Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts”

UPDATED: This opinion piece from Professor Henrik Svensmark was published September 9th in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Originally the translation was from Google translation with some post translation cleanup of jumbled words or phrases by myself. Now as of Sept 12, the translation is by Nigel Calder.  Hat tip to Carsten Arnholm of Norway for bringing this to my attention and especially for translation facilitation by Ágúst H Bjarnason – Anthony

Catainia photosphere image August 31st, 2009 - click for larger image

Spotless Cueball: Catania observatory photosphere image August 31st, 2009 - click for larger image

While the sun sleeps

Translation approved by Henrik Svensmark

While the Sun sleeps
Henrik Svensmark, Professor, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen

“In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable,” writes Henrik Svensmark.

The star that keeps us alive has, over the last few years, been almost free of sunspots, which are the usual signs of the Sun’s magnetic activity. Last week [4 September 2009] the scientific team behind the satellite SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) reported, “It is likely that the current year’s number of blank days will be the longest in about 100 years.” Everything indicates that the Sun is going into some kind of hibernation, and the obvious question is what significance that has for us on Earth.

If you ask the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which represents the current consensus on climate change, the answer is a reassuring “nothing”. But history and recent research suggest that is probably completely wrong. Why? Let’s take a closer look.

Solar activity has always varied. Around the year 1000, we had a period of very high solar activity, which coincided with the Medieval Warm Period. It was a time when frosts in May were almost unknown – a matter of great importance for a good harvest. Vikings settled in Greenland and explored the coast of North America. On the whole it was a good time. For example, China’s population doubled in this period.

But after about 1300 solar activity declined and the world began to get colder. It was the beginning of the episode we now call the Little Ice Age. In this cold time, all the Viking settlements in Greenland disappeared. Sweden surprised Denmark by marching across the ice, and in London the Thames froze repeatedly. But more serious were the long periods of crop failures, which resulted in poorly nourished populations, reduced in Europe by about 30 per cent because of disease and hunger.

"The March across the Belts was a campaign between January 30 and February 8, 1658 during the Northern Wars where Swedish king Karl X Gustav led the Swedish army from Jutland across the ice of the Little Belt and the Great Belt to reach Zealand (Danish: Sjælland). The risky but vastly successful crossing was a crushing blow to Denmark, and led to the Treaty of Roskilde later that year...." - Click for larger image.


It’s important to realise that the Little Ice Age was a global event. It ended in the late 19th Century and was followed by increasing solar activity. Over the past 50 years solar activity has been at its highest since the medieval warmth of 1000 years ago. But now it appears that the Sun has changed again, and is returning towards what solar scientists call a “grand minimum” such as we saw in the Little Ice Age.

The match between solar activity and climate through the ages is sometimes explained away as coincidence. Yet it turns out that, almost no matter when you look and not just in the last 1000 years, there is a link. Solar activity has repeatedly fluctuated between high and low during the past 10,000 years. In fact the Sun spent about 17 per cent of those 10,000 years in a sleeping mode, with a cooling Earth the result.

You may wonder why the international climate panel IPCC does not believe that the Sun’s changing activity affects the climate. The reason is that it considers only changes in solar radiation. That would be the simplest way for the Sun to change the climate – a bit like turning up and down the brightness of a light bulb.

Satellite measurements have shown that the variations of solar radiation are too small to explain climate change. But the panel has closed its eyes to another, much more powerful way for the Sun to affect Earth’s climate. In 1996 we discovered a surprising influence of the Sun – its impact on Earth’s cloud cover. High-energy accelerated particles coming from exploded stars, the cosmic rays, help to form clouds.

When the Sun is active, its magnetic field is better at shielding us against the cosmic rays coming from outer space, before they reach our planet. By regulating the Earth’s cloud cover, the Sun can turn the temperature up and down. High solar activity means fewer clouds and and a warmer world. Low solar activity and poorer shielding against cosmic rays result in increased cloud cover and hence a cooling. As the Sun’s magnetism doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming seen then.

That also explains why most climate scientists try to ignore this possibility. It does not favour their idea that the 20th century temperature rise was mainly due to human emissions of CO2. If the Sun provoked a significant part of warming in the 20th Century, then the contribution by CO2 must necessarily be smaller.

Ever since we put forward our theory in 1996, it has been subjected to very sharp criticism, which is normal in science.

First it was said that a link between clouds and solar activity could not be correct, because no physical mechanism was known. But in 2006, after many years of work, we completed experiments at DTU Space that demonstrated the existence of a physical mechanism. The cosmic rays help to form aerosols, which are the seeds for cloud formation.

Then came the criticism that the mechanism we found in the laboratory could not work in the real atmosphere, and therefore had no practical significance. We have just rejected that criticism emphatically.

It turns out that the Sun itself performs what might be called natural experiments. Giant solar eruptions can cause the cosmic ray intensity on earth to dive suddenly over a few days. In the days following an eruption, cloud cover can fall by about 4 per cent. And the amount of liquid water in cloud droplets is reduced by almost 7 per cent. Here is a very large effect – indeed so great that in popular terms the Earth’s clouds originate in space.

So we have watched the Sun’s magnetic activity with increasing concern, since it began to wane in the mid-1990s.

That the Sun might now fall asleep in a deep minimum was suggested by solar scientists at a meeting in Kiruna in Sweden two years ago. So when Nigel Calder and I updated our book The Chilling Stars, we wrote a little provocatively that “we are advising our friends to enjoy global warming while it lasts.”

In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. Mojib Latif from the University of Kiel argued at the recent UN World Climate Conference in Geneva that the cooling may continue through the next 10 to 20 years. His explanation was a natural change in the North Atlantic circulation, not in solar activity. But no matter how you interpret them, natural variations in climate are making a comeback.

The outcome may be that the Sun itself will demonstrate its importance for climate and so challenge the theories of global warming. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable. A forecast saying it may be either warmer or colder for 50 years is not very useful, and science is not yet able to predict solar activity.

So in many ways we stand at a crossroads. The near future will be extremely interesting. I think it is important to accept that Nature pays no heed to what we humans think about it. Will the greenhouse theory survive a significant cooling of the Earth? Not in its current dominant form. Unfortunately, tomorrow’s climate challenges will be quite different from the greenhouse theory’s predictions. Perhaps it will become fashionable again to investigate the Sun’s impact on our climate.

-

Professor Henrik Svensmark is director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at DTU Space. His book The Chilling Stars has also been published in Danish as Klima og Kosmos Gads Forlag, DK ISBN 9788712043508)


Sponsored IT training links:
Interested in CISA certification? We offer complete collection of dumps questions to successfully pass NS0-163 and 642-566 exam.


About these ads

638 thoughts on “Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts”

  1. The main shifts in global air temperature trend seem to occur at approximately 25 to 30 years intervals when the oceans change phase. Even on shorter ENSO type interannual time scales we see a rapid and direct response in the air to ocean SST changes.

    There is really not much correlation between observed climate changes and the progression of a single solar cycle which is surprising if the cosmic ray effect is at all significant.

    There really doesn’t seem to be a shortage of particulates in the air in the first place.

    I have difficulty with the Svensmark theory for those reasons but I am supportive of the idea generally. I just think that it is simply one of many modulating factors and not a primary driver.

    I am open to persuasion on this issue and look forward to hearing the comments of others.

  2. I have always believed we need a climate change plan A and a plan B, but all our focus has been in creating only the former. I do subscribe to the notion that the suns activity is the main driver of climate changes, either directly (surface temperatures) or indirectly (through warming of oceans etc)

    I don’t know how previous solar activity (say in the MWP) is reliably calculated. If anyone can point me to a paper describing this, preferably with an accompanying graph that links the year/decade to the increased/decreased activity I would be greatful.

    It would be interesting to overlay this activity over the rise and collapse of civilisations, and other less traumatic but still important events such as periods of relative feast or famine. I am sure this has been done, so again a link would be useful. I seem to remember Lamb did some work on this but I can’t remember in which of his many publications. The IPcc’s references are rather vague in this respect.

    tonyb

  3. Please get it professionally translated. I think I just had a freshman flashback.

    REPLY:
    If somebody has a source (and funds) to do this I welcome any better translations than Google. For now this will have to do. – A

  4. “This means that projections of future climate is unpredictable. A forecast [that] says it may be warmer or colder for 50 years, is not very useful, for science is not able to predict solar activity.”

    ‘Astrological Numerologists’ will have to try to help science out then. :-)

    “But no matter how it is interpreted, the natural variations in climate then penetrates more and more.”

    Go Henrik!

  5. In Japan the Democratic Party won a landslide victory at the general election on 30 August, and the to-be-prime-minister Yukio Hatoyama announced at a recent press conference that he wanted to aim at 25% curbing of CO2 emission by 2020 with respect to the level in 1990. This is quite embarassing to me, but I do now hope he just “wanted to aim” and not “promised to aim”, “by 2020″ ant not during his prime ministership, and “if all the major emitting nations agree” (his words) which appears to be improbable for the moment……….

  6. I know that the sun hours per day are measured since a long time. They have this glass balls (like the fortune teller…) and behind there is a stripe of paper. When the sun shines, the light burns a hole into the stripe of paper. I saw it in the 70ies the first time but it might exists already a long time ago.

    It would be interesting to see a graph with the daily sunshine hour together with the activity of the sun.

  7. A very mysterious mechanism indeed. And still not supported by any observation. Moreover, how is it the sun is “fading” since the 90ies and all we got is a warming? Even 20 years later? 2009 is not going to be a cold year, far from that. August and July were globally pretty hot and September seems to be setting a new record

    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/amsutemps.html

    check Channel 5

    REPLY: “And still not supported by any observation.”

    Baloney “Flanagan”.

    Svensmark cites Forbush decrease events in the op-ed piece and the results. Here’s an essay on it:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/04/a-link-between-the-sun-cosmic-rays-aerosols-and-liquid-water-clouds-appears-to-exist-on-a-global-scale/

    and here

    http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/07/20/decreases-in-cosmic-rays-affect-athmosph

    Why would you purposely misrepresent what Svensmark cites when an observation exists and was cited in the op-ed piece? There are times when I think maybe it is better that you take your opinions elsewhere, this is one of them.

    Take a time out.

    -A

  8. svensmark:
    One can wonder that the international climate panel IPCC does not believe that the sun changed activity has no effect on the climate, but the reason is that they only include changes in solar radiation…

    thats not true!
    ipcc explains the warming up to 1950 with natural forces, inkl. sun aktivities!
    (i m an ipcc skeptic, but we should not try to missinterpretate them…)

  9. If only the climate of earth were so simple that major changes depended just on one factor. Unfortunately this simplistic view is wrong, and our chaotic climate depends on multiple interlinked mechanisms to keep it within the bounds of a few degrees of temperature variability we usually see.

    The Svensmark theory may well be correct, but like CO2 caused AGW, I’m sure it will not turn out to be the sole mechanism. However, with Copenhagen around trhe corner, it’s good to see some publicity which shows the CO2 theory is very weak and perhaps help stop global Cap & Trade being adopted.

  10. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/298/5597/1410


    Changes in the global water cycle can cause major environmental and socioeconomic impacts. As the average global temperature increases, it is generally expected that the air will become drier and that evaporation from terrestrial water bodies will increase. Paradoxically, terrestrial observations over the past 50 years show the reverse. Here, we show that the decrease in evaporation is consistent with what one would expect from the observed large and widespread decreases in sunlight resulting from increasing cloud coverage and aerosol concentration.

    So global dimming is another of the myths then?

  11. What the Warmists forget (whether intentionally or not) is that this flatline of temperature (or even cooling) was not predicted by models. How could they predict it, because the models cannot be fed chaotics? Because of that, it shows that ANY future prediction, whether warming or cooling, is ridiculous. And I count-in this prediction of cooling. We CANNOT do that! Why has Svensmark not picked up anything from silly predictions of the Earth frying? We don’t know what the future climate will be, so what we SHOULD be doing is putting money into adaptation of whatever comes our way. It’s bizarre of some to think that we can warm the planet, but it’s equally bizarre to make predictions that we will be cooler too. A lack of sunspots may bring cooler temps, but maybe some other interaction will raise them – so they’ll be a balance. What it all means is that we don’t know, so why make our we do – either way? The econuts are too stupid to realise this, so let’s not follow their lead. We cannot predict next week’s weather with much certainty, certainly the Met Office here in England cannot get a 3-day forecast accurate over my town (I know because I’ve been monitoring it), so we should stop thinking that the Earth will warm or cool, and save money for whatever is thrown at us. Sooner or later we’re going to have to deal with a sizeable meteorite impact. Perhaps we should worry far more about that – with its effect on weather, climate, the money markets, food distribution, and disease & starvation.

  12. If we are sliding into another LIA then is it possible we’ll see governments paying industry to pump out as much CO2 as it can?

    On the other hand, the UK’s politicians are as dumb as rocks when it comes to science so they’ll keep reducing and sequestering until we all turn to lumps of ice or take a leaf out of Cromwell’s book.

    Here’s a ray of hope from Cardiff University:

    http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2009/09/10/public-losing-faith-in-climate-change-scientists-find-cardiff-researchers-91466-24659733/

    The number polled is really too small to be of any great use and there is one glaring statistic that just doesn’t ring true. It has to be said that the finding of only 5% of those polled feel the media is too alarmist is most probably wrong. Nearly everyone I know thinks media alarmism is not only way over the top, it’s also patronising and stupid.

  13. Will they force Prof. Svensmark to leave Copenhagen at “Copenhagen” ?

    He could meet Mitchell Taylor and Ian Plimer in Copenhagen (Louisiana) at that time.

  14. Flanagan – ever heard of thermal inertia? That could well explain continued warming in the face of a fading sun. I’m not sure whether the numbers would add up, however.

  15. “Barry Foster (01:03:31) :

    What the Warmists forget (whether intentionally or not) is that this flatline of temperature (or even cooling) was not predicted by models. ”

    Curious, this is not what I have been told, I have always understood that natural variability can cause temporary decreases in temperature. I guess we have different sources. Perhaps you could produce a quote that states what you have said this clearly?

  16. @Barry Foster (01:03:31) :

    you are right.
    but we are not able to stop climate simulations, this process has just started. off course we have many problems with that, because so many thinks are not predictable, sun, pdo, nao indizes etc. for the ozean circulations eg. we should have a better look at the arctic region. like 2007, there was a real minimum in sea icecover, but is there only more absorbtion in solar radiance? what about the heat content of an ice free part of the ozean and one sea ice covered for the month september (sun angle very low, high reflection by ozean water, almost the same as old ice and high energie flux from the ozean to the atmosphere, much “deeper” as with an ice hat).
    chances in deep water circulation will be affected by such processes, eg….

  17. dorlomin (01:13:20) :

    “Barry Foster (01:03:31) :

    What the Warmists forget (whether intentionally or not) is that this flatline of temperature (or even cooling) was not predicted by models. ”

    Curious, this is not what I have been told, I have always understood that natural variability can cause temporary decreases in temperature. I guess we have different sources. Perhaps you could produce a quote that states what you have said this clearly?
    ————————————-

    You want him to produce a quote of what he just said? Doesn’t make a lot of sense. Can you produce a model that matches observations? A hypothesis that matches facts? Those are reasonable requests.
    Also the underlying logic of your statement actually matches the statement by B.Foster, ie. that there is an underlying monotic trend of warming through CO2 – your point presumably being that we are just experiencing a “temporary blip” and that normal (warming) service will be resumed at some to be determined date in the future.

  18. Let me give a helping hand here, regarding the Swedes he is refering to the war in 1658. It was so cold that the straight between Copenhagen and Malmoe froze and not only that the ice was so thick that the whole Swedish army with all their equipment marched over to Demnark, this was of course a total surprise for the Danish.

  19. “WUWT & Flanagan: Take a time out.”

    Yes, the big C (Cryosphere) is on everybody’s mind and gets some people in a foul mood. In a few week we will look back and smile, citing Henry Miller (Quiet Days in Clichy): “It was a period when C was in the air.”

  20. “You want him to produce a quote of what he just said? ”

    Sorry there is not editing function here. I would like him to produce a quote that backs up this statement: “What the Warmists forget (whether intentionally or not) is that this flatline of temperature (or even cooling) was not predicted by models.”

  21. Folks,
    all this science is OK, but I’m afraid it’s irrelevant. One can’t defeat a paranoid religion with logic and common sense. Or argument.
    The AGW is ideologically driven and politically executed religion of the green/left alliance. Unfortunately the ignorant public has a mob mentality,
    the loudest megaphone wins.
    Call me pessimist, I can’t see how civilisation (western) can get out of this :(

  22. Graeme Rodaughan (23:47:21) :

    “Refreshing. Now if only the Politicians were paying attention…”

    Well our UK’s (Brown) Prime Minister’s favourite trick when someone disagrees with him, is to turn to the person next to him and start a conversation. I don’t suppose he is atypical, just an extremist.

    If only it were not a forlorn hope.
    ……….

    Other fellow: “Well, Woody Allen once said that 80% of life is just showing up.”

    PM Brown: “And I think the other half is paying attention.”

  23. “Mick (01:46:48) :

    Folks,
    all this science is OK, but I’m afraid it’s irrelevant. One can’t defeat a paranoid religion with logic and common sense. Or argument.
    The AGW is ideologically driven and politically executed religion of the green/left alliance. Unfortunately the ignorant public has a mob mentality,
    the loudest megaphone wins.
    Call me pessimist, I can’t see how civilisation (western) can get out of this :(”

    I can. It’s called war.

  24. “UK Sceptic (01:05:16) :

    If we are sliding into another LIA then is it possible we’ll see governments paying industry to pump out as much CO2 as it can?”

    CO2 levels are already higher than the worst case scenario that the ensemble of models put forth. There is no need to add extra CO2. It obviously has little effect.

    John M Reynolds

  25. Mick (01:46:48) :

    “Folks,
    all this science is OK, but I’m afraid it’s irrelevant. One can’t defeat a paranoid religion with logic and common sense. Or argument.
    The AGW is ideologically driven and politically executed religion of the green/left alliance. Unfortunately the ignorant public has a mob mentality,
    the loudest megaphone wins.”

    But not forever. The ignorant public have a lot of common sense, and, although it takes a long time, they see through the sham (or scam). They do so much more now here in the UK. As Dick Lindzen said: “Ordinary people see through this, but the educated people are very vulnerable.” He must be the balancing optimist.

    I have wondered why the greenie’s leaders, mostly the toffs here (not forgetting the US’s imported toffs), are so much in bed with the socialists. It seems a strange alliance. Maybe it comes from the old adage: “my enemy’s enemy is my friend.” The capitalists have given both lots a bloody nose, and fed an increasing population, and given us a prosperous lifestyle, etc.. The future problem may be that if they win as allies, they will have to fight it out between themselves later, and as always to the detriment of the general public.

  26. I’m sorry but, 1st, this op-ed does not cite an evidence – it just states them without any reference whatsoever. Moreover, in every study by Svensmark, including the last ones, the author somewhat “forgets to mention” the absence of trend in solar radiation and other indicators between the 50ies and the 90ies – strangely corresponding to a rapid average warming. This is apparent in the link Anthony gave me to the WUWT post:
    – When a forbush decrease takes place, the water content of some clouds changes by 7% corresponding to a 10%-20% decrease of cosmic ray counts
    – after a few days, the water content comes back to normal levels

    again, there’s no proof that cosmic rays substantially influence the composition of clouds over long periods of times, especially as compared to other parameters like the ocean average temperature. If you prefer, this is weather, not climate.

  27. i am 69 years old (a good year) I was born in New Zealand and had my 21st birthday in Antwerp Belgium, (studying petroleum engineering). In 1963 I flew from Europe to NZ, (4 days, now 24 hours). I have worked all my life in the Petroleum Industry, and if a Country has oil I have been there, you never find oil on main street, it’s always in the back of beyond, which gives me a different outlook than 90% of the other people. Weather (not climate) is one of the greatest of our worlds wonders. IT’S LOCAL !

    I was in Stavanger Norway and on the tow of the Shell Brent Delta to the Brent field in the Northern North Sea, Shell spent millions and years on weather research before designing these platforms, as the zone has some of the most treacherous seas in the world. The water gap ( the distance from high tide calm water to the underside of the platform ) was designed for the 100 year wave. In the first winter the 100 year wave hit 84 times.

    In Siberia winds of 152 km an hour and temp. of -47°C arrived with such precision that we used to run a sweep stake.
    ”Lightning never strikes twice”, but the top of the oil derrick in the jungle of Sarawak was hit 8 times in 30 minutes.
    On an ex whaling mother ship converted into a drill ship (48,000 tonnes) off the coast of Indonesia in a tropical storm with 8 anchors out and in a ‘’storm mode” we where dragged 4 miles off location.
    On a jack-up drilling rig on tow from Singapore to Sri Lanka with 2 tugs we went backwards for 24 hours.
    In the desert of Saudi Arabia in 1996 with temp. in the mid 30’s C we went down to 18°C and 10 inches of hail in about half an hour.

    Now we get politicians (failed lawyers) offering mega $ for research to ”prove” that us humans are in charge of the climate, if these 25-39 IQ ”humans” went and experienced the world, (not visiting the local Hilton) and realized how big our planet is and how small the human presence is we would not be trying to get milk from butterflies.

  28. Personally, I would love to see Svensmark be correct and that AGW is not a concern because then we can rest knowing that there is, for the most part, nothing we can do about it.

  29. dorlomin (01:44:14) :

    “You want him to produce a quote of what he just said? ”

    Sorry there is not editing function here. I would like him to produce a quote that backs up this statement: “What the Warmists forget (whether intentionally or not) is that this flatline of temperature (or even cooling) was not predicted by models.”
    ————————————-

    I hate to get in this game as it is your hypothesis the burden of proof is on you. But here’s a graph anyone can google it I think it’s off a pro-AGW site:

    Here’s one off the millions of presentations of the IPCC:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/briefing-bonn-2007-05/causes-projections-climate-changes.pdf

    None of this is cherry-picked I just did a quick google before lunch……….

    I mean, give us something to work with here – the models predict nothing, the science is tenuous at best relying on the infamous feedback process that has demonstrably never occurred. The whole hypothesis seeded on 1 guy’s mis-understanding of Venus’ atmospheric dynamic.

    Now mass-hysteria, greed, laziness and massive incompetence – those are things that we *know* occur.

  30. I can’t quite see why the Svensmark cloud theory is so controversial.

    All the early subatomic particle observations were done with cloud chambers, so we know cosmic rays can seed clouds. We know that clouds increase albedo and thus have a cooling effect. Just because the correlations with climate aren’t bulletproof doesn’t mean they aren’t there, and doesn’t mean they don’t make a contribution to cooling and warming.

    Take a look at public enemy #1. The CO2 chart climb is as steady as you get, but the global temperature it’s supposed to be driving seem pretty oblivious to it. Even the usually reliable sea level rise has flattened while CO2 just keeps on going up. About the only things keeping pace with CO2 are the GISS adjustments.

  31. paulhan (02:27:36) :

    Anything by Gavin Schmidt
    ——————————-
    So the sun gets reflected out. These aerosols acted as a kind of sunshade over the planet that caused the planet to cool. Our group (though this is before my time), before this cooling happened, did the calculations with their model, and predicted that the cooling would reach a maximum of about half a degree in about two years time. Lo and behold, such a thing happened.

    http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/schmidt09/schmidt09_index.html

    Sorry I interupted a rant there didnt I. Back to normal programming, a few invectives about socialism, religion, Gore, Mann….. you all know the drill.

  32. I don’t quite understand why Professor Svensmark says it looks like the Sun is going into a Grand Minimum like in the Little Ice Age. Since the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age lasted around 500 years each, isn’t it reasonable to expect the present warm period to last 500 years as well? I expect there were minor variations in temperature during these periods similar to what we’ve seen in the last hundred years, so wouldn’t the most likely explanation of the current temperature drop be that we’ve entered a thirty-year period like the fifties and sixties followed by a return to the temperatures of the nineties and so on? Or have I missed something?

  33. dorlomin (01:13:20) :
    I have always understood that natural variability can cause temporary decreases in temperature.

    Is there a reference that defines “temporary” ?

    I think there should be one. The future is full of possibilities, so predictions are inherently vague. If the prediction didn’t come true today, maybe it will come true tomorrow, or the day after, and so on. So anybody making a prediction can always defend their prediction on the basis that just because it hasn’t happened yet, doesn’t mean it isn’t going to happen. (And whilst this is reasonable, perhaps it is not useful.)

    At some point though, we begin to wonder that the predicted outcome isn’t going to happen inside a timeframe that matters. Global warming might be “temporarily” masked by “natural variability” for 10 or 20 years. Well, what if in 20 years we discover that it continues to be “masked” for another 20 years… we’re now talking about a timeframe so far into the future that we’re trying to plan for a world that we simply don’t understand because so many other things could have changed in the meantime.

    People focus so much on the climate–what will biotech be like in 20 years? Are we using specially designed bacteria to do everything from clean our clothes to clean up radiation and produce energy?

    Who can say? What relevance do our mitigation actions have now to a world so different? See, someone needs to define what “temporary” means in these climate debates, what “temporary” means for practical purposes.

  34. Svensmark: When the Sun is active its magnetic field shields better against the cosmic rays from outer space before they reach our planet [...] As the sun’s magnetism has doubled its strength during the 20th century
    (1) The cosmic ray intensity has shown no trend since accurate measurements began in the early 1950s
    (2) The Sun’s magnetic field has not doubled in the last 100 years. It is now precisely where it was 108 years ago.

  35. (small correction)

    Svensmark is quite correct. Summer (June, July, August) 2009 was globally colder than summer 1998 (though warmer than all others).
    September is currently trying for the record. Warmest, of course.

  36. Just recovered from passing out whilst reading the following on the BBC:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8249668.stm

    Including: “Twice as many people now agree that “claims that human activities are changing the climate are exaggerated”.

    Four in 10 believe that many leading experts still question the evidence. One in five are “hard-line sceptics”.

    And: Half of the people surveyed believed the media was too alarmist.

    Now it’s that last paragraph I particularly like – MSM really, really doesn’t like the thought of losing its audience…

    Cheers

    Mark.

  37. The proof of the pudding is, of course, that cloudiness has decreased during periods of warming and increased during the last 8 years of moderate cooling, but that is the one climate metric that has not been measured with any degree of accuracy. Unfortunately, there is not even the slightest indication that there is a correlation between cloudiness and global temperatures, as far as I am aware of. Even a correlation between global temperatures (let alone cloudiness) and solar activity has always been refuted by Leif.

  38. Stephen Wilde (23:48:17) :
    There is really not much correlation between observed climate changes and the progression of a single solar cycle which is surprising if the cosmic ray effect is at all significant.

    It is NOT correlated, it is associated. There is no 1 on 1. What Henrik is describing is the cosmic food chain. It starts, for our purposes, at the galactic level, proceeds then to the Solar System level, and then to the Terrestrial level.
    When the Sun goes quiet, we here on Earth experience more of the effects of Galactic influence, which is never quite totally overriden by the Sun. The patch cord does not end at the Sun.
    The IPCC’s man-centered universe is as backwards as the Dark Ages, feeding on ignorance and fear of the place we live.
    Someday, we will be able to predict both the climate and the solar cycles, but not if the IPCC manages to control science first.
    As for the top of the food chain, we are still at it discovering the makdeup, diversity and structure of the Galaxy our solar system careens through.

  39. As it became common knowledge that AGW would cause increased wildfires, mudslides and risk of earthquake, I moved from California to New Orleans.

    After Katrina it had become obvious that AGW had caused stronger and more frequent hurricanes, so I moved again, to Maine.

    But not long after that, when we learned that the seas would rise 20 feet I moved to inland Texas, on a hill.

    And as it became apparent that millions would soon die from the heat, I relocated to Nome, and just in time too.

    And now I suppose you think I should move to Ecuador ahead of the glaciers formed by the coming “Not so Little” ice age. Well I’m here to tell ya buddy, I’m sticking with the IPCC, and my igloo, and to hell with all your scientific data – I’m going with the models, they’ve saved me many times before.

  40. Leif Svalgaard (04:01:53) :

    (1) The cosmic ray intensity has shown no trend since accurate measurements began in the early 1950s

    Put your hand over the left side of that graph and cover up everything prior to 1990 and look again. Ask yourself a question: Where have you seen that slope recently?

  41. Leif’s summary graph has taken a subtle turn over the past months that I find interesting. The dashed lines (which represent some ‘average’ function) for the F10.7 and Sunspot curves were giving a reasonable indication that a minimum was likely reached in both measures.
    Lately, though, the average for the F10.7 data has recurved to the downside while the sunspot ‘average’ has also lost it’s minimum and has flat-lined.

    I am not implying anything really except that what has been a very quiet sun seems to have become even more quiescent the past few months. This truly is a fantastic opportunity to study the sun with the finest instruments ever available, at such a minimum level of activity. At any other, more ‘normal’ solar activity level, the opportunity to compare the relationship to climate and sun would be made that much more difficult.

    Apologies to Leif if anything I presumed is overstating…

    J2

  42. “On June 3, 1999, the European Space Agency announced that the Sun’s magnetic field is getting progressively stronger. Thanks to the unprecedented overview of solar magnetism provided by the ESA-NASA spacecraft Ulysses, a team at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory near Oxford has been able to work out the recent history of the Sun’s magnetic behavior. According to calculations by British scientists, the strength of the Sun’s magnetic field has doubled during the Twentieth Century alone. This finding may help to clarify the Sun’s contribution to climate change on Earth. The hydrogen → helium fusion model does not explain this phenomenon.”

    http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090909polarity.htm

  43. Leif Svalgaard (04:01:53) :

    Svensmark: When the Sun is active its magnetic field shields better against the cosmic rays from outer space before they reach our planet [...] As the sun’s magnetism has doubled its strength during the 20th century
    (1) The cosmic ray intensity has shown no trend since accurate measurements began in the early 1950s
    (2) The Sun’s magnetic field has not doubled in the last 100 years. It is now precisely where it was 108 years ago.

    If only WUWT could get Henrik Svensmark to discuss this here with Dr Svalgaard. It would be so interesting.

  44. The latest addition to my repertoire of quotes:

    “..I think it is important to recognize that nature is completely independent of what we humans think about it.”.
    — Professor Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at DTU Space.

  45. It’s always refreshing when things make sense. The whole concept that changes in the sun might not affect the earth temp is extraordinarily hard to accept. The cool thing is we get to see for ourselves what happens next.

  46. dorlomin (01:44:14) :,

    The onus is on you to produce a model prediction that disproves his claim that no model predicted the flatlining of temperatures.

    Producing a quote means nothing.

    Otherwise, there are 2 issues here.

    1. Have the models predicted temperatures over the last 10 years?

    Clearly the models haven’t been remotely close to an accurate prediction of the last 10 years temperatures.

    2. Have temperatures over the last 10 years disproved in a scientific sense the climate model predictions?

    Lucia at the Blackboard concludes that they have, but you should read her blog to see exactly what she says.

  47. I have no way of knowing whether Dr. Svensmark is correct about cosmic rays and clouds but he is definitely not correct about poor harvests causing a 30% decline in Europe’s population during the Little Ice Age. That phenomenon was caused by something called the Black Death, a bubonic plague spread by flea carrying rats that started in China, spread across Asia and reached Constantinople about 1346. By 1347 it had hopped a ship to Genoa and by 1351 nearly half the population of Europe was dead. European population did not reach it’s pre-plague level until just about 1500, at which point it was about just slightly larger than the population of Europe at the height of the Roman Empire.

  48. Nick Yates (04:45:09) :

    Hmmmm…. Svalgaard, Archibald and Svensmark…. a three way conversation I’d pay to watch…. I’d pray real hard for the brains to be able to follow them….

  49. I get tired of people saying that since solar activity “peaked” in the 1990’s and yet temperatures peaked later than that then solar activity can’t be a major factor on influencing the climate. First, as many here have said, no one is saying that solar activity is the ONLY driver of climate – only that its effect has been understated (and as a result the guesstimate of CO2 effect has been overstated). Other key factors that must be considered in trying in interpret temperature changes over the last 30 years include changes to oceanic temperature phases (PDO, AMO) and the major volcanic events such as El Chichon and Pinatubo. The other key thing to keep in mind is that climatic reaction to solar activity is not instantaneous due to the thermal inertia of the oceans. What is interesting is that if you look at cosmic ray activity from a cumulative perspective factoring in intensity changes and DURATION of these changes, it is clear that there is a strong correlation between the direction of global temperature change and solar activity (as inversely related to cosmic ray activity). The following plot shows the cumulative differential between the point-in-time cosmic ray activity at Oulu and the average over the displayed time period.

    What is clear from this plot is that an in increase in temperature from 1960’s to the 2000’s is very evidently correlated with the cumulative inverse of cosmic ray activity, noting the temperate peak that we might have otherwise seen in the early 1990’s was wiped out by the Pinatubo event. Given that, one would expect that temperatures (other than the 1998 super El Nino) would have peaked in the 2000’s (which they have done) and would now be dropping off (which they are doing). Once the current El Nino fades, expect temperatures to continue their drop!

  50. Nick Yates (04:45:09) :

    If only WUWT could get Henrik Svensmark to discuss this here with Dr Svalgaard. It would be so interesting.

    I could not agree more.

  51. rbateman (04:25:47) :

    “The IPCC’s man-centered universe is as backwards as the Dark Ages”

    Quote of the decade!

  52. Mark Fawcett (04:22:26) :
    And: Half of the people surveyed believed the media was too alarmist.
    Half of the American public believes the Earth and the Universe is only 6000 years old.

    Stephen Wilde (23:48:17) :
    When the Sun goes quiet, we here on Earth experience more of the effects of Galactic influence, which is never quite totally overriden by the Sun.
    The solar modulation is only a few percent, and the Galactic influence does not vary on a time scale of centuries or faster.

    rbateman (04:35:31) :
    Put your hand over the left side of that graph and cover up everything prior to 1990 and look again. Ask yourself a question: Where have you seen that slope recently?

    http://www.puk.ac.za/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/nmd_e.html

    Don’t want to cherry pick data. Look at what we’ve got [and remember that you have to look at many stations as there are small variations from station to station - for many reasona, one being that it is just hard to maintain a constant calibration over decades]

    Jim, too. (04:37:00) :
    Leif’s summary graph has taken a subtle turn over the past months that I find interesting.
    There were some activity back in May and June. That jacks up F10.7 and it takes 3 to 4 months for that to die away, which it seems to have done by now. Hence the seeming downturn.

    Børge Svanstrøm Amundsen (04:42:33) :
    According to calculations by British scientists, the strength of the Sun’s magnetic field has doubled during the Twentieth Century alone.
    Those same scientists now know that the doubling didn’t happen.

    Nick Yates (04:45:09) :
    If only WUWT could get Henrik Svensmark to discuss this here with Dr Svalgaard. It would be so interesting.
    He won’t, as Al Gore won’t either.

    Jeff Id (05:01:28) :
    It’s always refreshing when things make sense
    Evolution has shaped us so, that we are very good at accepting false positives: it is better [falsely] to think that those shadows in the bushes are a tiger, than to just dismiss them as ‘fluff’.

  53. I.ve slowly become a convinced denier of AGW. I think Flanagan must definitely be allowed to stay on… he’s our best argument

  54. Mick (01:46:48) :
    I have wondered why the greenie’s leaders, mostly the toffs here (not forgetting the US’s imported toffs), are so much in bed with the socialists. It seems a strange alliance.

    There’s a general polarity opposites, between the group and the individual. When thinking about problems, people can be biased against one or the other. Some people believe poverty is the result of an unfair system, so they want to reform the group’s institutions, to make the world more fair. Sometimes people believe poverty is the result of the individual’s lack of character and fortitude, lack of ambition, lack of ethics, and so they want to change the group’s institutions to become more about rewards for success and punishment for failure.

    Where the greens are allied with the socialists is in their common belief that the system is bad, the system is unfair, the system is allowing greedy individuals to harm the environment, and exploit fellow man. So they are in favor of tighter regulation, and they are in favor of strong governments that will keep greedy reckless businesses in check. And because those businesses are selling products to consumers, and those consumers for the most part don’t seem willing to abandon buying cars and eating meat, then even the principle of democracy is becoming suspect, and places like China start looking more attractive to greens, because China has the authority to make the people follow its directives.

    What the greens fail to notice however, is that authoritarian “social order” can serve any number of priorities. It can serve empire building, it can serve warmongering, it can serve any group goal, really. There is nothing inherently green about being authoritarian. And groups can also organise in far more interesting ways than simply becoming authoritarian top-down power structures.

    I think the greens that follow the authoritarian model are in for a nasty shock.

  55. Robert (04:32:09) :

    “As it became common knowledge that AGW would cause increased wildfires, mudslides and risk of earthquake, I moved from California to New Orleans.

    After Katrina it had become obvious that AGW had caused stronger and more frequent hurricanes, so I moved again, to Maine.

    But not long after that, when we learned that the seas would rise 20 feet I moved to inland Texas, on a hill.

    And as it became apparent that millions would soon die from the heat, I relocated to Nome, and just in time too.

    And now I suppose you think I should move to Ecuador ahead of the glaciers formed by the coming “Not so Little” ice age. Well I’m here to tell ya buddy, I’m sticking with the IPCC, and my igloo, and to hell with all your scientific data – I’m going with the models, they’ve saved me many times before”.

    Very funny Robert.

    I am sure you will die from “natural causes”.

  56. @ Scott Mandia

    I looked at your website. It starts with a “wisdom”:

    “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true”

    Aha, predictions. They are difficult, especially when they are about the future. Now let’s look who is spreading wisdom like this:

    “Nobel Laureate Sherwood Rowland (referring then to ozone depletion)”

    And what happend concerning all the ozone predicitions? Did you check it? Do you know that the Ozon hole is still here, and as big as always, instead the FCKW concentrations in Antarctica decreased?
    What about all the people who should be fried because of the naughty hole in the sky? All the billions with skin cancer?

    If people had checked the story with the Ozone hole, the climate-change story would never have happend.

  57. Fred Lightfoot (02:44:03) : Wisdom 100% pure:

    Now we get politicians (failed lawyers) offering mega $ for research to ”prove” that us humans are in charge of the climate, if these 25-39 IQ ”humans” went and experienced the world, (not visiting the local Hilton) and realized how big our planet is and how small the human presence is we would not be trying to get milk from butterflies

  58. Well Leif, I made exactly the same comment as you concerning the absence of trend since the 50ies. But only one comment out of two gets published (at least in my case).

  59. Dolormin. Thank you for your reply (and thanks to others who have replied for me), but I don’t think I could put it any better than Philip_B. I have been following climate change in earnest since 2003 – and have read very much on the subject. I have seen many graphs predicting (from a point back) what the coming temperatures would be up to 2000 and beyond. I haven’t seen a single graph (from a model) predicting that we would be at the anomaly right now. If you have then kindly give us all the web address, as I obviously missed it. Climate is COMPLETELY unpredictable – either way, in my opinion based on all that I have read. There are too many checks and balances and things we clearly don’t understand about how the chaotic climate system works. At this stage of our knowledge, to state that we will either warm or cool is preposterous in the extreme. I laugh every time I see a Warmist talk of future climate – and laugh also at those who say we will cool. They’re very brave, or stupid. You decide.

    PS Sorry if I cannot reply quicker, but I don’t have access to my PC in my work.

  60. rbateman (04:25:47) :

    Stephen Wilde (23:48:17) :
    There is really not much correlation between observed climate changes and the progression of a single solar cycle which is surprising if the cosmic ray effect is at all significant.

    “The IPCC’s man-centered universe is as backwards as the Dark Ages, feeding on ignorance and fear of the place we live.
    Someday, we will be able to predict both the climate and the solar cycles, but not if the IPCC manages to control science first”.

    rbateman,
    How right you are.

    The populations of the West are brainwashed by their Governments.
    People are told that we have to return to other, less ambitious and material values, eat less meat, show more respect for Government and Government Officials.
    In the mean time our politicians state we have to invest more money in education.
    That’s what they say, but they don’t.
    Germany spend 7 billion Euro’s in a cash for clunkers project but has no budget
    for education.

    Billions have been invested in spin and manipulation.
    Bilions more are spend to lure the corrupt leaders of the Third World countries into a the Cimate Change Scam and stop the development of their populations for decades to come and deprive them from cheap food and energy.
    The skeptic opposition is infiltrated by people who take the lead in the discussions but support the insane Carbon Taxation.

    This is a frontal attack on human civilization.

    Fortunately most people in the West are fed up with Government Meddling and spending. Even if people lack the knowledge or even the interest for the Climate debate, they don’t want to lose their freedom.

    If this hoax is stopped however, it has to be stopped in the USA.

    If the USA rejects the Climate Bill, we have bought more time and time is our side.

  61. Fred Lightfoot (02:44:03) :
    Fred , The weather on my Missouri farm is tame compared to what you have seen! But I agree with you the AGW people seem to experience weather from the evening news. After years of listening to weather forcasts I greatly appreciate the improved accuracy we have today. If the weather forcast says it will be dry for three days if can cut hay and get it baled without it getting wet half the time. It used to be any forecast past 24 hours was usless. My point is this 3 day forecasts are barely accurate enought to use as aplanning tool, a weekly or 14 day forecast is a poor guide , but a 3 month forecast is judged aganst history. Anything longer is wishfull thinking.

  62. @Wattsupwiththat, you have a “fan-website”, did you know that?
    There is a guy who is whining about most articles here and calls this “blog” the funny name “open mind”

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/

    I can see absolutely no sign of “open mind” in this website

  63. Stephen Wilde (23:48:17) :

    The main shifts in global air temperature trend seem to occur at approximately 25 to 30 years intervals when the oceans change phase. Even on shorter ENSO type interannual time scales we see a rapid and direct response in the air to ocean SST changes.

    There is really not much correlation between observed climate changes and the progression of a single solar cycle which is surprising if the cosmic ray effect is at all significant.

    I wouldn’t expect to see a correlation between a single solar cycle an climate changes, but then if one looks at the oceans as a large resistor/capacitor pair and the atmosphere as a small resistor/capacitor pair, a better correlation may be possible. Let me explain, since the ocean has an enormous capacity to store energy, it cannot change very quickly, hence little correlation would be observed. A single solar cycle is simply too short a time span. The oceans serve as a low-pass filter, absorbing higher frequency events. Because of the limited surface area of the ocean (compared to its volume) it would release energy at a limited rate (the resistor). Hurricanes and tropical storms are essentially a short to the upper atmosphere, hence a higher energy release. The atmosphere has only a small capacity (small capacitor) compared to the ocean (large capacitor) and will respond to changes more quickly (high-pass filter). This would be the daily weather. How galactic cosmic rays (GCM) affect the formation of clouds, and the newly discovered interaction between the solar wind and the magnetosphere affect the weather and climate is yet to be seen.

    The analogy presented above is undoubtedly overly simple, and new research is adding to our knowledge every day, but it could be modeled, probably with better accuracy than the current global climate models than the IPCC uses.

  64. Leif Svalgaard (04:01:53) :

    (2) The Sun’s magnetic field has not doubled in the last 100 years. It is now precisely where it was 108 years ago.

    This is way outside my area of expertise (if indeed I even have one) but thought this might be what Dr. Svensmark was referring too? AOMF is average open magnetic field.

    “We can see that both models exhibit increase of AOMF approximately by a factor of two in the first half of 20th century, confirming thereby the known results (see, e.g., Lockwood et al. 1999).”

    Source: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.cambridge.org%2Fproduction%2Faction%2FcjoGetFulltext%3Ffulltextid%3D288617&ei=k0mqSoynDKD8tgeywMCiCA&usg=AFQjCNHAYfOF_moOWZdQUcOI24uvwuRRgQ

  65. mark twain (00:37:15): ” . . . ipcc explains the warming up to 1950 with natural forces, inkl. sun aktivities!”

    Could you supply a reference that supports your statement?

  66. Leif Svalgaard (04:01:53) : The Sun’s magnetic field has not doubled in the last 100 years. It is now precisely where it was 108 years ago.

    Yes. However, the accumulated or integrated effect of the Sun’s magnetic field shows an increasing trend the last 100 years, and I would argue that this matters more than the instant value. If you take your HMF B data (http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-1835-now.xls) and calculates this function,

    T_est = 0.007640*cumsum(HMF_B-5.7848)-0.4470;

    you will see what I mean. The implication is that values of HMF B lower than 5.7848 reduce global temperature while values of HMF B greater than 5.7848 increase global temperature. The reason for the increase is that shorter cycles tend to contribute more since they usually have shorter intermediate periods where HMF_B is below 5.7848. Now, I do not take this speculative toy model literally. My main point is that any integral of solar activity (HMF B, TSI, …) may lead to the conclusion that the global temperature could increase more with solar cycle 22 and 23 than other cycles and decrease with solar cycle 14 and 15. I am not saying that Svensmark is correct, what I am saying is that we cannot say that he is wrong – he may be close.

  67. “Ron de Haan (06:01:30) :

    Fortunately most people in the West are fed up with Government Meddling and spending. Even if people lack the knowledge or even the interest for the Climate debate, they don’t want to lose their freedom.”

    If that were true why do these “meddling and spending Govn’ts”, it appears, continually get re-elected? UK New Labour, been there 10 years now. I expect that will change simply because Bliar gave up and Brown, unelected, took over. Australian’s voted for KRudd747 because of the involvement in the Irag/Afgahnistan wars, lead by Bush, supported by Howard (and Bliar). Unfortunately, in Australia, too many people “support” AGW. That’s the second biggest reason why KRudd747 won.

  68. An article by frethack on the Naked Scientists website says that there is a correlation between ITCZ (Inter Tropical Convergence Zone) and solar activity in its effects on the Gulf Stream. It is not work that the IPCC has taken account of. Unfortunately the accompanying figures are not visible on my computer.

  69. dorlomin (01:44:14) :

    “You want him to produce a quote of what he just said? ”

    Sorry there is not editing function here. I would like him to produce a quote that backs up this statement: “What the Warmists forget (whether intentionally or not) is that this flatline of temperature (or even cooling) was not predicted by models.”
    —————

    Dorlomin, I don’t think you understand this statement. You should not ignore the subject and verb of the main clause. You are demanding that someone corroborate his statement that “Warmists forget…” . In light of our awareness of what models predict, your quote from Gavin demonstrates that warmists forget.

  70. Robert (04:32:09) :

    “I relocated to Nome, and just in time too”

    Uhhhh, I hate to tell you this, but…..

    Those gold strikes that were found in the hills north of Nome? That’s the old beach line. Placer deposits formed from gold washed out of the hills. When the gold got washed down to the beach line, wave action caused the gold to settle to the bed rock.

    So, you may want to move above the locations of those old gold strikes ’cause that’s where global warming will put sea level. As I recall, they were some 200 feet above the present site of Nome.

    But then, there are also some ancient beach lines about the same distance UNDER the water there. That’s where global cooling will put the beach line.

    You pays your money, you takes your choice.

    (I spent a summer anchored off of Nome working for the Marine Minerals Technology Center expedition to find sea floor placer deposits back in ’67.)

    Regards,

    Steamboat Jack

  71. “Flanagan (00:36:42) :

    A very mysterious mechanism indeed. And still not supported by any observation. Moreover, how is it the sun is “fading” since the 90ies and all we got is a warming? Even 20 years later? 2009 is not going to be a cold year, far from that. August and July were globally pretty hot and September seems to be setting a new record

    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/amsutemps.html

    check Channel 5″

    I look forward to reading Flanagan’s nonsense!

    I wish he commented every day; good laugh of the day!

    Enough said by me!

  72. @Fred Lightfoot: A great read, Fred. Your oilfield life was more adventurous than my military one. I don’t know if you realize that your account of the various situations you encountered is way too specific with regards to temperatures, wind speeds, wave heights, hail depths and lightning strikes.

    You see, Fred, everything in climate research is postulated from proxies for actual events. In this way it is possible to model the temperature of an area with a 1600K radius with a single temperature reading and forecast the temperature 100 years hence to an accuracy of one one-hundredth of a degree C. Your reports of actual events, should the dates become known, would destroy no end of GCMs in which taxpayers are heavily invested.;-)

    You’re a breath of fresh air, sir.

  73. Barry Foster (05:59:33) :

    Dolormin. Thank you for your reply (and thanks to others who have replied for me), but I don’t think I could put it any better than Philip_B. I have been following climate change in earnest since 2003 – and have read very much on the subject. I have seen many graphs predicting (from a point back) what the coming temperatures would be up to 2000 and beyond. I haven’t seen a single graph (from a model) predicting that we would be at the anomaly right now.
    —————————————————–

    Graphs?

    None of the graphs I have seen have shown what will happen, they have only produced estimates of what might happen within a range of confidence. If and when they break out of the range of variability of the graph, then they will have a problem. Not showing the idiocyncratic movements dont tell us anything.

    Models aside, back to basics. The earth is warmer than it should be due to its atmospehre, a phenominem known as the greenhouse effect.
    CO2 is a well understood greenhouse gas.
    CO2 has been building in the atmosphere as the sinks have been exceeded by the output of human activities.
    All things being equal this should be a positive forcing on the temperature.

    The range of that forcing is where the debate is. Not over modelers personalities, not over politicians, not over how people are using the science for for….. its the climate sensitivity to CO2.

    Real skepticism is being conservative about the climate sensitivity and being conservative about every new proposed forcing.

    Skepticism is so easy and natural for a scientist. Jumping on board the Svennsmark train with both feet is not skepticism……

  74. ” Not showing the idiocyncratic movements dont tell us anything. ”
    should have read “That they are not showing the idiocyncratic movements of the climate does not tell us anything. “

  75. Ron de Haan (06:01:30) :
    If this hoax is stopped however, it has to be stopped in the USA
    …waiting cavalry…but if it doesn’t appears, then what?
    What about Russia and China?, do their scientists/politicians believe in this global warming/climate change creed?
    In general we could say that it comes from those who we pay to work for us, so in the whole world it should be forbidden, for any elected official, to change establishment unless specifically authorized by us, their employers.
    Because only they, because of not having to struggle for daily living, have the time and leisure enough to concoct petty theories and pretend god’s part playing.

  76. Leif Svalgaard:

    “According to calculations by British scientists, the strength of the Sun’s magnetic field has doubled during the Twentieth Century alone.”

    Those same scientists now know that the doubling didn’t happen.

    Quite right Leif. They now estimate that it was a 79% increase rather than a 100% increase.

  77. Philip 05:04
    Be careful about how you represent Lucia’s work. It does not invalidate GCM predictions yet. It will take another 10-15 years of data to do that and the temperatures we are now experiencing could very well be a pause before further increases.

    It’s clear that our understanding of all that effects our climate is small and still growing. Don’t be ignorant to the fact that man has changed and continues to change the face of the earth and continues to pump CO2 into the air and pollute the water. You may want to read up at this site: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/
    The net effect of man changing the globe is that we are changing climate directly and by what we pump into the air. The changes may not be the catastrophe’s the IPCC predicts but don’t doubt for a minute that they are ocurring.
    Thanks
    William

  78. Scott Mandia (03:24:55) :

    “Personally, I would love to see Svensmark be correct and that AGW is not a concern because then we can rest knowing that there is, for the most part, nothing we can do about it.”

    Scott Mandia,

    You are really incredible.
    You master the art of writing a ton of crap in a single sentence.
    “If AGW is not a concern and we are heading for a new ice age we can rest?”

    If Svensmark is correct, we will have a serious problem feeding the world’s population.
    Cooling, look at our history, is a much bigger threat to humanity than any warming.

    But the biggest threat for all of us right now is the political objective that lies behind
    the AGW/Climate Change Doctrine.

    So, wake up to the facts and start using your brain.

  79. “tallbloke (07:16:12) :

    Leif Svalgaard:

    “According to calculations by British scientists, the strength of the Sun’s magnetic field has doubled during the Twentieth Century alone.”

    Those same scientists now know that the doubling didn’t happen.

    Quite right Leif. They now estimate that it was a 79% increase rather than a 100% increase.”

    And that is still an estimate. Estimates are like “golbal average temperatures”, they are meaningless.

  80. It’s easy to see that man better start looking into where we can grow enough food during the future cooling period and not wasting time on the stupid AGW politics.

    But than again, I think were on the slope towards change that cannot be changed by any man.

  81. The Good News: Global Warming is over.
    The Bad News: Global Warming is over.

    And after one of the coldest winters and coolest summers here in Michigan this past year, global warming is bound to be missed.

  82. Leif Svalgaard (05:20:47) :
    “Nick Yates (04:45:09) :
    If only WUWT could get Henrik Svensmark to discuss this here with Dr Svalgaard. It would be so interesting.”
    He won’t, as Al Gore won’t either.”

    This very, very close to an ad hom. quite uncharacteristically for Leif.

  83. “Indeed, global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth, on the contrary. This means that projections of future climate is unpredictable, writes Henrik Svensmark.”

    So clever. Future climate is unpredictable but Svensmark knows ‘a cooling is beginning’ :)

  84. @ Robert (04:32:09) :
    After Katrina it had become obvious that AGW had caused stronger and more frequent hurricanes, so I moved again, to Maine.

    Atlantic hurricane frequency follows a natural 20 to 30 year cycle. The current “active” cycle began in 1995. According to Vechi, et. al. (2008) warmer sea-surface temperatures have likely contributed to more intense hurricanes and will continue to do so into the future. Of less certainty is whether or not the frequency of hurricanes is being influenced by global warming. More research is needed to test this hypothesis. I would read Dr. Gray’s opinions on this as he is quite the authority on hurricanes.

    Vecchi, G.A., Swanson, K.L., & Soden, B.J. (2008). Whither hurricane activity?. Science. 322, 687-689.

    @ Johnny Honda (05:44:28) :

    I hope that this discussion doesn’t turn into an ozone hole debate. The link to human activities and ozone loss is very well established. After the Montreal Protocol and subsequent revisions, there are certainly fewer CFCs that end up in the stratosphere to destroy ozone. CFCs take decades to centuries to be removed so it is no surprise that there is still a thin ozone. The latest predictions for a recovery are discussed in the link below:

    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/ozone_recovery.html

    This is also the problem with greenhouse gases, esp. CO2. If you believe greenhouse gases are contributing to the modern day global warming (of course I do and most here do not) then even with mitigation the long-term residence of CO2 will still cause warming long after these remedies are in place.

    @ Johnny Honda (06:09:32) :

    I had assumed that Tamino’s Open Mind bloge was well known here. In my opinion, he has the best blog out there when it comes to actually analyzing data. For example, he smashed the article from McLean, de Freitas and Carter that claimed to show how ENSO might be causing the trend in global warming. See:

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/old-news/

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/influence-of-the-southern-oscillation-on-tropospheric-temperature/

    After Tamino’s rebuttal of this journal article, many others showed the same problems with the concluding comments about NSO and trends. The bottom line is this is how science works. Papers get published, experts look at the claims and the data, and either accept it or rebut it. Talk is cheap when it is not supported by data nor discussed in the peer-reviewed literature.

    I would be very careful if you intend to tap Tamino’s bees nest. You will likely be coming to a gun fight armed with a knife.

  85. Dell Hunt, Michigan (07:36:10) :

    “And after one of the coldest winters and coolest summers here in Michigan this past year, global warming is bound to be missed.”

    Michigan warming has held up for half a year, would be the correct assertion.

    Michigan, or even the US, is not the globe.

    As depicted here, http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_HR2SST_1200km_Anom0603_2009_2009_1951_1980/GHCN_GISS_HR2SST_1200km_Anom0603_2009_2009_1951_1980.gif , Holland had a warm summer – the 9th in a row – as had most of the Northern Hemisphere (by contrast, most of the Southern Hemisphere had a mild winter). I’m the wittness for Holland.

  86. *sigh*… Flanagan and his thermageddon…

    Who cares if 2009 is still hotter than 18xy? Temperatures can still be currently decreasing. Think about it, when you get to the top of the hill and go past the peak (in temp example: 1998), you start going down the hill.
    Initially you are STILL near the top, even though you are now cooling (going down); i.e. 2009 is only a mere 11 years down the slope, we are still on top but not going any higher.

    It seems as though the experts got it flat wrong with SC 24.
    The critical latitude of 22 degrees was reached and we got one spot.
    It is absolutely amazing that just 5 years ago sunspot activity was touted as the highest in 1000 years and today it is weak and not a single person knows exactly what’s next.

  87. dorlomin (07:05:19) :
    The earth is warmer than it should be due to its atmospehre, a phenominem known as the greenhouse effect.

    Yep, atmosphere being the key word.
    However, the atmosphere is composed of nitrogen and oxygen mainly, which heat us after being heated by the surface being heated by the sun.
    Temperature on other planets depends on received Sun energy and their atmospheric pressure, not depending what the atmosphere is composed of. Earth is in line with other planets.
    Heat capacity of the atmosphere is misinterpreted as “greenhouse effect”, that is the root problem of all that climatological computer model alchemy.
    Has the water vapor/CO2 itself been responsible for (wrongly calculated) +33K, deserts should be much colder than tropics and Arctic should experience strongest warming as their atmosphere is dry; neither is true.

  88. William: “The net effect of man changing the globe is that we are changing climate directly and by what we pump into the air. The changes may not be the catastrophe’s the IPCC predicts but don’t doubt for a minute that they are ocurring.”

    Yep, mankind has an impact on his environment! Get over it! The question is whether CO2 emissions represent a crisis that must be dealt with at immense cost (and most likely to little effect!)

  89. It must be annoying for Svensmark if their mechanism – which is almost certainly one of the most important insights of climatology in decades – is being largely ignored because of a paranoid politicized cult that prefers the explanations with a big potential to influence politics over the explanations that are supported by the objective evidence.

    Nice article.

  90. “Indeed, [you could say] that the clouds on Earth originated in space.”

    Unusual concept to the average mind I think.

  91. Mike McMillan (03:34:03) : The CO2 chart climb is as steady as you get, but the global temperature it’s supposed to be driving seem pretty oblivious to it….About the only things keeping pace with CO2 are the GISS adjustments.

    Nice way to put it.

  92. Scott A. Mandia (07:39:41) :
    I hope that this discussion doesn’t turn into an ozone hole debate. The link to human activities and ozone loss is very well established. After the Montreal Protocol and subsequent revisions, there are certainly fewer CFCs that end up in the stratosphere to destroy ozone. CFCs take decades to centuries to be removed so it is no surprise that there is still a thin ozone.

    I am not so sure.. the AGW come just in time to cover the ozone scientific blamage:

    http://www.junkscience.com/sep07/Chemists_poke_holes_in_ozone_theory.htm

    http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.html

    This is also the problem with greenhouse gases, esp. CO2. If you believe greenhouse gases are contributing to the modern day global warming (of course I do and most here do not) then even with mitigation the long-term residence of CO2 will still cause warming long after these remedies are in place.

    I see it is a belief. I believe its effect is indistinguishable from natural effects.
    Btw, recent study suggested the “long-time residence” of CO2 is close to 10-15 years.

  93. Blimey the mainstream scientists have moved on to consider natural variation as important but their drones are still endlessly repeating the old excuses.

    Oh sure, Gavin Schmidt hind-cast aerosol cooling with his model. In fact he had guessed a reason for the cooling because the CO2-causes-everything hypothesis couldn’t explain it, then he manipulated the input parameters on the model until they matched the 20th century. A remarkably easy thing to do is hind-casting when you have so many flexible parameters because you know exactly what to aim for. However a hindcast is not a prediction and never will be. Neither does it show any skill. Anyone who suggests a model hind-cast shows skill should get out of the computer modeling business.

    Of course all that was before the discovery of the sea temperature bucket adjustment farce by Jones (some time after McIntyre) which made such a curve-fitting exercise look really silly. And it was also before Swanson explained on realclimate.org that the dip was more than likely from natural variation.

    Mind you, it must be difficult to keep up with all these contradictory handwaves that climate scientists just keep pulling out of their rear end but you should try to keep up to date.

  94. Mark Fawcett (04:22:26) : Just recovered from passing out whilst reading the following on the BBC:

    But they had to have this hackneyed statement in the article, their rallying call :

    The survey, by Cardiff University, shows there is still some way to go before the public’s perception matches that of their elected leaders.

    I wonder if even they are tired of it all.

  95. Patrick Davis (06:23:39) :

    “Ron de Haan (06:01:30) :

    Fortunately most people in the West are fed up with Government Meddling and spending. Even if people lack the knowledge or even the interest for the Climate debate, they don’t want to lose their freedom.”

    If that were true why do these “meddling and spending Govn’ts”, it appears, continually get re-elected? UK New Labour, been there 10 years now. I expect that will change simply because Bliar gave up and Brown, unelected, took over. Australian’s voted for KRudd747 because of the involvement in the Irag/Afgahnistan wars, lead by Bush, supported by Howard (and Bliar). Unfortunately, in Australia, too many people “support” AGW. That’s the second biggest reason why KRudd747 won.

    Patrick,
    I can not speak for the Brits, but the latest EU parliament election has been devastating for the left.
    The upcoming elections in the Netherlands will wipe the current ruling parties of the map.

    Believe me, people are fed up and the genie is out of the bottle.

  96. Nogw (07:13:24) :

    Ron de Haan (06:01:30) :
    “If this hoax is stopped however, it has to be stopped in the USA
    …waiting cavalry…but if it doesn’t appears, then what?”

    In that case I will come to Agentina and we start a smuggling operation importing cheap gasoline from Venezuela.

  97. Flanagan (02:43:48) :
    – When a forbush decrease takes place, the water content of some clouds changes by 7% corresponding to a 10%-20% decrease of cosmic ray counts
    – after a few days, the water content comes back to normal levels

    again, there’s no proof that cosmic rays substantially influence the composition of clouds over long periods of times, especially as compared to other parameters like the ocean average temperature. If you prefer, this is weather, not climate.

    Svensmark has demonstrated a link, you admit the link, but dismiss it as just weather. Isn’t climate a collection of weather?

    Flanagan (05:54:34) :
    Well Leif, I made exactly the same comment as you concerning the absence of trend since the 50ies. But only one comment out of two gets published (at least in my case).

    I’m given to understand that weather is rather complex and hard to predict. How can ANYONE who purports to be reasonably intelligent assume that any single mechanism discussed must be the primary, sole driver of weather & climate, with all other factors fading to insignificance? That would be absolutely idiotic. Svensmark has discussed GCRs as a climate factor, He has not claimed that it’s an overwhelming driver.

    But you know who makes that sort of claim all of the time? The good folks at Real Climate. They attribute everything to CO2, and dismiss any other influence on global climate as minuscule in comparison. Every day of the week and twice on Tuesday. Yet Hansen’s predictions from 30 years ago were way too high, so were the ones from 20 years ago. And the ones 10 years ago? Even worse. Considering the trillions that stopping CO2 production will cost, isn’t it reasonable to ask that some sort of accurate 10-year prediction be demonstrated first? (or whatever time period that would be considered more than “weather”… never can get a definition from an alarmist on that).

  98. Robert (04:32:09) : Well I’m here to tell ya buddy…I’m going with the models, they’ve saved me many times before.

    I went with a few models too, as girlfriends. They didn’t save me from anything. They were good to look at though—for a while. But it was like chocolate ; great at first, but you get sick of it after a while and don’t want it anymore. It just goes to show you how reliable models, climate and/or human, are.

    I’m looking for low maintenance girls now.

  99. “Flanagan (00:36:42) :

    A very mysterious mechanism indeed. And still not supported by any observation. Moreover, how is it the sun is “fading” since the 90ies and all we got is a warming? Even 20 years later? 2009 is not going to be a cold year, far from that. August and July were globally pretty hot and September seems to be setting a new record

    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/amsutemps.html

    check Channel 5″

    Indeed, it’s called an El Nino!

    http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/table.html

    http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/rank.html

  100. oakgeo (00:24:32) :

    “Please get it professionally translated. I think I just had a freshman flashback.”

    My guess is that you mean “edited” rather than translated. The text as displayed needs only a few tweaks to make it grammatically correct. So, here’s one possible edited version; others are welcome to try reediting.
    ———————————–
    While the Sun Sleeps
    Henrik Svensmark, Professor, DTU, Copenhagen

    Global Warming has stopped, and a cooling is beginning. But, no Climate Model has predicted a cooling – quite the contrary. This means that future climate is unpredictable, writes Henrik Svensmark.

    Over the last few years, the Star which keeps us alive has had almost no Sunspots, which are the usual signs of the Sun’s magnetic activity.

    Last week, the team behind Sohosatellitten (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) reported that the number of sunspot-free days suggests that solar activity is heading toward its lowest level in about 100 years. Everything indicates that the Sun is moving into a hibernation-like state, and the obvious question is whether it has any significance for us on Earth.

    If you ask the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which represents the current consensus on climate change, the answer is a reassuring “nothing.” But, history and recent research suggests that that view probably is completely wrong. Let us take a closer look at why.

    Solar activity always has varied. Around the year 1000, we had a period of very high solar activity, which coincided with the Medieval Warm Period. It was a period when frosts in May (in Copenhagen) were an almost unknown phenomenon and of great importance for a good harvest. Vikings settled in Greenland and explored the coast of North America. China’s population doubled over this period. But, after about 1300, the Earth began to get colder, and it was the beginning of the period we now call the Little Ice Age. In this cold period, all the Viking settlements in Greenland disappeared, Sweden were surprised to see Denmark freeze over in ice, and the Thames in London froze repeatedly. More serious were the long periods of crop failure, which resulted in a poorly nourished population. Because of disease and hunger, the population was reduced by about 30% in Europe.

    It is important to note that the Little Ice Age was a global event. It ended in the late 19th century as an increase in solar activity began. Over the past 50 years, solar activity has been the highest since the Medieval Warm Period over 1000 years ago. And now, it appears that the Sun is heading once again toward what is called a “Grand Minimum” such as we saw during the Little Ice Age.

    Some have tried to explain the correlation between solar activity and climate through the ages as a coincidence, but it turns out that, almost no matter what time period is being studied – not just the last 1000 years – that correlation is there. Solar activity over the past 10,000 years has fluctuated repeatedly between high and low, with the Sun being in “Sleep Mode” approximately 17% of the time, each episode followed by a cooling of the Earth.

    One can wonder that the IPCC does not believe that the Sun’s changing activity has no effect on the climate, but the reason is that they only include changes in solar radiation.

    Looking at radiation only would be the simplest way by which the Sun could change the climate – a bit like turning up and down the brightness of a light bulb.

    Satelite measurements of solar radiation have shown that the variations are too small to cause climate change, but many have closed their eyes to a second, much more powerful way that the Sun is able to affect Earth’s climate. In 1996, we discovered a surprising influence of the Sun – its impact on Earth’s cloud cover. High energy accelerated particles from exploded stars, the Cosmic Radiation, are helping to form clouds.

    When the Sun is active, its magnetic field shields more effectively against the cosmic rays from outer space before they reach our planet. These changes regulate the Earth’s cloud cover, which can turn the Earth’s temperature up or down. High solar activity produces fewer clouds, and the Earth gets warmer. Low solar activity gives Earth inferior shielding against cosmic rays, which results in increased cloud cover and hence a cooling. As the Sun’s magnetism has doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of Global Warming during this period.

    This also explains why most climate scientists are trying to ignore this possibility. They in fact favor the idea that the 20th century temperature rise is due mainly to human emissions of CO2. If the Sun has influenced a significant part of warming in the 20th century, it means that CO2’s contribution necessarily must be smaller.

    Ever since our theory was put forward in 1996, it has undergone very sharp criticism, which is normal in science.

    First, it was said that a link between clouds and solar activity could not be correct because no physical mechanism was known. But in 2006, after many years of work, we managed to conduct experiments at DTU Space, where we demonstrated the existence of a physical mechanism. Cosmic radiation helps to form aerosols, which are the seeds for cloud formation.

    Then came the criticism that the mechanism we found in the laboratory was unable to survive in the real atmosphere, and therefore had no practical significance. But that criticism we have just emphatically rejected. It turns out that the sun itself is doing what we might call natural experiments. Giant solar flares can have the cosmic radiation on Earth dive suddenly over a few days. In the days after the eruption, cloud cover falls by about 4 per cent. And the content of liquid water in clouds (droplets) is reduced by almost 7 per cent. Indeed, you could say that the clouds on Earth originated in space.
    Therefore we have looked at the sun’s magnetic activity with increasing concern, since it began to wane in the mid-1990s.

    That the sun could fall asleep in a deep minimum was suggested by solar scientists at a meeting in Kiruna in Sweden two years ago. As Nigel Calder and I updated our book “The Chilling Stars” therefore, we wrote a little provocative passage, “we recommend that our friends enjoy Global Warming while it lasts.”

    Indeed, Global Warming has stopped, and a cooling is beginning. Last week, it was argued by Mojib Latif from the University of Kiel at the UN World Climate Conference in Geneva that cooling may continue through the next 10 to 20 years.

    His explanation was natural changes in North Atlantic circulation and not in solar activity. But no matter how it is interpreted, the natural variations in climate then penetrate more and more.

    One consequence may be that the sun itself will show its importance for climate and thus test the theories of Global Warming. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary.

    This means that projections of future climate are unpredictable. A forecast that says it may be either warmer or colder for 50 years, is not very useful, since science is not able to predict solar activity.

    So in many ways, we stand at a crossroads. The near future will be extremely interesting and I think it is important to recognize that nature is completely independent of what we humans think about it. Will Greenhouse theory survive a significant cooling of the Earth? Not in its current dominant form. Unfortunately, tomorrow’s climate challenges will be quite different than greenhouse theory’s predictions, and perhaps it agin will become popular to investigate the sun’s impact on climate.

    Professor Henrik Svensmark is director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at DTU Space. His book “The Chilling Stars” has also been published in Danish as “Climate and the Cosmos” (Gads Forlag, DK ISBN 9788712043508)

  101. Patrick Davis (07:33:36) :

    “tallbloke (07:16:12) :

    Leif Svalgaard:

    “According to calculations by British scientists, the strength of the Sun’s magnetic field has doubled during the Twentieth Century alone.”

    Those same scientists now know that the doubling didn’t happen.

    Quite right Leif. They now estimate that it was a 79% increase rather than a 100% increase.”

    And that is still an estimate. Estimates are like “golbal average temperatures”, they are meaningless.

    Estimate was a poorly chosen word. The difficult process of gaining useful and valid information from the data is still a worthwhile effort, despite uncertainty.

    Unless you are of the opinion that we should throw our hands in the air and sit down in ignorance?

  102. @Scott A. Mandia

    thanks for the Link. There it says:

    “But the researchers show that the ozone hole has not started to shrink a lot as a result. The scientists predict the ozone hole will not start shrinking a lot until 2018. By that year, the ozone hole’s recovery will make better time.”

    So my point is confirmed!
    Maybe you should also read in “Nature” Vol. 449 the Article “Chemists poke a hole in ozon theory”

    “I would be very careful if you intend to tap Tamino’s bees nest. You will likely be coming to a gun fight armed with a knife”

    Oh, I’m so scared, I will have troubles sleeping tonight!
    Everything that Tamino in his blog “Narrow Mind” does (but I didn’t read all his stuff), is using Hansen’s corrupted GISS temperature to “proof” that WUWT is wrong.
    And the fact that he said once something correct, has no meaning, even a broken clock shows twice a day the correct time.

  103. Robert E. Phelan (05:07:08) :

    “I have no way of knowing whether Dr. Svensmark is correct about cosmic rays and clouds but he is definitely not correct about poor harvests causing a 30% decline in Europe’s population during the Little Ice Age. That phenomenon was caused by something called the Black Death”.

    Robert, please read the article correctly:
    Quote:
    “But more serious was the long periods of crop failure, which resulted in a poorly nourished population, because of disease and hunger population was reduced] by about 30 per cent in Europe”.

    Because of disease and hunger the article states.

    About cosmic rays, look at the graph posted by Harold Ambler:
    Harold Ambler (05:22:10) :

    http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startdate=1964/08/11&starttime=00:00&enddate=2009/09/11&endtime=15:35&resolution=Automatic%20choice&picture=on

  104. Fred Lightfoot (02:44:03) :

    You really should write a memoir, not to prove that weather is local, just to share your experiences of ~50 years of adventure in the oil biz. Sounds like you have quite an interesting tale to tell to us armchair adventurers and probably many astute observations of how things really work in parts of the world that most of us are so isolated from. Get at it! (please)

  105. @ Ron de Haan (07:28:52) :

    Next time I will write “sarcasm” in quotes next to a comment so that it is well understood to be just that.

    I have certainly not read all of your posts on WUWT, but are you this concerned for the welfare of the world’s population if in fact, as most experts suggest, AGW is occurring? If you are truly the humanist you claim to be then you should be concerned either way.

    I know this comment doesn’t really add to the discussion but sometimes a guy just has to defend himself. I think it should be clear by now that the reason I post here (and on many other blogs) is because I am very concerned about our future and am willing to take the potshots in order to reach a few folks who I believe are being misled.

  106. RR Kampen (07:38:28) :

    “Indeed, global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth, on the contrary. This means that projections of future climate is unpredictable, writes Henrik Svensmark.”

    So clever. Future climate is unpredictable but Svensmark knows ‘a cooling is beginning’ :)

    RR Kampen,
    I do not understand why you make this rather patronizing remark but
    if you make a quote, please quote all the remarks made by Svensmark about the cooling, the climate models and the sun.
    Because now you are placing his remarks out of the context.

    I would be careful with that, especially because this is not a scientific report but as Anthony stated at the beginning of the article:
    “Translation is from Google translation with some post translation cleanup of jumbled words or phrases by myself. In cases were the words were badly jumbled or didn’t quite make sense I inserted [my interpretation in brackets]“.

  107. “I would be very careful if you intend to tap Tamino’s bees nest. You will likely be coming to a gun fight armed with a knife.”
    All that Tamino cites as peer-reviewed sources are peer-reviewed by the same old cronies chasing all the political funding they can get.
    Ultimately this coming NH winter will end Global Warming once and for all, ask the fjord ponies.

  108. Mark (04:45:49) :

    simplified drawing of the theory from your link :

    Something I think some don’t realize is that the cosmic ray level is not a constant. It varies, higher and lower. So just watching the sun to evaluate how much of cosmic rays are getting into the earths atmosphere and seeding clouds isn’t enough. You have to factor in cosmic ray levels.

    And good luck trying to get a perfect handle on that!

    The fact still remains that cosmic rays form aerosols–“the rest are details”.

  109. Scott A. Mandia (07:39:41) : “I would be very careful if you intend to tap Tamino’s bees nest. You will likely be coming to a gun fight armed with a knife”.

    What do you think happens at the ‘Open Mind’ when it suddenly turns out that Tamino is the guy waving a knife against a visitors gun? A fellow blogger, Lucia Liljegren, was recently banned from posting at his blog because she pointed out a problem in one of Taminos analyses…

    Tamino: “Lucia appears to have the skill to figure this out. But rather than do the work, she prefers to come here and plant that idiotic “violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics” meme that we’ve all heard a thousand times from more denialist idiots than the planet has room for. She’s a petulant child, one who won’t be commenting here again.]”

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/not-computer-models/

    She did the work at her blog and it of turned out that Lucias questions were more than justified. Tamino obviously sensed his defeat and banned her from posting rather than adress her relevant questions. Go to Lucias blog and search posts tagged ‘Tamino’. The case is an eye opener to an open mind.

  110. “”” Tenuc (00:47:50) :

    If only the climate of earth were so simple that major changes depended just on one factor. Unfortunately this simplistic view is wrong, and our chaotic climate depends on multiple interlinked mechanisms to keep it within the bounds of a few degrees of temperature variability we usually see.

    The Svensmark theory may well be correct, but like CO2 caused AGW, I’m sure it will not turn out to be the sole mechanism. However, with Copenhagen around trhe corner, it’s good to see some publicity which shows the CO2 theory is very weak and perhaps help stop global Cap & Trade being adopted. “””

    I don’t think anyone; including Dr Svensmark has ever suggested that his theory is a complete explanation of “climate change”.

    Does the term “natural variability” mean anything to anyone ?

    Svensmark’s cosmic ray thesis, is simply one component of “natural variability”; that is all he is saying.

    And Frank Wentz (RSS) et al “How Much More Rain will Global Warming Bring ?” SCIENCE July-7-2007 pretty much points to the negative feedback control loop that depends solely on the physical properties of H2O; and that is what holds earth’s temperature range in a comfortable range, that is NOT controllable by humans.

    So sad that basic problem solving logic skills aren’t taught in school any more.

    George

  111. Stephen Wilde (23:48:17) :
    When the Sun goes quiet, we here on Earth experience more of the effects of Galactic influence, which is never quite totally overriden by the Sun.
    The solar modulation is only a few percent, and the Galactic influence does not vary on a time scale of centuries or faster”

    Leif,
    That was not my comment. It was from rbateman.
    I agree with you about the sun on shorter time scales and only disagree on century or multi century time scales.

  112. Luboš Motl (07:55:34) :

    “It must be annoying for Svensmark if their mechanism – which is almost certainly one of the most important insights of climatology in decades – is being largely ignored because of a paranoid politicized cult that prefers the explanations with a big potential to influence politics over the explanations that are supported by the objective evidence.

    Nice article”.

    Thanks Luboš, I could not agree more.

  113. Re: Gene Nemetz (07:59:31) :

    Mike McMillan (03:34:03) : “The CO2 chart climb is as steady as you get, but the global temperature it’s supposed to be driving seem pretty oblivious to it….About the only things keeping pace with CO2 are the GISS adjustments.”

    “Nice way to put it.”

    Disagree. The rise in [CO2] is not the only thing driving global temperature. It is only by far the most important. But there is no reason to believe the rise should be strictly linear. Just as there is no reason to believe that year-to-year temperature variability was always zero before 1900.

    If CO2-levels were at those of 1900, 2007 and maybe 2008 should have become close to the coldest on record: deep solar minimum + powerful La Niña + two volcanoes. Instead they made it to the top 10% warmest. Stronger evidence for GW is hard to get by.

  114. I hadn’t ever wasted time on Tamino’s blog before, so I looked at it. Funny, he seems to have dedicated almost every post to complaining about WUWT. The number of views and traffic here must be driving him crazy.

    I have a feeling he took the fall of the “Green Jobs Czar” pretty hard.

    REPLY: Actually what is going on is that he’s acting out his anger over his inability to do something about the thorough falsification that he’s been getting by Lucia over his two box model. Since he can’t refute her conclusions about his failure and his violating the second law of thermodynamics, he attacks what he considers to be an easy target to prop up his ego. His pattern is quite predictable. He did the same thing with the Ian Jolife incident, and when McIntyre took him to task here and here. He couldn’t refute either of those so he let loose a barrage of angry posts about me and WUWT readers. He calls Lucia a petulant child, but can’t come to grips with the facts of the situation. While he does make some valid points, his approach is totally angry and antisocial. I find his posts amusing and yet sad. – Anthony

  115. Graeme Rodaughan (23:47:21) says “Refreshing. Now if only the Politicians were paying attention…”

    We are Graeme.

    Coupled with solar wind effects, iris effect, basic irradiance and cosmic ray interference it starts to add up to a meaningful and repeated if unpredictable influence. Ocean currents may effect only short-term patterns (i.e. 1-100 years) but still have to get that heat from somewhere. Volcanic activities cause pinpricks in the record. Other factors, including man’s activities could just be generating further noise. Since even the range of sensitivities of any of these is unknown, projection is futile.

    UK Sceptic (01:05:16) repeats the often heard “…the UK’s politicians are as dumb as rocks when it comes to science…”

    We know, that’s why we are paying attention.

    Incidentally, I was disappointed that “The survey also found that: 39% thought leading experts still questioned the causes of climate change”. It is a fact that some of them do. Why do 61% not believe an easily demonstrable fact?

    Mick (01:46:48) “Folks, all this science is OK, but I’m afraid it’s irrelevant…Unfortunately the ignorant public has a mob mentality, the loudest megaphone wins…”

    Half right Mick. Science by itself will not win the argument although making the public less ignorant is eventually the solution.

    This is a facts verses hyperbole war rather than a religious one. (You cannot actually disprove a pure religion – and why would you want to?)

    Just keep making sure the facts are heard.

    To Fred Lightfoot (02:44:03)

    Sir, with all that you have said I respectfully agree. Time for change.
    (Unless you will accept silk as milk from butterflies – OK I’m pushing it)

    While we are on butterflies – the butterfly effect (see how I did that) means that all of us effect the climate every time we step on a blade of grass, eat a morsel or take a breath. Everyone in this country and on every nation on earth. Including those who are not talking to us at the moment. That – times about 7billion – is what we need to “control” to moderate anthropological effects. While we are waiting for that to happen – prepare for the worst (either way) and live with it.

    (PS Moths – I know)

  116. Ron de Haan (08:35:58) :

    “RR Kampen,

    “Because now you are placing his remarks out of the context.”

    Knowing some of his writings, I doubt that.

    “I would be careful with that, especially because this is not a scientific report…”

    Okay, you may be right; but then my remark is not for Svensmark but for the quote I took.

    As for the translation, no worries. I can read Danish and the translation of the quote I took is correct.

  117. Scott A. Mandia (07:39:41) should really get some sort of prize for packing so much misinformation into his posts. For example:

    “If you believe greenhouse gases are contributing to the modern day global warming (of course I do and most here do not) then even with mitigation the long-term residence of CO2 will still cause warming long after these remedies are in place.”

    May I deconstruct? Thank you:

    I can’t recall anyone here taking the position that greenhouse gases have no effect. But by attempting to re-frame the argument that way, Mandia tries to corner skeptics. That doesn’t work here, as he is finding out.

    The real question is, how little effect does CO2 have [and keep in mind that the alarmist contingent has hung their hats on CO2 as the trigger for runaway global warming; rarely do we hear from them about other GHG's like H2O, etc.] The climate’s sensitivity to CO2 is much lower than the UN/IPCC/alarmist crowd admits. The planet is clearly telling us that CO2 is an insignificant player in global temperatures. So who should we listen to? Scott Mandia? Or Planet Earth? I prefer to listen to the one with no agenda.

    And: ‘modern day global warming’?? What is that supposed to mean?? What Mandia is trying to do with that sentence is convey the false impression that natural climate variability has ended, and global warming caused by CO2 has taken over. Wrong. It’s all natural variability, just as it was when CO2 was twenty times higher than it is now.

    Next, ‘long term residence of CO2′ has been pretty well falsified, despite some frantic alarmist attempts to prop up the claims of 200+ year persistence. Again: Wrong. Studies of carbon isotopes from the South Pacific nuclear tests have shown a very short CO2 persistence. Physicist Freeman Dyson has written on this, and gives a CO2 residency time of about twelve years. Since CO2 persistence in the atmosphere is so short, there can be no hidden “heat in the pipeline” from it. So who to believe, Prof Freeman Dyson? Or Scott Mandia? That’s an easy one, isn’t it?

    And constantly referring to the truly disreputable “Tamino” is just an appeal to a fake authority. Why is Tamino so filled with jealousy, hatred and bile toward WUWT? Simple: because Tamino didn’t even make the semi-finals in the Weblog Awards: click. He’s way down on the Wikio list, too [WUWT is #2]. And that other government-run, censoring echo chamber, realclimate, got only one-tenth the votes of WUWT. Those alarmist sites failed for one simple reason: the truth is not in them, and people know it.

    I had to laugh at Mandia’s impotent barking: “…be very careful if you intend to tap Tamino’s bees nest. You will likely be coming to a gun fight armed with a knife.” Tamino is a despicable worm, who avidly reads this site every day, consumed by envy and hatred. He sits in his echo chamber cave, waiting to pounce on anyone’s post that doesn’t kiss up to him with unwarranted flattery. Like most alarmist sites, Tamino heavily censors all but the most pro-AGW, adulation filled posts. [Contrast Tamino's constant commenting about WUWT on his site, with the lack of concern seen here. The subject of Tamino comes up rarely, like Mandia's reference to Tamino today. Otherwise, nobody pays attention to Tamino, and that galls him no end.]

    Mr. Mandia’s misplaced worship of “Tamino” is not arguable, since it is only his opinion. But it should be pointed out that Mandia gets to post here as often as he likes — while numerous posters here have commented over the years that their polite, well-meaning, science oriented posts were deleted by Tamino simply because they didn’t track the Party line, or butt kiss him sufficiently. Mandia has picked a pretty insecure HE-RO to worship.

    Have I tapped Tamino’s beehive hard enough with those statements? Should I be worried about Tamino’s response?

    Nah. He’s a wuss.

  118. “”” Juraj V. (07:47:14) :

    dorlomin (07:05:19) :
    The earth is warmer than it should be due to its atmospehre, a phenominem known as the greenhouse effect. “””

    That is an absurd statement.

    The earth is exactly as warm as it should be; and it stays exactly as warm as it should be 60 seconds per minute, 60 minutes per hour, 24 hours per day, 365 1/4 days per year, and year in and year out for the last 4.5 or so billion years; it has never deviated from being as warm as it should be.

    That man in his idiocy continues to think it should not be as warm as it is, is where the whole problem lies.

    George

  119. Fred Lightfoot (02:44:03):

    You must have been an ex-Shell colleague of mine.

    Your telling stories will be construed by the alarmists as a proof that climate change is playing havoc with our fragile world.

  120. Hello all!!
    I have been in hiatas from the wuwt wourld, but I should add, I was recently speaking to a class of high school algorites,and brought this webpage up on the big screen.
    (I was brought in as the counter debate to global warming)
    It was like shooting fish in a barrel.
    The group was comprised of some very promising young minds, and were at once stupified by the powerful arguments for intelligent debate.. and FACTS!! that are here to be found.
    by the debates end.. the teacher and organizer literally cursed me(sigh, i dare say I might have provoked it) but the majority of the kids were listening.
    I left to the sounds of intense debate of the FACTS, and was delighted that it was entirely do to the posts here, and they no longer thought the science was decided.
    To all that post the amazing articles here, and the sharp minds that comment on them, I say well done.

  121. In 5 years, it will be obvious to anyone with a brain that AGW-theory is dead. I expect Gore, Hansen and possibly Mann to be the lone holdouts. (Just wait!!! It’ll be back as soon as this Ice Age is over!!!)

  122. Scott A. Mandia (08:26:35) :

    “@ Ron de Haan (07:28:52) :

    Next time I will write “sarcasm” in quotes next to a comment so that it is well understood to be just that.

    I have certainly not read all of your posts on WUWT, but are you this concerned for the welfare of the world’s population if in fact, as most experts suggest, AGW is occurring? If you are truly the humanist you claim to be then you should be concerned either way.

    I know this comment doesn’t really add to the discussion but sometimes a guy just has to defend himself. I think it should be clear by now that the reason I post here (and on many other blogs) is because I am very concerned about our future and am willing to take the potshots in order to reach a few folks who I believe are being misled”.

    Scot,

    Well Scott,
    I have read your spin postings and now you are doing it again.
    You truly master the verbal skills to a level that would make a second hand car sales man blush from envy.

    Don’t waste your AGW Consensus mantra and your “humanist” act on me you shameless AH.

    If you’re real objective is to warn people who you believe are misled and need your protection, you are wasting your time on this blog.

  123. Dorlomin. I have no time for error bars – they are too wide. If we cannot say with ANY certainty what the temperature will be then why bother? As a layman, I find such error bars a nonsense, and didn’t realise until a while ago that science worked on such things. I take your point that the current flatline/cooling might be a “idiocyncratic movement”, then again it might not be!

    Yes we understand that the Earth is warmer than it would otherwise be without its Greenhouse Gases, but we do not know what will happen when we increase one – and one that is very minor to water vapour. We don’t know if we’ll have a positive effect (as the science says) or whether, for example, we’ll have increased cloud cover leading to cooling. Like I said, we appear to have checks and balances within the climate system that we do not understand.

    I must be a ‘real sceptic’ then – according to your criteria, because although I’m not really a sceptic of CO2 forcing, I am a sceptic of what will result. We don’t understand what happens within the climate system, and we’re only just realising what part ocean currents may have played in recent warming – more learning then!

    Scepticism SHOULD be easy and natural for a scientist, but it would appear that many scientists are taking correlation as causation, and worse – starting out with a pre-conceived notion, and then trying to prove it correct. Surely, this is not science? In the past week we had a scientist (a scientist!) saying “Maybe the Earth is trying to tell us something”. Lovelock’s bizarre comments in the past have left me breathless, but this?

    I think we will one day fully understand how the climate system works, but I believe that day to be decades into the future – seriously. If you remove the ’98 El Nino there has been no statistically-significant warming since 1995. That’s a long time, Dorlomin! What we’re experiencing is nothing unusual at all – nor unprecedented. But returning to my original point, we really have no idea, and we should stop making out we do. I see no warming to be worried about at all (certainly not here in England!) and a decadel rate of 0.12 within the troposphere isn’t going to keep me awake at nights. At some point the Warmists are going to have to re-evaluate their convictions, and start back-peddling. We’ve seen this week some saying we’re in for 20 years of cooling before man-made warming returns! Oh dear! Some just don’t get it, do they? Cooling is natural – warming is man-made. Has science come to this?

  124. “If AGW is not a concern and we are heading for a new ice age we can rest?”

    This statement alone makes me want to reach through my monitor and strangle someone. Rest? Are you kidding me? How about we get to work on how to feed 7+billion people as the planet cools, once farmable land becomes too cold to grow anything, and crops begin to fail worldwide? How about we divert the trillions of $$$ spent on AGW research to that?

    Life would be quite a bit more pleasant if the warming would continue…..

  125. On the Tamino point, I commented there, and found his attitude, shall we say ‘odd’. I certainly wouldn’t be comfortable in his presence. It’s okay to get annoyed, but it’s quite another to brow-beat someone with angry, childish ranting. Ungentlemanly.

  126. Flanagan wrote:

    A very mysterious mechanism indeed. And still not supported by any observation. Moreover, how is it the sun is “fading” since the 90ies and all we got is a warming? Even 20 years later? 2009 is not going to be a cold year, far from that. August and July were globally pretty hot and September seems to be setting a new record

    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/amsutemps.html

    check Channel 5

    Very cool site. I check a number of the gaphs, not only comparing Sept 2008 to Sept 2009, but all the years from 1998 to this year. Even though it looks like Sept will be hotter than last year, it’s still very middle of the road compared to the bulk of Septembers past.
    ——————————————————————–

    Scott, please keep posting here. Even though we are maybe on opposite sides on this issue, I have noted you are always very civil in your comments. We need more of that.

    We are all concerned with the well being of the human race. We just happen to view the perceived threat of global warming and solutions to the perceived problem as disingenuous, politically motivated, and in the end, more detrimental to humanity than if we did nothing and let it happen, if it’s really happening at all. Most here believe that recourses would be better served on projects that fix levees here in California or provide potable water to Africa (I applaud Sting and the Police for donating to that cause instead of global warming).

    In a philosophical sense, AWG walks hand in hand with the notion that we live on a fragile planet that is destine to be destroyed by us. It’s the “delicate balance” vs the “rough and tumble” philosophy of the nature of life on the planet. I favor the rough and tumble POV in lieu of the Gaia orthodoxy, a remnant of the 60’s hippie movement. As I always say, the only thing worse than a hippie, is a hippie with a college degree!!! (just kidding)

    Have to go work now.

    Mike

  127. Phil’s Dad (08:59:07) :
    the butterfly effect (see how I did that) means that all of us effect the climate every time we step on a blade of grass, eat a morsel or take a breath. Everyone in this country and on every nation on earth. Including those who are not talking to us at the moment. That – times about 7billion – is what we need to “control” to moderate anthropological effects. While we are waiting for that to happen – prepare for the worst (either way) and live with it.

    I won’t be accepting ‘control’ from politicians anytime soon, especially when I see they don’t ‘control’ themselves. Human beings, whatever their numbers, are a natural part of the Earth scene, and attempting to ‘control’ their taking breaths or their steppings on blades of grass on the back of a dud theory is asking for an ass kicking.

  128. johng (07:41:32) says “The politicians haven’t got the balls for it! The green votes/taxes are too much!”

    I accept the cowardly label – I use a pseudonym here because even being seen to consider “skeptical” views can affect my job as a European politician with an environment brief. I hope I will not lose too much respect from you for that – I am trying to spread common sense from inside the bunker.

    Nevertheless if it is “green votes” that we are chasing than educating the masses is still the solution, which is why this site is so valuable. The green vote comes from green voters, not politicians.

    That’s why I think the BBC statement highlighted by Gene Nemetz (08:04:59) so odd.

    “The survey, by Cardiff University, shows there is still some way to go before the public’s perception matches that of their elected leaders.”

    Political fact of life 1) Leaders are elected to represent / serve the public. Their “perception” can therefore only lag that of the public. Hopefully, not by too much.

  129. I have to agree with Fred Lightfoot above, in a career spanning 36 years on the Emergency Services in South Africa and in the UK, I have witnessed “1,000 year floods” at 5 year intervals in one location, 100 year storms at three and four year intervals in another. Weather doesn’conform to “modelling” and any “model” is as good as the data fed into it. As a “Fire Engineer” my experience with models is that they are, at best, indicators, and at worst outright garbage. Very few are available (without the use of a super computer) capable of running the extremely complex interactions necessary to get an accurate result for a complex building, so they model one room at a time and extrapolate the results to give a snapshot. Change one parameter, or mistype one small piece of data and the model is slewed dramatically. If that result is then used to feed into other models …..

    And as for “smoothed” data – it gives a “smoothed” result which may or may not be a reflection of reality. The AGW and IPCC campaign is about getting hands into research wallets – and far to many politicians haven’t the courage to admit they have been “blinded by science” and by the propaganda campaigns run by Fiends of the Earth and Greenstrife on behalf of their friends who feed them with the image they want to present.

    It is refreshing to see this sort of article is available – even in a bad translation!

  130. Fred Lightfoot (02:44:03), thanks for your comment. I come to this site, in part, for down-to-earth stories like yours. The last paragraph seems like a good candidate for Quote of the Week.

  131. Ron :
    “If you’re real objective is to warn people who you believe are misled and need your protection, you are wasting your time on this blog.”

    So true. Most people I imagine are fed up with such misuse of the science and pointing to propaganda websites as “evidence”. People are fed up with hand waving statements such as “I see the evidence in AGW” without bothering to even say what this might be. Ignorance is excusable, but pompous ignorance is just annoying.

  132. My only issue is the claim that “no climate model has predicted global cooling.”

    This may be true of the climate models put together by “experts” or the ones that get press, but a simple bloke such as myself has offered a best-fit adjusted sine wave (and double sine-wave) against the HadCrut data and showed that this basic model projects that we have recently hit the warming peak and are now going to cool for the next 20 years or so.

    Does it take a gazillion different mechanisms and crunch them on supercomputer? No. It’s a recursive analysis that uses less than a half-dozen parameters and takes a mere few minutes to crunch away on an excel spreadsheet.

    And if i had to bet on my results versus the models showing runaway warming, I’d bet on the sine-wave fit.

    But these kinds of analyses are just too simple for academia to take them seriously.

    In my career as an actuary, I’ve never been burned yet by trying to simplify the complex in making my projections. I have, however, been burned trying to add complexity in an attempt to improve accuraccy.

  133. Flanagan,
    When you close your mind to logic, you lose power to persuade. Read it several times and think about what is wrong with the following statement logically in terms of the climate and space weather as a whole. I can’t make you see it.

    “again, there’s no proof that cosmic rays substantially influence the composition of clouds over long periods of times,” – Flanagan

  134. The more I read on Tamino’s blog “feeble mind” (sorry for more publicity for this), the more I question his physical knowledge:

    “Global temperature responds to changes in the energy flow of earth’s climate system. When more energy flows through the system the planet heats up; with less energy flow the planet cools down
    Changes in the energy flow constitute climate forcings. We know of many, including greenhouse gases, solar changes, ozone, snow albedo, land use, aerosols (both from volcanoes and from industrial processes), etc.

    By adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere more energy flows through the system?? The energy flow through the system is not changed by greenhouse gases. There is a diagram on Wikipedia with the energy flows through the atmosphere, there everybody can see, that the greenhouse effect doesn’t change the energy flow at all.

  135. tallbloke (09:41:12) says “I won’t be accepting ‘control’ from politicians anytime soon, especially when I see they don’t ‘control’ themselves. Human beings, whatever their numbers, are a natural part of the Earth scene, and attempting to ‘control’ their taking breaths or their steppings on blades of grass on the back of a dud theory is asking for an ass kicking”

    You make my point for me. What some have set out to control just doesn’t want to be controlled.

    A different plan for the future is required. (Suggestions on a post card…)

  136. “Phil’s Dad (08:59:07) :
    the butterfly effect (see how I did that) means that all of us effect the climate every time we step on a blade of grass, eat a morsel or take a breath. Everyone in this country and on every nation on earth. Including those who are not talking to us at the moment. That – times about 7billion – is what we need to “control” to moderate anthropological effects. While we are waiting for that to happen – prepare for the worst (either way) and live with it.”

    Crikey,that’s a far more alarmist position than that of even the most enthusiastic CO2 acolyte !!!

    No wonder politicians of that ilk leap upon alarmist theory as a godsend to help with a far more aggressive and concealed agenda.

    Not content with limiting our CO2 emissions this politician thinks the world is so sensitive to the presence of humanity that we are looking over a precipice to destruction with every breath.

    Where did these guys come from ?

    They don’t represent anyone I’ve ever met in daily life yet they got elected somehow.

    If the real problem is population, pollution and resource depletion (and it is) then let them be honest about it and not hide behind the irrelevance of CO2 emissions.

  137. Smokey – “Have I tapped Tamino’s beehive hard enough with those statements? Should I be worried about Tamino’s response? Nah. He’s a wuss.”

    Nice response to Mandia re: Tamino. But I think I’d like to add just one thing: If one refers to someone they disagree with as a “petulant child” – well then doesn’t that say all you really need to know? I mean, who talks like that (aside from the Burns character in the Simpsons)?

  138. RR Kampen (08:53:46):

    “The rise in [CO2] is not the only thing driving global temperature. It is only by far the most important.”

    Mr Kampen goes on to say that we would all be freezing if not for increased CO2. But that doesn’t logically follow at all.

    It is an example of an argumentum ad ignorantiam: the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn’t been proven false. In this case, it is a baseless assumption — unless you take the UN/IPCC’s sensitivity number as being real. But the UN’s number has been consistently wrong, as even they admit in each new assessment report. It is illogical to take it as a fact that CO2 forcing is the biggest cause of global warming. What about the Sun? And the oceans? Does a minor trace gas trump their effects?

    Every subsequent IPCC Assessment Report has ratcheted down their assumed climate sensitivity number. But as of AR-4, their number is still way too high. You don’t have to believe me; the planet herself is telling us that.

    CO2 has been well over ten times higher than it is now, for hundreds of millions of years at a time. During much of that time temperatures were the same as today, and sometimes lower.

    Carbon dioxide may have a minuscule effect on temperature, but that tiny effect is overwhelmed by other effects. If that were not the case, there would be some proven correlation between CO2 increases and temperature increases. But as we know, CO2 rises after temperature rises. That wouldn’t happen if CO2 was causing global warming.

  139. @ George E. Smith (08:49:21)

    “…So sad that basic problem solving logic skills aren’t taught in school any more.”

    OT, but I wanted to encourage you…my child is taking “advanced studies” in junior high and they are spending a lot of time this semester learning to use logic. I have seen 2 or 3 “matrix logic” assignments that quite impressed me.

  140. To Scott Mandia:

    there is a little test of whether there is a heat print detectable in the atmosphere at night. When thermal imaging cameras are used to detect persons, it shows them as packets of light, in human form of course. Anything that doesn’t emit radiation doesn’t show up,. The re-radiation of heat from earth is exceedingly small. This is the re-radiation that we are told is captured by c02. What is captured is a nearly non-existent pool of heat, and by no means all of that heat. just a small fraction of it. Climatically, its pretty irelevant. There may be acase for cloud cover keeping in heat at night and keeping temperatures cooler in the day. In physics, the radiation re-emitted by a body is determined by its temperature only, so normal temperature objects, don’t give off radiation (which is why the print doesn’t show up on thermal imaging cameras).

    It would be a different matter if the earth, like us, could radiate low level heat for co2 to trap. At present it doesn’t. Even if c02 were the all powerful forcing that its made out to be, there’s precious little heat for it to trap

  141. Mandia, I for one would prefer that you took your patronising attitude on to one of the AGW echo chamber sites like Open Mind and Real Climate where it’ll be appreciated far more than it is by me at least. We have the ability on here to think. If you want to convince us that AGW is real please explain why in the past we have had CO2 levels far in excess of todays without runaway warming, why we have had cooling for long periods last century and again now when CO2 has risen apace, why there is no tropical mid tropospheric hot spot and why Antarctica isn’t warming. How about why the AGW religion has developed only on the back of predictions from models that have the predictive capabilities of astrology and on theoretical CO2 forcings that are patently not replicated in the real world that some of us live in. The AGW house of cards is falling down and maybe your real reason for coming here is to reposition yourself for this and to be seen to be on the sensible side of the debate? Please, start educating us on why we have got it so wrong.

  142. Did you know that our little friend Scott Mandia is a denier of the Medival Warming Period? He seems to like little jokes, isn’t he a funny guy.

  143. Ron de Haan (08:21:37) :

    Ron, I’m usually in agreement with you, but don’t try splitting hairs with me on this one. The Black Death had nothing to do with poor harvests or the Little Ice Age. Europe’s population was not reduced gradually by worsening harvests and debilitating diseases, but rather 40% died in a span of less than five years from a vicious disease. In killing it made no distinction between the well-fed and the starving. If Dr. Svensmark wants to prophecy doom, he needs to find more accurate examples. In 1347 Europe’s population was approximately 75 million. By 1351 it was 40 million. By 1400 it was 45 million

  144. Scott A. Mandia (07:39:41)
    “You will likely be coming to a gun fight armed with a knife.”

    perhaps a sharpened hockey stick will suffice instead…

  145. got to be careful which buttons I click on…. to finish this rant… by 1500, in a mere century, the population nearly doubled to about 80 million. This is NOT the picture Dr. Svensmark paints, so don’t insist that because he mentioned disease he was accurate…. sheesh, Ron, you’re picking up some of Flanagan’s bad habits.

  146. Tamino says:

    “Global temperature responds to changes in the energy flow of earth’s climate system. When more energy flows through the system the planet heats up; with less energy flow the planet cools down.”

    Now if we were to amend that to read ‘changes in the RATE of energy flow” Tamino would be mighty close to my analysis but then he would have to consider two new parameters namely:

    A varying rate of energy flow from ocean to air
    and
    A varying rate of energy flow from surface to space.

    Then he would have to compare the change in rate of flow effected by a little more CO2 with the natural changes in rate of flow created within the oceans and within the air.

    He would see that the CO2 effect is truly miniscule in comparison to the natural changes in rate of flow.

    Finally he would have to consider whether a change in the rate of flow limited to the air alone could possibly have any effect on the rate of flow coming naturally from the oceans and he would have to accept that it cannot because air cannot heat water due to the process of evaporation which ensures that any attempt of air to heat water just increases evaporation which is a net cooling process.

    I won’t hold my breatrh.

  147. @ Johnny Honda (08:21:17) :

    Everything that Tamino in his blog “Narrow Mind” does (but I didn’t read all his stuff), is using Hansen’s corrupted GISS temperature to “proof” that WUWT is wrong.

    Lucy’s post showing Arctic temperature plots includes this statement about the data: All data comes from NASA GISS or CRU originally.

    So do we use GISS or not?

    @ Sandy (08:36:31) :

    You state: All that Tamino cites as peer-reviewed sources are peer-reviewed by the same old cronies…

    You could certainly accuse ME of doing that but not true for Tamino. Tamino is brilliant at analyzing and interpreting data. As an example, see his analysis of arctic warming that appears to starkly contrast Lucy Skywalker’s assertions about no warming trend.

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/arctic-analysis/

    Yes, Tamino does not mince words but his data analyses are hard to ignore and he justn’t just talk the talk – he walks the walk. Regarding the civility of his comments, I think Tamino’s words are certainly nicer than a few regular posters here.

    @ sonicfrog (09:36:38) :

    Thanks. Most comments to me here have been fairly civil. It is appreciated and much more constructive than emotional outbursts.

  148. John Silver (03:23:22) :
    “Svenskerne overraskede Danmark med at gå over isen”
    should not be translated to:
    “Swedes [were surprised to see Denmark to freeze over in ice]”

    It is this thing that he refer to:

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

    Typical of the LIA.

    Hardly typical since your cite refers to it being the “coldest winter in living memory”, and had it been typical perhaps the Danes wouldn’t have been taken by surprise?

  149. Stephen Wilde (10:02:13) jumps to a conclusion which I am perhaps guilty of leading him to.

    He says “Not content with limiting our CO2 emissions this politician thinks the world is so sensitive to the presence of humanity that we are looking over a precipice to destruction with every breath.”

    I do believe that everything we do has consequences but I do not for one minute think that they need to be destructive.

    The point I was trying rather back-handedly to make is that it is unrealistic to think that we can control enough climate forcing parameters to pin-point a desirable world temperature and enforce it.

    Just controlling mankind is impossible over any meaningful timescale – let alone the other factors which may well be more relevant.

    My position is nearer to your later statement “If the real problem is population, pollution and resource depletion (and it is) then let them be honest about it and not hide behind the irrelevance of CO2 emissions.”

    To be clear; I do not think the policies currently in place or being proposed have any realistic chance of controlling world temperatures. Nor am I sure it would be desirable even if they were. Far better to be prepared to adapt to what actually happens.

  150. @ Barry Foster (05:59:33) :

    Well said, Barry.

    As a mere geologist, I have learned a heck of a lot recently about climate and weather, mainly by following WUWT. There has been an awful lot to learn and much of it rather difficult physics (for me). I have moved from being a sceptic to being a ‘coolist’ to being an ‘I’m really not too sureist’ – in fact, I believe that most of us here might say that the more we’ve learned the less we know about the complex relationships that exist between the various potential drivers of climate except for one thing – IT AIN’T CO2. Get used to it, Al!

  151. thank you very much mr fred lightfoot

    Your description of reality is really the essence of the climate-discussion ,are we humans capable of changing the world that we are living in ? Are we so powerful that we are able to change the circumstances given by the cosmic order or how else you wish to describe this phenomenon ?

    I do believe the agw-crowd has fallen prey to the temptation to be able to control the power of mother nature or any other description of forces that are well beyond our control ! It is comparable to childish dream to be the centre of the universe and to be the master of your fate or fortune . In essence everything we possess was once given to us and can always be taken from us . life is a gift and the climate we are living is also a gift and to declare ourselves so important that we are creating our own climate is an insult , where humbleness and gratefulness should be more approriate.

    In life everybody is kept more or less accountable for his deeds , why shall the agf-crowd not be kept accountable for their actions to curb the private life of so many of their fellow-men ?

    I know that what i am saying is not completely applied science , but i do believe that the real climate discussion is neither applied science and i thank you alexander for your efforts to bring it back on track !
    Some day you will succeed .

    Good luck

  152. SOHO-23: Understanding a Peculiar Solar Minimum.

    http://www.soho23.org/

    The SOHO Science Working Team has scheduled the twenty third in the series of successful SOHO workshops to focus on the topic of the unusual minimum of solar activity that has persisted in 2007, 2008 and 2009. SOHO-23 is scheduled for 21-25 September 2009, at the Asticou Inn in Northeast Harbor, Maine.

    Is anyone that posts to this blog going to this conference? I am very interested in a summary of the presentations.

  153. Fred Lightfoot: Thank you for your observations. Your experience with the water gap and 100 year waves made me laugh. I suspect it might say more about research and engineering standards than climate though.
    As a Kiwi, this reference may not mean much to you, but I think Jerry Jones has the same problem with Cowboy Stadium.

  154. Barry Foster (09:27:24) :

    Dorlomin. I have no time for error bars – they are too wide. If we cannot say with ANY certainty what the temperature will be then why bother? As a layman, I find such error bars a nonsense, and didn’t realise until a while ago that science worked on such things

    —————————

    Words fail me. Do you really have such a limited grasp over the basics of studying physical systems.

  155. Martin Mason (10:14:31) :

    Mandia, I for one would prefer that you took your patronising attitude on to one of the AGW echo chamber sites like Open Mind and Real Climate where it’ll be appreciated far more than it is by me at least. We have the ability on here to think
    ————————————
    So you thin you are not an echo chamber? And you think that you are so much more gifted than many of the worlds most famous scientists?

    Listen mate, the history of science is chock a bloc full of controvosies where very intellegent people looking at the same evidence came to different conclusions. Try out of africa vs multiregional evolution or wave vs particle in classic physics, big bang vs steady state or the host of alternative models in physics at the moment.

    The people on the wrong side of those debates were not stupid, following religous cults or falsifying evidence for grant money.
    They were sincere, hard working and often brilliant. Just like the people who won the debates.

    “If you want to convince us that AGW is real please explain why in the past we have had CO2 levels far in excess of todays without runaway warming,” Try the lifecycle of stars, they get hotter as they get older.

  156. All this talk about Tamino, is that a singular named person like Cher or Madonna? Who exactly is he/she as I don’t see any information on the Open Mind site.

  157. fred wisse (10:48:01) :

    thank you very much mr fred lightfoot

    Your description of reality is really the essence of the climate-discussion ,are we humans capable of changing the world that we are living in ? Are we so powerful that we are able to change the circumstances given by the cosmic order or how else you wish to describe this phenomenon
    ————————————
    The Ozone hole goes a long way to suggest we are.

    ———————————–
    I do believe the agw-crowd has fallen prey to the temptation to be able to control the power of mother nature or any other description of forces that are well beyond our control !
    ———————————–
    Not control, affect. CO2 is uncontroversial in its role as a greenhouse gas. Adding it to the atmosphere will have an effect. The debate is how much and if it is really enough to be concerned about.
    And the real debate for humans is whether the effect will have an impact on agriculture, if so then we have a problem if not then the skeptics like Lomborg suggest we have more pressing problems to engage with. Here in lies the debate.

  158. Here is a slightly more tidied up version – Philip Foster

    From the http://www.wattsupwiththat.com website

    This opinion piece from Professor Henrik Svensmark was published September 9th in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Translation is from Google translation with some post translation cleanup of jumbled words or phrases by myself. In cases were the words were badly jumbled or didn’t quite make sense I inserted [my interpretation in brackets]. Hat tip to Carsten Arnholm of Norway for bringing this to my attention. – Anthony Watts.

    While the sun sleeps

    HENRIK SVENSMARK,
    Professor, Danish National Space Centre, Copenhagen

    Indeed, global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth, on the contrary. This means that projections of future climate are unpredictable, writes Henrik Svensmark.

    The star which keeps us alive has, over the last few years, had almost no sunspots – which are the usual signs of the sun’s magnetic activity.

    Last week, the scientific team behind the Soho satellite (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) reported that the number of sunspot-free days suggest that solar activity is heading towards its lowest level in about 100 years. Everything indicates that the Sun is moving into a hibernation-like state, and the obvious question is whether it has any significance for us on Earth.

    If you ask the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), representing the current consensus on climate change, the answer is a reassuring ‘none’. But history and recent research suggests that the IPCC is probably completely wrong. Let us take a closer look at why.

    Solar activity has always varied. Around the year 1000, we had a period of very high solar activity, which coincided with the medieval warm period. It was a period when frosts in May was an almost unknown phenomenon and of great importance for good harvests. Vikings settled in Greenland and explored the coast of North America. For example, China’s population doubled over this period. But after about 1300, the earth began to get colder and it was the beginning of the period we now call the Little Ice Age. In this cold period all the Viking settlements in Greenland disappeared. Swedes [were surprised to see Denmark covered in ice], and the Thames in London froze repeatedly. But more serious were the long periods of crop failure, which resulted in a poorly nourished population. Because of disease and hunger [the population was reduced] by about 30 per cent in Europe.

    It is important to note that the Little Ice Age was a global event. It ended in the late 19th century and was followed by an increase in solar activity. Over the past 50 years solar activity has been at its highest since the medieval warm period 1,000 years ago. And now it appears that the sun is heading towards what is called ‘a grand minimum’ such as we saw in the Little Ice Age.

    The correlation between solar activity and climate through the ages has tried to be explained away as coincidence. But it turns out that almost no matter what time period is studied, not just the last 1000 years, there is a correlation: Solar activity has repeatedly over the past 10,000 years has fluctuated between high and low. Actually, the sun over the past 10,000 years spent approx. 17 percent of the time in a sleep mode, with a cooling of the Earth following.

    One can wonder why the IPCC believes that the changing activity of the sun has no effect on the climate, but the reason is that they only consider changes in solar radiation.

    Just radiation would be the simplest way by which the sun could change the climate. A bit like turning up and down the brightness of a light bulb.

    Satellite measurements of solar radiation have shown that the variations are too small to cause climate change, but the IPCC has closed its eyes to a second, much more powerful way, the sun is able to affect earth’s climate. In 1996 we discovered a surprising influence of the sun: its impact on earth’s cloud cover. High energy accelerated particles of exploded stars, the cosmic radiation, are helping to form clouds.

    When the Sun is active its magnetic field shields the earth better against the cosmic rays from outer space before they reach our planet, and by regulating the Earth’s cloud cover the sun can turn up or down the temperature. High solar activity produce fewer clouds and the earth gets warmer. Low solar activity reduces the shielding against cosmic radiation, and this results in increased cloud cover and hence a cooling. As the sun’s magnetism has doubled its strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming during this period.

    This also explains why most climate scientists are trying to ignore this possibility. They in fact favour the idea that the 20th century temperature rise is mainly due to human emissions of CO2. If the sun has influenced a significant part of warming in the 20 century, it means that CO2’s contribution must necessarily be smaller.

    Ever since our theory was put forward in 1996, it has received a very strong criticism, which is normal in science.

    First it was said that a link between clouds and solar activity could not be correct because no physical mechanism was known. But in 2006, after many years of work, we managed to conduct experiments at the Danish National Space Centre, where we demonstrated the existence of a physical mechanism. The cosmic radiation helps to form aerosols, which are the seeds for cloud formation.

    Then came the criticism that the mechanism we found in the laboratory was unable to survive in the real atmosphere and therefore had no practical significance. But this criticism we have just emphatically refuted. It turns out that the sun itself is doing what we might call ‘natural experiments’. Giant solar flares can cause the cosmic radiation on earth to decrease suddenly over a few days. In the days after the eruption cloud cover falls by about 4 per cent. And the content of liquid water in clouds (droplets) is reduced by almost 7 per cent. Indeed, [you could say] that the clouds on Earth originated in space.

    Therefore we have been looking at the sun’s magnetic activity with increasing concern since it began to wane in the mid-1990s.

    That the sun could fall asleep in a deep minimum was suggested by [solar scientists] at a meeting in Kiruna in Sweden two years ago. As Nigel Calder and I updated our book “The Chilling Stars” therefore, we wrote a little provocative comment, “we recommend our friends to enjoy global warming while it lasts.”

    Indeed, global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning. Last week, it was argued by Mojib Latif from the University of Kiel at the UN World Climate Conference in Geneva that cooling may continue through the next 10 to 20 years.

    His explanation was natural changes in North Atlantic circulation and not in solar activity. But no matter how it is interpreted, the natural variations in climate then penetrates more and more.

    One consequence may be that the sun itself will show its importance for climate and thus test the theories of global warming. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth, on the contrary.

    This means that projections of future climate are unpredictable. A forecast [that] says it may be warmer or colder for 50 years is not very useful, for science is not able to predict solar activity.

    So in many ways we stand at a crossroads. The near future will be extremely interesting and I think it is important to recognize that nature is completely independent of what we humans think about it. Will the Greenhouse theory survive a significant cooling of the Earth? Not in its current dominant form. Unfortunately, tomorrow’s climate challenges will be quite different from the greenhouse theory’s predictions, and perhaps it will again become popular to investigate the sun’s impact on climate.

    Professor Henrik Svensmark is director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Centre Space.

    His book “The Chilling Stars” has also been published in Danish as “Climate and the Cosmos” (Gads Forlag, DK ISBN 9788712043508)

  159. dorlomin (11:20:02) : Fill one bottle to the top of CO2, close it. Then fill another with water, close it. Then heat them both with a infrared lamp during 30 minutes, then let them cool for five minutes. Check the temperatures. See?
    THEY have cheated you, and you will feel it in your wallet very, very soon.

  160. Leif Svalgaard (05:20:47) :

    No specific trend has been stated. That was yours to discover.
    As for cherry picking, the exploration of possibilities does require a starting point. Else we cease to explore.
    Fair treatment assigns probabilites to the rise, continuance or fall of a vector.
    Cherry picking is a biased conclusion trap, but so is the avoidance of exploration. In both cases, new learning is stifled.

  161. Michael Hove (10:53:33) :
    SOHO-23: Understanding a Peculiar Solar Minimum.
    Is anyone that posts to this blog going to this conference? I am very interested in a summary of the presentations.

    Yes, I’m giving an invited talk. Go to the link you provided http://www.soho23.org/ and click on ‘Scientific Program’

  162. Scott
    “You could certainly accuse ME of doing that but not true for Tamino. Tamino is brilliant at analyzing and interpreting data. As an example, see his analysis of arctic warming that appears to starkly contrast Lucy Skywalker’s assertions about no warming trend.

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/arctic-analysis/


    Very pretty work by Tamino using the massaged Giss data. That Tamino’s graphs are so different from Lucy’s which are unadulterated show you just how important it is that the raw data is manipulated by venerable scientists.

  163. “As a Kiwi, this reference may not mean much to you, but I think Jerry Jones has the same problem with Cowboy Stadium.”

    Are you referring to their summer training-field “tent” that collapsed?

    To Phil’s Dad: You’ve got my vote if you run in Texas (and you can come out of the AGW closet).

  164. rbateman (11:36:55) :
    No specific trend has been stated. That was yours to discover.
    Then you lost me. I don’t know what you meant. Perhaps I’m too ‘literal’ and don’t follow flowery generalities too good.

  165. dorlomin (11:11:14) :
    “Try the lifecycle of stars, they get hotter as they get older.”

    So you are implying that the much higher CO₂ levels in the distant past kept the Earth warm enough to support diversifiation and explosion of life & prevented the Earth from perhaps freezing over, which would otherwise have happened due to the cooler sun which could not provide enough energy to prevent snowball Earth from occurring?
    Try this; CO₂, unlike the sun, does not radiate energy which can heat the Earth, sorry “mate”.

    “Smokey (09:03:01) ” – Respect!

  166. Flanagan (02:43:48) :

    “I’m sorry but, 1st, this op-ed does not cite an evidence – it just states them without any reference whatsoever. Moreover, in every study by Svensmark, including the last ones, the author somewhat “forgets to mention” the absence of trend in solar radiation and other indicators between the 50ies and the 90ies – strangely corresponding to a rapid average warming. This is apparent in the link Anthony gave me to the WUWT post:
    – When a forbush decrease takes place, the water content of some clouds changes by 7% corresponding to a 10%-20% decrease of cosmic ray counts
    – after a few days, the water content comes back to normal levels

    again, there’s no proof that cosmic rays substantially influence the composition of clouds over long periods of times, especially as compared to other parameters like the ocean average temperature. If you prefer, this is weather, not climate.”

    Now you’re getting it. This is exactly how folks should view anything related to climate. It’s nice to see Flanagan using skepticism. Now, if he was only smart enough to utilize this techinique on AGW.

  167. Chris Schoneveld (04:24:49) :
    Unfortunately, there is not even the slightest indication that there is a correlation between cloudiness and global temperatures, as far as I am aware of.

    Let me share some graphs from climate4you webpage:

    Even a correlation between global temperatures (let alone cloudiness) and solar activity has always been refuted by Leif.

    Even a greenhorn like me knows, that period of regular freezing of northern Adriatic, Thames and even sea between Sweden and Denmark occurred coincidentally with Sun minimum; on the other side, MWP or last 60 years overlays with series of strong sun cycles, like Modern minimum which is ending now.
    To refute distant MWP is old trick, but to refute also relatively recent and well recorded LIA is plain laughable.

  168. Stephen Wilde (08:52:08) :
    I agree with you about the sun on shorter time scales and only disagree on century or multi century time scales.
    My comment was about the solar modulation of cosmic rays, not of climate. Do you disagree with the time scales of cosmic ray modulations, too?

  169. Well… We can wait and see… I see no other course of action at this point in time… While I do not agree that CO2 is the main driver of climate I am not convinced that radiation from space is either. I guess in the end I am a skeptic on both theories at this point in time. I simply do not have enough information… I do agree that CO2 will warm the earth a modest amount, however I am skeptical that it is ‘runaway with feedbacks’. It may well be that cloud formation is a major component of the system as well but we just do not have enough knowledge yet to truly understand our climate system.

    I know weather is not climate but still until I see us accurately be able to predict one I don’t know that I am going to believe anything about the other. The main reason is simulations RELY on trends to compute what will happen next with assumptions working on the result. If you write into a computer program that as CO2 increases then temperature increases guess what happens in the simulation as CO2 increases?

    hope he is wrong… Winter is a pain, I like my food.

  170. This story of “global warming” and its main characters would make a great fiction book, such as The Da Vinci’s Code, because it involves all needed ingredients: secret societies, a church, fanatic followers….etc,etc…just imagine!
    It would make, also, which is surprising, a sensational comic story…just imagine:
    Super Al fighting against the deniers or Super Al against the hidden WUWT deniers’ fortress, or “The trains of Jim”, etc,etc.

  171. Phil’s Dad (09:55:41) :

    “What some have set out to control just doesn’t want to be controlled.
    A different plan for the future is required. (Suggestions on a post card…)”

    Not sure if you are soliciting suggestions as to addressing blades of grass metaphor, but here is my view for what it may be worth:

    The way to slow or even eventually reverse the exploding world population and it’s severe effects on the natural environment is to provide people with the means to raise themselves from poverty. It is a well know phenomenon that as the standard of living rises, the birth rate goes down. You need look no farther than Japan, an island of extremely limited resources which has provided its population with a standard of living so high that its low birth rate now threatens its ability for the young (too few) to care for the old (too many). Also true of western democracies which largely solve this problem by importing the poor from underdeveloped countries who through their high birth rate and low wages, maintain the standard of living of the citizenry.

    OK smartypants, you say, how do we do that? Well, first, it’s not by having the world bank throw money at their corrupt politicians (a redundancy – no offense intended to yourself. Nor is it likely to happen by the well intentioned efforts of NGOs, missionaries, and the Peace Corps although all of those organizations certainly make a positive difference in the lives of individuals.
    It is by providing or assisting them in the development of a source or sources of cheap, widely distributed, and dependable electrical power by which they can have the benefits of native industries, clean drinking water, sewage treatment plants, irrigation, and on and on.

    But abundant coal reserves are polluting so we should discourage that, you say. So is their oil, and besides WE need their oil, you say. So what to do?
    Well, if I had to pick just one, it would be thorium nuclear power – AKKKK!, the N word! (disclosure – I own some thorium related stock and intend to buy more). That’s dangerous to children and other living things, you say, and it will lead to terrorists having nuclear weapons. Luddite-ism, I say, based fears of 1950’s soviet reactor technology, post soviet failure to properly safeguard nuclear weapons, and a minor release of radioactive gas at TMI, also outmoded reactor technology. If you are European, you know that nuclear power is safe, clean, and protectable. No power source is completely safe, completely clean, or without adverse environment impacts, even (especially) the so-called renewables.

    Why thorium? Most abundant, most anti-proliferative, high energy density, most amenable to passive safety systems, and eats the nuclear waste and decommissioned weapons grade uranium and thorium for lunch. Plus its waste is orders of magnitude shorter in half-life than Ur and Po. Non-pressueized thorium molten salt reactors, proven in concept at Oak Ridge 30 years ago, but so far undeveloped for commercial use have many potential advantages over present pressurized reactors and operate at a temperature nearly ideal for the production of hydrogen, already touted as the motor fuel of the future. Plus they can potentially be mass produced in small and medium power sizes (physical and wattage) that are ideal for locating close to where the power is needed rather than having to be distributed by long distance power lines through sensitive habitats.

    Its the future (IMHO). India is already developing thorium cycle reactors.

  172. dolormin:

    “So you think you are not an echo chamber?”

    That’s exactly right. WUWT is not an echo chamber, it is more a peer review site than anything. Ideas are argued until the truth is sorted out when possible. Tamino, RC, climateprogress, etc., are echo chambers.

    Why? Because they censor skeptical posts, no matter how polite or strictly science related. They only agree with each other, that AGW is gonna getcha. If you disagree, your post will never see the light of day. The exception is if your post is so scientifically invalid that they can have fun deconstructing it. But if you intelligently disagree, like Lucia you will be permanently barred from the site.

    That’s an echo chamber. WUWT, on the other hand, allows all points of view — as your own posts prove.

    Now you know the definition of an echo chamber.

    Next, you say: “And the real debate for humans is whether the effect [of higher CO2] will have an impact on agriculture, if so then we have a problem…”

    Entirely wrong. You have it backward. CO2 does have an effect on agriculture. A very beneficial effect. More CO2 is better. Here you go:

    click1
    click2
    click3

  173. tallbloke (07:16:12) :
    Quite right Leif. They now estimate that it was a 79% increase rather than a 100% increase.
    Why do we need to go through this every time? First they said ‘doubled in the last 100 years’. When we pointed out that it didn’t: http://www.leif.org/research/Reply%20to%20Lockwood%20IDV%20Comment.pdf they changed it to ‘the first 50 years’ [because it has now come back down again]. Then they include data for the year 1901 which they have acknowledged is wrong. Then they cherry pick the lowest point and the highest point and calculate the changes using those, and finally it is quote wrong to use percentages for such a change [e.g. how many percent that the sunspot number changed between solar minimum and maximum?]. The issue was that the HMF now is just was it was 108 years ago and that there have not been any century-long change. Since we have simply plotted their data [green curve] as they generously gave us together with ours [blue curve], it is quite evident that we all agree on this: http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric-Magnetic-Field-Since-1900.png, so why do you always squirm over this? ‘The science is settled’ as far as this is concerned :-)

  174. Phil’s Dad (09:55:41) :
    tallbloke:
    attempting to ‘control’ their taking breaths or their steppings on blades of grass on the back of a dud theory is asking for an ass kicking”

    You make my point for me. What some have set out to control just doesn’t want to be controlled.

    A different plan for the future is required. (Suggestions on a post card…)

    How about the politicians concerning themselves with minimizing beurocracy and letting the rest of us get on with real life? Payment to politicians will be on the basis of the number of laws they repeal. ;-)

  175. Chris Schoneveld (07:36:59) :
    He won’t, as Al Gore won’t either.”
    This very, very close to an ad hom. quite uncharacteristically for Leif.

    I don’t know… Since when is just mentioning someone next to Al Gore an ad hom? :-)
    The point was that if you are at one pole of a very polarized issue, such debates are usually not of much use, as the pole sitter has too much tied up in his viewpoint.

  176. Tom in Texas (11:49:38) “To Phil’s Dad: You’ve got my vote if you run in Texas (and you can come out of the AGW closet).”

    Believe me Tom if I were running in Texas I would long since have declared my position on AGW.

    (Loved the Rangers against the Indians by the way)

  177. Flanagan (00:36:42) :

    A very mysterious mechanism indeed. And still not supported by any observation. Moreover, how is it the sun is “fading” since the 90ies and all we got is a warming? Even 20 years later?

    It’s 10 years since the 90’s, 20 years since the 80’s and 30 years since disco. Right?

  178. Phil’s Dad (10:40:48) :

    “Stephen Wilde (10:02:13) jumps to a conclusion which I am perhaps guilty of leading him to.

    He says “Not content with limiting our CO2 emissions this politician thinks the world is so sensitive to the presence of humanity that we are looking over a precipice to destruction with every breath.”

    I do believe that everything we do has consequences but I do not for one minute think that they need to be destructive.

    The point I was trying rather cack-handedly to make is that it is unrealistic to think that we can control enough climate forcing parameters to pin-point a desirable world temperature and enforce it.

    Just controlling man-kind is impossible over any meaningful timescale – let alone the other factors which may well be more relevant.”

    So the modellers imagine they can understand the inscrutable, and the politicians (some) imagine they understand enough to control mankind. About the same level, I suspect. Perhaps we live in chaotic systems, and are chaotic systems, because there is an important function here. What makes you (or some others) imagine (the same word again) that we have the knowledge or the wisdom or the understanding or the judgement to bring about an ideal society by control? Why can’t we settle for just some administration of what is actually here?

    As for too many people; can you name for me, one other species on the planet which limits its numbers and impact because of some crazy idea about its power to wreck the place? As Philip Stott said, “the planet is tough as an old boot.” If nature knows best there are exactly the right number of people on the planet doing what needs to be done. And I am fed up with tree huggers claiming an exclusive right to speak for nature because they “feel” (this does not include you, necessarily).

    If you could just tell me of a eugenicist who believes themself to be from the inferior part of the race, I would be more willing to listen.

    Please excuse any exaggerations; I hope they are not extrapolations.

  179. Tom in Texas: No I was referring to the big screen video displays that keep being hit by punters. I think Jerry had the same (short-sighted) engineers as Mr. Lightfoot’s oil company.

    Cheers, Mark in Texas

  180. Juraj V. (11:53:49) :

    To refute distant MWP is an old trick, but to refute also relatively recent and well recorded LIA is plain laughable”.

    Juaj V.,
    I like what you are saying but we are missing out on the volcanic wild card.
    This too played quite a role in several extreme events that took place during the LIA.

  181. Phil’s Dad (08:59:07) :

    I can see you are versed. Are you becoming the Senator Inhofe of England? He has made so good presentations to the Senate.

  182. Dolormin. I’m an engineer, not a scientist, so I cannot work with the 95% error bars that scientists allow themselves http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ols-with-pumped-up-error-bars-is-crude-the-ipcc-2-ccentury-still-falsified/. If I did, I’d be covering myself (very well, admittedly) if someone died as a result of something I designed or constructed. Surely it’s better to say, ‘We don’t have much of a clue, really”? I live in England. Like I said before, we have the infamous Met Office. Their predictions really are dire – and wrong most of the time. Let me tell you why. They CANNOT predict what the weather will be over my city with any certainty. They know this, and I know this. So they predict it for a region around my city BUT cover themselves by saying that “Some areas may have rain” Do you see what they did there? They’re covered! If I get rain, but my sister 20 miles away doesn’t then they’re correct. If it’s the reverse, they’re correct. If we both get it, they’re still correct! Based on this pathetic level of prediction they award themselves with an 80%+ ‘predicted-correct’ tag. Like I said, I cannot afford such error bars. I couldn’t design a walkway and say ‘There’s a good chance that it won’t hold 100 people all at once, but there’s a chance it will’! I would have to say a maximum number of people. As I said, I didn’t realise that science worked with wildly varying degrees of UNcertainty. I’ll tell you something else. As an atheist I used to look down on the religious because they believe something for which there is no evidence. And here was I, a man who bases his working life on science, aloof in the knowledge that theories would be tested and conclusions drawn. When I look at the utter debacle of what passes for climate science I am appalled. They are dragging down all the other sciences with them – and I’ve read that many geologists are furious with the claims made by climatologists. They’ve seen rapid warming and cooling in rocks – completely natural. Here in England we have the Central England Temperature (CET). From 1696 to 1732 the temperature in England rose 2.2 degrees C, was wholly natural in origin, and was over twice the warming we are experiencing now. I can no longer look down on the religious. I tell you this Dolormin, if we do get a period of 20 years of cooling, then science itself will suffer. People already remember the scares of the past, like a coming ice age, acid rain, the millenium bug, bird flu, world starvation (by now), ozone depletion, and swine flu. They will start to laugh at scientists and their error bars. What good is a prediction if you build-in a huge ‘get-out’? For how much longer do you think the media will be the messengers for crackpot theories on ‘icecaps melting’? Not for long, my friend, not for long.

  183. Smokey (12:10:57) :

    dolormin:

    “So you think you are not an echo chamber?”

    That’s exactly right. WUWT is not an echo chamber, it is more a peer review site than anything. Ideas are argued until the truth is sorted out when possible. Tamino, RC, climateprogress, etc., are echo chambers.
    —————————————————
    Please dont be so modest. You are more than that. You are the guardians of science in an age of religous fervour. An uncensorsed beacon of light saving science from the “scientists”. Give yourselves (yet) another pat on the back!

  184. Mr. Alex (11:52:19) :

    dorlomin (11:11:14) :
    “Try the lifecycle of stars, they get hotter as they get older.”

    So you are implying that the much higher CO₂ levels in the distant past kept the Earth warm enough to support diversifiation and explosion of life & prevented the Earth from perhaps freezing over, which would otherwise have happened due to the cooler sun which could not provide enough energy to prevent snowball Earth from occurring?
    Try this; CO₂, unlike the sun, does not radiate energy which can heat the Earth, sorry “mate”.
    —————————————-
    So why did it not freeze? :)

  185. Mike McMillan (03:34:03) : The CO2 chart climb is as steady as you get, but the global temperature it’s supposed to be driving seem pretty oblivious to it….About the only things keeping pace with CO2 are the GISS adjustments.

    Despite the hackneyed response to my earlier comment on this quote I still think it was nicely put by Mike McMillan.

    i.e. :

    About the only things keeping pace with CO2 are the GISS adjustments.

    (bolds by me ;-))

  186. Talking about the Volcanic Wild Card:

    http://volcanism.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/shiveluch-erupts/

    Shiveluch erupts 11 September 2009
    Posted by admin in Kamchatka, Russia, Shiveluch, activity reports, eruptions.
    Tags: Kamchatka, Russia, Shiveluch, volcanic activity reports, volcanic eruptions
    trackback

    Reports from Russia indicate that a large eruption of Shiveluch began yesterday. A bulletin from the Kamchatka Volcanoes Emergency Response Team (KVERT), issued at 22:35 UTC on 10 September warns that ‘Ash explosions > 10 km (>32,800 ft) ASL from the volcano could affect international and low-flying aircraft’. According to the bulletin, ’strong explosions’ occurred between around 14:19 and 14:55 UTC on 10 September, with seismic data indicating ash plumes reaching 15000 metres above sea level; if ash plumes are indeed reaching 10-15 km altitude, then this is a sizeable event. The bulletin reports that according to seismic data ‘10 volcanic events (ash explosions and hot avalanches or pyroclastic flows) occurred at the lava dome from 16:33 till 20:25 UTC on September 10′. Whether the activity is still continuing is not clear, and there are no visual or satellite images of this event because of cloud cover.

    End of message.

  187. Robert E. Phelan (05:07:08) :

    I have no way of knowing whether Dr. Svensmark is correct about cosmic rays and clouds but he is definitely not correct about poor harvests causing a 30% decline in Europe’s population during the Little Ice Age. That phenomenon was caused by something called the Black Death, a bubonic plague spread by flea carrying rats that started in China, spread across Asia and reached Constantinople about 1346. By 1347 it had hopped a ship to Genoa and by 1351 nearly half the population of Europe was dead. European population did not reach it’s pre-plague level until just about 1500, at which point it was about just slightly larger than the population of Europe at the height of the Roman Empire.

    The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Poor diets lead to weak immune systems as well as poor hygiene. Just read some of the accounts from POW camps run by the Japanese, Russians, and Nazis.

    You are correct in bringing up the plague contributing to the die offs in Europe at the time.

  188. “This very, very close to an ad hom. quite uncharacteristically for Leif”

    Not at all uncharacteristic for the smug, sanctimonious and omniscient Lief.

  189. Johnny Honda (09:55:37) :
    The more I read on Tamino’s blog “feeble mind” (sorry for more publicity for this), the more I question his physical knowledge:

    “Global temperature responds to changes in the energy flow of earth’s climate system. When more energy flows through the system the planet heats up; with less energy flow the planet cools down
    Changes in the energy flow constitute climate forcings. We know of many, including greenhouse gases, solar changes, ozone, snow albedo, land use, aerosols (both from volcanoes and from industrial processes), etc.

    By adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere more energy flows through the system?? The energy flow through the system is not changed by greenhouse gases. There is a diagram on Wikipedia with the energy flows through the atmosphere, there everybody can see, that the greenhouse effect doesn’t change the energy flow at all.

    Actually it’s your physical knowledge that’s in doubt, in the absence of greenhouse gases the earth would be ~33ºC cooler, which is a significant drop in ‘energy flow through the system’.

  190. Stefan (05:29:17) :

    What the greens fail to notice however, is that authoritarian “social order” can serve any number of priorities. It can serve empire building, it can serve warmongering, it can serve any group goal, really. There is nothing inherently green about being authoritarian. And groups can also organise in far more interesting ways than simply becoming authoritarian top-down power structures.

    I think the greens that follow the authoritarian model are in for a nasty shock.

    North Korea is an excellent example. Not only have all businesses and consumers been brought under control, there are very few green house gases being generated. People live very simple lives there, in harmony with nature. As there is very little food, people must scour the hills looking for anything edible. Very few cars, very little electricity, no wasted resources on consumer goods. Even the military must put up with very little fuel to run jet fighters and tanks.

    http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/country_energy_data.cfm?fips=KN

    Now contrast this worker’s and environmentalist’s paradise with those profligate cousins down south:

    http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/country_energy_data.cfm?fips=KS

  191. The Diatribe Guy (09:53:44) :

    “But these kinds of analyses [fitting a sine curve, RR] are just too simple for academia to take them seriously.”

    In fact, for a finite number of data it is possible to fit a polynomial curve of degree [number of data] +1 that fits absolutely exactly.
    Obviously projections of this model will show true runaway warming (if you chose the number of data points to be uneven).

    Using powers of sine and/or cosine you can also make an exact fit. They ‘prove’ that in the long run there can be no climate change, just a repetition of waves or wave-groups – unless you take an infinite number of terms in the model (which can never be calculated, then).

    I’m guessing now you can understand why academia wouldn’t want to use such simple models.
    They contain no physics and therefore they cannot contain any predictive value. They contain no knowledge.

  192. Leif Svalgaard (11:50:13) :

    There is nothing flowery about looking at a section of data and asking yourself “where have I seen this slope before?”, and it is not cherry picking until one proclaims it is “This” and cannot be anything else.
    The range of time/space is deliberate.
    You have given me tasks just like this, but you gave it unbiased and let me draw my own conclusions.
    So I am returning the favor…and not attempting to pre-color it with what I see.

  193. rbateman (14:07:38) :
    “where have I seen this slope before?”,
    Assuming that you

    and it is not cherry picking until one proclaims it is “This” and cannot be anything else.
    The range of time/space is deliberate.
    You have given me tasks just like this, but you gave it unbiased and let me draw my own conclusions.
    So I am returning the favor…and not attempting to pre-color it with what I see.

  194. rbateman (14:07:38) :
    where have I seen this slope before?
    Assuming that you are referring to cosmic rays, I have seen these curves many times before. I don’t see anything that is not what I would expect, so am still a bit lost.

  195. Flanagan (00:36:42) : A very mysterious mechanism indeed. And still not supported by any observation. Moreover, how is it the sun is “fading” since the 90ies and all we got is a warming?

    Hooo HaaaHoha hik… What a hoot! And you really believe this stuff?

    Flanagan, whatever you are smoking, I want some! (But only on Fridays, I need to be “straight” by the time markets open Monday…)

    So, you expect a few giga-tons (tera-tons? peta-tons?) of matter to have an instant response to delta energy generation? Let me loan you a tiny bit of clue: It can take hundreds of years for LIGHT to move up a few layers in the sun. A decade or so is darned near “instant” in things that big and with that scale.

    And oh, BTW, your “warming” is false as well. The books are cooked. I know, I’ve read the recipe and documented just exactly how the books are cooked. GIStemp measures ASPHALT growth at AIRPORTS as they move from Siberia to Brazil. Nothing more. (Well, maybe a little bit more, there is that one line of code that warms 1/100 of all records by 1/10C due to bad programming style – I guess it does measure “Bad Hacking” too…)

    2009 is not going to be a cold year, far from that.

    Too late. It already is. Hundreds of children dead in Peru from early onset snow. Crops ripening slowly in Canada and late planting from persistent snows. Argentina talking about a complete embargo of wheat exports due to cold induced crop failure (they are one of the few major exporters in the world in normal years…) Exceptional skiing started in New Zealand and Australia, the list goes on.

    But no problem, you want to drink that cool-aid, fine with me. Just don’t expect the rest of us to join in. We know what’s in it, and it isn’t pretty:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/

    August and July were globally pretty hot and September seems to be setting a new record

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/gistemp-islands-in-the-sun/

    Can explain why you think it is hotter “globally”. Hint: It has to do with putting a lot of thermometers on the tarmac on tropical islands during the growth of the Jet Age then using them to say that the surrounding water is the same temperature. Yes, it really does that. 2 islands ‘warm’ and area teh size of the entire U.S.A. No, boxing, gridding, anomalies et.al. can not save you from this – THIS is from the post anomaly boxing gridding step. It’s over.

    Now here is a tiny little experiment for you. Go to the Marshall Islands (as in the picture in the link). Lay on the tarmac at 2 pm for an hour. Then go jump in the ocean. Which is cooler?

    Don’t think this is a reasonable thing? Think the thermometer will be far far away from the tarmac? Look at the picture. There isn’t any far far away from the tarmac at that airport!

  196. he to-be-prime-minister Yukio Hatoyama announced at a recent press conference that he wanted to aim at 25% curbing of CO2 emission by 2020 with respect to the level in 1990. This is quite embarassing to me

    I would find more embarrassing the statements of his wife that she had been abducted by aliens, take to the planet Venus and that it was “very green there”.

  197. The newest CO2 Report by Viscount Monckton just came out: click

    It covers some of what’s discussed in this thread, and has some nice graphs.

  198. Phil’s Dad (10:40:48)

    Thanks for the clarification. I see your position more clearly now and don’t disagree with what you say.

    However, please reduce interference instead of constantly increasing it at public expense. We really do not want all the supervision and regulation being cack handedly foisted on us.

    A few hundred British officials effectively managed the Indian subcontinent for 300 years with the consent and help of most of the locals who preferred our rule of law to the previous tribal warfare.

    Why do we need so many of you chaps these days with all of you with little to do except invent new obstacles for everyone else ?

    Sorry for going too much off topic but if we have a politician here he needs to be told.

  199. dorlomin (01:13:20) :
    “Barry Foster (01:03:31) :What the Warmists forget (whether intentionally or not) is that this flatline of temperature (or even cooling) was not predicted by models. ”

    Curious, this is not what I have been told, I have always understood that natural variability can cause temporary decreases in temperature. I guess we have different sources. Perhaps you could produce a quote that states what you have said this clearly?

    Different subject to the sentences…

    What the AWG Believers say is it is possible to have temporary cooling. What the MODELS predict (pardon, project, like projectile v..) is rising temps. So the MODELS are bunk since they cannot predict (or project) a cooling trend. Oh, and they are fed on broken temperature series from GIStemp et.al. G. in G. out …

  200. Robert E. Phelan (05:07:08) : I have no way of knowing whether Dr. Svensmark is correct about cosmic rays and clouds but he is definitely not correct about poor harvests causing a 30% decline in Europe’s population during the Little Ice Age. That phenomenon was caused by something called the Black Death, a bubonic plague

    But that plague spread, in part, due to the poor nutritional status of the population. Plague did not just evolve overnight as a new species… The outbreak of plague had causes too…

  201. Dear Anthony,

    Nigel Calder has been so kind to translate my article. It is a good translation.

    Best wishes,
    Henrik

    Published 9 September 2009 in Jyllands-Posten, Denmark’s best-selling newspaper.
    Translation approved by Henrik Svensmark

    While the Sun sleeps
    Henrik Svensmark, Professor, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen

    “In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable,” writes Henrik Svensmark.

    The star that keeps us alive has, over the last few years, been almost free of sunspots, which are the usual signs of the Sun’s magnetic activity. Last week [4 September 2009] the scientific team behind the satellite SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) reported, “It is likely that the current year’s number of blank days will be the longest in about 100 years.” Everything indicates that the Sun is going into some kind of hibernation, and the obvious question is what significance that has for us on Earth.

    If you ask the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which represents the current consensus on climate change, the answer is a reassuring “nothing”. But history and recent research suggest that is probably completely wrong. Why? Let’s take a closer look.

    Solar activity has always varied. Around the year 1000, we had a period of very high solar activity, which coincided with the Medieval Warm Period. It was a time when frosts in May were almost unknown – a matter of great importance for a good harvest. Vikings settled in Greenland and explored the coast of North America. On the whole it was a good time. For example, China’s population doubled in this period.

    But after about 1300 solar activity declined and the world began to get colder. It was the beginning of the episode we now call the Little Ice Age. In this cold time, all the Viking settlements in Greenland disappeared. Sweden surprised Denmark by marching across the ice, and in London the Thames froze repeatedly. But more serious were the long periods of crop failures, which resulted in poorly nourished populations, reduced in Europe by about 30 per cent because of disease and hunger.

    It’s important to realise that the Little Ice Age was a global event. It ended in the late 19th Century and was followed by increasing solar activity. Over the past 50 years solar activity has been at its highest since the medieval warmth of 1000 years ago. But now it appears that the Sun has changed again, and is returning towards what solar scientists call a “grand minimum” such as we saw in the Little Ice Age.

    The match between solar activity and climate through the ages is sometimes explained away as coincidence. Yet it turns out that, almost no matter when you look and not just in the last 1000 years, there is a link. Solar activity has repeatedly fluctuated between high and low during the past 10,000 years. In fact the Sun spent about 17 per cent of those 10,000 years in a sleeping mode, with a cooling Earth the result.

    You may wonder why the international climate panel IPCC does not believe that the Sun’s changing activity affects the climate. The reason is that it considers only changes in solar radiation. That would be the simplest way for the Sun to change the climate – a bit like turning up and down the brightness of a light bulb.

    Satellite measurements have shown that the variations of solar radiation are too small to explain climate change. But the panel has closed its eyes to another, much more powerful way for the Sun to affect Earth’s climate. In 1996 we discovered a surprising influence of the Sun – its impact on Earth’s cloud cover. High-energy accelerated particles coming from exploded stars, the cosmic rays, help to form clouds.

    When the Sun is active, its magnetic field is better at shielding us against the cosmic rays coming from outer space, before they reach our planet. By regulating the Earth’s cloud cover, the Sun can turn the temperature up and down. High solar activity means fewer clouds and and a warmer world. Low solar activity and poorer shielding against cosmic rays result in increased cloud cover and hence a cooling. As the Sun’s magnetism doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming seen then.

    That also explains why most climate scientists try to ignore this possibility. It does not favour their idea that the 20th century temperature rise was mainly due to human emissions of CO2. If the Sun provoked a significant part of warming in the 20th Century, then the contribution by CO2 must necessarily be smaller.

    Ever since we put forward our theory in 1996, it has been subjected to very sharp criticism, which is normal in science.

    First it was said that a link between clouds and solar activity could not be correct, because no physical mechanism was known. But in 2006, after many years of work, we completed experiments at DTU Space that demonstrated the existence of a physical mechanism. The cosmic rays help to form aerosols, which are the seeds for cloud formation.

    Then came the criticism that the mechanism we found in the laboratory could not work in the real atmosphere, and therefore had no practical significance. We have just rejected that criticism emphatically.

    It turns out that the Sun itself performs what might be called natural experiments. Giant solar eruptions can cause the cosmic ray intensity on earth to dive suddenly over a few days. In the days following an eruption, cloud cover can fall by about 4 per cent. And the amount of liquid water in cloud droplets is reduced by almost 7 per cent. Here is a very large effect – indeed so great that in popular terms the Earth’s clouds originate in space.

    So we have watched the Sun’s magnetic activity with increasing concern, since it began to wane in the mid-1990s.

    That the Sun might now fall asleep in a deep minimum was suggested by solar scientists at a meeting in Kiruna in Sweden two years ago. So when Nigel Calder and I updated our book The Chilling Stars, we wrote a little provocatively that “we are advising our friends to enjoy global warming while it lasts.”

    In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. Mojib Latif from the University of Kiel argued at the recent UN World Climate Conference in Geneva that the cooling may continue through the next 10 to 20 years. His explanation was a natural change in the North Atlantic circulation, not in solar activity. But no matter how you interpret them, natural variations in climate are making a comeback.

    The outcome may be that the Sun itself will demonstrate its importance for climate and so challenge the theories of global warming. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable. A forecast saying it may be either warmer or colder for 50 years is not very useful, and science is not yet able to predict solar activity.

    So in many ways we stand at a crossroads. The near future will be extremely interesting. I think it is important to accept that Nature pays no heed to what we humans think about it. Will the greenhouse theory survive a significant cooling of the Earth? Not in its current dominant form. Unfortunately, tomorrow’s climate challenges will be quite different from the greenhouse theory’s predictions. Perhaps it will become fashionable again to investigate the Sun’s impact on our climate.

    Professor Henrik Svensmark is director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at DTU Space. His book The Chilling Stars has also been published in Danish as Klima og Kosmos Gads Forlag, DK ISBN 9788712043508)

  202. Scott A. Mandia (07:39:41) :

    I would be very careful if you intend to tap Tamino’s bees nest. You will likely be coming to a gun fight armed with a knife.

    Lucia from the Blackboard recently came to Tamino’s bees nest and blasted him with a bazooka. I’m referring to her apparent proof that one of his analyses violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics. She was permanently banned from his board.

  203. Phil’s Dad (12:44:14)

    Well between us then, we’ve now solved most of the world’s problems without even leaving the room. Thanks for being a politician who seeks and considers views outside the party line. I hope you can find a way to steer your less enlightened fellows away from Luddite dogma. I’m trying to convert my friends one mind at a time, but not ready to go public either. I might find myself swinging from the UCD water tower. All praise to the Swenmarks (and Watts’, Pielkes, and McIntyres and McKittricks, et. al.) of the world be they right or wrong. A scientist’s first duty is to be skeptical; maybe it should be a layman’s and politician’s, too.

  204. Ron de Haan (06:01:30) : If this hoax is stopped however, it has to be stopped in the USA.

    It won’t be. It will be stopped in Russia, China, and India.

    Russia only bought into Kyoto since they got paid to play by western europe sending them ‘offset’ dollars since their industry collapsed with the USSR and they could count it is “CO2 reduction”. Copenhagen will not have that “juice” for them, and their scientists are already calling “bunk” on AGW. China is only going to do what improves the riches and power of China. THAT is blowing off AGW “mitigation” but asking for western money anyway. India is in roughly the same position, but more importantly, there is no effective way to control India; so they will ask for western money too and assert their right to continue growing as is.

    The end result is that with about 1/2 the world population and about 3/4 the economic growth saying “no thanks”, the effort will collapse.

    The only real question is how impoverished the west becomes as we go down the path.

    The “3rd world”, Russia, et. al. have their hands out. China has the door open to industry, as does India. The money and factories will run that way until the flow dries up. Then they will politely inform us that AGW is no longer of interest to them, but would we like to buy any cars, food, coal, toys, tools? Oh, no money to buy? So sorry…

    Think this is fantasy? China is busy buying resources all over the world. Trading U.S. Treasuries for future delivery of oil (200 $B to Petrobras IIRC), coal and minerals (Australian and Brazilian miners), etc. Hit the biz news, the deals are published. They have absolutely NO intention what so ever of reducing production nor energy use. Ever.

    So, frankly, the USA is irrelevant and a “write off” with the UK just a bit further down the road ahead of us in the race to bankruptcy. (California is already there. We have AGW laws galore, but no jobs and industry is packing up and moving to China and Brazil… gee just like my investment money…) Mainland Europe is a bit lagging largely due to their protectionist economics, but that barrier can not stand forever. Not against China.

  205. E.M.Smith (14:43:52) :
    What the MODELS predict (pardon, project, like projectile v..) is rising temps. So the MODELS are bunk since they cannot predict (or project) a cooling trend. Oh, and they are fed on broken temperature series from GIStemp et.al. G. in G. out …
    ————————-

    Do they now. All of them? And your source for this statement is………

    Or is it what you want to believe?

  206. dorlomin (15:38:22) :

    E.M.Smith (14:43:52) :
    What the MODELS predict (pardon, project, like projectile v..) is rising temps.

    Do they now. All of them? And your source for this statement is………

    Or is it what you want to believe?

    Graphs?

  207. dorlomin (15:38:22) :

    Busted sensors. Seen it myself, the tech replaced the berserk sensor with another one from a failing site. Swaperoo.
    Now I can tell when one of them is on the fritz: They overexpand & get stuck when it gets hot. Design flaw.
    E.M. Smith is telling it like it is.

  208. Fred Lightfoot (02:44:03) :

    Fred, great story. Nature has a way of humbling human hubris. I think the Sun is now pointing its big gun at us, particularly at those who are addicted to man-made global warming hysteria. Hopefully it’s just a gun, not a cannon.

  209. Robert Phelan, would you have been happier if he had simply listed “disease” and left off the starvation? How do you know the black death hit the well fed and hungry equally? I’ve never seen any historical records that would support that. I have read that the well off resisted the black death better than the poor. Some attributed that to the silver spoon effect, but better immunity through eating might have been at work. Poor harvests are supported by the historical record, and in an agricultural society successive poor harvests are devastating. What was your purpose in picking on that detail?

  210. Stephen Wilde (14:36:10) says “Thanks for the clarification. I see your position more clearly now and don’t disagree with what you say.”

    Mea culpa Mr Wilde – communication is the responsibility of the sender.

    I am in favour of reducing the size of government as you (and a number of others above) have suggested. If, as a result, I am not one of those that remain then I don’t deserve to be here.

    (And yes we do need to be told)

  211. So in many ways, we stand at a crossroads. The near future will be extremely interesting and I think it is important to recognize that nature is completely independent of what we humans think about it. Will Greenhouse theory survive a significant cooling of the Earth? Not in its current dominant form. Unfortunately, tomorrow’s climate challenges will be quite different than greenhouse theory’s predictions, and perhaps it becomes again popular to investigate the sun’s impact on climate.

    That makes no sense. If the output of the sun reduces, then there is another forcing at work on the climate. AGW theory has never ignored other forcings, and they are incorporated in climate models. That one forcing unexpectedly increases it’s influence does in no way deny that CO2 is a significant forcing at present.

  212. Having been away for awhile – it is refreshing to see there remains a foundation of sober thought on this subject. And it is expressed with courtesy in one of the leading new media publications, WUWT. That’s What’s Up.

  213. ann riley (16:54:05) :
    What was your purpose in picking on that detail?

    Maybe because I know something about it.

  214. E.M. Smith wrote:

    Mainland Europe is a bit lagging largely due to their protectionist economics, but that barrier can not stand forever. Not against China.

    That was an interesting post Smith, although completely off-topic, if I may say so ;). I disagree however. I think China is dependent on the West (exports) as much as we are dependent on it. China has £2,000,000,000,000 in USA government bonds just for starters. That much will evapourate if the West fails economically. Rest assured that as with Japan, if the West wants China to fail, it will make it happen. The vast majorty of wealth is still in Europe and the USA and combined they can crush the Chinese economy regardless of their policy objectives. It’s advantageous to us to trade with them on current terms however, so that is why things are so.

    With respect to the original post, concerning Svensmark, he is stating what is pretty obvious to us sceptics but as usual I fear he is preaching to the converted, as this website does. Where is our anti-AGW poster-boy? Where is our Al Gore? We don’t have one (I don’t think the Czech President has a high enough profile to count). It’s a shame, but that’s the way it is. Sure, the Science will win out over time, but long before it does our economies will have been changed beyond recognition.

    I speak as one who only recently started to drive a car, so I feel it in my wallet now whereas I didn’t before ;). I have always been a sceptic however.

  215. bugs (17:05:29) :

    “AGW theory has never ignored other forcings, and they are incorporated in climate models. That one forcing unexpectedly increases it’s influence does in no way deny that CO2 is a significant forcing at present”.

    Excuse me? Have I arrived in Allice in Wonderland or am I really dreaming?

  216. E.M.Smith (14:58:45) :
    But that plague spread, in part, due to the poor nutritional status of the population. Plague did not just evolve overnight as a new species… The outbreak of plague had causes too…

    No it was not a new species. Europe experienced the same disease in the 7th Century. Back then it ws called the “Plague of Justinian”. The Black Death of the 14th century started in China nearly a quarter century before, carried by flea-infested rats, crossed Asia and ended up in Constaninople around 1346. Trading ships carried the rats and their fleas to Genoa. Within five years 40% of Europe’s population was dead. My point is that absent a particularly virulent disease vector like the Black Death, it is more likely that Europe’s population would have continued to expand as it in fact did for the century and a half after the plague. Claiming that poor harvests caused by global cooling had anything to do with the massive death toll in the 14th century is the kind of logic I expect to see over at RC. A tertiary factor, perhaps, but as I said somewhere earlier here, the plague killed the well-fed and emaciated equally well. The difference was not in caloric intake but how many rats lived with you. The well-to-do arguably had fewer rats in their living spaces, were able to more successfully segregate themselves or flee, and so survived. Boccaccio and Chaucer both lived through the plague and the Decameron and the Canterbury Tales are both set in that time period, with religious pilgrims setting off on religious quests to avoid the plague. Interesting first hand accounts of the period.

    With Professor Svalgaard’s pardon, I want Dr. Svenmark to be correct. Just don’t go all algore on us.

  217. Robinson (17:57:10) :

    “…if the West wants China to fail, it will make it happen. The vast majorty of wealth is still in Europe and the USA…”

    Sorry, I’m with Smith on this one. Let’s take a step back. By WWII the US was probably already the largest manufacturer in the world, certainly larger than the previous title-holder, England. By the late 1960’s the United States manufactured more than 60% of everything produced in the world. Today that figure stands at 20%, while China’s share is also 20%. The difference is that the US is producing 20% of the world’s goods and an agricultural labor force of only a half percent of our population. If we wanted to expand manufacturing we would have no where to draw the labor from. Forget the 10% unemployment rate, a lot of them are people like me who swore they could never export IT jobs to Bangalore. China has more than 40% of its population still engaged in agriculture. As they mechanize agricultural production and move from peasant farming to industrial farming, that most of that 40% will be released for work in the factories. Since labor costs are nearly 60% of the cost of manufactured goods, what makes anyone think that those jobs are coming back here? The goods will flow from China to the world and the money will flow from the world to China. India is right behind them, with 60% of their labor force still engaged in agriculture. If the Chinese own our debt, how the *&^%!!! can you suggest that our economy can break theirs?

  218. When I think of 5 years from now I can’t imagine what those perpetrating the AGW movement will have come up with to perpetuate the farce till then.

    But I am entirely certain they will indeed produce whatever it takes to maintain the AGW movement in order to preserve themselves and their careers.

    I am an expert in how the left operates. I have read, listened to and watched them regularily for years. I live in Oregon where the left has taken control of every institution and arena. Their agenda is alway front and center and never recognizes any shortcomings in any way.

    Only now, with the AGW movement, have they inadvertantly comitted to the irreversible path to their own doom.

    Thank God for the global warming fraud.

  219. What was the term warmist use concerning political action ieven if warming ultimately turns out not to be so severe? The principle of “abundance of caution” or some such term. That is: act and if it turns out not to be a serious problem, well then …etc. etc. The illogic of this idea becomes clear when the possibility that we are destined to freeze rather than fry hasn’t been ruled out.

    It would be “an abundance of foolhardiness” if we were to wipe out at least the modest share of warming that we all agree CO2 causes and along with it wipe out the wealth needed to adjust to the change and wipe out the supply of CO2 that plants may need to shoulder up to a cooling climate. The sensible solution that all reasonable non political people would choose to adopt would be to maintain the resources to be able to adjust to whatever is coming. Surely we can stick some guages on the Maldives and other sensitive low relief islands to get better probability data on future trends. Whatever is going to happen, waiting a few decades for more info is not going to hurt.

    Remember it is exactly the same type of alarmist and maybe even the same persons in the 1970s that had us all freezing and starving to death by the year 2000, with India and China being the first to go. Ironically, these two countries went the opposite way and ruined the upside down hockey stick of the time. The common problem here is that linear regression arithmetic, being easy and understandable by all gets trundled out every 30 years with the opposite slope.

  220. RR Kampen (08:53:46) “The rise in [CO2] is not the only thing driving global temperature. It is only by far the most important.”

    Suggested: Read Yu.V. Barkin.

  221. I looked up the great famine,found some good articles.

    Fourthly, the Great Famine marked a clear end to an unprecedented period of population growth that had started around 1050; although some believe this had been slowing down for a few decades already, there is no doubt the Great Famine was a clear end of high population growth. Finally, the Great Famine would have consequences for future events in the 14th century such as the Black Death when an already weakened population would be struck again.

    http://www.amazon.com/Great-Famine-William-Chester-Jordan/product-reviews/0691011346/ref=dp_db_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

  222. E.M, Smith says:

    What the AWG Believers say is it is possible to have temporary cooling. What the MODELS predict (pardon, project, like projectile v..) is rising temps. So the MODELS are bunk since they cannot predict (or project) a cooling trend.

    You might want to look at what the models actually predict: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/ What the models predict is that on average there will be warming. However, each individual model run shows the sort of noise that is inherent in the real climate system and thus it is not uncommon to have approximately decade-long periods with little trend or even a negative trend. What the models cannot predict is WHEN these periods will occur because the “climate noise” is chaotic and thus very sensitive to initial conditions.

    (There have been a few papers recently that have tried to make decadal predictions of the climate by trying to initialize the models with the current ocean conditions…and there is some hope that this is possible because the timescales for some of the ocean processes are long enough that the divergence from perturbed initial conditions may be slow enough to allow prediction of the climate noise a decade or so into the future. However, this has yet to be convincingly demonstrated.)

  223. Oh, here http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/csi/images/GRL2009_ClimateWarming.pdf is a peer-reviewed paper that has now appeared in Geophysical Research Letters that has shown again what that RealClimate post showed, which is that periods of a decade or so of negative trend are in fact not uncommon in climate models forced with greenhouse gases.

    So expect that this new evidence will now greatly increase your faith in climate models?

  224. jlc (13:42:28) : “…Not at all uncharacteristic for the smug, sanctimonious and omniscient Lief.”

    How did you manage to fit smug and sanctimonious into the same sentence as omniscient (all-knowing: infinitely wise), jlc?

  225. Joel Shore (20:28:41) : “So expect that this new evidence will now greatly increase your faith in climate models?”

    NO.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  226. Phil’s Dad (09:44:49) :

    I accept the cowardly label – I use a pseudonym here because even being seen to consider “skeptical” views can affect my job as a European politician with an environment brief.

    So much for free speech and democracy in Europe.

  227. SPPI’s Monthly CO2 Report is now posted:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monthly_report/august_co2_report.html

    No heat buildup in the oceans = no global warming:
    SPPI’s authoritative Monthly CO2 Report for August 2009 announces the publication of a major paper by Professors David Douglass and Robert Knox of the Physics Department in the University of Rochester, New York, demonstrating that the heat buildup in the oceans that is a necessary fingerprint of manmade global warming is not occurring. This is another mortal blow to the alarmist cause in the climate debate. Report, page 4.
    “Science should be done by observation, meditation, calculation, and verification. Politicized science cannot usefully inform political decisions.” Editorial comment: Page 3.
    The IPCC assumes CO2 concentration will reach 836 ppmv by 2100, but, for almost eight years, CO2 concentration has headed straight for only 570 ppmv by 2100. This alone halves all of the IPCC’s temperature projections. Pages 5-6.
    Since 1980 temperature has risen at only 2.3 °F (1.4 °C)/century, not the 7 F° (3.9 C°) the IPCC predicts. Pages 7-9.
    Sea level rose just 8 inches in the 20th century, and has scarcely risen since 2006. The oceans are not warming. Pages 10-11.
    Arctic sea-ice extent is currently at its summer low, but there is more summer ice than there was in 2007 or 2008. In the Antarctic, sea ice extent reached a record high in 2007. Global sea ice extent shows little trend for 30 years. Pages 12-15.
    Hurricane and tropical-cyclone activity is almost at its lowest since satellite measurement began. Pages 16-17.
    The Sun is still very quiet. There were no sunspots in August at all. Page 18.
    The (very few) benefits and the (very large) costs of the Waxman/Markey Bill are illustrated at Pages 19-21.
    Science Focus this month reprints a paper giving the reasons why the great ice sheets will not collapse. Pages 22-28.
    As always, there’s our “global warming” ready reckoner, and our monthly selection of scientific papers. Pages 29-34.
    And finally, a Technical Note explains how we compile our state-of-the-art CO2 and temperature graphs. Page 35.

    As Roy Orbison would have said, it’s over

  228. Ron de Haan (08:53:29) :
    Luboš Motl (07:55:34) :

    “It must be annoying for Svensmark if their mechanism – which is almost certainly one of the most important insights of climatology in decades – is being largely ignored because of a paranoid politicized cult that prefers the explanations with a big potential to influence politics over the explanations that are supported by the objective evidence.

    Nice article”.

    Thanks Luboš, I could not agree more.

    Jumping the gun a little, for example why do the nuclei supposedly generated by the Forbush events take a week to build into clouds whereas those released from jet engine exhausts produce clouds in a matter of seconds? Also the cloud cover decayed away measurably in a couple of days when air travel over the US was shut down 8 years ago.

  229. Johnny Honda (00:34:23) :

    I know that the sun hours per day are measured since a long time. They have this glass balls (like the fortune teller…) and behind there is a stripe of paper. When the sun shines, the light burns a hole into the stripe of paper. I saw it in the 70ies the first time but it might exists already a long time ago.

    See http://www.bluehill.org/instruments/instruments.html under “Sunshine Instruments” and click on the photos to see one of these.

  230. Dolormin, answer my questions please, none of them has anything to do with stars. they have only to do with observable characteristics of our climate in the real world and in the past. No tipping points and no positive feedbacks

    Why is it that whenever the key questions on AGW are asked such as prove it, nobody not even the cleverest physicists can answer them. They see warming for 20 years and CO2 rising at the same time and that is it. Of course you have to ignore periods last century when it cooled the MWP and LIA but never mind, what is a bit of scientific fraud compared to religious beliefs.

    Have a look how the AGW sirens are changing their songs now after saying that warming would be forever with a little noise, the tune is now that it can stop and reverse without falsifying the hypothesis but one day it will start again. Well of course it will and it may just do so because of natural factors. As I say many times AGW is the ultimate busted flush, how can the world now step back from the nonsensical situation that it has got itself into in the main due to wholly unelected and totally incompetent bodies like the UN, puppet scientists like its IPCC and unelected left wing eco lobby groups. A worse case of the tail wagging the dog I have never seen.

  231. Scott Mandia (10:32:20) :

    Lucy’s post showing Arctic temperature plots includes this statement about the data: All data comes from NASA GISS or CRU originally.

    So do we use GISS or not?

    Lucy’s data is for individual stations (via GISS/GHCN/CRU). GISS also produce the infamous gridded data product. If you want “nothing to see here – move along” use individual long standing records. If you want “alarming” increases over the last fifty years then the gridded product is the way to go. It’s all about choice.

  232. Leif Svalgaard (12:23:50) :
    “Chris Schoneveld (07:36:59) :
    He won’t, as Al Gore won’t either.”
    This very, very close to an ad hom. quite uncharacteristically for Leif.
    I don’t know… Since when is just mentioning someone next to Al Gore an ad hom? :-)
    The point was that if you are at one pole of a very polarized issue, such debates are usually not of much use, as the pole sitter has too much tied up in his viewpoint.”

    Nice Try.

  233. Harold Ambler (05:22:10) :
    http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
    As I have pointed out so many times, one must look at many stations [just as with temperature]. Showing just one [or a cherry picked bunch] is quite meaningless. Figure 1 of http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/reprints/2007bieber.pdf shows some more stations. Including South Pole. From the article: “[1] The count rate recorded by a neutron monitor at South Pole, Antarctica, displays a long-term decline over the 32-year span from 1965 to 1997. “.

  234. Chris Schoneveld (22:46:14) :
    “The point was that if you are at one pole of a very polarized issue, such debates are usually not of much use, as the pole sitter has too much tied up in his viewpoint.”
    Nice Try.

    That was what I meant.

  235. China seems to have us right where they want us. They own most of our debt and we can’t complain too loudly about human rights, support for N. Korea, Burma (I refuse to call it Myanmar until it’s so decided by a freely and fairly elected government), the Asia brown cloud, factory fishing, etc. They now own the means of production thanks to our migration of manufacturing to their shores, and although they will continue to want to sell us stuff, their people have had a much higher savings rate, and are beginning to consumerism by their own population so they will become increasingly less dependent on us. They, of course can’t let us go bankrupt until they have sold off most of their U.S. bonds, but after that we have little leverage. More ominously, they are in the process of moving all of their gold, stored mostly in London, to a new storage facility at the Hong Kong airport. It is shaping up to be the Chinese century, and where that leaves us is anybody’s guess. Long term investment in China and the rest of Asia is rapidly becoming more attractive than investing at home. We will only penalize further our economy by initiating cap-and-trade, because China isn’t about to fall for our nonsense.

  236. Joel, on the GPL paper you referenced. WOW. Kinda small and lacking detail. I’m underwhelmed. I was expecting more.

    Notice that the models used in the series presented were created around 2005. This is when the specter of the possibility of a cooling period was already entering the lexicon of the global warming debate, primarily because people were starting to notice that it wasn’t warming as expected. I would be more impressed with a model that was created during the 90’s, when the consensus was that there would be no more cooling. Also note that on the second graph there is absolutely NO cooling after 2030. Really? We are entering a period in the science of climate change where the powers that be now, finally, concede there will be long term cooling periods, yet these modelers still stick to the model that produces NO cooling trend for over seventy years? Really???????. The beauty of this is it will be 2080 or so before this particular model can possibly be verified.

    Who wants to bet that by 2060 this particular model will be long forgotten and relegated to the dust bin of history as the climate will not have warmed nearly as much as this absurd prediction suggests.

  237. As always Anthony, many thanks for your blog.

    In my blog I used your translation from Danish to English in addition to the original Danish text, as most of us here can read and even speak a little Danish.

    I only changed “Swedes [were surprised to see Denmark to freeze over in ice],…” to “Swedes surprised the Danes by walking over the ice,…”

    http://agbjarn.blog.is/blog/agbjarn/entry/946551/

    Best regards, Agust

    REPLY: Thanks, I made that change. – Anthony

  238. Robert E. Phelan (17:55:49) :

    ann riley (16:54:05) :
    What was your purpose in picking on that detail?

    Maybe because I know something about it.
    —————

    That was a pretty dismissive response but it wasn’t an answer to the question.
    Did you mean to say “…because I wanted to demonstrate that I know something about it.”?

  239. Leif Svalgaard (14:13:03) :

    The slope you should be recognizing is not any other cosmic ray graph, but a graph of an entirely different subject.
    The clue was it starts around 1990…roughly.
    Take a bunch of neutron monitor graphs extending back well before 1990.
    Southern Hemisphere, Moscow, Oulu, Thule, etc.
    From 1990 onwards, they all pretty much do the same general thing.
    You pick one, you pick them all.
    As you progress forward, there is an upper line, and a lower line. They both follow the same general slope.
    What other graph have you seen that follows that same timeslice?

  240. Agust Bjarnason (23:00:19) :
    I only changed “Swedes [were surprised to see Denmark to freeze over in ice],…” to “Swedes surprised the Danes by walking over the ice,…”
    The Danish text says “Svenskerne overraskede Danmark med at gå over isen” and translates: “The Swedes took [the nation] Denmark by surprise by walking over the ice”. Somewhat clumsy Danish, so the translation becomes clumsy too.

  241. rbateman (23:49:56) :
    What other graph have you seen that follows that same timeslice?
    I’m trained to not overinterprete any trend of such short duration, so I don’t see anything of significance.

  242. Joel Shore (20:20:28) :

    (…) What the models predict is that on average there will be warming (…)

    One of my problems with climate hysteria is that if you accept the LIA (and MWP) then there can be no doubt that the “average climate” has warmed over the last couple of hundred years or we would still be in the LIA (and nobody wants to go back there). The questions concern what drives these changes.

    Faced with warming, should I be worried? My view is most certainly – no. Is mankind controlling the climate? Locally? Possibly. Globally? Not a chance. We are fleas on a Dog’s back claiming some significance to the Dog turning left or right. Water, it’s abundance and it’s many wonderful properties, governs the climate here.

    I noticed earlier the statement by someone that .. in the absence of greenhouse gases the earth would be ~33ºC cooler

    Such statements puzzle me. The dominant “greenhouse gas” (on earth, water vapour) wouldn’t exist if we were 33C cooler – chickens, eggs. “Greenhouse gas” is there because we receive enough energy from the Sun to keep it there. If we were 33C cooler it would be called “ice” and we would be in real trouble.

    I also notice of late that more are coming around to the idea that we may see some cooling soon. Looking at long term (individual) station records – yes about every 60 years. Only if you feed on “pasteurised” data products and “Hockey Sticks” could you believe that “alarming” warming started in the 50’s. You don’t need to be a realclimatescinetist to see the pattern 30 “cool” 30 “warm” or that we have reached the current plateau and are about due for the down side. Who knows, if we do see cooling for a few decades, maybe we see a new theory that CO2 causes cooling. Wouldn’t supprise me at all, the correlation will be there, rising CO2 falling temps, re-write history.

    As far as I am concerned CO2 is a bit part player at best. One of many. Hopefully Svensmark here has found another in GCR’s. Who knows? We may get a coherent climate model at some point.

    For the moment, as a Carbon based life form – I’m voting for Carbon.

  243. Joel Shore (20:20:28) :

    (There have been a few papers recently that have tried to make decadal predictions of the climate by trying to initialize the models with the current ocean conditions…and there is some hope that this is possible because the timescales for some of the ocean processes are long enough that the divergence from perturbed initial conditions may be slow enough to allow prediction of the climate noise a decade or so into the future.

    This complex sentence merits careful study. Joel seems to be saying, if I understand him correctly, that by finally acknowledging that there are longer term oceanic cycles, the models are becoming slightly more realistic in their projections.

    My question for him is this: If the negative phases of oceanic cycles are able to overcome the alleged co2 forcing for a decade or more at a time, how much of the late C20th warming attributed to co2 was actually due to the positive phases of those same oceanic cycles?

    I’v asked this question many times of proponents of the AGW hypothesis, but have never recieved a reply. It’s an issue they seem to avoid like the plague. I don’t expect a properly quantified answer. An acknowledgement that at least some of the warming attributed to co2 was due to cyclic oceanic behaviour would be a start.

  244. Agust Bjarnason (23:00:19) :

    As always Anthony, many thanks for your blog.

    In my blog I used your translation from Danish to English in addition to the original Danish text, as most of us here can read and even speak a little Danish.

    I only changed “Swedes [were surprised to see Denmark to freeze over in ice],…” to “Swedes surprised the Danes by walking over the ice,…”

    http://agbjarn.blog.is/blog/agbjarn/entry/946551/

    Best regards, Agust

    REPLY: Thanks, I made that change. – Anthony

    A little further up the thread, Henrik Svensmark himself has endorsed another translation:

    Henrik Svensmark (15:01:28) :

    Dear Anthony,

    Nigel Calder has been so kind to translate my article. It is a good translation.

    Best wishes,
    Henrik

    Published 9 September 2009 in Jyllands-Posten, Denmark’s best-selling newspaper.
    Translation approved by Henrik Svensmark

    Perhaps it would be best to post Nigel Calder’s translation at some point, since that is the one the Author himself prefers.

  245. EM Smith: you know, you could be funny if you weren’t so obviously biased. The global temperature for 2009 so far, as calculated by satellites, is largely above the 1998-2008 average and much hotter than 2008. With the September we’re having it’s not going to be less hot!

    Please do not come citing how cold it was in the winter in some places. India and China had sizzling temperatures, the summer in Europe was quite hot and Queensland, Australia is beating all records. Globally, it’s hot. See for example

    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/amsutemps.html

  246. Since Svensmark posted here his approved translation on WUWT, he must be aware of Leif’s persistent criticism of his theory and it would be appreciated by everybody if he and Leif cross swords at this forum. The floor is open!

  247. global warming be stopped would be a good experiment. My wondering here is that what if the cooling keeps coming down to earth? Is it another Ice Age? I don’t know much about earth, I mean planets. Im kind of superstitious. Like I believed in that Maya calender predicted ending of the world in 2012. Now I see this article about cooling comes instead of global warming. Such thing happens suddenly. I would like to believe in sciences. Anyway, cooling down is not a bad thing. As long as it’s good for us, for this planet.

  248. This may shocking opinion,
    I wonder how much cost has been charge to implement greenhouse-theory based programs around the world.

    If the sun theory is right, then why it published recently in a popular newspaper?

  249. dorlomin (11:11:14) :
    the history of science is chock a bloc full of controvosies where very intellegent people looking at the same evidence came to different conclusions. Try out of africa vs multiregional evolution or wave vs particle in classic physics, big bang vs steady state or the host of alternative models in physics at the moment.

    The people on the wrong side of those debates were not stupid, following religous cults or falsifying evidence for grant money.
    They were sincere, hard working and often brilliant. Just like the people who won the debates.

    This aspect of science has puzzled me. How can intelligent people come to different conclusions about the same data? Surely if different conclusions are available, nobody should be coming to any one conclusion. Rather, we should add the two as two possibilities.

    And given that data is often uncertain, neither possibility should be discounted too early. In fact, it has been noted that gifted people in the world of design are in the habit of keeping several possibilities in play for as long as possible, letting each one be developed and matured in parallel. It is a key to creative thought and development.

    It was scientists claiming “the science is settled” that raised by sceptical curiosity.

    It seems to me a lot of people have a faith in science, that science is the best method for obtaining true knowledge. But there then seems to come a little cognitive slip, and people go on to feel that science gives you true knowledge. It is science! They are scientists! They must be right!

    Meanwhile, the scientists themselves are working on some really hard problems, and that’s what they love to do (I would imagine.) But again, something weird happens… perhaps because they have to publish papers… and how do you publish on a very hard problem that nobody, including yourself, has solved?

    So this other weird thing seems to happen. All the evidence we have so far points to X, so scientifically, only X is likely true… but that’s a weird cognitive slip. It is like sending out a search party into a forest, and the search party covers 10% of the forest. You then report back “all the evidence we have is that the missing person in NOT in the forest”. And then even more weird, when you cover another 10% of the forest, and you find the missing person, people report, “all the evidence is that the person is NOT in the forest, and this one person we found was just a statistical anomaly, and they’re just someone who looks like the missing person, but it is not them, because all the previous literature on the subject is very unlikely to be wrong.”

    Sure, people are clever, but it seems that the theory and ideals of science, are not easy to put into practice reliably. There is pressure to publish, there is pressure to survive, to build a reputation, and so on. Otherwise, why would people jump to conclusions when so many alternatives exist? And you don’t have to be a selfish career chaser either. You could be a very sincere and concerned person, someone who desperately wants to do the right thing and protect the environment. You know it is obvious that humanity’s presence, as population continues to grow, is placing a greater burden on the planet. And as a scientists, you feel it is your utmost moral and ethical obligation to bring ANY evidence of this to the public’s attention.

    Now, you might not be certain about global warming, but you are certain about humanity’s dangerous impact in general, so even if global warming is not a watertight theory, your moral obligation–you couldn’t sleep at night otherwise–is to make as much of it as possible, and your fellow scientists–because remember, there isn’t just one person with a moral conscience, but a whole generation of people with an awakening ethical/planetary concern–all your fellow scientists agree the situation is dire, we’re heading for a disaster, and somehow, we need to change. Are you going to hang back and say, well gee, there is so little data, we just don’t understand the climate.

  250. “UK Sceptic (01:05:16) :

    If we are sliding into another LIA then is it possible we’ll see governments paying industry to pump out as much CO2 as it can?”

    I really don’t know if we heading to a cold period anytime soon, but I suspect that, unfortunately, pumping out CO2 is not going to help.

    It’s a pity really that all this CO2 hysteria has no basis, because Global Freezing is scarier than Global Warming. We don’t have any good solution for it when it comes. And it will come eventually. That’s for sure.

  251. “E.M.Smith (14:26:36) :

    Too late. It already is. Hundreds of children dead in Peru from early onset snow. Crops ripening slowly in Canada and late planting from persistent snows. Argentina talking about a complete embargo of wheat exports due to cold induced crop failure (they are one of the few major exporters in the world in normal years…) Exceptional skiing started in New Zealand and Australia, the list goes on.”

    The only problem with this, and although the snow season did start weeks earlier than “usual” in Aus and NZ, and in Melbourne in particular was very cold just weeks after the bush fires entering into winter, August was 0.08c warmer than the long term average (According to the media and the BoM that is). Today, in Sydney’s inner west, it was 30c, quite nice actually.

    Incidentally here in New South Wales, “authorities” are back-burning and creating firebrakes, errrm….that’s reducing fuel in my eyes. Seems “authorities” are learning. One commenter on the news tonight stated that (Not actual words but the sentiment is the same) “We’ve wanted to do this for many years.”. So “they” have been prevented, by others, from doing what is propper.

  252. “tallbloke (08:20:53) :

    Patrick Davis (07:33:36) :

    “tallbloke (07:16:12) :

    Leif Svalgaard:

    “According to calculations by British scientists, the strength of the Sun’s magnetic field has doubled during the Twentieth Century alone.”

    Those same scientists now know that the doubling didn’t happen.

    Quite right Leif. They now estimate that it was a 79% increase rather than a 100% increase.”

    And that is still an estimate. Estimates are like “golbal average temperatures”, they are meaningless.

    Estimate was a poorly chosen word. The difficult process of gaining useful and valid information from the data is still a worthwhile effort, despite uncertainty.

    Unless you are of the opinion that we should throw our hands in the air and sit down in ignorance?”

    In terms of trying to work out if “nature (The Sun)” or “man” is driving “climate”, then yes, sit down and worry about much more important things.

  253. “Ron de Haan (08:05:49) :

    Patrick,
    I can not speak for the Brits, but the latest EU parliament election has been devastating for the left.
    The upcoming elections in the Netherlands will wipe the current ruling parties of the map.

    Believe me, people are fed up and the genie is out of the bottle.”

    I’m a British and New Zeland citizen, living in Australia, so it’s been a while since I’ve lived in the UK/EU (And I have lived as well in Ireland and Belgium). I am not sure about the fact there is a swing from the left in the EU, it maybe true (It does appear to coinside with a swing to the left in Aus/NZ). But, it’s not the puppets you vote for who “have” power, it’s the hoards of “coat tail taggers”, those you don’t see (In Australia we did see recently with the KRudd747 Utegate “scandal”. We got to see, on TV at least, the sorts of people that are “driving policy”. Anorack wearing types, you know what I mean?). There is a great British TV show called “House of Cards”, and it sums up the situation between the elite and the rest of us well in a satiricle sort of way.

    My main point is parliament, gummint, “democracy” are all “smokescreens” giving the unwashed masses, like myself, the illusion we have a say. The only way, as I see it, we have a say is if we do what the French did on Bastille day. Trouble is, DeadEnders, Coronation St, Footy is on TV, KFC and MacChunders is open 24hrs, no-one cares we’re being royally shafted (Excuse my Anglosaxon).

  254. E.M.Smith (14:26:36) :

    “Can explain why you think it is hotter “globally”. Hint: It has to do with putting a lot of thermometers on the tarmac on tropical islands during the growth of the Jet Age then using them to say that the surrounding water is the same temperature.”

    The expectation for September is based on satellite measurements at least by me (AMSU-A).

    We meteorologists in Holland checked whether warming was larger on airport stations like Rotterdam vs. places with increased urbanization in the vicinity of 5 km like De Bilt vs. rural places like Eelde or Terschelling Island. No difference, warming everywhere.
    Which can be witnessed by those who had ice skating as a hobby – and have lost it (like me) – winters have become so much warmer as to produce ice once every four years instead of simply every year (as of 1988).

  255. “sweetpea1221 (01:35:57) :

    global warming be stopped would be a good experiment. My wondering here is that what if the cooling keeps coming down to earth? Is it another Ice Age? I don’t know much about earth, I mean planets. Im kind of superstitious. Like I believed in that Maya calender predicted ending of the world in 2012. Now I see this article about cooling comes instead of global warming. Such thing happens suddenly. I would like to believe in sciences. Anyway, cooling down is not a bad thing. As long as it’s good for us, for this planet.”

    No. It’s just the the Mayan calendar ends in 2012 (Our calendar), NOT the end of the world. A fallacy like AGW.

  256. Heh, Scott, the list of those banned from ‘Open Mind’ constitute an honor roll of honest scientists. JeanS, Svalgaard, lucia are just at the head of the list. It is an echo chamber over there, just as is Real Climate.

    Scott, you really ought to investigate in depth the Ian Joliffe fiasco over there. Tamino, he who sees as through a glass darkly, defended Michael ‘Piltdown’ Mann’s crooked hockey stick statistics by appealing to the work of a known statistical expert, Ian Joliffe. Months later, Joliffe caught wind of Tamino’s ploy and debunked it on Tamino’s site. Frankly, I’m amazed that Tamino allowed it to stand. His usual technique is to either ban a protaganist from the fight, or disarm him, tie his hands behind his back with editing of comments, and then let his disgusting pack of commenters kick the poor devil into submission.

    You have some hints of being a reasonable, and persuadable believer in AGW. You have got to come to a real understanding of how narrow, prejudiced, and ultimately unscientific those two most prominent alarmist sites are.
    ==================================

  257. Leif Svalgaard (22:52:04) :
    Harold Ambler (05:22:10) :

    http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/

    As I have pointed out so many times, one must look at many stations [just as with temperature]. Showing just one [or a cherry picked bunch] is quite meaningless. Figure 1 of http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/reprints/2007bieber.pdf shows some more stations. Including South Pole. From the article: “[1] The count rate recorded by a neutron monitor at South Pole, Antarctica, displays a long-term decline over the 32-year span from 1965 to 1997. “.

    If this is an argument, it is not a good one. The decline you reference from 1965 to 1997 is consistent with the oft-referenced prolonged solar grand maximum of the period, as well as with consequent ocean heating. It is also consistent with the gradual decline in SSTs and atmospheric temperature since the El Nino of 1997-1998, with the seas’ thermal inertia buffering any sudden drop in temperature today. Again, if you are trying to discount any GCR-induced climate forcing, you have more or less neatly supported the opposing side’s position.

    With regard to Oulu Neutron Monitor, are you suggesting that it is poorly calibrated? Are you suggesting that its current reading is not indicative of the most prolonged and deepest solar minimum since the station was put into operation?

  258. Chris Schoneveld (01:12:29): Since Svensmark posted here his approved translation on WUWT, he must be aware of Leif’s persistent criticism of his theory and it would be appreciated by everybody if he and Leif cross swords at this forum.

    Yes! In these interesting times it is curious with so much brilliant and solid input from Danish scientist. I would argue that Leif Svalgaard, Henrik Svensmark and Ole Humlum, all of them Danish, have so many different and interesting opinions, that a discussion (written or live) between these would be of immense value for us.

  259. RR Kampen said “We meteorologists in Holland checked whether warming was larger on airport stations like Rotterdam vs. places with increased urbanization in the vicinity of 5 km like De Bilt vs. rural places like Eelde or Terschelling Island. No difference, warming everywhere.
    Which can be witnessed by those who had ice skating as a hobby – and have lost it (like me) – winters have become so much warmer as to produce ice once every four years instead of simply every year (as of 1988).”
    —–
    It’s always interesting to see anecdotal evidence from around the world. My own anecdotal contribution is that all the anecdotes from single lifetimes add up to far more heat than the 0.8C that is claimed for the Earth in a century.
    The oft-reported warming of the Arctic, which is much greater than the global average, must ( one would think) make it harder for other places to claim warming much greater than the average.
    You’re sure that winters have become so warm that ice comes but once in four years. How about the summer? It must be a lot warmer, too, isn’t it? Or, maybe, it’s colder and that’s how you can make the averages make sense. You’d have trouble doing that here in British Columbia, where all the warmer anecdotes are exactly off-set by the colder anecdotes and our carbon tax is another funny story.

  260. Phil,

    “Jumping the gun a little, for example why do the nuclei supposedly generated by the Forbush events take a week to build into clouds whereas those released from jet engine exhausts produce clouds in a matter of seconds? Also the cloud cover decayed away measurably in a couple of days when air travel over the US was shut down 8 years ago.”

    And this has what to do with the discussion??

    If you shut off cosmic rays their contribution stops. If you stop flying jets, their contribution stops.

    A better question is why specific altitude ranges are better for the creation of clouds from jet exhaust as opposed to other stimulus!!!

    The causes of clouds at different altitudes and conditions are DIFFERENT!!! The types of clouds at different altitudes and conditions are DIFFERENT!!!
    The effects of clouds at different altitudes and conditions are DIFFERENT!!!

    Please try to reason past your bias.

  261. Dear Dr. Svalgaard,

    In most climate models it is being assumed that our climate is extremely sensitive to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Another possibility is that the climate is extremely sensitive to the output from the sun. Assuming that latter, I have demonstrated that the time integrated magnetic field of the solar wind (HMF B) can be reasonably well fitted to the global temperature anomaly (HADCRUT3). The equation is:

    T_est = 0.007640*cumsum(HMF_B-5.7848)-0.4470;

    The plotted results is,

    http://i25.tinypic.com/fb97ph.jpg (moderator: please include figure)

    The reason I integrate HMF B is that the governing equation for the global temperature is a differential equation,

    m•cp•dT/dt = Qin – Qout

    Thus we must integrate anything that contributes to climate change to determine how the temperature is being influenced. What is fascinating about the time integral of HMF B is that it fits quite well both with the cold period in the beginning of the previous century and the rapid temperature increase in the last decades of that century. Obviously other factors influence climate as well and the deviation is particularly large in 1910 and in 1940. Although I have fitted two parameters only, this is clearly a toy model. Still I argue that we cannot say that it is a coincidence that the weak solar cycles 14 and 15 came simultaneously as the cold period in the beginning of previous century.

    What do you think about this “coincidence”?

    [Certainly the correlation in the toy model implies that our climate is extremely sensitive, but I argue that this sort of sensitivity may be in concord with the assumption that our climate is sensitively dependent on the initial conditions as Lorenz told us in 1963.]

  262. Dear Mr. Watts,
    I found your presentation of Professor Henrik Svensmark’s piece so riveting that I couldn’t resist continuing the activity you performed on the Google translation. My notion is that the better and more grammatical the English version is the less likely the piece is to be dismissed (irrational but all too common). Therefore I will try to cut and paste my fine-tuning of your fine-tuning of the Google translation below. Whether or not this succeeds you are encouraged to email me so that I can send my version to you as a formatted attachment.
    Thanks for the good work.
    Bill Mullen
    Prof. William Mullen
    Dept. of Classics
    Bard College
    Annandale-on-Hudson, NY 12504

    Watts Up With That, 11 September 2009

    This opinion piece from Professor Henrik Svensmark was published September 9th in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Translation is from Google translation with some post translation cleanup of jumbled words or phrases.

    WHILE THE SUN SLEEPS

    HENRIK SVENSMARK, Professor, DTU, Copenhagen

    Indeed, global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth, only the contrary. This means that projections of future climate cannot be carried out with predictive power, writes Henrik Svensmark.

    The star which keeps us alive has had over the last few years almost no sunspots, which are the usual signs of the sun’s magnetic activity.

    Last week, the scientific team behind the SOHO satellite (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) reported that the number of sunspot-free days suggest that solar activity is heading towards its lowest level in about 100 years’. Everything indicates that the Sun is moving into a hibernation-like state, and the obvious question is whether this has any significance for us on Earth.

    If you ask the International Panel on Climate Change IPCC, representing the current consensus on climate change, the answer is a reassuring ‘nothing’. But history and recent research suggests that it is probably completely wrong. Let us take a closer look at why.

    Solar activity has always varied. Around the year 1000, we had a period of very high solar activity, which coincided with the Medieval Warm Period. It was a period when frosts in May was an almost unknown phenomenon and of great importance for a good harvest. Vikings settled in Greenland and explored the coast of North America. For example, China’s population doubled over this period. But after about 1300, the earth began to get colder, and that was the beginning of the period we now call the Little Ice Age. In this cold period all the Viking settlements in Greenland disappeared. Swedes were surprised to see Denmark to freeze over in ice, and the Thames in London froze repeatedly. But more serious were the long periods of crop failure, which resulted in a poorly nourished population; because of disease and hunger population was reduced by about 30 per cent in Europe.

    It is important to note that the Little Ice Age was a global event. It ended in the late 19th century and was followed by an increase in solar activity. Over the past 50 years solar activity has been the highest since the Medieval Warm Period for 1,000 years ago. And now it appears that the sun returns and is heading towards what is called ‘a grand minimum’ of the kind we saw in the Little Ice Age.

    Many have tried to explain away the coincidence between solar activity and climate through the ages as just that– coincidence. But it turns out that almost no matter what time one studies, not just the last 1000 years, there is a correlation. Solar activity repeatedly over the past 10,000 years has fluctuated between high and low. Actually, the sun has been spending over the past 10,000 years in a sleep mode, approx. 17 pct of the time, with a cooling of the Earth to follow.

    One might wonder why the international climate panel IPCC does not believe that changes in the sun’s activity has no effect on the climate. The reason is that they only include changes in solar radiation.

    Radiation alone would be the simplest way by which the sun could change the climate. A bit like turning up and down the brightness of a light bulb.

    Satellite measurements of solar radiation have shown that the variations are too small to cause climate change, but this finding has closed our eyes to a second much more powerful way the sun is able to affect Earth’s climate. In 1996 we discovered a surprising influence of the sun – its impact on Earth’s cloud cover. High energy accelerated particles of exploded stars, the cosmic radiation, are helping to form clouds.

    When the Sun is active its magnetic field shields better against the cosmic rays from outer space before they reach our planet, and thus by regulating the Earth’s cloud cover the sun can turn up and down the temperature. High solar activity has produced fewer clouds and the earth is getting warmer. Low solar activity provides an inferior shield against cosmic radiation, and results in increased cloud cover and hence a cooling. Since the sun’s magnetism has doubled its strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming during this period.

    The mechanism also explains why most climate scientists are trying to ignore this possibility. They prefer the idea that the 20th century temperature rise is mainly due to human emissions of CO2. If the sun has influenced a significant part of warming in the 20 century, it means that CO2’s contribution must necessarily be smaller.

    Ever since our theory was put forward in 1996, it has been through a very sharp criticism, which is normal in science.

    First it was said that a link between clouds and solar activity could not be correct because no physical mechanism was known. But in 2006 after many years of work we managed to conduct experiments at DTU Space, where we demonstrated the existence of a physical mechanism. The cosmic radiation helps to form aerosols, which are the seeds for cloud formation.

    Then came the criticism that the mechanism we have found in the laboratory was unable to survive in the real atmosphere and therefore had no practical significance. But theatcriticism we have just emphatically refuted. It turns out that the sun itself is doing what we might call natural experiments. Giant solar flares can cause the cosmic radiation on earth to dive suddenly over a few days. In the days after the eruption cloud cover falls by about 4 per cent. And the content of liquid water in clouds (droplets) is reduced by almost 7 per cent. Indeed, you could say that the clouds on Earth originated in space.

    Therefore we have looked at the sun’s magnetic activity with increasing concern since it began to wane in the mid-1990s.

    That the sun could fall asleep in a deep minimum was suggested by solar scientists at a meeting in Kiruna in Sweden two years ago. As Nigel Calder and I updated our book “The Chilling Stars” therefore, we wrote a little provocative suggestion: “We recommend our friends to enjoy global warming while it lasts.”

    Indeed, global warming has stopped and cooling is beginning. Last week, it was argued by Mojib Latif from the University of Kiel at the UN World Climate Conference in Geneva that cooling may continue through the next 10 to 20 years.

    His explanation was natural changes in North Atlantic circulation and not in solar activity. But no matter how they are interpreted, natural variations in climate penetrates more and more into our total picture.

    One consequence may be that the sun itself will show its importance for climate and thus test the theories of global warming. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth, only the contrary.

    This means that projections of future climate cannot be made with any real predictive power. A forecast that says it may be warmer or colder for 50 years is not very useful, since science is not able to predict solar activity.

    So in many ways, we stand at a crossroads. The near future will be extremely interesting and I think it is important to recognize that nature is completely independent of what we humans think about it. Will Greenhouse Theory survive a significant cooling of the Earth? Not in its current dominant form. Unfortunately, tomorrow’s climate challenges will be quite different from Greenhouse Theory’s predictions, and perhaps it will again becomes popular to investigate the sun’s impact on climate.

    Professor Henrik Svensmark is director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at DTU Space. His book “The Chilling Stars” has also been published in Danish as “Climate and the Cosmos” (Gads Forlag, DK ISBN 9788712043508)

  263. Leif,

    “As I have pointed out so many times, one must look at many stations [just as with temperature]. Showing just one [or a cherry picked bunch] is quite meaningless.”

    Then why do we measure CO2 at only specific, carefully chosen, sites??

    Because they are looking for only specific, carefully chosen, results??

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    CO2 is alledgedly measured in areas to minimise the fluctuations of direct anthropogenic increase. Temps appear to be measured to ENHANCE the fluctuations of direct anthropogenic increase.

    So, which is the Cherry Pick???

  264. Joel:

    A) Even the “deniers” have predicted a warming spike, which would correspond with past trends during an El Ninio, and

    B) We’re not even to mid September yet. There’s a long way to go. Man, are you counting your chickens before they hatch, or what?

    C) When we see a similar spike, but it goes in the opposite direction (i.e. a cooling spike), well, then everyone on your side of the AWG fence waves their arms and lectures us….. “It’s just weather”. I always found that awfully convenient.

  265. Nick Yates (21:57:45) :

    Phil’s Dad (09:44:49) :

    “I accept the cowardly label – I use a pseudonym here because even being seen to consider “skeptical” views can affect my job as a European politician with an environment brief”.

    “So much for free speech and democracy in Europe”.
    Nick,
    I only agree with half of your remark.
    This attitude effects and undermines democracy, but free speech is not suppressed in Europe.
    It is the doctrine of a consensus to “correct politics” that undermines our systems.

    This also is a proof of the “power” of the AGW doctrine.

    If people involved in the Governmental Process are afraid to speak out (because it will harm their career or cause a breach of the party line, there will never be a healthy discussion about, what I believe is the most important subject of our times, with devastating consequences.

    Politicians who are afraid to speak out and don’t defend their opinion commit betrayal to their and constituents and themselves and only make matters worse.

    There is no oppression of freedom of speech in Europe.

    There is no body who can stop a politician to speak out, tell the truth and present his arguments.

    The President of the Chech Republic, Vaclav Klaus spoke out and those who did not agree walked out on him.

    This only increased his popularity and today the Check Republic has the highest number of people with a skeptic attitude towards the Climate Hoax.

    The moment a politician has to suppress his own opinion, he should go.

    At this moment we are fully depending on the USA to reject the Waxman Marley Bill
    and hopefully this rejection will encourage European Politicians to speak out.

    But at this moment in time, Europe is lost.

  266. Leif Svalgaard (00:00:28) :

    So, if someone took two or 3 signals out of a choice of a dozen, superimposed them by addition, the training of scientists does not allow them to unravel.
    Is this true?

  267. Mark Serreze doesn’t think so:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/6176989/German-ships-sailing-through-North-East-Passage.html

    He says that the recovery of the ice is ‘not a recovery’, merely a ‘result of weather conditions’.

    I note no data whatsoever backing up Mr Serreze’s claims on when in history the NE Passage has been open on a century-scale, since Mr Serreze is clearly only interested in the past 30 years.

    He may be right, he may be wrong, but his statements are not those of a scientist – they are those of a politician.

  268. william mullen (08:36:36) :

    Henrik Svensmark himself posted a comment in this thread with a translation from Nigel Calder.

    Scroll up to this comment :

    Henrik Svensmark (15:01:28) :

  269. The President of the Chech Republic, Vaclav Klaus spoke out and those who did not agree walked out on him.

    This only increased his popularity and today the Check Republic has the highest number of people with a skeptic attitude towards the Climate Hoax.

    Please try again…

  270. Bill P (10:05:42) : It was his “hockey stick” his own inflicted “ad hominem”, not to count his “trains”.

  271. Oliver Ramsay (08:16:51) :

    “You’re sure that winters have become so warm that ice comes but once in four years. How about the summer? It must be a lot warmer, too, isn’t it? Or, maybe, it’s colder and that’s how you can make the averages make sense. ”

    We have a continuous temperature record going back to 1706, with some breaks it goes back to 1634.

    The eighteen warmest years on the list are all 1988 or after.
    2009 is going into the top ten (again) and will kick 1934 to 19th.

    The two hottest years since at least 1634 are 2006 and 2007. They put us in an almost Mediterranean climate, e.g. Bergerac in France.

    Three of the summers since 1988 (including ’88) were cooler than normal (but nothing exceptional). Three more were average. The rest was hot, with 6 in the top ten and 6 more (including 2009) in ranks 10-20. All nine summers this century were far above average.

    July 2006 was by far the hottest month since 1634. Statistical analysis put the return time of such a month at about 4000 years.

    Autumn 2006: hottest since at least 1634.
    Winter 2007: same thing, it was like a normal april.
    Spring 2007: same thing.

    Statistical analysis on the record since 1706 ‘proves’ this impossible. You’d have as much chance of tunneling quantumwise through a wall. I know non-mathematicians wouldn’t accept it, but this simply proves climate change.

    These are the largest cherries. They swim in a sea of cherries. Flora and fauna are a-changing here. O well, last winter was a little colder than normal. April and spring made second hottest since at least 1634 (it must be cooling since 2007!).

    Let’s look at daily Tn, Tx, Taverage-records since 1901. Here’s the graph, until autumn 2006. Realise the years after 2006 put the bar for highs about 70% higher -> http://nlweer.com/img/17sep2006.PNG . Absurd, isn’t it. But so true. We can feel it.

  272. tallbloke (00:43:46) “how much of the late C20th warming attributed to co2 was actually due to the positive phases of those same oceanic cycles?

    I’v asked this question many times of proponents of the AGW hypothesis, but have never recieved a reply. It’s an issue they seem to avoid like the plague. I don’t expect a properly quantified answer. An acknowledgement that at least some of the warming attributed to co2 was due to cyclic oceanic behaviour would be a start.”


    I’ll be checking back to see if Joel Shore gives you at least a partial answer &/or basic acknowledgement. Good question. The comment I would add: Let’s not limit our focus to oceans – (see Yu.V. Barkin).

  273. Harold Ambler (07:03:27) :
    With regard to Oulu Neutron Monitor, are you suggesting that it is poorly calibrated?
    I’m pointing out that different stations show slightly different counts, for several reasons:
    1) calibration is hard to keep constant over time. Not ‘poor’ just difficult
    2) the Earth’s magnetic field changes with time and differently at different stations.
    Here is something on calibration: http://dpnc.unige.ch/ams/ICRC-03/FILES/PDF/850.pdf
    The typical uncertainty is of the order of 0.2%

    Thule [near the north pole] should be very sensitive to the cosmic ray flux. Here is its variation http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRayFlux4.png

    and so on. Just picking Oulu because is happens to fit whatever one wants to argue is not good science.

    Are you suggesting that its current reading is not indicative of the most prolonged and deepest solar minimum since the station was put into operation?
    I’m suggesting [and data shows] that there is very little modulation at solar minimum and that it does not matter how long the minimum is, you can’t get less than no spots and no modulation, so one would expect about the same GCR count at every minimum.

  274. rbateman (09:38:23) :
    So, if someone took two or 3 signals out of a choice of a dozen, superimposed them by addition, the training of scientists does not allow them to unravel.
    Is this true?

    You lost me again. If you think you have something to show, get on with it. Say what it is you are on to [or whatever] or suggest. Guessing games are not my strong side.

  275. Joel Shore (20:28:41) :

    Oh, here http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/csi/images/GRL2009_ClimateWarming.pdf is a peer-reviewed paper that has now appeared in Geophysical Research Letters that has shown again what that RealClimate post showed, which is that periods of a decade or so of negative trend are in fact not uncommon in climate models forced with greenhouse gases.

    So expect that this new evidence will now greatly increase your faith in climate models?.

    It is not new evidence. It is going back and adding a few more parameters to fiddle with the data, in a very complicated way, true, dragging in fluid dynamics etc, but the end result is: like fitting a Fourier series to a function, it fits a complicated convoluted program to a known function.
    This navel gazing only happened because the data did not behave as they were predicting.

    The thing is that the IPCC published growing curves for the future correlated with growing CO2, and that cannot be undone.

    In any case, the basic problem with all these GCM is that they have no handle on error propagation, as is admitted in the IPCC report and I have given a reference in a previous thread here. No error band accompanies an individual model projection, because it is unknown. This means that the future temperatures shown are at best a guess, at worst a Tarot output. Instead of error propagation IPCC has the spaghetti of models and commits the hubris of averaging the spaghetti and calling them projections and, in parallel, confusing cursory readers of the IPCC reports who think the color bands are real errors.

    I would expect that the neural net model of Tsonis et al ( there was a thread here some time ago )would be a better direction to follow for chaotic modeling of climate , rather than trying to make a silk purse ( chaotic approximations) from a sow’s ears ( linear approximations of highly non linear functions).

  276. RR Kampen

    What figures are you quoting? Are you from Holland?

    In the CET record back to 1660 our warmest winter remains 1869 followed by 1834

    Other than 2006 the four warmest autumns are 1730 1731 1818 1729
    Our two warmest summers are 1976 and 1826.

    Many of the ‘warm’ records are still held by dates prior to the 1980’s.

    Bearing in mind the Hadley record covers the LIA it is remarkable that average and individual temperatures show a limited difference between then and now.

    tonyb

  277. Tiles (01:11:09) :

    …ever heard of thermal inertia? That could well explain continued warming in the face of a fading sun.

    There is no such thing as “thermal inertia” so it most certainly could not.

  278. Sonicfrog says:

    Notice that the models used in the series presented were created around 2005. This is when the specter of the possibility of a cooling period was already entering the lexicon of the global warming debate, primarily because people were starting to notice that it wasn’t warming as expected. I would be more impressed with a model that was created during the 90’s, when the consensus was that there would be no more cooling.

    Paranoid much, are we? Do you actually believe that the climate modelers have nothing better to do than spend lots of their effort and energy worrying about what “skeptics” will think when they create their models? (And, by the way, the models were not created around 2005…although that is likely around when the last updates that could appear in AR4 could have possibly been made.)

    Anyway, even if you look at Hansen’s original model runs that he showed in 1988 (which are no doubt very crude by today’s standards…particular in handling of the oceans), you can see periods of cooling or little warming for several years at a time: http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg (Note that Scenario’s B and C include a volcanic eruption in 1996 and Scenario C supposes a leveling off in emissions after ~2000 but Scenario A is an extremely aggressive scenario with continued growth in emissions and no negative volcanic forcing…and it still shows periods like 2002-2008 or 2014-2018 that are about flat, and even the whole period from 1996-2008 looks like it shows pretty minimal warming.)

    What may be confusing you is that the IPCC projections of future warming, which are based on averages over model runs look nice and smooth, just as a plot of say the average temperature here in Rochester over the course of a year using all the data for the 100+ years we have would be nice and smooth showing a fairly sinuosoidal seasonal cycle. However, an actual individual year’s temperature data would have much more ups-and-downs and would include periods of at least a week or so where the temperature trend is the opposite of what one would predict from the seasonal cycle (e.g., you would see some periods with negative temperature trends in the spring and some periods with positive temperature trends in the fall). Likewise, an individual run of a climate model (and the actual climate trajectory that we follow) shows a lot of variability superimposed on the general warming trend.

    Also note that on the second graph there is absolutely NO cooling after 2030. Really?

    I don’t see that at all. It looks to me like you could identify decent length periods after 2030 with cooling or essentially flat behavior (for example, periods starting in ~2034). They do become less likely in these later years because that is a run for the A2 scenario, which is a quite aggressive one in terms of future emissions growth, hence the general acceleration of the warming over time.

  279. Mick (01:46:48) :

    “One can’t defeat a paranoid religion with logic and common sense. Or argument.”

    One can not defeat ANY religion with facts and logic. They are all constructed to be immune to such criticism. ALL religions are wrong. It is cliché to say that religion and science are not in conflict but it is untrue. Science is in conflict with all error and untruth.

  280. anna v:

    It is not new evidence. It is going back and adding a few more parameters to fiddle with the data, in a very complicated way, true, dragging in fluid dynamics etc, but the end result is: like fitting a Fourier series to a function, it fits a complicated convoluted program to a known function.

    I agree it is not new evidence. It is just going back and looking at the individual realizations in the climate modeling archive. And, there is no “adding a few more parameters to fiddle with the data”. They simply looked at the model runs that were already available.

    This navel gazing only happened because the data did not behave as they were predicting.

    That is just silliness. The reason they went back and looked at it is because they discovered that on the web and in the blogosphere, people apparently had no clue about how a function that consists of a slow steady rise with superimposed random fluctuations would look like.

    The thing is that the IPCC published growing curves for the future correlated with growing CO2, and that cannot be undone.

    That is just nonsense. The IPCC curves represent the longterm trendlines. Nobody ever expected the actual global temperature increase would be steady! It hasn’t happened in the past for the real global temperature data and it hasn’t happened in individual runs of climate models dating back at least to Hansen’s crude models from the 1980s. The IPCC explicitly discusses how they average ensembles of runs in order to get a better handle on the forced component by averaging over the climate noise.

  281. rbateman (13:36:33) :
    I was hoping you would see the L&P might be at work in there.
    I don’t think L&P has anything to do with the cosmic ray count, and in any event, the time interval is too short for any conclusions.

  282. TonyB (12:55:33) :

    “What figures are you quoting? Are you from Holland?”

    These figures are from Holland. Should’ve mentioned although that was a reply wherein the context was clear.

  283. tallbloke says:

    This complex sentence merits careful study. Joel seems to be saying, if I understand him correctly, that by finally acknowledging that there are longer term oceanic cycles, the models are becoming slightly more realistic in their projections.

    My question for him is this: If the negative phases of oceanic cycles are able to overcome the alleged co2 forcing for a decade or more at a time, how much of the late C20th warming attributed to co2 was actually due to the positive phases of those same oceanic cycles?

    I think you are misinterpetting what I said a bit. My sentence was not really addressing the issue of “realism” in general but the issue of initialization of the models with realistic initial conditions and whether that could improve short-term predictability. And, I think the jury is still out on that one.

    And, actually, I don’t think it really takes long-term ocean cycles to get negative trends over about a decade. My guess is that a simple model that has a linear trend of, say, ~0.17 C / decade (which I believe is roughly the value over the last 30 years or so) and superimposed yearly random noise of about the magnitude as is seen in the real climate system would show this behavior. (This is probably true even if you assume noise uncorrelated from year-to-year although a more realistic model would have some correlations. I think Tamino had a post a while back where he demonstrated this with some computer-generated data that assumed some sort of simple year-to-year correlation.)

    And, by the way, it is important to note that if you look at the global temperature data, you can also find 10-year periods when the trend was a lot greater than the 0.17 C / decade, again because of the noise.

    As for whether some of the late 20th century warming could be attributed to PDO or other such long term oceanic cycle, I remain quite skeptical although I suppose further time will tell.

  284. TonyB says:

    What do you make of the Met offices admittance that it has cooled over the last decade-contrary to their models?

    Could you give my a link to what you are referring to?

  285. acementhead (13:25:20): There is no such thing as “thermal inertia” so it most certainly could not.

    Usually thermal masses with thermal time constants are more useful concepts than thermal inertia. Please read these equations from Wikipedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_constant#Thermal_time_constant

    Thus, the transient solution to the heat balance for our planet,

    m•cp•dT/dt = Qin – Qout

    will always involve the thermal time constant tau that is proportional to the thermal mass m•cp. For example, changing the temperature of our planet from T0 to T1, may involve the thermal time constant tau in the following manner:

    T(t) = T1 + [T0 – T1] exp(-t/tau)

    In words, the thermal time constant says that larger thermal masses lead to slower changes in temperature. The thermal mass for the oceans is huge, so we have to wait many years to see that the global temperature change when our sun is less active.

    [Although the equations are crude approximation any trained physicist with sufficient intuition and imagination understands that the underlying mechanism remains the same – large thermal masses always leads to slow thermal transients.]

  286. RR Kampen (11:16:34) “Statistical analysis on the record since 1706 ‘proves’ this impossible.”

    Are you assuming a random distribution? (untenable)
    How are you accounting for shared-variance with natural factors?

    [rhetorical questions - no need to answer]

  287. Joel Shore says:

    And, by the way, it is important to note that if you look at the global temperature data, you can also find 10-year periods when the trend was a lot greater than the 0.17 C / decade, again because of the noise.

    For example, with the HADCRUT3 global temperature (yearly average data), I find that least-squares trendlines for 10 year periods starting in 1970 have a range from a low of +0.002 C/decade for 1987-1996 to a high of +0.430 C/decade for 1974-1983. For 12 year periods, the range is from +0.019 C/decade for 1997-2008 to +0.352 C/decade for 1992-2003. For 8 year periods, the range is from -0.117 C/decade for 2001-2008 to +0.523 C/decade for 1994-1981. For 15 year periods, the range is from +0.076 C/decade for 1979-1993 to +0.280 C/decade from 1991-2005. For 20 year periods, the range is from +0.100 C/decade for 1977-1996 to +0.234 C/decade for 1984-2003.

    As you can see, as the period gets shorter, the range in trends that you find gets larger and as the period gets longer the range in trends gets tighter.

  288. “Paul Vaughan (14:38:59) :

    Are you assuming a random distribution? (untenable)”

    Untenable? Maybe, but you can’t prove it. You can prove the data to be or to seem (equivalent, of course) randomly distributed though – that is, modulo the very significant recent trend. I’m sorry. The data are available, like a try? The whole amateur meteo community in Holland tried to find sines of all sorts or whatever regularity or function in those data and every new generation tries again. Snowball in hell. The data pass all tests for randomness.

  289. (small correction – added closing tag for italics)

    RR Kampen (15:11:05) : Your comment is awaiting moderation

    “Paul Vaughan (14:38:59) :

    Are you assuming a random distribution? (untenable)”

    Untenable? Maybe, but you can’t prove it. You can prove the data to be or to seem (equivalent, of course) randomly distributed though – that is, modulo the very significant recent trend. I’m sorry. The data are available, like a try? The whole amateur meteo community in Holland tried to find sines of all sorts or whatever regularity or function in those data and every new generation tries again. Snowball in hell. The data pass all tests for randomness.

  290. Joel

    Here is the reference.

    BBC radio 4 at 1.30pm today, Vicky Pope of the Met office reluctantly admits the climate has been cooling against their expectations and models

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/more_or_less/8248922.stm#email

    This is the BBC’s Tim Harford item (the link is found at the bottom of the box to the right of the item “Blowing cold, then hot”).

    transcript

    “Tim: If the cooling that the Leibniz Institute predicts actually takes place, are you worried that ’s going to take the wind out of some of the sails of scientists who are warning about the threat of global warming?

    Vicky: It’s very important to realise that there will be ten-year periods where the temperatures don’t increase or they even decrease as the Leibniz study is suggesting –

    Tim: We’ve just had one.

    Vicky: Yes, in fact we have, but that doesn’t mean that global warming has stopped, it’s simply a question of natural variability, giving a temporary decrease in temperature overlaid on top of a long-term warming trend, and in fact I believe that’s what the results of that study suggest –

    Tim: Sorry to interrupt but you say that were going to have ten-year periods of cooling. How can we be sure that the rapid warming we saw in the 1980s and 1990s wasn’t the exceptional period?

    Vicky: This is the point really, is that 1998 was exceptionally warm because there was an El Nino, because there was a natural variation overlaid on top of climate change. So what you can see very clearly is a long-term trend and then these periods of rapid warming and less rapid warming or even cooling overlaid on top of that because of natural variations.”

    This should also be seen in the context of the New Scientist interview. All I am saying is that the models did not predict the (officially) admitted cooling and they are having to take ‘natural variability’ into greater account. I make no predictions as to whether this is the start of a longer cooling trend.

    tonyb’

  291. Re: TonyB (15:26:37)

    Thanks for that. I see natural variation mentioned 3 times in that brief excerpt. It’s nice to see nature finally being acknowledged.

    What we need next: ENSO forecasts that work like tide-tables.

  292. The only difference between the alarming warming of today and the alarming cooling of the 70’s is that today we have the finest alarming computer arrays, cranking out enormous amounts of heat.
    That heat must be pumped out of the building, and, wouldn’t you know it, the Stevenson box is the recipient, finding it’s way onto the front page of the news.
    This killer computational capability, then, is put to work creating the boogey man hiding under our beds.
    Of all the things to be used for.

  293. TonyB (12:55:33) :

    After reading RR Kampen’s comments no one can say that opposing views aren’t allowed at WUWT —though I’m not sure of the point he is trying to make.

    He could include the Medieval Warming Period in his comments which could serve to make him look unbiased.

  294. rbateman (14:17:31) :
    Preposterous!
    L&P is not about lack of solar activity and solar modulation of cosmic rays, just about visibility of sunspots. So, with L&P we still have modulation as before, but we just have a harder time seeing the spots.

  295. Joel wrote:

    I don’t see that at all. It looks to me like you could identify decent length periods after 2030 with cooling or essentially flat behavior (for example, periods starting in ~2034). They do become less likely in these later years because that is a run for the A2 scenario, which is a quite aggressive one in terms of future emissions growth, hence the general acceleration of the warming over time.

    Isn’t this part of the problem? Using unrealistic projections to advance the science? Wouldn’t it have been better to use something less scary?

    You don’t need to give the basic lecture of modeling and smoothing. BTW, I’ve been looking at these issues for a very long time and didn’t need the lecture about smoothing. It wasn’t relevant to the specifics of my comments anyway.

    And, no, I’m not paranoid, just a realist. Not sure where you would get that idea. Of course climate scientists follow what the skeptics say, and desire to prove them wrong. If not, there would be no need to publish the GRL paper you cited, and the opening statement at Real Climate used to say that the blog was started to combat the misinformation on climate change spread by other blogs. Yes, that’s a while ago. I’ve been following this issue for a lot longer than that, and have watched the ebb and flow in this debate…. Oh, I’m sorry. There is no debate. The science is settled. Foolish me.

    Got to go play a gig now.

  296. Spotless Days
    Current Stretch: 10 days
    2009 total: 203 days (80%)
    Since 2004: 714 days
    Typical Solar Min: 485 days

    The current solar minimum in combination with a regular occuring medium sized stratospheric volcanic eruptions, like the recent eruptions from Mt Redoubt in March this year, Sarychev Peak in June and Shiveluch, which erupted two day’s ago, make weather observations a lot more interesting.

    Joseph D’Aleo stated that he regarded this summer to be a “volcanic summer”, see article here: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joesblog/major_eruptions_continue_at_mt_redoubt1/

    and with more restless volcano’s active, it is very well possible that our “volcanic summer” will be followed by a “volcanic winter”.

  297. Bill P 10:05:42

    Not scurrilous. Michael ‘Piltdown’ Mann is responsible for his phony statistics. If the lesson of the ‘censored’ file is that he knew his statistics were phony, then it was deliberate fraud, like the Piltdown Man was.

    So you explain his statistics and his cryptic file. He hasn’t; the position of explainer is open. Tamino has failed.
    ====================================

  298. TonyB says:

    This should also be seen in the context of the New Scientist interview. All I am saying is that the models did not predict the (officially) admitted cooling and they are having to take ‘natural variability’ into greater account. I make no predictions as to whether this is the start of a longer cooling trend.

    I don’t know what you mean by “the models did not predict the (officially) admitted cooling and they are having to take ‘natural variability’ into greater account”. The models do in fact predict that there will be periods of cooling due to natural variability. And, the models are not being changed to take it into greater account. The Easterling and Wehner paper that I referenced ( http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/csi/images/GRL2009_ClimateWarming.pdf ) and the RealClimate blog post that I referenced don’t change the models. They just looked at the statistics of various length trends in individual runs of the models in the climate model archive.

    Now what is true is that while the models can simulate similar natural variability to what is seen in the real world, they can’t actually match the particular ups-and-downs that the climate system follows because that is very sensitive to the initial conditions. So, they can’t predict in advance when the periods with little trend will occur (or when the periods with steep trend will occur) but they can predict things regarding the statistics of these periods and seem to be doing a reasonably good job doing so. (It is hard to say anything more precise because unfortunately our statistics for the real world are limited by the fact that we don’t have a whole ensemble of Earth’s each with perturbed initial conditions.)

  299. Sonic Frog says:

    Isn’t this part of the problem? Using unrealistic projections to advance the science? Wouldn’t it have been better to use something less scary?

    Well, for the purposes of showing what they wanted to show, I think it is generous of them to use one of the scarier scenarios. If they had used one of the less dramatic ones, then the rate of warming would have been lower and presumably the occurrence of negative or near-zero trends would have been even more common. They probably chose the A2 scenario to dispel the notion that such occurrences are only possible in milder warming scenarios.

    As to whether the A2 is unrealistic, I don’t think it necessarily is. The various scenarios are basically supposed to represent what would happen if we don’t take serious actions to constrain our emissions for the explicit purpose of stopping global warming. At the rate CO2 emissions have been increasing (and especially the rate at which China is building new coal plants), I’m not sure that the A2 scenario is at all unrealistic (and this is in a world in which there is already at least a lot of talk about constraining emissions). Hopefully, in the real world, we will end up constraining our emissions, although if this comes to pass, it will certainly be no thanks to people who are continuing to contest the basic science and to make alarmist predictions of how such constraints on emissions will lead to economic ruin.

    And, no, I’m not paranoid, just a realist. Not sure where you would get that idea. Of course climate scientists follow what the skeptics say, and desire to prove them wrong. If not, there would be no need to publish the GRL paper you cited, and the opening statement at Real Climate used to say that the blog was started to combat the misinformation on climate change spread by other blogs.

    It is one thing to say that a few climate scientists might write a paper or run a blog in response to “skeptics”. It is another to suggest that they are somehow markedly modifying the physics in their climate models. (And, as I also showed, it is utterly without foundation since even the earliest climate models runs showed natural variability that led to there being several year periods with little temperature trend.) Most climate scientists spend most of their time worrying about doing science and engaging with their colleagues who are also doing science and publishing, not gearing their entire research program around a few bloggers on the internet.

  300. Ron de Haan (18:35:15) :

    I have been searching for the graph I did that shows how bigger volcanic eruptions like to cloister around solar minmum, the bigger the better. Still digging.
    The rest of the volcanic pops are more or less random distribution.
    And that was the only thing that stood out.

  301. RR Kampen (15:12:15) & RR Kampen (15:11:05) “Untenable? Maybe, but you can’t prove it. [...] I’m sorry. The data are available, like a try? [...] Snowball in hell. The data pass all tests for randomness.”

    Any bright Stat 101 student can easily demonstrate a lack of random scatter in the residuals plots. The regression model assumptions are flawed; thus, inference based on the regression model is nonsense.

    Also, since you appear to be making other false assumptions, please see my comments here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/09/arctic-temperatures-what-hockey-stick/

    [Paul Vaughan (15:31:09) Sept. 10, 2009]

    Consider contributing something positive to the enthusiasm here about natural climate variation.

    All the best.

  302. What Joel says about the models predicting long cooling periods is absolute cobblers (unless they are being adjusted yet again to show this). We’ve seen many graphs of the post 1999 Surface temp predicted by models climbing like a stairway to heaven with random up and down noise on the way but nothing like what is possibly 12 years of cooling. As the AGW “industry” now admits the cooling despite the use of adjusted data to try to disprove it and as such it has to admit the dominance of natural climate forcing over CO2 and the tiny part that Anthropogenic CO2 plays in that. May be I’ll start a basic science blog to explain things like the Carbon cycle and why AGW if it happens continues indepently from any other variable. It doesn’t stop for long periods. All that is happening now is a demonstration that AGW is falsified or as I believe just a weak phenomenon.

    Joel, why don’t you answer questions regarding unequivocal demonstration that AGW (note the A) is real and a massive cause for concern and why its central tenets are falsified so easily?

  303. Joel,

    I have no doubt that by construction the models and old runs if one looks at them with a lens will show vairations since the end product depends on many input equations.

    The facts are:

    1) the models chose either to smooth the bumps or chose runs with no bumps to give to the IPCC

    2) The IPCC took these modeler estimates at face value as if they were statistical variations and made an average

    3) It presented this average as written in stone ( science settled)

    4) and most important, it pushed a political taxing agenda based on these plots back in 2007

    By navel gazing the various runs what is happening is, the game rules are changed continually ( the science not settled). But also it demonstrates in practice the cavalier fashion these runs have been used, with no error bars for the normal scientists to be able to judge coherence and meaning on a plot. I suspect, but cannot prove, that error bars put on the referenced plots would exceed the variations of bumps that are being pushed a proof of “natural variability” in models.

    What do I mean by error propagation? I do not mean initial conditions of probability distributions.

    I mean what a normal scientist/physicist means: Take all the input parameters? and assign them their errors. Use a minimizing program that will vary the error bars of the input parameters and come out with a chi square per degree of freedom for the given curve and an error bar for the given curve ( temperature).

    From the simple model in junkscience.com, I thought that albedo was a parameter in the GCMs. You cleared that up for me, that it is an output in the GCMs, contrary to simplified black body models. Nevertheless there are a number of other parameters entering the GCMs and these need to be varied within their errors to give a true error estimate for each curve coming out of the models.

    All the rest is like discussing the number of angels on the head of a pin.

  304. repeat, correct emphasis

    Joel,

    I have no doubt that by construction the models and old runs if one looks at them with a lens will show vairations since the end product depends on many input equations.

    The facts are:

    1) the models chose either to smooth the bumps or chose runs with no bumps to give to the IPCC

    2) The IPCC took these modeler estimates at face value as if they were statistical variations and made an average

    3) It presented this average as written in stone ( science settled)

    4) and most important, it pushed a political taxing agenda based on these plots back in 2007

    By navel gazing the various runs what is happening is, the game rules are changed continually ( the science not settled). But also it demonstrates in practice the cavalier fashion these runs have been used, with no error bars for the normal scientists to be able to judge coherence and meaning on a plot. I suspect, but cannot prove, that error bars put on the referenced plots would exceed the variations of bumps that are being pushed a proof of “natural variability” in models.

    What do I mean by error propagation? I do not mean initial conditions of probability distributions.

    I mean what a normal scientist/physicist means: Take all the input parameters and assign them their errors. Use a minimizing program that will vary the error bars of the input parameters and come out with a chi square per degree of freedom for the given curve and an error bar for the given curve ( temperature).

    From the simple model in junkscience.com, I thought that albedo was a parameter in the GCMs. You cleared that up for me, that it is an output in the GCMs, contrary to simplified black body models. Nevertheless there are a number of other parameters entering the GCMs and these need to be varied within their errors to give a true error estimate for each curve coming out of the models.

    All the rest is like discussing the number of angels on the head of a pin.

  305. It is one thing to say that a few climate scientists might write a paper or run a blog in response to “skeptics”. It is another to suggest that they are somehow markedly modifying the physics in their climate models.

    Of course they are. They have to. That is the only way they can keep producing relevant models in accordance with previously unknown or unaccountable variations in the climate. They did changed the physics of the models to account for better understanding of the nature of aerosols. Now that scientists are realizing that oceanic phenomenon such as ENSO and PDO affect climate more than originally given credit (note that this paper was never mentioned in the press, and I didn’t see RC or Tamino try and discredit it… they simply ignored it), now that the recognize that convection currents in the ocean may not behave in the ways we assumed, now that there is increased focus on other solar phenomenon instead of singling out only TSI that you often will only see on WUWT. Of course they change the physics. Not to do so would make them completely irrelevant.

  306. Dear WUWT

    I have just copied the NCDC global temperature records from their website (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat) into Microsoft Excel. I took the global monthly land and ocean combined. Then I simply made a xy plot of the most recent 452 months – going back to about the start of the 1970s up to July 2009. Then I fitted a 5-order polynomial. The resulting equation was:

    y = -9.2274E-13×5 + 9.7506E-10×4 – 3.6526E-07×3 + 5.8643E-05×2 – 2.4672E-03x + 4.7780E-02

    R² = 7.0417E-01

    This shows a distinct downturn in the last 4-5 years starting 2004-5. It would appear to be a straightforward interpretation of the data that global temperatures have inflected downwards, as described by the first term, -9.2274E-13 x^5. No doubt this will be attacked as naive and selective, but it seems real enough.

  307. Fred Lightfoot (02:44:03) :

    ….

    Now we get politicians (failed lawyers) offering mega $ for research to ”prove” that us humans are in charge of the climate, if these 25-39 IQ ”humans” went and experienced the world, (not visiting the local Hilton) and realized how big our planet is and how small the human presence is we would not be trying to get milk from butterflies.

    Brilliant.

  308. Hi Joel

    I think we both had huge fun with my attached graph earlier in the year.

    The CET records show the LIA and subsequent warm periods that were around as warm as today.

    Looking at the figures where 280ppm is a constant co2 factor;

    http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/beck_mencken.xls

    It appears that natural variability occurs without any help from enhanced co2 levels-The objective observer would perhaps remark that;

    a) Either co2 doesn’t seem to have much to do with anything and natural variability is the over riding factor (as surely Vicky Pope of the Met office admitted)

    OR

    b) There are co2 plots missing that go up and down as temperatures change. The gold dots represent the historic co2 plots from Ernst Beck.

    I am sure you are bored with this subject but I would be interested in comments from others here about the scenarios I pose.

    tonyb

  309. It is clear AGW theory is not disprovable using temperature data in the next 20 years.

    That also means AGW theory has no track record to determine whether it should be trusted.

    If the models were made right, they should give us useful predictions, but we won’t know if they are right until the decades have ticked by. People say they don’t have several Earths to test, so they built models. Well it doesn’t get you away from the problem that you need several Earths to test your models anway. But we only have one Earth. This undermines the whole enterprise.

    It is not a scientific question. People simply have to make a judgement, do they trust the models or not? You can’t answer this scientifically, you have to answer it with wisdom and intuition. I haven’t read a single argument that can answer it scientifically. It is a question of wisdom.

    For me today, only fools believe they’ve settled a prediction 50 years out about climate.

    Please excuse my tone, but after all this time hearing about AGW, I’m getting bored with the lack of progress from that field on whether the threat is anywhere near as big, or believable, as we had been told.

  310. TonyB (00:56:59) :

    I had trouble seeing the chart, it was offscreen mostly with my version of exel (old).

    I vote for a).

    The up and down coincidences where they happen can be fortuitous for the time scales seen.

    Of course there should be some effect of CO2.Maybe we need CO2 measurements exactly where temperature measurements are taken to see any strong correlation.
    Take insulation: If half the house is insulated the insulation effect will be strong where it exists, even though it will be reflected in the average temperature of the whole house.

  311. Paul Vaughan (20:46:56) :

    “RR Kampen (15:12:15) & RR Kampen (15:11:05) “Untenable? Maybe, but you can’t prove it. [...] I’m sorry. The data are available, like a try? [...] Snowball in hell. The data pass all tests for randomness.”

    Any bright Stat 101 student can easily demonstrate a lack of random scatter in the residuals plots.”

    If it is so easy, don’t talk, shoot! Please demonstrate!! You cannot. The Dutch have tried, end of story. The data pass all tests for randomness. As a mathematician ànd meteorologist I tried to make the dream of regularity and prediction come true myself, for a dumb twenty years or so.
    The data are simply Poisson-, almost Gaussian distributed around the average except for skew caused by the recent trend.

  312. Phlogiston says:

    Then I fitted a 5-order polynomial.


    No doubt this will be attacked as naive and selective, but it seems real enough.

    What is real enough is that you are just fitting to noise. If you actually computed error bars in the coefficients that you came up with, it would show this. The reason that scientists fit just to a linear trend line is not that one expects it to be perfectly linear but rather that one does not have good enough data to do anything more.

  313. TonyB:

    (1) It is difficult to make global conclusions from a single temperature record in central England.

    (2) That said, you are incorrect in your analysis of the CET record. While it may look like some peak years during some other times were as high as now, the difference is that in those cases there were nearby years that were much cooler whereas that has not been true for the latest data. So, as tamino shows here http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/central-england-temperature/ , when you smooth the data, you find that the current warming is without precedent in the record.

    (3) No scientist takes Beck’s paper seriously for several reasons: (a) There is no reason to believe that the CO2 measurements from the 1800s and early 1900s were accurate enough or taken in regions uncontaminated enough to reflect the true values for CO2 levels. You can see this just from the spread in the data and, in fact, the curve Beck tries to draw through the data still misses a lot of the points by quite a bit. (b) Believing Beck requires believing that the CO2 levels went up-and-down like crazy until we started measuring it by a new method at Mauna Lao after which it miraculously settled down. (c) Such wild ups-and-downs can not be reconciled with our understanding of the carbon cycle. (d) It disagrees with the values obtained from ice cores and although the ice core data does average over several years (decades, I think), one should still see more variation even smoothed over such times if Beck is correct (especially assuming that CO2 has generally varied up-and-down like this over the centuries).

  314. Joel Shore (07:27:19) :
    you find that the current warming is without precedent in the record.
    Defining climate trend as a 30-yr trend one can plot the CET trends for a sliding 30-yr window:

    The current warming is clearly not unprecedented. Such swings occur regularly.

  315. ” Such wild ups-and-downs can not be reconciled with our understanding of the carbon cycle. ”

    Excellent!! Data doesn’t fit model so ignore data.
    Tamino answers challenges by using different datasets and bluster, why do people respect him? Don’t they look at what he’s saying?

  316. Joel/ Leif/ Anna

    Joel

    We are looking at huge variations (without high levels of co2) that demonstrate very warm and very cold temperatures. However, don’t forget they are from the Little Ice age period! Yet, despite that, temperature profiles and slopes are little changed to our current ‘superheated’ world. Many of the mean average temperatures are dragged down by extremely cold winters, yet even so many of our warm records still come from the 18th/19th century.

    If we could extend the graph back 600 years the temperatures would be higher than now, and would illustrate even better the hypothesis that either co2 has little effect on the natural variabilty, or that the co2 record is wrong and we are missing co2 peaks and troughs. I am happy to agree to either scenario :)

    I would remind you that Britain enacted the factories Act over 130 years ago, setting legal limts for co2, and there are numerous accounts of it being measured prior to that for a variety of reasons. It was even incorporated into fiction (see Gaskills North and south)

    Those enforcing the law through taking measurements knew enough to take the gas mantles in factories into consideration when making their calculations-there are numerous ‘clean’ measurements made from the arctic to the tops of mountains. Haldane had co2 analysis machines patented in the 1890’s and prior to that the chemical analysis became very accurate-Saussures measuents in 1830 were probably the first reasonably correct ones.

    I know you have little regard for Beck’s work. So it would appear that you are prepared to believe Arrhenius was correct with his theory, but do not believe his contemporaries in the 19th century were able to measure co2 accurately enough to quantify that theory?

    Why do you believe our forefathers-who invented modern science- are so clever in other respects but so dumb when it comes to co2?

    Why do you believe that we weren’t even capable of measuring co2 until the start of the space age? Even Charles Keeling didn’t believe that, acknowledging in his autobiography that the old measurements were more accurate than he had at first believed (Although only the ones that fitted in with Callendars 1938 theory) Keeling was much influenced by Callendar in his early years when the former knew nothing whatsoever of climate science or of measuring co2. So you believe Keeling got it right from day 1, yet after 130 years of trying the older generation of scientists-including nobel winners-got it wrong every time?

    Incidentally, don’t forget that even Callendar eventually believed he had got his Co2 theory wrong!

    I would be 60% sure that Beck is correct. If he isn’t correct it must mean that natural variabilty is a much greater climate driver than co2-as Vicky Pope surely admitted?

    I have always found you a fair minded person Joel, why don’t you pose your questions to Ernst Beck as I did? I found him very open.

    Leif

    I am grateful for the posting of your graph. I first came across it two years ago (on Climate Audit?) and have always wondered who produced it. Presumably you will be happy if I quote it elsewhere?

    As the full CET data shows, it is untrue when warmists claim temperatures have risen further and faster than at any time in our history.

    Anna

    The graph was plotted in excel xls to allow each data point to reflect the measurement behind it (you let the mouse hover over the data point) You should be able to resize it by using the plus or minus buttons at the foot of the chart. However if you have an old version of excel you might find the jpeg version more useful-hope you can see it.

    I am happy with your vote however you cast it :)

    tonyb

  317. anna v says:

    The facts are:

    1) the models chose either to smooth the bumps or chose runs with no bumps to give to the IPCC

    2) The IPCC took these modeler estimates at face value as if they were statistical variations and made an average

    3) It presented this average as written in stone ( science settled)

    4) and most important, it pushed a political taxing agenda based on these plots back in 2007

    I have no clue what you are talking about at this point. I think your 4th point is the most important though: You don’t like the policy implications of the science and so that determines how you feel about the science itself.

    I mean what a normal scientist/physicist means: Take all the input parameters and assign them their errors. Use a minimizing program that will vary the error bars of the input parameters and come out with a chi square per degree of freedom for the given curve and an error bar for the given curve ( temperature).

    The climateprediction.net experiment did these sort of variations in the parameters. The IPCC had chosen instead to collect the results of the models from various different groups and show that as demonstrating roughly what the range of possibilities are. These results are also in pretty good agreement with more rigorous Bayesian probabilistic methods that are used to determine the probability of various values for the equilibrium climate sensitivity from empirical data as discussed in the IPCC AR4 report.

    Sonicfrog: The point is that you made a claim that somehow significant internal variability wasn’t present in the models until recently when climate scientists became concerned that recent trends over some decadal or less timescales were flat or negative. That claim is manifestly wrong…and such variability can be seen even in Hansen’s model from the 1980s (as well as models shown in the TAR published in 2001). As for the Compo and Sardeshmukh, I don’t think it shows what you think it shows. What they show is if they fix the sea surface temperatures over the oceans (and hence about 70% of the planet), they can reproduce similar land surface temperatures to what has been seen. However, this begs the question of what has caused the sea surface temperatures to warm.

  318. TonyB:

    If we could extend the graph back 600 years the temperatures would be higher than now, and would illustrate even better the hypothesis that either co2 has little effect on the natural variabilty, or that the co2 record is wrong and we are missing co2 peaks and troughs. I am happy to agree to either scenario :)

    TonyB, I don’t see what is particularly noteworthy about this statement, which amounts to saying that during a time period when CO2 was quite close to constant, the variations in temperature…at one particular site on the globe…were not dominated by whatever very small CO2 variations may have occurred. Is that a surprise to you (particularly recalling that internal variability becomes a larger and larger factor the smaller the region is over which you are looking)? If the temperatures had been so sensitive to such small changes in CO2, that would require a ridiculously high climate sensitivity.

    And, with the recent climb in CO2, the average temperatures in Central England appear to have risen to unprecedented levels over the time period for which we have measurements. (What Leif’s plot shows is only that the RATE of Central England temperature rise is not completely unprecedented in that there was a similar rate one time previously quite early in the record.)

    I know you have little regard for Beck’s work.

    It’s not just me. The entire scientific community has little regard for his work for the reasons that I outlined in my previous post (and probably some others that I haven’t thought of).

  319. Joel

    You said

    “And, with the recent climb in CO2, the average temperatures in Central England appear to have risen to unprecedented levels over the time period for which we have measurements. (What Leif’s plot shows is only that the RATE of Central England temperature rise is not completely unprecedented in that there was a similar rate one time previously quite early in the record.) ”

    So with the recent steep climb in co2 temperatures are on average fractionally higher than they were during the Little Ice age but cooler than during the MWP? Is that supposed to be some sort of vindication of the theory?

    You haven’t commented on the rest of the post-co2 measurement was well established-why should these clever people get this measurement wrong continually over so many years only for a complete amateur like Keeling to get it right first time?

    Tonyb

  320. Joel.

    It doesn’t matter what i think the paper says. It matters what the guys who wrote it thinks.

    “Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land… The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.”

    “Several recent studies suggest that the observed SST variability may be misrepresented in the coupled models used in preparing the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, with substantial errors on interannual and decadal scales (e.g., Shukla et al. 2006, DelSole, 2006; Newman 2007; Newman et al. 2008). There is a hint of an underestimation of simulated decadal SST variability even in the published IPCC Report (Hegerl et al. 2007, FAQ9.2 Figure 1). Given these and other misrepresentations of natural oceanic variability on decadal scales (e.g., Zhang and McPhaden 2006), a role for natural causes of at least some of the recent oceanic warming should not be ruled out.”

  321. As a non-scientist, the question I wonder about — presumably too general to be taken up by this particular essay — is how are scientists able to measure solar activity prior to the modern era? How do we know anything about solar activity — with any precision — during the Middle Ages?

    And this is also the problem I had with the Global Warming theory when I first learned about it a couple decades ago. “Science” is such a recent activity in the grand scheme of things, in the long life of planet Earth.

  322. RR Kampen (05:49:40) “[...] end of story. The data pass all tests for randomness.”

    Let me point out exactly where you are going wrong:
    1) “end of story” — We’re nowhere near “end of story” in the climate discussion.
    2) “The data pass all tests for randomness.” Tests for randomness are based on assumptions.

    Suggested: See beyond your assumptions.

  323. All of this assumes that the fire in the stove is unchanging.
    It assumes the damper remains stationary, and that the front door isn’t left wide open.
    It assumes that the weather outside is unchanging.

  324. annsnewfriend (14:57:51) :

    Millions are asking themselves the same thing.
    Many millions more are soon going to be asking those questions.

  325. Joel Shore (13:58:49) :

    And, by the way, it is important to note that if you look at the global temperature data, you can also find 10-year periods when the trend was a lot greater than the 0.17 C / decade, again because of the noise.

    Can you point those out on this graph (or another of your own choosing) please Joel, because I can’t see any.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:120

    As for whether some of the late 20th century warming could be attributed to PDO or other such long term oceanic cycle, I remain quite skeptical although I suppose further time will tell.

    What would you attribute the warming from 1910-1940 to?
    And the cooling from 1940-1970?

    These are not ten year random walks, but 30 year periods, so something else is going on. Consigning everything apart from co2 to ‘noise’ is not tenable. You seem to be deluding yourself.

  326. TonyB (13:08:05) :
    You haven’t commented on the rest of the post-co2 measurement was well established-why should these clever people get this measurement wrong continually over so many years only for a complete amateur like Keeling to get it right first time?

    Location, location, location! ;)

  327. Joel Shore

    Thanks for your feedback on the 5-order polynomial entry. I kind of expected this as a justifiable criticism.

    One of my favourite scientists, (late) Dr Patricia Durbin a US radiobiologist, once said ” the scientific method exists to make up for the limitations of intuition”. However truth is sometimes found in the tension between opposites and it is also true that intuition exist to redress the limitations of the scientific method.

    Its getting colder, trust me.

  328. tallbloke says:

    Can you point those out on this graph (or another of your own choosing) please Joel, because I can’t see any.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:120

    See my post of 14:52:48 on 12 Sept for one example (+0.430 C/decade for 1974-1983). There is also a trend of +0.360 C/decade fore 1992 to 2001. (I’m surprised that you find my statement controversial since if the average slope is +0.17 C/decade over the whole 30+ year period and we know there are decade-long periods of significant lower slope, there are also going to be decade-long periods with higher slope. Saying otherwise is like saying that everyone is above average.)

    Furthermore, I am not sure how you are expecting to see what I talked about on the graph that you showed. What you plotted is the temperature with a running average over 120 months or 10 years. What I am talking about is taking the yearly global temperature (so, roughly speaking, the temperature averaged over 12 months http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2100/mean:12 ) and looking at the least-squares trendlines over various 10-year periods. I think you can see from this how the period 1992-2001 and 1974-1983 would have had above-average slopes, and how 1987-1996 and 1998-2007 would have had below-average slopes.

    What would you attribute the warming from 1910-1940 to?
    And the cooling from 1940-1970?

    The warming from 1910 to 1940 is generally attributed to a variety of factors including some increase in solar irradiance, a lack of major volcanic eruptions, the rise in CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels that was already occurring, and perhaps also some internal variability. The cooling from 1940 to 1970 (which was fairly modest) is generally attributed mostly to an increase in aerosol pollutants (and this is supported by the fact that the cooling was more pronounced in the Northern Hemisphere) with some contribution from volcanic eruptions.

    Tonyb says:

    So with the recent steep climb in co2 temperatures are on average fractionally higher than they were during the Little Ice age but cooler than during the MWP? Is that supposed to be some sort of vindication of the theory?

    We don’t have any direct measure of their value during the MWP. And, as I noted before, I don’t consider the temperature record from one location a vindication of anything. However, it is certainly consistent with the theory.

    You haven’t commented on the rest of the post-co2 measurement was well established-why should these clever people get this measurement wrong continually over so many years only for a complete amateur like Keeling to get it right first time?

    Science advances. I don’t know what part of the problem is attributable to the measurement methods and what part is attributable to where they took the measurements.

    Why do you think that CO2 underwent violent fluctuations that somehow weren’t captured even in an average sense in the ice core data…and that these fluctuations settled down to a nice steady rise right around when Keeling started his measurements?

  329. tallbloke,

    For completeness, here is a full plot of the HADCRUT3 data from 1970 to the present also showing the linear trend over that full time period and the linear trends over the various decadal time periods that I mentioned: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2010/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1992/to:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2007/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1987/to:1996/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1974/to:1983/trend

  330. I will recapitulate why I think Beck may have a point and why the whole CO2 question has to be rethought from the beginning:

    AIRS data show that even at 6000 meters CO2 is not well mixed: global attribution of measurements on top of mountains depends crucially on the well mixed hypothesis.

    Beck’s measurement compilations show that CO2 levels depend crucially on location, something that is logical for a gas that has a surface source of many origins.

    There are very few sources where ice core records were taken. Even ignoring the several serious critiques of ice core record measurements and possibility of diffusion of gases etc, the records would show the level of CO2 in a CO2 poor atmosphere, particularly as cold ocean is close to cold icebergs and cold ocean is a great eater of CO2. As far as I am concerned CO2 from ice cores just shows the record of CO2 in the iceberg location from which it was taken.

    The logic of taking a grid of locations for temperature measurements on the one hand and measuring CO2 in high places where gods should be worshiped evades me on the other, evades me. Why one global measurement should be on top of a few mountains and the other, as densely on surface I cannot fathom. The scientific method would require similar measurements for a rational cause and effect attribution. Example:
    If I suspect that there is a heat leak from a box that should be insulated, I will not take an average measurement of heat in and out it, if I want to study it. I will go with a heat detector all around, marking heat leaks to increase insulation. CO2 versus temperature is on the first step, while claiming it is on the second.

    CO2 is heavier than air, its green house effect is really effective in the low atmosphere where it has little time really to disperse from its sources . I would like to see modern measurements of CO2 all over the globe, and am waiting patiently for the Japanese surface data ( the US satellite which would have been doing the same broke up ).

    Further, I resent climate scientists saying that “all scientists do this or that”. There are thousands of scientists out here really questioning if the term “science” should be applied to climate studies.

  331. And here are the first data analyzed from IBUKi

    http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2009/05/20090528_ibuki_e.html#at1

    Note that it is from April, note that it confirms that the distribution is not well mixed. I also have my “doubts” of how much manipulation has gone on to confirm to orthodoxy in orders of magnitude. From what I knew of Japanese science thirty years ago, in my field, particle physics, there was great adherence to orthodoxy. We have to wait and see.
    Obviously these measurements are not a boost to climate orthodoxy on CO2.

  332. Joel Shore (19:05:40) : “The warming from 1910 to 1940 is generally attributed to a variety of factors including some increase in solar irradiance, a lack of major volcanic eruptions, the rise in CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels that was already occurring, and perhaps also some internal variability. The cooling from 1940 to 1970 (which was fairly modest) is generally attributed mostly to an increase in aerosol pollutants (and this is supported by the fact that the cooling was more pronounced in the Northern Hemisphere) with some contribution from volcanic eruptions.”

    Are you blind?? These periods correlate with the oceanic multidecadal cycles which you fail to mention.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  333. Joel, the Hadcrut figures are irrelevant almost because of the upward adjustments that they make and the impossibility of measuring a global temoperature, linear trends are also irrelevant as it can be clearly seen that current trend is down possibly for 15 years now when you take out the 1999 El Nino. It is all irrelevant of course because the argument is not whether there has been warming or cooling which there is now and always has been but the contribution first of CO2 which is a tenuous or plainly incorrect link and the contribution of Anthropogenic CO2 which from everything I read is around 3% of total, an irrelevant component of what seems to be a minor climate driver. I’m still waiting to see how you square this particular circle. Do you have to wear blinkers to maintain your position?

  334. savethesharks 22:22:32

    The vision of the oceanic oscillations running climate has offended him, so he has gouged out his eyes.
    =========================================

  335. Will someone tell me if this is just me, but as I said above, here in England the Met Office issues its forecast that, to me, are just so ‘covering all bases’ as to make it completely worthless. To prove my point, here is the Wednesday forecast for my area in England issued today…

    “Largely dry with variable amounts of cloud and some sunshine at times. A few showers are possible on Wednesday. Windy at times.”

    Now, it would appear to me that no matter what happens (short of snow) on Wednesday, they covered it – so they cannot lose. Am I right? Is it me?

  336. Joel Shore (19:29:16) :

    tallbloke,

    For completeness, here is a full plot of the HADCRUT3 data from 1970 to the present also showing the linear trend over that full time period and the linear trends over the various decadal time periods that I mentioned: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2010/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1992/to:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2007/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1987/to:1996/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1974/to:1983/trend

    Hi Joel,
    so the two periods in the record you show where there was a warming in excess of 1.7C/decade are from 1974-1984 and 1992-2002. Lets look at these.

    The first goes from the trough following an el nino event at the end of a thirty year cooling period to the peak of the 1983 el nino.

    The second includes the big el nino spike of 1998.

    But when we skeptics include the big el nino spike of 1998 in a graph showing a 11 year decline in temps to the present, we get accused of ‘cherry picking’. Seems like a double standard to me.

    You chose not to include the thirty year cooling 1940-1970 in your graph, and you also chose not to answer my query about what caused it which I asked in the same post you are replying to. Why is that?

    And what about the thirty year increase in temps from 1910 to 1940 I also asked about?

    If you are skeptical about longer term ocean oscillations, what natural factors do you think could have caused these long term fluctuations which can’t be accounted for by ‘random noise’?

  337. Anna and Joel

    Anna said

    “Beck’s measurement compilations show that CO2 levels depend crucially on location, something that is logical for a gas that has a surface source of many origins.”

    I absolutely agree. The newest thread on co2 hotspots seems to bear this out. Becks measurements (not all of which can be verified and are therefore disarded) are of their specific time and place. They were taken from the arctic to the oceans, from the mountains to inside factories. Those compiling them had considerable expertise developed over 130 years. Yet Joel believes they were all wrong and Mr Keelings device-invented from scratch with no prior knowledge of the subject-is the source of all knowledge.

    A surprising thing to say especially as Keeling himself admits to the accuracy of these older studies.

    Joel

    “Why do you think that CO2 underwent violent fluctuations that somehow weren’t captured even in an average sense in the ice core data…and that these fluctuations settled down to a nice steady rise right around when Keeling started his measurements?”

    I dont know. However the natural flux (which is the overwhelming component of co2 is said to be 90gt. Very slight changes in the natural flux will mean considerable fluctuations in what should be measured, which means a steady consistent rise seems unlikely.

    Incidentally I read Taminos post that you linked to earlier and it is not his finest hour. He knows little as to how CET was constructed or amended and conveniently discards many of the older warm periods-these are authenticated by separate ‘anecdotal’ references, crop records etc.

    His comments about theremometers-used to support his theories are also way off beam. This is an article I wrote on the subject, sorry about its length:

    ” That thermometers were primitive and only accurate from 1850 onwards is a popular misconception;
    This from Wikipedia.

    “The thermometer was invented in the sixteenth century, but it is disputed who the inventor was. The claims of Santorio are supported by Borelli and Malpighi, while the title of Cornelius Drebbel is considered undoubted by Boerhaave. Galileo’s air thermometer, made before 1597, was the foundation of accurate thermometry. Galileo also invented the alcohol thermometer about 1611 or 1612. Spirit thermometers were made for the Accademia del Cimento, and described in the Memoirs of that academy. When the academy was dissolved by order of the Pope, some of these thermometers were packed away in a box, and were not discovered until early in the nineteenth century. Robert Hooke describes the manufacture and graduation of thermometers in his “Micrographia” (1665).”

    The next two links refers to the invention of the ‘accurate’ Galileo thermometer in 1597

    http://www.thermometershop.co.uk/more_about____.htm#how

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

    This is the “Micrographia” referred to above:

    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15491/15491-h/15491-h.htm

    The thermometer- or thermoscope- became all the rage in Europe from the 1620’s. The Royal Society created the ‘standard’ thermometer in 1663, described in detail here

    http://www.jstor.org/pss/227641

    This standard was the basis for all subsequent thermometer technology and followed on from the original written instructions on how to calibrate thermometers made in 1659, and which was formalised as referenced above in 1665.

    The Hadley CET records derive from 1659 following this new calibration standard, although the Fahrenheit scale did not come about until 1724, as linked here.

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

    The original measurements from 1659 were converted to the Fahrenheit scale by Manley, who also adjusted the readings to take into account the transition from the Julian calendar introduced by Julius Caesar in 45BC to the Gregorian calendar. Manley considered the readings to be perfectly accurate to around a quarter to half a degree in the Fahrenheit equivalent. It is thought the Galileo thermometers were accurate to a little more than half of a degree of the Fahreheit equivalent.

    As might be expected Pepys got his hands on one of the new thermoscopes. This text was written as a footnote in the 1893 Wheatley transcription of Pepys diary and is the one Wikipedia have used in the first link given above. It refers to 23 March 1663

    http://www.pepys.info/1663/1663mar.html

    The instrument referenced above was given to Pepys in 1663 by Greatorex who had been advised by Robert Boyle. This gift is referenced here.

    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jeOMfpYMOtYC&pg=PA267&lpg=PA267&dq=pepys+thermometer&source=web&ots=aBavR_-kac&sig=GA1EQl04anW85TuIEwrdZZ2iJAc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPA267,M1

    So from around the year 1600, measurements of uncalibrated thermometers were being taken, which became increasingly accurate as the technology improved. By 1659 the measurements were being calibrated to some degree of accuracy, and as the instruments were expensive were generally being read by trained people who handled them carefully.

    During the 1700’s there was a vogue for placing thermometers in unheated north facing rooms so temperatures could be taken in comfort, but this was seen as a backward ‘country’ habit which was frowned on by those with a more scientific approach.

    The measurements taken under proper conditions from 1660 were accurate to levels not surpassed until well into the 1900’s. The thermometers used in ‘global temperatures from 1850’ were often of poor quality, uncalibrated, placed in inappropriate positions (such as in full sun) and read by people who had no training.

    GS Callendar complains in his notebooks about the variability of these readings from 1850 when there were less than 100 global stations- of whom around half had much credibility. He restricted his investigations of his belief in rising temperatures caused by man to as few as 200 stations worldwide in 1936-38, during his investigation for his thesis that rising levels of co2 were driving global warming, which resulted in his seminal paper about CO2 in 1938.”

    I do agree with you about the scientific worlds dismissal of Becks work and he has said before he regrets the way in which he naively introduced them which reduced their credibilty. However the actual details of the readings are fascinating and I have followed up the circumstances of around fifty of them. I do not think they should be dismissed out of hand. Measurements taken at the time by qualified people seems to me much more capable of producing accurate co2 readings of their precise location than ice core proxies requiring complicated interpretations.

    tonyb

  338. Joel Shore (19:05:40) :

    Although, I broadly agree with most of your earlier posts, this is is speculative drivel.

    The warming from 1910 to 1940 is generally attributed to a variety of factors including some increase in solar irradiance, a lack of major volcanic eruptions, the rise in CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels that was already occurring, and perhaps also some internal variability. The cooling from 1940 to 1970 (which was fairly modest) is generally attributed mostly to an increase in aerosol pollutants (and this is supported by the fact that the cooling was more pronounced in the Northern Hemisphere) with some contribution from volcanic eruptions.

    I suspect even you are not convinced since you use the term “generally attributed” twice. Let’s look at factors you cite for the 1910-40 warming

    1. “some” solar irradiance

    Leif may have something to say about that but whatever there was no decrease in solar irradiance after 1940.

    2. a lack of major volcanic eruptions,

    Interesting that a lack of something produces such a sustained positive forcing over several decades. However there were major eruptions in 1883 and 1902. There has not been a major eruption for since 1991 (Pinatubo) – is the warming since then related to “a lack of volcanic eruptions”?

    3. perhaps also some internal variability

    Love it. What does this mean? Is this the ‘catch all’ in case the solar/volcano stuff goes belly up. The IPCC has undertaken rigorous “Attribution and Detection” studies which supposedly show that the late 20th century warming can only be explained by including an increase in ghg concentrations. It now appears that there may also be some “internal variability – perhaps”.

    The explanation for the 1940-70 cooling is worse.

    1. There was NO increase in aerosol pollutants in the 1940s – show me the data. (**see below)
    2. To explain he temperature decline between 1945 and 1951, the aerosol increase would have to be on a phenomenal scale and sustained over many years. Remember the aerosols would not only have to induce a cooling effect they would also need to reverse a strong warming trend. Aerosols are not like CO2. They are short-lived in the atmosphere. Industrial (tropospheric) aerosols are nowhere near as plentiful or effective as volcanic (stratospheric) aerosols.
    3. The effect of aerosols is regionally specific. There is some dispersal but they get “rained out” fairly quickly.
    4. Between 1940 and 1970 – the Arctic cooled at 4 times the rate of the NH in general. How did this happen? See GISS zonal data. Note that the arctic also warmed at 4 times the rate of the NH in the 1910-40 period (again see GISS zonal data). And guess what happened between 1970 and 2000 ……?
    5. Aerosols which do eventually find their way to the arctic actually produce warming due to the arctic haze effect ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_haze )
    6. If aerosols did cool the arctic there should be a strong seasonal signal, i.e. aerosols can only reflect sunlight when the sun is shining. Between Sept and March their effect would be non-existent.

    ** Re: aerosol data. There is very little before ~1970. However we can probably get a rough estimate of any change in aerosol production from proxy data – namely CO2 emissions. Between 1920 and 1950 global CO2 emissions were broadly flat.

    In a nutshell. No-one can explain the the early 20th century warming or mid-20th century cooling – and probably not the late 20th century warming either. Internal variability, including ocean oscillations, is probably the most likely candidate for the fluctuations with CO2 a possible candidate for the weak underlying trend.

  339. It is some what ironic that the upcoming global warming “climate change” conference will be held in Copenhagen, Denmark. Not only because many of the contributors in the climate debate are from Denmark, of which some contribute to this blog. But, also because Denmark lost its eastern part in the war of 1658 as a result of the cold winter of 1657-1658 and therefore Denmark became a direct victim of natural climate change during the Maunder Minimum.

    As has been mentioned here the Swedes were able to march over the frozen ice and lay siege to Copenhagen in 1658 and as a result, what is now southern Sweden had to be given over to Sweden after the following peace deal in Roskilde.

    This is a short history of what happened. The Swedish king invaded and concurred most of Poland. The Poles which naturally didn’t want to become part of the Swedish kingdom, revolted and started a guerilla war uprising.
    The Danish king, while the Swedes were bug down in Poland, saw this as an opportunity for reducing the growing Swedish power in the Baltic and declared war.

    What happen then was that the Swedish army broke up from Poland and invaded Denmark from the south, from Germany. They invaded and occupied Jutland as this is a peninsula directly connected to Germany.
    They didn’t have access to transportation to move the army and invade Zealand, the island on which Copenhagen is located. Because the water way over the Belts froze they were able to march over to Zealand where they planned to lay siege on the capital. The Danes had no alternative, than to ask for peace.

  340. Anna V:

    I write to support your comments concerning the attempts to dispute Beck’s data merely because it does not fit a paradigm.

    Please see one of our 2005 papers for a much more complete assessment of what is and what is not known about the causes of changes to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration:
    ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005).

    Concerning the specific question of whether or not Beck’s data could be correct. Yes, it could.

    There is much more that is not known than is known about the carbon cycle. Investigation of the unknowns is inhibited by a completely unjustified certainty that the carbon cycle is being significantly affected by the anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide. And the fact is that the uncertainties in the magnitudes of the fluxes of the carbon cycle are so large that almost anything can atributed as being the cause of the recent rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. And the only dispute of this is by comparison with ice core data which purport to show little variation of atmospheric carbon dioxide at levels all below ~280 ppmv over many recent millenia. But that ice core data does not agree with stomata data which indicate much greater variability and much higher levels (up to 400 ppmv) over the same time periods.

    During each year the oceans release much, much more carbon dioxide than human activity. They release it in the summer and take it back during the winter. So, an increase to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration would result from lowered oceanic emission and/or sequestration. And altered oceanic emission and sequestration would occur when the temperature and especially the pH of the ocean surface layer varies. Indeed, the temperature effect as a result ocean upwelling is an observed effect of ENSO.

    Hence, it is not strictly true that there needs to be additional oceanic emission to increase atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration because reduced oceanic sequestration would do it, too. And the cold water that upwells has a pH affected by the history of its travel around the globe (that has taken centuries).

    Quirk’s analysis of the geographical distribution of atmospheric carbon isotopes agrees with this interpretation.

    Furthermore, this interpretation provides an explanation of Beck’s data which indicates large, rapid fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide that were simultaneous at several localities in the nineteenth century. The pH of cold ocean waters may have been altered by transient volcanism at sea bottom centuries ago, their pH affected atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration when those waters were returned to the surface by the thermohaline circulation.

    I repeat for emphasis that there is much more that is not known than is known about the carbon cycle. Investigation of the unknowns is inhibited by a completely unjustified certainty that the carbon cycle is being significantly affected by the anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide. And the uncertainties in the magnitudes of the fluxes of the carbon cycle are so large that almost anything can atributed as being the cause of the recent rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. This is covered in our paper that I reference above. The pertinent information is as follows.

    Atmospheric CO2 rises and falls each year by much, much more than the increase to CO2 in the air over a year. Therefore, the annual increase is the residual of the rise and fall each year.

    The amount of CO2 emitted from oceans and biosphere is an order of magnitude greater than the increase to CO2 in the air each year. And the amount of CO2 sequestered by the oceans and biosphere is an order of magnitude greater than the increase to CO2 in the air each year.
    Hence, any small change in the behaviour of the emitting and/or sequestering parts of the carbon cycle results in a change to the CO2 in the air.

    The accumulation rate of CO2 in the atmosphere is equal to almost half the human emission. The human emission is about 6.5 GtC/year but the accumulation rate is about 3 GtC/year (these figures are very conservative). However, this does not mean that half the human emission accumulates in the atmosphere, as is often stated. The system does not ‘know’ where an emitted CO2 molecule originated and there are several CO2 flows in and out of the atmosphere that are much larger than the human emission. The total CO2 flow into the atmosphere is at least 156.5 GtC/year (it is probably much more, but I am being very, very conservative) with 150 Gt of this being from natural origin and 6.5 Gt from human origin. So, on the average, about 2% of all emissions accumulate.

    This is a small change to the atmosphere. And it is the observed change to a single sensitive part of the carbon cycle.

    The carbon in the air is less than 2% of the carbon flowing between all the parts of the carbon cycle. And the recent increase to the carbon in the atmosphere is less than a third of that less than 2%. Furthermore, the annual flow of carbon into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels is less than 0.02% of the carbon flowing around the carbon cycle.

    It is not obvious that so small an addition to the carbon cycle is certain to disrupt the system because no other activity in nature is so constant that it only varies by less than +/- 0.02% per year.

    There are many possible reasons why such small changes could be expected to any natural system. And the uncertainties (i.e. inherent errors in the estimates) of the flows between parts of the carbon cycle are much greater than the observed changes to atmospheric CO2.

    Thus, there are several methods that can be used to model the system. Our paper provides six such models with three of them assuming a significant anthropogenic contribution to the cause and the other three assuming no significant anthropogenic contribution to the cause. Each of our models matches the empirical data without use of any ‘fiddle-factor’ such as the ‘5-year smoothing’ the IPCC uses to get its model to agree with the empirical data.

    So, whichever of our models one chooses to champion then there is a 5:1 probability that the choice is wrong. And other models are probably also possible.

    Also, the models each give a different indication of future atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration for the same future anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide.

    Data that fits all the possible causes is not evidence for the true cause. Data that only fits the true cause would be evidence of the true cause.

    But there is no data that only fits either an anthropogenic or a natural cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Hence, the only factual statements that can be made on the true cause are
    (a) the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration may have an anthropogenic cause, or a natural cause, or some combination of anthropogenic and natural causes,
    but
    (b) there is no evidence that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration has a mostly anthropogenic cause or a mostly natural cause.

    Hence, it cannot be known what if any effect altering the anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide will have on the future atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    I presented a summary of that work at Heartland-1. The paper is dry as dust but I tried to present it in an entertaining way. There is an audio and a video of that presentation on the web but neither shows the PP illustrations and the video is very poor quality.

    To hear the audio go to

    http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork08/newyork2008-audio.html

    Then scroll down to

    Tuesday, March 4, 2008
    8:45 – 10:15 a.m.
    Track 2: Climatology

    Then click on my name.

    I hope this is useful addition to the discussion.

    Richard

  341. A thousand little people were seen melting away in the sweltering heat at Berlin’s Gendarmenmarkt Square – and there was no saving them, because these little guys were sculptures made out of ice by Brazilian artist, Nele Azevedo.

    The Melting Men exhibit is part of the Minimum Monument movement, started by the artist in 2005. However, her first few exhibits, which comprised only of single ice sculptures, was to protest against big monuments, which honor only heroes.

    While she still does it to highlight her stance against large monuments, global warming activists have found them to be the ideal icons to highlight our Earth’s plight!

    The two have found a perfect way to blend their agendas by holding their exhibitions in large city squares with monuments. The artist has come a long way since her first solitary ice sculpture – her latest exhibits comprise of hundreds of little ice sculptures all gradually ‘dying’ in the sun.

    Source: – http://lifeofearth.org/2009/09/ice-sculptures-highlight-global-warming.html

  342. Re: Paul Vaughan (15:16:15) :

    “Let me point out exactly where you are going wrong:
    1) “end of story” — We’re nowhere near “end of story” in the climate discussion.”

    That is both true and an entirely different subject. We were studying the random features of data.

    2) ““The data pass all tests for randomness.” Tests for randomness are based on assumptions.”

    Or by definitions e.g. of what randomness is. Of course tests are based on assumptions and definitions. Without them there is no test!

    “Suggested: See beyond your assumptions.”

    What then? Will I operate forever without assuming anything? End of discussion: the if…then-construction forbidden (remember: after ‘if’ comes an assumption).
    So sorry, I will remain locked up in assumptions and will never be able to talk with the angels.

  343. Richard S Courtney.

    Those of us who battle to say that Becks measurements should not be ignored have an uphill task. People seem to think that co2 measurements sprang fuilly formed from Charles Keeling in 1957-as I have tried to demonstrate in earlier posts measuring co2 wa embedded in 19th century life.

    Hopefully your words will give pause for thought to Joel and others to open their minds a little more.

    tonyb

  344. Stefan:

    You raise an important point. It pertains to Anthony Watts’ investigation of meteorological measurement stations, the different understandings of Svensmark and Svalgaard concerning solar effects on climate, and the above discussion of Beck’s data concerning historic atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    You ask:

    “This aspect of science has puzzled me. How can intelligent people come to different conclusions about the same data? Surely if different conclusions are available, nobody should be coming to any one conclusion. Rather, we should add the two as two possibilities.”

    The answer is that a scientific conclusion is always an interpretation of the available data. And all scientific conclusions are valid in so far as they do not violate known physical laws. But all scientists are human beings and, therefore, they each have personal preference as to which interpretation they adopt for further study.

    Indeed, an interpretation of available data remains a theory (n.b. not a fact) when all (or almost all) scientists agree that interpretation. And this induces the most acrimonious scientific disputes. For example, the phlogiston theory remained the main paradigm of combustion long after Lavoisier published his findings, and it was not abandoned until a generation of scientists had died of old age.

    Simply, in the conduct of science, data tells nothing but interpretation of data provides conclusions. This is because data is only a tool to aid understanding of an idea.

    Data on its own tells nothing about an idea being considered and/or the worth of the idea. This is simply demonstrated by the following three statements.

    STATEMENT 1
    See the graph at

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

    STATEMENT 2
    A process of global cooling began two decades ago and became established a decade ago. The temperature of the Southern Hemisphere reached a peek two decades ago and started to cool. This cooling spread to include the Northern hemisphere a decade ago when the process of global cooling became complete. This cooling process is not consistent with anthropogenic global warming (AGW) because the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased throughout that time.
    See the graph at

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

    STATEMENT 3
    A process of global warming has existed since the start of the twentieth century. Variations in the trend of the warming have occurred and are known as weather. This trend is consistent with anthropogenic global warming (AGW) because the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased throughout that time.
    See the graph at

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

    Statement 1 is meaningless except to say that the HadCRUT3 data exists and to say where it can be seen. Statements 2 and 3 cite the same data (i.e. the same graph in the same reference) in support of mutually exclusive ideas (examples of the promotion of each of these ideas can be seen in above postings here).

    So, data is only useful as support of ideas. This opens the ideas to debate and evaluation (e.g. by consideration of the pertinence, accuracy, precision and validity of the data), but the data (as cited in Statement 1) is worthless on its own.

    Importantly, the ideas remain valid scientific conclusions supported by the data so long as they are not contradicted by physical laws and/or empirical data.

    Therefore, AGW and the Svensmark Hypothesis are both valid scientific conclusions although they are mutually exclusive (as are Statements 1 and 2 above). The history of science is replete with similar examples (e.g. wave and particle theories of light, Steady Sate and Expanding Universe, etc.). As empirical evidence mounts one of the competing conclusions becomes rejected (by the additional evidence) and its competitor remains as an accepted theory until it, in its turn, is refuted by additional evidence (e.g. Newtonian and Einsteinian theories of gravity).

    But a theory remains a valid conclusion from the data until additional data clearly refutes the theory. And many good scientists cannot bring themselves to abandon an idea they have cherished even when the idea is clearly contradicted by additional data; for example, many clung to the phlogiston theory long after the evidence of Lavoisier’s work, and many now cling to the AGW hypothesis despite the evidence of ‘the missing hot spot’.

    I hope this clarifies the matter.

    Richard

  345. tallbloke says:

    But when we skeptics include the big el nino spike of 1998 in a graph showing a 11 year decline in temps to the present, we get accused of ‘cherry picking’. Seems like a double standard to me.

    Okay, let me explain to you very clearly why it is not a double standard: The whole point that I was making is that decadal-long temperature trends can be vary by quite a bit. I admitted that there were 10-year periods with slopes quite a bit low of the ~30-year trendline and pointed out there were also 10-year periods with slopes considerably above the ~30year trendline. However, I did not tell you to ignore everything but the high slope decadal periods…and did not advocate using them to conclude that climate change is rapidly accelerating. Do you understand the difference now?

    As for the 1910-1940 warming and the 1940-1970 cooling, I did address those in my post above (19:05:40 on 13 Sept 2009).

    John Finn says:

    In a nutshell. No-one can explain the the early 20th century warming or mid-20th century cooling – and probably not the late 20th century warming either.

    You make lots of arguments as to why the effects that I mentioned can’t account for it. Yet it is true that the GCMs with these various effects included do a pretty good job reproducing these aspects of the temperature record. (They do tend to underestimate the early 20th century warming somewhat, although this may be due in part to the problems involving the SST measurements during WW II.) So, I don’t really see your arguments that it can’t be done as being very convincing. I admit that these attribution issues are not easy to prove (hence my wording about “generally attributed to…”) especially given the uncertainties in the aerosol concentrations and such.

  346. Joel, you know that the models predicting observed values has never happened unless they were programmed to do so. You also know that their ability to predict weather or climate more than a few days advance is weak and totally non-existent beyond that time scale. A touch of honesty and humility would be very appropriate at this stage. You add very little to the climate debate and have nothing other than troll status here unless you can start adding value such as answering how cooling can occur under AGW, why there is no Tropospheric hotspot, how Antarctica is robustly cold and why Arctic ice is recovering rather than disappearing. Any of the above or a sensible discussion on how Anthropogenic CO2 is causing such catastrophic climate change that we have to act immediately. Joel, you are an educated person, you know that it’s BS. Yes there are many acts of environmental vandalism that humans have to address in the area of poverty, child mortality and deforestation (all politically inspired) but CO2 emissions is not one of them and it is a myth that is costing real lives because we are diverting our massive talents and resources from where it is really needed to an argument over a very weak hypothesis that my wife could falsify whilst washing the dishes (it really is that easy).

  347. Anyone getting nervous yet?

    During the 20th century, we were blessed by a rare combination of benign climate, a “can do” attitude in the US, and several key scientific and technological breakthroughs. All three factors are symbiotic. Now, with the climate worsening, the “can do” attitude fading and, the absolute pace of breakthroughs slowing, things do not look good. Nietzsche forecast a rough 21st century and he was only looking at the social element.

  348. Martin Mason

    Whatever Joel is he is no troll. He makes us think about our position which is a good thing. I don’t think he will ever convert anyone here to his viewpoint but he makes a good case, even if he can be evasive sometimes or seems reluctant to face the possibilty that some of what we say might be right.

    I am looking forward to his comments on Richard Courtneys post. Also he might clear up why he thinks that in 1957 a complete amateur managed to do what hundreds of clever scientists had obviously failed to do in the preceding 130 years-read co2 measurements accurately. Sayng that technology moved on sudenly isn’t really good enough, nor is citing a tamino post that is full of inaccuracies.

    tonyb

  349. Martin Mason: I’ve already given answers to most of the questions that you, some in this very thread. They are really just the standard “skeptic talking points”, which makes it strange to me that I am the one accused of being a troll. To gives brief answers to some of them:

    (1) How cooling can occur under AGW? As I have discussed ad nauseum in this very thread, trends of less than a decade or so vary considerably. This can be due to internal variability alone although it certainly can be aided by effects such as a minimum in the sunspot cycle, a volcanic eruption, etc. If you live in a place with a strong seasonal cycle in temperature, you will understand this intuitively: Certainly here in Rochester, we have weeks in the fall where the temperature trend is upward but that doesn’t lead people to conclude that the seasonal cycle is a myth or that it is very weak because it can be overwhelmed by natural variability on shorter time-scales. (And, believe me, if they do fool themselves into believe this in October, they are in for one heck of a rude awakening by January!) Note also that the people who show you a (slight) negative trend are always very careful to cherrypick the time period over which they are showing it; right now, to get a negative trend over a period of time of a decade or more, one has to carefully choose the time period to be basically exactly 11.5 years, so that one includes the El Nino peak in 1998 right at the beginning of the record. If one chooses any longer time period or a shorter period of, say, 10 years, one does not get a negative trend (at least with HADCRUT3).

    (2) Why is there no Tropospheric hotspot? The technical term for what you are talking about is tropical tropospheric amplification…and it is something that is expected based on a very basic piece of physics that is independent of the cause of the temperature trend or fluctuations. Namely, it has to do with the fact that the lapse rate in the tropical atmosphere is basically expected to be pegged to the moist adiabat. As such, it is expected to occur whether warming is due to greenhouse gases, solar irradiance increases, or internal variability in the climate system (like El Nino and La Nina). And, in fact, such amplification of the temperature fluctuations that occur on timescales of a year or so is predicted by the models and seen in the data. The only part of the data for which such amplification is not necessarily seen is for the multidecadal temperature trends and I say “necessarily” because it depends on which satellite analysis one looks at or which radiosonde data analysis or re-analysis one looks at. This is not surprising since the satellite and radiosonde (weather balloon) data is very reliable on the shorter time scales of a year or so but the long-term trends in the data are very difficult to measure because of artifacts such as piecing together data from different satellites for the satellite record and changes in shielding of the temperature sensor for the radiosonde record. So, in other words, the data agrees with basic theory except for a deviation in some data sets that occurs over the timescale for which the data is least reliable. And, even if this disagreement is not a data artifact, it wouldn’t directly say anything about the cause of the warming (e.g., whether or not it is due to greenhouse gases) because the prediction of such a “hotspot” is independent of the mechanism causing the warming.

    (3) Why is Arctic ice recovering rather than disappearing? The answer to this is basically the same as the answer to (1). Scientists have not expected that the trend in the yearly summer Arctic sea ice minimum would be perfectly monotonic. 2007 turned out to be an exceptional year…and if the sea ice had continued to decay at the rate it was going, it would have been gone in no time. As it turns out, the following years have had some partial recovery from that extreme low but the long-term trend is still down…and down a lot faster than had been predicted only a few years ago.

    You say, that AGW is “a very weak hypothesis that my wife could falsify whilst washing the dishes”. You might ask yourself how this reconciles with the fact that it is accepted by almost all the major scientific societies in the world, including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the analogous bodies in all of the other G8+5 nations, AAAS, the councils of the AGU, APS, and AMS. Is it that you and your wife really understand that much more science than these people or is it possible that you folks are actually fooling yourselves?

  350. My attitude is that you should never rely on a model that does not show predictive power. Remember that science involves three steps:

    1. Observations
    2. Formulation of a theory that explain the observations and give predictions
    3. Testing of the theory with future and unknown experiments.

    It is crucial that the predictions are unknown and in nature essentially different from the initial observations. If these fail to agree with future experiments the theory is falsified. In my opinion the HADCRUT3 data are the initial observations only, and I am a little pessimistic with the respect to the possible testing of any climate model. The reason is that you cannot verify a theory since a theory in most cases may agree with experiments for the wrong reason which is overwhelmingly the most probable scenario for a successful climate theory.

    The main point with the scientific process is to eliminate theories that do not agree with future and unknown experiments. However, some theories are so “well formulated” which is bad science since it makes them difficult or impossible to eliminate with the result that we cannot distinguish between falsifiable and non-falsifiable theories. Thus we can rank theories in the following order

    1. Not wrong (yet).
    2. Wrong.
    3. Not even wrong.

    The phrase “not even wrong” was coined by the early quantum physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who was known for his colourful objections to incorrect or sloppy thinking. A friend showed him the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli’s views. Pauli remarked sadly, “That’s not right. It’s not even wrong.”

    The climate is so complex that I suspect that any climate theory will fall into the third category “not even wrong”.

  351. RR Kampen (06:27:21) “End of discussion [...] I will remain locked up in assumptions [...]“

    Based on some of your upthread comments I was going to ask you if you are assuming unconditional periodicity, stationarity, & fixed spatiotemporal scale…

    …but I agree we should efficiently agree to disagree since our disagreement appears to be at a fundamental level (and thus too pedantic to be of practical value in a context such as this).

    Cheers! (we can move on to more productive pursuits… & avoid exchanges like this in future)

  352. This is very good, thank you.
    Unfortunately, it will be rubbished by Governments because no taxes can be applied to it and by environmental/political pressure groups as there is nobody to blame.
    Nobody likes the truth when it doesn’t work for them.

  353. Joel Shore (09:53:04) :

    John Finn says:

    In a nutshell. No-one can explain the the early 20th century warming or mid-20th century cooling – and probably not the late 20th century warming either.

    You make lots of arguments as to why the effects that I mentioned can’t account for it. Yet it is true that the GCMs with these various effects included do a pretty good job reproducing these aspects of the temperature record.

    This is pretty much my point, Joel. The GCMs have managed to roughly simulate the 20th century temperature record – despite using questionable as well as patently incorrect assumptions. Even some of the Realclimate contributors are starting to realise that their initial assumptions are ‘incomplete’. An example is this response by Raypierre to a comment

    [Response: Wayne, please note that this is Kyle's article not mine, though I did encourage him to write it for us. I think the interesting question raised (though not definitively answered) by this line of work is the extent to which some of the pause in warming mid-century might have been more due to decadal ocean variability rather than aerosols than is commonly thought. If that is the case, then a pause or temporary reduction in warming rate could recur even if aerosols are unchanged. Learning how to detect and interpret such things is important, lest a temporary pause be confused with evidence for low climate sensitivity. --raypierre]

    As for your comment …

    I admit that these attribution issues are not easy to prove

    The massive increase in aerosols is difficult to prove. That’s because it didn’t happen. You need to look elsewhere to explain why warming stopped and cooling started. There was no sudden drop in solar irradiance. No volcanic effect. In any case, Pinatubo (the largest eruption of the 20th century) only caused a short term drop in temperatures. Finally, there was no increase in aerosols. Check the PDO index, Josh, and see what you reckon.

  354. Re: previous post

    Sorry, Joel, I appear to have renamed you as “Josh”

    Check the PDO index, Josh, and see what you reckon

    I can’t think why – I don’t even know a Josh.

  355. John Finn (14:20:58): You need to look elsewhere to explain why warming stopped and cooling started.

    In 1963 Lorenz told us that our climate is sensitively dependent on the initial conditions. I suspect that our global temperature may be surprisingly sensitively dependent on the various forms of solar activity.

  356. Martin Mason (11:10:50) :

    “Joel, you know that the models predicting observed values has never happened unless they were programmed to do so. You also know that their ability to predict weather or climate more than a few days advance is weak and totally non-existent beyond that time scale. A touch of honesty and humility would be very appropriate at this stage. You add very little to the climate debate and have nothing other than troll status here unless you can start adding value such as answering how cooling can occur under AGW, why there is no Tropospheric hotspot, how Antarctica is robustly cold and why Arctic ice is recovering rather than disappearing. Any of the above or a sensible discussion on how Anthropogenic CO2 is causing such catastrophic climate change that we have to act immediately. Joel, you are an educated person, you know that it’s BS. Yes there are many acts of environmental vandalism that humans have to address in the area of poverty, child mortality and deforestation (all politically inspired) but CO2 emissions is not one of them and it is a myth that is costing real lives because we are diverting our massive talents and resources from where it is really needed to an argument over a very weak hypothesis that my wife could falsify whilst washing the dishes (it really is that easy).”

    Bingo.

  357. Jeez … Here’s some facts to chew on. The Earth has been cooling and may do so for some decades. Even a scientist from the IPCC sees and admits that. Because of the measured data, not some FORTRAN computer game. If Hendrick Schon could get busted for manufacturing data for his carbon based computer (nanotechnology) experiments, why do people even believe the “smoothed” or “adjusted” data of the computer models, many of which will not be releasing their algorithms or raw data for perusal by reason of copyrighted intellectual property (standard protection for software) in their computer games, I mean, models? Nothing the IPCC has predicted has come to pass, even by the deadlines suggested. Certainly none of Gore’s claims or Hansen’s claims have been anywhere close. Whatever happened to observing data and not assuming causality without some analysis or even basic logic. Saying that human CO2 creates global warming not only violates basic physics and the observed behavior of CO2, it is similar to saying that Nike shoes keep one in athletic shape because athletes wear them. Coincidence does not automatically equally causality. The globe has cooled .74 degrees F since the release of “An Inconvenient Truth.” Then again, there some people who will not believe the sun is shining, even as they get sunburned. Now, that’s faith.

  358. Tony B. said:

    Whatever Joel is he is no troll. He makes us think about our position which is a good thing.

    Very much second that. Joel has very good command of the science on his side of the fence. Some may disagree with Joel, but indeed he is no troll.

    Joel, you owe me a beer (with CO2 intact!)

  359. Joel Shore:

    You make a logical error when you say of the ‘Missing Hot Spot’,

    “And, even if this disagreement is not a data artifact, it wouldn’t directly say anything about the cause of the warming (e.g., whether or not it is due to greenhouse gases) because the prediction of such a “hotspot” is independent of the mechanism causing the warming.”

    Sorry but that is patent nonsense. The ‘Hot Spot’ is either
    (a) an expected effect of anthropogenic global warming (AGW)
    or, as you assert,
    (b) an expected effect of global warming induced by any mechanism.

    But the absence of the Hot Spot disproves AGW in either case.

    In Case (a) the absence of the Hot Spot is clear demonstration of the absence of significant AGW (quod erat demonstrandum).

    In Case (b) the absence of the Hot Spot is clear demonstration of the absence of significant global warming by any mechanism (quod erat demonstrandum). But AGW is a warming mechanism and, therefore, there is no AGW.

    Anyway, your assertion that any mechanism of warming would cause the Hot Spot is an error. If you want a full explanation of that error it is in our NIPCC report or for convenience you can see my brief explanation on pages 5 and 6 of my item at

    http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/Heansen-Obama_letter_comments.pdf

    So, the only possibilities concerning the failure to observe the Hot Spot are
    1. there is no significant AGW
    or
    2. the data that would show the hot spot is erroneous.

    The Hockey Team has attempted to discredit the data that would show the hot spot but has failed in this attempt to date. Until there is clear reason to reject the data then the only scientific conclusion which can be drawn is that there is no significant AGW.

    However, everybody knows that B*** S*** baffles science where AGW is concerned.

    Richard

  360. Invariant says:

    I suspect that our global temperature may be surprisingly sensitively dependent on the various forms of solar activity.

    Why do you believe it is surprisingly sensitively dependent on solar activity and yet surprisingly insensitive to the known forcing due to increases in greenhouse gases?

    ron from texas says:

    Certainly none of Gore’s claims or Hansen’s claims have been anywhere close.

    So, whose predictions from 1988 did better than Hansen’s?

    Saying that human CO2 creates global warming not only violates basic physics and the observed behavior of CO2…

    Could you fill us in on what basic physics and what observed behavior of CO2 is violated?

    The globe has cooled .74 degrees F since the release of “An Inconvenient Truth.”

    By what measure? According to Wikipedia, the movie opened May 24, 2006. The HADCRUT3 ( http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt ) anomaly for May 2006 was +0.338 C. The latest value available (July 2009) is +0.499 C. If you prefer UAH L2T data ( http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt ), then the May 2006 had an anomaly of -0.01 C and the latest value available is +0.23 C. (Since May 2006 was a particularly low value for the UAH data, I could be extremely generous and give you the value in November 2006 when the DVD of the movie was released, but that only gets you up to +0.29 C.)

    Of course, specific monthly values are sort of silly anyway and a more sensible approach would be to look at longer-term averages. But, even if we look at the values over the whole year, we find the HADCRUT anomaly for 2006 was +0.422 C while that for this year so far is +0.418 C (and will almost surely finish higher now that an El Nino has developed and is expected to persist).

    I honestly haven’t a clue where you got your claim from and can only guess that it is from some source that gave a one month snapshot from the depths of last year’s La Nina and is now hopelessly out-of-date and was never really very meaningful to begin with.

  361. Richard Courtney says:

    In Case (b) the absence of the Hot Spot is clear demonstration of the absence of significant global warming by any mechanism (quod erat demonstrandum). But AGW is a warming mechanism and, therefore, there is no AGW.

    No. It is not. Even assuming the particular data that you choose to show is right, all that is missing is an amplification of warming in the UPPER troposphere of the TROPICS. The warming is still occurring at the surface and at altitude all across the globe. It is simply not being amplified at higher altitudes in the tropics.

    I will admit to you that this would mean there is something wrong with the models. However, imagining that the models fail to get a basic piece of physics involving convection wrong in such a way that it is wrong only over multidecadal time scales but is right at time scales on the order of a year (which is still a much longer time scale than that over which the convective effects operates) is rather difficult to engineer. In fact, I have yet to see a mechanism proposed that would explain this. That, along with the fact that the data for multidecadal trends at altitude in the tropics are all over the map depending on whose data set you believe, makes it likely that it is the data that is the problem.

    Anyway, your assertion that any mechanism of warming would cause the Hot Spot is an error. If you want a full explanation of that error it is in our NIPCC report or for convenience you can see my brief explanation on pages 5 and 6 of my item at

    http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/Heansen-Obama_letter_comments.pdf

    I imagine that your Figure 2 there (which is ultimately borrowed from the IPCC AR4 WG1 Figure 9.1) must make a pretty convincing case to someone who doesn’t know how to read a contour plot. However, those of us who do will note that the resolution of the contours is simply not good enough to see the structure of the warming for other mechanisms (because their presumed contribution to the 20th century warming is too small). For example, for solar that plot shows the tropic surface has warmed somewhere between 0 and +0.2 C while at altitude it has warmed between +0.2 C and +0.4 C, which is compatible with any amplification factor between 1 and infinity! (The pattern seen for the sulfate aerosols, by the way, also illustrates amplification…particularly in the IPCC figure where there is an additional shading that your plots seems to have eliminated…although in this case it is amplifying the cooling effect, which is what one expects given the moist adiabatic lapse rate theory mechanism that I mentioned.)

    Gavin Schmidt has made a plot with the solar forcing artificially increased so that the vertical structure caused by solar forcing is visible and the result is shown here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/ As you can see, the only way that one can distinguish between the two by the structure of the warming is that solar causes warming of the stratosphere while greenhouse gases cause cooling of the stratosphere. As you are no doubt aware, the data show stratospheric cooling and the cooling is so large that it is robust against any possible corrections in the data. (In fact, the same warming corrections that tend to bring the radiosonde data in better agreement with the models in the troposphere actually also improve the agreement in the stratosphere, which before correction is cooling even a little more rapidly than the models would predict.)

  362. Joel, nothing but standard warmist/catastrophist B/S I’m afraid and doesn’t answer any of my questions. I ask for concrete proof that Man Made CO2 is causing the small rise in temperature that we’ve seen since the LIA and you offer nothing except the standard :”agreement by scientific bodies”. All of these bodies have only one thing in common and it isn’t good science, it is that they receive government funding which ensures that they toe the line, none puts forward a credible case for AGW. You say that a trend of 10 years isn’t significant (it’s actually closer to 15 years) and yet the whole AGW myth is based on warming with associated CO2 rise from from 1970 to 1995. You also acknowledge that AGW (at best a very small effect) is now being overwhelmed by natural drivers, is this a bit of having your cake and eating it? When the temperature goes up it is AGW when it goes down natural forcing overwhelms AGW for this period. I believe that the forcing effect of CO2 in an actual situation is unproven and that the current CO2 rise being caused only by ACO2 is also dodgy. That is the point that we skeptics make, the whole AGW theory is weak and now the planet is agreeing with us. Cast aside your blinkers, start using your obvious intelligence positively and question your beliefs. Start by reading Ian Plimer’s Heaven and Earth.. If that fails come and wash the dishes with my wife, she understands more about real world climate than the IPCC, seriously.

    Repeat afater me, no warming for 15 years despite tortured data to show otherwise, recovering Arctic ice, robustly icy Antarctica, no upper troposheric hotspot, no historical link between CO2 and temperature, no worsening weather events, no sea rise that would finger AGW, unbelievably healthy and multiplying Polar Bears. In the face of this the Polically driven Juggernaut rolls on completely unsupported despite most of the scientific community, the general public and in reality most politicians believing it to be false.

    Please Americans, toss out this monstrous C&T, lets see Copenhagen become the laughing shop that it patently is and lets get back to sence and science.

  363. Sorry, Joel, what is your take on these quotes from the UN/IPCC?

    The only way of saving the world may be for industrial civilisation to collapse, deliberately seek poverty and set levels of mortality.

    We have to ride the theory of Global Warming even if it’s wrong.

    A Global warming treaty must be implemented even if there is no evidence of global warming.

    Unless we announce disaster no one will listen.

    Seriously, this is what MMGW (Oh sorry, climate change) is all about and it needs sheep to implement it. Unfortunately they have made sheep out of scientific bodies and scientists themselves. Are you part of the solution or part of the problem?

  364. Joel Shore (18:39:19) :

    Richard Courtney says:

    In Case (b) the absence of the Hot Spot is clear demonstration of the absence of significant global warming by any mechanism (quod erat demonstrandum). But AGW is a warming mechanism and, therefore, there is no AGW.

    No. It is not. Even assuming the particular data that you choose to show is right, all that is missing is an amplification of warming in the UPPER troposphere of the TROPICS. The warming is still occurring at the surface and at altitude all across the globe. It is simply not being amplified at higher altitudes in the tropics.

    I will admit to you that this would mean there is something wrong with the models. However, imagining that the models fail to get a basic piece of physics involving convection wrong in such a way that it is wrong only over multidecadal time scales but is right at time scales on the order of a year (which is still a much longer time scale than that over which the convective effects operates) is rather difficult to engineer.

    Joel I would heartily agree with those who say you are no troll. You seem to sincerely believe what you say.

    The problem is that belief should not be an attribute of checking facts against theories. Admittedly it plays a role as we are human, but we should watch out against it.

    Yes, models can get it right is some places and be completely wrong in others, and when you program them in the computer they will come out with your prejudices.

    An example from my field is the parton model invented and promoted strongly by the admittedly incomparable genius Feynman, it was correct for the bulk of the data studied at the time, it was wrong in deep inelastic whence the evidence for gluons and QCD came . A radical rethink of all microcosm physics was necessary just because of that disagreement.

    You have a tendency when coming against a contradiction with data to say: yes, but….
    All AGW supporters do that, instead of scrapping their model and starting to think of the problem from scratch. It was the same with the epicycles model of the universe of that time, which btw was not really wrong as much as irrelevant: a fit to the data. The more data, the more epicycles and understanding of what was happening was delayed until the middle ages and Copernicus. AGW theories are at the epicycle stage, with Gavin coming out with a new twist every time the data disagree with his video games. ( another way of saying that with four parameters you can fit any function with five an elephant).

  365. Martin Mason: …… AGW is “a very weak hypothesis that my wife could falsify whilst washing the dishes”.

    This reminds me so much of a Monty Python skit: For example, given the premise, “all fish live underwater” and “all mackerel are fish”, my wife will conclude, not that “all mackerel live underwater”, but that “if she buys kippers it will not rain”, or that “trout live in trees”, or even that “I do not love her any more.” This she calls “using her intuition”.

  366. Hi Joel,
    so the two periods in the record you show where there was a warming in excess of 1.7C/decade are from 1974-1984 and 1992-2002. Lets look at these.

    The first goes from the trough following an el nino event at the end of a thirty year cooling period to the peak of the 1983 el nino.

    The second includes the big el nino spike of 1998.

    It also includes the cooling from the Pinatubo eruption in 1991.

  367. Invariant (14:56:17) :

    John Finn (14:20:58): You need to look elsewhere to explain why warming stopped and cooling started.

    In 1963 Lorenz told us that our climate is sensitively dependent on the initial conditions. I suspect that our global temperature may be surprisingly sensitively dependent on the various forms of solar activity.

    Except there appears to be very little evidence for it. Perhaps all will be revealed in the next few years.

  368. masonmart (23:09:37) :
    Naural forcings like summer and winter will affect temperatures but just because the winter is colder than summer does not make the earth head to an ice age.
    If insolation is fixed and outgoing radiation (albedo and LWR) is constant temperatures will still vary over short periods.
    BUT all you are doing is sloshing around the same amount of “heat”. the world does not heat or cool.

    Change incoming vs outgoing radiation and the world cools or heats over a long time period. There will still be temperature variations over annual and longer periods. Sometimes up and some times down.

    If incoming vs outgoing is a fixed 0.01% greater then there will still be ups and downs but in enough time and FIXED difference the world will cook. Luckily outgoing is not fixed – albedo, blackbody, etc. provide negative feedback to help maintain fixed global temp. This is not 100% negative feedback such that constant temp is maintained (1% increase in incoming radiation is not matched by 1% increase in outgoing) Change incoming (e.g. insolation) or outgoing (e.g. GHGs) and there will therefore be a corresponding but small change to temp but it will not be an instant response (c.f. a low pass filtered square wave in electronics).

    Most here say it is a government/scientific conspiracy. I would really like to know
    1 what governments expect out of following AGW (it isn’t popularity! More taxes=loss of next election).
    2 What researchers expect. Funding will only last a few years until AGW is disproved (in your view) then their names will become a source of derision like Charles Dawson (piltdown man). I would suggest that most scientists would not aim for this ending.

  369. Joel Shore:

    I congratulate you on the best ad hom. of the day when you say to me concerning the Missing Hot Spot:

    “I imagine that your Figure 2 there (which is ultimately borrowed from the IPCC AR4 WG1 Figure 9.1) must make a pretty convincing case to someone who doesn’t know how to read a contour plot. However, those of us who do will note that the resolution of the contours is simply not good enough to see the structure of the warming for other mechanisms (because their presumed contribution to the 20th century warming is too small).”

    That is a good insult but a bad argument.

    Firstly, as you admit, the figure is from IPCC AR4 but with added annotation. Please explain why you think the IPCC included the figure if, as you assert, it is meaningless because “the presumed structure [of other mechanisms] is too small”.

    In reality, IPCC WG1 included that figure because it explains the model-predicted patterns of warming from the various forcing mechanisms.

    Secondly, the Hot Spot is missing and it is that pattern of warming which is the ‘fingerprint’ of the effect of the AGW mechanism. Please note that the Hot Spot is a model prediction that in the tropics at altitude the warming will of 3 times the warming at the surface. So, a claim that the data is inadequate to show the Hot Spot is a claim that the data is very inadequate to show surface warming. But you have replied;

    “The warming is still occurring at the surface and at altitude all across the globe.”

    Rubbish! The warming is NOT occurring “at altitude” according to the data. Indeed, the fact that the data shows slight cooling at altitude in the tropics is the subject we are discussing.

    And my post you replied pointed out to you that if it is claimed the data is not adequate to show the warming at altitude then that same data cannot be adequate to show the much smaller warming at the surface.

    So, I can and do “know how to read a contour plot” but you deny the plot shows what it does. And you attempt to justify your denial with an ad hom..

    I give your reply to me an A+ for humour but a C- for factual content.

    Richard

  370. It is a fascinating thread, but it seems the arguments can be summed up thus:

    AGW: look closely it is warming!
    skeptic: i’m looking closely and i see no warming
    AGW: no no you’re looking too close, stand further back
    skeptic: i’m standing further back and i see no warming
    AGW: no no you’re standing too far back, come closer
    skeptic: ok i’m closer now and i see no warming
    AGW: no no now you’re too close again, stand further back

  371. Joel Shore (18:05:33): Why do you believe it is surprisingly sensitively dependent on solar activity and yet surprisingly insensitive to the known forcing due to increases in greenhouse gases?

    I have not said that “the sun is surprisingly insensitive due to increases in greenhouse gases”.

  372. John Finn (02:46:17) : Except there appears to be very little evidence for it. Perhaps all will be revealed in the next few years.

    Indeed. A solid temperature drop would be fine.

  373. Stefan (07:24:42) :

    It is a fascinating thread, but it seems the arguments can be summed up thus:

    AGW: look closely it is warming!
    skeptic: i’m looking closely and i see no warming
    AGW: no no you’re looking too close, stand further back
    skeptic: i’m standing further back and i see no warming
    AGW: no no you’re standing too far back, come closer
    skeptic: ok i’m closer now and i see no warming
    AGW: no no now you’re too close again, stand further back

    Very funny Stefan, but I prefer the following approach:

    Eliminating the Anthropogenic Global Warming Scare:

    1. Increase in atmospheric CO2 drives Global Temperatures:

    Not True:

    2. Heats the oceans
    Not true:

    . 3. Causes sea level rise:
    Not True

    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

    4. Our ice caps are melting:
    Not True

    North Pole

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    North Pole Temps from 1950 until now:

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    South Pole
    Not True: Ice extend at record high

    5. Increase in Hurricanes
    Not True:

    http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/hurricanes_and_the_northeast/

    In short, the entire AGW?Climate Change Scare is based on spin and lies.

  374. Bill:

    You say:

    “Change incoming vs outgoing radiation and the world cools or heats over a long time period. There will still be temperature variations over annual and longer periods. Sometimes up and some times down.”

    But that is not how the world is observed to behave.

    Firstly, the Earth is constrained within close limits of global temperature in each of two stable states; viz. glacial and interglacial. And its temperature has been the same within narrow bounds in each of those stable states throughout the ~2.5 billion years since the Earth gained an oxygen-rich atmosphere. And the Earth’s surface has had liquid water throughout that time. But heating from the Sun has increased by about 30% over that time. If that additional radiative forcing from the Sun had a direct effect on temperature then the oceans would have boiled to steam long ago.

    Clearly, the climate system contains very strong constraints that keep global temperature within close boundaries in each of the two stable states.

    And I wonder why an increase to radiative forcing of at most 0.4 per cent from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is supposed to threaten catastrophe when ~30 per cent increase to radiative forcing from the Sun has had no discernible effect.

    But the global temperature does constantly vary within the boundaries of its stable state. Its present state is the interglacial state and has been for ten millenia. At issue is why the global temperature varies within the boundaries.

    The climate system is seeking an equilibrium that it never achieves. The Earth obtains radiant energy from the Sun and radiates that energy back to space. The energy input to the system (from the Sun) may be constant (although some doubt that), but the rotation of the Earth and its orbit around the Sun ensure that the energy input/output is never in perfect equilbrium.
    The climate system is an intermediary in the process of returning (most of) the energy to space (some energy is radiated from the Earth’s surface back to space). And the Northern and Southern hemispheres have different coverage by oceans. Therefore, as the year progresses the modulation of the energy input/output of the system varies. Hence, the system is always seeking equilibrium but never achieves it.

    Such a varying system could be expected to exhibit oscillatory behaviour. And it does. Mean global temperature (n.b. global and not hemispheric temperature) rises by 3.8 degC from January to July and falls by 3.8 degC from July to January each year.: see

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.php

    Please note that the highest global temperature is when the Earth is furthest from the Sun during each year and, therefore, it is an empirical fact that mechanisms within the climate system have much more effect on global temperature than “Change incoming vs outgoing radiation “.

    (Incidentally, I wonder why some people think a rise of global temperature of 2 degC would pass a catastrophic “tipping point” when global temperature rises by nearly double that during each year and recovers within the same year, and it does this every year).

    Such oscillations could induce harmonic effects which have periodicity of several years. Indeed, it would be surprising if such harmonic effects did not occur. Of course, such harmonic oscillation would be a process that – at least in principle – is capable of evaluation. And assessment of that process may indicate frequencies of observed oscillations (i.e. NAO, PDO, etc.).

    It is interesting to note that there is an apparent oscillation with a frequency of ~60 years because mean global temperature is estimated to have cooled from ~1880 to ~1910, then warmed to ~1940, then cooled to ~1970, then warmed to 1998, and has cooled since then. It is tempting to speculate that this ocillation is a harmonic effect.

    However, there may be no process because the climate is a chaotic system. Therefore, the observed oscillations (i.e. NAO, PDO, etc. and the 60 year oscillation) could be observation of the system seeking its chaotic attractor(s) in response to its seeking equilibrium in a changing situation.

    Very importantly, there is an apparent ~900 year oscillation that caused the Roman Warm Period (RWP), then the Dark Age Cool Period (DACP), then the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), then the Little Ice Age (LIA), and the present warm period (PWP). All the observed rise of global temperature in the twentieth century could be recovery from the LIA that is similar to the recovery from the DARC to the MWP. And the ~900 year oscillation could be the chaotic climate system seeking its attractor(s). If so, then all global climate models and ‘attribution studies’ utilized by IPCC and CCSP are based on the false premise that there is a force or process causing climate to change when no such force or process exists.

    Furthermore, harmonic oscillation and chaotic attractor seeking may both occur.

    It is interesting to consider why some people want to believe in man-made global warming when there is no evidence of any kind for it and much evidence denies it: e.g. see

    http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/AGW_hypothesis_disproved.pdf

    I think they stick to their belief because my comments in this posting are considerations of reality, but AGW-supporters prefer to consider virtual reality.

    Richard

  375. Invariant (09:04:27) :

    John Finn (02:46:17) : Except there appears to be very little evidence for it. Perhaps all will be revealed in the next few years.

    Indeed. A solid temperature drop would be fine.

    Don’t bet on it.

  376. Richard Courtney (1004:40)

    Nice description, Richard and helpful to me.

    I’ve been trying to square my agreement with Leif over short term inadequacy of observed solar variability with my disagreement with him over longer time scales and I needed a ‘bridge’ such as that 900 year oscillation that you mention.

    Heretofore I’ve been assuming that oscillation to be solar induced but there could just as easily be an internal climate oscillation on that time scale.

    If it is an internal oscillation then there is no need to continue disagreeing with Leif on time scales of 1000 to 10000 years.

    It seems clear to me that there are internal oscillations originating from the interaction between sun and ocean. That accommodates all the variables you mention as causative features.

    It is also clear that they operate on different time scales from interannual ENSO events to PDO phase changes to that 900 year cycle.

    Depending on the state of the oceans as regards their rate of energy release to the air all else follows as the air adjusts the rate of energy transfer from surface to space to maintain stability between glacial and interglacial epochs.

    Critical to the maintenance of that stability are the latitudinal shifts in the air circulation systems which always occur in response to ocean variability.

  377. Addiionally, if the sun has increased it’s power by 30% yet the system has retained stability then I would venture that nowadays the speed of the hydrological cycle is proportionately faster than it was when the sun was cooler.

    That looks like a highly likely explanation to me. It fits all current observations and basic physics and potentially deals a fatal blow to AGW because any process capable of that would deal with extra energy in the air by the most miniscule of adjustments which we could never hope to measure.

    Any comments ?

  378. Richard S Courtney (10:04:40) :
    Such a varying system could be expected to exhibit oscillatory behaviour. And it does. Mean global temperature (n.b. global and not hemispheric temperature) rises by 3.8 degC from January to July and falls by 3.8 degC from July to January each year.: see
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.php

    The difference in TSI between January and July is 90 W/m2 giving a temperature difference of 7.6 K, so the 1.5 W/m2 solar cycle variation gives 7.6/90*1.5 = 0.13K, about the order of magnitude we have deduced many times before [perhaps twice because of 'feedbacks'].

    Stephen Wilde (11:12:02) :
    Heretofore I’ve been assuming that oscillation to be solar induced but there could just as easily be an internal climate oscillation on that time scale.
    If it is an internal oscillation then there is no need to continue disagreeing with Leif on time scales of 1000 to 10000 years.

    I think we can agree on this.

    Stephen Wilde (11:18:51) :
    Addiionally, if the sun has increased it’s power by 30% yet the system has retained stability then I would venture that nowadays the speed of the hydrological cycle is proportionately faster than it was when the sun was cooler.
    Perhaps the 50 times as much CO2 also had something to do with it. Speculating about billions of years is premature.

  379. Hi world ocean – remember to read the article and cool down/fall back to 1985 heat level in – say – 5-10 years? ;-) :

    Global Ocean Heat Content:

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

    November 5, 2008 Correcting ocean cooling:

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/

    Quote: “…
    According to the float data on his computer screen, almost the entire Atlantic Ocean had gone cold. Unless you believe The Day After Tomorrow, Willis jokes, impossibly cold.

    He was supposed to fly to Colorado that weekend to give a talk on “ocean cooling” to prominent climate researchers. Instead, he’d be talking about how it was all a mistake.

    What we found was that ocean heating was larger than scientists previously thought, and so the contribution of thermal expansion to sea level rise was actually 50 percent larger than previous estimates.”
    …”

  380. Richard S Courtney says:

    Firstly, as you admit, the figure is from IPCC AR4 but with added annotation. Please explain why you think the IPCC included the figure if, as you assert, it is meaningless because “the presumed structure [of other mechanisms] is too small”.

    It is not the IPCC’s fault that their figure has been used by you to try to illustrate things that it was not designed to illustrate. For their purpose, they chose to use the same scale of contour ranges for all of the different forcings so that the relative magnitudes of the various forcings was apparent. The disadvantage of this is that it does not allow one to see details of the geographic and altitudinal structure of the warming for the weaker forcings, which for the IPCC’s purposes was okay but for your purposes is not.

    Secondly, the Hot Spot is missing and it is that pattern of warming which is the ‘fingerprint’ of the effect of the AGW mechanism. Please note that the Hot Spot is a model prediction that in the tropics at altitude the warming will of 3 times the warming at the surface. So, a claim that the data is inadequate to show the Hot Spot is a claim that the data is very inadequate to show surface warming.

    And my post you replied pointed out to you that if it is claimed the data is not adequate to show the warming at altitude then that same data cannot be adequate to show the much smaller warming at the surface.

    The models predict such a pattern whether the warming is due to AGW or something else, like solar, as Gavin’s run illustrates. Therefore, it is silly to claim it is a ‘fingerprint’ of the AGW mechanism. If everybody had the same fingerprint, the technique of using fingerprints to determine who the criminal is would not be very effective.

    Now the cooling of the stratosphere is indeed a “fingerprint” of the AGW mechanism (at least in distinguishing it from solar irradiance changes; I’m not sure what spontaneous changes in cloud cover or other proposed mechanisms would show). And, cooling of the stratosphere is what the data clearly show.

    As for the data being inadequate, it is the weather balloon data that is inadequate. The surface data is fortunately much more plentiful and better controlled. (Even the weather balloon data is adequate for showing the fluctuations in temperature on timescales of a few years or less; it is only when one tries to pull multidecadal trends that are very sensitive to any artificial secular trends in the data that it gets dicey.)

    “The warming is still occurring at the surface and at altitude all across the globe.”

    Rubbish! The warming is NOT occurring “at altitude” according to the data. Indeed, the fact that the data shows slight cooling at altitude in the tropics is the subject we are discussing.

    Below 200mB, the data you show generally shows warming in the tropics and other data sets do too, many moreso. (There was a time when the UAH T2LT data set showed cooling in the tropics but that was due to an error that has now been corrected.) Even if there is no amplification of the warming at the surface (i.e., an amplification factor of 1), that does not mean there is cooling; it simply means the warming is the same further up as it is at the surface.

    So, I can and do “know how to read a contour plot” but you deny the plot shows what it does. And you attempt to justify your denial with an ad hom..

    I don’t have any opinion on whether you can’t read a contour plot or whether you can but are hoping that others cannot. However, my point still stands that the contour plots that you show for mechanisms like solar don’t have the resolution in temperature necessary to determine what the expected amplification factor is for that forcing as you go up in the tropical troposphere with any reasonable accuracy. This is why Gavin ran the models with an artificially large solar forcing so that one can see that the pattern of amplification occurs for that forcing too.

  381. Bill, I believe the World government via the UN theory more and more. Otherwise the ability of National government to raise revenue as it sees fit via carbon taxes is too much for them to resist,

  382. Masonmart says:

    All of these bodies have only one thing in common and it isn’t good science, it is that they receive government funding which ensures that they toe the line, none puts forward a credible case for AGW.

    So, basically, it is a big massive conspiracy and you can’t trust scientists and scientific organizations specifically charged with providing the U.S. government sound scientific advice like NAS. Do you really think that’s logical?

    Start by reading Ian Plimer’s Heaven and Earth…

    I personally prefer non-fiction to fiction. (See here for some links to discussions of the fantasies of Plimer: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/ )

    Repeat after me, no warming for 15 years despite tortured data to show otherwise, recovering Arctic ice, robustly icy Antarctica, no upper troposheric hotspot, no historical link between CO2 and temperature, no worsening weather events, no sea rise that would finger AGW, unbelievably healthy and multiplying Polar Bears.

    Why should I repeat after you when I spent a large amount of time addressing some of these points and you refuse to respond in any way except to repeat them again like a mantra.? And, by the way, at least with HADCRUT3, you are only going to get a negative trend line if you look over something of almost precisely 11.5 year or less than a decade. You ain’t going to get it over 15 years. And, you are going to find that even though 1998 is the warmest year in that record (due to the massive El Nino), the next 7 warmest years have all occurred since 2001.

    Sorry, Joel, what is your take on these quotes from the UN/IPCC?

    These quotes are from the IPCC according to who? Do you have cites?

  383. So, basically, it is a big massive conspiracy and you can’t trust scientists and scientific organizations specifically charged with providing the U.S. government sound scientific advice like NAS.

    I think it’s more like Little Mac’s Pinkerton operatives during the American Civil War. There was no “conspiracy” whatever. Yet somehow they always managed to “count” three to six times as many rebs as were actually there. (That’s what happens when you get paid by the reb.)

    I doubt the “Limits to Growth” gaggle was actually “conspiring” either. They just happened to be going with the same (wildly ridiculous) flow. Being sheep, they had to go in a flock. Great minds think alike. And sometimes not-so-great minds.

    In the history biz we see this sort of thing all the time. We like to think of it as “class action behavior” (we have less polite descriptives).

  384. Our oceans, volcano’s and our sun drive our climate.
    In what way, we still have to find out.
    CO2 is not in the list.

    What’s interesting to research is how the changes (drop and rise) in temperatures can happen in such small time frames (10 years).

    http://news.scotsman.com/scitech/Last-Ice-Age-happened-in.4351045.jp

    http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/canadian-prairie-winter-temperature-anomalies-drop-by-66-71-degrees-c-in-just-three-years/

    http://discovermagazine.com/2002/sep/cover

  385. Stephen Wilde (11:18:51) :
    Additionally, if the sun has increased it’s power by 30% yet the system has retained stability then I would venture that nowadays the speed of the hydrological cycle is proportionately faster than it was when the sun was cooler.

    Leif Svalgaard:
    Perhaps the 50 times as much CO2 also had something to do with it. Speculating about billions of years is premature”

    Reply:
    Now, Leif, I thought you didn’t accept CO2 as a climate forcing agent ?

    In theory the increase in the power of the sun could now be being offset by the reduction in CO2 but over those billions of years the CO2 level has varied a great deal so if the presence or absence of CO2 were capable of destabilising the system there were plenty of past opportunities for our liquid oceans to disappear.

    No, the truth is that as Richard says there is a powerful mechanism that has preserved our liquid oceans despite everything that sun and CO2 variations
    (and every other type of variation including severe volcanicity and sizeable meteorite strikes) could throw at us over billions of years.

    It is the speed of the hydrological cycle, stupid !

    We see it now on a daily basis and nothing that humanity does by way of CO2 emissions will make one jot of difference.

    Everything about billions of years past is speculation not just what I say.

    However I am pointing out a current observable phenomenon that has the power to explain why that 30% increase in solar output has failed to boil our oceans away.

    Look at a pot of boiling water and ensure that all the steam condenses and returns to the pot.

    It doesn’t matter how much energy you apply the water will never go away and the maximum temperature of the water will never exceed 100C.

    All that happens is that the more energy you put in the faster the water circulates from liquid to steam and back again.

    So it is with the Earth.

    The hydrological cycle pumps energy to space as fast as is necessary to maintain stability.

    Since the air cannot warm the oceans the equilibrium temperature is set by the oceans and now in light of these new (to me) thoughts I don’t think it is the sun that sets the temperature at all.

    What really sets the equilibrium temperature is the density and pressure differential between water and space. The air in between has an effect but due to it’s very low density as compared to water it has no significant influence (CO2 even less and human CO2 even less than that).

    Apply more energy from whatever source (even the sun) and the density and pressure differentials drive the speed of the hydrological cycle instead of raising the equilibrium temperature.

    Look again at that pot of boiling water. The water boils at 100C simply because of the density and pressure differential prevailing on Earth. Change the density or the pressure and the boiling point changes. The water still can get no hotter than the boiling point whatever it might then be.

    Likewise at the surface of the oceans it is the density and pressure differentials that dictate the temperature at which the evaporative change of state occurs. Change the energy input whether from Sun or GHGs or whatever and all you do is change the speed of evaporation for no change in overall equilibium temperature.

    The oceans are a pot of water. The air always returns the water to the pot. The temperature of the water is set by the temperature at which evaporation occurs. The temperature at which evaporation occurs is set by density and pressure differentials.

    However much energy is added (30% increase in solar power or a vast increase in GHGs) all that happens is that the rate of the hydrological cycle increases for no change in the temperature at which evaporation occurs.

    To change the temperature at whch evaporation occurs one has to change the density of the entire body of air around the planet. few ppm (or even a lot) of extra CO2 would have no significant effect.

    Tyndall observed a real feature of the composition of the air but it cannot affect the equilibrium temperature of the planet.

    The properties of water do it all.

    Why do you think that all life is bags of mostly water ?

    It is the only compound that can maintain stability long enough for life to develop as it has done on Earth in the face of natural disruptions both astronomic and geological.

    Is there an error here so simple that it should shut me up or is there not ?

  386. Invariant (08:59:49) “I have not said that “the sun is surprisingly insensitive due to increases in greenhouse gases”.”

    You expose the usual painting of everyone at WUWT (a diverse bunch) with the same broad-brush assumptions.

  387. Stephen Wilde (12:37:24) :
    Leif Svalgaard:
    Perhaps the 50 times as much CO2 also had something to do with it. Speculating about billions of years is premature”
    Reply:
    Now, Leif, I thought you didn’t accept CO2 as a climate forcing agent ?

    If there is enough of it, I give it a good chance. E.g. on Venus. Although in the Venus case one has to be a bit careful. Just a very thick atmosphere in itself might have most of the effect, but there is the question of how it got that way.

    Then there is the carbonyl sulphide possibility: http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/3222/a-carbonyl-sulphide-blanket
    So, some greenhouse effect was probably at work. I think there may be others as well. The bottom line is that the atmosphere was so different that most of we say is just speculation and not helpful in the current situation.

  388. Stephen Wilde: One obvious problem with your hypothesis is that it proves too much. In fact, we know that there have been significant variations in climate over the eons. Your hypothesis seems to suggest there shouldn’t have been.

    [Besides which, I don't think it makes sense to say, "the hydrological cycle pumps energy to space as fast as is necessary to maintain stability." While that cycle can affect how heat is moved around in the atmosphere (and hydrosphere), ultimately the heat must be lost to space via radiation and the rate at which it is lost is set by the Stefan–Boltzmann Law applied using the temperature of the effective radiating level.]

    A more reasonable hypothesis as to why the temperatures have remained within certain bounds would involve these points:

    (1) The amount of radiation emitted by an object is proportional to T^4, so the temperature doesn’t have to change as dramatically as would be the case if it were not proportional to such a high power of T in order to maintain balance. (And, of course, these basic equations of radiative equilibrium are included in climate models.)

    (2) On geological timescales, there are negative feedbacks in the carbon cycle. For example, when we had the periods of snowball or slushball earth ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_earth ), weathering of rocks no longer removed CO2 from the atmosphere and it eventually built up to a level sufficient to melt the ice. Likewise, during warmer periods, the weather rate would increase eventually drawing the CO2 level down and causing cooling. Unfortunately, these feedbacks operate over geological timescales and thus won’t come into play in our current “experiment”.

  389. Leif says:

    Although in the Venus case one has to be a bit careful. Just a very thick atmosphere in itself might have most of the effect, but there is the question of how it got that way.

    I lost you there, Leif. How would a thick atmosphere matter if it were not IR-active? In that case, the radiation from the surface would escape directly into space and the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation would limit what this temperature could be.

  390. Stephen Wilde and Leif Svalgaard:

    Leif quotes Stephen as saying:

    “Stephen Wilde (11:18:51) :
    Additionally, if the sun has increased it’s power by 30% yet the system has retained stability then I would venture that nowadays the speed of the hydrological cycle is proportionately faster than it was when the sun was cooler.”

    And replies with:

    ”Perhaps the 50 times as much CO2 also had something to do with it. Speculating about billions of years is premature.”

    Perhaps the extra CO2 did have “something to do with it” but the available evidence does not support such a contention. As I said, “the Earth is constrained within close limits of global temperature in each of two stable states; viz. glacial and interglacial. And its temperature has been the same within narrow bounds in each of those stable states throughout the ~2.5 billion years since the Earth gained an oxygen-rich atmosphere.” But the CO2 went up and down like a fiddler’s elbow over that time. So, it seems improbable that the extra CO2 did have “much to do with it”.

    Stephen asks my opinion on variation to the speed of the hydrological cycle, but I am certainly not willing to speculate on that over the ~2.5 billion years because the geography of the continents varied greatly and that must have had an effect on the hydrological cycle.

    Indeed, I strongly agree with Leif when he says:
    “Speculating about billions of years is premature.”
    We can observe that the robust bi-stability has existed over that long time-scale, but nobody knows the cause of that bi-stability.

    However, the work by Dick Thoenes using salt pans (not published because of commercial confidentiality) does suggest that evapourative cooling is a severe brake on surface temperature rise when additional surface heating is applied. Therefore, the reaction of the hydrological cycle is to act as a control on surface temperature. Indeed, sea surface temperature has a maximum value of 305K and this is achieved in the tropics (this was first determined by Ramanathan & Collins, Nature (1990) and has been confirmed by several other studies since then). Also, most land surface is moist so it also cannot rise above that limit: there are a few dry desert places that can and do get above it but their area is too small to be significant.

    So, the important question is:

    Why does the climate cycle exhibit such a robust bi-stability that global temperature has not been discernibly affected by ~30 per cent increase to solar variation, major changes to the distributions of land masses, and very fluctuating atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last ~2.5 billion years?

    I do’nt know the answer to that question, nobody does. It needs investigation, and study of the hydrological cycle is an obvious place to start that investigation.

    I add that I would like to know why some people think that robust bi-stability could be disturbed by the relatively trivial effect of doubling modern atmospheric CO2 concentration when nobody knows the cause of the bi-stability.

    I hope the above is a clear exposition of my views that Leif commented and Stephen questioned.

    Joel Shore:

    In response to my post to you that said and asked:

    “Firstly, as you admit, the figure is from IPCC AR4 but with added annotation. Please explain why you think the IPCC included the figure if, as you assert, it is meaningless because “the presumed structure [of other mechanisms] is too small”.
    In reality, IPCC WG1 included that figure because it explains the model-predicted patterns of warming from the various forcing mechanisms. ”

    You have replied:
    “It is not the IPCC’s fault that their figure has been used by you to try to illustrate things that it was not designed to illustrate.”

    That reply is surreal. I used the illustration to show what the IPCC says it shows. And you have not answered my question that was:

    “Please explain why you think the IPCC included the figure if, as you assert, it is meaningless”.

    I have answered (in this case “answered” is a polite euphemism for “demolished) every point you have made on this matter. And I will address your responses to me if and when they address my points. Until then, I think it best that I ignore your repetitions of your assertions because I have already refuted them with facts.

    Richard

  391. The first paper of Session 4 in the upcoming SOHO23 conference (http://www.soho23.org/) looks especially relevant to Dr. Svensmark’s findings:

    Session 4

    How does the Solar Wind transmit the Unique Properties of Solar Minimum out to the Heliosphere?

    Nathan Schwadron (Chair)

    Title: Review of unusual in-situ conditions during the present solar minimum.

    Edward J. Smith (INVITED)

    Affiliation: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 4800 Oak Grove Dr., Pasadena, CA, 91001, USA

    Abstract: Ulysses observations are witness to the present unusual solar minimum. Compared to the previous four minima that took place since continuous measurements by spacecraft began, the heliospheric magnetic field (HMF) strength and solar wind pressure have decreased to new lows. The field is about 20 % weaker than in the previous minimum and the solar wind pressure is correspondingly low principally as a result of a decrease in density. The combined Ulysses observations obtained over the last 18 years have revealed that the solar wind pressure, nmv2 (where n, m and v are number density, mass and speed), and magnetic flux, r2 Br (where r and Br are solar radial distance and the radial component of the HMF), are correlated not only in the heliosphere but at the coronal source. The decreases observed and implied at the source are clearly associated with a decrease in the Suns polar cap field strength by a factor of about two. Ulysses has also shown that r2 Br is independent of solar latitude throughout the solar cycle so that the longer record of magnetic field measurements by in-ecliptic spacecraft can be used to study variations in total heliospheric magnetic flux over the four solar cycles since 1967 and their relation to sunspot numbers and the solar magnetic field. In addition to the changes in Br, the field strength, B, and solar wind pressure, systematic variations in the inclination of the current sheet separating fields from the north and south solar hemispheres, i.e., the heliospheric magnetic equator, provide important information about the orientation of the Suns magnetic dipole. Estimates of the dipole strength and inclination obtained by these heliospheric measurements are complementary to those of the more complex photospheric magnetic fields recorded by magnetographs and to modeling of the solar heliospheric field. The accumulated information should assist in attempts to answer questions relevant to this workshop such as why this minimum is so different and what that may imply for the new cycle just beginning.

  392. “Joel Shore (14:29:43) :

    Stephen Wilde: One obvious problem with your hypothesis is that it proves too much. In fact, we know that there have been significant variations in climate over the eons. Your hypothesis seems to suggest there shouldn’t have been.”

    Reply:
    It’s nice to have the problem of a hypothesis that proves too much.
    To answer your point I see no reason why the modulating effect of a variable speed for the hydrological cycle should not nevertheless leave room for significant climate variation.
    You seem to have missed my observation that the oceans release energy to the air at variable rates over a number of timescales. ENSO on an interannual basis, Phase changes at 25 to 30 year intervals and possibly the 900 year cycle mentioned by Richard S. Courtney which may be internal to the system or solar induced (I’ve not made my mind up on that).
    Anyway the oceanic variability in the supply of energy to the air on whatever timescales introduces quite enough variability to explain observed climate changes and over time the speed of the hydrological cycle changes to neutralise the effect every time.

    Joel Shore:
    “[Besides which, I don't think it makes sense to say, "the hydrological cycle pumps energy to space as fast as is necessary to maintain stability." While that cycle can affect how heat is moved around in the atmosphere (and hydrosphere), ultimately the heat must be lost to space via radiation and the rate at which it is lost is set by the Stefan–Boltzmann Law applied using the temperature of the effective radiating level.]”

    Reply:
    You have to remember that we are dealing with 4 dimensions here. The usual 3 plus time.
    The hydrological cycle doesn’t just move energy up and down, forward and back and from side to side it also accelerates and decelerates the flow of energy through the air between surface and space. Ultimately there is another layer of variability at the air/space interface which is governed by the varying interaction between the flow of energy from sun to sea to air to space as it comes up against the portion of solar energy that reacts exclusively with the top of the atmosphere.

    Just the same 4 dimensional process is going on within the oceans. Energy is moved up and down, forward and back, side to side and the rate of release to the air is accelerated and decelerated.

    That affects the operation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and causes it to have differing effects over time.

    The air circulations have to do two things:

    1) Arrange for the sea surface temperature to match surface air temperature over time.
    2) Arrange for the energy radiated out to space to match energy received from the sun over time.

    Both processes have to work in balance otherwise we say goodbye to liquid oceans. We have had liquid oceans for billions of years so it must work out.

    Everything we observe in the air from sea level to top of atmosphere is a consequence of those competing and mutually contradictory requirements.

    It is hardly surprising that betweeen sea surface and top of atrmosphere we see a lot of phenomena that are hard to explain individually but I suggest you slot everything into my overarching scenario and I think it must then make sense.

  393. Richard S. Courtney:
    Stephen asks my opinion on variation to the speed of the hydrological cycle, but I am certainly not willing to speculate on that over the ~2.5 billion years because the geography of the continents varied greatly and that must have had an effect on the hydrological cycle.

    Reply:
    Of course that must be so but the fact that we still have liquid oceans after billions of years suggests that it was those very changes in the speed of the hydrological cycle which prevented the varying geography of the continents from upsetting the basic equilibium set by the temperature (taking a global average of course) at which evaporation from the ocean surface occurs.
    No need to speculate. We have liquid oceans. They can only be maintained if changes in the speed of the hydrological cycle can neutralise everything thrown at the system by astronomic and geological events over billions of years.

    What else could possibly do it ?

  394. Gerry (14:48:35) :
    The first paper of Session 4 in the upcoming SOHO23 conference (http://www.soho23.org/) looks especially relevant to Dr. Svensmark’s findings
    I don’t think so, as the cosmic ray intensity is not markedly different this minimum from all previous minima where we have data [back to 1952]. When comparing cosmic ray stations, remember that different stations show slightly different variations and one must look at many to see the correct pattern. It is like measuring temperature, you cannot just look at one place and say that is representative of the whole globe.

  395. Leif: I understand that the ideal gas law will control the temperature structure of the atmosphere but I don’t think that gets you around also having to satisfy the First Law of Thermodynamics. If the surface temperature were as hot as Venus’s is and the atmosphere were not IR-active, Venus would be radiating heat away like crazy! (There were some original proposals that Venus could be generating lots of heat by processes like nuclear reactions but a paper way back in the 60s of thereabouts showed that there was no way to conduct heat to the surface fast enough to keep Venus as warm as it is, even if there were some mechanism producing the heat within the planet.

  396. Richard S. Courtney says:

    I have answered (in this case “answered” is a polite euphemism for “demolished) every point you have made on this matter. And I will address your responses to me if and when they address my points. Until then, I think it best that I ignore your repetitions of your assertions because I have already refuted them with facts.

    Perhaps in the strange world that you inhibit, you really think that you have! I suppose you can continue to fool yourself and some people for a while. But fortunately, science will win out despite the best efforts of people like you to obfuscate it and spin it.

  397. Joel Shore (17:27:50) :
    Leif: I understand that the ideal gas law will control the temperature structure of the atmosphere but I don’t think that gets you around also having to satisfy the First Law of Thermodynamics. If the surface temperature were as hot as Venus’s is and the atmosphere were not IR-active, Venus would be radiating heat away like crazy!
    The CO2 in such a large amount would help to keep in the heat. The high pressure also helps to make the number of atoms higher, so a combination of the two. There is also a perpetual cloud cover to prevent some of the heat from escaping. But why get bogged down with Venus? It is different from Earth that it is hard to transfer from one atmosphere to the other.

  398. It seems the real human tragedy will come with the end of the interglacial period, which has been historically quite short. Are we about half way through a normally 20K year interglacial period? It seems like distant generations will be grateful if we could postpone the end of the interglacial by even a few thousand years. Global warming adaption seems feasible. Why are we trying to keep the end of the interglacial period on schedule? I am truly asking since I’m not a scientist. As a layman it seems odd that so many are worried about global warming even if it turns out to be true.

  399. John Phillips: The latest thinking concerning the interglacial is this one would, left to its own devices, likely last about another 50,000 years: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/297/5585/1287 It is also generally understood that we have already pumped enough greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to stop another glacial period from occurring at least in the near term.

    You should also understand that a slide into a glacial period generally happens rather slowly. The rate is less than 0.1 C/century. By contrast, the warming is currently running about 0.16 C/decade…or more than 10 times as fast. Future generations will have lots of time to worry about coming glacial periods. In the meantime, we have to worry about what is going to happen on the scale of decades to centuries!

  400. Joel Shore to Richard S. Courtney:

    “in the strange world that you inhibit” – dont you mean “inhabit”? Interesting Freudian slip.

    Richard S. Courtney:

    “Firstly, the Earth is constrained within close limits of global temperature in each of two stable states; viz. glacial and interglacial. And its temperature has been the same within narrow bounds in each of those stable states throughout the ~2.5 billion years since the Earth gained an oxygen-rich atmosphere.”

    Richard went on to discuss equilibrium, oscillation and harmonics and I believe this is the right way to approach this issue. We are dealing with non-linear or non-equilibrium pattern formation. “Seeking equilibrium but never finding it” is exactly right.

    One common feature of non-linear systems at the boundary of linearity and chaos is the STRANGE ATTRACTOR. For an explanation of this look at:

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

    Strange attractors are valleys in a landscape of possible states in a non-equilibrium system (where the vertical scale is inverse probability). Such systems frequently pop between stable states. Glacial and interglacial are strange attractors.

    The robustness and stability of the system to peturbation, such as the change in sun output, that Richard mentioned, are classic and expected features of the non-equilibrium / non-linear system.

    We need to snap out of this linear catholic logic and understand that this is a non-equilibrium / non-linear quasi chaotic system. No single factor – least of all CO2 – will drive the whole system – except for something large enough like a flood-basalt event of the Indian or Siberian type.

    Biologists are beginning to understand this with the development of “systems biology” which breaks the trend for championing a single hero gene or homone or causative signalling pathway, but instead recognises a multiply interlinked spider-web of factors and instead probes the system for sensitivity to individual factors or agents.

    This systems approach is needed for climate study, recognising non-equilibrium dynamics.

    Finally about the length of interglacials. John Phillips – why 20k years? If you look at the Vostok core, the recent interglacials (around -128, 238 and 323 kyrs) are spikes with complex shapes and no obvious duration can be concluded. The one at -238 kyrs is a spike with < 5 kyrs duration. The ones at -128 and -323 kyrs are a spike followed by a slightly lower plateau – then another fall. Do you define length as FWHM? THis would involve a baseline global temperature much colder than the present.

    In view of it being a non-equilibrium system there is no way of telling when we will plop back to glacial or semi-glacial except by looking at the pattern. For the current interglacial to continue for 50k yrs as Joel Shore suggests would completely break the pattern of the last 400k yrs and would thus seem improbable.

    Joel: "we have already pumped enough greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to stop another glacial period from occurring at least in the near term."

    How do you reconcile that assertion with this fact: During start of the rapid descents to colder temperature immediately after each of the recent interglacial spikes (-128, 238, 323 kyrs) the CO2 level in the atmosphere was in each case as high or higher than today. It did not stop the slide then. It wont now.

  401. Oh poor Joel, you take such a pasting and yet keep bouncing back up like one of those round bottomed clowns in a bird cage. Yes of course AGW is a conspiracy and one in which you have to ignore present and history and believe models which are programmed to show catastrophic warming. You of course haven’t read Plimer’s exceptional book yet I’ve read all of the so called rebuttals and they have no real substance or credibility especially being written by known AGW extremists like Monbiot from the Guardian and his stooges so please be serious about “screamer” rebuttals which are predominantly ad hominem. Monbiot refused to debate the issues with Plimer (as all AGW proponents refuse debate with knowledgeable skeptics) and I, who know nothing, would gladly debate Climate change with Monbiot. He wouldn’t even get to be next to the sink with my wife. You haven’t answered any of my questions neither just the same old AGW mantras which have only one basis, yes you can’t see it now, no you have never been able to see it, yes it is falsified daily, no it has little provable scientific basis but believe me it will happen because the models say it will.

    Of course those quotes are from the UN/IPCC and were linked in a post on a newer thread. What’s the problem Joel, you don’t read any books which challenge the AGW weak hypothesis and you don’t read posts on here. Do I have to say that you have credibility at the same level of eco-loonies like Monbiot.

    Read Plimer and we’ll discuss the issues but until then please don’t comment on what is in it especially its spelling mistakes and rhetorical statements taken at face value. Even better, discuss them with Plimer, my bet is that he’d eat you for breakfast.

  402. Joel Shore (19:00:53) :

    John Phillips: The latest thinking concerning the interglacial is this one would, left to its own devices, likely last about another 50,000 years: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/297/5585/1287 It is also generally understood that we have already pumped enough greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to stop another glacial period from occurring at least in the near term.

    Proof is in the pudding: the existing CO2 ,though growing ,has not managed to stop a cooling PDO and it will stop the ice age?,

  403. masonmart (23:49:30) :
    re Joel
    …”You of course haven’t read Plimer’s exceptional book yet I’ve read all of the so called rebuttals and they have no real substance or credibility especially being…”
    I have read Plimers book cover to cover. Twice. It is a good read.
    I havnt read all the rebuttals, but I myself found Plimer’s take on CO2
    from volcanoes a bit out of line. He says that there is vast output
    of CO2 from volcanoes. This isnt supported by references in his book,
    even though he has plenty of references backing most other assertions.
    Somebody suggested that he may have confused CO2 with SO2.
    A Professor of Geology confused on something so basic?
    Anyway I’d like to see more on this specific item from Plimer.

  404. Phlogiston:

    Sincere and grateful thanks for your comments. It pleases me that your comments demonstrate that at least one person has chosen to evaluate my contribution and not to be deflected from that consideration by Joel Shore’s smokescreen of bluster, untruths and evasions.

    Science is about acknowledging we have no certainty and merely have a best understanding in the light of present knowledge. But political activity is about asserting certainty where none exists.

    In my opinion we need to oppose the perversion of science by political activity, and we need to oppose it with every tool at our disposal.

    Importantly, we need effective tools for the defence of science against political activity, and I would like to find some.

    Therefore, those of us who are concerned to stop political objectives distorting scientific investigation need to find effective responses to Joel Shore and his fellows. Clearly, my presentation of logic, facts and reason were not effective: they rolled off him like water from a duck’s back.

    So, I hope you and others will note whether Joel Shore responds to your question and attempts to answer it. Addressing whatever answer he provides to you – or noting his failure to provide an answer – is important because his behaviour here is typical of AGW-advocates. If we cannot convince him of the enquiring nature of science then it is not likely we can convince others like him.

    We need to find effective tools to defend science against political activity.

    Richard

  405. Stephen Wilde:

    You ask me:

    “the fact that we still have liquid oceans after billions of years suggests that it was those very changes in the speed of the hydrological cycle which prevented the varying geography of the continents from upsetting the basic equilibium set by the temperature (taking a global average of course) at which evaporation from the ocean surface occurs.
    No need to speculate. We have liquid oceans. They can only be maintained if changes in the speed of the hydrological cycle can neutralise everything thrown at the system by astronomic and geological events over billions of years.

    What else could possibly do it ?”

    I answer that I do not know, and I remind that I stated good reasons why the hydrological cycle is a probable explanation. I then said:

    “So, the important question is:

    Why does the climate cycle exhibit such a robust bi-stability that global temperature has not been discernibly affected by ~30 per cent increase to solar variation, major changes to the distributions of land masses, and very fluctuating atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last ~2.5 billion years?

    I do’nt know the answer to that question, nobody does. It needs investigation, and study of the hydrological cycle is an obvious place to start that investigation.”

    However, the fact that we cannot think of another cause is not evidence that the postulated cause is the true cause. That is the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’, and it is the mistake made by AGW-advocates.

    In the Middle Ages experts said, “We don’t know what causes crops to fail: it must be witches: we must eliminate them.” Now, experts say, “We don’t know what causes global climate change: it must be emissions from human activity: we must eliminate them.” Of course, they phrase it differently saying they can’t match historical climate change with known climate mechanisms unless an anthropogenic effect is included. But evidence for this “anthropogenic effect” is no more than the evidence for witches.

    Similarly, at this stage, the dominance of the hydrological cycle over the entire climate system has no more evidence than the evidence for AGW.

    I think the dominance of the hydrological cycle is probably right, but that is merely an opinion and not a fact. In a post that is awaiting moderation I have pointed out that it is a denial of the scientific method to adopt certainty where none exists.

    So to answer your specific question; i.e.
    “What else could possibly do it ?”
    I reply
    I do not know but I want to know.

    I hope that answer is acceptable.

    Richard

  406. Just started reading The Black Swan and in the opening pages the author makes some interesting statements about the future and the past.

    When we look at things in retrospect, it always looks like we understand what happened. When we write history books, it is always easy to leave out whatever appears in hindsight to have been irrelevant. When we evaluate the results of our predictions, it is always easy to reevaluate what was inconsequential about our predictions and what was important, to the extent that the prediction is portrayed as having been essentially correct. If the reevaluation is being done by experts, they have more tools for reevaluating the results in a way that makes the expert opinion continue to be correct.

    Somehow, the climate has continued to confirm the models, the climate continues to be consistent with the models, as experts can identify the specific events that caused the particular variations in weather and short term climate, and once we take those into account, we can still see the long term consistency with the models.

    So I have two questions. How do we tell the difference between a rational truth and a post-rationalised fiction? (See, CO2 could be a Black Swan to the Resilient Earth, after all, and the models might, unlikely as it seems, turn out to be right, after all). How would we know, when both sides can explain so much to their own satisfaction?

    Second, doesn’t the inherent unpredictability of the future not mean that we need a different way of thinking about things? One which can work in sync with our natural inability to predict, rather than constantly trying to predict, believing we just need to be smarter and more expert when predicting? Like, calling them scenarios instead of predictions, and adding error bars and averages of model ensembles, and adding more model runs on bigger computers at finer resolution, and adding probability estimates to quantify the uncertainty, as if all this expertise was somehow compensating for our essential myopia? Like, working on developing upper body strength so that I can flap my arms hard enough to fly like a bird?

    Remind me, Heisenberg Compensators, they’re just a Star Trek thing, right, they don’t actually exist?

  407. masonmart (23:49:30) :
    Monbiot refused to debate the issues with Plimer (as all AGW proponents refuse debate with knowledgeable skeptics) and I, who know nothing, would gladly debate Climate change with Monbiot.

    Monbiot has stated that he will not debate unless written answers are provided to his questions. These answers have not been provided therefore no debate.

    As you have read Plimers book from which all answers may be obtained (according to Plimer) Perhaps you could answer both Plimer and Monbiots questions here?
    Q to Plimer
    1. The first graph in your book (Figure 1, page 11). How do you explain the discrepancy between the HadCRUT3 figure and your claim?
    2. Figure 3 (page 25) is a graph purporting to show that most of the warming in the 20th Century took place before 1945 closely resembles the global temperature graph in the first edition of Martin Durkin’s film The Great Global Warming Swindle – since retracted as false. What is the source for the graph you used?
    3. You maintain that “the last two years of global cooling have erased nearly thirty years of temperature increase.” (page 25)
    a. Please give the source for your claim.
    b. How do you reconcile it with the published data?
    In your discussion of global temperature trends, you maintain that “NASA now states that […] the warmest year was 1934.” (p99)
    a. Are you aware that this applies only to the United States?
    b. Was this a mistake or did you deliberately confuse these two datasets?
    5. Discussing climate trends in the Arctic, you state that “the sea ice has expanded” (p198). Again, you give no reference.
    a. Please give a source for this claim.
    b. How do you explain the discrepancy between this claim and the published data? http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
    6. You state that “If the current atmospheric CO2 content of 380 ppmv were doubled to 760 ppmv […] [a]n increase of 0.5C is likely” (p366). Again you give no source. Please provide a reference for this claim.
    7. You claim that “About 98% of the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere is due to water vapour.” (p370). Ian Enting says “In some cases the numbers given by Plimer are exaggerated to such an extent as to imply that without water vapour, Earth’s temperature would be below absolute zero – a physical impossibility.”
    a. Please provide a reference for your claim about water vapour.
    b. Please explain how your two statements (98% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapour and 18C can be attributed to CO2) can both be true
    8. You cite a paper by Charles F Keller as the source of your claim that “satellites and radiosondes show that there is no global warming.” (p382)
    a. How did you manage to reverse the findings of this paper?
    b. Was it a mistake or was it deliberate misrepresentation?
    9. You state “The Hadley Centre in the UK has shown that warming stopped in 1998″ (p391). Again you produce no reference.
    a. Please give a reference for your claim.
    b. How do you explain the discrepancy between your account of what the Hadley Centre says and theirs?
    10. You state that “Volcanoes produce more CO2 than the world’s cars and industries combined.” (p413)
    a. Please provide a reference for your claim.
    b. How do you explain the discrepancy between this claim and the published data?
    11. You maintain that “termite methane emissions are 20 times potent than human CO2 emissions”. (p472) Please provide a source for this claim.

    Plimer to Monbiot
    1. From the distribution of the vines, olives, citrus and grain crops in Europe, UK and Greenland, calculate the temperature in the Roman and Medieval Warmings and the required atmospheric CO2 content at sea level to drive such warmings. What are the errors in your calculation? Reconcile your calculations with at least five atmospheric CO2 proxies. Show all calculations and justify all assumptions.

    2. Tabulate the CO2 exhalation rates over the last 15,000 years from (i) terrestrial and submarine volcanism (including maars, gas vents, geysers and springs) and calc-silicate mineral formation, and (ii) CH4 oxidation to CO2 derived from CH4 exhalation by terrestrial and submarine volcanism, natural hydrocarbon leakage from sediments and sedimentary rocks, methane hydrates, soils, microbiological decay of plant material, arthropods, ruminants and terrestrial methanogenic bacteria to a depth of 4 km. From these data, what is the C12, C13 and C14 content of atmospheric CO2 each thousand years over the last 15,000 years and what are the resultant atmospheric CO2 residence times? All assumptions need to be documented and justified.

    3. From first principles, calculate the effects on atmospheric temperature at sea level by changes in cloudiness of 0.5%, 1% and 2% at 0%, 20%, 40%, 60% and 80% humidity. What changes in cloudiness would have been necessary to drive the Roman Warming, Dark Ages, Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age? Show all calculations and justify all assumptions.

    4. Calculate the changes in atmospheric C12 and C13 content of CO2 and CH4 from crack-seal deformation. What is the influence of this source of gases on atmospheric CO2 residence time since 1850? Validate assumptions and show all calculations.

    5. From CO2 proxies, carbonate rock and mineral volumes and stable isotopes, calculate the CO2 forcing of temperature in the Huronian, Neoproterozoic, Ordovician, Permo-Carboniferous and Jurassic ice ages. Why is the “faint Sun paradox” inapplicable to the Phanerozoic ice ages in the light of your calculations? All assumptions must be validated and calculations and sources of information must be shown.

    6. From ocean current velocity, palaeotemperature and atmosphere measurements of ice cores and stable and radiogenic isotopes of seawater, atmospheric CO2 and fluid inclusions in ice and using atmospheric CO2 residence times of 4, 12, 50 and 400 years, numerically demonstrate that the modern increase in atmospheric CO2 could not derive from the Medieval Warming.

    7. Calculate the changes in the atmospheric transmissivity of radiant energy over the last 2,000 years derived from a variable ingress of stellar, meteoritic and cometary dust, terrestrial dust, terrestrial volcanic aerosols and industrial aerosols. How can your calculations show whether atmospheric temperature changes are related to aerosols? All assumptions must be justified and calculations and sources of information must be shown.

    8. Calculate 10 Ma time flitches using W/R ratios of 10, 100 and 500 for the heat addition to the oceans, oceanic pH changes and CO2 additions to bottom waters by alteration of sea floor rocks to greenschist and amphibolite facies assemblages, the cooling of new submarine volcanic rocks (including MORBs) and the heat, CO2 and CH4 additions from springs and gas vents since the opening of the Atlantic Ocean. From your calculations, relate the heat balance to global climate over these 10 Ma flitches. What are the errors in your calculations? Show all calculations and discuss the validity of any assumptions made.

    9. Calculate the rate of isostatic sinking of the Pacific Ocean floor resulting from post LGM loading by water, the rate of compensatory land level rise, the rate of gravitationally-induced sea level rise and sea level changes from morphological changes to the ocean floor. Numerically reconcile your answer with the post LGM sea level rise, oceanic thermal expansion and coral atoll drilling in the South Pacific Ocean. What are the relative proportions of sea level change derived from your calculations?

    10. From atmospheric CO2 measurements, stable isotopes, radiogenic Kr and hemispheric transport of volcanic aerosols, calculate the rate of mixing of CO2 between the hemispheres of planet Earth and reconcile this mixing with CO2 solubility, CO2 chemical kinetic data, CO2 stable and cosmogenic isotopes, the natural sequestration rates of CO2 from the atmosphere into plankton, oceans, carbonate sediments and cements, hydrothermal alteration, soils, bacteria and plants for each continent and ocean. All assumptions must be justified and calculations and sources of information must be shown. Calculations may need to be corrected for differences in 12CO2, 13CO2 and 14CO2 kinetic adsorption and/or molecular variations in oceanic dissolution rates.

    11. Calculate from first principles the variability of climate, the warming and cooling rates and global sea level changes from the Bölling to the present and compare and contrast the variability, maximum warming and maximum sea level change rates over this time period to that from 1850 to the present. Using your calculations, how can natural and human-induced changes be differentiated? All assumptions must be justified and calculations and sources of information must be shown.

    12. Calculate the volume of particulate and sulphurous aerosols and CO2 and CH4 coeval with the last three major mass extinctions of life. Use the figures derived from these calculations to numerically demonstrate the effects of terrestrial, deep submarine, hot spot and mid ocean ridge volcanism on planktonic and terrestrial life on Earth. What are the errors in your calculations?

    13. From the annual average burning of hydrocarbons, lignite, bituminous coal and natural and coal gas, smelting, production of cement, cropping, irrigation and deforestation, use the 25µm, 7µm and 2.5µm wavelengths to calculate the effect that gaseous, liquid and solid H2O have on atmospheric temperature at sea level and at 5 km altitude at latitudes of 20º, 40º, 60º and 80ºS. How does the effect of H2O compare with the effect of CO2 derived from the same sources? All assumptions must be justified and calculations and sources of information must be shown.

    Remember Plimer says his questions’ answers can be found in his books.

    So we have Monbiot mainly requesting sources of Plimer’s eronious statements (surely a simple request to answer?) and Plimer requesting a journalist to provide original scientific research and to derive models from first principles. As Monbiot admits – he is not a research scientist so the questions are outside his knowledge.
    Some of Monbiots questions (have now been answered on realclimate)

    http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/14/correspondence-with-ian-plimer/

  408. anna v (00:36:51) :
    Proof is in the pudding: the existing CO2 ,though growing ,has not managed to stop a cooling PDO and it will stop the ice age
    IFF radiation input/output to the earth is BALANCED (in=out) global warming/cooling will not happen. There will be weather, seasons, PDOs etc. but IFF in=out the averaged temperature over decades will be constant. Short term Temperatures will fluctuate!!!!!!!
    If in is not equal to out then temperatures averaged over decades will show a rise/fall. If in-out difference is small then average temperature change will be small compared to weather, seasons, PDO etc. BUT there is still a trend up or down which will be obvious when temperatures are averaged over long enough periods. This is where we are. Weather, seasons, PDOs happen giving wandering temperature but do not negate small continuous changes to the in/out balance.
    The flip from ice age to temperate will be caused by a long term in/out balance change not by weather, seasons, PDO or other transient events.

  409. Phlogiston (21:37:15) : We need to snap out of this linear catholic logic and understand that this is a non-equilibrium / non-linear quasi chaotic system.

    Certainly! It is so interesting and entertaining and to read such cool comments here at WUWT. The term “linear catholic logic” is wonderful! Note that I must agree with Dr. Svalgaard that in most cases we need to use human based linear logic because that is our strong side. However, it is indeed possibly to do accurate calculations and predictions with nonlinear logic as well, and this is not jumping-to-conclusion in a disordered and intuitive manner. Instead it is an acknowledgement of the well known fact that a small variation may lead to little change to the overall dynamics within one drainage basin:

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

    However, try to make a small change that makes the system jump to another drainage basin – the resulting dynamic will be entirely different. This is the main difference between linear and nonlinear logic.

  410. Joel Shore:

    It is becoming increasingly difficult to accept the disconnect between your assertions and empirical reality. You provide another unreal assertion by saying:

    “You should also understand that a slide into a glacial period generally happens rather slowly. The rate is less than 0.1 C/century. By contrast, the warming is currently running about 0.16 C/decade…or more than 10 times as fast.”

    I wonder where you get such ideas because they cannot be found in the scientific literature.

    Transition between glacial and interglacial states consists as a series of rapid ‘flickers’ between the glacial and interglacial states until the global climate remains fixed in one of the two states. And the rate of temperature change during the transition of a ‘flicker’ is much higher than 0.1 C/century. The Younger Drias is one such ‘flicker’ event.

    Please see

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data4.html

    for an account of the Younger Drias from a source you may be willing to accept.

    That account says;
    “The end of the Younger Dryas, about 11,500 years ago, was particularly abrupt. In Greenland, temperatures rose 10° C (18° F) in a decade (Figure 6; Cuffey and Clow, 1997).”

    Is it necessary to point out to you that “10° C (18° F) in a decade” is much much more than “0.1 C/century”?

    And that account also says:
    “The Younger Dryas is clearly observable in paleoclimate records from many parts of the world”
    so please do not try the usual ‘warmist excuse’ that historic temperature changes were not global.

    A useful discussion of the ‘flickers’ during the transition from the most recent glacial to the present interglacial state can be seen in the WUWT thread at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/26/%E2%80%9Dclimate-flicker%E2%80%9D-at-the-end-of-the-last-glacial-period/

    I add that the existence of these ‘flickers’ is another piece of empirical evidence for the bi-stability of the global climate system. If the system is not bi-stable then why does the rapidly changing global temperature of a flicker always stop changing when it reaches the glacial or interglacial condition? As the saying goes, enquiring minds want to know.

    Richard

  411. bill:

    Monbiot has stated that he will not debate unless written answers are provided to his questions. These answers have not been provided therefore no debate.

    Well, isn’t he special… NOT. George Monbiot is nothing but a cowardly alarmist who tucks his tail between his legs at the first sign of someone who knows about the subject, which appears to be typical of all alarmists. He is deathly afraid that by debating he will show his ignorance of the subject, or he is afraid he will get tangled up in his lies. Probably both.

    Hell of a HE-RO you’ve got there, bill.

    Plimer hasn’t hidden out until pre-screened questions are answered. It is Monbiot [literally: "Moonbat"] who is hiding out, not Plimer. This is typical of the whole moonbat/alarmist crowd, from Michael Mann, to Al Gore, to Gavin Schmidt, to William Connolley, to Rajenda Pachauri, and everyone else spreading the CO2=AGW canard. They scurry away like cockroaches when the light is turned on them.

    When they all hide out, you know they’re selling a pig in a poke.

    [And please, referring to the no-account realclimate blog as any kind of authority reeks of desperation. It's like having Pee Wee Herman narrate the Mike Tyson/Evander Holyfield fight.]

  412. Richard S Courtney (04:56:03) :
    And that account also says:
    “The Younger Dryas is clearly observable in paleoclimate records from many parts of the world”
    so please do not try the usual ‘warmist excuse’ that historic temperature changes were not global.

    it may be in many parts of the world but not all. Ice core data from antarctica shows no younger dryas 20C drop just a dip of 2C:

  413. Re: Smokey (05:19:26) :

    “Then George Monbiot is nothing but a cowardly alarmist, which is typical of all alarmists. He is deathly afraid that by debating he will show his ignorance of the subject, or he is afraid he will get tangled up in his lies. Probably both.”

    He wants written debate in order to expose his ignorance – or knowledge – in a way everybody can see and attack for the rest of his life. That is not cowardly. It is courageous.

  414. bill (04:03:11) :

    And?

    Still the CO2 contribution is so weak it cannot reverse the PDO. Joel suggests it will reverse the coming ice age .

  415. And if they ( AGWers) do not hide out they take a page out of the diary of a student I used to know: he studied in depth a specific chapter ignoring the bulk of the course program. When the question came he would ignore it and write a brilliant essay on the subject he knew. This worked better in oral exams.

  416. Smokey (05:19:26) :
    Then George Monbiot is nothing but a cowardly alarmist, which is typical of all alarmists. He is deathly afraid that by debating he will show his ignorance of the subject, or he is afraid he will get tangled up in his lies. Probably both.
    Hell of a HE-RO you’ve got there, bill.

    I have no heroes. I believe few people. But Monbiot and many others have shown Plimer to have made claims without stating sources. This as you have said here many times is unexceptable. It is important to get the truth on the table in written form befor the shouting starts.
    Monbiot admits he is not a climate scientist so opposing Plimmer will be difficult. Plimmer has a good handle on irrelevant tech-speak.

    As my questions above were not answered I will ask you.
    1. what do governments expect out of following AGW (it isn’t popularity! More taxes=loss of next election).
    2. What do researchers expect. Funding will only last a few years until AGW is disproved (in your view) then their names will become a source of derision like Charles Dawson (piltdown man). I would suggest that most scientists would not aim for this ending to their lives.

  417. Richard S Courtney (04:56:03) :
    Transition between glacial and interglacial states consists as a series of rapid ‘flickers’ between the glacial and interglacial states…

    Is it necessary to point out to you that “10° C (18° F) in a decade” is much much more than “0.1 C/century”?

    These kinds of things are what has worried me about the AWG/IPCC view of climate as this slowly changing and largely predictable system, with enough preparation time to avert events 100 years out. It completely removes from sight the far greater danger of sudden abrupt enormous unforeseeable changes inside 10 years.

    The realisation that such changes have occurred should be the one thing that climatology screams about. Where are our backup systems? How would we survive that? But greenie culture frames the problem in terms of their favorite values and images, so it is about joining together, cooperating, bringing harmony and balance, reducing greed and selfishness. Problems that require a different worldview don’t exist for them.

  418. anna v (05:31:58) :
    Still the CO2 contribution is so weak it cannot reverse the PDO. Joel suggests it will reverse the coming ice age .

    Assume the ice age would come in 1000 years
    Assume AGW is 0.1C/decade
    Assume no neg feedback
    Global temps would be 10C higher in 1000 years. There is a good chance this will prevent an Ice age!

    The assumptions are not good but you see the reasoning?

  419. RR Kampen (05:27:45):

    [Monbiot] wants written debate in order to expose his ignorance – or knowledge – in a way everybody can see and attack for the rest of his life. That is not cowardly. It is courageous.

    ‘Courageous’?? Are you kidding? Mondiot is like Monty Python’s courageous knight: “Run away! Run away!”

    A ‘written debate’ isn’t a debate at all. It’s correspondence. Actual debate is what terrifies alarmists.

  420. “2. What do researchers expect. Funding will only last a few years until AGW is disproved (in your view) then their names will become a source of derision like Charles Dawson (piltdown man). I would suggest that most scientists would not aim for this ending to their lives.”

    Hrrumph ! It is obvious that there are many who will go with the flow for funding now and will quietly slide away as the howls of derision rise. These guys are scientists, not priests and moral fibre is not part of the selection process.
    I expect that many of the grant-chasers now will become the witch-finders when the lunacies of alarmism become universally acknowledged and science has to rebuild its credibility.
    The psychology of why people will vigorously defend somebody else’s scientific hypotheses while refusing to learn the science so as to be able reason it for themselves, is a book waiting to be written.

  421. Thanks to Watts Up With That? for the English translation of this article.

    Some months ago, I published an article on Coccolithphores mentionning the carbon dioxide trapping capability of these microscopic algae and the negative feedback they have on the whole carbon cycle.

    http://www.dofollownet.com/ScienceNature/Could_Cocolithphores_Save_The_Earth_From_Global_Warming

    In one of the comments to this article, the site administrator mentionned the role that these algae were also playing in cloud formation:

    ” Coccolithophores play an important role in clouds formation, and the clouds have a negative feedback on phytoplankton growth cycle.

    In fact, Coccolithophores release dimethyl sulphonioproprionate (DMSP) in the atmosphere, which later can convert into dimethyl sulphide (DMS), a cloud condensation promoter.”

    I wonder if any model has ever included this complex mechanism in its prediction.

  422. Thank you all, each one for addressing my questions. I’m a retired engineer, but no climate scientist. I can only imagine how many variables you guys have to deal with. Just want to let you all know how much I enjoy reading these discussion threads. Even though we may not be in the dominant discipline of a discussion, most scientists and engineers can somewhat follow a technical discussion at least a little. I am usually just a reader and rarely comment or have a question. Not sure, but there may be thousand of others like me. Again thanks.

  423. Richard S Courtney: My understanding is that the rapid climate changes of which you speak were large changes in local conditions (likely due to changes in oceans currents and such) but with little effect on the global temperature. If you have evidence otherwise, I would be curious to hear it.

    As for your rantings in your post of 01:39:21, I find the irony pretty rich when you talk about trying to “oppose the perversion of science by political activity”.

    Sincere and grateful thanks for your comments. It pleases me that your comments demonstrate that at least one person has chosen to evaluate my contribution and not to be deflected from that consideration by Joel Shore’s smokescreen of bluster, untruths and evasions.

    Science is about acknowledging we have no certainty and merely have a best understanding in the light of present knowledge. But political activity is about asserting certainty where none exists.

    In my opinion we need to oppose the perversion of science by political activity, and we need to oppose it with every tool at our disposal.

    Importantly, we need effective tools for the defence of science against political activity, and I would like to find some.

    Therefore, those of us who are concerned to stop political objectives distorting scientific investigation need to find effective responses to Joel Shore and his fellows. Clearly, my presentation of logic, facts and reason were not effective: they rolled off him like water from a duck’s back.

    So, I hope you and others will note whether Joel Shore responds to your question and attempts to answer it. Addressing whatever answer he provides to you – or noting his failure to provide an answer – is important because his behaviour here is typical of AGW-advocates. If we cannot convince him of the enquiring nature of science then it is not likely we can convince others like him.

    We need to find effective tools to defend science against political activity.

  424. Whoops…Ignore everything after the first paragraph of my previous post, which was sent in prematurely and consists mainly of my copy of Richard’s statements that I was planning to respond to.

    I’ll have more on that later.

  425. Joel Shore (08:55:04) has gone off the deep end, right into Projectionland.

    It is the lavish pouring of tax money, 99% into the AGW side, and the outside funding from George Soros, the Tides Foundation, Fenton Communications, Heinz-Kerry, and similar Leftist/Marxist individuals and groups that feeds the bogus AGW science. Without that money, and lots of it, the fake AGW propaganda would quickly die on the vine.

    It is the political activity by Hansen and others [always those on the Left], breathlessly reported by their enablers in Big Media, that has perverted climate science. The blame must be laid directly at the feet of those who lie every day about what is happening, when they know full well that every event is explained by natural climate variation, not by fraud-based AGW.

    The people pushing AGW are stealing from the taxpayers for one simple reason: because they can. That doesn’t make them any less dishonest. They’ve learned to game the system, in part by using their tools to re-post AGW propaganda on various sites. Promoting the AGW agenda while presumably being paid by taxpayers for honest work is no different than the Attorney General refusing to prosecute voter intimidation simply because of the skin color of those doing the intimidating.

    Posting here that “We need to find effective tools to defend science against political activity” is blatantly disingenuous. Instead, that message should be posted on all the alarmist blogs — where it might do some good. Here, we already know what’s going on. If you aren’t part of the solution, you are definitely part of the problem.

  426. Joel Shore:

    You have done it again!

    I wrote:

    “And that account also says:
    “The Younger Dryas is clearly observable in paleoclimate records from many parts of the world”
    so please do not try the usual ‘warmist excuse’ that historic temperature changes were not global.”

    And you responded:

    “Richard S Courtney: My understanding is that the rapid climate changes of which you speak were large changes in local conditions (likely due to changes in oceans currents and such) but with little effect on the global temperature. If you have evidence otherwise, I would be curious to hear it. ”

    Jeeez! There are words for people who behave as you do but they cannot be used in this forum because there are ladies present.

    Richard

  427. Richard S Courtney (09:59:43) :
    Joel Shaw is asking you to provide evidence of your assertion that the younger dryas was global.
    I have shown that it did not extend to the antarctic ice sheet.

    Data from vostok / gisp

    You obviosly have evidence to back your claim from elsewhere. Please may we see it?

  428. bill (05:43:56) :

    “anna v (05:31:58) :
    Still the CO2 contribution is so weak it cannot reverse the PDO. Joel suggests it will reverse the coming ice age .”

    Assume the ice age would come in 1000 years
    Assume AGW is 0.1C/decade
    Assume no neg feedback
    Global temps would be 10C higher in 1000 years. There is a good chance this will prevent an Ice age!

    The assumptions are not good but you see the reasoning?

    The “reasoning” is specious. It is assuming that a linear trend can truly describe what is a chaotic non linear system, and that for 10000 years.
    All roads have to take the first step. Already from first step, these last ten years , the worm has turned and the linear approximation is off ( not that for a physicist this would not be self evident even without data, but it is good that the data is there). That is what I mean that “CO2 cannot reverse the PDO”.

  429. anna v (00:36:51) “Proof is in the pudding: the existing CO2 ,though growing ,has not managed to stop a cooling PDO and it will stop the ice age?”

    Lol– good one Anna.

  430. Re: Phlogiston (21:37:15)
    It was the time that I spent (years ago) studying evolutionary biology & population genetics that made me realize much of what you are saying. My impression in following these threads is that scientists in some disciplines do not encounter (or at least are reluctant to acknowledge) sheer complexity. Biologists are certainly in no position to deny it.

  431. Invariant (04:17:50) “However, try to make a small change that makes the system jump to another drainage basin – the resulting dynamic will be entirely different. This is the main difference between linear and nonlinear logic.”

    …and, importantly, once the conditional-dependencies are worked out (i.e. what causes jumps between basins of attraction), there may be opportunity for linear expression.

    Example: prediction of mainstream human behaviour by an observer who is unaware of ‘the week’, statutory holidays, & vacations. The discovery of vacations, in particular, might constitute a major breakthrough in explaining correlation-breakdowns.

    Can we imagine the derision of the conventionalists prior to that moment?
    “Look here – on Wednesday, Dec. 25 – your model fails – I dismiss your nonsense…”

    If only people had the patience to manually use multi-dimensional coplots rather than rely on multivariate statistical algorithms that cannot see beyond narrow assumptions… (‘Coplot’ is short for ‘conditioning plot’.)

    Of course if the masses were able to think conditionally, that might cause a problem for people shouting the following:

    “Climate change could be disastrous for global health”

    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090916/climate_change_090916/20090916?hub=Health

    “A weak response to climate change could be catastrophic for international health, leading doctors said in two British medical journals Wednesday.”

    “We call on doctors to demand that their politicians listen to the clear facts that have been identified in relation to climate change and act now.”

    Key words: “clear facts” “demand” “act now”
    Top key word: “demand”

    Anyone promoting excessively-linear logic in the climate discussion is suspect? – perhaps. Conditioning variables should at least get lip-service.

  432. Bill:

    This is getting very silly. You write to me:

    “Richard S Courtney (09:59:43) :
    Joel Shaw is asking you to provide evidence of your assertion that the younger dryas was global.
    I have shown that it did not extend to the antarctic ice sheet.

    Data from vostok / gisp
    You obviosly have evidence to back your claim from elsewhere. Please may we see it?”

    I CITED IT WHEN I MENTIONED IT.

    I wrote (see above):

    “Transition between glacial and interglacial states consists as a series of rapid ‘flickers’ between the glacial and interglacial states until the global climate remains fixed in one of the two states. And the rate of temperature change during the transition of a ‘flicker’ is much higher than 0.1 C/century. The Younger Drias is one such ‘flicker’ event.

    Please see

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data4.html

    for an account of the Younger Drias from a source you may be willing to accept.

    That account says;
    “The end of the Younger Dryas, about 11,500 years ago, was particularly abrupt. In Greenland, temperatures rose 10° C (18° F) in a decade (Figure 6; Cuffey and Clow, 1997).”
    Is it necessary to point out to you that “10° C (18° F) in a decade” is much much more than “0.1 C/century”?

    And that account also says:
    “The Younger Dryas is clearly observable in paleoclimate records from many parts of the world”
    so please do not try the usual ‘warmist excuse’ that historic temperature changes were not global.”

    If you and Joel Shaw had bothered to read that item then you would have read this extract:

    “The Younger Dryas is clearly observable in paleoclimate records from many parts of the world. In the Cariaco Basin north of Venezuela, for example, temperatures decreased about 3°C (5.5°F), although some of this cooling might have been due to greater upwelling of colder subsurface water (Lea et al., 2003). In many parts of the Northern Hemisphere tropics, conditions also became drier (Hughen et al., 2000; Wang et al., 2001). The story in Antarctica is somewhat different, however. The ice core record at Dome C (Figure 6) shows that climate changes in Antarctica were out-of-phase with those in the Northern Hemisphere (EPICA, 2004). At Dome C, the amount of the hydrogen isotope called deuterium, expressed here as δD, is proportional to temperature. The deuterium record indicates that, contrary to the Northern Hemisphere records, temperatures were relatively low prior to the Younger Dryas (a period called the Antarctic Cold Reversal) and rose during the Younger Dryas.”

    Please note the following.

    (a) Venezuela is not and then was not in the Northern Hemisphere.
    and
    (b) the Antarctic has been warming through the twentieth century but nobody claims there was not global warming in the twentieth century because of that.

    “Global climate change” does not mean that everywhere changes in the same way and at the same rate. The Younger Dryas was global in the same way that twentieth century warming was global: i.e. the Anratarctic responded differently.

    I now understand why you and Joel Shore ignore everything I write and respond to all my points with AGW-mantra. Sorry, but it is not in power to help you with your reading difficulties.

    Richard

  433. Bill:

    A correction.

    In my anger I wrongly wrote “Venezuela is not and then was not in the Northern Hemisphere”.

    It is, just.

    Sorry.

    Richard

  434. The text gives 3 examples of Younger Dryas event
    Greenland (from plot) gives -20C dip
    Cariaco Basin -4C dip (some possibly due to cold water upwelling)
    Dome C rising temp
    “Scientists have hypothesized that meltwater floods reduced the salinity and density of the surface ocean in the North Atlantic, causing a reduction in the ocean’s thermohaline circulation and climate changes around the world. Eventually, as the meltwater flux abated, the thermohaline circulation strengthened again and climate recovered. ”

    This sounds like a NH cooling event (caused by change in thermohaline circ?) that cooled the globe progressively less toward the south.

    Unless you have more data from other areas the YD seems to be NH

  435. “The Younger Dryas is clearly observable in paleoclimate records from many parts of the world. ”

    My 2 cents

    (A) This text from the paper seems to suggest it was a global phenomenon.

    (B) The Antarctic currently is not showing the same warming that rest of the world is, which is similar to the YD.

    and

    (C) I seem to recall reading some where that the thermohaline may not work the way we all were taught as children, which means that this theory of the causes of the YD will have to be revisited and revised. . Hmmmm, I know I’ve seen that peer reviewed bit of science somewhere….

  436. Smokey says:

    Joel Shore (08:55:04) has gone off the deep end, right into Projectionland.

    Actually, if you read the post following the one I wrote, you would know that my post was submitted in error prematurely and what you are quoting are actually words of Richard’s that I had copied in to respond to. But what I was going to say in response to Richard was this:

    As for your rantings in your post of 01:39:21, I find the irony pretty rich when you talk about trying to “oppose the perversion of science by political activity”. Do you seriously believe that it is the National Academy of Sciences, the analogous bodies in all 12 of the other G8+5 nations, the AAAS, etc. who are perverting science and it is only the brave souls at right-wing think-tanks like the Heartland Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, CATO, etc. who are fighting this perversion!?! That is certainly a bizarre view of the world.

    And, yes, Smokey, I agree that there are environmental groups on the Left (although to label them “Marxist” is ludicrous) that are involved in this issue too. However, the difference between you “skeptics” and those of us in the mainstream scientific community is that you guys are essentially relying on the right-wing think-tanks and their small coterie of scientists, whereas we are not quoting Greenpeace or Sierra Club but actual prestigious scientific organizations.

  437. Richard,

    I am willing to be educated on the issue of whether some of these fast climate changes really involved large changes in the global temperature or whether they were just large shifts in heat from one location to another. (And, in fact, I am not sure if the science is totally settled on this.) But, just saying that there were large climate changes in different parts of the world doesn’t tell me much in regards to what the global temperature did, particularly when it seems some places cooled and others warmed.

    anna v says:

    Still the CO2 contribution is so weak it cannot reverse the PDO. Joel suggests it will reverse the coming ice age.

    I don’t think there is yet evidence that the PDO has anything in particular to do with global temperatures. Most of downward trend in temperatures measured over a few years is on account of the La Nina that we just had. And, the sort of logic that says that CO2 contribution is weak if the trend can be downward over periods of several years is precisely the same as the claim that the seasonal cycle must be weak if we can have a weeklong period here in Rochester where the temperature trend is up instead the expected down trend. It is simply a lack of understanding of how a system with a linear (or approximately linear) trend on longtime scales and noise on shorter time scales behaves.

    Stefan says:

    These kinds of things are what has worried me about the AWG/IPCC view of climate as this slowly changing and largely predictable system, with enough preparation time to avert events 100 years out. It completely removes from sight the far greater danger of sudden abrupt enormous unforeseeable changes inside 10 years.

    Well, lots of people are very worried about this. And, what is known about nonlinear systems is that applying a forcing to them makes it more likely that one will induce such a shift. This is the whole concept of tipping points. Of course, climate skeptics generally don’t believe in tipping points because they don’t like science that would argue for the necessity to constrain our emissions. Better to believe that the only way the climate can flip suddenly is completely spontaneously and so there is nothing we can do about it. (Or that the only way it would flip is through induced cooling…or whatever we can come up with that avoids facing the possibility that we should reduce our emissions.)

  438. Richard S Courtney:

    Thanks for your reply. It was quite gracious since – re-reading your earlier blogs, you comprehensively pre-empted my sermon on non-equilibrium systems, attractors and oscillations in your 15/09 posting (10:04:40).

    Your point is correct, Science is in a deep epistemological crisis. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge – that many readers are unfamiliar with this term underlines the point. We are deluged with data, but the philosophical structure, discipline and world-view needed to make sense of it are in much shorter supply. It is far too easy – trivially easy – for “scientific” information and data to be subverted to any and every political agenda, and narratives generated to suit the required end result.

    In this context the work of Carl Popper has urgent authority. I was amazed to read recently a warmist blogger openly attacking Popper saying “science got on fine without him before and will again”. He at least realized (perhaps subconsciously) that the full implications of Poppers main theories of scientific process actually kill stone cold dead the entire edifice of the CO2 global warming proposition. Not the hypothesis – by the way – the greenhouse scenario is valid as a hypothesis – but the way that it is being argued and validated, is anti-Popperian and scientifically flawed.

    In his book Conjectures and Refutations Popper established two rules for scientific inquiry into the reality of things. They are:
    (1) A hypothesis must be falsifiable if it is to be considered scientific,
    (2) The scientific process of evidence gathering and argument must be deductive and not inductive.

    It is the high-priestly status of computer modelling in the AGW proposition that totally abrogates Poppers rules. It is semi-detached from reality and evades in an eel-like manner any attempt to be tied down to objectively falsifiable tests – it just recodes and re-phrases. And what could be more inductive than computer predictive modelling – building assumption on assumption to the nth degree. Poppers requirement for deductive reasoning – keeping paths between observed fact and interpretation as short as possible – is based on a humility that is abundantly justified by the reality that many or most natural systems have non-equilibrium chaotic complexity that demands such humility and parsimony – in this his theories were prescient and ahead of their time.

    Linear logic: if A then B; if B then C; if C then D; if D then E etc….
    Structured logic: if A AND if B AND if C AND if D then: WORD

  439. Joel Shore (18:35:47) “[...] the difference between you “skeptics” and those of us in the mainstream scientific community is that you guys are essentially relying on the right-wing think-tanks and [...]“

    Wo– completely lost me there. Drop some assumptions.

  440. Joel Shore (18:49:29) :
    …what is known about nonlinear systems is that applying a forcing to them makes it more likely that one will induce such a shift. This is the whole concept of tipping points. Of course, climate skeptics generally don’t believe in tipping points because they don’t like science that would argue for the necessity to constrain our emissions. Better to believe that the only way the climate can flip suddenly is completely spontaneously and so there is nothing we can do about it. (Or that the only way it would flip is through induced cooling…or whatever we can come up with that avoids facing the possibility that we should reduce our emissions.)

    I can understand the feeling that many will find AGW “inconvenient” to their way of life, and their ego attachment to material comfort will 100% blind them to facts. I understand that.

    And for me, I’ve wrestled with the problems of ego for a decade or more. See, I take up spiritual practices, like Zen, and so you’re faced with rather subtle problems about ego and motivation. One of the hard problems, and nobody as far as I know has solved this one, is how do you tell if the teacher who’s supposed to be guiding you out of your own ego, isn’t him or herself at the effect of their ego?

    It is a tough one, because the teacher can always say, “you’re just a selfish individual attached to your ego! and that’s why you won’t do what I say!” The teacher always has that ace, and can always use it. But how do you know that he or she isn’t just manipulating you for their own egoic needs?

    This is what I’ve usually found quite naive about the AGW argument that big business and Western consumers are just willfully ignoring “evidence”. If you want to accuse people of selfish motivations, first start by showing that you are not selfish. First start by showing that you are not biased. First demonstrate that you are not influenced by subjective and cultural fashions.

    Scientists are supposed to practice the scientific method. But the real world is messy and complicated, and good data is hard to come by, so whilst objective facts are available, how they are interpreted is up to the scientists, and that my friend, is a subjective judgement influenced to some extent by culture. And so when people say there has been a consensus by peer review, what that says is that there has been a great deal of peer pressure and group think. Now the group think might turn out to be right anyway, or it might turn out to be spectacularly wrong.

    Don’t pretend that those who disagree only do so out of selfishness. You’re a human being too. Don’t pretend that a consensus proves truth, consensus is a social dynamic, and is not in itself an objective fact or data.

    And yes, I am just as human as you.

    As for tipping points, how many things do you think could induce a tipping point? Or is it only CO2?

  441. Bill:

    Believe whatever you want. That is your right. But reality is what it is.

    And reality is not affected by what you, Joel Shore, me, or anybody else chooses to believe.

    Science is the method we use to to try to try to understand reality.

    Clearly, you and Joel Shore do not understand the difference between scientific understanding and faith. Please read my response to Stefan’s question that I posted above a couple of day ago and is timed at 08:50:57. If you can understand that posting then you are at the start of understanding something about how scientific investigation is conducted.

    The scientific method exists independent of any faith. Practice of the method may be imperfect because scientists are human and, therefore, their interpretations can be biased by their political and/or religious faith, but over time the effects of those imperfections become erased.

    Imposition of political faith(s) on how science can be conducted has happened before; e.g. Lysnkoism, eugenics, etc. So, your attempt to pervert science by imposition of your faith in AGW has precedent. All such perversions of science have had dire effects. And AGW threatens similar dire (probably worse) effects.

    Please reconsider what you are doing.

    I put to you the plee that Cromwell put to Charles 1 when Cromwell was trying to avoid the English Civil War:

    “I beg ye in the bowells of Christ to consider that ye may be wrong.”

    Charles 1 refused to consider that possibility so the bloody and harmful Civil War ensued with resulting terrible loss of life, and Charles 1 lost both his Crown and his head to put it on.

    Later, in attempt to avoid WW2, Churchill repeated that plee to Chamberlain also to no avail. He stood in the House of Commons and shouted:
    “I beg ye in the bowells of Christ to consider that ye may be wrong.”
    And we all now what happened after that.

    Science always accepts that everything we think we know is merely the best understanding we have at present. All scientists know that we “may be wrong”. Again, please see my above reply to Stefan for an understanding of this.

    But faith ascribes certainty where science refuses to accept certainty.

    Believers in the AGW hypothesis are trying to distort science by imposing their faith on science. Those who try to adhere to the scintific method will defend against that perversion of science with everything at our disposal.

    So, “I beg ye in the bowells of Christ to consider that ye may be wrong.”

    Richard

  442. Richard S Courtney (08:50:57) :
    [...]
    But a theory remains a valid conclusion from the data until additional data clearly refutes the theory. And many good scientists cannot bring themselves to abandon an idea they have cherished even when the idea is clearly contradicted by additional data; for example, many clung to the phlogiston theory long after the evidence of Lavoisier’s work, and many now cling to the AGW hypothesis despite the evidence of ‘the missing hot spot’.

    I hope this clarifies the matter.

    Yes indeed, thank you.

  443. Joel Shore:

    You say to me:

    “just saying that there were large climate changes in different parts of the world doesn’t tell me much in regards to what the global temperature did, particularly when it seems some places cooled and others warmed.”

    OK, I will agree that. So we agree that there was no global warming in the twentieth century because “there were large climate changes in different parts of the world doesn’t tell me much in regards to what the global temperature did, particularly when it seems some places cooled and others warmed”.

    I await your confirmation of this agreement.

    Richard

  444. Joel Shore (18:49:29) :

    anna v says:

    ” Still the CO2 contribution is so weak it cannot reverse the PDO. Joel suggests it will reverse the coming ice age.”

    I don’t think there is yet evidence that the PDO has anything in particular to do with global temperatures. Most of downward trend in temperatures measured over a few years is on account of the La Nina that we just had. And, the sort of logic that says that CO2 contribution is weak if the trend can be downward over periods of several years is precisely the same as the claim that the seasonal cycle must be weak if we can have a weeklong period here in Rochester where the temperature trend is up instead the expected down trend. It is simply a lack of understanding of how a system with a linear (or approximately linear) trend on longtime scales and noise on shorter time scales behaves.

    bold mine.

    I will stop talking with you. You are either an undergraduate or a person with very little knowledge of differential equations, solutions thereof, boundary conditions etc. etc ( not to forget dynamical chaos). If you can look at the ice core records and talk about linear long term trends you are much deeper in the delusional system than I thought.

  445. “you are much deeper in the delusional system than I thought”
    He has simply lost all respect for his own ignorance.
    However, like a springy boxing ball he provides a good workout for honing one’s
    opinion and how to express it.

  446. Richard S Courtney says:

    OK, I will agree that. So we agree that there was no global warming in the twentieth century because “there were large climate changes in different parts of the world doesn’t tell me much in regards to what the global temperature did, particularly when it seems some places cooled and others warmed”.

    You are confused between a necessary and a sufficient condition. What I am saying is that to determine what the global temperature did one has to go beyond just looking and finding changes in climate of one sort or another at different places on the Earth. For the twentieth century, we have good enough temperature records over the entire globe to determine what the global temperature did do to a reasonable degree of accuracy.

    As to your larger point you make about faith and science and certainty and uncertainty: The fact is that science is never based on certainty because it is inductive. So, there is always uncertainty. The honest way to deal with this is to try to specify the certainty and uncertainty that one has about various parts of the science, which is what the IPCC does. It is not useful to say that because of uncertainty, we know nothing. (Or ,more to what actually seems to happen, because of uncertainty in regards to climate change, we should just assume its natural and there is no significant effect from greenhouse gases.)

    And, while it may be true that some people on the side of the scientific consensus have made statements that sound overly certain (I try to avoid doing that but I am sure that I am not perfect), I think this is at least as prevalent on the other side…and, in fact, the certainty is often about things that I think are not just uncertain but are almost certainly false.

    anna v says:

    I will stop talking with you. You are either an undergraduate or a person with very little knowledge of differential equations, solutions thereof, boundary conditions etc. etc ( not to forget dynamical chaos). If you can look at the ice core records and talk about linear long term trends you are much deeper in the delusional system than I thought.

    Well, I am not going to repeat what my qualifications are since I have said them before and it is easy enough to do a google search on me. However, I will merely point out to you the concept of a Taylor Series: Except at very special points, a curve can be well-approximated by a linear function over some interval. In the particular case that you quoted, I was talking both of the current rise in global temperatures and of the seasonal cycle during the fall, for which one could indeed fit pretty well to a linear function over a period of a few weeks. (I now realize that I left out the fact that I was talking about the fall in what you quoted, although I have certainly talked about the seasonal cycle in enough detail in previous posts for one to infer the meaning. Sorry if that confused you.)

  447. Richard S Courtney (01:13:53) : Charles 1 refused to consider that possibility so the bloody and harmful Civil War ensued with resulting terrible loss of life, and Charles 1 lost both his Crown and his head to put it on.

    Richard, this is sooo wrong. It ought to be:

    …”and his head, upon which to put it”.

    Other than that, perfect posting! ;-)
    Really.
    Stellar.

    anna v (05:05:25) :
    Joel Shore (18:49:29) :
    anna v says:
    You are either an undergraduate or a person with very little knowledge of differential equations, solutions thereof, boundary conditions etc. etc ( not to forget dynamical chaos). If you can look at the ice core records and talk about linear long term trends you are much deeper in the delusional system than I thought.

    Anna, you do a disservice to undergraduates with that comparison of Joel …

    I like the phrase “deeper in the delusional system”. I may “borrow it”.

    I have noticed a consistent difference between Warmers and Skeptics.

    Skeptics regularly ask questions like: How do you know? Is this consistent? What is the quality of the data and measurement system? Do these conclusions drive from those data? What are the hidden assumptions? Is there evidence to support those assumptions? What alternative explanations would work as well with this data? Is this argument well structured, efficient, and clear?

    Warmers seem to have only one real question: “Given this conclusion, what assumptions can I draw?” Occasionally supported by “How much must I torture the data to get it to confess that I am right?”

    Before this need to discover the “best” assumptions, all else must fall. History, data, methods, consistency, even things like the erratic temperature history of the planet can get “ironed out” into a “linear trend”.

    As a consequence we get what you have just experienced. Joel’s arguments are about as solid as warm jello. ANYTHING can be held up as “fact” even if completely inconsistent, even if not supported by the data, even if it is demonstrably false. Even if fabricated by fantastical “methods” like Mann and Hansen used. Because it is “the necessary assumption that must have been true” for the conclusion to be validated.

    This, as you have noticed, is infuriating to folks who believe that causality must flow from data to analysis to conclusions in well supported steps and with only minimal and rational assumptions; and even then is subject to challenge.

    I believe that is not a matter of “undergraduate” vs “Ph.D”. I think it is a matter of the nature of ones mind and the nature of the education it received. Hansen, IIRC, has a Ph.D – but a broken mind…

    I can say that with some certainty. The code that looks like his in GIStemp is badly done and shows a very untidy mind. For example:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/gistemp-invnt-f-a-sympathy-plea/

    One that has poor skills at ordering things, poor skills at clarity, disdain for others (no comments), a love of false complexity (variables chosen with deliberately confusing names), artificially complex and painfully cluttered, and several other faults of reasoning. It also shows a clear pattern of goal seeking to cherry pick values to validate his thesis (key values as parameters for easy tuning, tunable Reference Station Method limits with different sizes in different sections, tunable zone sizes, etc.) rather than a careful selection of reasonable values and results fall where they may.

    So yes, they are “deeper in the delusional system” – in some cases “all the way in”…

  448. Stefan (01:06:18) “As for tipping points, how many things do you think could induce a tipping point? Or is it only CO2?”

    Good question Stefan.

  449. Global averages are not enough. (See R.G. Currie (1996), for example.) It is necessary to investigate the stability of parameter estimates across a range of spatiotemporal scales (Physical Geography 500).

    It is also important to consider variables other than just (TMin+TMax)/2. One example:

  450. David in Davis (22:55:22) : They, of course can’t let us go bankrupt until they have sold off most of their U.S. bonds, but after that we have little leverage. More ominously, they are in the process of moving all of their gold, stored mostly in London, to a new storage facility at the Hong Kong airport. It is shaping up to be the Chinese century, and where that leaves us is anybody’s guess.

    They don’t have to sell the debt.

    China recently announced a deal for several years worth of oil from Brazil. It was “paid for” via the transfer of $200 Billion of US treasuries that now sit on the books in Brazil. Watch for more of this (they were doing similar things on other minerals). China is in the process of locking up all the resources needed to run global manufacturing for decades (so good luck competing if they own the metals, oil, coal, etc.) and is doing it via swaps of treasuries; thus avoiding a collapse of their holdings as they liquidate.

    It would not be hard to trade down their exposure via shortening maturities either (and there is some evidence that this may be happening with shorter dated treasuries selling a smidgeon better):

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/chinese-food-fight/

    So take your long maturities, trade them for future delivery of inflating hard assets and buy up / lock up resources. Use your ‘buys’ to buy short maturities. In about 3 to 5 years, you are done. 1 to 2 years if you really try…

    Do not under any circumstance believe that China can not walk away from the US debt or that it is in any way bound by that debt to any behaviours we would like to see. It just is not so. They are the bank, we are the overdrawn credit card user. Nothing more.

  451. For those who have asserted that there is no Airport Heat Island Effect:

    NOAA thinks there is one. From:

    http://www.arh.noaa.gov/arhdata/archive/FXUS64KMEG/FXUS64KMEG_04203201519

    EXPECT A MOSTLY CLEAR NIGHT. WINDS WILL BECOME LIGHT AND TEMPERATURES DROP INTO THE LOWER 70S…EXCEPT FOR THE MEMPHIS AIRPORT HEAT ISLAND WHERE IT WILL ONLY GET DOWN TO THE MID 70S.

    https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/23307/1/V089N2_001.pdf

    has:

    THE HEAT ISLAND OF AKRON-CANTON
    9:30 AIRPORT. Nirmala Kochar and Thomas
    W. Schmidlin, Department of
    Geography, Kent State University, Kent, OH
    44242.
    Air temperatures measured at airports may not
    represent the temperatures of surrounding rural
    areas because of extensive paved surfaces,
    buildings, lack of tall vegetation and flow of
    traffic. These factors may cause the presence
    of a heat island which is generally an urban
    phenomenon. So, the temperature of the airports
    may not represent that of the surrounding rural
    land. This was verified by studying the
    temperature and wind of the Akron-Canton Airport
    and eight nearby rural sites between December
    1987 and October 1988. The results showed that
    an airport heat island did not exist under
    cloudy conditions or when the wind was not calm
    over 4 or more rural sites. However, the
    airport was a heat island for 75% of the calm
    and clear nights. Hence, the airport
    temperature is not representative of the
    surrounding rural land under clear, calm
    conditions and it would be appropriate to
    establish instruments at a truly rural site.

    I bolded the bit where they say that there is an AHI effect…

    So the basic point is that there is an AHI effect and it is most pronounced on days with clear sky and low wind. (So folks in cloudy windy places may not have measured it). In an annual average of everywhere, all those thermometers at airports will, on average, read higher than truly rural places.

    And, btw, GIStemp uses airports as ‘rural’ for UHI corrections. You just can’t make this stuff up…

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/gistemp-fixes-uhi-using-airports-as-rural/

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/most-used-rural-airport-for-uhi-adj/

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/agw-gistemp-measure-jet-age-airport-growth/

  452. For those who have asserted that there is no Airport Heat Island Effect:

    NOAA thinks there is one. From:

    http://www.arh.noaa.gov/arhdata/archive/FXUS64KMEG/FXUS64KMEG_04203201519

    EXPECT A MOSTLY CLEAR NIGHT. WINDS WILL BECOME LIGHT AND TEMPERATURES DROP INTO THE LOWER 70S…EXCEPT FOR THE MEMPHIS AIRPORT HEAT ISLAND WHERE IT WILL ONLY GET DOWN TO THE MID 70S.

    https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/23307/1/V089N2_001.pdf

    has:

    THE HEAT ISLAND OF AKRON-CANTON
    9:30 AIRPORT. Nirmala Kochar and Thomas
    W. Schmidlin, Department of
    Geography, Kent State University, Kent, OH
    44242.
    Air temperatures measured at airports may not
    represent the temperatures of surrounding rural
    areas because of extensive paved surfaces,
    buildings, lack of tall vegetation and flow of
    traffic. These factors may cause the presence
    of a heat island which is generally an urban
    phenomenon. So, the temperature of the airports
    may not represent that of the surrounding rural
    land. This was verified by studying the
    temperature and wind of the Akron-Canton Airport
    and eight nearby rural sites between December
    1987 and October 1988. The results showed that
    an airport heat island did not exist under
    cloudy conditions or when the wind was not calm
    over 4 or more rural sites. However, the
    airport was a heat island for 75% of the calm
    and clear nights. Hence, the airport
    temperature is not representative of the
    surrounding rural land under clear, calm
    conditions and it would be appropriate to
    establish instruments at a truly rural site.

    I bolded the bit where they say that there is an AHI effect…

    So the basic point is that there is an AHI effect and it is most pronounced on days with clear sky and low wind. (So folks in cloudy windy places may not have measured it). In an annual average of everywhere, all those thermometers at airports will, on average, read higher than truly rural places.

    And, btw, GIStemp uses airports as ‘rural’ for UHI corrections. You just can’t make this stuff up…

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/gistemp-fixes-uhi-using-airports-as-rural/

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/most-used-rural-airport-for-uhi-adj/

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/agw-gistemp-measure-jet-age-airport-growth/

  453. Leif Svalgaard (16:23:30) :
    Joel Shore (14:33:07) :
    I lost you there, Leif. How would a thick atmosphere matter if it were not IR-active?
    PV=RT

    Ought not that to be: PV=nRT ? (I always remembered it as PivNert…)

  454. E.M.Smith (11:19:39) “So the basic point is that there is an AHI effect and it is most pronounced on days with clear sky and low wind.”

    Clear windless nights (not daytime) …unless you have other material?

    Thanks for the note. With sky condition info it should be possible to filter the bias off TMin. However, I would not trust that the generalization holds for all seasons & locations. (For example, continental vs. coastal sites; sites near valleys that (seasonally & bistably) alternately blast cold air & then warm moist air; etc… but the example you provide gets the ball rolling w.r.t. what types of things to probe re AHI.)

  455. Joel Shore (18:49:29) :
    “…what is known about nonlinear systems is that applying a forcing to them makes it more likely that one will induce such a shift. This is the whole concept of tipping points. Of course, climate skeptics generally don’t believe in tipping points because they don’t like science that would argue for the necessity to constrain our emissions. Better to believe that the only way the climate can flip suddenly is completely spontaneously and so there is nothing we can do about it.”

    Joel: How would you react if I were to say the following:

    If (hypothetically) it were proved beyond any doubt, to everyone’s satisfaction, that anthropogenic CO2 and other emissions had no effect at all on global climate, then how much should the current global political plans to cut emissions be changed? My answer – hardly at all. (Maybe the extravagent percentage targets should be more realistic, but thats about it.) There are many good reasons to reduce gaseous pollution, such as local air quality and related health issues, resource management, the environment etc.

    I see this as a scientific debate, not political. It is deeply wrong that it has become political. As so often there is needless polarisation. Sceptics do not necessarily delight in endless pollution (like Soviet era planners with the slogan “smoke means socialism”). And I daresay warmists are not necessarily driven by a desire to take dictatorial control of countries and economies.

    Lets limit pollution. And lets also have unconstrained scientific research and debate into climate change (which is intrinsic and continuous). There is no need for entanglement of the two.

    The lynching and marginalizaion of AGW-sceptic scientists and media workers is an utter disgrace and a historic travesty of democracy and civil and liberal society. And the distortion of the scientific process to force it to prove global warming has damaged science itself hugely.

    It’s worth noting that countries in which global warming activism is strongest are those with greater levels of economic division and class resentment, such as Britain. Class hatred is the animus which energises much global warming politics, thus the disproportionate focus on targeting air travel seen as linked to wealth. The same is true about activism against nuclear power, animal research and transgenic technology – scientists “talk posh” and are on the wrong side – any opportunity to punish them is eagerly taken. These people are expoliting you and they wont thank you – in their eyes you and I are on the same side of the line.

  456. Joel Shore (08:55:38) :
    The fact is that science is never based on certainty because it is inductive. So, there is always uncertainty. The honest way to deal with this is to try to specify the certainty and uncertainty that one has about various parts of the science, which is what the IPCC does. It is not useful to say that because of uncertainty, we know nothing. (Or ,more to what actually seems to happen, because of uncertainty in regards to climate change, we should just assume its natural and there is no significant effect from greenhouse gases.)

    So there are just two options? one where we mix certainty with uncertainty with action, and the other where we notice the uncertainty and decide we know nothing and never act?

    I happen to be reading Taleb’s The Black Swan at the moment, where he is discussing this issue. IIRC, he is advocating a practical approach to uncertainty, ie. something we can use. The problem remains, history is full of examples where experts vastly underestimated uncertainty, real world examples of disasters.

    Nevertheless, objective real knowledge is possible. But, because you never know what new thing might turn up that is completely outside your vast and expert data gained from careful study and experience, including the vast experience of all your colleagues and the entire institutions themselves, it remains that it is easier to prove something wrong than it is to prove it right. One reason it is so hard to prove something right, isn’t just the threat of unknown unknowns popping up and “surprising us”, it is also that as human beings we appear to be hard wired to invent stories. It is harder to not invent stories than it is to invent them. This also implies that it is harder to be a skeptic than it is to not be a skeptic.

    It is harder to withhold judgement on something, and to continue to keep an open mind to alternatives. We are wired to conclude that one lion ate a person and therefore every lion will eat people. But the world today is far more complex, and quick or wide judgments don’t serve us when faced with complex systems which can suddenly change in all sorts of ways we haven’t imagined. And yet, this doesn’t mean that objective correct knowledge is impossible, but it does mean that we have to be skeptical if we are to survive.

    It is as if there is a tipping point in our minds, where just a bit of data, tips us into a different state where we believe we have the only true and correct story (or if you couch it in sciency terms, the “most likely”). This confirmation bias is inherent to our makeup. What we really need skepticism to “adjust” for it.

    Once we have formed a pattern or story in our mind, it is very easy to look at historical data and “explain” it. We looked at the rise in temperature over the 20th century and explained it. If the idea of greenhouse gasses hadn’t been around, we could have “explained” it in a different way. Like for example, the heating after the 800 year lag is explained as being due to CO2, ie. only in the parts where CO2 is rising. Obvious, innit? If CO2 rises with temperature, that confirms the theory (or in sciency terms, is “consistent”). But it is faulty (as in wrong) logic. Similarly, Taleb explains how the sighting of a red mini confirms that swans are white. Follow it, it makes sense!

    But you know, all this talk about confirmation bias is just too damned inconvenient for most people to bother with.

    All true experts agree anyway, what more confirmation do you want! Let’s add a few more vocal experts-in-agreement. That’ll add additional “consistency”. Look, Ghandi preaches non-violence; Ghandi confirms global warming!

    Skepticism makes everyone’s job harder. It reminds us that the truth is more elusive. It infuriates people. But hey, it should mean there’s a case for more research and more funding, non?

  457. Phlogiston:

    If (hypothetically) it were proved beyond any doubt, to everyone’s satisfaction, that anthropogenic CO2 and other emissions had no effect at all on global climate, then how much should the current global political plans to cut emissions be changed? My answer – hardly at all. (Maybe the extravagent percentage targets should be more realistic, but thats about it.) There are many good reasons to reduce gaseous pollution, such as local air quality and related health issues, resource management, the environment etc.

    Well, I am happy to hear you say that you think greenhouse gas emissions should be cut regardless, but that certainly would not be a popular view on this site. Most people here seem to think there should be no restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions and are strongly opposed to current legislation or international negotiations to impose such emissions restrictions.

    And, to be honest, I don’t think you can directly justify cuts in CO2 in terms of air quality and health issues (at least those unrelated to climate change or ocean acidification). Certainly, using less fossil fuels will result in less other pollutants…But, there are other ways to cut back on these pollutants without reducing our use of fossil fuels. The difference between traditional pollutants and CO2 is that the latter is a product of even ideal, perfectly-clean combustion whereas the former are usual the result of the combustion not being fully efficient (or are a result of other substances found in the fuel) and thus occur in smaller quantities and are easier to reduce either by improving the combustion process or cleaning the pollutants out of the exhaust stream.

    With CO2, we are faced with the choice of either reducing our use of fossil fuels or of sequestering (a lot of) CO2.

    Stefan: An interesting point-of-view but I don’t think that I agree with you that skepticism is harder than the reverse. Particularly in the public sphere, I think it is much easier to raise or highlight doubt and uncertainty than the reverse, which is part of the reason why I think that evolutionists often do not “win” debates with creationists even though I think most here would agree that the evolutionists have the science on their side.

    Part of the reason this is the case is that I think many people have a naive view of science where they think there should be one piece of “smoking gun” evidence and that there should be no empirical evidence in apparent contradiction…or at least a puzzle within the current theory. In reality, science works more by the accumulation of evidence, but with no one piece of evidence being perfectly airtight, and in any active scientific fields, there will be puzzles the scientists are still trying to resolve.

    Also, in my personal experience doing computational modeling, I find it quite easy to come up with many reasons why my model may be too simplistic to capture reality and hence I am constantly surprised at how well the models perform. In fact, this has always been a little mysterious to me. (Admittedly, this may be due in part to my own personality, as I think I am a naturally skeptical / pessimistic person, so that combination makes me concerned with all the things that could go wrong with the modeling.)

  458. Joel wrote:

    Most people here seem to think there should be no restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions and are strongly opposed to current legislation or international negotiations to impose such emissions restrictions.

    I don’t think it’s most. I think most here have no problem with cleaner energy production, including reductions in CO2 output. We recognize that energy production has and always will evolve and adopt cleaner technologies. Many of us here even recognize that government regulation is sometimes necessary to to nudge things in that direction. Tightening the smog rules in the 70’s comes to mind. Yes, people kvetched and moaned, but they got used to it. And the Japanese showed that it was not only possible to do so, but could be done in a cost effective manner, and obviously, it was good for business.

    What most DO object to, is doing so based on flawed science, in a hap-hazard and economically damaging way, and based on ridiculous fear mongering and scare tactics. We object to the use of naked political pressure to do SOMETHING NOW!, even when that something is not going to accomplish the stated goal of stopping global warming, yet cost us dearly now and for centuries to come, and actually hamper our ability to adjust to the climate change that the actions won’t stop anyway..

  459. Sonic Frog

    I agree with you that Joel is making assumptions about everyone on this site, and not making a distinction between ‘deniers’ and sceptics. We are vastly different groups.

    The inconvenient truth is that at present there is no practical alternative to burning carbon in its various forms and there is no chance of reducing it by 90% (UK recommendations) without causing our economy a great deal of harm.

    The idea that renewables can presently take up the slack is pie in the sky-which doesnt mean we shouldnt try but success is many years in the future. In the meantime the first second and third world all want to maintain or achieve a good standard of living, with its inhabitants enjoying a long and healthy life and carbon is an integral part of that for the next few decades.

    On a more practical level I dislike paying extra taxes (green taxes in the UK are around 2000$ a year) having my movements rerstricted (carbon card coming soon according to a Parliamentary comittee ) and generally being told what to do based on an invalid hyopthesis.

    Which doesn’t mean I’m a schill of big oil out to destroy the panet.

    tonyb