In 2003, Baliunas and Willie Soon (also an astrophysicist) published a review paper on historical climatology that concluded that the climate has not changed in the last 2000 years.
A few months afterward, 13 of the authors of the papers Baliunas and Soon cited refuted her interpretation of their work.[9] There were three main objections: Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric temperature anomalies; and they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends. More recently, Osborn and Briffa repeated the Baliunas and Soon study but restricted themselves to records that were validated as temperature proxies, and came to a different result [10].
Half of the editorial board of Climate Research, the journal that published the paper, resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process on the part of the journal.[11][12] Otto Kinne, managing director of the journal's parent company, stated that "CR [Climate Research] should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication" and that "CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."[13]
So, their argument is really NOT a decent one.Scientists, just like plumbers, have differing degrees of competence and honesty. How wet would Baliunas and Soon make your carpet? And would they overcharge?
Competency is not the domain of only those who have Sierra Club membership. At least I hope that is not what you are implying.....and being in the carpet cleaning business I can assure that carpet wetness has to do with relative humidity as well as how much I am being paid to do the work! LOL
Yes Wikipedia presents the reference to the 13 authors. One of those authors was of course Mann himself. His refutation consisted of his claim that using inferred temperature readings from the past (i.e. tree rings samplings) coupled with modern instrument readings is accepted practice in his field. That may very well be in the discipline of paleoclimatolgy (I doubt it) but the need for being precise is more important given what is at stake in this. The past is being used to put the present in perspective. That requires a higher standard be met.
Further the guff about moisture is a another red herring to imply that Baliunas was out in left field, when all that Soon and Baliunas noted was that Mann failed to take into account moisture levels as a reasonable mechanism for filtering the data.
Likewise in DeFreitas own paper critical of Mann, the issue of moisture comes up again. Although accepted to a degree, tree ring sampling used for this type of historic temperature inference could not account for moisture content in a given year or period of years. Part of the inference to determine temperature is based on growth, however growth in trees is a combination of temperature and moisture. A warm year with insufficient moisture would yield false temperature readings. That is arguably while Mann's error controls eliminated two historical events, the midievil warming and the mini iceage.
Lastly, 3 people from Climate Research (Hans von Storch, Clare Goodess, and Mitsuru Ando) are said to have taken exception to the peer reviewed article by Soon & Baliunas only after a much more prestigious paper EOS came down hard on the criticism. Even though that constitutes the timing of their departures it is rhetorical to conclude that the departures are solely based on what Soon and Baliunas wrote and thereby completely devoid of other factors. In fact to conclude that other factors were at play would give voice to the science of human behavior, personal motivations, logic and reason as it is known to exist in the real world!.
Additionally, since the editorial staff today is made up of 12 people and a further 24 Review Editors (I don't know exactly how many were in place in 2003) I doubt that these 3 people constituted "half" of the editorial staff. If the departure did in fact constitute 1/2 of the editors, the ones who stayed should carry just as much weight as those who left. In other words had all or most of the editors resigned in protest the statement above could be considered more than hype and propaganda.
As for Otto Kinne's statement in the broader context : http://www.int-res.com/articles/misc/CREditorial.pdf
"While the instrument of quality control, the peer review process, has stood the test of time, it should be further developed.""Even a very thorough review process cannot include all essential perspectives and it cannot exclude mistakes "or misjudgements."
"Quality control at CR was practised along generally established lines. There were no problems over the 13 years of CR existence. But there was insufficient attention to the methodological basis of statements that touch on hotly debated controversies and involve pronounced political and economic interests. CR should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication."
Translation? This is unfortunately how the peer review process works and has for sometime including articles written to support AGW. The only time it becomes an issue is when the subject matter is as hotly debated, and has been politically agendized at the highest levels of Government and Economic Interests.
In the same document Kinne outlines the true reason for Hans Von Storch's departure. He wanted full veto power over other editors, which naturally they would not and could not give him. He left in a huff when he didn't get his way.
I wanted the editorial by Hans von Storch to be published, but with a green light from the Editorial Board. Hence I asked Hans not to rush the editorial, to consult with the Editorial Board and to publish a revised version. Hans did not like this and decided to resign only a few days after I had appointed him. No Editor-in-Chief can organize a better and broader basis for quality control than that practised by IR. No single scientist can judge the quality of all mss submitted to a journal with a wide scientific scope such as CR.
As to Soon and Baliunas, the close of the document points out Kinne's appraisal of the controversy over what boils down to two statements. Note what they are and his conclusion:
Major conclusions of Soon & Baliunas are: ‘Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millenium.’ (p. 89) and ‘Overall, the 20th century does not contain the warmest anomaly of the past millenium in most of the proxy records which have been sampled world-wide’ (p. 104).While these statements may be true, the critics point out that they cannot be concluded convincingly from the evidence provided in he paper. CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication.
Do I think Soon and Baliunas could have been more exacting? Of course I do. Hind sight is such a good judge you know, and it seems that we all have it although we may not use it as much as we should.
Was the peer review process any different than other peer reviews? According to Defreitas who gave it to five others for peer-review : "None were from what some might [term] 'the other side' or are individuals who might be known for their opposition to the notion that humans are significantly altering global climate." The paper was peer-edited, returned to authors for corrections, and approved for publication.
I would say yes in that at least some effort to avoid the appearance of scientific bias was made. This cannot be said for other peer reviewed papers.
What about the IPCC report itself? Is it devoid of contradictory statements, inflated numbers, misapplied statistics, revisions after the review process, leaps of faith and logic? If you have read the criticism then you know it is just as guilty if not more so given the number of hands that document passed through before going to press. Those critiques come from detractor and proponent alike! And you know it!
If you insist, I can list those valid critiques one by one, and you know there are more than 2 of them.
Although the above paper is not dogmatic so as to say Solar activity is the only scenario, it certainly is more reliable than your whimsical comment quoted below.
My comment was;Yes, and the reason that the majority of scientists are concerned is the current increase in temperature cannot be explained by the sun THIS TIME, even though it's role is pivotal and it has caused climate change before.
I've shown their doubts are unreliable; please find something to refute my statement.
I do not believe that you have shown any such thing.
The controversy over Soon and Baliunas is a tempest in a teapot. And your aspersions toward special interest groups, foundations and think tanks goes both ways, only a plebe would suggest otherwise!
Why are you allowed to make statements, even blanket statements without providing proof or references? (And that goes for Wikipedia references as well)
Certainly I can accept and acknowledge that the sun is not likely the only forcing and possibly not even a contender. Those such as Soon and Baliunas have not been dogmatic with their hypothesis either or at least no more dogmatic than those who disagree have been. However I will provide others who hypothesize about the Sun's forcing (or other cosmic) such as radiant heat, magnetic intensity, and even solar wind.
Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming. Geophysical Research Letters,
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.
The sun played a dominant role in climate change in the early past, as several empirical studies would suggest, and is still playing a significant, even if not a predominant role, during the last decades. The impact of solar variation on climate seems significantly stronger than predicted by some energy balance models…The significant discrepancy between empirical and theoretical model estimates might arise because the secular TSI [total solar irradiance] proxy reconstructions are disputed and/or because the empirical evidence deriving from the deconstruction of the surface temperature is deceptive for reasons unknown to us. Alternatively, the models might be inadequate because of the difficulty of modeling climate in general and a lack of knowledge of climate sensitivity to solar variations in particular. In fact, theoretical models usually acknowledge as solar forcing only the direct TSI forcing while empirical estimates would include all direct and indirect climate effects induced by solar variation. These solar effects might be embedded in several climate forcings because, for example, a TSI increase might indirectly induce a change in the chemistry of the atmosphere by increasing and modulating its greenhouse gas (H2O, CO2, CH4, etc.) concentration because of the warmer ocean, reduce the earth albedo by melting the glaciers and change the cloud cover patterns. In particular, the models might be inadequate: (a) in their parameterizations of climate feedbacks and atmosphere-ocean coupling; (b) in their neglect of indirect response by the stratosphere and of possible additional climate effects linked to solar magnetic field, UV radiation, solar flares and cosmic ray intensity modulations; (c) there might be other possible natural amplification mechanisms deriving from internal modes of climate variability which are not included in the models. All the above mechanisms would be automatically considered and indirectly included in the phenomenological approach presented herein.
The above document appears of all places on the AGU website. The very authors of the so-called EOS article outrage against Soon and Baliunas in the CR paper!
a. “Solar variability and the earth’s climate: introduction and overview” George Reid Space Science Reviews 94 (2000) p.1-11 Provides a general overview of the sun’s impact on the earth’s climate through the Little Ice Age as well as through geological times and the complexity in establishing the solar/climate link. b. “Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays” N D Marsh & H Svensmark Physical Review Letters 85 (2000) p. 5004-5007 Documents how galactic cosmic rays can influence the earth’s low cloud cover and how this in turn would impact the mean temperature. c. “Global temperature forced by solar irradiation and greenhouse gases?” Wibjorn Karlen Ambio, Vol. 30 (2001)p. 349-350 Argues that the present interglacial has been cooler by about 2°C than the previous ones during the last 400,000 thousand years when the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 100 ppmv less than at present. d. “The sun’s role in climate variations” D Rind Science Vol. 296 (2002) p. 673-677 Provides a general overview of the sun’s impact on the earth’s climate through the Little Ice Age, as well as through geological times, and the complexity in establishing the solar/climate link. e. “Solar influence on the spatial structure of the NAO during the winter 1900-1999” Kunihiko Kodera Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30 (2003) 1175 doi:10.1029/2002GL016584 North Atlantic oscillation is shown to be strongly modulated by high & low solar activity as identified through sunspot cycles. f. “Can slow variations in solar luminosity provide missing link between the sun and the climate?” Peter Fokul EOS, Vol. 84, No. 22 (2003)p.205&208 Presents additional evidence of recent changes in solar irradiance and make a case for solar impact on the earth’s climate. g. “Celestial driver of phanerozoic climate?” N Shaviv & J Veizer Geological Society of America 13 (2003) p.4-10 Documents, using a “sea-shell thermometer”, how the earth’s temperature over last 500 million years is decoupled with atmospheric CO2 levels, while showing strong correlation with variations in the cosmic ray flux. h. “Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record for the past 130 years” Willie W-H Soon Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 32 (2005) L16712 Demonstrates a strong link between total solar irradiance and Arctic-wide surface temperature over a long period from 1875-2000. i. “Solar forcing of the polar atmosphere” P A Mayewski et al Annals of Glaciology Vol. 41 (2005) p. 147-154 Analyzes high-resolution calibrated proxies for atmospheric circulation from several Antarctic ice cores, which reveal decadal-scale association with solar variability over the last 600 years. j. “The influence of the 11-yr solar cycle on the interannual-centennial climate variability” Hengyi Weng J of Atmosphere and solar-terrestrial physics Vol. 67 (2005) p. 793-805 Re-confirms the solar variability impact on earth’s climate by analyzing monthly sunspot numbers in conjunction with global and regional sea surface temperatures. k. “Living with a variable sun” Judith Lean Physics Today (2005) Vol 58, No. 6 p. 32-37 American Inst. Of Physics USA Presents additional evidence of recent changes in solar irradiance and makes a case for solar impact on the earth’s climate. l. “Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming” N Scafetta & B J West Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 33 (2006) L05708 Constructs a phenomenological model to include solar forcing and demonstrates its linkage to the earth’s temperature change over last 400 years. m. “Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed northern hemisphere temperature record” N Scafetta & B J West Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 33 (2006) L17718 Constructs a phenomenological model to include solar forcing and demonstrates its linkage to the earth’s temperature change over last 400 years. n. “Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds” R G Harrison & D B Stephenson Proceedings of the Royal Society A (UK): 10.1098/rspa.2005.1628 (2006) Documents how galactic cosmic rays can influence the earth’s low cloud cover and how this in turn would impact the mean temperature.
Forgive me if I have included duplicates in the above list as well as studies that do not deal with the last 100 or even 20 years. And no we don't care if the "unbiased" Wikipedia profile mentions that the above are AGW deniers!
Frank75