Exactly where Lockwood and Fröhlich are wrong

A recent paper by Mike Lockwood of the University of Southampton has claimed that over the last 20 years, solar influences on climate have declined, while Earth has warmed.

Lockwood, M., Frolich, C., Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature, Proc. R. Soc. A doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880, Published online

This paper is the latest in a rich tradition of near 20 years of IPCC inspired attempts to trivialize the solar/climate link.

There has been more than one rebuttal around the internet but I like Joe D’Aleo’s, “Shining More Light on the Solar Factor A discussion of Problems with the Royal Society Paper by Lockwood and Frohlich” which quotes an analysis by Dr N. Scafetta which draws on work by Dr. Richard Willson of Columbia University, an expert in satellite solar data.

Joe’s paper and blog are at ICECAP.
Satellite solar data interpretations by Willson

I have constructed this graphic above which juxtaposes competing interpretations of satellite solar data. There are discontinuities in satellite data series. Lockwood uses the PMOD interpretation which purports to show a slight downward trend. The ACRIM version shows an increasing trend in TSI.

14 comments to Exactly where Lockwood and Fröhlich are wrong

  • Douglas Hoyt

    The PMOD solar irradiance reconstruction is definitely incorrect. It is based upon an assumption that the Nimbus-7 ERB radiometer suddenly got more sensitive towards the end of its life and based upon that assumption they adjust the solar irradiance values down. As someone who spent more than 20 yeats designing, building, and analyzing radiometers and more than 10 years on the N-7 radiometer, I say unequivocally that the PMOD adjustment is physically impossible and erroneous. The Willson irradiance is correct. The Lockwood paper is nonsense.

  • Matt

    “PMOD…assumes that the published TSI satellite data are wrong and that they need several additional corrections.”

    WTF? The only way these guys can get data to fit their hypothesis is to massage it? THAT IS NOT SCIENCE!!! In fact, it is the opposite of science….

  • mccall

    It’s worse than that. Simply put, the L&F’07 correlation summarizes to:
    verified but ignored 1980-present tree-ring divergence vs instrument record, GOOD …
    hypothetically & absurdly attenuated TSI divergence vs instrument record, BAD!

    Advisory: please wash off and disinfect anything that has touched L&F’07.

  • Luke

    So where’s the rebuttal letters in the literature guys. Gett’em published or it’s all unheard.

  • Douglas Hoyt

    Rebuttals have already been published.

  • Luke

    Can you post the rebuttal reference list pls.

  • Douglas Hoyt

    No. Do your own work.

  • Matt

    From ARnost’s link:

    “End Notes

    2. This strident, unscientific delaration has since been removed from the Proceedings of the Royal Society A web page.”

  • John A

    A propos of nothing, the Quicktags now work.

    So you can quote to your heart’s content

    and link properly

  • SteveSadlov

    Lockwood et al – more “Killer AGW” agitprop from the “post British” (a Peter Hitchens reference, that … ) true believers. Green mania has eveloped the UK (and beyond).

  • Philip Mulholland

    I seem to remember from my 1970s Environmental Science course that the sun has a 22 year magnetic field cycle, with each 11 year sunspot cycle the polarity of the sun’s magnetic field reverses.

  • Ken Gregory

    My critique of the Lockwood/Frohlich paper is posted on the Friends of Science website “http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=5″, and on the Science and Public Policy website “http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_reprint_series/a_critique_on_the_lockwood_frochlich_paper_in_the_royal_society_proceedings.html”.

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>