlisted a small group of environmental activists to rate the claims made by the selected papers. Cook claims that the ratings were done independently, but the raters freely discussed their work. There are systematic differences between the raters. Reading the same abstracts, the raters reached remarkably different conclusions – and some raters all too often erred in the same direction. Cook’s hand-picked raters disagreed what a paper was about 33% of the time. In 63% of cases, they disagreed about the message of a paper with the authors of that paper.

<snip>

The time stamps also reveal something far more serious. After collecting data for 8 weeks, there were 4 weeks of data analysis, followed by 3 more weeks of data collection. The same people collected and analysed the data. After more analysis, the paper classification scheme was changed and yet more data collected.

Cook thus broke a key rule of scientific data collection: Observations should never follow from the conclusions. Medical tests are double-blind for good reason. You cannot change how to collect data, and how much, after having seen the results.

Cook’s team may, perhaps unwittingly, have worked towards a given conclusion. And indeed, the observations are different, significantly and materially, between the three phases of data collection. The entire study should therefore be dismissed.

This would have been an amusing how-not-to tale for our students. But Cook’s is one of the most influential papers of recent years. The paper was vigorously defended by the University of Queensland (Cook’s employer) and the editors of Environmental Research Letters, with the Institute of Physics (the publisher) looking on in silence. Incompetence was compounded by cover-up and complacency.

 

[MisterBeale]

It's not that all these sources are denying Global warming exists, it's the spin your source likes to put on it. Basically, your source can't be trusted to give the public the truth about what these papers are actually saying.

 

[skookerasbil]

Solar Warming theory?

It's not a fact that the sun warms the earth?

God these fucking bed wetters are stupid.

LMAO...........dude.........welcome to the ENVIRONMENT forum. Stop in often.........skeptics have hoot in here. And check out the thread MORE PROOF THE SKEPTICS ARE WINNING thread. Thread has pwned the forum for well over 2 years now!!! Billions of links that make the jackasses look like jackasses.

These bozo's cant connect the dots that since they disown anything related to the sun having an effect on the climate, their cause has gone directly south in recent years. We celebrate their level of ePiC fAiL in here daily!!

 

[ScienceRocks]

I strongly believe that the sun has a very real effect on climate. This study is a crock of shit.

Much of our understanding of past climate over the past 8,000 years would have to be rethought if this shit was true. The Roman and medevil warm periods were very much explained by it and the little ice age in away...Sure, the Nao planned a roll in these but not like the sun.

 

[jc456]

Solar Warming theory?

It's not a fact that the sun warms the earth?

God these fucking bed wetters are stupid.

LMAO...........dude.........welcome to the ENVIRONMENT forum. Stop in often.........skeptics have hoot in here. And check out the thread MORE PROOF THE SKEPTICS ARE WINNING thread. Thread has pwned the forum for well over 2 years now!!! Billions of links that make the jackasses look like jackasses.

These bozo's cant connect the dots that since they disown anything related to the sun having an effect on the climate, their cause has gone directly south in recent years. We celebrate their level of ePiC fAiL in here daily!!

sk00ks I watched some program Sunday morning on History channel 2, the Universe, in this program they state that the sun is responsible for only 20% of the earth's warming. I fell right out of my chair.

I swear. On a cable channel there are folks making documentaries saying this. 20%.

I thought the sun warmed the planet all these years. Now I'm really confused by these lefty warmers. Where is the heat engine then?

 

[Crick]

Any one that would trust anything coming from this source is a fool. Of course they would readjust any data to say anything they need it to say. Here is the first line of their article. . . let's be discerning shall we?

A re-calibration of data describing the number of sunspots and groups of sunspots on the surface of the Sun shows that there is no significant long-term upward trend in solar activity since 1700, contrary to what was previously thought.

So, in essence, you re-calibrate the data to get it to say what you need it to tell you about the paradigm you are selling, is that it? But wait, before you protest, let's look into the integrity and motivation of this source, shall we?


The Institute of Physics is corrupt
- Bishop Hill blog - The Institute of Physics is corrupt

The sample was padded with irrelevant papers. An article about TV coverage on global warming was taken as evidence for global warming. In fact, about three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsements had nothing to say about the subject matter.


Requests for the data were met with evasion and foot-dragging, a clear breach of the publisher’s policy on validation and reproduction, yet defended by an editorial board member of the journal as “exemplary scientific conduct”.

Global warming consensus claim does not stand up (author's cut)
Richard Tol Global warming consensus claim does not stand up author s cut
Although there are large areas of substantive agreement, climate science is far from settled. Witness the dozens of alternative explanations of the current, 18 year long pause in warming of the surface atmosphere. The debate on the seriousness of climate change or what to do about it ranges even more widely.
The Cook paper is remarkable for its quality, though. Cook and colleagues studied some 12,000 papers, but did not check whether their sample is representative for the scientific literature. It isn’t. Their conclusions are about the papers they happened to look at, rather than about the literature. Attempts to replicate their sample failed: A number of papers that should have been analysed were not, for no apparent reason.

The sample was padded with irrelevant papers. An article about TV coverage on global warming was taken as evidence for global warming. In fact, about three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsements had nothing to say about the subject matter.

Cook enlisted a small group of environmental activists to rate the claims made by the selected papers. Cook claims that the ratings were done independently, but the raters freely discussed their work. There are systematic differences between the raters. Reading the same abstracts, the raters reached remarkably different conclusions – and some raters all too often erred in the same direction. Cook’s hand-picked raters disagreed what a paper was about 33% of the time. In 63% of cases, they disagreed about the message of a paper with the authors of that paper.

<snip>

The time stamps also reveal something far more serious. After collecting data for 8 weeks, there were 4 weeks of data analysis, followed by 3 more weeks of data collection. The same people collected and analysed the data. After more analysis, the paper classification scheme was changed and yet more data collected.

Cook thus broke a key rule of scientific data collection: Observations should never follow from the conclusions. Medical tests are double-blind for good reason. You cannot change how to collect data, and how much, after having seen the results.

Cook’s team may, perhaps unwittingly, have worked towards a given conclusion. And indeed, the observations are different, significantly and materially, between the three phases of data collection. The entire study should therefore be dismissed.

This would have been an amusing how-not-to tale for our students. But Cook’s is one of the most influential papers of recent years. The paper was vigorously defended by the University of Queensland (Cook’s employer) and the editors of Environmental Research Letters, with the Institute of Physics (the publisher) looking on in silence. Incompetence was compounded by cover-up and complacency.

Out of the 12,465 papers 29,083 authors brought in to this survey, how many could Anthony Watts come up with that thought Cook had incorrectly characterized their papers as accepting the consensus view? Three. In their review of abstracts, Cook's team concluded that 66.4% of papers expressed no view. When he surveyed the authors, only 33.5% of them believed their papers expressed no view. Your accusations against the study are crap. Going to the Bishop Hill Blog and Richard Tol for your information, it's no wonder.

Besides, Cook's results mesh almost perfectly with half a dozen other studies. The vast majority of active climate scientists believe AGW to be a valid theory. There is a direct correlation between climatic knowledge and acceptance of the consensus position and the number of scientists accepting AGW has increased over time. The number of published papers that reject AGW is very close to zero.

 

[flacaltenn]

Any one that would trust anything coming from this source is a fool. Of course they would readjust any data to say anything they need it to say. Here is the first line of their article. . . let's be discerning shall we?

A re-calibration of data describing the number of sunspots and groups of sunspots on the surface of the Sun shows that there is no significant long-term upward trend in solar activity since 1700, contrary to what was previously thought.

So, in essence, you re-calibrate the data to get it to say what you need it to tell you about the paradigm you are selling, is that it? But wait, before you protest, let's look into the integrity and motivation of this source, shall we?


The Institute of Physics is corrupt
- Bishop Hill blog - The Institute of Physics is corrupt

The sample was padded with irrelevant papers. An article about TV coverage on global warming was taken as evidence for global warming. In fact, about three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsements had nothing to say about the subject matter.


Requests for the data were met with evasion and foot-dragging, a clear breach of the publisher’s policy on validation and reproduction, yet defended by an editorial board member of the journal as “exemplary scientific conduct”.

Global warming consensus claim does not stand up (author's cut)
Richard Tol Global warming consensus claim does not stand up author s cut
Although there are large areas of substantive agreement, climate science is far from settled. Witness the dozens of alternative explanations of the current, 18 year long pause in warming of the surface atmosphere. The debate on the seriousness of climate change or what to do about it ranges even more widely.
The Cook paper is remarkable for its quality, though. Cook and colleagues studied some 12,000 papers, but did not check whether their sample is representative for the scientific literature. It isn’t. Their conclusions are about the papers they happened to look at, rather than about the literature. Attempts to replicate their sample failed: A number of papers that should have been analysed were not, for no apparent reason.

The sample was padded with irrelevant papers. An article about TV coverage on global warming was taken as evidence for global warming. In fact, about three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsements had nothing to say about the subject matter.

Cook enlisted a small group of environmental activists to rate the claims made by the selected papers. Cook claims that the ratings were done independently, but the raters freely discussed their work. There are systematic differences between the raters. Reading the same abstracts, the raters reached remarkably different conclusions – and some raters all too often erred in the same direction. Cook’s hand-picked raters disagreed what a paper was about 33% of the time. In 63% of cases, they disagreed about the message of a paper with the authors of that paper.

<snip>

The time stamps also reveal something far more serious. After collecting data for 8 weeks, there were 4 weeks of data analysis, followed by 3 more weeks of data collection. The same people collected and analysed the data. After more analysis, the paper classification scheme was changed and yet more data collected.

Cook thus broke a key rule of scientific data collection: Observations should never follow from the conclusions. Medical tests are double-blind for good reason. You cannot change how to collect data, and how much, after having seen the results.

Cook’s team may, perhaps unwittingly, have worked towards a given conclusion. And indeed, the observations are different, significantly and materially, between the three phases of data collection. The entire study should therefore be dismissed.

This would have been an amusing how-not-to tale for our students. But Cook’s is one of the most influential papers of recent years. The paper was vigorously defended by the University of Queensland (Cook’s employer) and the editors of Environmental Research Letters, with the Institute of Physics (the publisher) looking on in silence. Incompetence was compounded by cover-up and complacency.

Yeah.. I've seen other instances where this journal is off the rails crazy about the GW agenda.
LOTS of "editorial comment" that fails to jive with what the actual work discussed.

That's why I asked where the ORIGINAL work is.. Because I assure you its boring and mundane and that it DID NOT REMOVE over a Watt/sqM of solar insolation increase since the 1750s.. Nor does it remove all the references of "relative solar maximum" from all the Solar Science papers..