Exactly where Lockwood and Fröhlich are wrong
August 11th, 2007 by Warwick HughesA 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.
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.
Posted in Atmospheric science, IPCC, News and Views, Solar | 14 Comments »
August 12th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
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.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
“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….
August 12th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
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.
August 12th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
So where’s the rebuttal letters in the literature guys. Gett’em published or it’s all unheard.
August 13th, 2007 at 6:51 am
Rebuttals have already been published.
August 13th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Can you post the rebuttal reference list pls.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
No. Do your own work.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Nir Shaviv’s rebuttal: http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/07/nir-shaviv-why-is-lockwood-and-frohlich.html
August 13th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
An interesting read WRT L&F2007 is also here:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_originals/the_unruly_sunne_cannot_be_ruled_out_as_a_cause_of_recent_climate_variation.html
August 14th, 2007 at 6:01 am
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.”
August 14th, 2007 at 6:59 am
A propos of nothing, the Quicktags now work.
and link properly
August 15th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
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).
August 20th, 2007 at 7:59 am
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.
September 8th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
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”.