Wednesday, September 3, 2014

Rewriting sunspot history & other climate records long after the fact

A new publication by SPPI and Christopher Monckton:

[Illustrations, footnotes and references available in PDF version]
In 2006, when I first made the mistake of writing publicly of my doubts about the Party Line on manmade global warming, I began to receive 100 emails a day from interested members of the public – and of the scientific community. I have been doing my best to answer the best of them ever since.
One was from Dr. Dennis Ray Wingo of NASA. He told me the magnetic convection currents beneath both hemispheres of the Sun had slowed to walking pace. This was unprecedented in the record. He expected that solar cycles would lengthen and the vigor of solar activity would decline, perhaps for up to 60 years.
Solar activity is declining – and we must pray that it is not declining towards a new Ice Age. One thing is virtually certain: given that solar activity is declining slowly rather than rising steeply, a warming rate of two-thirds of a degree over the next ten years is unlikely.
We now learn that – yet again – a fundamental climate record is being rewritten long after the event.
The rewriting of the record constitutes a damning admission that the record was not – and perhaps is not – settled science.
For the one admission that the Druids cannot bring themselves to make is the admission that CO2 has far less of a warming effect than their wretched machines had been programmed to assert.
The gravitational-anomaly satellites not only show no increase in sea level: they show it falling through 2009. However, a neat fiddle known as the “glacial isostatic adjustment” was introduced and – hey presto! – the rate of sea-level rise magically appeared to conform to the tilted satellite record.
What is significant about the numerous attempts at rewriting the data that I have come across – and the latest tampering with the sunspot record is no exception – is that they very nearly always conjure a manmade climate “problem” into being where none exists, or magnify a problem where it might genuinely be imagined to exist.
If the data are not settled, then The Science Is Not Settled, and there is not the slightest justification for spending a single red cent more on trying to make recently-non-existent global warming go away.
The sun continues to confound observers. Albeit exceptionally weak, Cycle 24 continues to set solar maximums each month long after its forecast peak of activity should have passed. 
Dr. Svalgaard’s landmark physics-based 2004 paper forecasting 75±8 for the Cycle 24 peak is spot on. Everyone else predicted higher numbers, some as high as 144. Back in 2004 he also said solar max would come in “~2011″. By 2009 NASA revised their forecast saying solar max would be in mid-2013. Both are wrong. It hasn’t arrived yet. 
The newly proposed revisions to the sunspot record going back to 1749 will have some effect on global warming predictions. Exactly what that effect will be remains to be seen. Based on reduced solar activity, the smart money says the current 14-year “pause” in global warming will last for many more years to come, perhaps accompanied by some cooling.


Note: Even with Dr. Svalgaard's sunspot history, it's still the Sun

1 comment:

  1. Sunspot expert Dr Svalgaard and his colleagues have done an immense job of work by reviewing decade upon decade of hand-written records to reconcile seemingly incompatible methods of observation and classification of sunspots.

    Climate skeptics have argued that sunspot data falsifies the greenhouse gas theory of global warming. However, the approach to climate using sunspots is not as simple as it looks. You cannot just eyeball a couple of graphs and declare that the greenhouse gas theory is falsified.

    I agree with Stephens et al., including his co-authors from NASA, that the best instruments for conducting observations are not precise enough to support alarmist views concerning the role of CO2 in climate change.

    Of course these authors did not state such a thing explicitly. But that is the meaning of what they have said.

    Graeme L. Stephens et al, An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations. Nature Geoscience Vol. 5 October 2012


    The reasons why I agree with NASA scientists about the inability of existing technology to confirm AGW is set out more fully in this blog: The Emperors of Climate Alarmism Wear No Clothes

    Since NASA's instruments are not precise enough to confirm or falsify solar theories, we just have to wait and see if variations in solar radiation have the same effect in future as during the Little Ice Age.