Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

[Reality Check]

No, I don't think you understand, it's not the solar luminosity (sunshine) which is steady to 0.1 but the Sun's other outputs, like particles (solar wind) and magnitic effects (CME, Flares) that are critical, they say.

No, I don't think you understand the paper. It does not mention the solar wind, CME, flares, magnetic effects or even particles. It only mentions the total solar irradiance.
For example, Astrometria:

The solar energy flux dynamically defines the climate of the Earth and other planets of the Solar System. The solar energy flux is in turn defined by the area of solar surface or, in the other words, by the diameter of the Sun. An exact value of variations of the solar diameter is an important fundamental parameter and the most important indicator of the TSI variation and of sunspot activity. Consequently, long and exact measurements of the solar radius will provide a possibility for a more reliable determination of the TSI and its temporal variations on different time scales.

I suspect that the "they" you are talking about is just Piers Corbyn with his secret method of long term weather forecasts.

As for thinking that the following means that there is cooling

Prof Jones answer to BBC question:-
C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

To paraphrase Did Phil Jones really say global warming ended in 1995?
"Phil Jones is saying there is a cooling trend but it's not statistically significant. He's not talking about whether cooling is actually happening. He's discussing our ability to detect that cooling trend in a noisy signal over a short period. To demonstrate this, look at the HadCRUT temperature record from 2002 to 2010. The linear trend is that of cooling . However, the temperature record is very noisy with lots of short term variability. The noisy signal means that over a short period, the uncertainty of the cooling trend is almost as large as the actual trend. Hence it's considered statistically insignificant. Over longer time periods, the uncertainty is less and the trend is more statistically significant."
So to get statistically significant trends you need longer periods. The period should be longer than any cyclic variations like the variation in solar energy output. Thus decades rather than single digits.

And:

Analysis by European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) and NASA GISS (Hansen 2006) find that the areas omitted by HadCRUT are some of the fastest warming regions in the world.

If you plot the NASA GISS data from 2002 to 2010 then there is an even less statistically significant cooling trend (~0.3 C per decade).

 

[Dancing David]

Project Astrometria: Global Cooling until 2100?

Read the article here: http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/index1_eng.html

Um conclusions based upon not very good data and we get what?

How did they determine the rate of what and cooling over 7500 years?

Quoting old sources is not a good sign.

I am sure that as a solar study it is super.

 

[tusenfem]

TSI - Total Solar Irradiance
Let's see what the experts say about this, from the LASP website we find:

The TIM instrument measures the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), monitoring changes in incident sunlight to the Earth's atmosphere using an ambient temperature active cavity radiometer to an absolute accuracy of 100 parts per million

And from the TIM instrument we get the explanation: The TIM measures the total solar irradiance (TSI), the integrated solar radiation incident at the top of the Earth's atmosphere. The TIM continues this climate record, which began in 1978 and is used to determine the sensitivity of the Earth's climate to the natural effects of solar forcing.

And another definition:

Total solar irradiance is defined as the amount of radiant energy emitted by the Sun over all wavelengths that fall each second on 11 sq ft (1 sq m) outside the earth's atmosphere.

And here are some pretty graphs of the TSI (careful LARGE images get loaded)

So, no, TSI has nothing to do with magnetic fields or CMEs or whatevers, it is irradiance which is electromagnetic radiation coming from the Sun.

 

[Tubbythin]

It may not be statistically significant to Prof Jones or You but it IS cooling.

Either I have completely misunderstood or this is just mind-boggling. You quote someone as a source who says it is cooling. Then you give their actual quote which says any cooling is statistically insignificant. Then you say because of this it "IS" cooling. Do you not understand what "statistically significant" means? Or do you not accept Jones' evaluation? If its the former, how do you feel capable of evaluating your original source? If its the latter then why quote Jones as your 'expert source'?

 

[Tubbythin]

He is an expert in this science

Really? Which science are you talking about?

 

[Megalodon]

Not only it warmed since 1995, the rate of warming was actually bigger then what could be extrapolated from the 1970-1995 trend.

In fact, 11 out of the latest 14 years were above the extrapolated 70-95 trend.



If you plot decadal trends, you can easily see that all the periods show warming trends.

In the end, this thread is just another installment of the well known series of

 

[MattusMaximus]

Is that your considered view?

Piers Corbyn, astrophysicist says this "The attacks on what the Global Warmers deem as 'solar theory' are the product of disgraceful dishonesty which marks the integrity of the scientific establishment at its lowest level since the Papal Inquisition"

Any serious responses?

No, because your criticism isn't serious

Well, okay, here's a good serious response: Is the Sun Causing Global Warming? Not that I think it'll make much difference to you, though some here will find it useful.

 

[lomiller]

Ridiculous. The variation in TSI over the 11 year sunspot cycle are at least an order of magnitude to small to have any measurable direct effect on the earths climate. Without some mechanism to amplify it 10X it’s a non-starter. If there were a similar change over 10X as long it may have a small effect, but it would still be dwarfed by CO2.


Also, did you even bother to read Jones quote? He is saying the statistical significance for a trend line goes up as the period it’s taken over gets longer, and that while a trend exists since 1995 you need to go back farther to establish statistical significance.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Also, did you even bother to read Jones quote? He is saying the statistical significance for a trend line goes up as the period it’s taken over gets longer, and that while a trend exists since 1995 you need to go back farther to establish statistical significance.

Here's a fuller critique of the Daily Mail article re: Jones...

http://skepticalscience.com/Did-Phil-Jones-really-say-global-warming-ended-in-1995.html

 

[lomiller]

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

It may not be statistically significant to Prof Jones or You but it IS cooling.

So to recap

Jones says there was 0.12 deg/dec warming since 1995 but the time period ios to short so it’s just below the threshold for statistical significance. Your conclusion – no warming.

Jones also says there is 0.12 deg/dec cooling since 2002 but this isn’t remotely statistically significant. Your conclusion – it’s cooling.

 

[MattusMaximus]

deleted

 

[varwoche]

Some contradictory studies:

None of the natural processes can account for the overall warming trend in global surface temperatures ... solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100 years link

Cyclical changes in the sun's energy output are not responsible for Earth's recent global warming ... Instead the findings put the blame for climate change squarely on human-created carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases—reinforcing the beliefs of most climate scientists. link

brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century link

no indication of a systematic trend in the level of solar activity that can explain the most recent global warming link

Solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades link

 

[soylent]

Same way we prepare for the Zombie Apocalypse, of course!

Well we're actually quite well prepared for a zombie apocalypse. An entire generation of kids have been subjected to an endless stream of zombie games zombie apocalypse survival simulators.

 

[mhaze]

No, I don't think you understand the paper. It does not mention the solar wind, CME, flares, magnetic effects or even particles. It only mentions the total solar irradiance.
For example, Astrometria:

The solar energy flux dynamically defines the climate of the Earth and other planets of the Solar System.....

......

No, I don't think YOU understand. You've now virtually equated "solar energy flux" with "TSI". Is that to just make a point, or do you actually think the arthurs have this view?

 

[Haig]

No, I don't think you understand the paper. It does not mention the solar wind, CME, flares, magnetic effects or even particles. It only mentions the total solar irradiance.
For example, Astrometria:


I suspect that the "they" you are talking about is just Piers Corbyn with his secret method of long term weather forecasts.

As for thinking that the following means that there is cooling

To paraphrase Did Phil Jones really say global warming ended in 1995?
"Phil Jones is saying there is a cooling trend but it's not statistically significant. He's not talking about whether cooling is actually happening. He's discussing our ability to detect that cooling trend in a noisy signal over a short period. To demonstrate this, look at the HadCRUT temperature record from 2002 to 2010. The linear trend is that of cooling . However, the temperature record is very noisy with lots of short term variability. The noisy signal means that over a short period, the uncertainty of the cooling trend is almost as large as the actual trend. Hence it's considered statistically insignificant. Over longer time periods, the uncertainty is less and the trend is more statistically significant."
So to get statistically significant trends you need longer periods. The period should be longer than any cyclic variations like the variation in solar energy output. Thus decades rather than single digits.

And:

If you plot the NASA GISS data from 2002 to 2010 then there is an even less statistically significant cooling trend (~0.3 C per decade).

The main goal of the project:

"The study of global processes occurring deeply inside the Sun and of consequent variations of physical processes in the system Sun-Earth as well as the study of fine structure and dynamics of active and quiet regions of the photosphere and of their cyclic variations."

Also,the chart on sunspot cycles make it clear it’s not just about solar irradiance.

That’s why I mentioned Piers Corbyn as all the above is similar to his thoughts on the Suns effect on the Earths climate.

On your point regarding Phil Jones and the cooling since 2002. I mention his comments as my response to macdoc - "Still waiting for your defence of your statement"

So, the Earth has "started" cooling, as they predict. as we enter solar cycle 24 and it's expected to deepen in solar cycle 25, they say.

”They” being the scientists in Project Astrometria and Piers Corbyn.

There is also the point that the data Phil Jones and others have been using is currently under suspicion, as being manipulated to show a warming trend. So the actual cooling may be much more in the last decade.

Um conclusions based upon not very good data and we get what?

How did they determine the rate of what and cooling over 7500 years?

Quoting old sources is not a good sign.

I am sure that as a solar study it is super.

Fair points but some would say the only reliable data is from the satellites since 1970

.

see my replies to RC above

Either I have completely misunderstood or this is just mind-boggling. You quote someone as a source who says it is cooling. Then you give their actual quote which says any cooling is statistically insignificant. Then you say because of this it "IS" cooling. Do you not understand what "statistically significant" means? Or do you not accept Jones' evaluation? If its the former, how do you feel capable of evaluating your original source? If its the latter then why quote Jones as your 'expert source'?

see my replies to RC above

Really? Which science are you talking about?

It’s solar and climate science.

Megalodon
see my replies to RC above

No, because your criticism isn't serious

Well, okay, here's a good serious response: Is the Sun Causing Global Warming? Not that I think it'll make much difference to you, though some here will find it useful.

Thanks for the link, that is interesting but it’s not just about solar irradiance. See my replies to RC above.

.

see my replies to RC above

Here's a fuller critique of the Daily Mail article re: Jones...

http://skepticalscience.com/Did-Phil-Jones-really-say-global-warming-ended-in-1995.html

see my replies to RC above

So to recap

Jones says there was 0.12 deg/dec warming since 1995 but the time period ios to short so it’s just below the threshold for statistical significance. Your conclusion – no warming.

Jones also says there is 0.12 deg/dec cooling since 2002 but this isn’t remotely statistically significant. Your conclusion – it’s cooling.

see my replies to RC above. Some would say the only reliable data is from the satellites since 1970.

Some contradictory studies:

Thanks, those are interesting but a lot of reading. I’ll get back to you.

PS
To make it clear, I'm a skeptic of AGW, Astrometria and Piers Corbyn: in the sense I'm looking for evidence. It seems to me that evidence suggests the Sun is the main driver in our climate.

Thanks for the more thoughtful posts.

 

[Reality Check]

No, I don't think YOU understand. You've now virtually equated "solar energy flux" with "TSI". Is that to just make a point, or do you actually think the arthurs have this view?

I know YOU do not understand since the article (Astrometria) starts with

The project Astrometria to measure temporary variations of shape and diameter of the Sun – the total solar irradiance, as well as fine structure and dynamics of the granulation on the Service module of the Russian segment of the International Space Station

And then goes onto the section I quoted.

The solar energy flux dynamically defines the climate of the Earth and other planets of the Solar System. The solar energy flux is in turn defined by the area of solar surface or, in the other words, by the diameter of the Sun. An exact value of variations of the solar diameter is an important fundamental parameter and the most important indicator of the TSI variation and of sunspot activity. Consequently, long and exact measurements of the solar radius will provide a possibility for a more reliable determination of the TSI and its temporal variations on different time scales.

So the authors virtually equated "solar energy flux" with "TSI".

 

[MattusMaximus]

Thanks for the link, that is interesting but it’s not just about solar irradiance.

So how else is the Sun to interact with the Earth if not through... sunlight?

Are you suggesting some kind of effect from the solar wind, magnetic fields, coronal mass ejections, what?

 

[Haig]

So how else is the Sun to interact with the Earth if not through... sunlight?

Are you suggesting some kind of effect from the solar wind, magnetic fields, coronal mass ejections, what?

Yes, but not me, PC - see my post #20

 

[Megalodon]

So, the Earth has "started" cooling, as they predict. as we enter solar cycle 24 and it's expected to deepen in solar cycle 25, they say.

Started cooling by increasing the rate of warming? Is that like braking by pressing the accelerator?

And what the hell does "started cooling" mean anyway? When did it "start cooling" here?

 

[Reality Check]

Also,the chart on sunspot cycles make it clear it’s not just about solar irradiance.

Sunspots affecct TSI - that is why the chart is there.
The paper is all about TSI - no mention of the solar wind, falres or CME.

On your point regarding Phil Jones and the cooling since 2002. I mention his comments as my response to macdoc - "Still waiting for your defence of your statement"

So, the Earth has "started" cooling, as they predict. as we enter solar cycle 24 and it's expected to deepen in solar cycle 25, they say.
[/quotre]
So the Earth has not "started" cooling. The trend is statistically insignificant.

”They” being the scientists in Project Astrometria and Piers Corbyn.

Scientists publish papers. The Project Astrometria are scientists. Piers Corbyn is a weatherman.

There is also the point that the data Phil Jones and others have been using is currently under suspicion, as being manipulated to show a warming trend. So the actual cooling may be much more in the last decade.

Someone is lying to you. HADCRUT3's data is not under suspicion of being manipulated to show a warming trend.

Other datasets show that the statistically insignificant cooling is much less in the last 8 years (2002 - 2010) as I stated before:
Did Phil Jones really say global warming ended in 1995?

Analysis by European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) and NASA GISS (Hansen 2006) find that the areas omitted by HadCRUT are some of the fastest warming regions in the world.

If you plot the NASA GISS data from 2002 to 2010 then there is an even less statistically significant cooling trend (~0.3 C per decade).

All datasets show that there is statistically insignificant warming in the last decade (2000 - 2010).