Your cooling projections are fascinating. However, exploration geologists working in Alaska report that USGS mapped glaciers are either missing or in a definite negative economy. Based on your projections, does this mean that those glaciers will start advancing again? Or are cooling trends a reflection of increased evaporation (and resulting clouds) from the oceans which may mask global warming? Have you researched precipitation trends? If there is increased evaporation due to global warming, then precipitation totals should be on the rise. This is certainly the coolest and wetest August that I can remember. It seems that one must also incorporate precipitation trends to fully understand the climate issues.

Also, please remember that there also exists anecdotal evidence for a 750 ± 50 year cycle (roman warm, dark ages cold, medieval warm, little ice age cold and modern warm). The latter should have peaked in 2000 ± 50. If the 70 year cycle is real, then it would have continuously modified the climate during these longer cool and warm periods.

Don’t believe in cycles? How about the 100,000 yr. “ice age” cycles that have persisted for the last several million years. Really good ice core data over the last 500,000 years.

Perhaps you ought to have read my posts a bit more clearly, in which case you will see that it is not the overall prediction that I have criticised, which sounds plausible, just the evidence on which it is based.

Dr. Christy is not talking on point, now is he? Read the above post by Easterbrook.

For the next, roughly 30 years, Neutral and El Nino periods will comprise 40% of that duration. If Dr. Christy disputes this you have a point to make, but he doesn’t does he?

In fact his point, is precisely mine, that any period comprising equal numbers of El Ninos and La Ninas will result in a warmening wash.

I saw your post over at BadAstronomy an Phil’s reply:

yes, of course I’m an amateur. That’s why I rely on the research and findings of the thousands of climatologists who study this, and who vastly outnumber the few who are the so-called “skeptics”.

I replied to another posting but I made an allusion to Phil’s answer. This apparently has gotten me banned. There have been two updates to the blog page since I submitted it. I tried to resubmit it and was told “You already said that”. What I said was:

Brant D: “Saying that the models are failing currently because of a temporary decrease in observed global average temperature is silly in the long term view. If you look at the GISS data …”

I’m curious. The AGW hypothesis seems based upon: more CO2 –> higher temperatures. If the apparent hiatus in the last 7+ years is insufficient to negate AGW, could you tell me, in your opinion, what it would take to do so? Would, say, another 10-20 years of cooling do it?

The anti-AGW position seems to be: the amount of anthropogenic CO2 is an insignificant modifier of climate — IOW, what we have seen to date is merely natural variation. Apparently, you don’t believe it has been natural. Why? What is your evidence?

Phil apparently takes it only on authority. Do you as well?

That’s a shame. I used to enjoy reading the posts at BA but anymore Phil has turned to ranting and name calling. If an innocuous posting asking for limits and evidence is too much for him to handle, then he’s no more science-related than RC.

What I like about this blog is the laid back stance taken by Anthony and most of the posters. It used to be that way at BA. I hope WUWT never changes.

Uh, not quite so. The ‘unprecedented warming’ of the last century was substantially the 1977 to 2007 positive PDO phase producing El Ninos 60% of the time. We may now reasonably expect La Ninas 60% of the suceeding 30 years.

What do you suppose will be the result interms of Global Temperature? Back to square one baby, you’re bankrupt!

As John Christy says: “Here is my perspective on this issue: Twelve months of data does not make a trend, especially in a system as complex and slow moving as global climate, and even more so when the cause for that short-term cooling is as reasonably well understood and well documented as a switch from a minor El Nino Pacific Ocean warming in January 2007 to the La Nina cooling event now taking place.”

read the rest of it here

If you want to look at trends, the very last thing you should do is break it up into low-high and high-low points as you are then making your analysis strongly dependent on the short term variation, the very thing you want to ignore in looking for a long term trend. Instead look at a plot of the running mean, which doesn’t suffer that problem.

There are plenty of complaints of the AGW camp making such errors, why should the sceptic camp weaken their credibility by repeating them?

But that’s HadCRUT. Based on GHCN. (And which version? Land surface or Land-Ocean?)

I don’t buy surface readings. I require UAH or RSS. The whole story, evenly covered and weighted. (And no BBQs in orbit, so far as I know.)

Look what happens if we move the analysis window back 2 years, we get a (comparatively) strong warming trend.

I don’t think anyone disputes a warming trend from 1970 to 1998.

1979-1998 (whatever the significance of that window is) is a longer window over the data than 1998-2008, and much longer than 2002-2008 that is being discussed here.

It’s a significant window because it’s from a low point to a high point. And 1998 – 2008 is the other way around. Yes, it’s shorter. (But it’s getting longer!) If one wants to observe trends, one needs to break it up into low-high, high-low points if one wants to understand what is going on.

The next 4-6 years will likely clear things up one way or another.

Your call. However now that you got my motor running, I may start digging anyhow… but not as fast as originally thought. Regardless, should anything of any import pop up, I’ll let you know. Should you wish, you can safely send your email address to tisdale@climatestudies.com and I’ll forward anything that looks interesting.

Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate project
http://www.climateclinic.com

My point was the extrapolation of a trend into the future. If we had temperature data for the past 1000 years that was within a known error range, I would be willing to bet, there have been many periods with the same type of warming, as we have seen recently.
Sacrificing economic efficiency on the alter of AGW, makes the same amount of sense as sacrificing a virgin, in order to apease the Gods. Both actions come from the same fear. Lack of control over the weather, and a determination to “do something about it”.

http://climatesci.org/2008/07/21/oceanic-influences-on-recent-continental-warming-an-important-new-research-paper-compo-and-sardeshmukh-2008/

Example: The AMO is supposed to have a significant influence on European temperature. But here’s a graph of GHCN land surface temperature data for Europe versus global. There’s no way I’m going to be able to extract anything from that data that even remotely resembles the AMO.
http://i38.tinypic.com/k318gl.jpg

The approx 11-year cycle in the European LST is interesting, though. It doesn’t match up perfectly with the solar cycle over the 100+ years, but it’s been really close in recent years.

I think I’ll start plugging away at the LST and see what sort of recognizable SST curves start popping up.

Thanks anyway.

Regards