Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Twitter Facebook YouTube Mastodon MeWe

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Search Tips

Comment Search Results

Search for Nicola Scafetta

Comments matching the search Nicola Scafetta:

  • Climate sensitivity is low

    michael sweet at 04:36 AM on 10 April, 2019

    Artmemidor,

    The "no tricks zone" is a well known denier site.  They only cite denier papers and not the much more numerous papers supporting the IPCC position.  (There are more than 30 real papers for every denier paper published).

    Scafetta, the lead author of the paper they cite, is a well known denier who has been debunked many times.  The paper is published in the International Journal of Heat and Technology, a journal that is unrelated to climate change.  One technique of deniers is to publish papers in unrelated journals where the editors are sympathetic to denier views or will publish anything that pays the fee.  If it was a real paper then they would publish in a climate journal.

    At Realclimate, a web site run by real climate scientists, the current lead article is a simulation of the past three million years of climate that estimates the climate sensitivity at 3C per doubling, the midrange of the IPCC report.

    Carbon dioxide concentrations have risen from 280 ppm pre industrial to current levels of 410 ppm.  Temperatures have risen by 1 degree C or more.  About 0.5C is estimated to be unrealized heating or masked by aerosols. 

    Currently measured temperature increases are already too high for a climate sensitivity of less than 2C and are not well described by a sensitivity of less than 3C.  If the arctic sea ice melts out that will increase the climate sensitivity since open water absorbs more heat that ice covered water.

    The article you cite is intended to confuse the uninformed and not to help increase understanding of climate.

  • Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

    nigelj at 08:32 AM on 20 July, 2017

    Thoughtful @50,

    Thanks, but here are a few thoughts in response:

    You said "I read that it is has been practically impossible to get any research paper published unless it supports the AGW view, that a scientist can lose funding / job if not on board with the AGW view."

    You don't say where you read this, and certainly provide no proof or credible information. Anyone can make outrageous claims like this so, surely you dont take them at face value?.

    Willie Soon and Nicolas Scafetta are climate sceptics, and have published papers, just do a simple google search. They have not complained that anyone is stopping them publishing to my knowedge. The trouble is their ideas have not stood up to scrutiny and are in a minority.

    It just seems that in general terms you take sceptical material on wattsup and places like this at face value, without checking any of it.

    "I read that NASA has been falsifying data to support the AGW agenda,"

    Where and on what basis? Wheres the evidence? You provide nothing of any substance.

    Again anyone can make any ridiculous claim? Do you always believe such simplstic claims without checking them? Even if  you just checked a few things on denialist websites the holes would become apparent to you.

    We are also not reliant just on nasa. For example there are numerous sets of temperature gathered in different ways by different organisations. Even the raw, unadjusted data shows strong warming. 

    "I have no way of knowing which scientists and which organizations on which sides are really not motivated by personal agendas "

    Yes you do. Just do some research and I have already given you specific examples on specific scientists.

    Polls discussed on this website show conservatives are more sceptical of climate change than liberals. Clearly political agendas / ideologies have at least some influence. I'm not claiming they are the only thing.

    There is also a big diffrence depending on funding. I think its rather unlikely that governments would want scientists with public funding to come up with some global warming nightmare. No government wants this! Scientists have simply discovered a problem by doing what they do: namely research. In comparison scientists funded by the fossil fuel lobby will be expected to find a certain result, if they want more work. Ultimately just apply some commonsense, as well as critical thinking.

  • The latest global temperature data are breaking records

    KR at 01:55 AM on 17 June, 2015

    dcpetterson - You know, it's really hard to tell exactly what Tisdale is arguing at any one time. He tends to write these spews of text and meaningless graphs going on and on for pages at a time...

    That said, he appears to feel that it is indeed warming (although I seem to recall him engaging in conspiracy theories about temperature adjustments and how much), but that it's entirely due to recent ENSO variations rather than any anthropogenic influences. Despite the fact that warming atmosphere and warming oceans make an ENSO-only cause thermodynamically impossible...

    You get similar arguments from the cycle enthusiasts (think astrology and cosmic influences, or just natural climate Mysterious Unknown Cycles/MUCs), all of whom acknowledge some degree of climate change but claim no human influence. Nicola Scafetta is a prime example of the former, Fred Singer among others has pushed the latter. All examples of the climate denial meme 'it's not us'

  • Making sense of the slowdown in global surface warming

    _rand15_ at 10:08 AM on 27 May, 2015


    @scaddenp: "This style of curve-fitting is common. Nicola Scafetta has published on this many times. The trouble is with quadratic and two sine curves you can fit any time series well.... Unless you have a physical basis for the curve, what are we to make of it?"


    Yes, of course.  Not only that, but the data are too noisy to be able to discriminate between variations on the theme, or even between very different models.  Yet you can't necessarily fit just any time series with two sine waves (plus a slow, nearly DC component, in this case).  This analysis didn't show me that the data *is* caused by a couple of sine waves.  It's in no way adequate for that.  It just showed that many of the really pronounced features of the temperature record can be reduced to just a few.  That's usually worthwhile.

    As for physical causes, I don't know about that (I'll add: "yet").  It would be better to know.  I'm a physicist and engineer, I always want physical causes.  You know, it's something like the tides.  The causes are well known - the modification in the Earth's iso-gravitational contours caused by the sun and the moon, approximated by a dipole moment - but the way in which they combine over time, together with the detailed shapes of the ocean basins and local undersea topography and weather lead to very complex details of the time series at any given point.  The details of all this may not really be known, but the general picture still gives us quite a bit of understanding even so. 

    Maybe existing climate models actually crank out a 66-year oscillation.  That would be interesting to know about, although I don't at the moment.

  • Making sense of the slowdown in global surface warming

    scaddenp at 09:14 AM on 27 May, 2015

    This style of curve-fitting is common. Nicola Scafetta has published on this many times. The trouble is with quadratic and two sine curves you can fit any time series well. See here for more statistical discussion and specifically on Scafetta here. Unless you have a physical basis for the curve, what are we to make of it?

    Of course you can do curve fitting with the actual physical factors (eg Schmidt and Benestad, which was a counter to another Scafetta wild claim). Compare that with yours for same period. If you want to postulate some "undiscovered natural cycle", then where is the heat coming from (ie your proposal must respect conservation of energy), and what is your explanation for the measured forcings have so little effect if you think the natural cycle is important?

    If you insist on curve fitting, then a better way to do it, is use part of the data set for training (eg first 1/2 to 3/4) and then see how well it predicts the rest of the dataset, or do it in reverse.

  • There is no consensus

    MA Rodger at 19:49 PM on 8 January, 2015

    The Forbes story amhartley asked about @650 is rather strong in its assertions. It asserts that Cook et al (2013) involves "egregious misconduct" and was "a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public." These claims are backed up by a mis-description of the Cook et al method and the comments of some well-known scientists - Richard Tol, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta and Dr. Nir Shaviv, this last one being a not-so-well-known climate change denier compared with the other three.

  • Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change

    KR at 02:45 AM on 21 November, 2014

    topal - Nobody rejects science when it's real science??? Please tell that to climate deniers who say that CO2 isn't being increased by anthropogenic activity, that it has no effect on temperatures, that it's all some unknown long term cycle, that it's cosmic rays, that all of the science is a malicous plot by the Illuminati, etc. etc. etc. 

    Because those are people documentably rejecting real science. 

    Scientific consensus on complex issues is notable because we (the public) use it to evaluate those issues. And like tobacco research, climate science and consensus is under constant attack by those who wish to disuade any action on the subject. Which is both a rejection of science, and a campaign of disinformation intended to prevent public policy changes, by a very small segment of the population. 

  • MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire are wrong about the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming

    Tom Curtis at 19:42 PM on 23 February, 2014

    tlitb1 @35, it is fairly obvious even to this non-author that:

    1) The papers were "captured" by the search, not "captured" into a category.  That is, the literature search can be viewed metaphorically as a net which 'caught' 12,280 papers, which were then sorted into their appropriate categories.  Your misinterpretation is both typical of you, and from past experience, probably deliberate.  Whether deliberate or not, it has no justification in the text of the article.

    2)  Even casual readers of the paper will have noted that the abstract raters rated the papers only on the abstract and title, all other information (including date and journal of publication, and authors names) being withheld.  In constrast author self ratings were based not only on the full paper, but also on whatever memories they had of their intentions for the paper.  As such, the two sorts of ratings do not, and cannot compounded into a conglomerate rating as you suggest.  If the authors disagree with the abstract ratings, that may be simply because they are rating a different thing.  It is presume that abstracts are related to the contents of papers, so that on average the pattern of ratings by authors represents a check on the accuracy of both the method of rating papers by abstract alone and on the accuracy of abstract raters.  Differences in the rating of individual papers, whoever, can be the consequence of to many different factors to safely attribute them to any one factor (at least without a lot of additional information).

    3)  In constrast, a large difference between the author rating of the same paper by various authors can only be attributed to either misunderstanding the rating categories, or (hopefully less likely) misunderstanding their own paper by one or more of the authors.  A difference of just one point in self rating, however, may simply be attributable to slighly different subjective judgements, which cannot be completely excluded.  In the scenario you describe, at least two of the authors have misunderstood the rating categories.

    4)  In this case, Spencer makes an explicit claim about how he would be rated, a claim which is shown to be false by the actual facts.  That is fairly clear evidence that he is misdescribing how the ratings should apply.

    In fact it is very interesting to compare Spencer's reaction to that of Dr Nicola Scaffeta, who when asked a question about the rating of one of his papers had this to say:

    Question: "Dr. Scafetta, your paper ‘Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming‘ is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; “Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%“

    Is this an accurate representation of your paper?"

    Scafetta: “Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.

    What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings.

    The “less” claim is based on alternative solar models (e.g. ACRIM instead of PMOD) and also on the observation that part of the observed global warming might be due to urban heat island effect, and not to CO2.

    By using the 50% borderline a lot of so-called “skeptical works” including some of mine are included in their 97%.”

     First, Scaffeta grotesquely misrepresents the IPCC position, which is that greater than 50% of warming since 1950 has been anthropogenic.

    Second, the abstract of his paper reads as follows:

    "We study the role of solar forcing on global surface temperature during four periods of the industrial era (1900–2000, 1900–1950, 1950–2000 and 1980–2000) by using a sun-climate coupling model based on four scale-dependent empirical climate sensitive parameters to solar variations. We use two alternative total solar irradiance satellite composites, ACRIM and PMOD, and a total solar irradiance proxy reconstruction. We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming. These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century, also suggest that the solar impact on climate change during the same period is significantly stronger than what some theoretical models have predicted."

    (My emphasis)

    The phrasing, "as much as" indicates that the upper limit is being specified.  With solar activity specified as only contributing "as much as" 25-30% of warming since 1980, the rating of the abstract was eminently justified.

    What is interesting, however, is the stark contrast between Scaffeta's misinterpretation of the rating, and that by Spencer.  Interestingly, all early commentary on the paper by AGW "skeptics" followed Scaffeta's line (if not quite so extremely).  Then a new, and contradictory talking point developed, ie, that used by Spencer.  Some at least Anthony Watts have happily presented both views.

    I suspect it is fortunate for a number of AGW "skeptics" who self rated that their self ratings are confidential (unless they choose to release them), for I suspect quite a few of them will have rated them as rejecting the concensus, and are now publicly declaring that they ratings must be interpreted such that they are part of the 97%.  As I have not seen the data, that is, of course, just a guess.

  • How we discovered the 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming

    barry at 16:25 PM on 23 November, 2013

    Question:

    Of the scientists that were surveyed to rate their own papers, did you include Alan Carlin, Craig D. Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nils-Axel Morner, Nir J. Shaviv, Richard S.J. Tol, and Wei-Hock "Willie" Soon?

    I ask because Anthony Watts, referring to a PopTech article regarding those scientists' comments on the paper, says that they were not contacted. But the scientists themselves say nothing about that.

    Do you have a list of the scientists you attempted to contact, perhaps in supplementary material?

    Any leads appreciated.

    Barry.

  • Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation

    KR at 10:29 AM on 12 October, 2013

    joeygoze - I see you've been reading the denial site notrickszone, as those appear to be the first 10 links from one of Gosselin's posts. 

    However, the actual content in those papers really doesn't match Gosselin's rhetoric, does not contradict the general view of AGW. As but one exemplar: the second link, Stephen Po-Chedley and Qiang Fu 2012, is a discussion of errors detected in the satellite temperature record. If those errors are real, and are properly accounted for, the satellite data is in far better agreement with surface temperatures - and provides additional support for anthropogenic warming. In fact, if they are correct about the errors in the satellite record, arguments from the 'skeptic' producers of some of that data (Spencer and Christy) is considerably weakened. Clearly that paper wasn't actually read or understood when compiling the list...

    Many (most?) of Gosselin's links are from PopTech's list - a cherry-picked list of papers (and op-eds) that he (mis)interprets as possibly (in PopTech's opinion) contradicting AGW, despite in several cases objections from the authors of said works. They do include some works that directly disagree with AGW - including several from Scafetta (curve-fitting), from W. Soon (over the top misrepresentation), etc. And many of those have been refuted/debunked

    Link-bombing (as in Gossilen's post) only works if you don't actually read the links, or don't consider that even with a few cherry-picked articles, the vast majority of the work in the field finds those views to be unsupported outliers. If you feel that there are significant objections, I suggest you discuss them directly, rather than posting bare links.

  • Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming

    gallopingcamel at 09:12 AM on 1 March, 2012

    Jose_X at 16:41 PM on 29 February, 2012,
    You have identified the main weakness in the references I cited. They lack a physical mechanism to underpin them and that leaves them open to the charge of "curve fitting".

    Remember that Alfred Wegener had been dead for many years when the scientific world stopped laughing at his theory of "Continental Drift".

    Nicola Scafetta is all too well aware that even if his prediction of global temperatures to 2040 proves to be more accurate than that of the IPCC's AR4, it proves nothing unless he can explain the underlying processes. He is making progress and I find his ideas quite plausible. When he "goes public" we will be able to take this discussion to the next level.

    In my opinion, N&K are in the same boat but I have not had the opportunity to meet them.

    (-snipIn AR4, the IPCC used a composite of a portfolio of models that are also open to the charge of "curve fitting". Richard Lindzen included a table of the parameters used in these models in his recent address to the UK House of Commons. This was a dubious approach in AR4 and according to Alec Rawls it will be even more dubious in AR5.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/22/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-evidence-for-solar-climate-driver-rates-one-oblique-sentence-in-ar5/
    -)

    Early drafts of the AR5 Working Group 1 have been leaked and I have a team working on them. You are clearly a deep thinker so would you be interested in participating?
    http://www.gallopingcamel.info/IPCC.htm
  • Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming

    gallopingcamel at 15:19 PM on 29 February, 2012

    Chris @43,
    During our debates on "Science of Doom", Leonard Weinstein and I pointed out that for Venus it would make little difference to the surface temperature if the CO2 were replaced by an equal mass of Argon or Helium. In case you have forgotten, here are the links:
    http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/12/venusian-mysteries/#comment-2949
    http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/12/venusian-mysteries/#comment-2953

    The DALR depends on efficient heat transfer processes. In the troposphere of rotating planets heat transport is primarily achieved through convection and baroclinic eddies (mixing). Radiative processes are important only in the stratosphere where the lapse rate is usually of the opposite sign (temperature rises with altitude).

    Like Weinstein and this camel, N&K conclude that gas composition has an insignificant impact on planetary surface temperatures. Observations support this idea.

    As this thread includes "Runaway" warming let me say that if such a thing were possible it would surely have occurred during the last billion years and we would not be having this discussion.

    Here is a comparison between the IPCC's models that include strong positive feedbacks with one that places more emphasis on natural processes. Please note that Scafetta is making some progress on quantifying the processes that support his model using the ACRIM satellite:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/09/scaffeta-on-his-latest-paper-harmonic-climate-model-versus-the-ipcc-general-circulation-climate-models/

    I must confess to some bias as Nicola Scafetta and Robert G. Brown are members of the Duke university physics department as I was for many years. We don't always agree but they have my respect and admiration.

    Jose_X @48,
    The references I provided are from physicists who are applying thermodynamics, Stephan-Boltzman etc. To dismiss this as "curve fitting" tells me that you need to take another look at the equations.
  • Scafetta's Widget Problems

    les at 08:00 AM on 24 February, 2012

    could someone explain why all the "skeptics" who are convince the climate system and it's models are unpredictable due to chaos etc. Aren't attacking this?
    I did a search of wozupwidat and found it both supported various 'it's chaos' theories and Nicola Scafetta...
    I'm confused now.
  • Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1

    scaddenp at 13:47 PM on 10 November, 2011

    Bentham Science is vanity publishing.
    I note a single cite - our climastrology friends Adriano Mazzarella and Nicola Scafetta.

    The comment on Hoffman would apply I think - I would assume a comment to be reviewed?

    And ditto for the Ecological Modelling paper - odd place to publish though. I would assume the glossed-over physics would pass there whereas wouldnt in an climate or meteorological journal.
  • Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change

    apiratelooksat50 at 02:10 AM on 10 January, 2011

    On secular, millenarian and larger time scales astronomical
    oscillations and solar changes drive climate variations. Shaviv’s theory [2003] can explain the large 145 Myr climate oscillations during the last 600 million years. Milankovic’s theory [1941] can explain the multi-millennial climate oscillations observed during the last 1000 kyr. Climate oscillations with periods of 2500, 1500, and 1000 years during the last 10,000 year (the Holocene) are correlated to equivalent solar cycles that caused the Minoan, Roman, Medieval and Modern warm periods [Bond et al., 2001; Kerr, 2001]. Finally, several other authors found that multisecular solar oscillations caused bisecular
    little ice ages (for example: the Sp¨orer, Maunder, Dalton
    minima) during the last 1000 years [for example: Eddy,
    1976; Eichler et al., 2009; Scafetta and West, 2007; Scafetta, 2009, 2010].

    Nicola Scafetta, Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications
  • What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?

    kampmannpeine at 20:52 PM on 22 July, 2010

    Yes, the other three. The problem with the 2007-IPCC-process was that there was some "unopenness" towards the other three. They definitely now learned from that and when you look at the www.ipcc.ch page you will find some hints that I observed this correctly ...

    What also seems very interesting is what Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West found: Celestial magnetic influence by the local panetary system ... for instance there seems to be a 60-year periodic fluctuation in the temperature observations. and interestingly also the same fluctuation in the longterm measurements of the LOD (Length of Day) - which is about some millisecond difference of fluctuations... Could it be that there is some "slow down/speed up" generated by the interaction of planetary and terrestrial magnetic fields?

    Interestingly enough, there was already a newspaper article in the German "Die Zeit" from *1967* which is online available ... And there is already the talk about the influence of the Jovian magnetic field on our ionosphere which - then quoted - influences the terrestrian troposphere ... This influence generates en electromagnetic resonance chamber of about 8-12 Hz ... strangely enough the same frequency as the human brain waves ... (not kidding!)
  • Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?

    Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:51 PM on 7 June, 2010

    @muoncounter
    - a propos "... Fourier Analysis of sunspot cycles ..."

    I agree with the assertion that the "direct" activity of the sun is not explained by current climate change - a big mistake Monckton. Equally, however, changes in solar activity can not be explained by example of the middle Holocene optimum, or LIA ...

    Nothing is able to change, however, that the current warming is a "perfect fit" in the series: Bond events, Hallstatt, circa 4.2 thousand. years (not yet proven) and recently proven - circa 6 thousand. years (Xapsos and Burke, 2009 - "Reconstructed sunspot data are available that extend solar activity back to 11 360 years before the present. We have examined these data using Hurst analysis, a moving average filter, and Fourier analysis. All of the procedures indicate the presence of a long term (≈6 000 year) cycle not previously reported. A number of shorter cycles formerly identified in the literature by using Fourier analysis [...], Bayes methods, and maximum entropy methods were also detected in the reconstructed sunspot data.").

    There are theories of "indirect" effects on the Sun: "cosmic rise" (in my opinion incorrect) and the mutual influences: the Sun and planets (including Earth, of course) - "astronomical cycles".
    The latter theory (finally!) Nicola Scafetta interested in: Empirical Evidence for a Celestial Origin of the Climate Oscillations and its Implications, 05.06.2010 - "A phenomenological model based on these astronomical cycles can be used to well reconstruct the temperature oscillations since 1850 and to make partial forecasts for the 21st century. It is found that at least 60% [...] of the global warming observed since 1970 has been induced by the combined effect of the above natural climate oscillations. The partial forecast indicates that climate may stabilize or cool until 2030-2040. Possible physical mechanisms are qualitatively discussed with an emphasis on the phenomenon of collective SYNCHRONIZATION OF COUPLED OSCILLATORS."


    Thus, despite the erroneous assumptions Monckton is right - it changes on the sun are decisive - are crucial ..., so that not only that its "light" activity ...
  • CO2 effect is saturated

    qball17 at 19:08 PM on 1 May, 2010

    and by the way.. the title of this topic is ridiculous.. its not the "saturated Co2 effect", its the "saturated GREENHOUSE effect".. we all know that we can increase the concentration of CO2.. what about the work from Dr. Nicola Scafetta?
  • ACRIM vs PMOD, the rematch

    clayco at 23:21 PM on 5 November, 2009

    @ Peter Pan

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/nicola-scafetta-comments-on-solar-trends-and-global-warming-by-benestad-and-schmidt/

    "Benestad and Schmidt apparently do not know that since 1978 Lean 1995 as well as Lean 2000 do not differ significantly from PMOD because PMOD was build (by altering the published TSI satellite data) by using Lean 1995 and Lean 2000 as guides. Moreover, we also merge the Lean data with ACRIM since 1978 to obtain an alternative scenario, as it is evident in all our papers. The discontinuity problem addressed by Benestad and Schmidt in merging two independent sequences (Lean’s proxy model and the ACRIM) is not an issue because it is not possible to avoid it given the fact that there are no TSI satellite data before 1978."

    Nicola Scafetta
  • ACRIM vs PMOD, the rematch

    clayco at 00:40 AM on 3 November, 2009

    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta-JASP_1_2009.pdf

    N. Scafetta 2009 is “Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change,” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2009), doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2009.07.007

    “The sun may have caused from a slight cooling, if PMOD TSI composite is used, to a significant warming (up to 65% of the total observed warming) if ACRIM, or other TSI composites are used.”

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/nicola-scafetta-comments-on-solar-trends-and-global-warming-by-benestad-and-schmidt/
    Nicola Scafetta Comments on “Solar Trends And Global Warming” by Benestad and Schmidt

    http://dpnc.unige.ch/ams/ICRC-07/icrc1243.pdf
    McCracken, K. G. (2007), Heliomagnetic field near Earth, 1428–2005, J. Geophys. Res., 112, A09106, doi:10.1029/2006JA012119
  • CO2 is not the only driver of climate

    Robbo the Yobbo at 16:55 PM on 26 October, 2009

    I will include a discussion by Richard Willson from 2003 –

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/03/030321075236.htm

    Your ‘multiple lines of evidence’ on TSI are based of reconstruction of the satellite TSI measurement. Scafetta and Willson (2009) – suggest a new method of stitching the record together over the 2 years after the Columbia disaster.

    Yet you leap to the conclusion that it is ‘dubious’. If you can sort out the wheat from the chaff in the satellite TSI record, you’re a better man than I Gunga Din. I always remember the ‘low level of scientific understanding’ and act accordingly.

    ACRIM-gap and TSI trend issue resolved using a surface magnetic flux TSI proxy model

    Nicola Scafetta
    Physics Department, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
    Richard C. Willson
    ACRIM, Coronado, California, USA

    ‘The ACRIM-gap (1989.5–1991.75) continuity dilemma for satellite TSI observations is resolved by bridging the satellite TSI monitoring gap between ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 results with TSI derived from Krivova et al.'s (2007) proxy model based on variations of the surface distribution of solar magnetic flux. ‘Mixed’ versions of ACRIM and PMOD TSI composites are constructed with their composites' original values except for the ACRIM gap, where Krivova modeled TSI is used to connect ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 results. Both ‘mixed’ composites demonstrate a significant TSI increase of 0.033 %/decade between the solar activity minima of 1986 and 1996, comparable to the 0.037 % found in the ACRIM composite. The finding supports the contention of Willson (1997) that the ERBS/ERBE results are flawed by uncorrected degradation during the ACRIM gap and refutes the Nimbus7/ERB ACRIM gap adjustment Fröhlich and Lean (1998) employed in constructing the PMOD.’

    There is really only one admission important in a discussion of S&T or Thompson et al – a background warming trend from all other factors of 0.1 degree C/decade. No prevarication, obfuscation or dissimulation is required.


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us