CBS’ Charles Osgood on the Sun – and a surprising suggestion

charles_osgood_headshotHoly Cow! Charles Osgood, a skeptic?

A QUIET SUN DOESN’T HAPPEN OVERNIGHT.

excerpts:

I know you’ve already got a lot to worry about as it is, but something rather odd is going on — on the Sun.

The Sun normally undergoes an 11-year cycle of activity — and last year, it was supposed to have heated up — and, at its peak, would have a tumultuous boiling atmosphere, spitting out flares and huge chunks of super-hot gas.

Instead, it hit a 50-year low in solar wind pressure, a 55-year low in radio emissions, and a 100-year low in sunspot activity. Right now, the sun is the dimmest it’s been in nearly a century.
Did you know that? It’s true. Astronomers are baffled by it, but has the press covered the story? Hardly at all. Is the government doing anything about it? No, it’s not even in the Obama budget or any Congressional earmarks.

Right now, global warming is a given to so many, it raises the question: Could another minimum activity period on the Sun counteract, in any way, the effects of global warming?

read the entire article at the link below:

Transcripts, podcasts, and Mp3’s of all this program can be found at theosgoodfile.com.

About these ads

258 thoughts on “CBS’ Charles Osgood on the Sun – and a surprising suggestion

  1. Is this the AGW crowd’s ‘Cronkite’ moment? As in, if we’ve lost Charles Osgood, we’ve lost middle america.

  2. Funny he says “you heard it hear first” ? LOL.
    Guess he doesn’t do much researching about this, as I have seen it posted on this site alone regularly for the last year, at least.
    Love the site btw.

  3. Anthony:

    The Dutch [like yours truly] know all too well that when water is allowed to start seeping into a dike, just a mere trickle at first and most often barely noticeable, it is only a matter of time before the whole structure is breached.

    George Will [Washington Post], Tierny [NYT] and even Revkin [NYT] those days his head is turned the right way and now Osgood at CBS…. The Daily Telegraph in the UK, The Australian down under and the list is growing. Unless Gore, Hansen, RC and the Hockey Team show up with a really serious load of sandbags, they’ll all be bobbing around in row boats sometime soon.

    And before I forget, it seems that French president Sarkozy has in mind to name Allegre – a highly regarded scientist and one of the original “Warmist-Alarmists” turned profound skeptic – as his new Minister of the Environment….

    The Obama/Chu/EPA team are turning “man-made global warming/climate change” square dance into a pretzel I’m afraid.

  4. “Is the government doing anything about it? No”

    Even HE recognizes that we just aren’t spending enough on the Sun! A million dollars weighs a metric ton. So 100 million dollars would weigh a hundred metric tons. Getting a space program to shoot additional fuel into the Sun would be no worse of a stimulus program than what has already been undertaken and it would put many people to work.

    Will it work? Who knows? Can’t hurt. Why, I heard down at the cafe this morning that the government has been throwing money down rat holes. NASA could dig all that back up, clean it off, and send it to the Sun for some extra heat. And that means even MORE stimulus having to hire the diggers! It is a win, win proposition.

  5. Well, the radio flux is creeping up. But hallelujah, the poobahs have finally noticed.
    =========================================

  6. I don’t think Charles Osgood’s opinions will make much of a splash in the MSM. He’s one of the older broadcasters with only minor radio slots during news breaks.

    He’s kind of like Paul Harvey-lite, and Harvey wasn’t actually swaying too many folks in the last few years before he passed away.

    I have to admit though that he does sound (I listened to his podcast) more than bit skeptical of the AGW/Leftist meme though. Maybe its a small crack in the door of the MSM blockade of alternative views on AGW.

  7. Look at this madness

    WASHINGTON – The flow of water in the world’s largest rivers has declined over the past half-century, with significant changes found in about a third of the big rivers. An analysis of 925 major rivers from 1948 to 2004 showed an overall decline in total discharge.

    The reduction in inflow to the Pacific Ocean alone was about equal to shutting off the Mississippi River, according to the new study appearing in the May 15 edition of the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate.

    The only area showing a significant increase in flow was the Arctic, where warming conditions are increasing the snow and ice melt, said researchers led by Aiguo Dai of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

    “Freshwater resources will likely decline in the coming decades over many densely populated areas at mid- to low latitudes, largely due to climate changes, Dai said. “Rapid disappearing mountain glaciers in the Tibetan plateau and other places will make matters worse.”

    Added co-author Kevin Trenberth, “As climate change inevitably continues in coming decades, we are likely to see greater impacts on many rivers and water resources that society has come to rely on.”

    While Dai cited climate change as a major factor in the changes, the paper noted that other factors are also involved, including dams and the diversion of water for agriculture and industry.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090421/ap_on_go_ot/us_sci_shrinking_rivers

  8. There are activists for who no amount of scientific evidence will dissuade — it’s part of an ideology — but for the great bulk of humanity in democracies, they are open to scientific evidence.

    But they haven’t been getting it…unless they have been actively seeking it.

    Even so, according to the Rasmussen poll more and more people are seeing man-made “global warming” for what it is: A hoax perpetrated by ideologically committed individuals bent on implementing certain public policies and the demagogues that see an opportunity for attention and power.

    Could it be a “Cronkite moment”?

    I hope so…I truly hope so.

  9. Roy Tucker (17:38:29) :

    You mean there’s still a journalist out there somewhere?

    Nah. Just another shill for Big Oil. Exxon-Mobil owns The Osgood Files, lock, stock and barrel. Besides, everyone knows he is really just a plant at CBS by Fox News and Karl Rove. /sarc off

  10. Astronomers are baffled by it
    On the contrary, this was expected and even forecast. See e.g.: http://www.leif.org/research/The%20IDV%20index%20-%20its%20derivation%20and%20use.pdf
    From the abstract: “solar cycle average B will return to levels of ~100 years ago during the coming cycle”
    From http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
    “yielding as our result: Rmax24 = 75 ± 8. This would make cycle 24 potentially the smallest sunspot cycle since cycle 14 (Rmax14 = 64 in 1906). [...] Such low cycles will be important for calibration of various empirical relationships between solar and interplanetary conditions and terrestrial phenomena, many of those derived during intervals of rather high solar activity [Lockwood et al., 1999; Svalgaard et al., 2003]. Average space weather might be ‘‘milder’’ with decreased solar activity, but the extreme events that dominate technological effects are not expected to disappear. In fact, they may become more common. Two of the eight strongest storms in the last 150 years occurred during solar cycle 14 (Rmax = 64) [Cliver and Svalgaard, 2004], while three of the five largest 30 MeV solar energetic proton events since 1859 [McCracken et al., 2001] occurred during cycle 13 (Rmax = 88 [...] The solar polar fields are important in supplying most of the heliospheric magnetic flux during solar minimum conditions. [...] With weaker polar fields, the interplanetary magnetic fields that the Ulysses space probe will measure during its next polar passes in 2007–2008 are therefore expected to be significantly lower than during the 1994–1995 polar passes.”

    REPLY: Leif, Don’t take it personally, he was probably thinking of Hathaway. ;-) Anthony

  11. Leif Svalgaard (17:59:58) :
    Astronomers are baffled by it
    REPLY: Leif, Don’t take it personally, he was probably thinking of Hathaway. ;-) Anthony

    From an email a few days ago to the NASA-panel from David Hathaway, discussing the next cycle: “I hate to admit it when Leif is right but that seems to be the case here”
    :-)

  12. Leif 17:59:58

    Sure, his science was not spot on. But who’s is when it gets to mass media? And just the fact that a little doubt about the dominant paradigm is showing is a good sign. And still, we don’t know that diminished sunspots won’t cause global cooling, even if all the other manifestations of the dynamo persist ‘normally’.

    Besides, rejoice and laugh at the crack about it being Bush’s fault.
    ==============================================

  13. Cool. I’ve been hoping this year will the year the mainstream media finally starts covering “The Other Side of the Story.” (Yeah, yeah, I’m mixing hosts.) WBZ in Boston carries Charles Osgood, definitely not middle America!

    I sent a note back through the Westwood One form describing the possibility that sunspots may fade from view by 2015 and included the URLs http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/ and http://wermenh.com/climate/climate2009.pdf

    Should this be part of the wakening of the MSM, can we call Joe D’Aleo’s article in the 2009 Old Farmer’s Almanac the start of the trend?

    http://www.almanac.com/timeline/

  14. I’m pretty sure, and I know that Leif would agree with me, that if we could somehow transport all the CO2 in our atmosphere into the roiling core of the sun, we could solve two problems at once. The sun would almost certainly spring to its former glory, as life here on earth winks out!! Problem solved.

  15. The flip side of all this rejoicing, though, is the opportunity in this for the alarmists to blame any cooling on the sun, and not on the fact that CO2 doesn’t raise global temperature to any great extent. I thought they were going to confuse the issue with a whole lot of palaver about albedo, but I can smell a strategy in this quiet sun. Why, oh why, must money, power, and politics interfere with science?
    =======================================

  16. Meanwhile, in a triumph of “virtual news”, AOL’s front page today is
    screaming SOLAR STORM WARNING, with an article about the
    possibility that a giant solar flare could take down our power grid.
    The article admits that this possibility isn’t really fresh news (to be
    exact, it’s 1859 news!) but it still gives the definite impression that
    the sun is dramatically stormy right now instead of dramatically calm.

  17. The Watt Effect Lives!

    from solarcycle24.com

    Sunspot 1015
    04/21/2009 by Kevin VE3EN at 23:15
    The small new Cycle 24 sunspot has been numbered 1015 and is the first real sunspot in nearly 45 days. It poses no threat for solar flares.

    Positively uncanny.
    We’ll see how long it lasts. Of course the Watt Effect doesn’t guarantee longevity, only nearly immediate spots.

  18. Congress needs to pass a “solar stimulus” package.

    The sun is simply too big to be allowed to fail.

  19. kim (18:25:04) wrote:

    “The flip side of all this rejoicing, though, is the opportunity in this for the alarmists to blame any cooling on the sun, and not on the fact that CO2 doesn’t raise global temperature to any great extent.”

    OTOH, perhaps this will provide politicians with the excuse they need to delay expensive mitigation measures for a year or two: “Because things aren’t getting worse at the moment, so there’s no need to act as though there’s an emergency.” It might also give other fence-sitters and secret skeptics the excuse they’d need to come down on the side of “a temporary delay.”

    After a year of two, when the sun ramps up again, but the temperature fails to follow, and the controversy has cooled down, people on all side of the issue will be happy to let it remain on the back burtner and gradually fade away. Anyway, that’s a possible scenario.

  20. D Overcast,

    A lot of people who refuse to do any research on the side of skeptics and simply parrot the AGW alarmist nonsense probably have heard it from him first.

  21. Leif Svalgaard (18:08:04) : “From an email a few days ago to the NASA-panel from David Hathaway, discussing the next cycle: “I hate to admit it when Leif is right but that seems to be the case here” :-)

    ROFL! About time!

  22. Leif, I made it through the mountain of reading material you piled on last time I asked a (somewhat technical) question. Everything is a lot more clear now – including the limitations of spectral analysis for analyzing non-stationary time series affected by differential rotation and the potential for misunderstandings arising from lax use of the term ‘coupled’ as if it was synonymous with ‘synchronized’ — what an eye-opener…

    A loose end:
    Would this article now be considered ‘out-of-date’?

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986SoPh..104..425S

  23. Leif Svalgaard (18:08:04) :

    Dr. Hathaway, however grudgingly, is acting as a gentleman in this situation. Would that more in this debate would follow suit.

  24. ‘….is the government doing anything about it?’ Is this fellow a journalist? Does he mean what is the government doing about the sun? As a person sitting at the centre of the gaussian curve of human achievement, I am perplexed at this chaps choice of words. What is he saying? Please! Could someone raise me from my solitude?

  25. Well, for goodness sake. It’s so bloody obvious. What’s the matter with you all ?If we keep on emitting all this CO2 it’s bound to start putting the sun out just a little isn’t it.

    Isn’t it ?

  26. I disagree with deadwood (17:50:26) about Charles Osgood being only in minor radio slots. Word spreads, even if he only does his one or two minutes on the radio each day. He is respected, and as others have said here, once the dam springs a leak, the whole scam about AGW may burst.

    When the sun spots do return, I am anticipating is the following AGW tactic. Gore, late-September 2009 in front of cameras somewhere near the Arctic summer melt: “Since the Sun has been dormant for so long, the effects of excess CO2 in the atmosphere has been minimized during this brief respite, but when the solar activity resumes, global warming will increase even more dramatically than anticipated and sea level will rise even faster than we could have ever anticipated in our computer models. Manhattan Island and most of Florida will be under water in less than five years!!!.”

    Then they will give Al the Nobel prize in Science.

  27. F Rasmin (19:16:09) : It is actually, as I see it, brilliant social commentary. The government seems to want to o something about everything nowadays. I’m not sure what the “gaussian curve of human achievement” is, but it kind of sounds as if you think we are at the peak of human achievement. That would be an absurd and ignorant statement on its face, so if I am wrong, please correct me.

  28. Last fall I began informally checking Google News for the number of returns on searches for “global cooling” and “global warming”, in hard quotes. Changes in the occurance of these terms have been dramatic. There are also been large changes in whether an article is mentioning ‘cooling’ or ‘warming’ in a positive or negative sense.

    I am aware that others – skeptic & believer – are making similar surveys, some much more formal & sophisticated than mine. Warming activists have made reports of these changing statistics on the green/AGW Gristmill blog. They know …

    Posts here on WUWT have mentioned a changing ‘media consensus’ on the topic of climate change. They and others have noted that media in general have been happy to cheerlead for fellow liberals who happen to be promoting AGW … but that as indications emerge suggesting that the science of it has been hijacked by old-fashioned activism-politics, the media could prove unusually sensitive to having ‘been had’.

    Media tend to like a liberal cause … but they don’t like feeling ‘played’, no matter how politically-correct the topic.

    Making a huge symbolic issue out of the melting Arctic Icecap could be a turning point for AGW. If late this summer the ice is clearly hanging in there better than recent summers, the various spin-options will be weak. The public is comfortable applying common sense to questions about Arctic ice-coverage, and will happly smirk at the spin-slingin’.

    The Osgood File is an early indicator of how the ‘the media war’ is going.

  29. Wow. Two more reports like this and I may end my 28 year boycott of CBS. Really. (OK, except for The Masters.)

  30. Frederick Michael (18:44:08) :

    Expect a letter from lawyers regarding the damage from high-speed, fluid nasal ejections.

    Of course, we will now have to regulate the sun to ensure it never gets this big again.

  31. I skipped the comments as I am in a hurry, but I am certain I am joining many in thanking Mr. Osgood for a stimulating read. I also thank him for having the courage to speak his mind in the face of certain hysterical rebuttal.

    Good on you sir!

  32. It’s not that I worry about who is right but about the weather we’re in for. . . ,

    Gil Russell

  33. Leif: How about “I hate to admit it when David Archibald is even right(er) but that seems to be the case here” or Landscheit maybe? LOL

  34. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8008473.stm

    The BBC reported the stor:

    “We are re-entering the middle ground after a period which has seen the Sun in its top 10% of activity,” said Professor Lockwood.
    “We would expect it to be more than a hundred years before we get down to the levels of the Maunder Minimum.”
    He added that the current slight dimming of the Sun is not going to reverse the rise in global temperatures caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
    “What we are seeing is consistent with a global temperature rise, not that the Sun is coming to our aid.”
    Data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows global average temperatures have risen by about 0.7C since the beginning of the 20th Century.
    And the IPCC projects that the world will continue to warm, with temperatures expected to rise between 1.8C and 4C by the end of the century.

    …it appears the BBC found a Professor that shares their ideology. Good to know that the Sun is just behaving just as Professor Lockwood expects and that Global Warming will go on unabated. He seems to be all knowing. Anyone know this clown?

  35. Finally, a main stream commentator who has some knowledge of our climate history. One would think the MSM has never heard of the Maunder or Dalton Minimum. Yay, Charles Osgood!

  36. Osgood is right if he is referring to NASA . David Hathaway, et. al. may be coming around now, but how long did he and his NASA friends deny what most of the rest of us on this blog acknowledged? Remember, not so long ago he rhetorically answered the question, “What’s Wrong With The Sun?” “Nothing,” as in everything is perfectly normal. Osgood is also correct about the media cover up of what should be front page headlines.

    I don’t know that Hathaway is “baffled.” He may be embarrassed to admit he has been so wrong. We all seemed to see this coming.

  37. Mike Bryant (18:24:57) :

    “I’m pretty sure, and I know that Leif would agree with me, that if we could somehow transport all the CO2 in our atmosphere into the roiling core of the sun, we could solve two problems at once. The sun would almost certainly spring to its former glory, as life here on earth winks out!! Problem solved”.

    Mike, you are a real party animal.

  38. The BBC Journalist who reported the “Sun Baffling Astronomers” has a reputation for environmental ideology and twisting facts according to this Wiki page:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallab_Ghosh

    Perhaps what Prof Lockwood actually reported was misrepresented. Certainly an ideologist with an environmental agenda (anti – GM crops) is unlikely to give a balanced report.

  39. Robert Bateman (18:01:37) :

    The cat is out of the bag.

    Yes Robert, prepare for a flood of biased articles stating that the the Solar Minimum won’t stop Climate Change.

  40. ‘….is the government doing anything about it?’

    I think Charles Osgood is either being a little sarcastic, since the Gov’t is now even more tending to see itself as the solution for everything, or else he’s highlighting the lack of Gov’t interest in acting in respect to the possibiliy of “climate change” meaning cooling, when this looks like a rather strong near term possibility, and it really should concern the Gov’t in terms of adaptation measures.

  41. Leif should really do a guest post “Okay, here is what is really happening with the Sun and this is where is it likely to go.”

    Leif is still batting 10 for 11 in my mind (it is really 10 for 10 but I’m still not convinced that there is bare minimum for all solar cycles including the Maunder Minimum so I’m scoring a stike-out for that one although it could still turn out to be just a sac-fly and the 10 for 10 would be preserved).

  42. John Egan:

    I’ve highlighted your post for Anthony, and left it embargoed in the mean time. It is not being ignored.

  43. You folks are not giving Charles Osgood the respect he deserves. You might want to get up Sunday morning and watch “Sunday Morning” sometime.

    “Charles Osgood, often referred to as CBS News’ poet-in-residence, has been anchor of CBS News Sunday Morning since 1994. He also anchors and writes “The Osgood File,” his daily news commentary broadcast on the CBS Radio Network.
    Osgood’s commentaries draw one of the largest audiences of any network radio feature. He was called “one of the last great broadcast writers” by his Sunday Morning predecessor, Charles Kuralt.”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/07/09/sunday/bios/main13584.shtml

  44. p.s. regarding Osgood the poet-in-residence
    He is a very good “wordsmith” and a gentleman.
    Never a “due to” or “due too” or “do to” when he means “because”
    Never “it’s” when he wants “its” and so on.
    If you want to point out any errors in his text, do it gently and in rhyme and you will get noticed.

  45. Charlie, Charlie, Charlie – did you get this off the BBC?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8008473.stm

    Or perhaps you both got it off one of the wire services and each of you fluffed it up with your own particular take on the story. I just finished reading the BBC story before coming over to WUWT; it so sounded like an instant replay.

    How’s that line go again?

    It’s the sun, stupid!

  46. Au contraire,

    The government is doing something about a possible Maunder minimum and a resulting little ice age.

    The government is bankrupting the country so that we will not be able to do anything about it. Should there be the predicted drop in food production and the increase in destructive storms, the US will not have the credit to deal with the problems.

    Regards,

    Steamboat Jack

  47. Cheers to Charles Osgood for disseminating this information. Applause.

    Once homo sapiens wake up and realize how they have been duped by the current world religion…they will make the right decisions…..hopefully.

    4.5 billion year old sun and earth as opposed to 450 year old modern human history.

    Go figure.

  48. Steady Relentless presentation of the data and opinions.

    Let the fanatics marginalize themselves through shrill rebuttals, but as the news over the last few weeks shows you, be mindful that

    “Dissent is only the Right of the Left” in this New Order.

  49. Robert Bateman (18:01:37) :

    The cat is out of the bag.

    And it’s climbing the proverbial curtain…

    (and if the curtain gets a swing to it, it will slide along the runners and reveal the wizard with his levers…)

  50. kim (18:25:04) :

    The flip side of all this rejoicing, though, is the opportunity in this for the alarmists to blame any cooling on the sun, and not on the fact that CO2 doesn’t raise global temperature to any great extent. I thought they were going to confuse the issue with a whole lot of palaver about albedo, but I can smell a strategy in this quiet sun. Why, oh why, must money, power, and politics interfere with science?
    =======================================

    They have also been saying that,

    [1] The sun is more or less irrelevant.
    [2] CO2 is the primary driver for climate (global warming) change.

    If they turn around and start claiming that the Sun is now swamping CO2 as a climate driver. It weakens both points above.

    Hoist on their own petard.

  51. Ted Clayton (19:27:12) :

    Posts here on WUWT have mentioned a changing ‘media consensus’ on the topic of climate change. They and others have noted that media in general have been happy to cheerlead for fellow liberals who happen to be promoting AGW … but that as indications emerge suggesting that the science of it has been hijacked by old-fashioned activism-politics, the media could prove unusually sensitive to having ‘been had’.

    Media tend to like a liberal cause … but they don’t like feeling ‘played’, no matter how politically-correct the topic.

    The Osgood File is an early indicator of how the ‘the media war’ is going.

    Ted: – two points.

    [1] Everyone hates being treated like a patsy, especially if real deception has been performed. Hence good potential for a media backlash.

    [2] Scandal stories also sell advertising space, the media can profit by swapping from “Scare” to “Scandal” – this could be a factor in especially trying economic times.

    Ted: Good post.

  52. vg (19:50:52) :
    Leif: How about “I hate to admit it when David Archibald is even right(er) but that seems to be the case here” or Landscheit maybe? LOL

    The LOL might be appropriate as none of these critters have any idea of how the Sun [and the climate] works and are just shooting blind. But, hey, some people believe weird things. I can recommend a book by Shermer ISBN 0-8050-7089-3.

  53. Paul Vaughan (19:11:49) :
    Would this article now be considered ‘out-of-date’?

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986SoPh..104..425S

    Possibly, but it is not certain that the 28.5 day feature comes from below the convection zone, so there is a chance that they are right. The important thing is perhaps that from several viewpoints the 28.5 day feature may not be so mysterious.

  54. You know Osgood is on my local radio-and if one is riding along,and say your warmist
    client is in the car,and he freaks out-that friends, is a:”Cronkite moment’.As it goes further we will see more and more warmist rats down the hauser.-As the SS Gore slowy
    goes down by the stern from striking an iceberg….

  55. “Graeme Rodaughan (20:57:08) :

    They have also been saying that,

    [1] The sun is more or less irrelevant.
    [2] CO2 is the primary driver for climate (global warming) change.

    If they turn around and start claiming that the Sun is now swamping CO2 as a climate driver. It weakens both points above.

    Hoist on their own petard.”

    Graeme, Graeme, Graeme!

    You have so much to learn Grasshopper!

    Your point 1 in the AGWA mantra is.

    1) The Sun is more or less irrelevant wrt WARMING

    Unfortunately, point 2 is this…

    2) The Sun is overwhelmingly responsible for COOLING

    3) Any warming trend is dictated by CO2

    DaveE

  56. F Rasmin (19:16:09) :

    ‘….is the government doing anything about it?’ Is this fellow a journalist? Does he mean what is the government doing about the sun?

    J. Peden (20:11:44) :

    I think Charles Osgood is either being a little sarcastic…

    …or a LOT sarcastic!

    Fairly transparent, I believe. If the blame it on Bush line wasn’t a giveaway, then this Paragraph certainly is:
    “Hush, child! You’re not even supposed to suggest that. The only thing that can change global warming is if we human beings — we Americans, especially — completely change our ways and our way of life.”

    Tongue firmly in cheek.

  57. The Osgood file is carried on KNX radio, the big CBS station for Southern California. The typical political commentary on this station is very liberal. The typical Osgood listener will be surprised by his comments, and may have been unfamiliar with the idea of the sun’s influence swamping the effect of CO2 on our climate.

  58. I listened to the audio….

    I AM SHOCKED!

    I did not know Charles Osgood would criticize Pr. Obama and pshaw global warming. OMG!

  59. Albedo. The Alfredo Sauce that makes the Sun very important in climate.
    If the Sun is NOT active to generate enough Solar Wind, the GCR’s start htting home runs off the weakened pitcher, who is stuck on the mound without the proper stuff.
    The bull pen is empty.
    There is more to the Sun’s role than simple heating of Earth.
    The Solar Wind override to GCR’s looms larger in it’s abscence.
    Think of those variable Sunglasses.
    Only invert them.
    Now for the shrunken outer atmosphere.
    Think of an R value. Like trapped air in winter clothing.
    Makes for insulation.
    Shrink that and more heat is emitted as opposed to the higher insulating factor of the normally expanded outer atmosphere.
    All of this from a simple change in Solar Output, but not really Total Output.
    It’s the Sun, stupid.
    The biggest energy source in the ballpark cannot be irrelevant, any more than we should expect a body that is 333 times the mass of the Earth to be orbiting it.
    Now, that really would be stupid.
    Ok, we’ve been there, done that, but at the time, we had no clue as to the true scale of the comparison.
    We should have a clue about the true importance of the biggest energy source in our backyard.

  60. Steven Hill(17:50:36): “Look at this madness. WASHINGTON – The flow of water in the world’s largest rivers has declined over the past half-century, with significant changes found in about a third of the big rivers. An analysis of 925 major rivers from 1948 to 2004 showed an overall decline in total discharge.”

    When we talk about global warming we always mentioned global CO2 levels and global temperature. I never see figures about global (decrease/increase) of the rainfall, the main source of river water. What did IPCC predict?

  61. Kenneth H. Schatten (2009). Modeling a Shallow Solar Dynamo. Solar Physics 255, 3-38.

    Excerpt:
    “As Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar (Act I, Scene II) said, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings.” Namely, we have fallen victim to the dazzling power of computation, without sufficiently understanding how convection and magnetic field interact together in MHD on large scales, when enormous energy transport is occurring concomitantly.”

  62. Paul Vaughan (22:24:23) :
    Kenneth H. Schatten (2009). Modeling a Shallow Solar Dynamo. Solar Physics 255, 3-38.

    I happen to agree with my good friend Ken that the dynamo is either shallow geometrically [close to the surface] or shallow dynamically [that it only takes a short time for the surface flux to diffuse into the region at depth where it is amplified]. My Grow-n-Crash model does almost as well as the elaborate Dikpati computation: http://www.leif.org/research/Grow-N-Crash%20Prediction%20Model.pdf

  63. charles the moderator (20:20:37) :

    John Egan:

    I’ve highlighted your post for Anthony, and left it embargoed in the mean time. It is not being ignored.

    Awww…. c’mon…. wad he say? wad he say? :-)

    REPLY: It was an operational issue, nothing juicy, not that it is any of your business, but people often leave messages for me as comments. The moderating team make sure I see them. – Anthony

  64. The Quiet sun was reported on the BBC yesterday with a big and blatant caveat that it is not quiet enough to effect global warming and it has been dimming since 1985 whilst global temperatures have gone up.

    The BBC does not accept ANY contradictory evidence whatsoever. The BBC news readers are NOT reporters, but have become advocates. They are NOT impartial, they are totally biased.

  65. Leif Svalgaard (22:41:44)
    “I happen to agree with my good friend Ken [...]“

    He’s an eloquent writer.

    “The magnetic field thus has increased buoyancy with depth, which might make the field close to unsinkable, like trying to sink a giant raft to the bottom of the ocean.”

    “If the field of the Sun does descend deep into the solar interior, it is behaving in a manner unlike the manner it displays in terrestrial plasma machines, where the plasma and field are immiscible.”

    “[...] as a leaf falling under gravity falls bowed side down [...]”

    “It would be a valuable test of surface versus deep field dynamo models to undertake the Svalgaard–Wilcox (1976) study with modern data and ascertain the persistence of their correlation. This may shed further light on the important question of whether the source of the Sun’s dynamo is deep or shallow.”

    “Acknowledgements
    We appreciate Leif Svalgaard for fruitful discussions and supplying us with his supersynoptic charts, originally developed by Roger Ulrich. [...]“

    Speaking of Ulrich, is there anything further along the lines of investigation pursued in the following?

    http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/560/1/466/53641.web.pdf?request-id=e0d05d7d-279b-40c2-b0ad-0da6d7c67987

  66. I couldn’t believe my eyes but…

    YES !

    THERE’S A NEW SUNSPOT!

    Well, it’s already fading away but in these times, it’s very good new anyway, isn’t it?

  67. A few more highlights from Schatten (2009) – Solar Physics:

    “The name percolation is derived from the Latin term percolare, which means to strain or filter. Other scientists have often used it when other nonlinear phenomena occur (e.g., growth patterns in forest fires, crystal structures, etc.). [...] For the Sun, we distinguish two forms or flavors of percolation [...]”

    “[...] using quantum statistics – which is inherently nonlinear,
    since the variable jumps from integer to integer without smoothly going through the real number line [...] used in forest fires, predator–prey (Lotka –Volterra) equations, and in a broad range of disciplines not amenable to the former techniques of differential equations.”

    “[...] differential equations based upon physics, amenable to conditions where parameters are slowly changing [...]”

    “For chaotic conditions, where phenomena are changing so rapidly that differentials may not be possible [...]”

    “To avoid too much growth or decay, a “floor”
    and a “ceiling” are also included. [...] This is done for two practical reasons: i) Nonlinear physical phenomena always have some limit to their strength, and ii) observationally, a floor in the interplanetary field has been reported by Svalgaard and Cliver (2007). If a floor were not used, the duration of our broad activity minima periods would lengthen.”

  68. Using Hadcrut temperatures, the average anomaly over the past three years has been 0.38. The average anomaly from 2000-2002, during the last peak in solar activity, was 0.38. Going back to previous solar minima, the three year average anomaly was 0.26 for 1995-7; 0.07 for 1985-7; and -0.11 for 1974-6.

    If it’s warmer now in this deep minimum than it was at the maximum, and if for the last thirty years temperatures during each solar minimum have been warmer than the last, then changes in solar activity are not the dominant cause of changing temperatures.

    What is the dominant cause of changing temperatures at the moment? Over the last 30 years, there is no correlation at all between either TSI or sunspot numbers and global temperatures. But the correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperatures is strong: R-squared=0.67.

    Solar activity is not currently driving global temperatures. CO2 concentrations are. This simple analysis shows you that quite clearly.

  69. Leif Svalgaard – I wish you knew how wrong you are.

    [snip, play nice now ~ charles the moderator]

  70. kim (18:25:04) :

    Supposedly, the quiet sun is not cooling the planet.
    From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8008473.stm

    “Prof Lockwood was one of the first researchers to show that the Sun’s activity has been gradually decreasing since 1985, yet overall global temperatures have continued to rise.

    “If you look carefully at the observations, it’s pretty clear that the underlying level of the Sun peaked at about 1985 and what we are seeing is a continuation of a downward trend (in solar activity) that’s been going on for a couple of decades.

    “If the Sun’s dimming were to have a cooling effect, we’d have seen it by now.””

    “We are re-entering the middle ground after a period which has seen the Sun in its top 10% of activity,” said Professor Lockwood.

    “We would expect it to be more than a hundred years before we get down to the levels of the Maunder Minimum.”

    He added that the current slight dimming of the Sun is not going to reverse the rise in global temperatures caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

    “What we are seeing is consistent with a global temperature rise, not that the Sun is coming to our aid.”

    My opinion of Prof. Lockwood’s belief is unprintable.

  71. This is exactly the sort of thing that would be lumber with an anthropogenic cause if there was any possible way to do it.

    I for one don’t underestimate the ingenuity of “scientists(TM)”

  72. RW (00:58:50) :

    Using Hadcrut temperatures, the average anomaly over the past three years has been 0.38. The average anomaly from 2000-2002, during the last peak in solar activity, was 0.38. Going back to previous solar minima, the three year average anomaly was 0.26 for 1995-7; 0.07 for 1985-7; and -0.11 for 1974-6.

    If the solar cycle length/SSN has an indirect impact on temperature, (eg: Albedo from clouds, etc). Then, since we have just come out of 50 years of above average solar cycles we should expect to have seen a consistant long term increase in temperature during this period, and now as we enter a period of reduced solar activity we should expect a gradual cooling from the peak after about 2003. If solar activity stays low for 50 years we should end up back where we started.

    So far, so good !

  73. vg (19:50:52) :

    Leif: How about “I hate to admit it when David Archibald is even right(er) but that seems to be the case here” or Landscheit maybe? LOL

    In what way is David Archibald “right(er)”? Leif (and others) have been predicting a low SC24 sunspot count for some time now. DA came onto to the scene recently and has expanded on the ‘weak cycle’ theme to predict a 2 deg decline in global temperatures over the next “few” years – though he is not specific about the time period. He has come to this conclusion by using a crude correlation between solar cycle length and the temperature record at a few selected locations.

    Whether SC24 is weak or not is not the issue for most readers of this blog. Rather it is the assumption (mistaken – I believe) that it will have a significant effect on global temperatures.

  74. Solar activity is not currently driving global temperatures. CO2 concentrations are. This simple analysis shows you that quite clearly.

    I think perhaps your simple analysis is a little bit too simple. If CO2 were driving climate as you suggest, then why hasn’t the temperature increased since the turn of the century? For sure it’s to do with the Oceans and the Sun, in tandem. That, perhaps, would be enough to confound any direct correlations you are looking for, I humbly suggest.

    But more than this, consider the statement you have made above. Does that not seem counter-intuitive to you? It would take A LOT to convince me that it wasn’t at root the Sun, a whole lot. For some people however, it seems to take a lot to convince them it isn’t Co2, despite the fact that Co2 does not seem to be a causal actor in this play, whereas the Sun itself evidently is (being a giant ball of fire in an ice-cold room).

  75. Funny how some people get excited when they see a single sunspot form. They clearly are upset that their AGW theory is being challenged by natural forces.

  76. Richard Hill’s link to the Irkutsk data is certainly interesting. It should be noted though, that although the city is far from the sea it is close to Lake Baikal. This is no ordinary lake. It is large and extremely deep, containing about 20% of all the world’s fresh water – more than all the North American Great Lakes combined. This is bound to have some effect on the local climate.

  77. There is an article in today’s printed version of The Times from the UK in the Weather Eye column on p.57 by Paul Simons. He says:

    The Sun is having an unusually quiet spell. Normally it goes through 11-year cycle of activity that peeks with sunspots – dark freckles on its surface – followed by a calmer period with few sunspots. Last year the Sun reached its minimum and was expected to hot up again this year, but still few sunspots have appeared.

    Another notably quiet spell of sunspots lasted from about 1645 until 1714 and coincided with a cold period known as the Little Ice Age.

    Some people suggest that the lack of solar activity caused a cooling effect, and that a similar effect now might relieve the impact of climate change. But the picture is not so clear-cut.

    True, the Little Ice Age was marked by some cold winters and short summers. The 1640s were particularly dire, when poor harvests led to rising prices and helped to spark political turmoil across Europe. And in Britain the soaring cost of food helped to drive the Civil War, as well as political and religious upheaval.

    Could the lack of sunspots have led to the Little Ice Age? Several powerful volcanic eruptions struck between 1638 and 1643, launching clouds of dust that helped to cool off global temperatures. But by the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, the climate improved and harvests recovered. And conditions remained good for another 30 years – despite the lack of sunspots.

    Any comments?

  78. It seems not to have been widely broadcast as yet that the Sun has been changed from incandescent to fluorescent, to help meet EU emission targets.

  79. John Finn (02:19:28) :

    Whether SC24 is weak or not is not the issue for most readers of this blog. Rather it is the assumption (mistaken – I believe) that it will have a significant effect on global temperatures.

    That’s the whole point, for me at least. Nothing much has happened at all either in warming or cooling. What has happened is a deliberate misinterpretation of a slightly warmer than normal period to the extent of it becoming a global political agenda.
    The quiet sun we’re encountering at the moment hasn’t got a hope in hell of putting the freeze on a catastrophe that never was, we’re dealing with reality versus fiction.
    Now what we need is a group of Billionaire banksters and Industrialists to whoop us into a frenzy over global cooling, then we’ll have an ice age.

  80. “Breaking scientific news”. When I hear this lead in I groan. All those Intro courses in science did for us was set us up for endless confusion and manipulation. Coffee is good, coffee is bad. CO2 is good, CO2 is bad ..always the hurricanes blowing, always the population growing, and the money owing… I want to live in America . Sorry, can’t get that West Side Story tune out of my head. Where was I? The sun, you say? Quite! Quite! Seems that might have something to do with it.

  81. OT but …

    Obviously the zealots at the BBC feel they overdid the “scepticism” with their quiet sun story yesterday. They are therefore making up for it with this piece of nonsense:

    Rivers drying up due to Global Warming

    Obviously the greater evaporation in a warmer world won’t translate into more rain, like it does in this universe. I despair!

  82. Ok – a little late to the debate but I was reading tetris (17:34:56) comment from Europe. He mention Claude Allegre – the new climate minister from France, anyhew did anyone else notice this remark from the NY Times last week. The article quotes French President Sarkosy, who dished the gossip on his fellow heads of state. Of interest was his quote that Obama was “badly briefed on climate change”.

    Tempting to speculate that Dr. Allegre – a very well respected isotope geochemist and climate realist is the one briefing Mr. Sarkosy.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/world/europe/17sarkozy.html

  83. RW (00:58:50) :

    “…the correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperatures is strong: R-squared=0.67.

    Solar activity is not currently driving global temperatures. CO2 concentrations are.”

    Of course, RW is wrong. I suspect that he just cherry picked a random number set purporting to show an R^2 correlation of .62. That is an extremely high number, and if it were true, the planet’s temperature would be tracking the rise in CO2 very closely.

    But it doesn’t; as CO2 rises, the planet cools: click.

    As Robinson points out above, the planet is not responding to CO2. As carbon dioxide levels rise, the planet’s temperature continues to fall: click. Note that the R^2 correlation is practically non-existent.

    If CO2 caused global warming, then the planet would be getting much hotter. Instead, the planet is cooling — thus falsifying the CO2=AGW hypothesis.

    People like RW are forced to claim that changes in a minor trace gas will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. If they give up that hypothesis, they’ve got nothing left but natural climate variability, and where’s the money in that?

  84. Anyone who has followed any popular science magazine, in print or on the web, over the last ten years has been witness to slow and then accelerating dissection of the body of science. It started with a silly hypothesis here and a study there, and soon large pieces were being removed willy nilly. These scientists, who are on an important mission, reached into the body of science and began removing the inner organs one by one. They remade them. Recently they took out the still beating heart and twisted it to their purpose. The final stitches have been placed, sealing the new organs within the rotting corpse. As the lifeless body is elevated to the highest position and the awful stinking offal of the true core of science lies on the laboratory floor, the lightning of political will cracks and booms around the now twitching monster as his makers scream in glee, “It’s alive! it’s ALIVE!!!!”
    As the newly formed body of science is brought back to the floor of the laboratory, the world waits for the to hear the pronouncement that will issue from this construct of the New Science. As the microphones are placed close to record this wisdom, we hear, “Fire… hot… baddd!!”
    Thank you New Scientists…

    Can this patient be saved?

  85. “REPLY: Leif, Don’t take it personally, he was probably thinking of Hathaway. ;-) Anthony”
    __________________________________

    Good one Anthony!

    Heck Leif, between you and Hathaway, NASA had all the bases covered!

    Kind of like if Al Gore and I joined forces (highly unlikely) to form “OFNA” and we predicted both global warming AND cooling – one of us is bound to be right.

    Just giving you a hard time Leif – live by the sword, and all that…

    How much longer before you accept that solar variability, directly or more likely indirectly, is a significant driver of Earth’s climate?

    Best, Allan 8^)

  86. “Richard Briscoe (02:48:02) :
    Richard Hill’s link to the Irkutsk data is certainly interesting. It should be noted though, that although the city is far from the sea it is close to Lake Baikal. This is no ordinary lake. It is large and extremely deep, containing about 20% of all the world’s fresh water – more than all the North American Great Lakes combined. This is bound to have some effect on the local climate.”

    “From Wiki:
    “Lake Baikal is in a rift valley, created by the Baikal Rift Zone, where the crust of the earth is pulling apart… In geological terms, the rift is young and active—it widens about two centimeters per year. The fault zone is also seismically active; there are hot springs in the area and notable earthquakes every few years.”

  87. RW 00:58:50

    How does your correlation between CO2 and temperature rise work for periods other than the last quarter of the last century? Answer: the correlation is poor. So extending your ‘simple analysis’ to periods outside your cherry picked moments shows that CO2 is not driving temperature.
    =======================================

  88. Jeremy;-)

    Prof Mike Lockwood is an esteemed astrophysicist & has appeared on The Sky at Night with Sir Patrick Moore! However, as I posted a comment on a previous topic the other day, he used to be a firm believer that the Sun was the driver of global temps, not CO2. However, he has since converted to the new faith wholeheartedly for whatever reason. He wrote a paper with Carl Frolich in 05 showing TSI varied only by 0.2% during solar max to solar min, & that TSI had been declining over the last few years, this was demolished by Christopher Monckton at SPPI (well worth a visit sometime). I also noted that Lord Monckton pointed out that Svenmark researched a large chunk of the same data & came to the opposite conclusion to Lockwood!

    I suspect, like many others have been, & others who read this site also suspect of those, that he has been got at. Probably through the old fashioned Yes Minister (old political satire prog in UK), of offering greater status, salary, general standing, possibly a top university position added in, greater research grants, cash is always a good inducer, but of course “we need the right man for the job, someone who is sympathetic to government policy on certain matters,” etc! If it happens here it happens elsewhere folks!

    Generally, I am staggered that, considereing the global cooling measured by all four major temperature metrics for the last 7 years, (take note Prof Lockwood), the Sun is all quiet, with most predictions of its furious activity to come not happening, that someone is not asking the question, “just a minute chaps, the Sun’s all quiet, temperatures are going down, have we gone down the wrong path on this global warming stuff?”

  89. nvw 04:34:47

    I could well be wrong, here, but I think you’ve got the wrong take on Sarkozy, despite the skepticism of Allegre. When I first read Sarkozy’s comment I thought the context was that he thought Obama wasn’t serious enough about encumbering carbon. The European leaders are still much enchanted by the idea that CO2=AGW. I hope I’m wrong, though, and you are right.

    I see that others have made the same point about RW’s overly simple analysis at 00:58:50, by which he concludes that CO2 is driving the sun. He’s in good company, though. Hundreds of climate modelers have made the same mistake. That’s why they are all wrong.
    ===============================

  90. RW (00:58:50) :

    What is the dominant cause of changing temperatures at the moment? Over the last 30 years, there is no correlation at all between either TSI or sunspot numbers and global temperatures. But the correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperatures is strong: R-squared=0.67.

    Solar activity is not currently driving global temperatures. CO2 concentrations are. This simple analysis shows you that quite clearly.

    Perhaps, but had you looked at the PDO, or more simply, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/warming-trend-pdo-and-solar-correlate-better-than-co2/ you would find USHCN data vs CO2, TSI, and PDO(+AMO(+TSI)) over the last century or so.

    Vs. CO2, there’s a R^2 of 0.44 (poor-fair correlation according to D’Aleo), vs. TSI gets R^2 of 0.57, and vs PDO+AMO R^2 is 0.83 (fair-good).

    -Ric (not RW!) Werme

  91. Alan the Brit understands what is going on.

    It’s amazing to me that simply stroking someone’s ego [...offering greater status, salary, general standing, possibly a top university position added in, greater research grants, cash is always a good inducer, but of course “we need the right man for the job, someone who is sympathetic to government policy on certain matters,” etc...] causes most people to jettison their ethics, and to sell out for the reasons given by Alan.

    One by one, this is how the global CO2=AGW forces corrupt science.

  92. OK, nvw, look at the third to last paragraph in your New York Times link at 04:34:47. I get the impression that Sarkozy was commenting that Obama doesn’t know much about the details of what the Europeans have done to control carbon. I don’t get the impression that Sarkozy was the least bit skeptical about its climate effect. But, more power to Allegre. We can but hope.

    The Europeans and the Americans are being played for their guilt about past carbon use by the Russians, the Chinese, and the Indians. Those nations, and others, are perfectly aware that the globe is cooling, and that the role of CO2 has been exaggerated. But if they can get the developed West to hogtie themselves about carbon use, while not doing so themselves, it is all to the good for the developing nations. Watch this play out at Copenhagen and in the run-up to it. We can see the jostling already.

    And by all means, read Peter Huber in the City Journal: ‘Bound to Burn’. He explains forcefully and persuasively why neither the developing nations nor the developed ones will wean themselves from hydrocarbon energy soon. Aren’t you glad that fossil fuel use doesn’t impact the climate very much after all?
    =========================

  93. Who cares what Charles Osgood thinks? He has no expertise in climatology. He is a human interest, soft news reporter. He is well past his sell by date.
    This blog is nothing but cheer leading.

    REPLY: Then go read another one if WUWT doesn’t suit your preconceived notions, but please spare us your judgments – Anthony

  94. Do you get it RW? Many here have shown that you’ve cherry-picked. Do you understand that that is an error and can mislead you? C’mon, be honest. It can’t hurt. Nor can it hurt you to be relieved of your carbon use guilt. For dessert, you can concern yourself with real environmental problems. God knows, we’ve got enough of them without wasting our essence on pursuing the chimera of carbon demonization.
    ==========================================

  95. Smokey:-) I thank you Sir!

    I have some expereince of how government establishments work as I used to be an employee ( I must confess I was underworked & overpaid back then, as were many others – but of course that is no criticism of current government employees!) I remember a supervisor of mine who was employed on a lower grade & hence salary because although competent he was a bit “too young” for the post that was advertised – why they employed him then I don’t know but that’s not the point, – a few years later he was told he could be promoted up without too much diffuclty but he needed to write a paper or two – particularly one that would endorse the current stance of the establishment at which he was employed, although of course written in an “impartial” way by a professional person! He got it!

  96. It would be the right time to propose something of the kind of the 1957 Geophysical Year, so as to convey all resources to study the sun-earth relation in times of a minimum.
    Those studies would, for sure, clarify the GHG issue for good.

  97. SC 1015, spawn of the Watts Effect, appears to be a Tiny Tim and fading fast.

    It dawned on me that folks rooting for a return to a “normal” sunspot cycle (amateur radio operators, Gole & Hansen, etc.) are like us mid-market MLB fans; e.g. whenever the woeful Astros score more than one run at a time, or somebody makes a great play, we always assert that it was “the turning point of the season”. Repeated frequently enough (usually about once a game) it becomes the comedy of repetition, and a little bit sad.

    Thus is is with The Spots. Since about September, every spot has raised hopes of a Solar Hockey Stick. It’s the turning point of the Cycle!

    Unfortunately, SC23 spots keep cropping up, and the SC24 ones are acting like octagenarian silent film stars at a benefit; they peek-out from behind the curtain, wave at the crowd, and are gone.

    Dunno about the other science and engineering types out there, but this is starting to look a lot like a heavily damped, decaying function to me.
    Anybody see any evidence of underlying “excitation”? I can’t.

  98. The Sun isn’t driving the planet’s temp right now.
    Solar activity is too low. CO2 forcing requires substantial input, which is lacking due to higher albedo.
    The GCR’s are driving the planet’s temp right now.
    That is it’s problem.
    Any brave Solar observers out there going to try and project this spot (1015)?

  99. Smokey:

    “Of course, RW is wrong. I suspect that he just cherry picked a random number set purporting to show an R^2 correlation of .62.”

    I got the data from publicly available sources, and plotted the graphs. Do the same and give us quantitative analysis, instead of being dense and rude.

    “That is an extremely high number, and if it were true, the planet’s temperature would be tracking the rise in CO2 very closely.”

    It is certainly true. Get the data, do the maths. “Extremely” is too strong a description though.

    “But it doesn’t; as CO2 rises, the planet cools: click.”

    What you are showing there is that over short timescales, noise dominates.

    “As Robinson points out above, the planet is not responding to CO2. As carbon dioxide levels rise, the planet’s temperature continues to fall: click. Note that the R^2 correlation is practically non-existent.”

    That graph shows a short period, over which noise dominates. R-squared is not given.

    “If CO2 caused global warming, then the planet would be getting much hotter.”

    It is.

    “Instead, the planet is cooling — thus falsifying the CO2=AGW hypothesis.”

    If the error bars are larger than the “trend”, there is no trend.

    Ric Werme: you link to a piece in which the data is heavily smoothed, which inflates apparent correlations. It also uses US temperatures instead of global.

    kim: “How does your correlation between CO2 and temperature rise work for periods other than the last quarter of the last century?”

    You can go back to the beginning of the instrumental record and get a very similar result.

    “Answer: the correlation is poor”

    Answering a question without doing any working out normally leads to the wrong answer. Try getting the data yourself and plotting T vs. CO2, and then answer the question again.

  100. RW, please add a discussion of oceanic oscillation affects. These can have a significant impact on weather pattern variation over several decades. Certainly this has been the case in the past. What part do you think they are playing now, since no one has managed to turn them off yet to allow something else to affect weather pattern variations. The oceans are not warmer, or for that matter cooler, than would be expected for the various phases they are in regarding their oscillations. So far, the ocean temperatures are not being affected by CO2. They are behaving normally. And just so you know where to look, spend some time at NOAA on SST and try to find an ocean that is warm because of CO2, not because of its normal pattern of oscillation. Finally, it is well understood by meteorologists and climatologists that weather pattern variations are sourced by what ever the oceans are doing.

  101. eric (05:45:08) :

    Who cares what Al Gore thinks. He’s just a neurotic politician.

  102. I keep bumping into these ridiculous articles, where Scientists give us some new information about the Climate but are in denial about any possible effects it might have on their belief system.

    Some choice quotes:

    In stark contrast to the loss of sea ice in the Arctic over the last 30 years, the frozen seas surrounding the South Pole have increased at the rate of 100,000 square kilometres a decade over the last 40 years.

    That’s interesting…..

    Scientists believe the growth is down to stronger surface winds over Antarctica and more frequent storms in the Southern Ocean – both direct consequences of the ozone hole.

    Is it? Cool.

    But the team from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and Nasa warned the ozone hole was only delaying the impact of greenhouse gases on the climate of the White Continent.

    If ozone levels recover as expected over the next 100 years, thanks to the international ban on damaging CFCs, weather patterns will return to normal and Antarctic sea ice will shrink rapidly, they said.

    Wait a minute….. has the hole in the Ozone layer grown larger or not?. If it isn’t shrinking, then what good did banning CFC’s do and what benefit 100 years into the future will that give to Antarctica?

    I must admit to feeling a little confused.

  103. eric (05:45:08) :

    “Who cares what Charles Osgood thinks? He has no expertise in climatology. He is a human interest, soft news reporter. He is well past his sell by date.
    This blog is nothing but cheer leading.”

    Eric, as a person of a “certain” age myself I take personal offence at your rampant ageism. I thought such muddled thinking was no longer permitted in the “New Dawn of Global Social Awareness” which has appeared in the last few years. Tsk, tsk. Perhaps you have inadvertently forgotten to remove your special fact-filtering sunglasses and, therefore, can no longer clearly see the world around you.

    Regards,

    John

  104. A Wod (2:54:35)

    Some carbon dioxide alarmists try to dismiss the Little Ice Age-Solar connection by blaming the cooling on volcanic aerosols. Note figure 2, page 3, of Jasper Kirkby’s paper on Cosmic Rays and Climate, which shows the rough correlation between solar proxies and temperature proxies. For our complicated climate, this rough correlation is good enough for me.

    http://aps.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf

  105. RW 06:52:38

    You are as dense as Tom P. The only time there is a good correlation between CO2 rise and Temperature rise is in the last quarter of the last century. Before and after that, the correlation is poor. However there is a good correlation, for at least a century, between temperature variations, overlaid on the constant rise from the Little Ice Age, and the varying phases of the oceanic oscillations.

    You refuse to understand that you’ve cherry-picked data. That is willful.
    =============================================

  106. eric 05:45:08

    Well, the answer to your question is simple. Osgood’s listeners care what he thinks. And many of them are hearing for the first time that the sun is acting just a little unusually compared to its behaviour of the last half century. Now, my question is, why don’t you care? Maybe you oughta.
    =============================================

  107. eric (05:45:08) :
    Who cares what Charles Osgood thinks? He has no expertise in climatology.

    eric,
    You’re being just a little bit disingenuous. Osgood is not makig up things.
    Osgood himself is not the point in all of this. It’s his message. What he is observing and mentioning. At least that is real.
    Would you have said, “Who cares what Paul Revere says, he’s just a guy on a horse.”?

    And what is this site “cheer leading”?

    If you choose to “not care” about the many growing contradictions to AGW that’s your choice.
    But in doing so you’re ingoring the continued fabrications which keep the AGW movement alive. Also by your choice.

    As I mentioned before the new head of NOAA is a regular fabricator.
    You and everyone else should care as she and others are about to impose sweeping policies based upon fabrications and the corrupting of science.

  108. kim (07:51:25) :

    eric 05:45:08

    Well, the answer to your question is simple. Osgood’s listeners care what he thinks. And many of them are hearing for the first time that the sun is acting just a little unusually compared to its behaviour of the last half century. Now, my question is, why don’t you care? Maybe you oughta.
    The sun has always fluctuated. The sun’s irradiation increased over the first half of the 20th century and then became flat for the second half.

    The indications are the next cycle looks to be weak. If the sun spots, stop it is believed that this is worth about 0.2C temperature reduction for the global average.

    This is a small fraction of the 3C expected to result from a doubling of CO2 by human industry. It seems to me that the quiet sun is not a big deal.

  109. As you can see by the posts of the AGW crowd, they are simply making my point and that is what the media is picking up on, the methods are raising eyebrows and leading to the blow back by MSM. The will always print dissent, before it was the AGW that were the dissent against the Bush Administration, the script has been flipped and the left cannot stand it.

    When they are dismissive and belligerent their cause is damaged, note they have always done this but now with the rubber hitting the road (its about money) people are listening again.

    eric proves my point “Dissent is the Right of the Left” everyone else is marginalized and attacked. A good Social example of liberal Intolerance was the Miss Ca / Perez Hilton Dust up, while not science this event was illustrative of the MO of the left, if you disagree or have a contradictory political position you are not “fit” to represent America or succeed, even at being a Beauty Queen. Then attacked even after the incident.

    More and more the message will get out and more and more it will be attacked until the truth lays beaten and bleeding, but alone on the field.

  110. Sorry, RW, but you’re just not credible unless you can back up your assertions:

    “I got the data from publicly available sources, and plotted the graphs.”

    Then by all means, give us a link to those publicly available sources, and show us the graphs you plotted.

    When you say “That graph shows a short period, over which noise dominates. R-squared is not given”, you make me wonder about your comprehension: R^2 is provided directly under the graph. How could you possibly miss it? Maybe you just don’t want to acknowledge it because the value is so small that it demolishes your CO2=AGW conjecture.

    Also, a graph covering a decade is not a ‘short period,’ as you say. But if you want a graph covering a longer time: click.

    And if you want a chart covering a really long time: click. As you can see, there is almost no correlation between CO2 and global temperature.

    Face it, the claim that CO2 will cause runaway global warming has been repeatedly falsified. You’re beating a dead horse.

  111. Any of you, be the first to ascertain which is the missing link between Sun and earth climate….before the Climate Pontiff speaks out while projecting their new horrendous slides

  112. Ohioholic (19:39:38) :

    Frederick Michael (18:44:08) :

    Congress needs to pass a “solar stimulus” package.

    The sun is simply too big to be allowed to fail.

    Expect a letter from lawyers regarding the damage from high-speed, fluid nasal ejections.

    Of course, we will now have to regulate the sun to ensure it never gets this big again.
    =================

    I think that a class action suit is the only solution!
    My iMac is covered in goo! (of course, I **really** needed the laugh!)

  113. Allan M R MacRae (04:48:31) Loved your post. The question is very politely posed. Yours is the ultimate question. Dr. Svalgaard is very well versed on the sun and it’s activity, but not WRT it’s impact on the earth. There is a huge gap in our knowledge right there. How does it interact? Are we considering all aspects? Do we know all aspects?

  114. Don B (07:38:07) :

    A Wod (2:54:35)

    Some carbon dioxide alarmists try to dismiss the Little Ice Age-Solar connection by blaming the cooling on volcanic aerosols. Note figure 2, page 3, of Jasper Kirkby’s paper on Cosmic Rays and Climate, which shows the rough correlation between solar proxies and temperature proxies. For our complicated climate, this rough correlation is good enough for me.

    http://aps.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf

    Even Kirby doesn’t believe it is good enough. His conclusion is more work is needed to establish a mechanism:

    Although recent observations support the presence of ioninduced
    nucleation of new aerosols in the atmosphere, the possible contribution of such new particles to changes in the number of cloud condensation nuclei remains an open question. Furthermore, the parts of the globe and atmosphere that would be expected to be the most climatically sensitive to such processes are unknown, although they are likely to involve regions of low existing CCN concentrations.
    Despite these uncertainties, the question of whether, and to what extent, the climate is influenced by solar and cosmic ray variability remains central to our understanding of the anthropogenic contribution to present climate change. Real progress on the cosmic ray-climate question will require a physical mechanism to be established, or else ruled out. With new experiments planned or underway, such as the CLOUD facility at CERN, there are good prospects that we will have some firm answers to this question
    within the next few years.

  115. There is an article in today’s printed version of The Times from the UK in the Weather Eye column on p.57 by Paul Simons. He says:

    The Sun is having an unusually quiet spell. Normally it goes through 11-year cycle of activity that peeks with sunspots – dark freckles on its surface – followed by a calmer period with few sunspots.
    PEAK!! Not PEEK!!

    Geez, you’d think that the UK Times would have someone on staff who knows the difference between the two!

    (and hopefully I’ve got my blockquote fixed, versus my previous comment… Anthony, do you think you can add a “preview/edit” option to your commenting scheme?)

    [Reply: Unfortunately, the blog host, WordPress, doesn't provide a preview function. ~dbstealey, mod.]

  116. David Ball (08:46:48) :
    Dr. Svalgaard is very well versed on the sun and it’s activity, but not WRT it’s impact on the earth.

    Actually, my real expertise is about the Earth (Geophysics), physics of the magnetosphere and upper atmosphere. My interest in the Sun only derives from my quest to understand the interactions between the two.

    Are we considering all aspects? Do we know all aspects?
    We can only go with what we know [which is a lot]. Basing decisions on what we don’t know does not seem to be fruitful.

  117. Leif,

    ” My Grow-n-Crash model does almost as well as..”

    Have you been modeling for the Banks lately??

  118. eric 08:24:14

    The means by which the sun drives the climate, or even if it does, are unknown. What is known is that temperatures are falling while CO2 is rising, disconfirming the strong link between CO2 and temperature. And your figure of 3 degrees Centigrade temperature rise per doubling of CO2 is the figure put out by the IPCC without a scientific basis except an assumed, and mistakenly so, large positive feedback by water vapor. You’ve come to believe, and accept on faith, something that has no scientific basis.
    =============================================

  119. Since the federal government will now regulate the wages of those in private enterprise, it seems only fair that they first take a look at Al Gore’s pay for frightening children…

  120. eric:-)

    A couple of points:- Firstly, you have got it a little bit the wrong way round, this blog does the leading, the rest of us do the cheering, clear? Good!

    Secondly, yes the Sun does fluctuate & always has done & hopefully always will up to a point, I am pleased to here you know so, but we will see quite soon if this lack of Sunspots & low magnetic field, & generally quiet Sun has any significant effect, won’t we? It is also very dodgy ground to state things like “it is believed” without citing by whom & based upon what evidence, try something along the lines of “as I understand it….. or….it is understood that….” etc, that lends an air of authority rather than saying the former as you suggest it is a belief system not scientific fact. The IPCC has been shown to be wrong in many of its judgements many times over simply because it is activist lead, not scientist lead! What the IPCC has failed to do is a Risk Assessment on whether we are heading into a new Ice-Age or even a second Little-Ice-Age, instead of continual warming through to the next century, this also smacks of arrogance & ignorance with no interest in the science, just how the science can be manipulated for political ends!

    AND finally, as a 51 year old engineer, as I frequently remind my 23 year old son, I may be getting old, but it doesn’t mean I am turning stupid with it! To equate age with the suggestion that one is finished, that attitude smacks of youthful arrogance, & not of a well thought through balanced argument! You have clearly taken a leaf out of that stupid old has been Albert Gore, & “shouldn’t listen to the old people!”.

  121. kuhnkat (09:07:56) :
    ” My Grow-n-Crash model does almost as well as..”
    Have you been modeling for the Banks lately??

    My model has wide applicability :-)

  122. To the Moderator, I apologise if the last post seemd a little bit of a rant, please feel free to snip as requried. AtB

  123. Since I signed up at RePower America to send my thoughts to the newspapers, I just got an email from them that in part said this:

    “Dear Mike,
    In order to solve the climate crisis, we can’t just change light bulbs — we need to change laws.
    We’re closer today than ever before. Right now, Congress is debating clean energy legislation that will jumpstart our economy and help solve the climate crisis.
    On this Earth Day, can I depend on you to support this crucial legislation?
    Yes. I’ll get 10 people to sign the petition in support of clean energy legislation within the next week.”

    I decided to unsubscribe and told them why…

  124. “eric (08:24:14) :
    The sun has always fluctuated. ”

    CO2 and earth average temperature, on the other hand…

  125. Leif, decisions are being based on the Co2 driver theory! Is this what we know? Is this correct? A trace gas has more to do with our atmosphere than the sun? You have stated that solar driver theory and Co2 driver theory have about the same correlation to the earth’s temperature. You are ignoring a great deal of evidence that shows a much greater correlation with solar activity (or inactivity as the case may be) than the C02 correlation. Solar activity is not the lone driver either, as we deal with change in obliquity, mean distances, etc. Correlation isn’t causation, but sometimes it is. I do not pretend to have the credentials that you have in regards to your field of study, but do not dismiss outright. A certain clerk in a patent office filed a very important paper, yet had no credentials in that field at the time.

  126. RW (06:52:38) please respond to Ric Werme (05:21:05). Ric, in production of ICs my boss didn’t want to act on anything with an R^2 less than .9. I might get an “interesting” for something in the .8s, and an imperative to look deeper, but that was it. He thought anything less than .9 was just too vague to act on. Also RW, Pamela Gray (07:09:35) pointed you in the same direction as Ric. Salient and relevant comments by Smokey and others too.

  127. Mike Bryant (09:50:45) :

    “eric (08:24:14) :
    The sun has always fluctuated. ”

    CO2 and earth average temperature, on the other hand..

    In the past 400,000 years CO2 has fluctuated between about 180 and 280 ppM, driven by temperatures. It is now at an unprecented level over 380ppM, driven by human industrial activity.

  128. Alan the Brit (09:20:18) :

    I am 71 years old. I still think Chas Osgood has exceeded his sell by date as a journalist.

    REPLY: As has yours as a blog commenter

  129. Mike Bryant (09:27:16) I have considered unsubscribing as well, but enjoy sending them my comments and using their links to my congress rep, Salazar. Then I let them know what I sent to Salazar. I can at least hope it is annoying to use Repower’s services against their aims.

  130. Re: The recent sunspeck:

    Sunspot 1015 is fading away. It emerged late yesterday, April 21st, with a magnetic imprint that identifies it as a member of new Solar Cycle 24. At the rate it is decaying, the lifetime of the spot could total fewer than 24 hours.

    Someone needs to set up a project where they use the same techniques/instruments that were used in the mid 19th century to count sunspots. I pretty sure that #1015 and most of the other ‘sunspots’ the last year and half would never have been spotted and counted back then.

  131. kim (09:10:08) :

    eric 08:24:14

    The means by which the sun drives the climate, or even if it does, are unknown. What is known is that temperatures are falling while CO2 is rising, disconfirming the strong link between CO2 and temperature. And your figure of 3 degrees Centigrade temperature rise per doubling of CO2 is the figure put out by the IPCC without a scientific basis except an assumed, and mistakenly so, large positive feedback by water vapor. You’ve come to believe, and accept on faith, something that has no scientific basis.
    It is incorrect to say that a strong link is disconfirmed.
    The expected rate of global temperature change is expected to by about 0.2 K/decade. The internal variation and other factors can be expected to overwhelm this rate of change for short periods of time as much as a decade or morel. The change in temperature we have experienced are to be expected even while the radiational forcing due to the CO2 increase is still operating.

  132. If co2 worked as advertised (by the Warmers), I would expect that under clear sky/dry conditions temperatures would drop slower after sundown than they did say 50 years ago. Has this ever been studied ?
    Perhaps the USAF could help with such a study. They seem to have several bases located near deserts.
    (Love your site, btw)

  133. Joint Press Release Issued by Al Gore & Dr. James Hansen:

    We wish the best for Charles Osgood and his loved ones as they deal with his sudden onset of Alzheimer’s Disease.

    Gaia bless you, Charles.

    Al & Jim

  134. You know, the comments about the French et. al. got me thinking:

    Perhaps now that the U.S.A. is firmly on the AGW bandwagon, and given the Rest Of World tendency to want to bash us, it will now become fashionable to be anti-AGW so that the America Bashing can continue?

    No, really! I can hear it now “Those Americans are SO last Millennium; they still worry about AGW. They don’t have a clue about the solar minimum…”

    Well, I can hope can’t I? 8-}

  135. David Ball (10:13:26) :
    do not dismiss outright. A certain clerk in a patent office filed a very important paper, yet had no credentials in that field at the time.
    His papers were good and were not dismissed at all. Now, the stuff peddled about our topic is hardly of that caliber and most do not pass the smell test.

  136. eric: “The internal variation and other factors can be expected to overwhelm this rate of change for short periods of time…”

    Eric, could you expand on “the internal variation and other factors”?

  137. eric;-)

    Point taken. I respectfully withdraw my remarks regarding youthfull arrogance in your case. Age notwithstanding however, I maintain that the tone of the comments you made should in the circumstances have reflected your seniority, IMHO! All other comments stand!

    Pray tell, when do senior citizens exceed their “sell by date” to legitimately comment on current affairs, & dare I suggest, offer an opinion on them? For me it would be when they no longer refuse having the lid screwed down! Fight to the bitter end I say.

    I recommend this site, Climate Realist, ICECAP, etc. for further study on a regular basis.

    AtB

  138. eric (08:24:14) : ” This is a small fraction of the 3C expected to result from a doubling of CO2 by human industry.”

    Who is “expecting” the 3C temperature rise?

    What flavor do you drink, grape or cherry?

  139. Comment on Climate Heretic (08:25:57)

    Sober science auditors have political roots of more than one stripe. There may be some untenable assumptions built into your equations.
    – – – –
    Leif Svalgaard (01:38:20)

    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/torsional.html


    I see that the graph has been extended by a number of years – but what about papers that take the line of analysis further? (If they exist, they are not easy to locate – so far…) I was pleased to see some of the methods pursued in Ulrich (2001), but there was a lot of refinement left to do – & several years have passed — was the 2001 paper really the end of that fruitful line of analysis? Perhaps a publication is forthcoming? – perhaps when the timing might be better for new ideas to be accepted? Now I am beginning to suspect politics….

  140. “Could another minimum activity period on the Sun counteract, in any way, the effects of global warming?”
    To my mind this statement suggests that AGW is a real problem and the sun can save us. As yet, no one has proved AGW to my satisfaction.

  141. eric 10:30:24

    Ah, hopeful words. Why is it that none, or almost none, of the climate models predict natural variability to overwhelm the effect of CO2 for ‘as much as a decade or more’? And please see lucia’s Blackboard at rankexploits.com/musings/ for disconfirmation, at the 95% confidence level, of the AR4 projection of 0.2C rise per decade, in eight short years.

    The models are wrong; they’ve overestimated the sensitivity of climate to CO2. This is the simplest explanation for today’s dropping temperatures while CO2 continues to rise. You may hope that temperature starts to rise again, but the oceanic oscillations in their cooling phase and possibly the effect of the quiescent sun makes your hopes vain. We shouldn’t base expensive and dangerous policy on your vain hopes.
    =============================================

  142. Just Want Truth… (07:16:30) :

    Who cares what Al Gore thinks. He’s just a neurotic politician.

    He hasn’t been a politician for a few years. He’s just a neurotic activist now.

  143. Paul Vaughan (11:11:46) :

    Comment on Climate Heretic (08:25:57)

    Sober science auditors have political roots of more than one stripe. There may be some untenable assumptions built into your equations.
    – – – –

    If this was a science debate I would agree but this is not, it is political, look at the Polls where they break it out on party lines, of course there are cross-over individuals but the political nature of opinion on this issue is clear and driven from the top down on both sides.

    I myself believe in Social Liberty but am a Fiscal Conservative, what I do not support is intolerance from any side. I firmly respect people for their opinions even though I do not understand their lack of conviction. I am firmly entrenched in this battle and have been for a decade.

    The truth will be the science left after the political battle which has no politics.

  144. Adolfo Giurfa (11:33:48) :

    The only solution I have positively found so far, and well documented by many physicians all along history for Anthropogenic Global Warming sufferers, is CASTOR OIL in proper amounts, daily taken, very early in the morning.

    I was thinking more along the lines of Ipecac ;)

  145. eric 10:20:00

    It is a lie to say that the temperatures of the last 400,000 years have been driven by CO2. The ice cores show a correlation between temperatures and CO2 over that time period, but the temperature rises approximately 800 years before the CO2 rises, suggesting that the temperature rise causes the CO2 rise rather than the other way around. Recruitment of CO2 from ocean outgassing or other CO2 stores is even a plausible mechanism for the lag.

    380 ppm is also not an unprecedented level of CO2. Where did you get that idea?

    You hurt your credibility when you lie like that. Lots of the people reading this blog are not as naive as you seem to think they are.

    Furthermore, over the last hundreds of millions of years there is no correlation between temperature and CO2 level, so far as we can tell.
    ========================================

  146. eric (05:45:08) :Follow my advice (above). It will surely relieve you from all the AGWrs. symthomps in a few days. Believe me, we have cured many suffering of the same disease.

  147. E.M.Smith (10:44:20) :

    You know, the comments about the French et. al. got me thinking:

    Perhaps now that the U.S.A. is firmly on the AGW bandwagon, and given the Rest Of World tendency to want to bash us, it will now become fashionable to be anti-AGW so that the America Bashing can continue?

    No, really! I can hear it now “Those Americans are SO last Millennium; they still worry about AGW. They don’t have a clue about the solar minimum…”

    Well, I can hope can’t I? 8-}

    You have been taken in by an April fools joke. The person who posted the news about Claude Allegre being considered for environment minister by Sarkozy was joking.

    http://www.scienceblogs.de/primaklima/2009/04/ein-aprilscherz-wird-zum-welterfolg.php

    The blogger who did this says when he read Marc Morano and Benny Peiser’s
    comments about his story, he laughed until tears came to his eyes.
    You will have to translate this story.

  148. kim (11:50:48) :

    eric 10:30:24

    Ah, hopeful words. Why is it that none, or almost none, of the climate models predict natural variability to overwhelm the effect of CO2 for ‘as much as a decade or more’? And please see lucia’s Blackboard at rankexploits.com/musings/ for disconfirmation, at the 95% confidence level, of the AR4 projection of 0.2C rise per decade, in eight short years.

    The models are wrong; they’ve overestimated the sensitivity of climate to CO2. This is the simplest explanation for today’s dropping temperatures while CO2 continues to rise. You may hope that temperature starts to rise again, but the oceanic oscillations in their cooling phase and possibly the effect of the quiescent sun makes your hopes vain. We shouldn’t base expensive and dangerous policy on your vain hopes.

    I assume you are referring to this post.

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/giss-temp-jan-20010-dec-2008/

    My focus has been comparing observed and predicted trends during this period. My posts discuss whether or not these sorts of negative trends are consistent with IPCC projections of underlying warming (which is about 2 C/century for the first 2 or 3 decades of this century.)

    I believe that these data are inconsistent with that level of warming.

    However, I do periodically think it’s important to note that I am not suggesting the recent negative trend is inconsistent with some level of underlying warming trend. I believe GHG do cause warming, and we should expect that warming trend to resume at some point

    This opinion is countered by a post by Tamino at Open Mind who did an analysis which showed that the trend we are seeing is consistent with weather noise on top of an underlying .2K per decade increase.

  149. To the moderator: How do I write embedded hyperlinks such as Smokey (08:27:06) : where he has ” directly under the graph” and the graph is hyperlinked.
    I can write these in MS Word, but when I cut and paste from the program into this text block, the link disappears.
    Preferably my ignorance will not be made public and you can email me a response.
    thanks in advance.

  150. eric 12:16:35

    Now, that’s funny. Still, once Sarkozy snaps to the fact that the Europeans and the Americans are being played for their carbon use guilt at Copenhagen, he may wish he’d taken advice from Allegre. And that playing is becoming more obvious every day, just as the failure of the CO2=AGW paradigm is becoming more obvious every day. Tipping point soon, my friend.
    =================================

  151. Comment on Climate Heretic (11:54:05)

    Politics will naturally flip & flop polarity. I suppose we can’t stop people from draining themselves trying to oppose nature.

    Sensible (& strategic) response to illusion is often coy. There is no monopoly on common sense that runs along party lines.

    Your comments are thought-provoking.

  152. Paul Vaughan (11:11:46) :
    Leif Svalgaard (01:38:20)
    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/torsional.html
    Now I am beginning to suspect politics….

    Those winds are very much an active area of research, and lots of papers and no politics. We even observe them inside the Sun. We are not sure where they fit is the grand scheme of things, if ever. They probably are just consequences of more fundamental processes, much as the trade winds in the Earth’s atmosphere.

    Here is a recent paper: http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.041102
    Sagar Chakraborty,Arnab Rai Choudhuri,and Piyali Chatterjee
    published 29 January 2009
    Although the Sun’s torsional oscillation is believed to be driven by the Lorentz force associated with the sunspot cycle, this oscillation begins 2–3 yr before the sunspot cycle. We provide a theoretical explanation of this with the help of a solar dynamo model having a meridional circulation penetrating slightly below the bottom of the convection zone, because only in such dynamo models does the strong toroidal field form a few years before the sunspot cycle and at a higher latitude.

    David Ball (11:43:42) :
    Leif, does Willie Soon’s work pass your smell test?
    Sometimes it does, sometime it does not; as with much other work, e.g. Hathaway’s and Lockwood’s. I’m sure they say the same about my work :-)

  153. Read this, then go back and read the one about habitable zone planets.

    We better get our butts in gear ASAP.

  154. Pardon my guffawing… Adolfo caused me to regurg coffee.

    eric (05:45:08) :

    “Who cares what Charles Osgood thinks? He has no expertise in climatology. He is a human interest, soft news reporter. He is well past his sell by date.
    This blog is nothing but cheer leading.”

    And a cheer-ful bunch they are Eric. But please note that it is often the tone of the AGWs that older folks know nothing or are stale. This is reflected in posts all over the net from barking AGWs who show an open disdain for senior skeptic scientists.

    The MSM may be setting Mr. Osgood out front to test their transition strategy. The avuncular Osgood sets the table for the transition away from the failed AGW campaign to something new. What they hate to admit is that repositioning their content WILL improve their ratings. The key for all networks and MSM is get with the new program… anything but AGW. And “Look, we made a mistake” type editorials – garner big numbers and forgiving readers. Remember Checkers?

  155. Since I first heard him on my local radio station — WEEI 590 AM — back
    around 1977, I have followed him. I like his presentation and his
    attempts to be balanced. 30 years of listening gives me a bit of
    perspective.

    Have no doubt about his politics and beliefs. He is a big-government
    hard leftist. In many cases he hides it well. He tries trying to be a reporter,
    not an editor, at least sometimes.

    It is hard for me to figure out what his reporting on this event really
    means. Is he just being professional, and reporting the news, or has
    the left got a case of creeping panic? There is no AGW, so what can
    we scare the public with next? Or is CBS about to launch into a
    support-Obama cap-and-tax scheme, and this piece is just cover
    so CBS can claim it reports both sides equally?

    My guess is the latter. Expect Charles to start pushing carbon tax
    and tax and tax and tax plan from the O administration.

  156. kim:

    “You are as dense as Tom P. The only time there is a good correlation between CO2 rise and Temperature rise is in the last quarter of the last century. Before and after that, the correlation is poor.”

    Incorrect. Get the data, plot it, and you too can see the strong correlation between CO2 and temperature, and the non-existent correlation between TSI and temperature. To claim something about the data without even having looked at it is dense indeed.

    “However there is a good correlation, for at least a century, between temperature variations, overlaid on the constant rise from the Little Ice Age, and the varying phases of the oceanic oscillations.”

    Incorrect. Try plotting a scatter graph of hadcrut or gistemp against JISAO PDO index. I find R-squared=0.02.

    Smokey:

    Do you really need spoonfeeding the data? Try hadcrut for temperatures, and SIDC for sunspot numbers. Use google. Instead of shouting about how you don’t believe the numbers, simply get the numbers and plot the graphs.

    “Also, a graph covering a decade is not a ’short period,’ as you say.”

    Yes, it is a short period. If you want to discern a climate trend, you cannot do so with only a decade of data. It seems that many of you find this difficult to understand, but you cannot say anything about climate based on only a decade of data. A bit like how you can’t say whether last winter was cold based on a single week from some part of it.

    “Face it, the claim that CO2 will cause runaway global warming has been repeatedly falsified. You’re beating a dead horse.”

    The day that CO2 stops absorbing infrared will be the day it stops playing a major role in the Earth’s energy balance. Do you expect it to stop absorbing infrared?

  157. Leif Svalgaard (13:25:03)
    “Those winds are very much an active area of research, and lots of papers and no politics.”

    – –
    As (indirectly) suggested previously, I hope you will ask your contacts to publish sensible summaries of the data to a webpage — separate pages for:
    i) monthly average rotation rate by N&S latitude
    ii) daily (estimated) rotation rate by N&S latitude

    Once the data is publicly available, my suspicion that someone is “sitting on” (perhaps ‘politically incorrect’ for-the-times) leads from Ulrich’s very fruitful 2001 investigation may fade.

    If I had access to sensible summaries of the data I would do something similar to what Ulrich did – but I would go a lot further, I would be more organized, and I would not view everything through a differential rotation (so-called) “law” lens.

    This is a fascinating area of research. There seems to be the potential for a major discovery – & in the fairly near future. I can see why people are hoarding the data and not extending credit to some of the smart players at Oulu.

    We should be throwing an army of investigators at this.
    I’ve no doubt I could turn up more insight that what I can find published.

    …but perhaps it’s politically convenient if the truth is delayed?…
    As long as the data is not posted on a webpage, some people might wonder ‘why? – what is so easy-to-see that it has to be hidden?’

  158. Yo, RW, I asked you to post the hand plotted chart you said you made. @06:52:38 you said:

    “I got the data from publicly available sources, and plotted the graphs.”

    It should only take a minute or two to post your hand made chart… unless you were, like, pretending. So let’s see it.

    And about your claim that CO2 is making the planet hotter:

    click1
    click2
    click3
    click4
    click5
    click6
    click7
    click8
    click9
    click10
    click11
    click12
    click13
    click14
    click15
    click16
    click17
    click18
    click19
    click20

    So who are you gonna believe? Al Gore? Or your lyin’ eyes?

  159. Wish I knew how to attach the graphs, but I am new at this.

    RW.

    I am not sure I see what you mean for correlation of CO2 and temp. If go to woodfortrees and plot woodfortrees temp index as series 1 and C02 index (from 1979 and normalized to 1) as series 2, I see a flat temp period from about 1980 to 1995 for temp. CO2 is steadily increasing. From 1993 to about 2002 both rise . From about 2000 to 2009 temps are flat, CO2 continues to increase. I was a bit surprised that I see the same thing when I plot the GISS from 1979. If I go back further with the GISS (to 1960) it is even more obvious that temp is flat while CO2 is roughly linear. On a smaller time frame even GISS and CO2 from 2000 show CO2 increasing and temp flat. I had expected to find better agreement to a steady rise with the GISS. While both flat periods are probably too short to be climate, they are long enough to make me skeptical about a direct correlation of temperature to CO2.

  160. Paul Vaughan (15:03:47) :
    I hope you will ask your contacts to publish sensible summaries of the data to a webpage — separate pages for:
    i) monthly average rotation rate by N&S latitude
    ii) daily (estimated) rotation rate by N&S latitude

    It is a complete misnomer to call them rotation rates. They are not. ‘Zonal flows’ is the preferred name.

    but I would go a lot further, I would be more organized, and I would not view everything through a differential rotation (so-called) “law” lens.
    I cannot imagine what you would do any differently than what many researchers are already doing.

    I can see why people are hoarding the data and not extending credit to some of the smart players at Oulu.
    This has been studied since the early 1980s and nobody is hoarding the data. I have it and the smart players have it. You can just ask Ulrich [or John Boyden] for it.

    We should be throwing an army of investigators at this.
    Considering what we are getting from a fair number of all-knowing geniuses already, I’ve a dim opinion of the quality of what they might turn out.

    it’s politically convenient if the truth is delayed?…
    Nothing is hidden or delayed. There is a fair amount of work involved in maintaining such a website and Mt. Wilson is operating on a shoestring already as is WSO and other solar observatories, so if the Army of Investigators would each donate, say $1000 [a paltry sums for the chance of making a major discovery don't you think] perhaps something could be done.

  161. My apologies if this has already been said, and perhaps better than this, but there are so many posted replies that I don’t have time right now to read them all.

    That said, my suspicion is that rather than a display of true journalism, what is really happening here is a face-saving / bet-hedging move on the part of the alarmists who have been predicting thermal disaster. I’ve read over the last year or so statements to the effect that global warming has taken a hiatus, but don’t you worry, its gonna come roaring back! Well, this piece feeds this story. They’ll say look, the solar output is as low as it has been in a zillion eons, yet we’ve not become engulfed in ice like we should have. See, its the greenhouse effect that is hampering the natural action of the Sun, and as soon as solar output comes back to normal we’re all gonna die!

    Just wait — this will be the party line.

  162. RW (06:52:38) :

    Ric Werme: you link to a piece in which the data is heavily smoothed, which inflates apparent correlations. It also uses US temperatures instead of global.

    Joe D’Aleo may have used USHCN because of our downwind proximity of the PDO. Joe does have some shorter period raw MSU temps vs ENSO data at http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Correlation_Last_Decade.pdf while that R^2 is a pretty paltry 0.36, the CO2 data has a R^2 of 0.00 to 0.08. However, it is monthly data, so it may not be a fair comparison since the CO2 signal has that annual oscillation. Perhaps the only thing worse than smoothed data is raw data, especially over a shorter term than the century of data I previously pointed out. What do you consider “Goldilocks” data?

    BTW, your 30 year look at correlation covers the warm period of the current PDO cycle. If global warming is heavily influenced by the PDO, then you’ve picked the ideal period to show a correlation with rising CO2. Looking at a shorter term should show a poor correlation with CO2 (like Joe’s 0.00) due to the recent cooling, looking at a longer term (like a full PDO cycle) will help suppress the PDO’s effect and give a better result. Of course, then you have to worry about Akasofu’s hypothesis that PDO and linear warming from the Little Ice Age explains the temperature history for the last century ot two.

  163. I’ve been reading here for almost a year now, don’t really think I have much to offer to the serious science discussions that go on here. But wanted to write and thank Lief and all the other regular commenters for the discussion that makes the comments as fascinating as the articles.

    Scientist Wannabe
    Lloyd

  164. Leif Svalgaard (15:31:33)
    “[...] Mt. Wilson is operating on a shoestring already as is WSO and other solar observatories [...]“

    This is what I was getting at.

    Leif: “[...] would each donate, say $1000 [a paltry sums for the chance of making a major discovery don't you think] perhaps something could be done.”

    I couldn’t agree more. The human race has reached the stage where we need to increase research funding by an order of magnitude. Everywhere I look I see wasted human capital. Squander, squander, squander… eventually catches up with a society.

    … but, to throw in some optimism: The balance is shifting….

  165. Climate is changing and always will. The climate celebrities, however, are linking climate and the economy. Yes, there has been warming to end the Pleistocene. Climate is a multiple input, multiple loop, multiple output, complex system. The facts and the hypotheses, however, do not support CO2 as a serious ‘pollutant’. In fact, it is plant fertilizer and seriously important to all life on the planet. It is the red herring used to unwind our economy. That issue makes the science relevant.
    Sulphate from volcanoes can have a catastrophic effect, but water vapour is far more important. Water vapour (0.4% overall by volume in air, but 1 – 4 % near the surface) is the most effective green house blanket followed by methane (0.0001745%). The third ranking gas is CO2 (0.0383%), and it does not correlate well with global warming or cooling either; in fact, CO2 in the atmosphere trails warming which is clear natural evidence for its well-studied inverse solubility in water: CO2 dissolves rapidly in cold water and bubbles rapidly out of warm water. The equilibrium in seawater is very high; making seawater a great ‘sink'; CO2 is 34 times more soluble in water than air is soluble in water.
    CO2 has been rising and Earth and her oceans have been warming. However, the correlation trails. Correlation, moreover, is not causation. The causation is under experimental review, however, and while the radiation from the sun varies only in the fourth decimal place, the magnetism is awesome.
    “Using a box of air in a Copenhagen lab, physicists traced the growth of clusters of molecules of the kind that build cloud condensation nuclei. These are specks of sulphuric acid on which cloud droplets form. High-energy particles driven through the laboratory ceiling by exploded stars far away in the Galaxy – the cosmic rays – liberate electrons in the air, which help the molecular clusters to form much faster than climate scientists have modeled in the atmosphere. That may explain the link between cosmic rays, cloudiness and climate change.”
    As I understand it, the hypothesis of the Danish National Space Center goes as follows:
    Quiet sun → reduced magnetic and thermal flux = reduced solar wind → geomagnetic shield drops → galactic cosmic ray flux → more low-level clouds and more snow → more albedo effect (more heat reflected) → colder climate
    Active sun → enhanced magnetic and thermal flux = solar wind → geomagnetic shield response → less low-level clouds → less albedo (less heat reflected) → warmer climate
    That is how the bulk of climate change might work, coupled with (modulated by) sunspot peak frequency there are cycles of global warming and cooling like waves in the ocean. When the waves are closely spaced, the planets warm; when the waves are spaced farther apart, the planets cool.
    The ultimate cause of the solar magnetic cycle may be cyclicity in the Sun-Jupiter centre of gravity. We await more on that.
    Although the post 60s warming period appears to be over, it has allowed the principal green house gas, water vapour, to kick in with more humidity, clouds, rain and snow depending on where you live to provide the negative feedback that scientists use to explain the existence of complex life on Earth for 550 million years. Ancient sedimentary rocks and paleontological evidence indicate the planet has had abundant liquid water over the entire span. The planet heats and cools naturally and our gasses are the thermostat.
    Check the web site of the Danish National Space Center.

    http://www.space.dtu.dk/English/Research/Research_divisions/Sun_Climate/Experiments_SC/SKY.aspx

    Keeping in mind that windmills are hazardous to birds, be wary of the unintended consequences of believing and contributing to the all-knowing environmental lobby groups.

  166. Smokey (15:21:10)

    Smokey you would make a damn great attorney. Your style is known as the “wilting method”.

    …Being where you just overwhelm (and wilt) your opponent with sheer volume and content of good counter-evidence.

    I laughed out loud when I saw TWENTY clicks.

    Bravo.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  167. Francis T. Manns (20:28:43)

    THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE and BEST post on this site in explanation to the complex fluid of the universe in which we live [against the current rigid orthodoxy of the AGW religion].

    Period.

    I copied that post Francis, for future reference and study. THANKS!

    BRAVO….again.

    Two fantastic posts BACK TO BACK (Smokey and Francis). Not too bad eh?

    Thanks to WUWT team for making posts like these possible. There are truly some great minds on this site.

    DAMN REFRESHING!

  168. RW (14:51:32) “Do you really need spoonfeeding the data? Try hadcrut for temperatures, and SIDC for sunspot numbers. Use google. Instead of shouting about how you don’t believe the numbers, simply get the numbers and plot the graphs.”

    Are you trying to lose the argument RW? From a spectator’s viewpoint I can say that Smokey’s graphs look ok and your graphs look…uh…well they don’t look like anything. I hope you’re not a lawyer. (Your honor my client is innocent. Do you really need me to spoonfeed you the evidence? Use google.) If you’ve got something that backs up what you say why not trot it out for the rest of us to see?

  169. Julie L (09:00:24) : …that peeks with sunspots

    So what’s wrong with that? How do you know it is not peeking with sunspots? What else would it peek with? Big blue eyes – I think not!

    Anyway, this is no less strange of usage than the reporter who claimed the Catlin Team in the first few weeks of their trek was experiencing “torrid” conditions. In the “peeks” case, they only missed by one letter!

  170. A few of you ought to click on over to Roy Spencer’s Q & A page

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/

    and scroll down to the CO2 part – it is about a page after the picture of the big white bear chasing the man around his pickup. All the Qs & As are worth reading but as several posts on this thread show there is a major misunderstanding about the CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere.

  171. We have to wake up the Sun now, before it’s too late. There’s tipping points, once the ice crosses the 60th paralled we’re all doomed. We must launch nuclear rockets into the Sun before it’s too late. Arrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggghhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  172. Al Gore is not much of a neurotic and never was much of a politician. His father made the impact in politics and Al has parlayed this into positions of importance. Currently he is the point man for several money making enterprises, which, by some accounts are doing quite well. At least enough so as to pay him well

  173. Smokey. Do you expect me to reproduce the chart with ASCII art? I’ve pointed you in the direction of the data so you can reproduce the scatter plot yourself and see strong correlations, but you seem reluctant to do so.

    It’s well known that on the internet you can find 20 separate people who back any proposition whatsoever. The problem is that not one of your graphs shows what you want them to. 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 13 show periods of a decade or less, and like I’ve said, you cannot measure climate over a decade. A bit like how you can’t tell if an oak tree is growing by measuring it for a day. 2 doesn’t work. 3 and 7 are regional temperatures, not global. 8 highlights two points out of 360 – otherwise known as cherry picking. 12 and 14 show speculation with no physical basis. 15 shows a physically meaningless high order polynomial fit. 17 – what are you trying to show here? 18 comes close to providing some support for your views, but neglects to mention La Niña, and does not show error bars. 18, 19, 20 – er, yeah…

    If you really want to look at short periods, what’s wrong with the last 14 months? Clear upward trend of 15 degrees/century!!!

    Mark_0454: try downloading the data from woodfortrees, then plot CO2 concentration vs. global temperature in your favourite spreadsheet program. Do this for the whole period for which data is available, as I did, and you’ll see a strong correlation. Talking about short periods is pointless – internal variability, not external forcing, dominates year-to-year variations.

    Ric Werme – here is a graph showing temperatures and PDO index. PDO index varies about zero – it’s an oscillation after all. Temperature oscillates about a secular upward trend. I downloaded the raw data, plotted a scatter chart and found no correlation between temperatures and PDO index from 1900-present.

    Don’t know what you mean by 30 year look at correlation. I did CO2 from 1958 – present, because that’s the period of direct measurement.

    “Akasofu’s hypothesis that PDO and linear warming from the Little Ice Age explains the temperature history for the last century ot two.”

    You can’t explain warming with warming. What caused the linear warming?

  174. “The problem is that not one of your graphs shows what you want them to. 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 13 show periods of a decade or less, and like I’ve said, you cannot measure climate over a decade.”

    The decade of the ’90s of course could be used to show active runaway change…
    RW, your problem is that the trend is now down. this means to keep peddling cult-supporting statistics you need to go further and further back to get any sort of upward trend. Since Hansen cherry-picked 1970 as a low-point from which to start he has no room for manoeuvre.

  175. Ric Werme (15:42:01) :

    RW (06:52:38) :

    Ric Werme: you link to a piece in which the data is heavily smoothed, which inflates apparent correlations. It also uses US temperatures instead of global.

    Joe D’Aleo may have used USHCN because of our downwind proximity of the PDO. Joe does have some shorter period raw MSU temps vs ENSO data at http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Correlation_Last_Decade.pdf

    While that R^2 is a pretty paltry 0.36, the CO2 data has a R^2 of 0.00 to 0.08. However, it is monthly data, so it may not be a fair comparison since the CO2 signal has that annual oscillation. Perhaps the only thing worse than smoothed data is raw data, especially over a shorter term than the century of data I previously pointed out. What do you consider “Goldilocks” data?

    BTW, your 30 year look at correlation covers the warm period of the current PDO cycle. If global warming is heavily influenced by the PDO, then you’ve picked the ideal period to show a correlation with rising CO2. Looking at a shorter term should show a poor correlation with CO2 (like Joe’s 0.00) due to the recent cooling, looking at a longer term (like a full PDO cycle) will help suppress the PDO’s effect and give a better result. Of course, then you have to worry about Akasofu’s hypothesis that PDO and linear warming from the Little Ice Age explains the temperature history for the last century ot two.
    The very definition of the PDO almost precludes it from being correlated to a long lasting global warming signal, and limits it to explaining short term variability:

    http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest

    Updated standardized values for the PDO index, derived as the
    leading PC of monthly SST anomalies in the North Pacific Ocean,
    poleward of 20N. The monthly mean global average SST anomalies
    are removed to separate this pattern of variability from any
    “global warming” signal that may be present in the data.

  176. Sandy:

    “The decade of the ’90s of course could be used to show active runaway change…”

    No.

    “RW, your problem is that the trend is now down”

    No. Check out the trend since 2008: strongly upward. No less than 15 degrees per century!

  177. RW said @14:51:32:

    “If you want to discern a climate trend, you cannot do so with only a decade of data. It seems that many of you find this difficult to understand, but you cannot say anything about climate based on only a decade of data.”

    Today, RW does a 180° flip, and says:

    “Check out the trend since 2008: strongly upward. No less than 15 degrees per century!”

    Go back to RC, RW. They think just like you do. You’ll fit right in.

  178. Interesting info and comments on the ACRIM website:

    http://acrim.com/

    “The requirements for a long-term, climate TSI database can be inferred from a recent National Research Council study which concluded that gradual variations in solar luminosity of as little as 0.25 % was the likely forcing for the ‘little ice age’ that persisted in varying degree from the late 14th to the mid 19th centuries. A centuries-long TSI database will have to be calibrated by either precision or accuracy to a small fraction of this value to be of any use in assessing the magnitude of solar forcing.”

    Apparently there is a metrology problem with the satellite data (similar to the surface temperature system?). And some disagreement on the “settled science”. And they want “centuries” of DIRECT measurements for an accurate assessment. I guess there are still some real scientists around.

    The charts look like TSI MIGHT be bottoming out, but not enough to say for sure.

  179. J. Pelt, J. M. Brooke, M. J. Korpi, & I. Tuominen (2006). Kinematic frames and “active longitudes”: does the Sun have a face? Astronomy & Astrophysics 460, 875-885.

    “Accordingly we have published on the web the exact data that we used (cf. Sect. 2.2). We think that in looking for evidence of persistent longitudes it is necessary to examine parameter space very carefully and be completely explicit about all data processing steps used, with publication of data as an aid to other researchers.”

    This fully public-spirited attitude deserves applause.

  180. With all of Holdren’s talk about geoengineering, if they get around to noticing that its all about the sun, do you think we could get the feds to put billions more into NASAs spaceflight budget in order to get them to try to do some solar engineering?

    Would it even be possible to boost solar output by dropping heavier elements into it? I’ve heard that dropping a big hunk of iron into a star can trigger a nova….

  181. “[snip - get a hold of yourself]”

    ???

    “Today, RW does a 180° flip, and says…”

    Yes, smokey, I was being ironic. You obviously don’t understand the criteria for determining whether a trend is significant or not. But if you’re so wedded to claiming ‘trends’ based on periods that are far too short, then you’ll just have to accept that since 2008, temperatures are strongly rising.

  182. Steig , Mann and Hansen are working on a proposal in which they will place 42 surface stations on the sun. By keeping a record of the temperature anomalies over a period of 223 earth days, the trends will be accurately calculated to within .003K and they will be able to accurately predict the future of the sun’s climate for the next 7 centuries. The projected cost of the project is only 437 bazillion dollars which is chump change considering the payback of this scientific knowledge.

  183. Sure, it’s a short trend so far, RW, but with the AMO and the PDO newly in their cooling phase, and with past temperatures demonstratively determined by those and other oceanic oscillations, we can predict at least 20 years of cooling. Even the most diehard alarmists tend to concede that another ten years of cooling will constitute a trend, and call seriously into question the paradigm of CO2=AGW. So kick back with a julep, put your feet up, and contemplate the thermometer. You are unconvincing, so far.
    ====================================

  184. Gordon Ford 11:56:01

    Good heavens, that is a remarkably fine precis of the question by Jan Veizer. He does treat the Svensmark hypothesis with more credulity than is proven yet, though. I’d be interested in what Leif has to say about the radionucleide record for the last 10,000 years.
    =======================================

  185. RW, what explains the linear warming since the end of the Little Ice Age? We don’t know, but it can’t be explained by the CO2 curve.
    ===============================================

  186. RW (01:00:19) :

    Ric Werme – here is a graph showing temperatures and PDO index. PDO index varies about zero – it’s an oscillation after all. Temperature oscillates about a secular upward trend. I downloaded the raw data, plotted a scatter chart and found no correlation between temperatures and PDO index from 1900-present.

    Don’t know what you mean by 30 year look at correlation. I did CO2 from 1958 – present, because that’s the period of direct measurement.

    “Akasofu’s hypothesis that PDO and linear warming from the Little Ice Age explains the temperature history for the last century ot two.”

    You can’t explain warming with warming. What caused the linear warming?

    I took your graph and added CO2 data to it, see http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/scale:0.15/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/from:1900/offset:-320/scale:0.01/mean:12 I also smoothed everything over a year, in part to reduce noise, in part to erase the annual cycle in the CO2 data. You’ll probably say the graph makes your point, but notice things like the rise in Hadcrut temps from 1910 to 1940 where CO2 changes likely were slower than in the Mauna Loa record. The recent temperature data doesn’t track either all that well.

    If you used CO2 from 1958, did you just do the correlation between 1958 and 1988? I was under the impression you used the last 30 years because that’s what you said you did:

    What is the dominant cause of changing temperatures at the moment? Over the last 30 years, there is no correlation at all between either TSI or sunspot numbers and global temperatures. But the correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperatures is strong: R-squared=0.67.

    The PDO flipped positive about 30 years ago, so your correlation between temperature and PDO coincided with a warming period. That period could also be explained by the PDO.

    I don’t know where the linear warming since the LIA comes from, I don’t think anyone knows. While having a physical mechanism behind it would be a big help in understanding the climate, saying that it doesn’t exist because we don’t understand is a problem. We didn’t know how aspirin worked until the 1980s, but people used it with good results. Livingston & Penn’s paper on fading sun spots was rejected ostensibly because it was more observations and statistics than theory, yet Robert Bateman reports that drawing sunspot detail is getting more difficult. (It would be nice to have a steady stream of sunspots so we can watch them fade.)

  187. Leif Svalgaard (15:31:33)
    “I cannot imagine what you would do any differently than what many researchers are already doing.

    Further to Paul Vaughan (16:25:06) …

    I haven’t had the benefit of easy access to a sensible summary of the data, so I am basing this ‘step 1′ suggestion primarily on what I’ve been able to glean from the literature, the best example of which (so far) seems to be Ulrich (2001).

    For starters:
    Compare all possible pairs of latitudes via cross-wavelet phase-difference, but due to the latitudinal phase-drift do not keep the translation & dilation parameters locked across variables – let them vary separately for each variable in each pairing — and when doing the plots, use a circular color-scheme that assigns the same colors for phase-differences symmetric about 0 on a scale of (-pi,+pi) and place the plots in large scatterplot-matrices (to reduce the burden on investigators’ short-term memories).

    Also, based on what I’ve read so far, I’m concerned that startlingly little attention is being paid to the time-integrated properties of cross-correlation spectra. A thorough examination of the scale-dependency of parameter estimates is likely to turn up a variety of valuable clues. It may also be fruitful to go the extra step of allowing cross-recurrence discontinuities to guide more in-depth windowed analyses.

    The more capable-people analyzing the data the better, particularly since different analysts use different methods and have different experience. There is also the propulsive benefit of competition. The current sociopolitical context could be a game-changer & bar-raiser for research-as-usual in fields like economics, solar physics, & climatology, as more & more capable people – out of a sense of curiosity & responsibility – investigate first hand, “What on Earth is going wrong here?” This could provide quite a boost for our education & research systems. Furthermore, if played right, this could be a sustainable wave.

  188. “I hate to admit it when Leif is right but that seems to be the case here”

    Why not conclude “You know Dave, I worry when you agree with me. Please stop.”

  189. Ric Werme (22:02:41) :
    The PDO flipped positive about 30 years ago, so your correlation between temperature and PDO coincided with a warming period. That period could also be expla
    ined by the PDO.

    It doesn’t make any sense at all to associate the PDO with Global Warming.
    The north pacific sea surface temperature associated with the PDO averaged over the surface is neutral. For a positive PDO the area near the pacific coast of the US is warmer relative the rest of the Pacific, and for negative it is colder.
    The other half of the north Pacific has a temperature change opposite to that of the Pacific Coast of the US.

    http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/PDO_cs.htm

    The SST pattern highlights the strong tendency for temperatures in the central North Pacific to be anomalously cool when SSTs along the coast of North America are unusually warm, and vice-versa (Graham 1994, Miller et al 1995, Zhang et al 1997, Mantua et al 1997)

  190. Ric Werme (22:02:41)
    “[...] saying that it doesn’t exist because we don’t understand is a problem.”

    We need more of this kind of thinking.

  191. Ric Werme – to be clear: plotting global temperatures against CO2 concentrations from 1975-present gives R-squared = 0.67. From 1958-present gives R-squared=0.71. The longer period giving the slightly better correlation shows that the PDO has nothing to do with the correlation.

    A secular rise in temperatures cannot possibly be attributed to oceanic oscillations, by definition. Your graph certainly does prove that point.

    You say “notice things like the rise in Hadcrut temps from 1910 to 1940 where CO2 changes likely were slower than in the Mauna Loa record. The recent temperature data doesn’t track either all that well”.

    Recent data tracks CO2 concentrations as well as older data so I’m not sure what you mean there. You can see that better if you smooth a bit more. But I think we’re all well aware that greenhouse gases are not the only factor in determining the climate. There are also variations in volcanic activity and solar activity. However, the correlation coefficient suggests that rising greenhouse gases are the dominant cause of the ongoing rise in temperatures, and basic physics shows us why.

    “I don’t know where the linear warming since the LIA comes from, I don’t think anyone knows.”

    It does seem strange to assume that if you don’t know, no-one does. Climate scientists do know of three basic causes: 1. rising greenhouse gas concentrations following the start of the industrial revolution. 2. increasing solar activity. 3. A period of few large volcanic eruptions in the early 20th century. The contribution of each has varied with time; currently #1 is dominant.

  192. RW (14:22:25)
    “[...] plotting global temperatures against CO2 concentrations from 1975-present gives R-squared = 0.67. From 1958-present gives R-squared=0.71. The longer period giving the slightly better correlation shows that the PDO has nothing to do with the correlation.

    A secular rise in temperatures cannot possibly be attributed to oceanic oscillations, by definition.”

    There are layers of misunderstanding (or worse: intentional distortion) in these comments/interpretations.

  193. Paul Vaughn (15:37:43),

    You are correct. So we are faced with two likely outcomes here; one highly probable, and the other extremely unlikely:

    Either RW is right, and everyone else in this thread is wrong; or vice versa. A reasonable person would conclude that the *ahem* “consensus” is right in this case. Sorry about that, RW. In this case at least, the consensus is correct.

    Here is an interesting chart, which shows the wide variation in annual human CO2 emissions, compared with the steady, extremely regular rise in Mauna Loa CO2 readings: click

    It is obvious that human emissions are such a small part of the total that they do not even show up in the Mauna Loa record. If human emitted CO2 were stopped completely, the Mauna Loa record would look the same.

    Finally, it should be kept in mind that CO2 is beneficial, not harmful, at current and projected levels. Real world experiments have repeatedly shown that more atmospheric CO2 would be far better for all living organisms. Life was much more abundant and diverse during times when CO2 has been much higher than it is today.

    We owe it to the biosphere to substantially increase CO2 output. I am not kidding about this. It only sounds strange because of the incessant, wrong-headed and self-serving propaganda demonizing carbon dioxide that we have endured 24/7 for the past twenty years.

  194. Re: Smokey (16:44:58)

    You make some interesting comments Smokey. I will share a few observations:

    1.
    There are time series that show a much higher correlation with CO2 than mean temperature time series.
    2.
    Anyone inspired by (1) to go correlation-hunting might start by:
    a) reading Jose (1965) more carefully than most who cite his work.
    b) studying Sidorenkov (2005) & related works.

    I’m not making any suggestions about causation, nor am I agreeing with all of your comments.

  195. Paul Vaughn,

    Just FYI, re point #1: click

    Also, I am not correlation hunting by posting these charts. I am simply being skeptical of the CO2=AGW hypothesis, and I have not been persuaded by the main ‘evidence’ that CO2 causes or will cause significant warming, because that putative evidence consists mainly of GCMs. Solid empirical evidence supporting the CO2=AGW hypothesis does not exist.

    The real world evidence, on the other hand, shows temps flat to declining, while CO2 is steadily rising. Rational people accept that as a strong argument against the CO2=AGW claims.

    The AGW folks need to come up with more credible arguments, or admit that the planet itself is falsifying their belief system.

  196. Here is an interesting chart, which shows the wide variation in annual human CO2 emissions, compared with the steady, extremely regular rise in Mauna Loa CO2 readings: click

    It is obvious that human emissions are such a small part of the total that they do not even show up in the Mauna Loa record. If human emitted CO2 were stopped completely, the Mauna Loa record would look the same.

    I don’t know where John Daly got that chart and what it means.
    The charts that I have seen show that annual human emissions are on average twice the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 measured at MLO. See the chart which shows this on Roy Spencer’s web site.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or-natural/

  197. Thank you for the link, eric. I’ll have to read it later, since I’m on my way out at the moment [it's Saturday night, you know]. But I respect Spencer’s work, and I always defer to his expertise.

    I did notice his comment:

    “…most (1.71/1.98 = 86%) of the upward trend in carbon dioxide since CO2 monitoring began at Mauna Loa 50 years ago could indeed be explained as a result of the warming, rather than the other way around.”

    Which agrees with what I pointed out above: only a very small part of the observed increase in CO2 is from human emissions [<2 ppm]. Therefore, almost all of the warming is natural, and CO2 follows the warming [although for the last 7 - 8 years, the planet has been cooling, thus driving another nail in the CO2=AGW coffin]. So the alarming Mauna Loa CO2 chart is merely a consequence of natural variability. And it is only alarming because of the Fun House mirror distortion effect caused by beginning the y-axis at 310 ppm, rather than at zero.

    And regarding the late John Daly, his site is excellent, and it has withstood many impotent attacks by warmists before. So I accept his charts, unless they can be falsified. Saying you don’t know where he got his chart, or what it means, falls far short of falsifying it. I would recommend accepting it at face value, and dealing with the consequences.

    And I stand by my statement that if human emitted CO2 were stopped completely, it would not even show up in the Keeling chart. Falsify that, if you can. The fact is that human emitted CO2 does not currently appear in the Keeling chart, because it is so far down in the noise. Therefore, eliminating human emitted CO2 would not show up in the Keeling chart, either.

  198. “There are layers of misunderstanding (or worse: intentional distortion) in these comments/interpretations.”

    Well go on then – explain what they are.

    “Either RW is right, and everyone else in this thread is wrong; or vice versa. A reasonable person would conclude that the *ahem* consensus is right in this case”

    Ho ho, that’s a good one! You seem to have fundamentally misunderstood how science understanding proceeds and develops. It is not by majority vote.

    “Here is an interesting chart, which shows the wide variation in annual human CO2 emissions, compared with the steady, extremely regular rise in Mauna Loa CO2 readings: click”

    The chart doesn’t show that. It shows that the annual increase in CO2 in the atmosphere varies widely. Read the caption.

    “It is obvious that human emissions are such a small part of the total that they do not even show up in the Mauna Loa record. If human emitted CO2 were stopped completely, the Mauna Loa record would look the same.”

    Human emissions are more than enough to raise CO2 concentrations by 110ppm. Isotopic studies show that the extra CO2 has come from fossil fuels.

    “I have not been persuaded by the main ‘evidence’ that CO2 causes or will cause significant warming, because that putative evidence consists mainly of GCMs”

    It does not. The evidence that you need is one thing, and one thing only: a small amount of CO2 absorbs a lot of infrared radiation. That’s been known for 150 years, and it means that it is impossible for CO2 not to cause warming.

    “Therefore, almost all of the warming is natural, and CO2 follows the warming”

    When CO2 and temperatures are in equilibrium, CO2 concentrations increase by ~8ppm/°C (see ice core records). CO2 concentrations today are ~110ppm higher than they were in 1200AD, and therefore, if you theory is correct it must now be 13°C hotter than it was then.

    “And I stand by my statement that if human emitted CO2 were stopped completely, it would not even show up in the Keeling chart. Falsify that, if you can.”

    Falsified.

  199. RW (05:22:18)
    “Well go on then – explain what they are.”

    I’m not interested in getting dragged onto fruitless tangents (but others appear clearly willing, so perhaps some of them will continue discussing this with you…)

    Thank you for your interest in this discussion.

  200. Not falsified. There is only a temporary, relatively short term correlation beginning about 1975. But thanx for playing, and Vanna has some wonderful parting gifts for you on your way out.

    And like Paul V, I’ve lost interest in discussing this with someone hopelessly afflicted with cognitive dissonance; someone who is out of step with every other comment. That’s what CD does to its victims:

    As contrary evidence has accumulated, proponents of strong AGW have begun to display signs of cognitive dissonance. The famed social psychologist Leon Festinger, developer of the concept of cognitive dissonance, conducted early studies of the phenomenon…The psychological model is that their belief system became part of their identity, their self, and information at odds with that belief system became an attack on the self. This helps explain why such people can be resistant to information that would be judged positive on a rational basis. Festinger’s book, When Prophecy Fails, tells of a group of doomsday believers who predicted the end of the world on a particular date. When that didn’t happen, the believers became even more determined they were right. And they became even louder and proselytized even more aggressively after the disconfirmation. So we can expect ever more extreme, opaque, and strange defenses from proponents as evidence continues to mount. For example we are now told that even global cooling is a result of global warming.

    That’s RW to a T.

  201. Paul Vaughan: if you won’t make the case that your bald statement was constructive, then it’s clear that you don’t have a case.

    Smokey: looks like you need to check that graph again. It shows that atmospheric CO2 has been rising roughly in proportion to human emissions since about 1800. It’s a rather simple relation: more CO2 going into the atmosphere = more CO2 in the atmosphere. I’m not really sure why you would think that the emission of 25 billion tonnes or more of CO2 each year wouldn’t turn up in the atmosphere. Can you explain?

  202. “Can you explain?”

    Of course I can explain. I do it all the time, to try and help out folks like you. I could very easily explain why your graph has the x-axis and y-axis set up with those particular ranges to show a temporary correlation. I have provided charts and peer reviewed papers showing conclusively that rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature.

    But you don’t listen to anybody’s explanations. Your mind is closed, so you just argue incessantly. When someone asks you a good question, do you answer it? No. You just MoveOn to another incessant CD-inspired argument, moving the goal posts as you go.

    The fact that you constantly argue with everyone else means either that you are incapable of understanding the basics discussed here… or that your mind is already made up and closed tight; therefore you will incessantly argue with anyone who is skeptical of the repeatedly falsified CO2 = AGW hypothesis.

    Look at the Cognitive Dissonance example that was posted @12:18:51 again. That’s you exactly. [Thank you for looking.] The world didn’t end as expected, so rather than admit the hypothesis was wrong, you simply move the goal posts again. You’re a victim of CD. Global temps are going down while CO2 is going up. Those are facts. I posted almost twenty charts upthread from different governments and universities, all showing the same thing: every one of them show declining temps and increasing CO2. But your mind is shut tight, and you will not listen.

    That being the case, I’m not going to explain things to you yet again. You never listen to anyone here. We have deconstructed every argument you’ve made, and it would be just as easy to deconstruct your latest wonderings.

    When you start seriously listening to what people here are explaining to you, then you will either have to admit this is all way over your head… or you will have to admit that you too have become skeptical of the false claim that CO2 is gonna getcha.

    You’re arguing with everybody, RW. That should tell you something. So like Vaughn, I’m out of this thread. But feel free to continue arguing with yourself.

  203. “Of course I can explain”, you say…

    You haven’t explained where the CO2 from fossil fuel burning is going. Where did 25 billion tonnes of CO2 disappear to last year, and the year before, and the year before that?

    You haven’t explained why CO2 concentrations began rising just when humans began burning fossil fuels in large quantities, and have now risen 40% above a level they hadn’t exceeded in at least the last 800,000 years.

    You haven’t explained why the 13C content of atmospheric CO2 began dropping just when humans started burning fossil fuels in large quantities, and is lower now than it has ever been in the last 800,000 years.

    You haven’t explained, and you can’t explain, how a strong infrared absorber can fail to have an influence on temperatures.

    “I have provided charts and peer reviewed papers showing conclusively that rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature.”

    If your claims on that score were valid, then it would now be 13°C warmer than it was 800 years ago, as I explained above. It is not. Your claims are not valid.

    “Global temps are going down”

    Do you think that every year should be warmer than the previous year? There’s a word for the concept that the behaviour of the atmosphere is highly variable – the word is ‘weather’.

    You still don’t get that climate cannot be measured over 10 years. You still don’t get that science does not proceed by democracy, or that this site presents fringe opinions and not mainstream science. You are arguing that virtually every scientist working in a wide range of disciplines is wrong, and you, Smokey, random anonymous blog commentator, know better. You don’t.

    You should stop arguing things that have been known and understood for decades. You could ask some valid and challenging questions about our understanding of the way the atmosphere responds to changing inputs. But you’re not doing so.

  204. Smokey,
    And I stand by my statement that if human emitted CO2 were stopped completely, it would not even show up in the Keeling chart. Falsify that, if you can. The fact is that human emitted CO2 does not currently appear in the Keeling chart, because it is so far down in the noise. Therefore, eliminating human emitted CO2 would not show up in the Keeling chart, either.

    It is falsified by the chart in my link on Spencer’s web site. Human emissions are twice as large as the annual increase in CO2 shown on the MLO chart. Yo can’t really believe that human increases are in the noise if they are twice as large as the MLO concentration increases. All you have to do is look at the chart and it is obvious.

    It is true that the fluctuations in the annual increases, when the steady human emissions trend is subtracted, shows that the variations in the increase are due to natural causes. It seems that you are confusing the variations in the annual increase after the data has been detrended with the driving force for the steady part of the increase.

  205. The variations from industrial co2 should be visible in the mauna loa graph but they’re not. smokey proved his point.

  206. Linda P. (17:46:33) :

    The variations from industrial co2 should be visible in the mauna loa graph but they’re not. smokey proved his point.,

    Sorry but your post doesn’t make sense. Economic activity from year to year, which drives the CO2 emissions changes in the low single percents.
    There is no reason to believe that variations in the net natural absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere, which is the difference between large fluxes, into and out of the atmosphere, wouldn’t dominate the variation in annual CO2 increase as it does.

    The annual human emissions are twice as large as the annual natural absorption and are responsible for the annual increases absorbed at MLO over time. The natural absorption is responsible for the variation in the annual increases.

  207. RW (13:48:42) :
    “Paul Vaughan: if you won’t make the case that your bald statement was constructive, then it’s clear that you don’t have a case.”

    You said:

    RW (14:22:25)
    “[...] The longer period giving the slightly better correlation shows that the PDO has nothing to do with the correlation.”

    This is a serious misinterpretation. I called you on it.

    Suggestion: Use appropriate qualifiers in statements (so that you won’t run as much risk of getting called for being technically wrong).

    Comment: I appreciate the contribution you have made to this discussion.

  208. RW,

    In checking back on this thread, I see that you’re still at it two days later. OK then, here’s something to think about.

    You asked: “You haven’t explained where the CO2 from fossil fuel burning is going. Where did 25 billion tonnes of CO2 disappear to last year, and the year before, and the year before that?”

    OK, I’ll explain it to you. The answer is that as CO2 [plant food] increases, the biosphere makes good use of it. Prof. Freeman Dyson explains the mechanism very well: click. It’s like putting a culture into agar. The microbes multiply fast, to take advantage of the big food supply. Same with CO2. When plenty of plant fertilizer is available, the organisms that use it rapidly multiply. That’s where where the CO2 from fossil fuel burning is going.

    Next: “You could ask some valid and challenging questions about our understanding of the way the atmosphere responds to changing inputs. But you’re not doing so.”

    The atmosphere is not responding to changing inputs, as you assume — the biosphere is. The fact that human CO2 emissions are a *very* small part of the total annual CO2 emission by the planet is a very good reason to just relax an enjoy life.

    A change in a very minor trace gas is not causing any problems at all. It isn’t making the polar ice caps melt. And there is no empirical evidence that this minor addition to a minor trace gas has any effect at all on temperature. But there is very strong empirical [real world] evidence that an increase in CO2 is very beneficial. Plant life benefits from more CO2. That is a proven fact.

    So relax. Don’t be a worry wart. CO2 isn’t gonna getcha. More CO2 is better in our carbon dioxide starved environment. That’s a fact.

  209. Re: Smokey (03:51:53)

    The intensity with which you (seemingly) badger could turn people away from your argument.

    You leave me wondering if that is your intent.

  210. Paul Vaughn,

    I apologize if I upset you. I was responding specifically to another poster’s comments, and I provided several links to support my position. I answered his questions and told him to relax, and don’t worry. Is that what bothered you? Or is it something else? Really, I want to know the specifics.

    Based on your comment, I have re-read this entire thread from the beginning. I think you should, too. Comments like…

    “Who cares what Charles Osgood thinks? He has no expertise in climatology. He is a human interest, soft news reporter. He is well past his sell by date. This blog is nothing but cheer leading.”

    …are not uncommon on this site.

    I’m standing my ground on my skeptical position, and if I come across as being impatient with the escapees from echo chambers like RealClimate and similar sites, who come here solely to argue and disrupt, and tell you and everyone else they’re wrong, I think a few of them need to hear it. I always provide a stream of citations and links to support my views, while posters like the one quoted above just hit ‘n’ run. Don’t you think they are more worthy of criticism than my comments?

    Notice that I’ve posted well over twenty charts and graphs supporting my position — and every last one of them was simply dismissed out of hand, with a pf-f-ft attitude. Do you think that every chart and graph mis-states reality, and should be disregarded? If even one chart or graph I posted represents reality, then the alarmists’ position takes a major hit.

    My advice is don’t worry about the feelings of the very few closed-minded posters who come here from the other side to tell everyone else they’re wrong, or to run interference. I’m only concerned if I’ve hurt your feelings, or those of the 95% of reasonable folks who comment and answer questions if asked.

    I’ve stated several times on this site that I will change my mind if someone provides reasonably convincing evidence that the current situation is not explained by natural climate variability. No one has ever risen to that challenge. I’m not the only one who gets irked at the absolute refusal of the warmists to ever admit that any of us has made a convincing argument. You will routinely read a comment from someone who believed in the CO2 = AGW hypothesis, and then became a skeptic because of what they read here and elsewhere. But show me one poster who used to be skeptical that CO2 would cause runaway global warming, but now believes it’s true.

    It is the utter closed-mindedness of the other side that causes frustration, and I’m not the only one who hits back. That being the case, there must be something I said that bothered you, and for that I apologize.

  211. Re: Smokey (14:41:58)

    Clarification:
    My interest in participating in this particular thread:
    Solar science and the reasons for its slow progress.

  212. Paul Vaughan:

    “Comment: I appreciate the contribution you have made to this discussion.”

    I appreciate you saying so. But I still don’t understand what you’re objecting to regarding the CO2/temperature correlation. It was argued that the strong correlation since 1975 was spurious, caused or at least enhanced by the pacific decadal oscillation. In fact, when extended to a period where the PDO was negative, the correlation does not weaken; it becomes stronger. Therefore, the 1975-present correlation between CO2 and temperature was not spurious.

    Smokey:

    It’s amusing to see you claiming that all the fossil fuel CO2 somehow disappears into the biosphere, and not into the atmosphere, and yet in the very same post, you show us a graph showing the ongoing rise in atmospheric CO2.

    “there is no empirical evidence that this minor addition to a minor trace gas has any effect at all on temperature”

    So your next tactic is to concede that fossil fuel CO2 goes into the atmosphere, but to claim that the extra quantity is insignificant. In fact, its concentration has increased by 40%.

    And of course there is empirical evidence that it affects temperatures. It’s bizarre to deny it. You might disagree with the conclusions drawn from the evidence, but it’s obvious that there is evidence. Fact 1: CO2 absorbs strongly in the infrared. Strong infrared absorbers give rise to the greenhouse effect. Fact 2: the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising. Fact 3: over the period of instrumental temperature measurements, the global average temperature has risen by about 1°C. How exactly is that not evidence?

    “carbon dioxide starved environment”

    You ever hear of a guy called Darwin? A concept called ‘evolution’? I’d love to know how life on earth has somehow evolved to fit an ecological niche that hasn’t existed for at least a million years.

    Your problem, Smokey, is that you are refusing to understand some basic things. Like I say, there are valid and interesting questions that can be asked, but you’re not asking them; instead, you’re denying basic science that was done 150 years ago and has been endlessly verified since then.

  213. RW is now claiming to quote me on things that I never said. Smart guy that he is, I’ll let him figure out what they are.

    I provide numerous links and citations to back up what I say, while RW just issues his opinions.

    RW opines that I do not understand. As I’ve pointed out many times, my 30+ year career was spent working in one of the country’s largest metrology labs, designing, calibrating, testing and repairing weather related equipment; primarily humidity, dew/frost point, temperature and thermocouple instruments.

    Calibrations were directly traceable to the National Bureau of Standards [now N.I.S.T.]. We received all the current scientific literature, sent to the lab gratis by the equipment manufacturers. I personally subscribed to the AAAS journal Science for more than twenty years.

    In our lab, with over 140 engineers and technicians, no one — not a single one — bought into the CO2 = AGW scam. Whenever the subject came up, people would just roll their eyes or crack jokes about it. These are professionals who, unlike the general public, are well grounded in the physical sciences. Not a single engineer or tech saw the “carbon” scare as legitimate science. It was a fad motivated and perpetuated by money, not by real science. But RW probably thinks all those professionals are wrong, and that the science is settled.

    So now I am curious about RW’s CV. Is RW a climatologist? Is RW a meteorologist? Has RW spent his career working in a weather or climate related field? Has RW ever convinced even one skeptic to change his mind here, and accept that an increase in CO2 will cause runaway global warming? Or did RW see An Inconvenient Truth, and become a true believer as a result?

    RW claims that “…of course there is empirical evidence that [CO2] affects temperatures.” That is a baseless opinion. RW should provide empirical [real world, verifiable] evidence that purports to measure the exact portion of global temperature increase caused by the very small fraction of anthropogenic CO2 that is added to the atmosphere. Explain why the slow, steady rise in Mauna Loa CO2 measurements fail to correlate at all with the rise and fall of human CO2 emissions. Explain why as CO2 rises, global temperatures have been falling for many years. Leaving the always inaccurate computer models out of any putative explanation results in the failure of the CO2 = AGW conjecture. GCMs are very flimsy “evidence.”

    Finally, RW’s false claim that there is a “very strong correlation” between rising CO2 and global temperatures has been repeatedly falsified by the planet itself.

    Notice the almost complete lack of any R^2 correlation under the graph. The fact is that there is no causal connection between rising CO2 and the subsequent rise on global temperature — as there clearly is between rising temperature and the subsequent rise of CO2: as CO2 rises, temperature falls. The ridiculous Elmer Gantry-style answer by the alarmist contingent is that global warming causes global cooling. Could they be any less credible?

  214. Well if you want to ignore what I wrote, I’ll just repeat it:

    “Fact 1: CO2 absorbs strongly in the infrared. Strong infrared absorbers give rise to the greenhouse effect. Fact 2: the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising. Fact 3: over the period of instrumental temperature measurements, the global average temperature has risen by about 1°C.”

    You still don’t understand that you can’t measure climate over a decade. It’s a simple point, and one that you clearly fail to understand not because you can’t but because you don’t want to. This shows the whole GISS record, and the whole Mauna Loa CO2 record. Only a fool would deny the clear appearance of a correlation during the common period of the two records. But if you look at any 10 year period within that (for example 1968-1978, or 1985-1995>, you don’t see a correlation. This is because internal variability dominates over short timescales. You cannot say anything meaningful about climate based on only 10 years of data.

    You still don’t understand that this graph does not show what you are claiming it does. It shows that the annual increase in CO2 is not in fact smooth and steady; it shows the exact opposite of what you have twice claimed that it shows. Read the caption!

    The fundamental facts are:

    that CO2 is a strong infrared absorber; strong infrared absorbers play a fundamental role in the climate, giving rise to the greenhouse effect;

    the concentration of CO2 is rising, at an ever-increasing rate, and is 40% above pre-industrial levels

    – the rise is due to the burning of fossil fuels.

    These things are known beyond any doubt. By continually questioning them, and particularly by taking approaches like posting 10 graphs, every single one of which shows data over too short a period to be meaningful, you destroy any credibility you ever had. Like I’ve said, there are interesting questions to ask about the climate. You’re wasting your time trying to attack undeniable fundamentals in the style of Monty Python’s knights attacking castles with swords.

  215. Smokey, clearly you are not able to grasp this really simple stuff. And it’s amusing that you accuse me of ‘mental disorder’, when you’re the one who can’t even understand science from 150 years ago. Also interesting that the moderators allow such disgusting insults to be posted. Are they trying to encourage an atmosphere of hostility towards anyone who doesn’t agree with them?

    It is proven that the rise in CO2 is not due to any previous warming. As I said before, you would need a warming of 15°C to explain the rise. Do you believe it’s got that much warmer? It seems from your comments that you don’t, so you are contradicting yourself. Doing that, and being unaware of it, by the way, can be a sign of mental disorder.

    Isotopic studies prove that the extra CO2 has come from fossil fuel. I’ve told you this repeatedly, and rather than offer any counterevidence, you just state your beliefs yet again.

    And still you can’t get that climate is not measured over ten years! This is the fundamental fact that renders all of your graphs and comments relating to temperatures since 2002 completely irrelevant! But you keep on referring to them, and you seem to think that the more you can dig up, the better. It’s easy to find wrong things on the internet, and no matter how many you find, they are still wrong.

    You are simply ignoring any evidence that contradicts your belief. For you, it seems, this is something of a religion, or perhaps a cult.

  216. …the rest of the story. Climate is changing and always will. The climate celebrities, however, are linking climate and the economy. Yes, there has been warming to end the Pleistocene. Climate is a multiple input, multiple loop, multiple output, complex system. The facts and the hypotheses, however, do not support CO2 as a serious ‘pollutant’. In fact, it is plant fertilizer and seriously important to all life on the planet. It is the red herring used to unwind our economy. That issue makes the science relevant.
    Sulphate from volcanoes can have a catastrophic effect, but water vapour is far more important. Water vapour (0.4% overall by volume in air, but 1 – 4 % near the surface) is the most effective green house blanket followed by methane (0.0001745%). The third ranking gas is CO2 (0.0383%), and it does not correlate well with global warming or cooling either; in fact, CO2 in the atmosphere trails warming which is clear natural evidence for its well-studied inverse solubility in water: CO2 dissolves rapidly in cold water and bubbles rapidly out of warm water. The equilibrium in seawater is very high; making seawater a great ‘sink'; CO2 is 34 times more soluble in water than air is soluble in water.
    CO2 has been rising and Earth and her oceans have been warming. However, the correlation trails. Correlation, moreover, is not causation. The causation is under experimental review, however, and while the radiation from the sun varies only in the fourth decimal place, the magnetism is awesome.
    “Using a box of air in a Copenhagen lab, physicists traced the growth of clusters of molecules of the kind that build cloud condensation nuclei. These are specks of sulphuric acid on which cloud droplets form. High-energy particles driven through the laboratory ceiling by exploded stars far away in the Galaxy – the cosmic rays – liberate electrons in the air, which help the molecular clusters to form much faster than climate scientists have modeled in the atmosphere. That may explain the link between cosmic rays, cloudiness and climate change.”
    As I understand it, the hypothesis of the Danish National Space Center goes as follows:
    Quiet sun induces a reduced magnetic allowing the geomagnetic shield to drop. Incoming galactic cosmic ray flux creates more low-level clouds, more snow, and more albedo effect as more is heat reflected a colder climate.
    Active sun has an enhanced magnetic which induces a geomagnetic shield response. Earth has fewer low-level clouds, less rain, snow and ice, and less albedo (less heat reflected) producing a warmer climate.
    That is how the bulk of climate change works, coupled with (modulated by) sunspot peak frequency there are cycles of global warming and cooling like waves in the ocean. When the waves are closely spaced, the planets warm; when the waves are spaced farther apart, the planets cool.
    The change on cloud cover is only a small percentage, and the ultimate cause of the solar magnetic cycle may be cyclicity in the Sun-Jupiter centre of gravity. We await more on that.
    Although the post 60s warming period appears to be over, it has allowed the principal green house gas, water vapour, to kick in with more humidity, clouds, rain and snow depending on where you live to provide the negative feedback that scientists use to explain the existence of complex life on Earth for 550 million years. Ancient sedimentary rocks and paleontological evidence indicate the planet has had abundant liquid water over the entire span. The planet heats and cools naturally and our gasses are the thermostat.
    Check the web site of the Danish National Space Center.
    Keeping in mind that windmills are hazardous to birds, be wary of the unintended consequences of believing and contributing to the all-knowing environmental lobby groups.

  217. Smokey – learn the basics, and grow up a bit, and maybe one day you’ll be up to having a sensible conversation about the climate. In the meantime, have a ponder about why you think all climate graphs should start in 2002, and not, for example, March 2008.

    Fran Manns:

    “The third ranking gas is CO2 (0.0383%)”

    Incorrect. CO2 is second only to water vapour in its effectiveness as a greenhouse gas. See Ramanathan and Coakley 1978 or any number of papers since then.

    “and it does not correlate well with global warming or cooling either;”

    Incorrect. It correlates very well.

    I presume you believe your qualifications are relevant. However, despite searching I cannot find any evidence that you have published anything in any discipline related to climate science. Is that correct?

  218. RW:

    Fran Manns: I presume you believe your qualifications are relevant. However, despite searching I cannot find any evidence that you have published anything in any discipline related to climate science. Is that correct?

    This, from someone whose qualifications are Cut ‘n’ Paste 101.

    Give us your qualifications, RW. That specific request has been made often enough. Make ‘em falsifiable.

  219. 200 million years of fossil record show that a) CO2 is good for the biosphere b) CO2 cannot ‘run away’ to B movie scenarios.
    In order to squawk about climate change either you don’t know this in which case you are simply too stupid to realize your own ignorance, or as a published qualified professional who does know this one would need to be a deliberately lying grant-hunting charlatan.
    So RW what precisely have ‘scientific’ publications got to do with anything when so many scientists prostitute Truth for politically inspired grants.
    ‘Scientists’ no longer can be presumed to be honourable, by their fruits shall you know them.

  220. “Give us your qualificationsFran Manns: I presume you believe your qualifications are relevant. However, despite searching I cannot find any evidence that you have published anything in any discipline related to climate science. Is that correct?”

    RW –

    I am a registered geoscientist. I earned my degrees by studying the sciences – mathematics, chemistry, physics, biology, statistics and geostatistics, and created my own original work in carbonate stratigraphy, largely around paleogeography and paleoclimatology.

    I have read many scientific papers on ‘climate change’ since the late 1980s and have read them objectively. I do not need to reply to ‘ad hominem’ remarks but on the other hand, thought I should point out that since ‘ad hominem’ is taught in first year philosophy courses as one of the most common logical errors, I should make a comment. This we see all the time from Hansen, Suzuki, Gore and the like because they have no response to current data or relevant hypothises. Why do they refuse debate? I suggest they refuse debate because they are not competant to do so. I have had Suzuki’s daughter pull out of a debate I participated because of…who knows what – orders from the Orwellian leader.

    RW I’ll debate you. Name the stage…

    Because of the miracle of inverse solubility of gasses, CO2 has nothing but a trailing correlation with both warming and cooling. There is however solid 95% corelation with sunspot peak frequency with warming and cooling for the 20th century – chopped off abruptly by the eruption of Pinatubo in 1991. Pinatubo nearly compensated for the natural solar warming of the 20th century with one eruption.

    Moreover, the fluid inclusion data used to support AGW is worthless because ice is an open system. A geoscientist would never be permitted to use such corrupt data for a term paper, much less publish it in a journal. The light isotopes leave and heavies stay behind during the lengthy and reversible transition from snow to firn to ice. Then the glaciologist celebrities calibrates the top layer to modern temperature. Voila, yet another hockey stick sans Medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age. Who are the referees of this half baked sort of work? They wiould not survive a Masters degree at a decent Geological institute.

  221. Smokey: have you worked out why 2002 is a silly place to start ‘climate’ graphs yet?

    Sandy:

    “200 million years of fossil record show that a) CO2 is good for the biosphere b) CO2 cannot ‘run away’ to B movie scenarios.”

    Neither of these are shown by the fossil records. Five minutes in a room filled with pure CO2 will show you that CO2 is not always good. And your point b simply doesn’t make sense. Are you saying that CO2 concentrations can’t rise beyond a certain level?

    Fran Manns: so, your qualifications are not really relevant. By ostentatiously
    listing them every time you post, you are attempting to argue from authority.

    You’re 200 years out of date with your CO2 claims. CO2 rose and fell in a way strongly related to temperatures, for 650,000 years. CO2 went up and down by ~100ppm. Temperatures went up and down by ~12°C. So, for each degree rise in temperature, CO2 went up by ~8ppm. Now then, suddenly in the last 200 years reached a level 110ppm higher than it had at any point in the last 650,000 years. So, given the 8ppm/°C figure, it must therefore be 14°C hotter now than it was at any point over the last 650,000 years. That is transparently absurd. Rising temperatures have not caused the post-industrial rise in CO2

    I explained this already, a couple of times. Are you another one who simply cannot bring themselves to understand the basics?

    As for solar – you’re wrong. There is very little correlation between sunspot numbers and temperatures. Since 1980 or before, all indexes of solar activity have been on a downward trend, and yet temperatures have carried on rising.

    And Pinatubo? I have no idea what data you’re looking at. After Pinatubo erupted, global temperatures were still 0.4°C higher than they had been at the beginning of the century. And now, 18 years later, temperatures are 0.4°C higher than they were then.

    I’m sure if you’re right about fluid inclusion data, then you could publish your results to great acclaim. Have you done so? If not, why not?

  222. RW (04:28:56) “But I still don’t understand [...]“

    I will briefly address your concern:
    The relevant passage from the discussion:

    RW (14:22:25)
    “[...] The longer period giving the slightly better correlation shows that the PDO has nothing to do with the correlation.”

    Clarification:

    If you would have substituted “suggests to me” for “shows”, I probably would have kept skiing (skimming & skipping) since my participation in this thread was related to solar science (as you will see from the posts I made).


    RW (04:28:56) “I appreciate you saying so.”

    Thank you.

  223. Well I’m really not sure I see the need for cautious wording here. If two factors correlate strongly, regardless of what a third is doing, then that rules out the third as the cause of the correlation. If I was writing a scientific paper I would be quite happy to use ‘shows’ rather than ‘suggests’ in this case.

    I also still don’t see what prompted your claim that “There are layers of misunderstanding (or worse: intentional distortion) ” in what I said, if all you objected to was what you considered too strong a statement of the case.

Comments are closed.