3 to 6 C cooling predicted in the next decade

[Little Fish]

The long temperature series at Svalbard (Longyearbyen) show large variations, and a positive trend since its start in 1912. During this period solar activity has increased, as indicated by shorter solar cycles. The temperature at Svalbard is negatively correlated with the length of the solar cycle. The strongest negative correlation is found with lags 10-12 years.

The relations between the length of a solar cycle and the mean temperature in the following cycle, is used to model Svalbard annual mean temperature, and seasonal temperature variations. Residuals from the annual and winter models show no autocorrelations on the 5 per cent level, which indicates that no additional parameters are needed to explain the temperature variations with 95 per cent significance. These models show that 60 per cent of the annual and winter temperature variations are explained by solar activity. For the spring, summer and fall temperatures autocorrelations in the residuals exists, and additional variables may contribute to the variations.

These models can be applied as forecasting models. We predict an annual mean temperature decrease for Svalbard of 3.5\pm2 oC from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 (2009-20) and a decrease in the winter temperature of \approx6 oC.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3256

[George Ford]

Now hang on a minute?!? I thought the Americans were trying to introduce a Carbon tax because things were getting warmer, not colder? I'm confused now!

[questionmark]

Now hang on a minute?!? I thought the Americans were trying to introduce a Carbon tax because things were getting warmer, not colder? I'm confused now!

It is the solar activity thingy again... so don't hold your breath.

[Doug1029]

These models show that 60 per cent of the annual and winter temperature variations are explained by solar activity.

100% total variation - 60% "explained" = 40% "unexplained."

That's still a big chunk in the "unknown" column.

"Explained" variation is that which correlates with the model variables. Sources of variation often overlap each other, so even that in the "explained" column isn't fully explained.

That being said, this is about average for climate work.

Doug

[Doug1029]

Now hang on a minute?!? I thought the Americans were trying to introduce a Carbon tax because things were getting warmer, not colder? I'm confused now!

Wrong. We're trying to pass a tax on billionaires. It's generating a lot of smoke and mirrors, though (Maybe you have a point.).

Doug

[WoIverine]

Now hang on a minute?!? I thought the Americans were trying to introduce a Carbon tax because things were getting warmer, not colder? I'm confused now!

Not Americans, it's the United Nations that was suggesting it. America would pay the highest tax out of all the other nations. I'm American, I don't want another ridiculous tax.

Edited December 16, 2011 by Spid3rCyd3

[Guest]

That paper has been severly panned for using a fourier transform to describe variability without attempting attribution. Its predictive ability fails in the period between the Ice age and 4000bp. It a mathematical deconstruction of the variability within climate which any idiot can perform with a simple bit of computer software and it proves absolutely nothing of value about future climate.

Rubbish.

Br Cornelius

[PeacefulAnarchy]

That paper has been severly panned for using a fourier transform to describe variability without attempting attribution. Its predictive ability fails in the period between the Ice age and 4000bp. It a mathematical deconstruction of the variability within climate which any idiot can perform with a simple bit of computer software and it proves absolutely nothing of value about future climate.

Rubbish.

Br Cornelius

:rofl: :rofl: Now where did I put that hockey stick...

[Little Fish]

That paper has been severly panned for using a fourier transform to describe variability without attempting attribution. Its predictive ability fails in the period between the Ice age and 4000bp. It a mathematical deconstruction of the variability within climate which any idiot can perform with a simple bit of computer software and it proves absolutely nothing of value about future climate.

Rubbish.

Br Cornelius

I think you are mixing up papers.

here is the paper this thread is referring to, which has only been out a few days:

"Solar activity and Svalbard temperatures, Jan-­Erik Solheim, Kjell

Stordahl, Ole Humlum

here is the full paper:

http://downloads.mts.hindawi.com/MTS-Files/AMET/papers/SVM/543146.v2.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=0CX53QQSTHRYZZQRKA02&Expires=1324099401&Signature=0vIw4V7lRC7o5rbSqCG%2FJSawySM%3D

here is the differet paper which you are (probably) referring to:

Identifying natural contributions to late Holocene climate change, Jan-­Erik Solheim, Kjell Stordahl, Ole Humlum

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818111001457

http://www.klimarealistene.com/web-content/11IdentifyingNaturalContributionsToLateHoloceneClimateChange%20%20HumlumEtAl%20%20GlobalAndPlanetaryChange%201012pdf.pdf

Edited December 16, 2011 by Little Fish

[Guest]

That would be the un-peer reviewed - unpublished paper then.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

That would be the un-peer reviewed - unpublished paper then.

Br Cornelius

I am assuming it has been peer reviewed and published, what makes you imply it hasn't been?

what about your criticsm of the other paper, was that criticism peer reviewed? or just ripped off gavin schimts blog? if you are going to apply a threshhold of acceptance then apply it equally.

[Doug1029]

That would be the un-peer reviewed - unpublished paper then.

Br Cornelius

Isn't release of an unreviewed, unaccepted paper a bit unusual? Early release could endanger copyrights; most journals would reject a paper that might get them sued for a copyright infringement.

Doug